Polygamists are just like you and me?
Category: Religion and Philosophy

The press have it wrong again. Here's the article covering it:

Deseret News Article

Unfortunately the article did not go into much detail for either side. It did post links to the articles at the bottom of the page though. Since this seems to be a common misconception about my church I guess I should make some points on polygamy to cover the facts.

1. I like numbered lists. They're just so fun and orderly. I guess I could compartmentalize my ramblings with punctuation and literary tricks, but I like the number period format. Deal with it.

2. Shortage of Men - Really. We were being hunted and killed by mobs and the government. We got wise to this and watched for their coming and got the women and children out of their homes before they could be burned in their beds. To prevent pursuit some men always stayed behind to delay or deter them from following. As a result there were less men than women in the church. Since women cannot hold land, cannot vote, have easily tarnished reputations, have children who need a father and are not as physically capable as men they needed husbands to speak up for them, protect their reputations, teach their children, help with the physical labor and teach the children.

3. Not the Whole Church - This only affected a small percentage of the church. Not everyone was doing it mostly because there was no need for everyone to do it. If there was 1 man for 1 woman there would have been no need at all (see 1).

4. It was a calling - The congregational leader (bishop) would have a widow that needed a husband. This would be after he asked her if she was ok with the idea. He would then think of the best people for the job, pray about it and call them and go to talk to them and their current wife. The bishop would ask the man if he would take her on as a wife and then he would ask the current wife if she was ok with this (that's right, she could say no).

5. No requests - There were no old men eyeing the girls on the street and demanding to add them to their repotoire.

Sorry to dispel the fun of polygamy. I still like to hear the jokes and ribs. Especially ones I haven't heard.

Original NY Times Column
Elder Jensen's Rebuttal

10:16 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Catholic Geneology Ban
Category: Religion and Philosophy

Ok, I wanted to wait until the follow up article or at least a statement from my church, but this irks me enough to say something before I have all the facts. So sue me.

This is in response to the information provided in this article:

Catholics told not to give LDS parish data

To sum up, the Catholic church disagrees with our doctrine of proxy ordinances so they are telling their priests not to allow our membership access to their parish records. You'll have to read it to get the long form.

Ok, I get it, they don't like us. We like them though, but that's beside the point. We do geneology. That's one of the things we're good at and everyone know it. So, of course, I have a few problems with their request:

1. Since we are so good at geneology everyone comes to us when they want to do it. We have publicly available geneology libraries open every weekday in most cities in the US and most major cities around the globe. I visited one and found that about half the people there were not members of our church. So by cutting us off their cutting everyone off. Including nuns, priests and the Catholic membership. Real smart.

2. How will they know who is LDS or not? Can you imagine them allowing the public access to the records and not us? That's blatant discrimination, we're used to it and we probably won't do anything about it. Not our style, but what about the rest of the populace? Will they have to sign waivers stating they will not share the info with us and what if they convert? Will they have to give all the info back? Will they seek prosecution of people who do share any information by entering it into our databases? I'd love to see the stink that would cause. Even though we won't fight it, nonmembers would.

3. Three is a cool number. It's stuck there between the rather even and boring two and four. I like having it there to mix things up and tell us when we have a crowd.

4. The reason they don't want us to have access to these records is because we believe in vicarious ordinances for the dead. A better explanation would be that we believe that at some point in time someone somewhere will grow up without the knowledge of Jesus Christ. We also believe that everyone must receive the physical ordinance of baptism to enter paradise and that those who have passed do not have physical bodies. So those of us with physical bodies can stand in for them for baptism much in the same way that Christ stood in for our sinful penance. Those in the spirit world can then choose to accept this or not as it is ultimately up to them. So even though the Catholics believe in proxy they do not believe in our proxy and don't want us doing it. Hence the info access ban.

5. This is an amendment to 4. If they don't believe that what we're doing has an effect on anything why do they care?

This ranks right up with accepting evolution and fixing the limbo mistake as one of the more contradictory statements they have made recently. Yay ignorance.

9:44 AM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

I lika-do da Cha Cha
Category: Blogging

I like to read a blog by Joe Dehlin. He's informative and practical, but this time he was amusing:

Everyone Loves to Cha Cha Cha

8:22 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

The oil companies are out to...what really?
Category: News and Politics

I've heard a lot of complaints and outright yelling about the state of things in the US. Being a somewhat skeptical person I often question if their claims are so cut and dry. The one most recently to catch my attention is the evility of the Oil companies. While I do know they have had a hand in the inception of this war I do not believe they are actively seeking to support, aggrivate or prolong this war. Another statement people make is that since they are reporting record profits they are also dishonest and wrong. I have a few points to make.

First let me explain the record profits by using my company as an example. Our prices are based on our costs. The euro went up recently against the dollar and we had to rais the price of the items affected. With the same percentage markup we are making more money on these items than we have ever before, however since we do not know what the euro will do next year or even later this month we are not going to compensate for this difference. If at some future date the price seems to be stable and the dollar/euro relationship seems equaly stable then we might compensate by adjusting our markup.

Oil companies do the same thing and since the cost of the raw materials (oil) went up so does the price of its products. Now this profit margin has always worked to cover their costs in the past and changing the markup would take reliable data showing that increasing or lowering the margin would positively affect their market. Reliable data is data that doesn't have inconsistencies in change. That is if the market is unpredictable and your company is stable, then makiing a change in the status quo would be a mistake. Now if the price of oil and the status of the oil supply were to become much more stable then a reevaluation of the profit margin would be considered and acceptable. Since this is not the case the status quo is maintained.

As to their motives. Most of their raw material supplies are linked to politically unstable areas. To continue to do business it would be reasonable to support any group that has an interest in stabilizing these areas. The more powerful the group the more likely they will stabilize these areas. Unfortunately, as with all groups you don't have complete control of you cannot predict the methods they will use. Let's say you support a politician who promises to help improve your community with a campaign contribution. They then tear down an underdeveloped area containing your favorite sandwitch shop and your local church to build a Wal-Mart you as their supporter can hardly be blamed for supporting them.

Another point on motives. Cost of production. Now the costs to refine oil have remained somewhat the same (adjusting for inflation) over the last decade, but we, the gasoline buying public, are not really educated on how this works. So, when regular gas was $1 and premium was $1.20 we bought the cheaper one because it was about 20% less. So now that gas is $4.00 the we buy it because the premium is $4.80...wait, no it's not. Premium gasoline is $4.20. Why? Because the difference between processing oil to regular gasoline and premium gasoline has remained pretty much the same. Now they could have increased the cost of premium gasoliine to $4.80 and none of us would have complained. We would have assumed that if it was $1.00 and $1.20 then increasing to $4.00 would yield $4.80 respecitvely.

How is this important. They're not trying to screw you. In all our anger and paranoia we've blamed this war on the greediness of the oil companies. The orchestration of the war being a very complex thing: get a puppet elected, get the congress to agree, keep the public from seeing all of this, etc. And they seem to have missed this one simple thing to screw us with? I doubt the idea that the oil companies are behind this war, I doubt they are trying to screw us out of our money and I don't doubt that at this price difference I will be buying regular gas anymore.

8:27 AM - 4 Comments - 3 Kudos - Add Comment

Ask anyone, but us.
Category: Religion and Philosophy

The LDS church has been receiving quite a bit of press lately. This is mostly due to the Mit Romney campaign. Being a memeber of the church I don't mind the publicity and I think our leadership feels the same. This can lead to good articles that show what we really beileve and how it might differ from other churches. Heck, even a pros and cons argument sounds good to me, but misinformation really gets me ticked.

Here are some terrific examples of good reporting in the Orange County Register and The Washington Post. Good sources, balanced information and decent topics. Exactly what you expect from a respected reporting authority. So, in what other ways might people report about the church? Let's try this one:

From Polygamy to Propriety - First the title: is 118 years long enough to have renounced something to have it not show up in current articles? You don't hear articles about the Catholic Church like "The Friday Fish Faith on Fornication." Jean Paul stopped compulsory friday meat abstinace 50 years ago or so. As for the rest of the article, aside from some slightly biased wording, not a bad bit of news.

In Mitt Romney's Neighborhood, A Mormon Temple Casts a Shadow - A wierd, long title that means nothing starts this long discussion about Mitt Romney's involvement in the building of the Boston Temple in Belmont. This piece shows the writer's ignorance to the process behind our building of temples and makes Mit out to be the guy who built the temple. The rest of the article just seems like a vehicle to bash Romney using the Church as the pig stick. Gong.

So those are bad, here's worse:

Fear and Faith - A Mormon's Ultimate Doorbell - Where do they get these titles? The New York Times wanted to discuss Romneys Faith and his recent speech so who do they drum up to verify the validity and veracity of his claims? Three evangelical luminaries. Makes sense. If I want to find out about that Atheistic lot I'll go watch a TV evangelist.

Mormons aren't Christians - Yup, the Dallas Morning News has decided this with all the authority of a clam. I rather like clams. Fried up at Long John Silvers with a side of hush puppies...mmm...shhhhhhhh.

Could you vote for a man who abides by Moronish wisdom? - This one's british. It starts with his lovely wit or at least that's what I thought it was until I read farther into the article. Nope, just a bunch of hatemongering. I'm not buying.

So when do we get to say what we believe in? I've noticed this trend from a lot of LDS related articles. Does this really make sense? You will never see this type of tactic when you look at any other main stream religion. Maybe I'm not being fair. Maybe the information is hard to get...no, no try Mormon.org to find out about our beliefs, or those idiots on bicycles you see everywhere, or look up your local church in the yellow pages. Maybe we hide our best stuff so nobody can get a hold of it? You can search almost every church book ever printed on LDS.org. Nah, if anything people complain that we won't shut up. So if you want to know, here I am. Ask me something, anything.

In the meantime take a look at this article with a similar rant I regrettably found while looking for all the stuff above: Ignorance at Work

10:48 PM - 15 Comments - 4 Kudos - Add Comment

What Happened to Palpatine
Category: Romance and Relationships

I was digging through my old school files on my computer hoping to free up some space and I came accross this paper I had written for a fluff class that we thought fulfilled a requirement. I think I got an A on the paper, but it was only because the rest of the class was freshman, film and theatre majors. Here is my smart mouthed paper:

Star Wars Episode I - The Phantom Menace broke onto the movie scene in 1999 to the hallowed cries of the Lucas crazed hoard. Twenty years had passed since we were wowed by what we thought would be the final movie in this saga. Many were dazzled by its groundbreaking visual effects and wooed by its fine addition to the movie score library. The sheer power of such a film can leave a profound impact on the viewer, but what would that be? The future is cool? The Jedi are great? Why did they include Jar-Jar? After reviewing this movie from a different point of view I think it gives a strong impression that in an advanced society homosocial bonds are the norm and any other type or relationship, or lack thereof, are social deviants.

To start with we are introduced to a rather odd pair. They would seem to be father and son, but it is easy to see that this is not the case. Qui-Gon Jin is the master and mentor to the equally brash Obi-Wan Kenobi. Their intuitive ability to work together suggests they have been with each other for a long time, possibly decades.

Soon after this introduction we are met with the current villains of the story a pair of bureaucrats in charge of the fleet blockading the planet Naboo. Worried about the Jedi they communicate with their evil master who is without a companion.

From these encounters we see that the heroes are good because they have a strong homosocial bond. The villains, on the other hand, have a weaker bond tending to bicker with one another. This while their master, alone, is the true evil they are afraid of.

We are then whisked to Naboo where the Queen Amidala, surrounded by her most trusted confidants (all women) to discuss what action she should take with the bureaucrats. The Jedi move to the planet as well where they stumble across another social deviant Jar-Jar. He is alone, awkward and lame. It turns out he is wanted for crimes and the Jedi decide to turn him into a good man by including him in their group for a while. This is probably to reform him so he will be a more homosociable person.

The Jedi rescue Amidala, her consorts and bureaucrats from the occupying army and turn to update her on what they know about the current situation. This heterosocial action is so odd that she is speechless and the male bureaucrat feels it necessary to respond. When more information and suggestions are posed to the Queen by Qui-Gon, the security officer feels it necessary to field the question. Would it have been that bad for the person actually in charge to answer the questions or return the information? This is not all, once in the hangar Qui-Gon turns directly to the Queen tells her information that concerns only her and then asks her a direct question. Then, and only then, she responds to his inquiries.

From these opening scenes it is easy to see what social structures exist in this highly advanced culture. We have seen no families, no couples, in fact there is no indication at all that there are successful heterosocial relationships on this planet. So let us travel to other planets in this galaxy to see if things might be different there.

It is decided to go to Tatooine where gangsters and corruption reign. Upon landing Qui-Gon has decided to further help in the rehabilitation of Jar-Jar by taking him along to the city leaving Obi-Wan to presumably bond with the Queen's head of security and the only other male on board. One of the first people we encounter is Watto, the shopkeeper, who's role is to teach Anakin about what is socially correct. Since Anakin is so young he does not yet understand the importance of keeping to a single gender social diet. He promptly attempts to interact with the lone Padme (presumably recognizing her as out of place) who then acts stunned by the hail.

To Anakin's house where we find his mother who is not only alone, but she does not recall a heterosocial relationship in the past which this breach of galactic etiquette would have necessarily happened to result in the child. This is so astonishing that Qui-Gon leaps to the instant conclusion that he must be a "chosen one," born out of a non heterosocial relationship and must therefore bring balance to the force he shares with those of the opposite sex. This is a boy to be bonded with and so, he does. Through gambling, twisting of the truth and guile he obtains possession of the child (without his mother) so that he might help him to become the pinnacle of his art.

On to Coruscant, the center of the Galactic Republic, we are greeted at the landing pad by a strange lone character, Palpatine. He seems harmless and affable enough, but there is still something sinister about the camera angles, music, and the mere fact he is alone. As soon as they are able to the group splits up into its more coherent units: Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan & Anakin; Padme & her consorts; this leaves Jar-Jar to his substandard self again. The supreme being Anakin is presented to the counsel and after testing his more mundane abilities like clairvoyance they turn to more serious matters of his social well being. "Much fear I sense in you," is what Yoda notices in his examination and what is this fear all about? His mother who he has recently left for an unknown period of time. Is this bad? Yes, this heterosocial need leads to fear and "fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate!" Hate leads to suffering. Bonding with the opposite sex can only lead to the terrible suffering of the other homosocially superior people who are forced to watch.

Hilarity ensues as the Queen becomes frustrated with the inability of bureaucracy to manage the affairs of state and they all leave in a huff. Back to the inferior beings who currently occupy Naboo, have not strengthened their relationship, who still cower and bicker under the dreadful gaze of the one, the new one, Darth Maul who was sent by Darth Sidious to oversee their evil work. He might even break them up (shudder).

The war commences on the planet below after the return of the Queen & company. Jar-Jar is seen as more socially acceptable after his time with the Jedi and he is promptly placed at the head of armies of single gendered soldiers with one in specific who has been assigned as his new companion, a happy ending for him. Meanwhile our heroes start battling it out with Darth Maul in an attempt to show, once and for all, that homosociality is the superior way of thinking. At a climactic pause in the battle Qui-Gon & Obi-Wan are trapped yet seem serene while their opponent is like an animal caged without consolation from his pals. Qui-Gon seems to know that he will die in the further conflict, but he sallies forth without fear, knowing that his cause is worth dying for.

Senator Palpatine comes to oversee the aftermath. He arrives with the Republic Guard, who seem somewhat standoffish as opposed to the Queen's protectors, leaving Palpatine to stand alone to greet the heroes. Mace Windu and Yoda come (together) to be present at Qui-Gon's funeral and Anakin takes his place at Obi-Wan's side. All is right. Justice has prevailed…or has it? One last ominous shot of Sentator Palpatine, alone with sinister music playing, to remind us that this might not be over.

This movie as well as its predecessors was very popular with single young males, many of which are still single today. Watching the movies as a child established certain societal standards. There are many who will quote the Older Obi-Wan or Yoda in an attempt to sound wise or at least apply their ficitional heroes to real life. Then the follow up with this new trilogy further establishes the mindset George Lucas wanted to show to the world, not as the studios would have it, but with his own money he made sure his dream, his vision would be brought to the masses undiminished, pure and how he had hoped it would be.

What were the exact effects of these movies on the populace? I am not a sociologist and cannot give a professional or even a fact based conclusion, but this I can do: I see an erosion of the older standards more prevalent in the 50s and 60s. This was a time when people married, bought a house, had 2.5 children, and had a relatively uneventful life. Today comedians joke about how terrible it is to be married, how difficult it is to have heterosocial relationships, divorce is up, single parents are more common, men are lauded as genetically driven creatures incapable of fidelity, women are desperate housewives, having sex in the city, and are cheered for killing bill leaving the question: Are we becoming a more advanced society?

3:28 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Dry.
Category: Life

Ever have a dry moment? Where inspiration and creativity fail you? My problem is that I feel inspired, but my creativity is in the shop. So the motivation is there to schedule the assembly hall create advertizements (flyers, radio, etc.) and get a whole bunch of folks together for an grand speech from me.

No dice

If only I had magical polyhedral constructs that would give me the topic of choice and send you all off on a rant or into laughter. If they existed though, everyone would buy them and use them causing this great flood of interesting information coming from every direction. None of it could be ignored. We'd go crazy trying to turn every which way to receive it all.

Divine Providence

So writer's block does serve a purpose. It creates long pauses for personal reflection, the option to actually get things done, or (for marketing blokes) the dribble that blasts forth from various marketing channels that we so happily ignore. Where would small talk be without mediocre content? Thank Limbaugh for second rate content providers.

Sonic Screwdrivers

So my ineptitude does serve a purpose. To not completely engage your mind while you read this so it can wander to more important things like...what's that smell? Did I leave something on the stov...crap!

3:36 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Sporting a Drink

I remember way back when sports drinks were new. Gatorade came on the scene and advertized a way to hydrate. The commercials always showed active sporty type people sweating profusely. Come to think of it that's how the commercials go now. It seems to me that people have missed the point.

I was at lunch when one of my coworkers walked in with his usual sports drink of choice. "What is that?" I asked from one of my usual pondering moments.

"Power-aid. I like it better than Gatorade."

I didn't mention Gatorade. "Ah...um...why do you drink it?"

"It tastes good and it rehydrates me." This caught my interest. He spit some of their advertizing back at me.

"Really? Are you dehydrated?"

"What? Um, I've been working outside. This helps me replace my electrolytes." More advertizing regurgitation. He had, in fact, been pushing around a cart through our cold warehouse picking up items that weigh less than 5 pounds.

"Ok, so you were working hard and sweating a lot. I can see the need to replace the nutrients you used." I tried really hard not to sound sarcastic, but more understanding.

He corrected me "I wasn't sweating or anything. Just pulling orders."

"Hmm..." Mouth full of food.

I then explained that the drink contained a shoefull of salt which is bad for you if you are not running a marathon or Louis Anderson walking up stairs.

"What about energy drinks?" I was impressed that he didn't lump these in with sports drinks.

"All sugar and caffene. The better question is what do you need all this energy for?" Good question. Have you been at work for 18 hours and need to bang out another 2 hours of hard labor? Because that's how long one of these energy drinks can hope to last. Be glad for that, I've been persuaded to try these drinks a few times. They taste awful, sometimes have a bad aftertaste and have always made it difficult to concentrate.

Advertizing impresses me. They create a want that we think we need and we follow through with their instructions. Do you need a sports drink if you are not playing sports or exerting yourself? Probably not. Although I think I am developing a need for an cup of Jell-o and green mustaches.

There's your randomness for the month. Leave me alone.

9:35 AM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Classic Comedy
Category: Life

After hearing about President Faust this morning I was feeling down. Still am as a matter of fact, but I thought we all needed a cheering up so I am including one of the funniest comedy routines ever to grace Radio, TV or written media. Here's Bud Abbott and Lou Costello:

Abbott: Well Costello, I'm going to New York with you. You know Bucky Harris, the Yankee's manager, gave me a job as coach for as long as you're on the team.

Costello: Look Abbott, if you're the coach, you must know all the players.

Abbott: I certainly do.

Costello: Well you know I've never met the guys. So you'll have to tell me their names, and then I'll know who's playing on the team.

Abbott: Oh, I'll tell you their names, but you know it seems to me they give these ball players now-a-days very peculiar names.

Costello: You mean funny names?

Abbott: Strange names, pet names...like Dizzy Dean...

Costello: His brother Daffy.

Abbott: Daffy Dean...

Costello: And their French cousin.

Abbott: French?

Costello: Goofè.

Abbott: Goofè Dean. Well, let's see, we have on the bags, Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third...

Costello: That's what I want to find out.

Abbott: I say Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third.

Costello: Are you the manager?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: You gonna be the coach too?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: And you don't know the fellows' names?

Abbott: Well I should.

Costello: Well then who's on first?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: I mean the fellow's name.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy on first.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The first baseman.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy playing...

Abbott: Who is on first!

Costello: I'm asking YOU who's on first.

Abbott: That's the man's name.

Costello: That's who's name?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: Well go ahead and tell me.

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: That's who?

Abbott: Yes.

PAUSE

Costello: Look, you gotta first baseman?

Abbott: Certainly.

Costello: Who's playing first?

Abbott: That's right.

Costello: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?

Abbott: Every dollar of it.

Costello: All I'm trying to find out is the fellow's name on first base.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy that gets...

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: Who gets the money...

Abbott: He does, every dollar. Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.

Costello: Whose wife?

Abbott: Yes.

PAUSE

Abbott: What's wrong with that?

Costello: Look, all I wanna know is when you sign up the first baseman, how does he sign his name?

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: How does he sign...

Abbott: That's how he signs it.

Costello: Who?

Abbott: Yes.

PAUSE

Costello: All I'm trying to find out is what's the guy's name on first base.

Abbott: No. What is on second base.

Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.

Abbott: Who's on first.

Costello: One base at a time!

Abbott: Well, don't change the players around.

Costello: I'm not changing nobody!

Abbott: Take it easy, buddy.

Costello: I'm only asking you, who's the guy on first base?

Abbott: That's right.

Costello: Ok.

Abbott: All right.

PAUSE

Costello: What's the guy's name on first base?

Abbott: No. What is on second.

Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.

Abbott: Who's on first.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott: He's on third, we're not talking about him.

Costello: Now how did I get on third base?

Abbott: Why you mentioned his name.

Costello: If I mentioned the third baseman's name, who did I say is playing third?

Abbott: No. Who's playing first.

Costello: What's on first?

Abbott: What's on second.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott: He's on third.

Costello: There I go, back on third again!

PAUSE

Costello: Would you just stay on third base and don't go off it.

Abbott: All right, what do you want to know?

Costello: Now who's playing third base?

Abbott: Why do you insist on putting Who on third base?

Costello: What am I putting on third.

Abbott: No. What is on second.

Costello: You don't want who on second?

Abbott: Who is on first.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott & Costello Together:Third base!

PAUSE

Costello: Look, you gotta outfield?

Abbott: Sure.

Costello: The left fielder's name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: I just thought I'd ask you.

Abbott: Well, I just thought I'd tell ya.

Costello: Then tell me who's playing left field.

Abbott: Who's playing first.

Costello: I'm not... stay out of the infield! I want to know what's the guy's name in left field?

Abbott: No, What is on second.

Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.

Abbott: Who's on first!

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott & Costello Together: Third base!

PAUSE

Costello: The left fielder's name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: Because!

Abbott: Oh, he's centerfield.

PAUSE

Costello: Look, You gotta pitcher on this team?

Abbott: Sure.

Costello: The pitcher's name?

Abbott: Tomorrow.

Costello: You don't want to tell me today?

Abbott: I'm telling you now.

Costello: Then go ahead.

Abbott: Tomorrow!

Costello: What time?

Abbott: What time what?

Costello: What time tomorrow are you gonna tell me who's pitching?

Abbott: Now listen. Who is not pitching.

Costello: I'll break your arm, you say who's on first! I want to know what's the pitcher's name?

Abbott: What's on second.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott & Costello Together: Third base!

PAUSE

Costello: Gotta a catcher?

Abbott: Certainly.

Costello: The catcher's name?

Abbott: Today.

Costello: Today, and tomorrow's pitching.

Abbott: Now you've got it.

Costello: All we got is a couple of days on the team.

PAUSE

Costello: You know I'm a catcher too.

Abbott: So they tell me.

Costello: I get behind the plate to do some fancy catching, Tomorrow's pitching on my team and a heavy hitter gets up. Now the heavy hitter bunts the ball. When he bunts the ball, me, being a good catcher, I'm gonna throw the guy out at first base. So I pick up the ball and throw it to who?

Abbott: Now that's the first thing you've said right.

Costello: I don't even know what I'm talking about!

PAUSE

Abbott: That's all you have to do.

Costello: Is to throw the ball to first base.

Abbott: Yes!

Costello: Now who's got it?

Abbott: Naturally.

PAUSE

Costello: Look, if I throw the ball to first base, somebody's gotta get it. Now who has it?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Who?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Naturally?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: So I pick up the ball and I throw it to Naturally.

Abbott: No you don't, you throw the ball to Who.

Costello: Naturally.

Abbott: That's different.

Costello: That's what I said.

Abbott: You're not saying it...

Costello: I throw the ball to Naturally.

Abbott: You throw it to Who.

Costello: Naturally.

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: That's what I said!

Abbott: You ask me.

Costello: I throw the ball to who?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Now you ask me.

Abbott: You throw the ball to Who?

Costello: Naturally.

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: Same as you! Same as YOU! I throw the ball to who. Whoever it is drops the ball and the guy runs to second. Who picks up the ball and throws it to What. What throws it to I Don't Know. I Don't Know throws it back to Tomorrow, Triple play. Another guy gets up and hits a long fly ball to Because. Why? I don't know! He's on third and I don't give a darn!

Abbott: What?

Costello: I said I don't give a darn!

Abbott: Oh, that's our shortstop.

2:15 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Ah, to be loved.
Category: Life

It's shark week on the Discovery Channel and we've been avoiding the more popular part of the programming so the kids don't have nightmares. While taking one of her few moments of rest Lisa was flipping through channels and came across "Dirty Jobs - Shark Week." Thinking this would only be gross (not violent) she allowed the kids to watch it.

They were studying sharks and chumming up the water. A diver was in the midst of about three dozen sharks when Laurel says indignantly "Why does he get to do that?"
To which Lisa replies "It's his job. Why do you ask?"
"I want daddy to do that. I know he will die, but I love him anyway."

Love ya too kid.

3:46 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment