Vort

Some years ago, I found myself watching Adventure Time with my children and laughing my head off. It occurred to me then that the show's humor was largely based on tragic backstories and such. (That was before the show went full woke and became unwatchable. At its best, it was one of the weirdest TV shows I ever saw, and one of the funniest.)

I believe BYU is fairly well-known for producing quality engineering students, including computer science "software engineers". Same with the pure sciences, where BYU is strong if not elite (I think math is a strong point at BYU). I'm pretty sure BYU ranks well in placing medical school students, which should only increase when BYU's new medical school comes on line. I understand that BYU's Marriott business program has long been considered top-notch, and I have heard that the various language colleges are generally well-regarded. (When I was an undergrad at BYU in the 1980s, I took a class on Dante's Divine Comedy, which was taught by Madison Sowell, a recognized scholar on Dante.) My BYU-graduate son got into the law school at Chicago, a top-three program nationwide (the top five are Stanford, Yale, Chicago, Harvard, and Columbia), and BYU students are reasonably well-represented in the top law schools overall. BYU's own law school, while not top 14, ranked very well, 23rd in the 2024 rankings. So on balance, I think BYU's degree programs, both undergrad and graduate, are pretty well-regarded by those who actually know the rankings and what they mean. Academically, a BYU degree is a solid achievement, never an embarrassment, and in some cases is quite impressive to those offering jobs. If BYU is no Stanford or Harvard, it's also no Oral Roberts (and Oral Roberts is a decent university), and is certainly no JoeBob's Auto Body and School of Law, as some have suggested. (Not Gator, but others I have heard disparaging BYU. It's nonsense.)

There seems to be something intrinsically entertaining to the mortal human mind about watching another being suffer. Bull fighting, dog fighting, cock fighting—these things are as old as the human race. The revenge motif is surely the most prevalent one in our entertainment media. Look how popular horror movies and gorefests are. This is not a Godly trait, but it is a very human trait. I admit I laughed quite hard a few years ago when I watched a video of people putting some silly thing, like a ball or a toy of some sort, beside a cat that wasn't paying attention, and when the cat saw the thing, it jumped out of its skin. I don't know why I found it so hilarious. But the cat didn't think it was funny. The experience was most unpleasant for the animal. So while I didn't find the video clip that @Jamie123 provided at all funny, I can't claim to be above such things. But I think we should not nurture that part of our soul.

I don't remember that this quote exists in the novel, but it was a brilliant line in the BBC/A&E adaptation. Seriously, what a great movie. I have never seen a more faithful (or more entertaining) novel adaptation.

Yep. BYU has always struggled with balancing doctrinal fidelity with worldly recognition and acclaim. I do not blame the institution for this; it's kind of all rolled up in that ball of wax. If you're going to offer a university that grants recognized degrees, I don't see how you avoid the issue. But it has always been a problem, and it highlights the absolute need for the school's top administration to be first and foremost faithful Latter-day Saints who love the gospel.

A hundred thousand times might be closer to the truth.

Our hearing acuity, like our visual perception, works on roughly a log basis. That is, halving the sound (or light) intensity does not halve our perception of it. Daylight is something like ten thousand times brighter than full moonlight, but we don't perceive it as ten thousand times brighter. It's way brighter. But if you ask people to tell when the intensity of light or sound doubles, you'll find that it increases something like five times before it's perceived as doubling. Which is to say, even if a curtain cut the sound intensity in half, it would be perceived as a relatively slight decline in the sound intensity, not as a dramatic dropoff.

BYU positions are very competitive. When we were in grad school, BYU tried to recruit Sister Vort to join the Department of French as an associate professor. (We were tempted, but we ended up going a different direction. Basically, Sister Vort had decided to put aside her career aspirations to stay at home with our children.) BYU positions are highly coveted among Church members. There are plenty of people who would gladly take a professorial position at BYU, even if it meant a pay cut.

Oh, I could climb the very highest Himalayas, Be among the greatest-ever tennis players, Win at chess or marry a princess or Study hard and be an eminent professor. I could be a millionaire, Play the clarinet, travel everywhere, Learn to cook, catch a crook, Win a war, then write a book about it. I could paint a Mona Lisa, I could be another Caesar, Compose an oratorio that was sublime. Oh, the door's not shut on my genius, but I just don't have the time.

Which raises the question: Why does BYU offer them employment? I guarantee you that for every teaching position at BYU, there are three well-qualified individuals among the faithful membership of the Church.

I remember reading about a supposed chess prodigy whose mother staged an event where he played something like 16 people simultaneously. The poor kid lost every match but one, the one being a forfeit when the opponent got tired of waiting for him and left. People got a good laugh out of that, but I felt bad for the kid.

I hope that the adjective "minor" is an understatement.

Aside from Musk's epic comeback, Trudeau demonstrates why he's leaving in disgrace. Apparently, he thinks that nations make more money in trade and have better joint security as independent partners than they would if, you know, they didn't have the tariffs and differing laws and stuff.

The Foreigner in me wants to know.

For the record.

Not on the sun. Ha! Gotcha! I'm so clever.

Why didn't you? It costs nothing to register a complaint with the state insurance commission. I think this is a marvelous idea. I'm just not sure that you should go uninsured while your house repair fund is unfunded.

Unless you can set aside half the value of your house in case of damage, I think not insuring your house is, generally speaking, a dangerous idea.

FTR, I hate the Stones, but you can't deny their pervasive influence.

Indeed. But in the tongues spoken through the ages by human beings, division and unity are opposing ideas (unless you're talking Catholic theology). If you divide something into one piece, you haven't divided it.

I don't object to details that add color and realism to the story. Mentioning in passing that So-and-so is gay, because it comes up in a believable way but otherwise has no bearing on the story, seems perfectly reasonable to me. Making that character then act within the story in a believable way is also reasonable. I suppose I'm contradicting myself to some degree; maybe I'm feeling out what exactly I do think on the topic. Maybe it's this: I don't object to the existence of e.g. homosexual characters in a fictional environment. I don't object to such characters being portrayed positively or even heroically; Alan Turing was obviously a positive and even heroic real-life character whose homosexuality was intrinsic to his personal story. I suppose what I object to is not the humanization and even lionization of someone who happens to be homosexual, but the lionization and normalization of homosexuality itself, as if there is something beautiful and precious and desirable about homosexual relations. That seems very obviously to be calling evil good and good evil. If a good biopic is ever made of Michael Jackson, I hope it's filled with pathos, with acknowledgement of the immense talent of the man, and with the conclusion that it is the tragic story of a good man being destroyed by exploitation from his very childhood. I hope it's filled with sympathy and understanding. But I certainly hope that any sexual relations or even sexual innuendo regarding children is not excused or portrayed as positive in any way. Even when we love and admire and sympathize with people like Michael Jackson, good is good and evil is evil, and we should not be mixing those up.

Thnk what you will of Gene Simmons, but this book title is just brilliant.

Apropos of nothing important, I find myself stubbornly refusing to conform to the practice of using a chapter number for scriptural books that contain only a single chapter. In their publication of the standard works, the Church has introduced a standard of always using a chapter number, even for books such as Enos (or Jarom, Omni, Words of Mormon, and Fourth Nephi) that contain only one chapter*. I can see technical, database-ish reasons for doing this. But we do not e.g. enforce grammar rules that exist only to make our data sorts easier. I see no compelling reason not to simply say or write "Enos 7", and to instead insert the entirely superfluous chapter to make "Enos 1:7". If the Church's own style guide makes that demand, then I will follow it as long as I am writing material in behalf of the Church. Otherwise, it's Enos 7 pour moi. *Please note that this arguably creates a contradiction in terms. A "chapter", by definition, is a division of a given book. If the entire book is "one chapter", then the so-called chapter isn't actually dividing anything.

Despite our modern societal fascination with all things sexual, and especially with all things sexually deviant, in polite society (a society I would one day like to be a part of) people don't talk about private matters publically, including (or especially) private sexual matters. So if an author introduces a homosexual character, there needs to be a solid reason for that. Homosexuality is not brown hair or a slight stutter. And if the person's sexuality is somehow central to the story, then yes, I want the representation of good and healthy sexual characteristics to be maintained. I do not want evil called or portrayed as good, or good called/portrayed as evil. The act of homosexual sex relations is an abomination and a perversion. This societally unpopular view is undeniably true—undeniable if you're a believing and faithful Latter-day Saint who has a more than merely passing acquaintance with the doctrines of the Restored Church of Christ. The "perversion" part is obvious enough; sex is fundamentally the Godly ability to create human life, and thus among the most sacred things wse have. Homosexual relations do not and cannot create human life. That is not to say (as some have) that all sexual relations must necessarily have the goal of procreation; accepting this, as some do, would mean that women over the age of about 40 (and, sadly, their husbands) must never engage in sexual relations. But clearly, having sex with animals or little children or members of one's same sex is utterly at odds with the divine purpose of creation, the purpose for which sex was introduced by God. Any such sexual activity is a mockery* of sex and is, again by definition, a perversion of the divine purposes of sexual relations. *Please remember than "mockery" is, in general, the unauthorized and false reproduction of something. Mockery is often done for the purposes of belittling or making fun, which is how we generally use the term. But a mockingbird is not making fun of other birds, and a law school's mock trial is not intended to belittle the idea of a trial. In both cases, it is a recognition that the thing discussed is not "the real thing", but something intended to represent it, but in a false context. A mockingbird is not a bluejay or a crow; a parrot is not a cursing sailor; a mock trial doesn't actually put anyone in prison. Same-sex individuals using each other for sexual purposes is a false usage of the act of procreation, and is thus, by definition, mockery. The "abomination" part is a moral judgment, one that is backed up in all scripture and in all prophetic teachings. This does not mean we condemn homosexuals, any more than making a moral judgment against any other sin means we necessarily condemn those who sin in that way. But we must stand by our moral standards. It's one thing to say, "These are my moral standards, and I will stand by them whether or not you agree, but I concede that you have every right to question or even reject those standards;" it is entirely another (and very evil) thing to say, "These are my moral standards, but if you don't agree, I will reject my own standards and call into question things I have heretofore accepted, because I don't want to be perceived as icky or mean by those who reject my moral standards." All of this to say: If an author is making a character's homosexuality an integral part of the story, then that homosexuality, like any other negative or carnal or wicked characteristic, should be portrayed as such. When an author introduces a homosexual character whose sexuality has nothing at all to do with the plot, then that author is gratuitously seeking to be perceived as "inclusive", and I see no reason to patronize that dishonest author. When an author introduces a homosexual character whose sexual proclivities are portrayed as desirable or heroic, then that author has rejected the very basis of human sexual morality, and I see many reasons to reject that immoral author. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a lot of (or any) good reasons for a moral author to introduce a homosexual character whose sexuality has no impact on the storyline or whose sexuality is to be portrayed as intrinsically good or at least morally neutral.

Jesus rejected the hypocrites and sought out the repentant.