Japanese Tetris

Hopefully not too many of you are stressing out about tax day tomorrow. If you are, I have something that will make you smile. You may have seen it before, but seeing it again has the same effect. I am, without further ado, going to culturally enlighten you with perhaps the funniest Japanese game show ever contrived. Forget about Samurais, Ninjas, rice paddies, sushi, or the emperor. THIS is what Japanese culture is all about:


And because one clip is never enough:

Facebook Friends: 1000 dollars to a lucky friend

As of this moment I have 996 facebook "friends". So, I have decided to create a new game to encourage more meaningless online social networking interaction with people I hardly know. If I get 1000 friends today (that means four more for you math majors), one lucky friend will get one thousand dollars and my personal recognition of their existence and my congratulations for being my online friend on their wall. Should be exciting. If you're not my friend yet, it seems it might finally become profitable. Good luck facebookers!

Getting into a relationship: Game of Cat and Mouse

I put up a poll a couple days ago about what kind of topics people would like to hear about. Even though I know there are at times hundreds of people reading this blog daily, only four people voted. One person voted for 'random crap,' while two (presumably women) voted for 'relationships', and one voted for 'politics/economics.' No one voted for 'social issues.' But, inevitably through the random crap satire, politics, economics, and relationship topics I will address social issues in one way or another. It's all interconnected. That being said, I'm going to go with the winner of the poll today and talk about relationships. More than specific instances I'm going to talk about how the sexes see different actions, events, and behaviors. I also might wax nostalgic.

Back in the middle ages and throughout the Renaissance, and even through the Romantic 19th century, men wrote poems, sonnets, sang ballads, painted pictures, made sculptures, and went through all sorts of trouble to woo women that today would seem ridiculous if not stalkerish. With the enlightenment, women's movements, and liberal democracy, these traditions of wooing, along with chivalry have in large part been destroyed, or at least become somewhat muted.

Men are however, generally expected to take the initiative. They are the ones who are expected to ask women out. But, while some women claim this as sexist patriarchalism, most women want it. Why? Because it's a risky proposition asking someone out. The man could say no, and it could end up being an embarrassing situation. So, if you are one of those women who asks guys out, don't always expect a "yes." You've put yourself into the traditional man's role, and he, just as you do, has the same right to say, "No."

On that same vein, there is also another silly philosophy that I've noticed most supposedly "nice" women have. That is, to always say "yes" to a first date. While I think it's decent of you that you're willing to give him a chance and be cordial, sometimes you can just tell from the get-go that it's not going to work out. And, there's really nothing wrong with that. You most likely have enough discernment to make an educated decision. Don't play games and lead a guy on, even if it is "just one date," because, quite often it can become two or three, you're not interested in him at all, he is oblivious to your subtle hints, and you don't know how to get off the hook without hurting his feelings. This is where directness is most needed. So that you don't get stuck with some guy you do not care for, and so that he does not end up getting too emotionally invested, all the while wasting his time, heart beats, and money, end it soon. Learn to say "No." It is much more compassionate and humane to nip it in the bud than let it drag on. It's better for everyone. So, in a nutshell, transparency is good. You're not being any nicer trying to let someone down softly. Rip the band-aid off the wound in one fallow swoop. 

The next little bit I'm going to mention is communication. This is the main reason men and women have so much trouble with relationships and interaction. As I said before, directness is key. While some men are great with subtleties, hints, and nuanced speech, most are not. Both sexes see what they want to see, but men even more so. Don't expect a guy to be a mind reader. He probably cannot even read his own mind, much less yours. Be explicit in your communication. If a guy holds your hand, he's being pretty explicit. If you pull your hand away, he should get it. However, if you aren't into him and do nothing you are giving consent. Inaction is consent to most men. Few get the whole passive-aggressive/ambivalent female response.

Ok, I don't want to beat that issue into the mud. Just be clear. Quite often it's a power struggle, and men and women play games with one another. The man is interested, the women doesn't know if she's interested (or at least claims not to know) and so the man is not straight forward as in days of yore (with the poems, sonnets, and ballads) and plays the woman's game of subtleties as best he can. His rationale is, "If I put all my cards on the table, she's going to shove them in my face." So he either plays no cards or one card. Unfortunately, sometimes women can be just as thick as men, and think a guy is not into them because he hasn't beat her over the head with his intentions. So what happens is, because he is cautious not to play his whole hand, she thinks he's not interested and so does not reciprocate at all. Then, seeing she's not reciprocating, he moves on, because she already has in his mind. So both sides lose. All of this because of miscommunication. Many might say, "Well he should have been more obvious." But how obvious? If he were too brash she'd lose interest and think he was a stalker instead of a charming, clever, romancer. So we need to be more clear, but not too clear? The line is fuzzy. Seems like a confusing game of cat and mouse (and I honestly have no idea which side is the cat and which is the mouse).

There is no easy answer. Ideally a guy would take a girl out a couple times, she'd give him the right signals and they'd both say and do the right things and get into a relationship. But life is not cut and dry. People zig and zag. One day you might be into her, but she's not into you. Then a couple months up the road the situation is in the reverse. For anything to work, the time has to be right for both people. You both have to be zigging together or zagging together. There's no use in pushing for something that's not there, just like there is not a whole lot of point to hoping for something that's not there (I'm not saying don't hope, I'm just saying don't put all your eggs in one basket, be hopeful in general, not in particular; be opportunistic).

One day the cat and mouse will lie down together (although in this picture it's a rat)

Phone Tag and Rediscovering Your Inner Child

From the days of our early childhood to maybe even last week (for some of you), we have been brought up with social games. There is duck-duck-goose, "pin the tail on the donkey," "truth or dare," and the classic, and my personal favorite, tag (not to be confused with Mitt Romney's son Tagg). For those of you reading this in Pakistan or Singapore, tag is a game where there is a group of people, with one designated as "it," and thereby endowed with the prerogative, power, and responsibility to tag everyone else. The last person to get tagged wins.

(This man is enjoying a nice game of tag with a polar bear)

Tag quite often devolves into arguments among children. One says, "I got you," with the other saying, "No you didn't," or, "That was my jacket, it doesn't count." But, petty bickering aside, it's a pretty wholesome activity. And, I'm not about to make it into some metaphor for life or root out your inner demons by psychoanalyzing your success or lack thereof while playing the game as a child. However I do want to talk about the more relevant form of tag for adults, or more sophisticated adolescents. This derivation is called 'phone tag.'

I myself am a master at phone tag. You might think it hubris on my part, and, perhaps you're right, but I have proof. First off, let me start by explaining the ins and outs of phone tag and by which criteria you can go by to find out if you've got skills. Phone tag, (the structured form) involves two people. One person calls the other, for whatever reason does not reach the person, then the other calls back in hopes of getting a hold of the person who called. The game only continues if they never get in touch. When someone finally does, the game is over. Either the caller or the called wins, and that depends on the context of the game (and, if you really want to talk to the person, I guess everybody wins, but I'm not espousing Marxist dogma).

So to my case study. Myself. I make plenty of outbound calls and receive plenty of inbound calls, but I am meticulous in calling people back if they call me. So, you might say I am naturally inclined to end phone tag quickly. But you would be wrong. Whether it happens to be divine providence or luck, I seem to get embroiled in regular bouts of phone tag. It starts off simply enough with me calling someone and leaving a message. Then the person calls back, but for some reason they catch me during the .5% of the day I don't have the phone with me. This might be while I'm taking a shower, making a sandwich, at the gym, or circling the earth in a satellite (that happens more than I'd like to admit). Then, I call them back and magically get the voice mail box again. If it carries on I either leave random or ridiculous tag messages. For instance, I might claim to be a towing service, or prize patrol, or an angry Chinese man, but always I end with "Tag, you're it" even if it is unintelligible in a thick Chinese accent.

So I suppose the moral, if there must be one, is to keep your inner child alive through adaptations of children's games like phone tag. If you can find a way to play duck-duck-goose with phones, texting, or skype, you're my hero.

All Star Game Ads

So last night, as I assume many of you were, I was watching the Major League Baseball All-Star game.  The game was intense, lasted almost five hours, going 15 full innings, and in the end, the American League beat the National League for the 12th undefeated season.

But that's not what I want to write about today.  The thing that stuck out most were the commercials.  And apparently, the summer classic's advertising demographic.  The advertisers were Viagra, Flomax, Just for Men, and a tone deaf monkey screaming (not singing) 'Take me out to the ball game,' for some youtube.com/MLB contest.  

Of course there were other ads from Chevy and other companies, but most of the ads were definitely directed at the Baby-boomer crowd (plus 40s).  So I began to think to myself, "Could it be that MLB has no new fans?  I heard that the average baseball fan is 29...so maybe it's true.  I'm not even 29 yet, but what happens if our national pastime dies with the boomers?"

It would be very sad.  It is a beautiful game.  There is so much math, interesting rules, and history.  Legends were made, nations formed, and familial relations were given new life.  Going to a game with your father, or playing catch is a rite of passage in this country.  I'd hate to see it die.  But, I imagine if many more All-Star games go to 15 innings and 5 hours, people might not have the attention spans anymore.  That, and maybe people are getting embarrassed watching 50 year old guys rocking out on stage with hair color commercials and old dudes with giant smiles and sky blue tuxes running their wives up and down stairs with 'viva viagra' playing in the background. 

 Who knows?  I thought it was funny, and even told one of my friends he'd be the first one of us to use Viagra.  He laughed and said, "I already do."  

The Provo Divide

In the town of Provo there is a great divide.

I have spoken of it on many occasions with many friends. In Provo, and especially around Brigham Young University, there are a lot of young, college-aged types who are looking for a good education, maybe some work, and a good time. Rarely, do they get all three. And if they do, they are the lucky ones.

As a college town, you might expect there to be a lot of students. This is true. But BYU is not the only school here. There is UVSC (Soon to be UVU), along with many beauty schools and other schools I've never heard of. So, the pond is stocked full of tons of fish. You might think, "Well that's good. If you have lots of fish, you have a lot more options." True. But everyone thinks that way and it creates a mindset that is detrimental to anyone ever getting anywhere in life (socially speaking). With so many options girls and guys around here tend to be either extremely non-committal, or way too committal. The first mindset happens because the first group sees so many options, they become fickle, picky, stupid, and like playing games and become worthless flakes, and the second mindset happens because once the other group finds someone, they cling to them for dear life out of insecurity of the system regardless if the person is an absolute monstrosity. So if that's all we've got, it leads me to wonder, what about the middle? Are you telling me (or am I telling myself) that people either play the field or get married after 6 weeks? Yes. The middle is nearly non-existent.

And, that middle has the only people with any common sense. This middle believes that you can date someone to get to know them and see if something more is there without thinking of long-term all the time. The middle believes that you should date whoever you want, but that being on two dates together does not make you a couple. The middle dates for the sake of dating. And, learns about people, relationships, and what they want out of life in a normal way. They are the balance. But, where are they? Well they have fallen into the Provo divide. Into the deep chasm that is or was the normal way to interact. I am one of them. I am not super-committal (I'm not looking to get married after a couple days or weeks of knowing someone), and I'm not a flake (I don't get interested in one girl on one day and then totally psych myself out, convince myself she's ugly, stupid or uninterested and move on to my back log of other potentials). So where do I fit here? That's a good question. Perhaps I just need to go back to the real world (like any place outside of Utah).

Like, Love, Just do it.

I was talking to a friend the other day, as is my custom, and I asked her what I thought was a simple question with an easy answer. I asked, "Do you have your eye on anyone these days?" Translation: "Who do you like?" And, her response baffled me. I mean, I suppose there were only two ways to go on the question, but I generally assume the answer to be yes. So when she said no, I had to pry. And, upon a little prying discovered she did in fact like someone, but denied the possibility of it working out to herself, so refused to accept that she actually had feelings for this person. It was a self-protective attitude, that in my mind is not really self-serving, or hopeful.

We all like people. From day to day, moment to moment. It can be a physical attraction, an emotional attraction, or it can even be a spiritual attraction. There are many ways and reasons to like people. But, there is a distinct difference in my mind between like and love. Like is not deep. Like is not particularly committal. It's not. It's the possibility of future love, if the other side reciprocates and things work out. But it's okay to like people without reciprocation. And, here's a jump, but it's okay to love people without reciprocity. It hurts sure, but that's life. Life isn't running around in cloven meadows with flowers in your hair humming Beatles' songs (as euphoric as that might be, and I'm sure some of you and the cheeba may have actually experienced it on a regular basis). So, if you are asked if you like someone, it's okay to say yes. What are you afraid of? There is no need for fear. Let your heart go. Let it be wild. Let it be tempered only a little by your mind.

Now speaking from the other side, it is difficult to like or love. But rewarding. In your own mind you know why, who and how you'd like to see it turn out, but when you try to understand how they feel, unless they are straight forward (rare in my experience), you are left writhing in ambiguity and uncertainty. That's why being straight forward is kinder for both parties. If you are unwilling to say what you think and how you feel, you are not serving yourself or anyone else. It can torture people that you may not want a relationship out of, but with whom you still want to remain friends. So, the best way to deal with it is to be blunt. Don't play the game. There is no need for masks and hidden intentions. Be an open page, and expect the same. But of course, don't be surprised if you don't get what you want. But, fortunately there are people out there who feel the same and it's just a matter of time until things work out. Above all hope. And just live your life.