Twilight: A review for Men

Warning: This review is of the Twilight book series, not the awkward movies. I don't know if I remember enough details to actually "spoil" anything, but I guess I might do so on accident. (It's not like you're planning on reading it anyway)

We are men. We eat beef while it bleeds; we wrangle beasts with our bare hands. We don't have time for ultra-chaste, ridiculously glittery, pretty-boy-vampire love stories.

I'm here to tell you that you should give the books a chance... "for your wife's sake."

If you have some time between replacing an alternator, knocking down a wall, cleaning yourself with steel wool, and watching Jack Bauer marathons, then pick up "Twilight" and read for a while. Maybe you'll hate it, maybe you won't. Feel free to read it in the closet with a flashlight so it doesn't hurt your "manly" public image.

First of all, I reject the whole premise of the book. It's downright crap. You will understand, because you are a man. We men need substance, we need meat, we need red blooded love... We want women who are confident and independent outside, and feminine, precious and witty inside the house.

This book is not about that. This book is about an obsessed little nitwit girl. Recklessness instead of courage, baseless infatuation instead of love, aimless hormones instead of passion.

Love makes you smart, these people are dumb. Sure, hormones make you dumb, but love is what helps you rise above that.

In Twilight, the basic foundations of the total love story are:

1: A girl who can't control herself because her curiosity and raging hormones pull her toward this mysterious man. Oh, and he shines in the sunlight, but he only lets her see it. *Special*

2: A guy who is pretty much okay on his own, but this girl smells s'damn good that he just can't stay away.

If this relationship works out, it's based on luck. They didn't act based on love, they just reacted to their useless impulses.

Is this theme strong enough? Maybe for the first book. I can totally see it. A pinch of danger, a dash of mystery, a heaping of "I want your body," and maybe you can get through the first adventure.

But this crap goes on for four books. This is supposedly the beginning of an eternal relationship of immortals. That's total BS my friends.

They...Got...Lucky! (I'm not talking about that kind of lucky dudes)

It's like buying a house without looking inside, without getting an appraisal, and without talking to anyone who has lived there. Oh, and this house is in a dangerous neighborhood and all the neighbors want to eat you alive.

If the house works out, it was because you got lucky, not because of how romantic the porch and backyard looked.

So that's what I see when I read Twilight. The woman writing the story forces this ridiculous idea through the books because she fundamentally believes that women are stupid, and men are out of control.

But even though this book is based on a sandy foundation that will wash away (or make you so sick you want to hurl on it) it does have some redeeming qualities.

1: The Vampire women are smokin hot. Sure, you have to use your imagination because Meyer can only describe them with words like "most beautiful" "Super Model" "flawless".

2: The Vampires have special powers. You know you'd love to read minds, tell the future, bend steel with your hands, and persuade people to do whatever you want. It's interesting how these vampires use their powers to their advantage.

3: There is danger, action, tragedy, and triumph. We all love triumph in the face of horrible odds.

4: A group of vampires want to eliminate the people involved in this sugary "romance," which is sort of satisfying.

5: You can relate with the burly hairy werewolf guy who is way better for the girl, and isn't almost guilty of statutory rape like the Glittery Vampire.

6: A ton of the book is unintentionally funny.

7: This book is about heroes.

This last one is not the least. I don't think these heroes are especially heroic, especially Edward (The sappy lover boy/fogey). He's brooding, manipulative, impulsive, jealous, and he apparently hasn't developed the ability to think clearly when he's angry. He acts like a mother bear when her cubs are in danger.

Carlisle, the daddy vampire, is super awesome.

He has built up this amazing family and he has protected them from harm. He's like a monk, teaching them to give up impulses and use wisdom. He teaches his "children" that they shouldn't harm others, and they all learn to survive by sucking on animal blood in order to spare humans. Carlisle loves his son Edward (The sappy lover boy/fogey) so much, that he risks everything he has worked for and holds dear in order to help him be happy.

Carlisle brings Bella (Sappy nit-wit lover girl) into his home and tries to help her become the woman that Edward deserves. Carlisle is patient, he is brilliant. The guy understands that sometimes you have to sacrifice for the greater good of your family.

Instead of focusing on the true romance in this story, between Carlisle and his wife Esme, Meyer focuses on the ridiculousness that is *Edward hearts Bella.*

If I thought Meyer had the foresight to predict her massive success, I would accuse her of intentionally taking advantage of the silliness of thousands of teenage girls.

This book is fantasy, but not good fantasy. Good fantasy utilizes the good and the bad in people, and points out how evil destroys and good builds. It focuses on how when people are loyal, hardworking, and heroic, they can accomplish anything.

This book is fantasy because it seems to actually portray that you can be as stupid as you want, and everything will be okay as long as Edward (or someone dreamy enough) is around.

But we've all been stupid, from time to time,

doesn't it always end with love sublime?

There are no consequences, when love is in near,

Those bills, jobs, and criminals we shall not fear.

The Health Care Debate: The dead horse I am beating

My two-year-old post on the individual health insurance mandate.

If the average patient does not know or care about the cost of her healthcare, it will never be "affordable."

But before we get to that, I need to address the core issue:

Is health care a fundamental right? I believe it is to a certain extent. We can debate that all you want, but it won't be that effective. Instead, let's talk about fundamental rights for a moment.

The Right to Privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures

You have a fundamental right to privacy under the bill of rights. Privacy from your neighbors?? Nope. Sure, you can sue someone for trespassing (probably not going to get much money) and a person can be arrested for trespassing (if a state has that law).

Your neighbor simply cannot violate your constitutional right to privacy, because the Fourth Amendment applies to intrusions from the government. The government can't search your stuff or take control of your stuff unless certain conditions are met (Ask me about this if you really want to know all the criteria).

Does the government mess with your stuff and violate the 4th Amendment sometimes? Yeah, it happens all the time. "Double you tee eff! The Constitution says they can't do that! Why didn't the cops stop them from doing that?"Because the government doesn't have to stand outside your house and make sure cops don't bust in without a warrant.

You don't have a fundamental right to a security system that will help protect your 4th amendment rights. You have the right to sue the government if they violate your rights. Additionally, the Government probably can't use the evidence they find against you if they Violated your rights.

Nobody has the job to stop the government from violating your rights, you just get a chance to use the judicial sledgehammer and smash them. Hopefully the fear of punishment will stop them from doing the same thing in the future, but there is no preemptive strike provision in the bill of rights. The government doesn't have to build a wall around your house, they don't have to give you locks for your luggage, and they don't have to make sure you have a private place.

Health Care compared to Privacy

The health care debate is very similar. The Constitution simply cannot be interpreted to guarantee that the government will proactively provide healthcare. Also, the Constitution can't possibly be interpreted to mean that the government is responsible to make sure the quality of health care is acceptable. Maybe people should be able to sue if they are not allowed to offer emergency or clinical services, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have to pay for it later.

So then any "fundamental right" to health care must be some sort of moral human right. Some Governments have the authority to codify human rights. The U.S. Congress specifically has authority to regulate interstate commerce, and that's a big ol' umbrella that covers almost everything. (This is another complicated legal subject that requires more explanation that I don't have time for here) So this issue is a bit tricky, but lets just assume that congress has the authority under the Constitution to fine people if they don't get insurance.

Heck, let's assume congress could just create a new health care amendment like:

"No Citizen of the United States shall be denied access to care in hospitals operated by the several states"

Such an Amendment would suggest that there is some type of fundamental right to health care, or at least access to health care. I don't see how an Amendment could do much more than this.

What are you going to say? "Everyone shall get free healthcare." Well it simply can't be free. Someone has to pay for it. So basically that's the same as saying "All people who don't pay taxes shall get free health care"

Or maybe you could say "The government shall establish hospitals funded by the treasury"

Well how many hospitals? Does each city and small town need one? How far should someone have to drive for health care? "I have a fundamental right to health care within a 20 minute drive!!!"

What if the government set up a big-A hospital in washington DC, and everyone could just go there for free. Wouldn't that give everyone in the country access to health care? "But John, that hospital would be overrun. That just doesn't make sense."

So what would you have the constitution say? "The Government Shall Establish Hospitals which are solely funded by the treasury, and such hospitals shall be established within 37 'as the tire rolls' miles from every city, town, or association with a population of more than 632 citizens."

Can you see what I'm getting at here? No matter what you do, someone would be screwed. So you can't really guarantee that everyone has equal access to health care. What standard of quality would you use? Would the government have to make sure that doctors passed a federal certification to be qualified under the constitution? It would be nearly impossible to regulate.

So what does that mean.

This leads us back to where we are today. Congress realizes they can't actually guarantee any standard of quality, so they are pretty much just saying that everyone gets reimbursed for whatever health care they can find. So either the government will provide insurance, or they will just require everyone to have insurance. Sure, there will be some level of quality required before a clinic or hospital can be eligible for reimbursement. But what if a little doctor's office doesn't want to take the government insurance? (A lot of Doctor's won't take Medicaid/care)

Doesn't that mean the rich would have access to health care that the poor don't get?

Under the bill, the government will fine an individual for refusing to get eligible insurance. Even if you've self insured over the last 20 years, and you've got a "health fund" set up. Can the government fine a business for not accepting insurance? That's kind of like the government fining a private business for not taking food stamps. It's probably in their best interest because they get reimbursed for the food, but it should be up to the company.

The Power of the Consumer

Do you want the best health care in the world for free, with no lines, and close to your house?

That's impossible. Can we at least accept that?

I almost never had to pay health care bills when I had insurance at my old job. Seriously, when I wrecked my motorcycle at 75 mph, I saw amazing doctors and went to great facilities. The care was immediate and effective. (Even before they knew I had insurance)

Do you think everyone should have access to the same insurance? I don't. Why? Because that insurance sucks.

I paid about 200 bucks a month for my health coverage. The coverage was awesome; it had a super low deductible, low out-of-pocket, and great access to doctors. So I thought that was a pretty good deal. Except my company was spending $600 a month on my plan as well. $800 dollars a month? Yeah, that's $9,600 dollars that I didn't get paid, because the company was giving me the "benefit" of coverage. Don't get me wrong: I'm extremely grateful that I had insurance when I got hurt. But that accident was hopefully just a freak occurrence. And that's what I believe insurance is for.

Health Savings Plans

You just say those three words and some people stop listening. "That just won't work for the general population."

I simply don't understand why not. Maybe you can educate me.

Let's crunch the numbers.

A "deductible" in insurance is a dollar amount that you have to pay toward your healthcare every year before the insurance company starts paying. My old insurance had a deductible of $250. (That's amazing) So I had to pay the first $250, and then the insurance company paid 85% of everything after that.

A $10,000 Deductible health plan costs almost nothing. If you spread that out over a medium company, say 100 employees, the average monthly premium would be something like $65 bucks a month. Why so cheap? Because the insurance company doesn't have to pay for the first 10,000 bucks. That means most traditional procedures, pregnancies, prescriptions, and general emergency room visits wouldn't be covered by the insurance company.

Well who has 10 grand sitting around to cover that? Almost nobody.

Well my insurance cost me and the company $9,600 a year.

The new insurance would cost me and the company $780 a year. Which would leave $8,820 in savings.

What would the company do with that 8800? If I were running it you would have two options.

Option 1: A debit card loaded with $5,000 that can only be used for medical purposes, and a $3,800 raise.

Option 2: A debit card loaded with $8,800 dollars that can only be used for medical purposes.

So you would have the responsibility of covering the first $10,000 of your medical expenses each year, but 8,800 would be covered. So if you did have a disaster, then you'd have to come up with $1,200 bucks, and that shouldn't bankrupt you (especially since you could spread it out over 24 months or whatever).

If you wanted to gamble a bit, you could choose option one. Then you might have to come up with 5,000 bucks for a disaster, but you'd have more money coming into your paycheck, and hopefully you could invest in your own health fund. Maybe you'd even be able to make some money with it.

Oh, and one more thing. THE MONEY WOULD ROLL OVER.

Under option 2, if you are healthy for 10 years, you'd have 86,000 buckaroos in your health savings account, and you'd still have insurance. In my company, as soon as you built up an amount twice the size of your deductible (or $20,000) then the rest of the contributions would go into your retirement account.

And this wouldn't cost me any more that the expensive insurance you were already getting.

The opposing argument would suggest that this strategy wouldn't work for the whole population. Some employers don't provide benefits at all, and the drop in contributions to health insurance would make insurance rates go up for everyone.

First, everyone can afford disaster insurance or get on medicaid. You can find a way.

Second, nobody can predict the exact effect on premiums, but you can bet your bottom dollar that health care costs would go down.

why? Because in the current system you don't know how much stuff costs.

The food insurance metaphor is a bit silly. "What if you had food insurance. Someone else is paying, so you'd just buy steak every time you went to the grocery store!"

Well take that and add on the fact that you have no idea how much you'll be charged until AFTER you get the care. Some people do know the price, some of the time. But most people go to the same doctor for everything. That's insane. I don't even buy all of my dairy products at the same store.

If you had a health savings account that would eventually turn into your retirement, you'd start shopping around.

Need to get a funny spot on your neck checked out? Don't just run to your regular dermatologist, call around to every dermatologist in town.

Doctors would start to run specials, they would start to compete. If quality went down, the business would disappear.

You'd find prices listed on the wall in Doctor's offices. "Strep throat test: $42.50"

"Oh, well I can go to the walgreens clinic and get that procedure for $29, bye"

"MRI that you probably only have a 1.7% chance of actually needing: $1,700"

"Need surgery, choose an anesthesiologist:

A: 2 years of experience, Utah Medical School: $1,200

B: 29 years of experience, John's Hopkins: $4,400"

Prices would start to go down because:

1: Doctor's couldn't get away with as much

2: Unnecessary procedures would be eliminated

3: Doctor's would get paid in cash and collection costs would go down, so they would have an incentive to market to these people.

4: People would be encouraged to live healthier lives in order to save money.

A big argument against me is that people would get scammed, some people would choose not to have procedures they ended up needing, and lives would inevitably be lost.

First: Is that worse than the current system? Not really.

Second: That argument works on two faulty assumptions (1) that people can't take care of themselves and (2) that people who make bad decisions shouldn't be responsible for the consequences.

I just don't think it would be that much of a problem. You'd be able to get more informed and get more involved in the process, and you'd still be able to sue people who scam you or who harm you out of negligence.

Could someone tell me where I'm wrong?

Chocolate Chip vs. Oatmeal Chocolate Chip

This post is in response to you... yes you, Mr. or Ms. "Oatmeal Chocolate Chip is better."
I am setting out to fix you. You may think you love the gritty grinding feel and flavor of the oatmeal CCC (chocolate chip cookie), but you don't really. You are a young girl in love with a rebel.

"Oooh, this texture, this feel, this moment! It's so different, it's so unique!"
What you fail to realize in your drunken stupor is that staple foods are staple foods for a reason. Ranch is THE best dressing, not some silly fruit-flavored vinaigrette. The traditional and wonderful tollhouse chocolate chip cookie is THE best cookie, before it is contaminated by oats.

Now I am not saying that oatmeal CCCs are horrible or evil... that would be like saying Star Wars is not a good movie because C3P0 is annoying. You deal with the fact there is something strange, because the product, at its core, is amazing.

If I walked up to you and said, "which cookie would you like? CCC or Oatsy CCC?" You might be tempted to go for the oatsy. It's a whim, a fling, a silly romantic idea that anything could possibly take CCC's place. Is it so wrong that you want something more? No, it's not... I'm not saying it's like putting mustard on your pancakes. But if you say that you like Oatmeal CCCs better than traditional then it's equivalent to liking strawberry jam on your pancakes more than maple syrup. It's sweet, it's silly, it's great grand and glorious, but it's not the best.

The best is like home. The best is like a blanket and a fireplace while you snuggle your wife and look at the falling snow. The best is what you spend your day to day life doing. The best is the traditional chocolate chip cookie.
If you had to slaughter CCC or it's annoying second cousin Oatsy CCC, and remove it from this planet for all time, you know in your heart you would sacrifice oatsy. CCC might not thrill you, he might not rip your mouth up with his wildness (or cardboard texture) but he is home. Don't pretend you like oatsy better just because you like to have a little bit of variety in your life. Don't pretend that you wish Chips Ahoy! made an oatmeal variety. (Maybe they do, but it doesn't usually make the shelf). Embrace the fact that you don't need oatmeal. Free yourself from the cankerous pain that is caused by your love-affair with old oatsy. Throw yourself into the warm loving arms of the oat-free chocolate chip cookie.

Addition to last post

My brilliant Wife made some very good arguments in opposition of the 12th grade axing.

I just wanted to clarify that I understand there are many drawbacks, but my post concerns some of the benefits of cutting the program. I believe that public education is amazing in some places, and terrible in others. I do think 17 year -olds could benefit from new approaches and creativity that they don't currently see in the 12th grade.

The 60 million dollars in savings is not one of the benefits that I focused on, as it only represents about $1,200 per student. The financial motivation is rather silly in the first place. That 60 million dollars would just be spent ineffectively in some other area. If they are going to waste it, it might as well be wasted on our children :)

K through 11? You Betcha! Get rid of that senior year.

So maybe most people have already heard about this story.

A few lawmakers in Utah want to get rid of the 12th grade all together as a way of saving 60 million bucks a year. It appears they've backed off the proposal and now seek to make the 12th grade "optional."

Here are some of the concerns with the proposal:

• 17 is too young for the "real world"
• The education system is already bad. We need more, not less.
• Many High School students are heavily involved in extra-curricular activities in their senior year. They learn a lot from these activities and would miss out on a lot of learning experiences.

I'm sure there are many other concerns.

Here's why it's a good idea.

(I know my knowledge may be a bit out-dated, so feel free to fill me in)

1: The system would adjust.

It's not as though a "senior year" would disappear. It would just move up one grade. It's likely that high schools would take on an extra grade. In Utah, most high schools house grades 10-12. They could just change and house grades 9-11. The curriculum could move forward, and extracurriculars would be more available to 11th graders. "But who cares, they would still miss out on that year." See the next point.

2: Senior year is often the least demanding.

I elected to take some difficult classes my senior year, but I was only required to take English 12 and then a bunch of electives. One friend of mine took English, band, choir, orchestra, TA, independent study, student government, and foods. Do some kids do more than this? I think most everyone does more than this, but the difficult classes are optional. One of my friends took college courses (paid for by the state as public education) for half of his time during 11th and 12th grade. Many students Take A.P. classes and take tests for college credit. See the next point.

3: There are other options.

What will kids do if they don't have access to these difficult, or ridiculous, senior year classes?
Start college early

Get a job (and start college if they want)

Go to a prep school

Go to a private high school

I've railed against public and secondary education several times. I like to draw attention to the fact that Math 1010 in college is 8TH GRADE MATH.

"No no no, 1010 is college algebra, 8th grade math is high school algebra!"

What?! It's algebra. I started on math 1050 in college, and it was exactly the same as algebra 2 (which I took in 10th grade.) High school students are academically capable of college level classes when they are 17. The first year of college is basically just a repeat of college classes.

English 1010: took it in 10th grade.

Math 1010: took it in 8th.

Biology 1010: took it in 9th (My concurrent enrollment AP BIO class in 12th grade gave me graded credit for 1050 and 1100.)

Western Civ: pretty much took this in 7th grade, but also again in 11th grade.

Do you disagree?

I do realize that there are significant social problems associated with younger kids going to college. See Next Point

4: Going to college early or taking a break might actually prevent bad freshman-year decisions.

Some kids ship off to far away places for college. But they don't have to right away. Parent's who don't believe their children are ready could have them attend a prep school or a local college/university while the child is still living at home.

There's evidence that 17 year olds are not that much different from 18 year olds. College freshman get in a lot of trouble because of irresponsible decisions, especially related to alcohol. Freshmen often make bad financial decisions, and are particularly susceptible to credit card debt.

So would 17 year olds be much worse? The ability to engage in consequential thought (making decisions with the true consequences in mind) develops last in the juvenile brain. However the evidence suggests that even though there is a huge difference between a 14 year-old and a 16 year-old, there is a much smaller difference between a 16 year-old and a 18 year-old.

Psychology and physiology aside, the responsibility to determine whether a child is ready to go to college would be left to the child and her parents. "You're not ready to go to UCLA yet, live with us and go to Utah Valley for a year." Then parents could stay better involved in their children's lives as the child adjusts to the stresses and decisions of college life.

Some students may also benefit from taking a break from school. Work in the real world for 6 months or a year before you decide what direction you want to go in school. Save up some money before you go in order to reduce debt. Both of those could pay off in a big way

Also, student abilities at graduation vary across the board. Private schools could provide a specially tailored prep year that could help children prepare for college. Your child could be particularly strong in reading and writing, but weak in math. This may be a product of their talent level or the quality of education they received. Children could go to a private school that helps expand their strengths or overcome their weaknesses.

These schools could be cheaper than college, and students could still take AP tests or concurrent enrollment. If a big school like UCLA felt that 17 year-olds were not ready for college life, they would encourage their applicants to spend the first year after high school working, attending community college, or going to a prep school.

So I guess the question is, how does a senior year in a public high school prepare you for college?

One year older?

Maybe it makes a difference, but each child is unique and parents should have the responsibility.

Extra Curricular?

Why couldn't super seniors still participate? Students could be involved in music and athletics despite not attending other classes.

Academic achievement?

Why couldn't they get that 12th grade academic instruction at a college and actually get credit for it?

When it comes to youth, people are terrified to sacrifice in the short term for the long term good. I think this is a sacrifice that makes sense.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Ferberization

Hi All. I'm back from a long vacation, therefore, I'm back at law school (and saying "therefore" too much) and therefore I'm going to need to participate in regular therapeutic blogging.

First topic: Ferberization. (Fu bu rui zai xiang)

Ferberization is a technique that Confucius (Kong zi) developed in Qu Fu in which young persons are taught to learn special skills, namely Kung Fu, in their sleep. Confucius and his homeys believed that this could be accomplished by subjecting 4-6 month old babies to a steady diet of stinky bean curd and forcing them to battle praying mantises in their cribs with chopsticks. (Quai Zi)

Notable beneficiaries of this radical technique are Bruce Lee, Mao Ze Dong, Chaing Kai Shek, and Chuck Norris, believe it or not. Originally, the writers of 24 planned on subjecting baby Jack Bauer to this technique... (like he was ever really a "baby"... he was man child face breaker) however, PETA (people eating tasty animals) wouldn't allow the actual impalement-by-chopstick of praying mantises (a special and secretive peta ritual) on such a brutal television show. Jack Bauer wanted to "interrogate" (aka use jumper cables on their armpits) the senior PETA members, but unfortunately a horribly wounded informant fell on his door step with details that might lead to, what else, an assassination attempt mixed with a nuclear bomb threat.

Just Kidding.

Anyway, Ferberization is basically just one of the many methods used to help your baby learn to go to sleep, mostly by screaming 'til they pass out... oh no, not really... Okay maybe..

Dr. Ferber must have realized that not all husbands could lock their wives in the bathroom, and he created a technique where the parents can check on their babies throughout the process at gradually rarer intervals, during which they can provide the wee ones with comfort (mostly hands-off).

So we are currently involved in this process. Our baby is doing very well now, but she's not completely ready to count sheep without a protest yet. I decided to write about this tonight because I can see how amazingly successful it's been, but I can still feel the pain of the process.

Our baby doesn't cry much... she just sings to us like an angel and occasionally barks orders at us. She's wonderful, and pretty much perfect in every way.. However, it was time for her to sleep without us (by "us" I mostly mean Natalie) getting up 10 times a night.

So I wasn't at all excited about the idea of her screaming like I would in a dark room with only a staticky TV and a green mirror. (Screw you, poltergeist writers , and I don't know why I've always been afraid of mirrors in the dark... probably due to my fear of metaphorically being invisible to others...)

So the cry-it-out method is absolutely horrible. And the ferber method is an annoying extension of the method. However, the crying works like a charm, and our baby is bouncing and bubbling and happy during the day. She gets enough sleep now, and we have free time in the evenings.

However, I'm not a big fan of Dr. Ferber. I'm not at all convinced that these periodic checks help the baby, especially when you can't pick her up. She acts as if we are mocking her. Kind of like if I were in jail overnight and someone came in pretending to post bail and just said, "good to see you, good night" and left. In my completely unscientific opinion, the Ferber method just extends the pain. So while I wholeheartedly support the cry-out method, I think the Ferber modifications are stupid. It's kind of like Chloraseptic: it doesn't actually help your throat with the problem, it just numbs the pain for a second until it wears off and seems worse.

I suppose I would be more supportive of the F'er method If the consoling actually did anything.. Like if you walked in on the screaming, sweating, PO'd baby and said, "Hi there. " And the baby smiled and did a cartwheel, and then you leave, and the baby says to herself, "Oh well, I'll just take a snooze." But that doesn't happen. The baby just keeps screaming, but instead of screaming FOR you, she screams AT you. Still, in the morning, she is so happy to see us and her brain is not liquified or anything, so whatever.

All-in-all, letting our baby cry for a few nights was the right decision, and now everyone is happier.

(FYI, she's down to just crying for a few minutes and then pretty much sleeping all night)

These are a few of my favorite things.

I noticed that many of my blog posts were a bit cynical, so I decided to change it up a little bit and tell you about some things I love. Please note that I love my wife and family more than all of things, but this post is dedicated to much less important stuff.

WEBSITES
www.popurls.com
I have to warn you: some of the content on popurls is inappropriate, but the vast majority of the links on that site are interesting or funny. The site is a bit overwhelming because of the sheer quantity, but you get used to it pretty fast. Much of the content is user-driven though, so you'll see F-words and some inappropriate stuff once in a while. I think it's super cool because I can get access to legitimate news on the same page as just silly commentary by regular folks.

www.alexa.com/hoturls
This website tracks the most popular sites of the day and ranks them. If you just need a quick summary of all the major events of the day, this site is for you.

www.kayak.com
I don't use this popular travel (airline+hotel ish) website because I don't have any money to spend on it. However, it's fantastic. I'm sure many of you have used it, but for those of you who don't know, it searches all of the popular websites (travelocity, expedia, etc) and finds the best rate. It's especially cool because it also searches individual airline websites, which are often the cheapest. However, be warned, Southwest.com doesn't participate.

www.twitter.com
At first I thought twitter was completely lame. Honestly, who wants to hear random crap from me all day? But the other day I decided to turn it from an outputting website (me talking) to an inputting website (me listening). I started following news and sports stations and some comedians, and now I can go there to here the latest news and some funny jokes. You can also search for whatever word you want, and it will bring up all of the twitter posts that include that word. So I got to watch all the trash talk during the Utah BYU game and it was pretty funny.

TV SHOWS
Glee
There is a lot to hate about this show. I really only watch it for the musical performances, but the rest of it is actually starting to grow on me. Sure, I think it sets a bad example for kids in that it makes it seem okay to be completely amoral. "There's really no such thing as right or wrong as long as you feel good about yourself in the world." They also try to tackle every possible issue they can. Two gay dads, gay glee kid with jock father, hypochondriac, fake pregnancy, teen pregnancy, racism, bullies, popularity, and the list goes on and on.
However, there are several things that really impress me. For instance, the lead guy character, Finn is just naturally a good man. The world brings him down but he just wants to be nice. His previously villianous girlfriend, Quinn, is finally showing that she's human and that she's actually a good person. This villian-hero switcheroo is common on television. (See: Lost and Sawyer) I also like how the show showcases how even though Rachel (fantastic singer) is completely rude and crazy, it still hurts her feelings when people aren't nice to her, and that pointing out the negative truth can do damage.

Castle:
First of all, I love Nathan Fillion. I really liked Serenity (Firefly), and I think he's great in Dr. Horrible's sing-along blog. (Find it on hulu.com, another favorite website)
He stars as "Castle" in this show. He's a mystery novel writer and he tags along with a homicide detective. The dialog is extremely well-written. I especially like the way Castle relates to his daughter and mother who live with him. It's also awesome how he's perceived to be an arrogant and irresponsible playboy but in reality he's a caring single father who lost his wife. Last nights episode was extra clever: murder suspect with amnesia has forgotten all the things that made him a bad husband, and so his ex-wife falls in love with him again... showing that sometimes experiences can overcome good character, and that sometimes you have to forget about what makes you so bitter in life in order to be the good person that's inside you.

Burn Notice
This show is awesome, and it makes me sad that it's only on in the summer. This is another example of a great man who wants to do what's right being forced to use his extraordinary skills to fight evil. He also helps people in need in every episode.

. . . and obviously: 24, The Office, and Lost
I won't get into these, but these shows are my favorite shows on TV. 24 may be losing steam, but it's awesome. The new season of the Office is probably the best yet, although season 3 was extraordinary. And Lost is just a mind bending addictive type of TV-Crack.

FOOD
I don't want to write about much in this section.. but I love McDonald's breakfast. I am truly addicted to all things McMuffin.

GADGETS

Ubuntu
This is a form of linux, which is an operating system. So if you didn't have a mac, and windows didn't work, you could use Ubuntu, which is based on linux programming. It's awesome because it's smooth, stylish, and stable. It's really hard to get working sometimes, because it's made for geeks. But it's free, and you can run it off the CD without doing anything to your computer.

Over The Air HD TV:
We don't have cable, so we bought a great antenna and plugged it in to my tv, which has a built in digital converter (so we don't need one of those boxes like all the old people).
The signal is incredible, and it easily dominates cable. The channels are limited, but we get 7 HD channels and a bunch of PBS stuff. Now I'd just like to get an over-the-air equipped DVR to use. There are a few available, but they are too expensive.

Apple products
So I don't agree with a lot of the companies political philosophies, like how they dropped out of the chamber of commerce because they felt the chamber wasn't doing enough to combat climate change. Why don't you use your chamber relationships to set a good example and encourage other businesses to follow your green example?
Anyway, they make good stuff. All of my Dell computers seem to be breaking left and right, but everyone around me at law school seems to be happy with their Macs. I also love iPods, iPhones, and iMacs. Of course there are disadvantages, but I just wanted to say publicly that I don't think I'll ever buy a PC again, especially a Dell.