Because I like them and I’m too lazy to write…more Travis!

Travis (the band, not the person) probably makes the best music videos

These guys crack me up! I especially like the epic battle at the end.

This is totally awesome.

Happy Easter!

It is particularly appropriate today to speak a little of my faith. Long before I had been told by the learned and wise of this world how hard it is to know things, I had received countless impressions, had experiences both undeniably real and intimately sacred, and had enjoyed that sweet, quiet assurance that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He paid the price for my sins and was crucified, and that He lives again, and offers forgiveness, healing, and the greatest of all gifts, eternal life, to all those who will believe and follow Him. These truths can be had by anyone who will humbly and diligently pay the price to receive them, and they will be an anchor and a guide through the difficulties as well as the joys of life.

“Without risk there is no faith”

“Without risk there is no faith. Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion of the individual’s awareness and the objective uncertainty. If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.”

-Soren Kierkegaard

While I would love to discuss this very profound observation, I’m afraid it would just be a rambling between me and myself. Suffice it to say, I consider Kierkegaard to be one of the best kinds of intellectuals: one capable of incisive observation and abstraction without the stubborn aloofness towards the gamut of unquantifiable lived experiences of which everyday life is primarily composed. He represents, to me, a model of intellectual development - depth without detachment.

This is, admittedly, ironic for me to say, because this, my blog, has been quite the detached intellectual endeavor. Blogs are, by nature, fairly impersonal, although their intimacy can be greatly enhanced by focusing on people, rather than abstractions. Believe me, I would love to focus on people more if there simply were people in my life on which I could appropriately focus!

Finally, some thoughtful analysis of Obama the President, not Obama the Phenomenon

I ran across this timely article from The Economist (Feb. 14th, 2008) discussing the possible ramifications of electing President Obama, as opposed to Phenomenon Obama. It’s not Obama-bashing, but instead offers some thoughts on the substance of Barack Obama’s candidacy. This is not to say that candidates’ presidential offerings are reducible to mere policy positions, for, as the article rightly notes:

“[Obama] has persuaded huge numbers of people around the world to reconsider politics in an optimistic way. To many Americans, a black man who eschews both racial politics and the conservative-liberal divide is a chance to heal the country’s two deepest divisions. To many foreigners, he represents an idealistic version of America—the hope of a more benevolent superpower.”

In regards to the effect of Obama’s character, the article continues:

“His immediate effect on international relations could be dramatic: a black president, partly brought up in a Muslim country, would transform America’s image. And his youthful optimism could work at home too. After the bitterness of the Bush years, America needs a dose of unity: Mr Obama has a rare ability to deliver it. And the power of charisma should not be underrated, especially in the context of the American presidency which is, constitutionally, quite a weak office. The best presidents are like magnets below a piece of paper, invisibly aligning iron filings into a new pattern of their making. Anyone can get experts to produce policy papers. The trick is to forge consensus to get those policies enacted.”

As far as his policies go, however, The Economist makes the case that:

“Obama’s voting record in the Senate is one of the most left-wing of any Democrat. Even if he never voted for the Iraq war, his policy for dealing with that country now seems to amount to little more than pulling out quickly, convening a peace conference, inviting the Iranians and the Syrians along and hoping for the best. On the economy, his plans are more thought out, but he often tells people only that they deserve more money and more opportunities. If one lesson from the wasted Bush years is that needless division is bad, another is that incompetence is perhaps even worse. A man who has never run any public body of any note is a risk, even if his campaign has been a model of discipline.”

Regarding the limitations of character, the article continues:

“And the Obama phenomenon would not always be helpful, because it would raise expectations to undue heights. Budgets do not magically cut themselves, even if both parties are in awe of the president; the Middle East will not heal, just because a president’s second name is Hussein. Choices will have to be made—and foes created even when there is no intention to do so.” (emphasis added)

The article concludes:

“None of this is to take away from Mr Obama’s achievement—or to imply that he could not rise to the challenges of the job in hand. But there is a sense in which he has hitherto had to jump over a lower bar than his main rivals have. For America’s sake (and the world’s), that bar should now be raised—or all kinds of brutal disappointment could follow.”

Ron Paul’s softer, more persuasive side

The only times I’ve seen Ron Paul on TV have been in debates, where invariably he’s riled up about something and usually drawing the ridicule of his fellow debaters. These clips from an interview with John Stossel, however, reveal a calmer, more convincing side of Ron Paul. In them, I think he makes some good arguments for smaller, less restrictive government with which I agree (in other clips not featured here, however, he presents what I consider to be a foolish foreign policy).

Part 1

Part 2

Life as a Perfectionist

I think I’m going to start a new ongoing topic on my blog, and it will be: Life as a Perfectionist. You see, I happen to be one of those. I believe that there are certain types of personality, each with their own characteristic shortcomings, and mine happens to include that constant pressure to transcend the mediocre, to be incredible at all times, to do things just right every time. No task is so mundane that it can’t haunt the perfectionist with the demand to be performed flawlessly. Yes, life can be quite complicated as a perfectionist. Worries seem to find abundant fertile ground in the perfectionist’s mind, whereas other personalities can’t be bothered to reserve much room for the gnawing doubt and desire from which such worries sprout.

Perfectionistic thought processes (which I consider to actually be much less deliberate than such a phrase would suggest), regardless of what they are about, tend to follow the same general pattern, and also threaten to end in similarly disappointing ways, not that any outcomes are predestined. This pattern is as follows:

-I need to do ________

-Not only do I need to do ________, but I need to do it exceptionally well

[After some thought and/or effort, the reality of things dawns on the perfectionist]

-It’s either impossible or impractical for me to do ________ exceptionally well, so I’m just going to not do it, and sulk instead

[or, if circumstances allow]

-I think I can actually make ________ into a masterpiece, and darn it, I will!

I’m sure this description sounds familiar to many of you reading this, if not for everyone in at least one instance of their lives. Anyway, this ends the first installment of the fascinating world of Life as a Perfectionist!

P.S. I’m not sure why those funny gray lines are showing up. I just wanted to indent!

Bryce’s Book Club, Part 1

In between my current work as a well-paid gofer, I’ve been starting a lot of good books lately (someday, I may even finish one). I’ve been giving the most attention to Rewriting History by Dick Morris, a long-time political advisor to the Clintons. It is a very interesting glimpse into Hillary Clinton behind the facade. Interestingly, even though Morris parted ways with the Clintons years ago and is no big fan of the Hillary movement, his book is not dripping with venom. Morris’ writing reflects measured fairness and keen observation, which speaks to his credibility in an industry where most pundits cannot bear to hide their vitriolic disdain for their favorite villains. This book actually reminds me of another famous exposé of a powerful public figure who was revered yet shrouded in mystery: Dr. Li Zhisui’s The Private Life of Chairman Mao. An unusual and imperfect comparison, I know, but there it is.

One thing that I was not expecting when I began reading this book was to actually feel some pity for Hillary, not pity for the role of victimized career-woman and devoted mother which she tries to project, but pity for the creature she has become in the course of her political career. Unfortunately, politics tends to be dirty, dirty business, and while I do think Hillary Clinton has rolled in the mud quite willingly, it nevertheless saddens me that the political arena is such that she and so many people like her feel that to do so is the only way to succeed.

You Don’t Kick a Dead Dog

Notwithstanding all the points of policy and history on which the Republican candidates differ, they all seem to be united in at least one area: their disdain for Mitt Romney. Naturally, a public figure will always have views and actions which someone dislikes, but Romney seems to attract an inordinate amount of criticism, some of it smug and mean-spirited (à la McCain or Huckabee in Saturday’s debate), from all the candidates. For the record, I don’t know who I’m going to vote for, but Romney is certainly a contender in my book. Romney continues to receive jabs and cheap shots - such as Huckabee’s use of the classic Mormon smear about Satan and Jesus, or the apparently irresistible urge by the candidates (or even the moderator, Charles Gibson, last night, who I’d call likable but, like so many people in the media, partial to the political left) - to scandalize Romney’s record on abortion when they need to score a few quick and easy points, and this after he’s clearly and repeatedly explained himself on the issue, I think satisfactorily. I’m not saying that Romney’s the absolute perfect candidate, and everyone else is garbage, but I do think that the attacks he seems to be receiving from all sides indicate that he is viewed as a strong and viable presidential nominee and a real political threat. On my LDS mission in northern Virginia, I became acquainted with the phrase “you don’t kick a dead dog”, which I learned in reference to the criticism the Church receives (but appropriately pays little heed to), and basically means that an adversary only attacks those parties deemed to be real threats. I think this phrase is applicable in Romney’s case too - not because he happens to be Mormon, but because he is viewed as a threat by certain people. As a side note, I think the same can be said for the vocally anti-religious, such as Hitchens and Dawkins - religion presents a worldview which opposes and threatens their own. But that’s a topic for another time