Independence Day

As most anyone with connections to BYU will know, BYU's football team is going independent in Division I-A football, with many other sports affiliating with the West Coast Conference. As you can imagine, I'm pretty excited about BYU football going independent and playing various opponents from all across the country. I'm also pretty stoked that BYU is coming to Corvallis in the fall to play Oregon State at Reser Stadium. I bought two tickets in the visitors' section of that game and I will be wearing virtually all blue with absolutely zero orange. I'm also contemplating making a sign that says, "OSU Grad Student" and below that, "(Guess where I did my undergrad)" with an arrow pointing down toward me. It would be legit. Anywho, there are some other things that I will enjoy about BYU going independent in football:

• Dusting my feet off on "The Mtn." TV network. Bad cameras, camera angles, and cameramen, are compounded by the terrible commentary.
• Getting rid of Mountain West officials. Through the years watching BYU and Mountain West football, I've seen terrible call after terrible call. As we liked to chant at LaVell Edwards Stadium, "I'm blind! I'm deaf! I'm a Mountain West ref!"
• BYU on ESPN. My Alma Mater has seven games on the ESPN networks for the upcoming season, most likely with more to come. People all over the country and the world will get to see Jake Heaps and the BYU offense steamroll "power conference" opponents.
• Referring to the Pac-12 as SpUtah's pimp. "It's unfortunate that SpUtah couldn't get permission from its pimp to have the Holy War game at the end of the season."
• Something that resembles a student section at LES. While I was at BYU, the athletic department always scattered the students about in order to optimize revenue. With BYU on ESPN, this is not an option and there will actually be a student section. [Scratch that, bad info]
  
• Leverage and options for conference bids. With conferences courting schools all over the place, BYU will have the power to negotiate with big six conferences like the Pac-12 and the Big XII if they would even want to entertain such offers.
• Independence. As with most other forms of independence, being independent in football will allow BYU to do whatever they want with their money and efforts without a conference commissioner lording over them.

This year, Independence Day comes a few days early, on July 1st. I will be sporting my various BYU gear in celebration and it will be a day of rejoicing in Provo and the BYU faithful all around the world.

Go Cougars!

The Economic Recovery Plan

There's been a lot of talk about how to regain some of the wealth and prosperity that have been lost and not as yet recovered in the United States. The federal government in its current form will never be able to do what it takes to enact a recovery, mostly because the politicians in congress only desire to represent about 20% of the American populace, on a good day. I've thought of some reforms that should cause the economy of the United States to grow again, get people spending, and reduce unemployment. Some of these are fairly extreme and I will not present those in this blag post. The proposals that I present here are the ones that I believe a majority of Americans could agree with that would also easily jump start the economy. Now, without further ado, allow me to introduce The Hands' Economic Recovery Plan, or THERP, if you will.

1. Enact banking reform that would forgive mortgage debt. Believe it or not, this is not the first time that economic recession and stagnation have been spurred by a boom and bust in the housing market. It happened in Japan in the early '90s. The economic woes continued for over a decade until the Japanese government enacted laws that remitted mortgage debt. Without this reform in the US, individuals and families would be prevented from spending on things other than their mortgages or moving when job opportunities present themselves. The economic stagnation we currently observe could continue almost into perpetuity with no change to the system. Banking reform won't happen under the current government system because bankers lose in this situation and most Republican politicians either are bankers or have very close ties to them.
2. Deport the illegal immigrants. Until any American can walk into Mexico/Guatemala/Honduras/etc. without any paperwork and demand jobs, government-paid healthcare and welfare, everything being printed in English, and the ability to accuse citizens of being racists when they point out that we're a leech on their society, I refuse to grant the same privileges to their citizens. Any child who's been granted American citizenship would be welcome to stay, however, his or her illegally present parents would not. They can either take the children back to their home country or give them up and we'll find them a nice home with Americans. Immigration reform won't happen because illegal immigration wins votes for Democrats and improves the bottom line for the C-level executives to whom the Republicans bow down.
3. Enact corporate tax reform. Basically, any wealth gained by corporations that came from goods and services produced and sold completely in the United States would be tax-free. However, corporations would be taxed on wealth gained from foreign income, foreign component parts used in American-produced goods, and imports at a rate slightly above the current effective corporate rate. This would give corporations incentive to create jobs in the United States instead of China, India, Mexico, etc. This reform won't happen because Republican politicians won't support anything that might ruffle the feathers of the top 2% of income earners.
4. Enact income tax reform. More specifically, I would enact unearned income tax reform. Paul the Apostle wrote in one of his letters to Timothy that, "The love of money is the root of all evil." In the contemporary western world, we have become obsessed with the notion that we can just "invest" money and make a living doing it. We desire to get something for nothing so badly that we are willing to ruin ourselves and everyone else around us to make it happen. I would tax unearned income (i.e. dividends, profit sharing, capital gains, etc.) at a rate at least as high as that for earned income. The goal of this reform would be to incentivize people to actually do something to try to earn a living, while still making some cautious investments. Once again, the Republican politicians' steadfast loyalty to the top 2% of income earners is to blame for the impossibility of this reform.
5. Enact property tax reform. Educators and other liberals would howl and moan, but in order to stabilize the housing market, we need taxation to not be based on property value. As sad as it might be, part of our economic plight is due to state and local tax rates being higher than they have ever been before. State and local governments would have to make due with less money than they currently take in. These governments could go a long way just cutting welfare and pork, but in the end, changes would have to be made to the education system. I won't be expounding on my thoughts on education reform in this post because this subject deserves more than just a token mention. Look forward to another post on this topic sometime soon. This tax reform won't happen because liberals have used the scare tactic, 'Think of the children,' at any mention of property tax/education reform, when we could undoubtedly give our children the same education for a better value.
6. Enact banking/investment tax reform. Basically, I would tax banks based on the riskiness of their investments. For corporate stocks, this would be easy, because investment bankers calculate a term, β, that essentially represents risk of such an investment. For futures, it would be even easier. The tax rate on futures would be inversely proportional to the proportion of the future value paid upfront. For example, if a bank put 3% down on an oil future, their tax rate on that future would be 97%. This would annihilate the profits of prospectors who pick up futures and deflect the costs by not actually putting up any money down upfront, drastically reducing the speculation in the market. For any other investment, it would take pages and pages of tax code to assess the risk of investments for taxation purposes. Mortgage-backed securities would also be made illegal, the sale of which would be punishable by death. Again, the top 2% of income earners would be upset about this reform, keeping them from ever happening.
   
7. Cut entitlements. The burgeoning budget deficit of the federal government is another dead weight on the US economy. Cutting entitlements would be key to reducing the deficit and the biggest of these in my sights would be growth in Medicare, not Medicare itself, but its growth. Limiting Medicare growth by itself could almost bring the US to fiscal solvency by 2015. Providers of care (to a certain degree) and, to a greater degree, of prescription drugs and specialty treatments would need to undergo reform in order to keep the costs paid by the American government low. These cuts won't come to fruition because Democrats use entitlements as one of their biggest selling points in elections.
8. Cut defense spending. Along the same lines as entitlements, the federal government could almost reach solvency by cutting defense spending. Cuts would have to come to expensive military research projects like new cruise missiles, fighter jets, and stealth ships. At this point in history, the United States is largely fighting guerrillas who live in caves. In all honesty, the military hardly needs a $1 billion cruise missile to take them out. Also, tactics of war would have to be employed in order to actually conquer enemies and get troops home in a timely manner. War is dirty, unsafe, and emotionally depraved; anyone who thinks otherwise should get over themselves. The blame for this one falls on both sides of the aisle. Republicans refuse to give up pricey research projects while Democrats (and the liberal media) refuse to allow war to actually take place for the long-term safety of both troops and the American people.
   

All of the reforms that I have mentioned above would have winners and losers. However, the purpose of a government is largely to balance the winners and losers of various reforms in a manner that best ameliorates total human suffering. In many cases, the losers in the scenarios above have been winners big enough and for long enough that they have amassed fabulous wealth and have begun to exercise the power that comes with that wealth over the remainder of the population. This phenomenon has become the greatest cause of our social and economic woes as citizens of the United States. The reforms that I have mentioned would go a long way to fulfill the purpose of a government and ameliorate the total human suffering in this country.

As you can imagine, neither I nor any one individual is in a position of supreme power over the United States and its allies. However, I do believe that the reforms, which I have mentioned herein are in the best interest of the people of the United States with whom the power of government is supposed to reside. Now, go inundate your congressperson with commentary on how worthless and filthy of a swine he or she really is. ;D

The Walls of Jericho

The title to this post is not a metaphor, this post is about the actual walls of Jericho. Also this post is mostly a matter of opinion and intuition and may not reflect what truly happened at the siege of Jericho. However, I feel that, based on my limited knowledge of the events and basic principles of science, I can offer some insights to those who have not chosen my field of study.

Yesterday, in sacrament meeting, one of the talks was about the Book of Joshua, and coincidentally, about the events that took place in his life. The speaker gave a rendition of the events described in chapter 6 of the Book of Joshua when the children of Israel besieged the city of Jericho and brought its walls tumbling down. Being the nerd that I am, I took hold of this thought and have been thinking about it ever since; seriously, I have no idea what the second speaker talked about. I've thought about it, and based on my knowledge of soil and wave mechanics, I believe that I can offer a scientific explanation to what happened in Jericho several thousand years ago.

The story goes that after the children of Israel had crossed the river Jordan (not to be confused with the Jordan river in Utah) and besieged the city of Jericho, the Lord counseled Joshua, who was the prophet to have his warriors march around the city once a day for six days, after which the priests would blow a trumpet made from a ram's horn. Then, on the seventh day, they would march around the city seven times, blow the rams' horns for an extended period of time, and all the warriors would shout at the top of their lungs. The Lord promised that if they did this, the city of Jericho would be theirs.

I'm not totally familiar with the construction methods or materials of the era, nor am I intimately familiar with the soil conditions of the region. Based on other passages in the Bible and the construction of other structures at the same time, it would be reasonable to believe that either bricks or stones would have been used with either some bituminous material as mortar, or with no mortar at all. Also of note, the city of Jericho was located somewhere around 825 feet below sea level in a deep river basin. This would generally lead to soft soils with fairly small particle size and low angularity, resulting in low shear strength.

Figure 1. Soil and resonance in the Walls of Jericho failure.

I've included a picture of my own drawing as Figure 1, above, that says at least a thousand words about what I think could have happened. The cross-section of the wall is shown to be about plumb (vertical) before the children of Israel arrive and besiege the city. As the priests carrying the ark of the covenant and the warriors march around the city once daily, they put a force on the soil (FI) that results in stresses, shown by stress bulbs underneath the stick figure. These stresses would result in a lateral force (FL) being applied to the bottom of the wall, causing it to rotate slightly off of plumb. The priests then blowing their trumpets made of rams' horns could insight a low-amplitude vibration in the wall that could weaken both the wall's structure and the soil beneath it.

The marching around the city once a day would cause a certain amount of rotation of the wall, but would be partially ameliorated by the dissipation of pore pressures (water pressure in the soil). With time, the pore pressures would dissipate and the lateral force applied to the wall would dissipate as well. However, on the seventh day, when the children of Israel marched around the wall seven times, it created a large lateral force that could not be reduced by the dissipation of pore pressures in time. This caused an even greater rotation in the wall than the previous six days worth of daily marches.

When the priests blew their horns and the people gave a loud shout, it's probable that the sound waves induced either a large-amplitude vibration, or outright resonance in the wall. With the wall in its out-of-plumb state, it's possible that this vibration could have caused an eccentricity in the structure that brought it down all by itself. It's also possible that the vibration in the wall could have caused a shear failure in the soil beneath that would cause a brick or stone wall to collapse just from the static load of its weight (W). Another important thing to note is that a continuous wall cannot rotate outward without cracks forming along the top. In reality, it probably would have been contributions from all three of these factors that brought down the walls of Jericho.

In my picture, it would appear that the wall would have collapsed on the children of Israel. I really have no idea how tall the wall was nor do I know how far Israel was standing from it. I've also exaggerated the rotations of the wall to make them easier to see in the picture. There's also a good chance the Israel stood at least a few feet away from the wall in anticipation of collapse. The distance of the wall collapse outward and the distance that the children of Israel would have had to have marched in order to create a significant lateral force on the bottom of the wall may have been similar, but it really depends on the height and subterranean depth of the wall, which I decidedly don't know.

Now, the best part about this, in my opinion, is that not even the brightest and most educated people in the world would have had the slightest clue about soil or wave mechanics in 1200 BC, when Israel overthrew Jericho. Galileo recognized that a wave could vibrate with more energy than was put into it (basically resonance) in the early AD 1600s. Even better, Karl Terzaghi didn't give birth to modern soil mechanics until the AD 1940s. Trust me, the children of Israel were not the most educated people in the world, either. They had spent generations being slaves in Egypt and 40 years wandering through a barren desert. I don't suppose that there would have been a wealth of scientific knowledge flowing through the minds of the people of Israel.

The reason that Israel was able to use these complex scientific principles to their advantage over the gentiles was that the Lord knew all of these principles and more that even I don't understand now. The Lord revealed to Israel what they should do in order to conquer. It would have been a seemingly useless and monotonous thing to march around the city once a day for six days and then seven times on the seventh. This is especially true when an army is used to taking over cities by force, as was the convention at the time. I can imagine soldiers whining because they just wanted to take over the city already and move on to the promised land. However, the Lord had a plan for them to take over the city. When they had followed that plan, they were able to begin attacking the city from every side and to utterly destroy it without much loss on their side. In the same way, the Lord will guide each of us to better things than we could ever imagine if we will exercise patience and follow the plan that he has set up for us.

...Can't Live Without 'Em

Reading through the posts in my blag, you may think that I'm kind of a misogynist douche who hates everything about women. When I went through all of my blag posts, I realized that that's kind of the impression that I gave. Let me assure you that I love women and honestly wish that I saw more of them (i.e. the 'Unfortunate' in the title.) Here are some things that I love about women, in the order that I thought of them.

• Women are daughters of God. God loves his daughters just as much (never more and never less) than he loves his sons. He intended neither to have dominion over the other, but that they should work together so that each could obtain eternal life.
• Women are generally more emotional. Whether this trait is inherent or learned is a matter of debate, but regardless of which it is, it is a fact of life. Women, in many cases, are conversely talented to men. That is to say that women often have abilities that men don't and vice versa. In a family unit, a man generally functions as the analytical, organized, and boring left brain while a woman functions as the sensitive, impulsive, and fun-loving right brain. These two work together to make a functional and cohesive family unit. Women are the Yin to Men's Yang, if you will.
• Women are often more charitable. Because of their emotional disposition, women are more likely to give of their time and their substance to help others.
  
• Women generally like children. One time, fiancee #2 said that she was going to "convert me to babies." That is to say that she was going to try to convince me that babies are inherently wonderful. This is not possible with me, nor with any man because men are generally more analytical and task-oriented. All babies do is eat, poop, and cry and they really don't do us much good for years after their birth. Basically, we evolved as a species because men like to make babies and women like to actually have them. Were it not for women's affinity for babies, the very existence of homo sapiens as a species would be in jeopardy.
  
• Women teach their children to function in close relationships. As much as progressive feminists despise traditional gender roles, they are kind of inherent in our genes. Basically, men evolved to keep the ravenous, wild beasts from killing their family and women evolved to keep members of the family from killing one another. Generally, it's a mother who teaches her children to play nice with their siblings and the other kids and makes sure that there's at least a little equity amongst her children. This, hopefully, translates into the close and intimate* relationships that we have in adulthood being healthy and functional.
• Women are generally good at multitasking. Men's brains often function in a linear, systematic way that allows them to focus intently on one thing at a time and to do that one thing efficiently and effectively. Women's brains, conversely, tend to fire in several different directions at once, which allows them to do many different things at the same time. Thus, there are many non-linear, multi-focused tasks that women can perform better than men, conversely to the linear, single-focused things that men can do well.
• Women love to talk. Hearkening back to women being more emotional, women are more likely to try to communicate across a relationship. Human nature and society often constrains women from speaking their minds, but it is a beautiful part of femininity. Inasmuch as I'm not clairvoyant, I love it when a woman actually tells me directly what she's thinking about.
• Women are often concerned with appearance. While caring too much how things look can often be detrimental, it is often important to care at least a little bit. Men generally don't really care how things look and it often results in things looking like crap. Women help balance out this effect with their affinity for appearances.

I might be able to come up with some others, but I think I got all of the most important ones. Women are great, and together with men, we are equipped with the ability to find happiness in this life and in the next. I hope that all women can embrace who they are and what makes them women. Until next time, folks.

*Unlike most Mormons, I don't use 'intimacy' as a euphemism for sex. When I say intimate, I actually mean intimate.

Gotta Say, That's Not Really a Stretch

I was originally going to post this thought as a Crackbook status, so this blag post will be short:

Throughout the day, both yesterday night and today, people have been commenting via various forms of media about their surprise that The Book of Mormon musical won a boatload of Tony Awards. I don't find this surprising at all. In fact, I knew that it was going to clean house at the Tonys from the moment that I saw Trey Parker and Matt Stone on Letterman a few months back promoting it. Let's examine the evidence, shall we:

• The Tony Awards have become what amounts to a homosexual political action committee that uses the medium of musical and dance theater. In other words the Tonys are run by the gay community.
  
• The Mormons pushed Proposition 8 during the 2008 political elections. This proposition was widely deemed anti-gay and the homosexual community has been unhappy about it ever since.
• The Book of Mormon musical makes fun of Mormons using one of the favorite media of the homosexual community, musical theater.

QED - Trey Parker and Matt Stone have to hire a mover to carry all their Tony Awards.

And just as a disclaimer, this post is not anti-gay nor is it anti-Mormon. It merely explains why no one should have been that surprised that the BOM musical pwned at the Tonys.

I Clearly Have Too Much Time On My Hands

...because I just ranked all of the classes I took as an undergrad. The format is: Class Code - Class Name: Instructor, Term, Grade.

1. CE En 421 - Structural Steel Design: Paul Richards, Winter 2010, A
2. CE En 321 - Structural Analysis: Rick Balling, Fall 2009, A
3. CE En 341 - Elementary Soil Mechanics: Travis Gerber, Winter 2010, A-
4. CE En 332 - Hydraulics and Fluid Flow Theory: Rollin Hotchkiss, Winter 2009, A-
5. Rel A 121 - Book of Mormon: Camille Fronk-Olsen, Fall 2007, A
6. Acc 200 - Principles of Accounting: Norm Nemrow, Winter 2010, A
7. Bus M 380 - Executive Lectures: Cheryl McBeth, Fall 2009, A
   
8. Ex Sc 116 - Beginning Bowling: The Asian Dude, Spring 2009, A
9. CE En 204 - Dynamics: Dr. C, Fall 2008, A-
10. CE En 112 - Engineering Graphics and CAD: Clyne Curtis, Fall 2007, A
11. CE En 103 - Statics: Dr. C, Fall 2007, A-
    
12. Geol 330 - Geology for Engineers: Randy Skinner, Spring 2008, A-
13. Rel C 234 - LDS Marriage and Family: Kent Brooks, Fall 2008, A
14. Stat 221 - Principles of Statistics: Perpetua Nielsen, Spring 2008, A
15. Math 112 - Calculus I: Don't Remember, Fall 2006, A
16. CE En 461 - Geometric Design of Highways: Mitsuru Saito, Spring 2008, A-
17. Rel A 212 - New Testament: Camille Fronk-Olsen, Winter 2009, A
18. CE En 424 - Reinforced Concrete Design: Paul Richards, Spring 2010, B+
19. CE En 433 - Hydraulic Engineering: Wood Miller, Spring 2009, B+
20. CE En 305A - Metals, Woods, and Composites: Dave Jensen, Fall 2009, A
21. CE En 203 - Mechanics of Materials: Dr. C, Winter 2008, A-
22. CE En 305B - Concrete, Masonry, and Asphalt: Spencer Guthrie, Fall 2009, A-
23. Rel C 324 - Doctrine and Covenants: Guy Dorius, Fall 2008, A
24. Econ 110 - Econ Principles and Problems: Matt Butler, Spring 2010, A-
25. CE En 113 - Engineering Measurements: Dr. Reese, Spring 2008, A
26. Engl 316 - Technical Communication: Nicole Wistisen, Winter 2010, A-
27. Physics 123 - Physics II: Dave Allred, Fall 2007, B+
28. Math 214 - Multivariable Calculus: Emma Turner, Winter 2008, B+
29. CE En 351 - Environmental Engineering: Gus Williams, Winter 2009, A-
30. Chem 106 - Principles of Chem II: Dr. Herrick, Winter 2007, A
31. Psych 111 - General Psychology: Mikel(?) South, Winter 2008, A
32. Rel C 325 - Doctrine and Covenants: Randy Bott, Winter 2010, A
33. Bus M 340 - Marketing: Doug Witt, Summer 2010, A-
34. Rel A 122 - Book of Mormon: Sherrie Johnson, Winter 2008, A
35. Chem 105 - Principles of Chem I: Dr. Seger, Fall 2006, B
36. CE En 361 - Intro to Transportation Engrg: Grant Schultz, Winter 2009, B+
37. Engl 150 - Writing & Rhetoric: Sarah Jenkins, Fall 2007, B
38. CE En 470 - Senior Design (kind of): Wood Miller, Winter 2010, A-
39. Bio 100 - Principles of Biology: Sis. Jefferies (I think), Fall 2009, A-
40. Bus M 300 - Finance: Lise Crawford, Summer 2010, B+
41. Physics 121 - Physics 1: Alex Flournoy, Winter 2007, B
42. CE En 562 - Traffic Engineering: Mitsuru Saito, Fall 2009, B+
43. CE En 270 - Computational Methods: James Nelson, Fall 2008, B
44. Org B 320 - Human Resources: None Really, Summer 2010, A-
45. Math 113 - Calculus II: Don't Remember, Winter 2007, B
46. A Htg 100 - American Heritage: The Bald Guy, Fall 2007, B
47. Left 101 - That One Hippie Class: The Hippie Woman, Fall 2006, A
    
48. CE En 100A - Stupid Semenar: Michael Borup, Fall 2007, A-
49. CE En 100B - Stupid Semenar: Michael Borup, Winter 2008, C+
50. CE En 200A - Stupid Semenar: Michael Borup, Fall 2008, A-
51. CE En 200B - Stupid Semenar: Michael Borup, Winter 2009, B+
52. CE En 300A - Stupid Semenar: Michael Borup, Fall 2009, B+
53. CE En 400C - Even Stupider Semenar: Michael Borup, Winter 2010, A-
54. GYM 101 - Gym I: Don't Remember, Fall 2006, A
55. GYM 102 - Gym II: Don't Remember, Winter 2007, A
56. Pl Sc 201 - Western Political Heritage 1: Dr. Hancock, Fall 2008, B-
57. Pl Sc 202 - Western Political Heritage 2: The Canadian Guy, Winter 2009, C+
58. Math 334 - Ordinary Differential Equations: John Dallon, Fall 2008, C+
59. Math 343 - Elementary Linear Algebra: Jeff Humpherys, Fall 2007, C

Did I really take 59 classes while I was in college? In all honesty, I might have taken even more, as there might have been a class or two that I forgot about. Also, you've probably noticed that there's a nice correlation between my ranking of a class and my grade in the class, but don't get your cause and effect mixed up. For the most part, I got good grades in classes because I enjoyed them; I didn't enjoy classes because I got good grades in them. Just so you know... ;)

Annie Very Sorry

Today marks the second anniversary of the creation of this blag. As luck would have it, it's also the 100th post I've made to it. Here's a recap of things that have happened in the last 2 years and 100 blag posts in approximately chronological order.

• I bought a handgun.
• I decided to get a business minor.
• I read 'The Five Love Languages' by Gary Chapman. It changed my life.
• I saw then BYU tight end Andrew George catch a walk-off touchdown pass from Max Hall to beat SpUtah in OT.
  
• I applied for over 300 full-time civil engineering jobs.
• I got 3 interviews and no formal job offers.
  
• I took and passed the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam.
• I moved into an apartment with guys who I actually liked beforehand.
  
• I went to the Utah Summer Games Ultimate Frisbee Tournament in Cedar City and accidentally attended a Single Adult dance. (Notice the lack of 'Young' at the front.)
• I went longboarding down Provo Canyon with Scott Manning and still have the scars to prove it. I pledged that I would never ride/drive anything that didn't have brakes after that.
  
• I bought and have been learning to play the bass guitar.
• I appeared in 'The Food Nanny' TV program on BYUtv.
• I graduated from BYU with a BS.
• I applied to 7 institutions of higher learning to pursue a master's degree in civil engineering.
• I was accepted by 6 of those institutions.
• I found out that I would receive funding from Oregon State University and, without hesitation, decided that I would matriculate.

As we can see, it's been a great time. I'm totally looking forward to next two years worth of Unfortunate Dudefests. :D

Shawties

Since my future for the next year, or so, has been decided, I can now turn my blagging attention back to more philosophical topics. The last 18 months of job search and grad school blagging have been solid, but definitely not the most exciting topics I've ever written about.

Recently I've been thinking about women. I've found out that my mom is ready for grandchildren and has a specific desire for Asian ones, which explains why she's been telling me my soul mate is an Asian woman for years now. Yesterday, she even started making me a profile on the scourge on human existence know as match.com. Luckily I was able to change the password on that profile and delete it before any real damage was done. I tell you this so that you can understand why I've been thinking about women and romance over the past few days. It really has nothing else to do with this post.

The point of this blag post isn't to page Dr. Freud. Rather, I want to discuss a phenomenon that I'm a part of whether I really want to be or not. A little under a year ago, I went to an Independence Day barbeque with a good friend of mine (and cutie) Hannah with one of her friends who shall remain nameless. At some point during this event the Friend of Hannah made a comment something along the lines of, "I don't think tall guys should go out with short women, because tall guys should be for tall girls, you know?" I'm sure that I'm butchering that quote, but 11 months has taken its toll on the precision of my memory. As a side note, this was pretty awkward for Hannah and I since she stands at a petite 5'1" and I come in 13 inches taller at 6'2". I don't hold anything against Hannah's friend for her commentary, but I have to say at this juncture, that I disagree.

I've always found this whole concept to be fairly shallow. If I meet the woman of my dreams who meets every criterion on The List and more, you couldn't pay me to care whether she's 4'10" or 5'10". When it comes right down to it, height is just another physical characteristic that's much less important in the long term than things like personality, mutual interests, and reciprocal charity. A woman of below average height is just as capable as a woman of average or above average height of having these intrinsic characteristics. A certain amount of physical attraction is always important to a relationship, but it is nowhere close to the most important things. The only applicable downside of going out with a more petite woman that I can think of is that the mechanics of kissing are somewhat challenging. As long as there's a step around, it shouldn't be a problem.

Adding to this conundrum is the attitude that taller women usually take toward it. Most of the taller women that I've met seem to have a little bit of an entitlement mentality when it comes to taller men. Unfortunately for them, it all comes down to simple economics. Tall men are a scarce resource that most all women want, at least to a certain degree. The scarcity of this, or any other, resource causes the price of that resource to go up. In a simple economic model the consumer with the highest willingness to pay is the one who comes out with the scarce resource. Romantic relationships can rarely be explained fully by a simple economic model, but the principle holds true. The woman who wants the tall guy more will end up with him assuming approximate equality in physical and character traits among the women. In my experience, the more petite women have been willing to pay more than they taller women and have thus often end up with them. As a footnote to this paragraph let me say that the 'price' of a tall man can include a wide variety of things and not just what you're thinking. Get your mind out of the gutter. ;)

Since I've been talking a whole lot about women who are shorter than me, you might be interested to know how I feel about women who are taller than me. Most of the men that I know would not be comfortable dating a woman who was taller than them, and even fewer women would be comfortable dating a man who's shorter than them. Let me just say that, in my life (not just adult life, but my whole life), I've only met about 5 or 6 women who were taller than me, and only one or two of those were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Just so we're clear, I'm taller than about 99.99% of American women. I'd estimate that there are about 18 women of that height who are single, active members of the church in the States. If any of those 18 women are interested in me, I will certainly reciprocate. However, in a pool of potentially millions of women, a number like 18 is something that my engineer friends would call "negligible." Basically, I'll cross that bridge if I ever come to it... which is unlikely.

So the moral of the story is that there can potentially be a wide variety of things that contribute to a man's interest in a woman, and height is almost never very high on the list. A short woman shouldn't be dissuaded from interest in a guy solely because he's significantly taller than her and tall women shouldn't take tall men for granted. As usual, this could just be me, but I think I'm pretty well-founded on this one.

Until next time, my friends.