The End.

I've been trying to figure out how to write this post for nearly a week, but every time I start, the text begins to reflect a level of self-seriousness and narcissism that I can't stand in myself and am forced to delete it all and start over. So I'll just get to the point:

I'd like to bear my testimony, that I know this blog is true, but I'm still going to kill it right now.

Seriously.

This is probably the last post on this blog for a while. And by "a while" I mean "ever". I do not have the time or energy to continue maintaining it in the fashion that I want to, so I am pulling the plug. I have accomplished everything I set out to accomplish with this first foray into the blogging world, but the effort required to keep it up or push it forward is not in the cards for me right now . While I could lighten the load by adding more authors or posting less frequently, the fact is that this blog has meant a tremendous amount to me, and I don't want to re-invent Dead Seriously as something new and thereby alter my memory of it.

Thanks to everyone who has commented and supported me. Some of the discussions in the comment sections are among the best memories I have of the past year. The friendships and community I have gained in maintaining this blog means so much to me, and I will miss that aspect of this site very much.

Thanks also to those who disagreed with me, often in the most plain of terms. I am a better person because of your sharp criticism.

While I do not plan on updating this site anymore, I have no intention of giving up blogging entirely. In fact, for the indefinite future, you can find me (in the event that you want to) at By Common Consent under the name Scott B. After my guest stint there, the Powers That Be had what I can only describe as a moment of extremely poor judgment, and asked me stay on for all time and eternity until I screw up so badly that they show me the exit. My decision to hang it up here and my decision to join BCC are not connected to each other.

While I will not be posting there as frequently (probably a few times per month) as I did here, the numerous other contributors at BCC are far more saturated in awesomeness than I could ever dream of; thus I'm sure you'll find frequent visits to be well worth the time spent.

Thanks again,

Scott

Open Thread: The Role of Mormon Wards in Employment and Business Networking

(Note: The "Big Changes" I promised are still coming, but I had to get this post off my To-do list first. This was supposed to be a guest post last week, but I ran out of time and energy. Writing an open thread to a small audience is a recipe for lameness and non-commenting, (especially in light of GIGANTE, but I wanted to post it anyway for my own sake.)

During the past several Ward Council meetings I've attended (WC is a monthly meeting for leaders of the various organizations in LDS wards), much attention has been given to the impact the struggling economy is having on the members of our ward, and consequently, on the ability of the welfare program and other Church special ops to lend a helping hand. This past Sunday, the topic of providing networking opportunities for ward members came up, and while very little was decided upon, I was left pondering the topic for hours afterward.

The question is simple:

What is the role of the Ward "Family" in employment and business networking?

I emphasize "Family" because I'm speaking about individual members of the ward, not those people who are called as Employment Specialists in a given ward.

-In my experience, networking in the LDS Church should be very easy because of the rapid information flow that Mormons thrive on. However, in practice, two related problems impede it from reaching nearly as meaningful of a role as it might otherwise play:

1. No one wants to be seen as peddling their product in Church. We all know that there is enough falseness in society, and no one wants to be seen as manipulative or otherwise sales-oriented in their fellowshipping gestures. My DW and I talk about this frequently, as she is a photographer and is often asked to take pictures--family shots, weddings, babies--for people in the ward. While her reputation as a photographer has grown and she is well known in the ward for it, she is nevertheless very hesitant to advertise herself in any way because of the perception that she is selling something in Church.

2. No one wants a handout/No one wants to obligate other members to help them. Because members of the ward are often socially, spiritually, and emotionally connected to each other, there is often a strong sense of unity and a desire to help each other out. However, this leads to concerns that members with strong networks or employment influence will feel obligated to give less-than-meritorious/qualified petitioners help on the job market.

Review of the Guest Stint at BCC

As the past several posts have indicated, I spent the past week guest blogging at By Common Consent. All in all, I wrote 3 posts (with one other post that was a wee-bit problematic, and thus died an ignominious death about 10 hours after publishing), and sort of participated in the 15th edition of Police Beat Roundtable. Despite my earlier reservations, the experience was great, and I was sorry to see the week end last night after I sent my final post to the admins for publishing. In the name of being self-indulgent, let me now favor you with some disorganized reflection.

-High point of the week: Being asked to participate in the Police Beat Roundtable. PBR is the feature that first hooked me on BCC when (frequent commenter) MM pointed it out to me last Fall. We read several of the editions (this one in particular is priceless) over Thanksgiving, and gst (a regular on PBR) became my non-IRL hero.

-Low point of the week: Participating in PBR. I was at work when it took place, and got hooked into a conference call, causing me to miss the first two thirds of the panel. When I finally did arrive, I was so far behind and out of sorts that I it was all I could do to just catch up with what everyone else was saying. Thus, my comments are mostly out of place, and the one decent comment I had was only accidentally funny, resulting in Steve Evans asking me if "I can has sexual innuendo." As a word of warning, many of the comments on PBR relate to this post, so I recommend reading it before attempting to understand the jokes.

-Misunderstood Genius moment of the week: The last post, dealing with hypothetical negotiations. It's actually unfair to say that it was misunderstood; rather, it just didn't get any kind of reaction from readers at BCC. Of course, I should have expected this, given that my own blog has taught me that the posts which mean the very most to me are rarely the most-commented on. Nevertheless, it was a bit disappointing to go out with such a non-bang. When I spoke to soon and said that my post had not elicited any thoughtful response. Shame on me for having an itchy trigger finger.

-Crow Eating moment of the week: Spending a good portion of each day last week in contact (usually via GoogleTalk) with other BCC contributors. I made no secret of the fact that I entered their domain with a slightly suspicious attitude, and generally considered them to be a smug, elitist clique. As each day went by, I had to admit to myself over and over that everyone I had interacted with had been great. Everyone was friendly, engaging, and had a healthy repertoire of YouTube videos that barely passed the safe-for-work line. I still think BCC is a clique, but it's a very fun clique.

-Awkward moment of the week: If my performance on PBR is excluded, then I would have to go with the long pause in the chat room when The Steve realized that I was a Utah State Aggie and not a Texas A&M Aggie. I had the feeling that he nearly rescinded my invite to guest on the spot, but ultimately he was distracted by an Arrested Development video.

-Best comment on one of my posts: Tie between John C. and John Scherer, both responding to Brother Gatsby's comment ("And if I know what the prophets are going to say before they say it, what would that make me?”) :

John C.: A spy for the Jehovah’s Witnesses?

John Scherer: I’d say extremely bored during General Conference.

-Best Haiku: John Scherer (he was in the zone)

I think I might hurl.
Potluck bounty is not my friend.
Who brung that Chili?

-What I'm most looking forward to now that the Guest stint is over: Not feeling the need to stay up until 2 in the morning trying to perfect something that has no hope of being perfected.

-What I'm least looking forward to now that Guest stin is over: The interaction with the community at BCC over my posts, both behind the scenes and and in the comment threads. It was a real treat; if you ever have the chance to pay BCC a visit, I wholeheartedly recommend doing so. Thanks Cynthia, Rebecca, Steve, John, Brad, and the other permas there for making it so.

Final Round

The 4th and final round of guest posting at BCC is now up, for any interested parties to view.
Round 1 here.
Round 2 here.
Round 3 (sort of) here. (PBR--if you're not familiar with this feature, and some inside jokes at BCC, this will not be nearly as much fun as it could be. Also, please ignore my contribution to it, as I was on a conference call and busy at work during the entire thing.)

This time, when I say that commentary regarding my experience guest posting with the big kids will follow, I mean it.

Stay tuned also for MASSIVE changes at DeadSeriously.net in the next couple of days.

Toothpaste & Immigration Policy

If you've read my drivel for any lengthy period of time, you know how I feel about immigration. (hint: Me = Fan of Foreigners). In this spirit, I offer you some free Toothpaste:

Guesting at BCC, Rounds 2 & 3

Round 2 here, and Round 3 (Police Beat Roundtable) can be found here.

Incidentally, I have never been more humiliated humbled in my life than to be asked to participate in PBR. Unfortunately, as you will see if you read it, I was thoroughly out-classed. My self-censoring button was on a little too tight.

Commentary on the rest of the experience so far at BCC is forthcoming.

Guesting at BCC, Round 1

I have been informed that a first helping of yours truly is now available on By Common Consent. More posts will follow during the next week.

As an aside, I think it fitting that the post on BCC immediately preceding my own is the merciless skewering of a BYU student. And I thought I was mean.

Two Aggies on Divine Intervention and BYU

An email exchange between myself, a Mormon Utah State Aggie, and an ex-Mormon Texas A&M Aggie discussing the theological implications of today's wonderful result.

Start at the bottom, and read up. Go Aggies.

From: Scott Bosworth
Date: Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: basketball
To:Non-Believing Texas A&M Mormon

no no no no no. you've misunderstood how God uses sports altogether.

See, there is no more insufferable human being on earth than an arrogant byu fan. God chastens segments of His people so that the rest of His people can stand sitting in worship meetings with them. God tested the ability of BYU fans to remain humble in the face of success in 1984 with football; they failed, as the still-existing "Lavell for President" sweatshirts testify.

This is not hard to understand.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Non-Believing Texas A&M Mormon wrote:

I actually have to maintain an equal opportunity no-God-attribution policy here. Because if I recognize that this is the Lord's work, then you know what that also is a sign of? That all the Southern Baptists/Evangelicals who go to A&M are right in their "witnessing" to wayward Mormons! Or that you can tell a religion's truth by how successful it is in worldly matters!

A truly frightening concept indeed.

On 3/19/09, Scott Bosworth wrote:

it is truly the sign of a just and wonderful God that byu is getting smoked, is it not? you cannot deny truth when it stares you in the face.
--

Scott Bosworth
__________________
www.deadseriously.net

The Dark Knight is the Worst Movie Ever, or, Guesting at BCC

I mentioned a couple of posts ago that I might not be posting here very frequently for the next bit because I was working on a "special project" of sorts. The special project I spoke about was an invitation to guest blog at By Common Consent* for a week, and I've been writing a handful of posts ahead of time for that gig. I had planned to start posting there this week, but I decided to put it off until next week. So I'll be around here for the rest of the week, though posting may still be erratic.

(I made this decision for a couple of reasons. First, another guest blogger started posting there yesterday, and because I'm a glory hog, I don't want to share the (albeit temporary) limelight. Second, most of the Mormon blogs are inundated with Big Love talk these days, and, as one of the BCC authors suggested, I might be glad I just let that all blow over. Me = No Comment on Big Love.)

So I've had a week or two to mull things over and think about what kind of posts I want to poison the larger Mormon blogging community with, and what I think about being asked to post on a blog with the traffic and audience of BCC. A few of the thoughts running through my head are below:

1. Realizing that someone unexpected has read my blog makes me insecure. After receiving the invite, I made a quick scan of the bios over at BCC. Like I told one of the authors there, I think I can now add BCC as the second place on the planet--in addition to my LDS ward here in Irvine--where I constantly feel inferior because I only have a Master's degree. I am so ashamed.

2. I'm actually quite excited and feel honored, if such a term is appropriate here. So should I tell my Mom? Or should I wait and see if I make a complete idiot out of myself first? Probably the latter.

3. You know that 80's movie with Eric Stoltz (Keith) and Lea Thompson (Amanda)--Some Kind of Wonderful? It's a true 80's classic: The nerdy kid throws all of his savings into one single date with the popular girl, despite the fact that his tomboy best friend (Watts) is totally in love with him. On the night of the date, nerdy guy and pretty girl share several awkward moments before going to a party that the other cool kids are holding. After they arrive, it becomes apparent that the head cool guy--and Amanda's ex-boyfriend (Hardy)--just wanted to set him up to make him look bad. It all turned out okay, though, because Keith happened to be in with the biker gang crowd, who showed up at the last minute and made Hardy wet his pants. In the end, nerdy guy realizes that Watts really wants some diamond earrings, so he hooks her up and they kiss while the credits roll and a wacky 80's synth version of Elvis Presley's "I can't help falling in love with you" begins to play.

What is the point of all this? Well, suppose that this movie is playing out in my blog life now? I'm the nerdy Keith who blogs alone in my quiet corner of the Mormon blogging community, and now I've been invited to a party by the cool kids (BCC). I'm worried about this, because when the cool kids start to laugh at me, I won't have a crew of tough guys to bust into the comment section and make the nay-sayers soil themselves. This guy said he's got my back, but I have my doubts about his physical presence. Am I going to just end up wishing that I'd stuck with my tomboy girlfriend own blog? What if I like Hardy's the BCC crew and am sad to leave afterward, knowing that I can no longer bask in group identification? Will I be forced to continue daydreaming about a group blog comprised strictly of Mormon Economists?

4. The Dark Knight is the worst movie ever created. It was mind-numbingly boring, over-acted, over-hyped, too long, and was probably produced and financed by Satan himself. Yes, you heard me: Beelzebub, the Son of the Morning, was almost certainly behind the whole thing.**

5. I am crappy at manufacturing posts ahead of time. Almost every single post on this blog was written straight from the hip--no planning in advance. The result of that style is that many of my posts are half-baked, logically incoherent, and shallow. But hey--shallow and logically flawed is just how I roll. However, when I look at the kind of posts the big kids write, and I get all nervous inside. Some of them actually look like they were written on purpose. Like the authors actually thought about the topic. Some of them even have sources and footnotes! (Factual accuracy is pretty low on my priority list in general; I use footnotes, too, but only for snarky one-liners directed at BYU.)

So that's it. For better or for worse, I'm going to write something and make people at BCC read it. Or at least click multiple times on their mouse to avoid it, anyway. If the first post or two goes well enough and I'm not horribly embarrassed, then I'll post a link here indicating when my posts are up. (Here's an idea--maybe I could liveblog over here while people leave devastatingly cruel--or devastatingly few--comments on my posts there!)


*If you're unfamiliar with the Mormon blog world, then suffice it to say that By Common Consent is at the center of it all. There may be some debate about what constitutes the biggest, baddest, most influential, and most prestigious Mormon blog, but BCC would certainly be a leading candidate for any of those distinctions under almost any criteria. My only beef with it is the excess number of BYU grads with perma status. I am more than happy to dilute that pool, if only until they give me the boot after a week.

**Not really. I'd explain, but it would ruin a great joke that basically no one will get.

Guest Post: A Market-based Solution for Pork

[Note: The opinions expressed below, as well as the title of the post, belong to Fletcher (bio here), and no one else. They do not necessarily represent the opinions of myself, the LDS Church, or this guy. I do not edit guest posts; as such, any grammatical, logical, or factual mistakes that may exist are entirely Fletcher's fault, and frankly, I'm astonished that he didn't catch them.]

A Market based Solution to Pork
by Fletcher

Though I am an Economist, I am not of the class of Scott or MM (a frequent commenter) for that matter. To steal a sentiment form John the Baptist, "I am not worthy to do the latch of MM's sandals." My expertise lie in the analysis of data, so take this with a grain of salt. Also, this post does not seek to find the intersection of libertarianism, economics and Mormonism. This is purely an economics post, though if you can find some intersection with the other two, go for it.

President Barack Obama recently lauded the fact that the recently passed "stimulus" bill contained no earmarks. Needless to say, I was a little shocked. I was pretty certain there were spending sections in there that had nothing to do with Keynesian stimulus principles. But, this post is not about the spending bill. But, it has everything to do with budgeting and allocation of spending priorities.

Now, I am no insider to the government spending process, but it seems pretty clear that, when politicians X, Y, and Z want to pass a certain law, but need W's support to do so, X,Y, and Z will add some juiciness to the bill for W's constituents. This allows W to go back to his district/state and say, "I was able to do (insert juiciness here) for you, so you should re-elect me." Then, later on, it's not too unreasonable to assume that W will later throw a bone to X, Y, and Z when W needs reciprocated support. This is a game to them, and that's fine. The only problem with this game is that the rules are not clearly defined. If they were, then I think the average American would be more accepting of $700 Billion spent here, or another $400 Billion spent over there, or the $1.7 Trillion just over the horizon. So, here are my proposed rules.

Let there be a number on which all budgeting is based. This number is a spending per capita figure. Now, assume that this number is exogenously determined (much like population statistics). Let us also assume, and this is a tough pill to swallow, that there is a balanced budget requirement, such that the spending per capita value, multiplied by the population equals all tax revenue. Given these assumptions, there is a total budgeted amount of money that the government has to spend.

Now, let us assume that the nationally agreed upon public goods are taken care of (national defense, highways, lighthouses, and all that). The remainder of the budget is then divided amongst all the Representatives.*** Now comes the game. Representatives who have serious spending agendas (spending above and beyond the allocation) will have to convince other representatives that their spending projects are of a national priority and ask them (and their allocation) to jump on board. You're probably asking, "How is this different from the game X, Y, and Z are playing with W?" X, Y, and Z now have to convince W to not only hand over his/her vote, but his/her cash too. That, my friends, is the kicker. In the first game, X, Y, and Z were paying W in exchange for a vote. Now, that dynamic of the game is gone. It is replaced with a consensus of the merit of the project that is under consideration. More importantly, the amount of money that can be spent on this class of projects is fixed.

Just think of this as a form of political cap and trade. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


*** For this exercise, we have to take the Senate out of the spending process. Since each state has the same number of Senators regardless of population, it would be fruitless to try and give them some sort of population based allocation. Let's say for now that Congress has power to decide spending, which needs to be ratified by the Senate. Assume also that the Senate has clearly defined criteria for ratification of the spending (meaning that if the Representatives followed all the rules in deciding the spending, the Senate could not reject the bill).

Introductions: A New Guest Author

I will be away from my desk for a bit this week working on a special project (more on that later), and may not be posting too frequently here during that time. However, I want to introduce a new guest author before I get too far along. Because he is currently on the job market and need not have his name attached to some lame Mormon blog, I'll just call him “Fletcher”, as he is known in the comment section of several posts on this blog.

Fletcher is on the verge of being handed a PhD in Economics from UC Irvine. His fields of specialization are econometrics and urban economics, though I've been told that, with the job market being what it is these days, he'd even be willing to teach macro (Boo! Hiss!) if room and board for his wife and kids were part of the deal. Other things you should know about him include:

-To this day, Fletcher remains the only person I know who has actually played water polo.

-Fletcher served a mission to Brazil many moons ago.

-His talents include crashing on his bicycle, sucking all the fun out of economics by focusing on the data, and spouting random trivia from the Star Wars expanded universe.

-Although I won't say his name here (as mentioned above), he did approve a link to his own site, where you can read more about him and the research he's done.

Mormon Blogging or Self-Loathing

Without question, since I decided to quit pretending that I'm not a Mormon blogger, the most-used search strings in Google for finding my site are variations on Mormon-related topics.

Running solidly in second place, however, are queries about rectal exams.

I'm so glad I can be of service.

Stake Conference Mystery and Intrigue

For the Newport Beach California Stake, in which I happen to reside, Stake Conference will be held this coming Saturday and Sunday. I am usually really excited for the conference weekend, because as odd as it may sound, I actually enjoy the extra meeting or two on Saturday without the kids where the local leadership is able to give us specific instruction and counsel for the current challenges in the area. Over the years, some of the most meaningful spiritual experiences in my life have come in these meetings. Additionally, I like Stake Conference because the 10am start time on Sunday means that I can sleep in an extra hour. Lastly, it is just a nice break from the normal 3-hour block routine.

(For those unfamiliar with this routine it is explained as follows: A normal Sunday involves of one hour of struggling with the squirming kids on a padded pew, after which I drop the kids off in nursery so I can go squirm uncomfortably on a folding chair for two hours in Sunday school and Priesthood meeting. Stake Conference, however, entails struggling with the squirming kids on folding chairs for two hours before going home. In short, I swap 3 hours of mild but consistent discomfort for two hours of extreme discomfort.)

(Come to think of it, when I was a child, Stake Conference was even better. We had this amazing family tradition called "skipping it". To "skip it" we would, as a family, skip Stake Conference. We'd just pretend that it wasn't happening. Instead, we would stay home and eat waffles. Then, later in the day, we stared at our feet in shame while the neighbors would come home dressed in church clothes and saw us playing in the front yard. Sometimes I miss that tradition.)

But wait--there's more! In addition to the break in the routine, this coming conference brings with it the excitement of a visiting General Authority. It's been a couple of years since a General Authority came to our Stake (we've been having those satellite broadcasts instead), and I was particularly thrilled to hear that Bishop Richard C. Edgley of the Presiding Bishopric would be our visiting authority. Why am I so excited about Bishop Edgley? Is it because I prefer Bishops to Seventies and Apostles? No. Is it because he once visited my mission and I got to shake his hand? No (he didn't). Is it because he is from my home town of Preston, Idaho?* Yes it is!

(You may recall from a past General Conference address that Bishop Edgley likely holds the Idaho High School basketball record for most consecutive missed free throws in one game--something like 18. That happened at my high school. I also share a "probable" record in Idaho High School athletics--most consecutive golf balls hit out-of-bounds off the tee in the State Championship tournament before conceding that a driver is the wrong club for that shot--4. Yes, folks, Me = Tin Cup.)

But wait--there's still more. Not only do we get a General Authority (from Preston!), but also get mass hysteria and anxiety leading up to conference. You see, all of the members were given notice a few weeks ago that Bishop Edgley has made a special request: In addition to the normal things like studying the scriptures a bit more and attending the temple during the week before conference, every member of the entire Stake has been asked to prepare a talk. Have you ever heard of anything like this before? In many past conferences I've been in, a handful of members are asked on the spot to give a brief testimony or thought--my DW got to do this once in the Logan Tabernacle a few years ago--but every last member of the entire Stake? The specific instructions are:

-All adults should be prepared to give a 10 minute talk
-All youth should be prepared to give a 7 minute talk
-All children should be prepared to give a 35 second testimony involving the words "bury" and "macaroni".

There are couple of reasons that I think this is a potentially brilliant idea.

1. Nothing improves unity like a common enemy goal.

The theme for our Stake this year--maybe for every stake in California--is Unity. It stands to reason that, if every member of the stake is zoned in on the scriptures, praying earnestly, and preparing a talk as directed, the body of Saints would be much closer come meeting time to being "Zion"--One Heart and One Mind. Obviously, this outcome depends largely on how credible the members believe this "threat" of being asked to speak is. If it is perceived as a real possibility (and early surveys by me indicate that this is the case), then it stands to reason that whether Bishop Edgley or the Stake President actually asks anyone to speak at all may be entirely beside the point--everyone will be so spiritually fine-tuned that it won't matter. Naturally, if the leadership were to just use this as a ploy, there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth such that the next time someone tried to use a obtain our spiritual focus by strategem, well...we'd be ready to block their evil...well...you get my point.

2. Reduced attendance means no one will be seated in the primary room.

Is it possible that we could have addition by subtraction? Hypothetically, if a large enough number of people consider the possibility of being asked to speak at any given moment as a "bad", then we could potentially see a dismal turnout. This would be bad in general, as when it comes to spiritually feeding the saints and building up the Kingdom, More = Better. However, there is a positive spin we can put on this: During the last Stake Conference, I was seated in the Relief Society room. Until it got too crowded. Then I was moved to the Primary room. Neither of those rooms had satellite feed, and I ended up just "listening" to the conference addresses. So, while I will miss anyone who chooses to take my old family tradition and "skip it," I will not mind getting a decent seat on a padded pew where I can actually see the speaker.

I will certainly return and report on how this goes down, but in the meantime, if you've ever experienced a plot like this from your own Stake leadership or visiting authorities, please chime in--horror stories or successes. Also, my DW would appreciate any suggestions for her talk.



*All the great Mormons in history come from Preston and its surrounding communities: Presidents Harold B. Lee and Ezra Taft Benson, Elders Matthias & Matthew Cowley of the 12, Bishop Edgely, Elder Spencer J. Condie of the 70, and Jared Hess, among others.

Great Moments in Blog Comment History, Part 1

From a comment thread a couple of weeks ago on MormonMatters regarding the lifting of the Priesthood ban:

• 137 Ray
  Feb 20th, 2009 at 12:31 am

  To add one more factor to MH’s summary:

  After Pres. McKay died, Pres. Smith only served for two years - then Pres. Lee served for less than two years (dying of an unexpected heart attack even though he was the youngest president to take office in decades at 73). I don’t think lifting the ban was a priority for either of them, especially since Hugh B Brown (one of the strongest proponents of lifting the ban) was not kept in the presidency of either President Smith or President Lee after Pres. McKay passed away.

• 138 Scott
  Feb 20th, 2009 at 4:57 pm

  I don’t think lifting the ban was a priority for either of them, especially since Hugh B Brown (one of the strongest proponents of lifting the ban) was not kept in the presidency of either President Smith or President Lee after Pres. McKay passed away.

  Not disagreeing, but…correlation = causation? Hmm…

  Although I suppose in the case of the latter, President Lee = causation for correlation

  Just a little correlation committee humor for you, folks. I’ll be here all week.

(UPDATE: If you don't get or like the joke, then don't feel bad. As I note in the comment section, you're not alone.)

The BYU - Aladdin Song Is BACK!!!

I have been informed that I failed to make good on a promise--I had said that I would re-post the audio to the BYU-Aladdin song that I heard on PMS a while back (read this post if you need a reminder), since the file I linked to then has been removed from Youtube. I said I would take a vote, and since only 2 people voted, the audio goes up. We'll see how long my fragile conscience survives and I decide to take it down for being too mean.

I think re-posting this will qualify as the "really bad thing" that makes me deserving of having my site banned by BYU (which, by the way, is still in force. I'm so proud.)