Preparation H

Well, that's what my roommate Evan is calling Proposition 8, the amendment to the California State Constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman, effectively ending the current state of legalized gay marriage there.

Now, I'm a faithful, somewhat liberal, gay Californian Latter Day Saint living in Utah. Not that that fact lends my thoughts on this matter any more validity than anyone else's. Just that I want people to know where I'm coming from. I am aware that the word "gay" connotes entire lifestyle choices to many readers here, so I will clarify: I am attracted almost solely to other men, but I also believe the Church when it says that to act on homosexual desires is wrong. Many would call me naive in my attempts to remain faithful to my religion, but I am insulted by the notion that people (particularly homosexuals in this instance) are incapable of controlling their impulses and living by a higher moral law. I am very tolerant of others' making the choices from which I intend to abstain. I also know many people sneer at the idea of tolerance because a degree of disapproval inheres therein, but I can think of no other word for how I feel about it. I try to live by a double standard when it comes to ethics and morals: I am very permissive with others, while trying to maintain a behavioral stricture for myself.

I struggled with the Prop 8 issue the moment I heard about the letter from the First Presidency to the members in California. I was disappointed that this issue received so much more attention than other recent moves from the church intended to reach out to its homosexual population, such as the pamphlet entitled "God Loveth His Children," which can be read in the church website. I also wish the government would stay out of the marriage issue altogether, and was saddened to see that the Church was supporting a constitutional amendment that would only serve to further enmesh the legal apparatus with the issue of marriage. I also have many friends (a brother and a best friend included) who are living active gay lifestyles. I love these guys. My best friend is dating a wonderful guy right now, and I would love to see them happy together forever. I also have a very strong sense of live-and-let-live morality; do whatever you want, as long as your actions don't impinge upon my own liberties. And the issue of gay marriage feels like one of those times when it couldn't hurt the church to allow the gays to change the label of something they already have.

A few feeble reasons have been presented. The case of the Catholic Church choosing to discontinue their adoption agency in Massachusetts after the judicial decree that they place children with gay couples is evidence that maybe at least some of the Church leaders' warnings are not merely slippery-slope scare tactics, but rooted in verifiable past experience. The Church's claim that marriage is ordained of God could be expressing a claim that marriage is not a societal contract between people, but rather something older, immutable, and God-given.

Still, these are claims that pale in comparison with the apparent (or perceived?) effects on the homosexual people of disallowing marriage between two members of the same sex. Furthermore, these claims are not ones that could be made to persuade someone in any secular light. To me, the obvious choice is to allow gay marriage.

However, I am cognizant of the fact that I have not attained the longest view on any earthly matters. I do have a testimony of a living prophet (and that testimony has been reinforced recently due to my soul-searching on this issue). It is strange to me that the church is taking such a strong stance on what appears to be a political issue. My political views are sharply contrasted with the commandments I've been given from the church. But I have to remember the watchtower metaphor: the man up in the tower shouts warnings and instruction to the people below, and the wise heed his words because they know he knows something they don't.

For me, it all boils down to this quote from President Harold B. Lee:

"The power of Satan will increase; we see it in evidence on every hand. …

"Now the only safety we have as members of this church is to do exactly what the Lord said to the Church in that day when the Church was organized. We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, 'as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; … as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.' (D&C 21:4–5.) There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory.' (D&C 21:6.)" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1970, 152; or Improvement Era, Dec. 1970, 126).

The promises made in that quote are powerful, and they're what I truly want out of this life. I really do believe these words from one of our latter-day prophets.

I do worry that people will read a quote like this and become myrmidons. That sort of unquestioned loyalty is what leads to the worst of inhumane atrocities. So let me be clear that I would never obey a commandment with which I disagree. But I will appeal directly to God to ascertain that a new commandment is indeed from Him. That's what our leaders have counseled us to do (indeed, it's the counsel that led to the first vision in the first place): to appeal directly to the source of all wisdom. One can receive a second witness of the prophet's words through the Holy Ghost.

That's the invitation I'll be making to my friends who are pondering what to do and on which side of the line to pitch their tents. The invitation to not just go out and vote based solely on political ideologies or visceral reactions to sensational pleas and anecdotes. Nor do I want people to vacantly follow the instruction of any leader or activist. I would have people take all of those things into account and ask God in humble prayer (being willing to have a change of heart if the answer is contrary to the one expected) what their responsibilities are vis-a-vis Proposition 8. If you happen to get a different answer from mine, I will support you in your decision, knowing that you (like I am) are choosing to act on your conscience in the best way you know how.

When I did that, I received an answer that I can't rightly defend to other people using the usual logic and rhetoric. But when people ask me how I can possibly defend such a notion, I can view it as an opportunity to bear my testimony of a living prophet, whose purpose is to be the mouthpiece for God and help set a common course for people in a time when so many divergent paths are viewed as the right one.

In fine, I don't urge you to vote yes on 8, but I urge you to turn the question directly to your God and act accordingly. Whatever decision you make, I love and respect you, and I hope the best for you and for all of us.

--Robbie

[edit: Thanks for all the comments! I've left a response to each down at comment number 23 or so. I appreciate the discussion!]

A New Post!

I basically need this picture so I can link to it elsewhere. It all has to do with my obsession for Lost. This is going to be the mother of all (recent) blog posts because I promised you the story of the Valentine's Day Surprise, plus I just finished an eight-page sociology paper that I want to share with you all. And besides, it's been a heck of a while. But first, for your reading pleasure, I'll also include a transcript of a conversation that went down in my film class the other day and had me rollin'.

Girl [interrupting teacher]: Wait a minute! Didn't you say we were going to have a special guest this week!?
Teacher: Oh, you mean like we had the other week when we talked to a real cinematographer who worked on the set of CSI?
Girl: No! I mean, didn't you say you were going to have someone in here to observe your teaching, and we were supposed to make really good comments and make you look good?
Teacher [turning to the gentleman sitting next to her]: Heh heh, yeah, I kinda prepped them that you were coming last week, kind of as a joke, and kind of so they would be prepared.

[beat]

Girl: Oh. This is a really great class.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So a few days before Valentine's Day this year, I decided to make some enchiladas (I make really good sour-cream-based enchiladas, based loosely on my mother's recipe). As I was at the supermarket purchasing the ingredients, mostly on a caprice I decided to buy some red food coloring and make special Valentine's enchiladas. Valentine's Day Surprise, I would call it. As I mixed tons of food coloring in with the filling, my roommates expressed their disapproval. I can't blame them; It really did look more like a Jell-o salad than anything one would want in his spicy Mexican food. But if I think something is funny enough, you can't stop me from doing it.

The Valentine's Day Surprise was a huge success! Meaning that I thought it was delicious AND hilarious, while no one else would really touch it. Over the next couple of days I ate tons of that stuff, as well as making other special Valentine's treats, like Valentine's coconut juice, Valentine's milk, etc. Man, I think I am funny.

Of course, none of that was at the forefront of my mind on February 14th when I was staring, in complete shock, at the bloody stool in the toilet in the college's men's room. My thoughts went kinda like this:

"Oh. Crap. I am broken. How far up my digestive tract am I bleeding? That is so much blood! Aaaaaaa! Do I need to take this to a doctor? How am I going to get that out of there!? Maybe there is a plastic bag in here like lining the trash or something. But then what? Do I go to the rest of my classes? Can I just carry that thing around with me in my backpack? Surely people will smell that, even through a plastic bag. Maybe I should call one of my roommates. Should I even be standing up? What could have caused this!?"

At which point I remembered the Valentine's Day.

Surprise!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case you are trying to call me, don't. My phone's battery died. And then I broke it. And then I lost it. It's pretty much the Rasputin of phones. And if you left me a message at any point in the last three weeks, I don't hate you (probably); I just never got it. Some day when I have recovered from the financial crisis I like to call "tuition," I will get a new phone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, here is the paper I wrote today. It's mostly a book report for my sociology class. I find this stuff to be terribly interesting.

Analysis of “Michael Jordan and the New Global Capitalism”

Michael LaFeber was wise to chooses Michael Jordan and the Nike Corporation as his subjects for his book, “Michael Jordan and the New Global Capitalism.” First of all, because attaching the name “Michael Jordan” to the title of his book (and subsequently telling Jordan’s life story throughout) was guaranteed to sell more copies of the book, thus getting his message about a new global economy to more people. Secondly, because Jordan’s story really does align well with the history of this new economy. Jordan’s career falls somewhere between example and metaphor of American culture and technology and their effect on the world. Finally, this book is about power. It is about a powerful man, who represents a powerful nation. The central argument of the book seems to be that America’s ability to change the world is massive, and that we as American citizens must now wield that power responsibly.

The first chapter of the book (pp. 27-48) is all about basketball. This chapter details the history of basketball, its inclusion of blacks in professional leagues, and the beginnings of capitalist endeavors to make a profit from the sport. Also discussed is the subject of Michael Jordan’s home life in North Carolina and his college years of playing basketball. LaFeber uses this chapter to set the stage for the broader economic and political topics that will be discussed later, as well as to ease the reader into a long-range sociological way of thinking about things that we 21^st-century Americans take for granted.

Chapter two contains an interesting section entitled “Enter the Transnational Corporation.” Here we are introduced to Nike, a company that is American, but somehow has more than half of its employees, as well as more than half of its sales, abroad. (p. 55) The idea of a corporation dealing internationally is not a new one, LaFeber informs us, but the idea of the new transnational corporations of the 1980s differed from that of their predecessors in a few major ways. These new corporations no longer relied primarily on American markets while dabbling in foreign markets, they traded less in goods than in ideas and designs and knowledge, they relied extensively on foreign labor, they committed huge amounts of capital to overseas advertising, and most importantly, they were able to transcend national barriers and therefore were immune to many of the governmental restrictions formerly placed upon corporations. (pp. 54-56)

Later in this chapter we learn of the history and impact of satellite communication technology on the world. Wealthy and powerful men such as Walter Murdoch and Ted Turner created enormous cable networks that would cross international lines that could bring the same news and entertainment (and naturally advertisement) to people all around the world (p. 71). Turner, we learn, banned the word “foreign” from his broadcasts on all stations, preferring to think of his network as global instead (p. 72). The fact that satellite television preceded the internet might help to explain the idea that America’s culture became so pervasive on the world scene; after all, the most important difference between the two is that the internet allows two-way communication, whereas satellite television allowed what America was broadcasting to be seen by the world without allowing for a response from the world back to America. According to a statistic from the book, 80 percent of European television programs came from the United States, whereas only one percent of American shows originated somewhere besides the U.S. (p 110).

The one-way nature of this exchange is supported by more statistics in chapter three. Here, LaFeber concedes that Europe and Japan did indeed supply the American market with many of their goods (mostly in the form of electronics, vehicles, and high fashion), but he is quick to point out that “(t)he $2 billion or so of high-fashion exports into the United States were dwarfed by the many billions of revenue generated overseas by Nike, McDonald’s, and Disney.” (p. 81, emphasis added)

LaFeber interweaves these facts about the early effects of huge American corporations on the world (along with the first intimations we see of resistance from a foreign nation, France) with stories of Michael Jordan’s growing athletic success and national stardom.

Michael Jordan and the head of Nike, Phil Knight, both benefited enormously from the new global communications and economy that were in place by the 1990s. Knight had found that it was lucrative for him to move his business to where there were fewer regulations imposed on employers. The first Nikes were manufactured in Japan in the 1960s, but with the boom in communications technology on the 1970s and 80s, Knight saw that “production could be done nearly anywhere.” (p. 103) As Japan became more successful and started endowing its workers with more rights, LaFeber reasons, it became more profitable for Knight to move production of his merchandise to other Asian countries, starting in Korea, Indonesia, and Viet Nam, and landing eventually in China. (p. 104). A Reebok official referred to this constant movement (in which his company also engaged) as “chasing wages around the globe,” and admitted that “[t]here has to be a better way.” (p. 155)

Sadly, these new Asian sources of labor were beneficial to Nike precisely because they exploited the workers. According to U.S. women’s groups, the “Indonesian, Vietnamese, and Chinese workers… suffer from inadequate wages, corporal punishment, forced overtime, and/or sexual harassment.” (p. 144) 90 percent of the workers in Vietnam were “women who worked twelve-hour days [and many] reportedly fainted from exhaustion and malnutrition (p. 148). Adding to the ethical problems of manufacturing in impoverished China was the 1989 killing by the communist Chinese government of “large numbers” of dissenters, which caused Congress to restrict trade with the nation. Fortunately for Nike and other transnational corporations, President Bush vetoed this restriction. (p. 105)

Not only did new communications technology supply new, cheaper sources of labor, but it also provided entirely new pools of consumers. Unfortunately, many of these target groups were unable to afford the products with which advertising aimed at them tantalized them. Reports surfaced of inner-city children selling drugs or even killing each other in order to obtain the Michael Jordan Nikes they had no licit means of acquiring (p. 91).

At the same time as these more negative aspects of the Nike company were coming to light, Michael Jordan experienced a succession of setbacks to his image. He was at the center of scandals that focused on his gambling, his association with shady characters, and his refusal to wear Adidas paraphernalia in front of the world at the Olympics (pp. 96-101). As Jordan felt his privacy diminishing, and in the wake of his father’s murder, he retired briefly from the National Basketball association (pp. 121). In the interim, he played professional baseball, though his statistics weren’t very impressive.

During all of this (the exploitation of Asian laborers, the advertising targeted at poor black audiences to whom Nike nor Jordan reached out, and Jordan’s personal tragedies and shortcomings), the media and technologies that had once elevated Jordan and Nike to their global statuses turned on them. LaFeber describes a “Faustian bargain” that they had made with the media: they had put themselves under the world’s microscope in order to make money, but were stuck under the microscope when there were certain aspects of their existence that they would prefer to have remained unexamined (p. 115). Sales of Nike products, as well as sales of other Jordan-endorsed products, continued to climb, but Jordan and Nike had to pay “a price for being dependent on the new media.” (p. 153)

As Nike and Jordan grew rich off of other countries, those countries began to show signs of change. Sneakers hit the runways in Paris fashion shows (p. 109), South African street gangs “called themselves ‘The Young Americans’ and the ‘JFKs,’” (p. 138) while McDonald’s (another Jordan endorsement) shut down German, Austrian, and Swiss street vendors (p.140) and reached the point where it was feeding “one percent of the world’s population each day.” (p. 156). This cultural influence America and its corporations was having on the world is what is called “soft power,” soft because it’s consensual and not a forced influence like military might or political maneuvering (p. 109). One is not to believe that the word “soft” implies that the power is weak; American soft power had a very real effect on other nations, “not only chang[ing] buying habits in a society, but modify[ing] the composition of the society itself.” (p. 157)

This could be a good thing. One could cite the new existence of a small middle class in China as an example if U.S. democracy beginning to have a positive influence in a foreign market. The fact that American goods were not forced upon other nations, but rather traded (p. 156), highlights a major difference between this new “cultural imperialism” and the old traditional “imperialism” against which the Americans fought in the Revolutionary War.

The problem, as the world saw it, is the same as with capitalism here in the United States: he who has more capital begins with an advantage (p. 164). And on the global scale, this means the U.S. The United States had the upper hand on capital and the new technology because at the end of the Cold War, it had “adjusted to the post 1970’s technology and Communism had not.” (p.162).

The final chapter of the book focuses on the effects of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11^th, 2001, on the global economy. Interestingly, the terrorists, who were fighting against the overreaching arm of American cultural, economic, and military influence, were able to accumulate power and perform their terrorist acts only by using the very communications technologies that had been used to spread that American influence in the first place (pp. 166, 181). Osama bin Laden was, in a way, the anti-Jordan, while his shadowy terrorist alliances became the anti-Nike. Bin Laden used his popularity in the Islamic world and the power of satellite television to sell people on his political ideals, while Al Qaeda took advantage of the same border-blurring transnationalism that Nike and other American Corporations had been enjoying for a few decades now (p. 173).

Also interesting is the way in which America’s vision of a peacefully globalized economy was hobbled at the same time Jordan’s career was ended due to knee injuries (p. 171). The spread of the American economy into other countries had flourished at the exact time that Jordan’s career and fame had, and in 2001 and 2002, both felt the effects of having driven too hard and too fast.

America by this point was so engrained in the cultures and economies around the world that when it suffered from a major technology crash during the years on either side of the terrorist attacks, it ended up hurting other countries (those which relied upon American purchasing power to pay for the goods they produced) even more (p. 172). The American government’s reaction to the terrorist attacks had similarly devastating effects overseas. For example, new government sanctions against immigration “prevented the movement of cheap, or highly specialized, labor from one country to another.” (p.173)

The September 11^th attacks had other sociological effects on the world, as well. The American government hired an advertiser to try to sell American democratic and capitalistic values to Islamic nations (p. 182). It also began to attempt to censor the news media with regard to the war in Afghanistan that ensued after September 11^th (p. 183).

LaFeber points out that not all of the effects of the new globalization are negative. One huge benefit appears to be the fact that as women in developing nations are made more aware of international issues, they have slowed their birth rate, leading analysts to believe that the once-impending crisis of an ever-expanding population has now been averted, as it looks like the world’s population might level off at 9 billion, instead of passing the 10 billion mark and continuing indefinitely. (p. 184). LaFeber claims that due to the new technology, “women were watching satellite television, [and] learning about small families and contraceptive devices from western television programs….” (p. 184) “U.S. expansion and profits,” he asserts, “were neither naturally good nor naturally evil.” (p 186)

The book ends on an embittered note, contrasting Jordan, who has unprecedented international clout but has never taken a public political or social stance, with black baseball pioneer Jackie Robinson, who in the 1940s inspired blacks across national lines with message of human rights (p. 188). LaFeber’s message here is clear: A powerful entity, such as Michael Jordan, or, through metaphor, The United States of America (which in actuality means each of us, the American people) has a responsibility to make sure that its considerable power, which is by nature neutral, is used responsibly. Jordan and Nike could have reached out to the inner-city youth, to the impoverished blacks of America, or to the practically enslaved workers in Nike’s overseas factories. The same technology that has created such an imbalance in the world market has also been used to educate and liberate people and to do an incredible amount of good. But if we Americans are not careful and respectful with the enormous influence this book proves we indeed wield, we have the potential to do an incredible amount of harm.

P.S. Thanks for all the feedback on the previous post! I love you guys! You inspire me to write more often.

P.P.S. I kinda came out to my entire Sunday School/bishopric & wives dating panel on Sunday. It was... great? More next time? Maybe.

Decorated

An original poem for this holiday season:


Decorated
Cut down in the forest
Only a stump remaining
Dragged back home to Mom
Lower limbs trimmed away
Propped up
Dressed nicely
For all to see
Sapped of life
Adorned with ornaments
Filled with memories
Family gathered
Gifts given
Speeches made
Tribute paid
Then dried out
Hauled out
Left on the curb
Purpose served
Alone
Forgotten
The War Hero
Decorated



Happy Veterans Day, everybody.

Dick

Let's forget for a moment that he shot a man in the head (it WAS a lawyer, after all). And forget that he's the less-popular VP to one of the most unpopular Presidents in this country's history. I can even let go of the fact that several members of his staff are currently under criminal investigation and have been removed from their positions. All that aside, he's just kinda old and creepy.

But, for some reason, the First Presidency of our church decided to invite him to speak at the recent commencement ceremony at BYU.

This, naturally, caused quite the uproar. Students have been pretty upset that the church would invite someone who's so obviously connected to one party to come to such an important event. This girl I know (I can't remember her name right now but she was in my ward and would come to church with this amazing Something-About-Mary gelled hair every week) actually organized a sort of counter-commencement at UVSC for all the students who would rather hear speeches from the Green Party's Ralph Nader and other, less-important Democrats. Ashley Sanders! That's her name. Anyway, everyone's been asking me, "So, what's your opinion on this whole Dick Cheney thing?"

So here it is:


Probably not the best PR move by the church. Then again, who really cares who's speaking at some university's commencement? Does anyone at BYU know who's speaking at anyone else's commencement? Does anyone outside of BYU know about Dick Cheney's coming? I doubt it.

Also, protests? Really? When did those ever work? I mean like since the Boston Tea Party. And I'm only making that an exception because it's famous, not because I know whether it worked or not. For all I know it just pissed off the Brits and then the Indian-clad colonists had to pay for all that tea they ruined. Not to mention the townspeople then had to throw a LOT of lemon and sugar into their harbor the next morning. But see, this is what I don't get. To me it seems that the intent of the protest is simply to annoy The Man to the point where he acquiesces. Good plan, except that it only ends up making The Man upset, which prompts him to stand his ground even more obdurately than before (Mrs. Stevens would be so proud of the way I'm using all of my 11th grade vocab words in this paragraph). And today's protesters (at least the protest organizers) are aware of this. So the real object of the protest is not change or dialogue. It's just attention. It's the toddler who's learned that crying sometimes gets him what he wants not because it's what Mom thinks he needs, or even because Mom is tired of hearing his cries, but rather because Mom doesn't like the way all the other Moms are looking at her. It seems a very unethical way of going about social change. Coming at the problem from the rear.

Also, Dick Cheney is not Vice President of the Republicans. He's Vice President of the United States. It's not like you get to just not recognize a President you didn't vote for. This isn't Mexico. Yes, he's a Republican, but he didn't come here in the name of the GOP. He came here in the name of the Presidency of this fine nation. I doubt his speech had anything to do with keeping the illegal immigrants out or how Utah is the best state because it's the only one that has a law that explicitly allows students to carry concealed weapons on public college campuses (I'm not making this up). Just as I'm pretty sure the speech by Darth Vader or whatever his name is was not about legalizing gay marijuana (I decided partway through typing those two ideas just now that I would make them just one idea for simplicity's sake). I imagine both speeches were just the same recycled boilerplate: "You are the future...blah blah blah...worked hard to get here...make a difference in the world...smartest and best generation...crap crap crap." Just like my high school graduation, except without everyone quoting Semisonic's "Closing Time."

My point is this: a graduation ceremony is one time that should definitely not be divided by bipartisan politics. If it had been Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore, I would probably have been right there supporting the protesters. But it wasn't. It was the Vice President, and I think we can show some respect, even if we don't agree with his politics or his age or his hunting practices. Ashley Sanders and the others who helped her in her "celebration of alternatives" really missed the boat, in my opinion. This day should have been about the students, and the future and making a difference in the world, and all that crap--not about whether we agree with everything that the speaker might have said or done or voted for in any other situation. I hope that next time something like this occurs, people can just swallow their pride and stop trying to cause headaches for the administration. That's all I have to say about that.

For the Night

Here's another:

for the night

The jungle grows dark, and I

just lie there, pretending to sleep in
the foxhole with
your skin,
flesh,
pressed against mine, struggling
to hold my breath as it gets
heavier and
heavier like a rucksack after a
full day's march. You
stir, and
I whirl
inside like I'm avoiding bullets and
dropping to the motherly ground,
exhilarated. I
sense your sleepy softness and
the hard muscle underneath, trying to
breathe you in
through the thin
patch of skin
on my elbow that
connects with your back. The crickets
grow quieter,
if there are crickets at all, afraid
like I am of waking
you and ruining my moment. I
shake, cold and rocks
and fear
are penetrating my
ribcage, but a blanket between
us would grant warmth while
rapaciously robbing me of your touch like
the naked little pickpockets in
the village. Hours
pass, and nothing moves but
my heart, and yours just
behind and the part in
my gut that must have to
hold perfectly still for me to fall asleep. Soon
the enemy is out, spying
on us with his garish
golden rays of
light pouring through the fronds and
tearing at my tired eyelids. It's
time to get up and march and
fight,
defend our country before
we are seen.

I do not fight for a nation or a people who
would not let me protect them
if
they knew
who I am, nor for a dream that
does not count my life
as worthy to sacrifice for it.

I fight for you, and
for the night.

Temple Pageant

Well, since I already just wrote all this out in an e-mail, I figured it would be much easier to just copy and paste it. Which is why I'm still not telling you about the eggs and the balloons. Maybe next time.

Okay, so the Manti Pageant. I have to say that I totally expected it to be dumb, mostly because of the way that everybody kept telling me how dumb it was except for the people who kept telling me how great it was, which were mostly dumb people. So I went into it expecting crap. I was therefore at least pleasantly surprised by the special effects, like the pillar of light and all the fireballs and things. Pinetree really hated it. He couldn't stand how melodramatic it was. I think he thought a pageant is more of a play than "2 : SHOW, EXHIBITION; especially : an elaborate colorful exhibition or spectacle often with music that consists of a series of tableaux." I have to admit that the tableaux were pretty unsettling. I didn't like how there were tons and tons of Joseph Smiths running around doing different things at the same time. The narrators had an impressive vocabulary. Jesus appeared to the Nephites directly behind a lighting tower, which I had predicted. Pinetree thinks it was a sign. The worst thing was the way that everybody moved their arms when they talked. Well, actually the real worst thing was this DORK that we took with us who got up in the middle and went to sit somewhere else so he "could feel the spirit." I guess he was annoyed by some of the comments that Pinetree was making. Pinetree later apologized, but I didn't think that was necessary, because his comments didn't keep me from feeling the spirit. When it was over Pinetree said that he didn't like all the patriotic themes running through it (I'm not sure whether the scene in which Brigham young sees Captain Moroni, several of the founding fathers, and some strange Indian who all tell him about the greatness of America is based on a real event, but either way it was heavy handed and seemed to promote the war in Iraq). And then this kid was all, "Well, if you'd ever read the Book of Mormon you would know that it's all about patriotism and America." And Pinetree probably wanted to punch him but he didn't. And then the kid said all these rude things to me and then he just disappeared. And then when I got home there were like a million (okay three) texts from him on my phone continuing the argument, which I thought was extra dumb. Anyway, I actually liked the pageant, I'll admit it, although I'm still trying to figure out whether I liked it as some sort of knee-jerk devil's advocate reaction to all the naysayers or whether I really was whelmed by the small-town charm and rustic coming-together appeal of the whole thing. I could tell that these people were really putting their hearts into this thing. Part of me was thinking, "Man, it would be fun to do this with my kids some day," and the rest was just terrified of all the Angel Moronis running around beforehand in drag-queen makeup asking us if we wanted to refer someone to the missionaries and interrupting our game of Apples to Apples, which I won by a lot.

Why I Don't Read the News

The reason I don't read the news is that it sometimes gives me the impulse to blow up a federal judicial building or something.

Global Renovation and Gropiation

I found a paper the other day from when I was in first grade. The assignment was to draw a picture of what our perfect bedroom would look like. Mine was all full of balloons and it had a flag from every country in the world. It also had my mom standing over my bed saying, "I owe yuo ten dollars!" The funny thing (besides what a little geography nerd I was) was that the eight or so flags I had drawn in pencil and crayon were remarkably accurate. I had Suriname, Botswana, and Senegal, among others. I thought that was great, seriously.

Check out this great website.

Anyway, Wiggle, Pinetree, The Ring Bearer and I stayed up all night the other night and talked about this globe at Vermillion Skies. It was such a funny geography conversation. I had posed the question, "If you had to eliminate one country from the face of the planet, which would it be and why?" We went on for hours debating the pros and cons (from our limited vantage) of each country. I am still not sure I understand why the Ring Bearer was defending China so vehemently, but they did invent pasta, the compass, and gunpowder, right?

Anyway, I think it's a huge blessing that I've found these friends who can get all passionate about the same things that I've always loved. Maybe some day I will get a flag of every country for my room. Starting with Tajikistan. It's like a connect-the-dots! look:




I really think that one is cool.

Anyway, I voted to get rid of the Philippines. I don't know why, but that country just seems kinda dirty to me. And it's weird that it's just an archipelago. No mainland. And the idea of the Philippines conjures up images of rats in my brain, and those darn Portuguese letting the dogs loose on the dodo birds. I know that was in Mauritius, and it was Spain that colonized the Philippines, but still, there is correlation in my brain. Also, didn't the Filipinos eat Magellan? I'm pretty sure I heard that.

Man, it's always good to have a great light-hearted discussion about mass-destruction and genocide at your nearest decafe at ungodly hours of the morning.

The next night I whomped on my friends at Scrabble, also at Vermillion Skies. I have begun to know half of the people there every time we go in. We invented the intransitive verb "gropiate." Words are always coined during such late-night Scrabble battles. I invented a system of rating one's rack of letters based on playability. If your letters look like this (as Pinetrees did at one point during the night): AEIIIUU, you have Irritable Vowel Syndrome. If you have this one: GJKQTTV, you are consonantpated.

There was a couple gropiating in their car the whole time we were there. When we left Ronnie told them that they got an "A" for stamina. Then we went to Beto's, which called upon its right to refuse us service. I swear the rest of this story is on Ronnie's blog, so you should go there and see it. Imade a series of funny phone calls to their customer comment line. Ooh, and I just realized I have leftover yummy burritos in the fridge, so I'm going to cut this short. Not that it was going in any direction anyway, huh?

I just want to say that Vermillion Skies is a beautiful place, but don't go there because there are too many people like you there already. Unless you bring me with you. Then you're invited. Bye.

The Archives are Back!!!!!!

While I don't have much time to write anything here, I thought I'd just post some of my favorites of my answers from my stint on the Hundred Hour Board, in case I ever get locked out again. Read them is you will. Here goes:

QDear 100 Hour Board,

If the animals from South America had a "rumble" with the animals from Africa... which group of animals would win, and why?
- Betting on the piranhas' team

ADear Bettin',

South America. They've got Hungry hungry hippos. (I think). Actually, maybe that's Africa.... Hmmm. Well, either way, I'm putting my money on the Hippos. On a side note, I've seen bacteria and microscopic worms from South America that've sent people to their death beds. If their single cell organisms can do that, just imagine what an entire herd of hippos could do. On a second, and final side note (everyone breathes a sigh of relief), I have no idea why the sudden fixation with hippos. I mean really, could an animal be less intimidating? Oh well. That's my answer, and I'm sticking to it.

-Thor

ADear Better,

I say let's break this down. We'll pit South American animals against their nearest African counterparts. South America will appear first in each match so you can tell which side they're representing.

The llama vs. the camel: The camel totally wins this one. It can pack a lot more, and it's bigger and faster and smarter. The llama might have an easier time getting into Heaven, though.

The jaguar vs. the lion: Africa wins again. The lion is king of the jungle, even though it lives primarily in the pride lands. Jaguars actually live in the jungle, but they're not even like dukes or anything.

The capybara vs. the hippopotamus (which is actually from Africa, Thor): Hmm, the world's largest rodent vs. a relative of the pig that can.... Well, just look at this article:
A French zoo director was crushed to death on 1 November by a hippopotamus in a rut. Jean Ducuing was cycling around the park in Pessac, near Bordeaux, when Komir, a seven-year-old male hippo, charged through an electrified fence after an employee driving a tractor stopped to distribute food. M Ducing, aged in his 60s, had trained Komir. Posters for the zoo feature a picture of Komir with M Ducing's head in his mouth. AFP - 2 November; International Herald tribune - 3 November
Or this one (my new favorite thing ever, though very sad if I stop to think about it), attributed to the Melbourn Herald Sun, July 16, 1999:“A dwarf nicknamed Od has died in a circus accident in northern Thailand. According to the Pattaya Mail, he 'bounced sideways from a trampoline and was swallowed by a yawning hippopotamus' which was waiting to appear in the next act. Vets on the scene said Hilda the Hippo 'had a gag reflex that automatically caused her to swallow.' The vet said it was the first time the hefty vegetarian had ever eaten a circus performer. Unfortunately, the 1,000-plus spectators continued to applaud widely until common-sense dictated that there had been a tragic mistake.”

The caiman vs. the crocodile: Well, you never heard the prophet warn against spiritual caimans, did you?

The howler monkey vs. the gorilla: One keeps you up all night. The other DESTROYS you. In sign language.

The piranha vs. the African lungfish: This is a draw. The piranha would win in an all-out fight, but if the Amazon ever dried up, the lungfish would win. And when the rainy season began again, he'd crawl out of the muck and be all, “Boo-yeah” to the dried up corpse of the piranha.

The tapir vs. the elephant: They both have flexible snouts, but one weighs 10,000 pounds. And it's not the tapir.

The great anteater vs. the aardvark: Ok, the great anteater takes this one, just for being great. But wait, here comes the other half of the aardvark's tag team: the pangolin! And the pangolin wins just for being the only mammal with scales, and for being able to roll up into a defensive ball!

The spider monkey vs. the chimpanzee: The chimp can use tools, and is the primate closest in its genetic makeup to man (after woman). Plus, it's up to five times stronger than man. I'm actually kinda scared of them myself.

The rhea vs. the ostrich: The ostrich is way more ginormous than the rhea. Plus, its eggs are extremely more valuable. The ostrich could just sell some of its precious eggs and go buy some wicked awesome artillery with the money. As the ostrich roasts the rhea with his sweet flame-thrower, he says in his best Schwarzenegger voice, “you were born a rhea; now you're gonna die a rhea!”

The puma vs. the fossa (Madagascar is technically part of Africa, I think): The fossa jumps about in the trees like it's nothing. I bet they'd eat a puma for lunch. And wash him down with a panther or cougar or something.

The tarantula vs. those scary African sand crabs from “Winged Migration”: They both eat birds. They both give me nightmares. I'd say the tarantula is more poisonous, plus he can blind the crab by flinging spiky hairs off his back with his hind legs, and then maybe the stupid crab will try to rub his eyes and stab them out with those nasty horrifying pinchers.

The mosquito vs. the tsetse fly: Tsetse sounds pretty bad, but I think Malaria is worse. Gotta go with the Mosquito.

The peccary vs. the warthog: They seem like the same animal to me. But the peccary is uglier, and so maybe the warthog would run away or something.

The cavy vs. the meerkat: The meerkat has a better problem-free philosophy, and is much more intelligent-looking than the cavy, which is really just a South American version of a Guinea Pig.

The poison dart frog vs. the killer bee: The froggy here has more poison in him. It takes a whole posse of bees to kill a man, but only the poison from one frog. True, the bee can fly away, but I bet the frog will use his elastic tongue to catch him back anyway and give him a scolding or thrashing!

The sloth vs. anything, pretty much. I hate the sloth. It's the worst animal. And don't go saying it's a special creation of God. 'Cause then why is it one of the cardinal sins? The thing is so slow, algae grows on it, giving it its grimy green fur. And its fingernails give me the heebie-jeebies like none other. Worst animal ever! But let's just pair him off with, say, the cheetah, just for the fun of it. I think I can say, "enough said." And I think I can say it several times.

The guanaco vs. the giraffe: Ok, so let's say all of a sudden I'm a giraffe. And let's say I have to fight this stupid woolly alpaca thing, and I'm realizing, neither of us has any claws or horns or weapons of any kind. But I can run fast. So what I do is I run around and eat all the leaves off the bottoms of the trees. Then when they're all gone, I can feast upon the upper leaves while guano boy dies of starvation. Hey, all's fair in love and war and fictional epic animal battles.

The burro vs. the zebra: If you look closely, you'll see that these are exactly the same animal. Except one's dressed nicer, so he'll do better in job interviews and things. Plus, the zebra knows how to work the crowd, and he has street smarts. You can either go with the zebra and his zany Fruit Stripe gum, or with the burro and his gloomy Colombia House coffee. Zebra, all the way.

The toucan vs. the hornbill: The hornbill could probably spear that fruity toucan and all three of his lame little nephews with that special spearing horn on his nose. “Just follow THIS, Sammy!”

The anaconda vs. the asp: One killed Cleopatra. The other tried to get Jennifer Lopez, but didn't quite make it. Still, though, for sheer girth, I'm going to give this one to the anaconda. The asp is deadly, but nobody ever made a movie (terrible or otherwise) about it.I think that's about it.

You can do with the wildebeest whatever you'd like. Maybe he's held in Africa's reserve as a secret weapon. After all, they killed Mufasa. Oh, and I was going to pair up the rhinoceros with the triceratops, but then I realized that's a dinosaur, not a South American animal. Still, I would pay good money to see that fight, man.

The final tally is South America 6 : Africa 16 (plus the wildebeest, and oh, yeah, the hyena! duh!). Africa wins, hands down. Glad you asked.

--Wild

QDear 100 Hour Board,

So I have noticed that there are quite a few people here on campus that are democrats. It suprised me when I found out that there is actually a democrat club on campus. So here is my quesion. I don't want to start a political debate, i just want to see this from a church democrats point of view. The church is against abortion, and also against homosexuality. They strongly take their stance in those positions. But the political democrat side is pro abortion and wants more rights for homosexuals. So how does someone who is a church member that is a democrat justify the differences between their political beliefs and church beliefs? I just don't understand how someone could hear a general authority talk about how bad homosexuality is, and then go vote for someone that contridicts that.

- Political Wonderer

ADear Political Wonderer,

That's a valid question. I am not a Democrat, but I dated one seriously for a while, and so I understand a lot of their views that are misconstrued by others. There are several points to consider here.

First, there is no "Gospel Party" or "Mormon Party." Every party out there has policies that in some way conflict with someone's take on the gospel. The Democratic Party's line is one of "pro-Choice" (to use their own term for it), and they are interested in protecting the rights of gay (again, their word, not mine) Americans. These are positions that at first glance seem contrary to the gospel. They may indeed be, but in a moment I'll show you where a lot of this thinking comes from.

The question with homosexuality for a Mormon Democrat is not whether those practices are wrong (we all agree that they are), but whether the government should step in and legislate about it, and whether the people are being protected from discrimination. And don't try to say right away that they shouldn't. I'm pretty far to the right (maybe not quite as much as the Captain), and even I can see that discrimination in one area of a person's life based on a private area is wrong. The gospel stance on how we treat people with same-sex attraction is that we "love the sinner." That does not include preventing them from having certain jobs, nor harming them in any way. Many people will throw out the JST of Matthew 18:9 and say that we are to remove our offending brethren. These scriptures (in my opinion) are evidently about people who are abusive, particularly toward children (as evidences by the context of the chapter). Here is a long passage from Elder Dallin H. Oaks' talk entitled "Same Gender Attraction":

"In a conference address on this same subject, President Gordon B. Hinckley said: 'I desire now to say with emphasis that our concern for the bitter fruit of sin is coupled with Christlike sympathy for its victims, innocent or culpable. We advocate the example of the Lord, who condemned the sin, yet loved the sinner. We should reach out with kindness and comfort to the afflicted, ministering to their needs and assisting them with their problems.'

"Despite such invitations and assurances, the Church and its members continue to experience misunderstandings about our positions on these matters. Last fall in an interview with a television reporter, one of our Church officials was asked, 'What is being done in the Church to try to stop the atmosphere of hate towards homosexuals?' Nine years ago, during a television interview on this subject, I was questioned about reports that the Church taught or implied 'that these people are somehow pariahs … and these people hate themselves and that this is an attitude brought forth by the Church.'

"More significantly, we also receive such questions from faithful members. A recent letter is illustrative:"

'Another concern we have is the way in which our sons and daughters are classified as people who practice deviant and lascivious behavior. Perhaps some do, but most do not. These young men and women want only to survive, have a spiritual life, and stay close to their families and the Church. It is especially damaging when these negative references are spoken from the pulpit. We believe such talks only create more depression and a tremendous amount of guilt, shame, and lack of self-worth, which they have endured throughout their entire lives. There is sometimes a real lack of the pure love of Christ expressed to help them through their ordeals. We will all appreciate anything you can do to help with the plight of these much misunderstood children of our Father in Heaven. If some of the General Authorities could express more sensitivity to this problem, it would surely help to avoid suicides and schisms that are caused within families. Many simply cannot tolerate the fact that Church members judge them as "evil people," and they, therefore, find solace in gay-oriented lifestyles.'

"These communications surely show the need for improvement in our communications with brothers and sisters who are struggling with problems—all types of problems. Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding. Sinners, as well as those who are struggling to resist inappropriate feelings, are not people to be cast out but people to be loved and helped (see 3 Ne. 18:22-23, 30, 32). At the same time, Church leaders and members cannot avoid their responsibility to teach correct principles and righteous behavior (on all subjects), even if this causes discomfort to some.

"Church leaders are sometimes asked whether there is any place in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for persons with homosexual or lesbian susceptibilities or feelings. Of course there is. The degree of difficulty and the pattern necessary to forgo behavior and to control thoughts will be different with different individuals, but the message of hope and the hand of fellowship offered by the Church is the same for all who strive.

"I tried to describe the crucial distinctions in my answer to the television reporter who implied that the Church taught that 'these people are somehow pariahs.' I said:

"'The person that’s working [to resist] those tendencies ought not to feel himself to be a pariah. Now, quite a different thing is sexual relations outside of marriage. A person engaging in that kind of behavior should well feel guilt. They should well feel themselves estranged from God, who has given commandments against that kind of behavior. It’s not surprising to me that they would feel estranged from their church. What surprises me is that they would feel that the Church can revoke God’s commandments. … To the woman taken in adultery (which is a pretty good precedent for us), … [the Savior] was merciful and loving … , but he said, ‘Go thy way and sin no more.’ He loved the sinner; he condemned the sin. I think the Church does the same thing, imperfectly perhaps, but that’s what we teach our members: love the sinner, condemn the sin."

The most faithful Democratic Mormon is not trying to say that the church (ie. God) needs to change its stance on homosexuality. That person is often trying to say that the church (ie. the members) does. My aforementioned ex-girlfriend, by the way, participated in the Oakland, CA (or was it San Jose?) chapter of MESJ (pronounced "Message," though I was always telling her she should move to have the pronunciation officially changed to "Massage"), and she told me that the issue of same-sex attraction actually came up in a meeting, but the group decided not to touch that issue because it was one on which the various members of the group were split.

That's probably enough on that matter. On to the abortion issue: I am definitely not qualified to speak on this issue, but it has been my experience that most Mormon Democrats (hereafter referred to as Mormocrats for the sake of convenience and humor) are decidedly anti-abortion. This does not mean, however, that they necessarily are in favor of laws that prohibit abortion.

Now, obviously abortion is a vile and disgusting commission of the worst possible of acts against the (arguably) most innocent of victims. Before I go any further with this, let me reiterate that I am merely trying to defend the opinions of others, and I do not herein claim to maintain these positions in my own personal politics, so please do not yell at me. Anyway, the real issue that lies at the center of this matter is not whether a certain thing is against the commandments of the gospel, but whether it's the government's responsibility to step in. This can be seen as a matter of agency.

I've heard two theories about Satan's plan. We'll call them theory "L" and theory "R" (which stand for "left" and "right," in case you missed it). Theory "L" is that Satan was trying to force everyone to be righteous. An obvious way we could combat such a move from Satan would be to only worry about our own righteousness, and let others decide for themselves. Theory "R" is that Satan would make sure everyone was righteous by taking away the consequences of sin. This is the sort of thing you hear about from liberals--the idea that crime can be reduced by legalizing marijuana, for example. That may be an effective way to prevent crime, but it is not an effective way to prevent people from smoking marijuana. This is the same issue for many Mormocrats. They understand that abortion is against the commandments. They often just don't think that it should be against the law, as that limits a person's agency. Another argument they'll use is that during times when abortion was illegal, abortions still happened, but in unsafe conditions by people who were not doctors, thus putting the mother's life in danger as well. Those babies were not saved, and in those cases the mothers were often lost, too.

For the final thread in the tapestry of this answer, we'll have to assume (merely for the sake of illustration) that you're a Republican (which I also am not). To turn your questions around on you, the political Republican side is pro-tobacco and seems to largely ignore the commandments we've been given along with our responsiblity as stewards of the earth (see Doctrine and Covenants 59:18-20. Then think about McDonald's and Walmart and the effect these uber-corporations have on the land and its resources). So how does someone who is a church member that is a Republican justify the differences between their political beliefs and church beliefs? I think the answer to that question is the same as the answer to yours.

The Democratic Party does a seemingly better job that the Republican Party of a) keeping the commandments about caring for the poor, b) preaching the equality spoken of in Mosiah 27:3, and c) renouncing war (Doctrine and Covenants 98:16), as well as other matters that have been mentioned already, or that can be found by checking out http://www.gomakecontact.com/mesj/about-us/mission.html. I am going to send a copy of this to their contact e-mail to see if they feel it does the issue justice.

And that's all I have to say about that. Wow. Sorry I got carried away.

--Soapbox of Lies

CDear 100 Hour Board,

Sorry Uffish, I do have gmail otherwise I would thank you directly. You still rock though, and so does Skippy. Oh, and now BHM rocks too. Whoever BHM is. Anyone who likes granola people rocks.

- kesstacular

ADear bunnicula,

I like people granola. Do I rock?

--A cannibal

QDear 100 Hour Board,

I caught this Preying Mantis today and as it walked it would take a few steps, snatch at the air, and hop 3 inches. Take a few steps snatch at the air, hop forward three inches... So I put in a tree and it sort of continued in this pattern--climbing a bit and reaching out for leaves, etc. So I'm wondering exactly how much of a preying mantis' brain is instinct and how much is intellect. Preying manti are cool!

- Deb Robbins

ADear Deb,

Well, insects are strange things. The best argument I found on the instinct vs. intellect thing was actually on some Islaamic studies website. Check out the idea: colonies of ants and bees have an advanced society with complex inner workings that we humans could never hope to achieve. However, those communities are probably exactly like communities of ants from thousands of years ago. Humans, on the other hand, have had various ages (e.g. The Bronze Age or the Nuclear Age). We advance ourselves, and that sets us apart from the insects. Yes, maybe they have fascinating systems, but there's never a time when an insct says to itself, "Hey! I have a better idea on how to do this stuff." According to most modern scientists, insects are creatures of instinct, and not intellect. They're still cool, though. Have you noticed that mantises look a lot like aliens?

Oh, and Brainy Smurf wanted me to mention one more thing. "Mantis" comes from the Greek word for prophet or diviner. Greek suffixes seem to confuse people when it comes to pluralization. So here are some basic rules and then some examples of times when they're commonly misused: If a word from the Greek ends in "us," it is changed to an "i" to make it plural. If it ends in "is," it changes to "es." If it ends in "um," it changes to "a." Examples: axis=axes, focus=foci, agendum=agenda. Got it? Now the proper pluralization of mantis is "mantises," or if you want to sound cool and educated (which you obviously do), "mantes" (pronounced MAN-teez). You can indeed use the "i" at the end of cacti and octupi. "cactuses," "cactus," and "octopuses" are all correct alternative plural spellings of those words, too. Note that those words both have Greek roots. Walrus, which comes from Scandanavian roots, is not ever correctly rendered "walri." Use "walrus" or "walruses" instead.

--Wild

QDear 100 Hour Board,

What do you think about Descartes message, "I think therefore I am"? Do you think that he knew who he was before he said this or do you think that he thinks? Speaking of thinking, what do you think about the Thinker? Do you think the guy that posed for that got tired? Because, hello, I mean wouldn't you? And Tom Selleck in those 80's shorts and I love the Island Hopper uniforms. Love Yourself!
- Love me like you love Cows

ADear Love you from a distance,

We do appreciate when you split up unrelated questions into separate posts."Cogito ergo sum" is a great philosophy in my opinion. I have many wannabe friends who say things just to sound all nihilistic and ethereal. So the whole Descartes thing comes in handy when they say stuff like, "How do we even know if any of us exists (well, they say "exist," but I can't bring myself to consciously type bad grammar)?" To me, "I think, therefore I am" is the perfect counter to this. Obviously you exist if you're able to wonder if you do. Something is doing the wondering. The Thinker always makes me think of Dobie Gillis. I think that would be a cool name for a kid, but I bet everyone would think I got it from "Dobby" (a.k.a. Wannabe Gollum) of Harry Potter fame. The Thinker, though, is pretty neat. Statues can tell us a lot about ancient cultures. The Thinker tells me that back in the day before T.V. Guide or Uncle John's bathroom reader, they used to just sit there and think. What a neat concept! I don't think anyone had to pose for too long. The rest of your question doesn't really seem to be a question, so I'm not going to touch it.

--Brainy

QDear 100 Hour Board,

It seems the new athletic building has come complete with it’s own strawberry patch. Are there any policies (rules) on (against) students (me) picking (eating) the berries? Are there any other edible fruits growing on campus?

Many thanks,

A hungry student

ADear (esteemed) hungry (homeless) student (drifter),

The school (university) doesn't (does not) have (maintain) any policy (rule) against (precluding) the consumption (and subsequent digestion) of the strawberries (which are not actually berries). Students (you) can (may) eat (devour) the strawberries (not berries), but take heed (precaution): Physical Facilities (the Grounds crew) sprays (drenches) the soil (glorified word for dirt) with pesticides and herbicides (various poisons). Eat (ingest) them (the strawberries) if you (hungry student) will (want), but wash (rinse) them (the strawberries) before (prior to) doing so (eating them [the strawberries]). Thanks (grammercy) to Valerie (that's her real name) in the Physical Facilities (grounds) office (place of work).

--Greedy (covetous)

p.s. (postscript) You (hungry student) had better (should) get there (arrive) before (prior to) I (Greedy Smurf) do (get there).

And don't ever write like that again (please).

CDear S.K.,

i have seen the modern-day prophet playing cards at macey's by the checkout counters. however, i haven't been there in a while, so no guarantees.-

peanut

ADear all,Oh boy! It's punctuation time! Today's lesson: the hyphen (I promise I'm not making fun, but I thought this sentence was too funny to pass up).

We use a hyphen to connect an adjective to a noun when they're both being used to describe a noun. For example, when describing the prophet (noun), we call him "modern-day." The adjective "modern" is linked by a hyphen to the noun "day."

We don't do the same thing when the noun comes first. For example, we say "brick red house." To descibe a house that is the color of bricks. No hyphen. If we want to describe a house made of red bricks, though, we would call it a "red-brick" house. Or if we want to describe a red house made of bricks (maybe brown bricks painted red?) we would say "red brick house," since the red and brick aren't connected.

We hyphenate two nouns, as well, when they are describing another noun. Thus, "He has a dog-day mentality," or "That's a nice ice-cream-man mustache."

The reason I bring this up here is because this sentence is missing a hyphen, so it's saying something Peanut probably never intended. See? Peanut saw the modern-day prophet playing cards at Macey's. "Modern-day" is describing "prophet," whereas "modern-day-prophet" should be describing cards. It just makes it sound like Peanut saw President Hinckley playing poker at Macey's. Funny, huh? Oh, nevermind. I think I'm probably alone on this one....

--Brainy

QDear 100 Hour Board,

What do you do if someone threatens to scare you so badly you'll wet yourself? Is there any way to prepare yourself other then going to the bathroom previous to the time when you think you'll be scared?

- Wetless and Waiting

ADear waiting,

Depends.

--Jokey

QDear 100 Hour Board,

Why do they say that it is not a good idea to eat "jack" rabbits when hunting? In other words, cottontail rabbits are considered okay to eat but the "jack" aren't. What's the deal? Can I eat one? What might happen?

Curious

ADear Curious,

Jack rabbits are actually hares. There is a high level of superstition surrounding hares. It has been believed that witches transmogrify themselves into hares. Hares also have longer legs and tend to run faster (70 km/hr!) and be more active, so the meat is tougher and stringier. Stick to rabbits if you must eat a lagomorph.

--Wild

ADear Curious,

Hunters aren't the only ones who don't eat hares. Have you ever gotten a hare in your soup? What do you do? You send it back.

--Jokey

QDear 100 Hour Board,

Why do the word spelled B-R-E-A-K and the word spelled S-P-E-A-K not rhyme?

--Kitty the Badger

ADear Kitty the Badger,

I hope this post isn't lost on you. It's been seen that our language can be tough to sort through, though. I'm in danger of anger when I wonder or ponder about how easily "laughter" becomes "slaughter." So, do not despair when the good food of language is full of worms, or storms of linguistic trickery blow (and how!); keep in mind that the wind and rain go away, and again you'll feast on breast of beast that's better (but close) to those whose descriptions you'll ever read (or have read). My point is this: we English speakers are rule-breakers, and have come home to an accord about how a word is said, so "plaid" and "raid" are friends (not fiends) and you can bear to hear that there's no thought of a drought, that we're far from war and from harm and we're warm, and that "worm" is the norm.

--Poet (with help from his imaginary fiends, Darren and Warren)

Well, I haven't even delved into the confessor's stuff. I just searched for brainy, jokey, and poet so far. I'm sure I'll have plenty more that I want to keep for posterity's sake. Thanks for indulging me.

Noni Nomore

I got a new job! But allow me to tell you why I hated Tahitian Noni International.

First off, let me just say that the actual product was horrible. It tastes like what I imagine poop would taste like. It also gave me the runs, and a headache. I can't say for sure that there's causality on the runs and the headache, but I'm at least as certain as the people who claim it's cured theirs.

It was my job (this was in my very job description) to "increase consumerism." I hate consumerism. When I was down in Chile, they used a couple of rocks to prepare entire meals. When I'm in Walmart, I see electric garage door openers, bagel slicers, and colored glue sticks for your hot glue gun. Who needs this crap!? It's only there because people will buy it, and people only buy it because it's there, and the whole system is set up to get someone rich at the expense of others (the customers and the orphans that could benefit from their money if it were more frugally spent).

The corporation seemed a bit too infused with religion. The video we watched during orientation did everything but come out and say that the Nephites in French Polynesia discovered this medicinal plant and passed it down through the generations to us. We were also told on the first day that Pres. Hinckley drinks Noni juice. As though I care about that! One of the "founding principles" of the company is this: "Gratitude--We understand that the product we offer was made by God, not us. We gratefully approach the task of bringing this product to people everywhere." Does that creep out anyone else?

My final complaint has to do with the clients. Tahitian Noni Juice is allegedly marketed with a strategy that presents it as a healthful drink for the elite, along the same lines as day spas and oxygen bars. The horrid elixer is $42/bottle, after all. I suppose if the rich were the only ones buying this product, I would be okay with that. However, most of our calls were from trailer park residents and new immigrants who were trying to sell the juice (did I mention that it's pyramid marketing?). The sad thing is that we were getting calls from all these people who didn't have enough money to see a doctor, so they were calling in to buy the juice as some sort of substitute. Now, we were never allowed to make medical claims about the juice's properties, but Tahitian Noni International had set up a few websites that made medical claims without being officially affiliated with the company. The websites claimed that among other things, the juice could help with obesity, smoking, diabetes, cancer, memory loss, heart disease, migraines, rashes, burns, etc. Basically, the potion would target whichever cells were weakest in a person's body, and heal them. An anecdote was shared about how one woman was told by her doctor not to drink Noni Juice after a liver transplant, since it would strengthen the cells that fight off invaders and would make her reject the new liver. Eventually, I just couldn't do it any more. I couldn't bring myself to upsell the product to another poverty-stricken person.

I had a dream one night that I hated my job. The next morning it was true. After that long day at work, I never went back in again.

I resigned. I know I did because they called to tell me. Actually they told my roommate, "tell him that he's resigned his position here at TNI." And actually it was really me pretending to be my roommate because I didn't feel like talking to them. I still haven't delivered the message to myself that I quit.