My Walden

I have no shame. Some people confuse my quiet nature for shyness. But in fact, it’s laziness and indifference. My actions don’t embarrass me. On Wednesday I went to Hooters. Now when I was in high school and my AP Econ teacher invited the class to join him at Hooters, I declined. Somehow, a 50 year old bringing 20 teenagers to Hooters seemed unseemly. Strange. But when my friend’s bachelor party was at Hooters, I decided it was a worthwhile venture. Obviously I went to do a scientific investigation of the Hooters ecosystem. The following are my findings.

1. The customers at Hooters all have one thing in common: they are males. I suspect the XY ratio sometimes drops below 100%, but not while I was there. At one point I saw what I thought to be a female customer, but upon closer inspection she was a Hooters Girl leaving work. The customers, though entirely male, do differ greatly in other respects. There was a wide age range. There was a table of 16 year olds, celebrating a birthday. The bulk of the population was 20-30 year olds, getting their drink on. There were also a significant number of creepy old men. There were a sizable number of bikers, some truckers, and no other medical professionals that I was able to see. I’d estimate that a high proportion of the customers were intoxicated.

2. My table differed significantly from the norm. No drunks. No frat boys. No bikers. Just 6 Mormons. 4 married, 1 engaged, and me. 3 accountants, 2 MBAs and me. Apart from Charley “accidentally” spilling Pepsi on the waitress, no shenanigans occurred. I think it was accidental, but you have to wonder if any spillage of liquid on a tight white t-shirt at Hooters didn’t have some subconscious component. Due to the stifling monogamy of my group, no flirting with Hooters Girls occurred. I briefly flirted with the idea of flirting, but really, I just felt bad about it. Seeing the rest of the customers, I thought I’d give her an oasis of nonharrassment. Plus the 5 money guys around me were talking about pensions and Roths and whatnot, and I don’t know how to work flirting into that conversation. Let alone have that conversation.

3. The food wasn’t very good. Hooters knows that the way to a man’s heart is not his stomach, but his eyes. Admittedly, they had an uphill battle. I don’t really like guy food. Wings, ribs etc are pretty low on the Chris rankings. But it was serviceable. More noteworthy was how much food was wasted. They’d drop of wings we didn’t order, bring new plates when endless plates weren’t finished etc. It was as if they don’t even care about the quality of their food, like the food wasn’t a necessary component of their restaurants success. Strange.

4. And as you’ve all been wondering: what about the Hooter Girls? Turns out they lived up to their reputation. Kind of. The girls were actually very attractive. As previously noted, we didn’t flirt with our waitress, and she made no attempts to flirt with us. The Hooters “uniform” is a ridiculous thing, but, with all the objectivity I can muster, it’s not remotely scandalous. I see attractive girls wearing less at The Oval, on the street, at the gym, even at work. There’s a certain degree of sleaze in that the point of their presence, outfits and behavior is to be provocative, but really, what’s the point of sunbathing in the middle of campus? To be provocative. DJ’s wife warned him not to let anyone in our group get a lap dance. Though they were decked in tight shirts and short shorts, the most provocative act we witnessed was a hula hoop competition. This is PG-13 folks. Even upper PG. I’m not saying going to Hooters is a great idea, just that what you find at Hooters isn’t markedly different than what you find anywhere else. And while it’s pretty unavoidable, it’s also not to be sought out.

So that was Hooters. It was more entertaining than the wedding, though I admit that the wedding was one of the better ones I’ve attended. Congrats Charley. On throwing a good party. Oh, and also on getting married.

The C Word

A common stereotype about men concerns their commitmentphobia. I don’t think this applies very readily to mormon guys. Guys want sex, or the closest approximation their morality will permit (ie making out.) Sure it’s possible to be a “playa” on the Mormon scale, jumping from girl to girl. But generally, and even more so in a smaller fishbowl community, to get the milk they need the cow. Thus they relatively readily enter relationships. To put a more favorable spin on the phenomena, most missionaries are told to find their EC and get married when they leave their mission. So whereas the worldly male population starts thinking marriage in their 30s (which really, I think is an exaggeration itself because a great many of my heathen friends are getting married in their mid20s), mormon guys tend to start thinking marriage at 21. Or 22 if they are a rebel.

I’m sure mormon girls will say I’m completely off base. They’ll tally up their solo Friday nights, or those of their friends they’ve left behind in the single dust, and say that mormon guys are avoiding relationships. I just don’t think that’s the case. I think if you polled all the EQs in the YSA wards in the world, you’d find that most guys want to be in a relationship. Maybe as I initially asserted they don’t want to be in one for the right reasons, but they want to be in one. The indoctrination has been successful. And I’m not implying that the indoctrination is incorrect. It’s right, we should be getting married, and this is more often than not conveyed in an appropriate manner. But the general nature of singles is not my point today. I just want to talk about commitment.

My question is this: am I commitmentphobe?

These last several years I really don’t have any dating information to analyze to investigate this question. Some would take this as evidence that I am in fact a commitmentphobe. I’d argue that this dearth of data has occurred for other reasons. So let’s turn to a staple of my world view: television.

As mentioned in my Whedon post, I recently finished Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This was a show from 1997, which I started watching in 2008. Why the holdup? A cult hit from a creator I like about vampires starring attractive people? How could I ignore such a show, for an entire decade? Commitment. I knew it was going to be 12 seasons (including Angel) and I knew that this would be a big time commitment. So I held off for a long time. But eventually, I manned up and watched Buffy.

Last month I made an even bigger commitment: Doctor Who. I’ve yet to meet a British show I didn’t like. Throw in Brits engaging in whacky time traveling adventures, and it was clearly a show I’d be interested in. But again, we’ve got more than 12 seasons here. More like 80 jillion. Seriously, this show has been on since the dawn of time and/or television. But I’m not a crazy person, I’m starting with the 9th Doctor and will work back as needed. That will make sense to the hyper-nerds among you.



So my point here, is that I think my television watching indicates commitment traits. Because obviously being in a relationship is just like watching tv. They’re not the same thing, but I think it shows a tendency of mine. I am willing to start long term projects. I do feel the need to continue projects once I’ve started them. But I am willing to cut the cord/apron strings/losses when I need to. Heroes no longer occupies a spot on my Tivo. My Tivo in fact, is no longer occupies a spot on my shelves. I’m also not one to stay in a relationship (nor start one) when it’s clearly not for me.

On the opposition side: church callings. I served as the Activities Coordinator for my ward for a little over a year. And because my partners kept getting married off (side note: the Activities Coordinator Blessing lives on: all coordinators after me have left due to marriage) it was a pretty time intensive calling. My bishop told me ahead of time that he wanted me in the calling for a year, so when he offered me an out at 13 months, I took it. And I don’t feel remotely guilty about that. But, would a commitmentphile have stayed? I enjoyed the calling, and feel I was good at it, but decided I wanted a change. And this is fairly typical of me. And generally speaking, a desire for change doesn’t bode well for commitment.

I’ve been Sunday School President for about 18 months now, and I think I’m starting to get some wanderlust. Again, I like teaching and I think I’m good at it, but I think sometimes that after 18 months I’m getting diminishing returns. It’s not that my lessons are perfect, but I’m not sure if I’m improving. And from a self-centered view, after I’ve learned all I’m going to learn, I should move on. From a service view I should stick around because I’ve finally been trained. The bigger question is what would I do next? If I had my eye on another calling that would be one thing, but really I’m just starting to question the value of this one, without an actual goal elsewhere.

Again, this really isn’t commitmentphilic activity. You’re not supposed to be in a calling forever so it’s not the same thing as a relationship, but I’m extrapolating. It’s probably not good that I tire of things that I like. It’s probably even worse that I’m tiring of something I like, without another option luring me away. My only consolation would be that I think I’m pretty awesome at all callings, so extrapolating back, should be awesome in any relationship.

As with nearly all introspective posts, I have no real conclusion. It’s interesting to analyze my television watching and lesson teaching, but this doesn’t really tell me much about my commitment capacity. Because I like girls much more than teaching, and slightly more than television, so I’m kind of comparing applecrisp and oranges.

It's all good

I’m kind of a rubbish movie critic. I can’t really think of the last movie that I saw that I DIDN’T like. Admittedly I pre-filter a lot. When my friends say “Hey, everyone you know is going to see Night at the Museum 6 tonight” I don’t go. It’s one of the great benefits of being primarily introverted: peer pressure doesn’t work. So I read about movies ahead of time, and am not swayed to see ones that I know not to be appealing to my own tastes.

In any case, I’ve seen 2 movies recently, both of which I greatly enjoyed, both of which many people will hate.

GI Joe was chock full of sweetness. I have a great nostalgic connection to Transformers, so there is no question that I’ll see those movies. I never watched GI Joe, so I was kind of ambivalent about the film initially. But as the contradicting reviews stacked up, I was curious. Was it a train wreck? Was it a train wreck I’d enjoy rubbernecking? Turns out kind of yes and definitely yes. The movie is not good, I think that goes without saying. Every single “twist” is telegraphed from page one. I didn’t really like most of the heroes. But the villains were great. I’d much rather see a Cobra movie, but really this was pretty close to a Cobra movie. Most of the criticisms are pretty valid. For some reason half the effects are good and half are bad. Acting was obviously not a priority. And the plot was simplistic and did have some holes, though not as many holes as some indicated (it’s a pet peeve of mine when people say a film is stupid for having plot holes, when in fact they’re stupid for not catching the explanations in the dialogue. Pay attention or don’t complain.)

Anyway, GI Joe was entertaining. Maybe it would’ve dropped into the unenjoyable range if it didn’t have Sienna Miller, but I still think I would’ve liked watching a Zartan, Destro, Stormshadow movie. With Mr. Eko (who was the only Joe I liked.) Also enjoyable if you’ve missed it: The Ballad of GI Joe. Sienna Miller is replaced by Olivia Wilde, which is even better. Playing a clarinet. Yes, it’s pretty awesome.



Like I said, I’m a pretty rubbish reviewer. I just gave GI Joe a gold star. But I’ll try to balance it by giving Ponyo a gold star as well. Joe was packed full of sweetness, and Ponyo was packed full of sweet. We ended up with about a dozen of us attending the film this week, and the reviews were probably 1/3 positive, 1/3 negative, 1/3 neutral. I was in the positive camp. As predicted, it was nowhere near my favorite Miyazaki movie. But it was a good movie. The visuals are great. The twists on The Little Mermaid are interesting. It was relatively funny. Not hilarious, but family friendly funny. The story doesn’t really hold water, but as with GI Joe I feel like that’s inconsequential. Every movie requires its own grading criteria, and this one succeeded on the criteria that I gave it. For me, neither GI Joe nor Ponyo required an intellectual response to be a success. Joe needed shallow stimulation, and it had it. Ponyo needed wonder and beauty, and it had it. And Betty White. If these are the things you’re looking for tonight, you’ll go home pleased.



GI Joe : 75%
Ponyo: 90%

Mind = Blown

I had a hard time going to class after experiencing this video this morning.

Admittedly, it becomes less mindblowing as you watch the previous episodes "building" the "story."

Speak now . . .

or you won't get a vote.

It's that time again; another opportunity to contribute to my wardrobe. Of course you'd love to say "wear fewer t-shirts." But that's not an option. I found the following t-shirt and must buy it:



because
1. I love Kierkegaard (not really)
2. I need more t-shirts (not really)
3. We have the same hair!




That must be Danish genius hair.

Anyway, to justify shipping costs I need to buy another t-shirt. Vote on one of the following:








All shirts provided by Amorphia Apparel.

Sale ends 8/21, so all votes must be received by that point or be rendered irrelevant.

25 Years Ago Today . . .

The release of Buckaroo Banzai.

I wish I were a member of the Hong Kong Cavaliers. Some day . . .

The time of the week when I rank something:

In honor of the release of Ponyo:
It’s the time of the week when I rank something: Miyazaki Movies

10. My Neighbor Totoro – I think I’d like this if I were 25 years younger. Or high. Or high when I was 2.

9. Kiki’s Delivery Service – more coherent than Totoro. I guess some would consider that a negative.

8. Castle in the Sky – old timey fun, with robots.

7. Ponyo – I’m guessing this is where Ponyo will rank.

6. Castle of Cagliostro – Not a huge Lupin III fan, but it had spies, gangsters, ninjas and thieves. Try to find a movie with those 4 groups that isn’t fun.

5. Porco Rosso – a little seen gem with a pig-man in a biplane. It also has Michael Keaton. So basically it’s a Batman movie.

4. Howl’s Moving Castle – it drags a little bit, but all in all a good time. Despite being an adaptation, it seems fresh, original and very Miyazaki.

3. Spirited Away – probably the most popular of his works, and rightfully so.

2. Nausicaa – a little rough around the edges (it’s an earlier work) and it tells a very similar story to #1, but still very good.

1. Princess Mononoke – it’s the best my friends. Not the newest, or most popular. But the one that has an arrow decapitation. And Gillian Anderson. And a sweet soundtrack. And superpowered samurai warriors fighting demon gods. I guess that might have something to do with it being my favorite.

Too Much of a Good Thing

A friend of mine recently started dating a guy. I realized that she's always dating a guy, which is strange because I've never really considered her as a dating prospect. And really, it shouldn't be a surprise that she's popular: she's cute, smart, fun etc etc. So why hadn't I ever asked her? Because she's too nice.

That's right ladies. Not only will men scrutinize your every quality (once I even started putting together a rubric of attractive traits, then discontinued when I realized there was no practical purpose for the thing. I'm never torn between choosing 2 dates and wished I had my handy rubric to help out) but you can be rejected for having too much of a positive quality.

Evidently you can be too attractive. Now the ladies in the audience can breathe a sigh of relief because I've never heard a male complain about a prospective partner being too attractive. I've only heard this complaint from womenfolk. Evidently girls want to be the pretty ones, so having a guy that's too good looking is a negative. Also there's some worry of the prettier half receiving more attention and perhaps even caving to infidelity because of said attention. Personally, neither of these reasons would fly for me. Although I can't imagine ever saying "That girl is too cute. Next." I certainly have eliminated girls due to personality traits (self centered, shallow, boring) that I consider directly linked to her attractiveness. But if Kristen Bell showed up at church, and lacked those negative personality traits (as she would, being Kristen Bell and perfect) I'd definitely ask her out. I wouldn't be surprised by a rejection, I certainly understand that there are leagues and I'm not in the top one, but it wouldn't keep me from trying. But supposedly you can be too attractive.

Evidently you can be too smart. As with attractiveness, I've never eliminated someone for being too smart. Too academic yes, but only when this characteristic interfered with them having a personality, as it has been known to do. But I'd never drop a girl because she could do a crossword faster than me. I was reading an interview with Gerard Butler (because I find Gerard more interesting than immunology, as should you) and he said that sometimes he's in the mood for smart girls, and sometimes for not-so-smart ones. The argument that I've heard, not from Gerard, is that dating someone dumb will make you feel smarter. Certainly this makes sense, but doesn't seem at all appealing. Feeling smarter is a poor trade-off for stupid conversation all night, let alone for the rest of your life. So be warned, you can be too smart to date. But if you're smart enough to be considered too smart, you're probably smart enough not to rub your intelligence in people's faces all day long.

As a side note (because why in the world would I not indulge in side notes in a blog entry?) the smart/simple marriage does seem to work. At my long-toothed state, I have a hard time coming up with an old friend that isn't married. And as I've watched my friends get married, who tend to skew pretty intelligent, a sizeable minority have married not-as-intelligent people. And at this point I've seen many of them married for many years, with no signs of this mismatch giving them any problems. Maybe they don't talk about Proust over dinner. But really, who wants to? Evidently matching IQs doesn't really matter, or help anything.

So, finally the point of this rambler: evidently you can be too nice. It's not that I've ever met a girl and said "Uh, gross. I can't imagine kissing a girl as nice as you." Ok, once. No, the problem is reciprocity. It would drive me crazy is someone gave me a cookie every day and I didn't have anything to give them in return. If a girl were nice to me all the time, I'd have to be nice to her. And that would be horrible.

99% of my meanness is joking, so I don't feel bad about it. Maybe I should, but I don't, perhaps due to the meanness itself corrupting my sense of right and wrong. My mean self just doesn't seem compatible with a nice person. So when a girl is obviously, blatantly and continually nice, she's unappealing.

I saw (500) Days of Summer recently. Micro review: it was good but not great, inventive but not terribly so, and JGL shouldn't be allowed to play an adult. In any case, in the movie Summer is not a nice girl. She's not evil by any means, but not terribly nice. She's cute and likes The Smiths, so JGL pursues her. And she never really becomes nice. He loves her and she tolerates him and niceness and caring never really enter into it. And I was greatly reminded of my dating history.

I don't go after the nice girls. I go after the mean ones. And it should come as no surprise to me that they stay mean. They don't start bringing me that daily cookie. We have a good time being mean together, 99% of it joking, but they never become nice. And why should they? And it's kind of draining. Because I feel like I bring a lot of cookies to the table. I may call her fat every so often, I may intentionally get one with raisins, but I do actually bring cookies. Until it ends.

So I'm rejecting girls for being too nice, and complaining about girls being not nice enough. What's the answer? Going to med school I guess. I don't have a good answer. You can't easily change how attractive or smart you are, but you can change how nice you are. I could become more nice so I could date the nice girls. But that sounds unappealing. That sounds like work. And who would I be if I weren't mean? Not Chris I don't think. I'd have to change my name.

If you can be smart enough not to flaunt your intelligence, maybe you should be nice enough not to flaunt your niceness. Bring it out gradually. If you're a saint from the get-go you put up an impenetrable barrier of niceness. Or be kind and make fun of my hair a bit. Maybe then we can get along.

All's Fair

I went to the Ohio State Fair yesterday. Normally I don't frequent fairs. They seem like hot and sweaty congregations of overpriced rides and fried food. Which is pretty accurate.

Highlights:
1. Roller Freaking Derby - I actually decided to go to the fair entirely to see the Roller Derby. I'm working on my Redneck Pentathlon (which I just made up btw.) I now have Demolition Derby and Roller Derby checked off. Just Rodeo, Monster Truck and Nascar left to go. Anyway, it was entertaining. Fewer catfights that I'd expected (ie zero) and I still don't understand the rules, but whatever. There were fishnets, tattoos and ridiculous punny nicknames.
2. Rabbit Costuming Contest - That's right. Imagine it in your head, and that's what it was like. Plus a rabbit in a Wonder Woman costume.
3. Pig Races - Again, imagine it in your head. That's what it was.
4. Mullet sightings - kind of what state fairs are for.
5. Funnel Cake - it made the donut I ate today feel like health food.

Lowlights
1. Monkey Show - not as good as you'd imagine. The baboon just wasn't talented enough.
2. Fried pickle - I didn't get one. The line was too long and the Funnel Cake was calling my name.
3. The Annoying Kid Who Sat Next To Me On The Inverter And Kept Whining That He Didn't Want To Be On The Ride Anymore - that one.
4. Creepy Age Guessers - seriously, nightmares. That's a horror movie waiting to be made.

5:4 Highlights Win. Guess it was good use of time.

Catharsis

A few days ago I looked up my record to see if I’d passed my surgery rotation. I did! I wasn’t sure if I had, primarily because of the following story:

The Surgery Story

It was a pleasant Monday. I was rounding with my team, including my surgeon. The surgeon who I believed I’d be working with that morning. Because he’s the surgeon we always work with, and the one that the schedule told me I’d be working with. We’re rounding and one of my residents turns to me and says I should head down to surgery. Turns out the chief resident was doing the surgery, and had specifically requested a student be at the surgery. Was I told this? No.

I head to the surgery. I enter the operating room and the resident has already started the procedure. I ask if he wants me to scrub in, and he chews me out a bit and says it’s too late. He already started. So I leave to find another surgery to assist.

I enter the surgery library and call my team to let them know I’m not at the other case. I tell them that the resident didn’t want me to scrub in because he’d already started. The surgeon gets on the line and says sarcastically “Well I wasn’t there on time, does he not want me to scrub in either?” Not wanting any undue friction I say “I don’t care that Anonymous yelled at me, that’s fine. I can find another case to help with.” The unfortunate nature of that wording didn’t occur to me at the time.

I had meant that I wasn’t protesting Anonymous’ rebuke, would go with the flow and continue working. The resident sitting across from the table interpreted “I’m not going into surgery, so don’t care what surgeons say to me. I’ll go do what I feel like doing.” But he doesn’t say anything to me.

I find another surgery, as I was instructed to do. I am working there for ten minutes or so and my pager starts to go off. I’d been told that there is really no reason why I should leave surgery, so I don’t bother the nurse to check my pager. Turns out the Library Resident had immediately called Anonymous and reported my flagrant disrespect for surgeons. Eventually both of them walk into the surgery I was helping with and tell me to find them after surgery.

I find them, expecting that he’s going to tell me I need to answer pages. Instead he threatens to fail me. He’s tired of me being late (which happened once, when I wasn’t told about the surgery) for being rude (I believe I apologized for being late to the surgery I didn’t know I was to be at, but I may not have) for not knowing about my patients (which he’d never asked me about) and most importantly for saying that I didn’t care if he yelled at me. It’s only at this point that I realize what that comment sounded like. I try to explain this, but he’s not really in the listening mood.

Luckily, I was at the beginning of a 30 hour shift, so never really got to sleep this off. The next day I finally get to go home, only to discover as I’m leaving that they want me to come back to the hospital for a meeting at 6. I send an email to Library Resident asking if I should attend, since according to school policy I should have the rest of the day off after working 30 hours. I also ask if there was a dress code for the meeting (“Street clothes? Tuxedos?”), because I don’t want to show up under/over dressed. Basically I don’t want anyone to notice me at this point. He replies with an email criticizing me for being unprofessional. He found the tuxedos comment offensive.

I go to the meeting, because despite having worked 30 hours already, I’d just re-pissed off the people who grade me. The meeting goes fine.

The next day we have a lecture block. I show up and another resident asks if my presentation is ready. My presentation? Oh the one he’d mentioned on the first day of the rotation, but never gave us a date or further information about. That one. The one that 4 of the 5 students hadn’t done. One of us had, but he’d been working with that resident the afternoon before and he’d finally said something about it. Just to the one student. Who didn’t pass the information on. We were informed that we were the only group of students to ever not prepare these presentations.

Surgeons, I don’t understand you. I don’t understand how you can be angry so much of the time. I don’t understand why you want everyone to know everything you know, without telling them. I don’t understand why you hate me. May our paths forever remain in parallel, never to cross again.

I swear, this isn't just a pop culture blog

For some inexplicable reason my local news outlet didn't report that today was the great Megan Fox Boycott. A group of websites, primarily those known for purveying scantily clad nubiles (fyi I decided nubile makes a good noun, so feel free to use it as one from now on) decided that Megan Fox was overexposed (ha, catch that double meaning?) and that they wouldn't publish any reports or pictures of her today.

What?

1. It's my right to have Megan Fox pictures, every day of the year. Twice a day. I have a prescription.
2. What celebrity isn't overexposed? That's kind of the definition. Though I certainly admit that Megan Fox "suffers" from overexposure more than most, especially in recent months.
3. Do these sites realize how the internet works? I can still access the thousands upon thousands of open-mouthed pictures of Megan Fox posted over the last 2 years. Not posting any pictures today isn't much of a statement. If they were really sick of her they'd take down their personal stockpiles. And they'd have a longer fast than 24 hours.
4. I'm guessing Megan Fox is in support of the Megan Fox Boycott. Because sites proclaiming their boycott did in fact post pictures of Megan Fox when they announced their boycott. And other sites are proclaiming Megan Fox Boycott Boycotts. They've just invented a new way to pay attention to Megan Fox. Congratulations.

The Megan Fox Boycott. Glad the internet is finally using its clout to make the world a better place.

The time of the week when I invent something

So there’s this game that the kids are playing these days. It’s called Guitar Rock Band Hero. People pretend they’re playing music by pressing buttons along with the rhythm.

This is all fine and well. I have no problem with rhythm games. In fact, it’s kind of interesting because these games are much more popular than traditional non-rhythmic games, which skewed heavily male. Evidently girls like playing air guitar.

But what about the true purpose of video games? What about blowing stuff up and stomping on turtles?

We should add the rhythm to them. Wouldn’t it be fun to play Halo, but you act as if you’re in a music video. You get extra points for shooting along with the beat. You have to get to certain positions for certain parts of the song. Your guns and bombs and swords become your instruments, both of destruction and music. It would be kind of like this, only way better because Bon Jovi wouldn’t be allowed on the soundtrack. Some rock, some hip hop, a very small amount of techno, just no Bon Jovi. Ok, a little Bon Jovi.

It would work. You’re welcome video game industry.