the trifecta

today i found out that 'arcade fire' are playing at the hollywood bowl on september 20. i recently saw them. here were my thoughts. cousin dave was also there. here is what he had to say. the same ridiculous situation and problem that he so well describes will again be an issue if i see them at the hollywood bowl. but i love arcade fire and love sitting at the hollywood bowl on an nice warm evening. so ill probably go.




later today, my friend texted me and told me that 'muse' announced a concert in irvine on september 21. i saw muse a few months ago and they were amazing. after the concert i said that if i saw them again id want to be in the pit so i could dance and 'rock out' because muse puts out an incredible amount of energy. they had the whole stadium standing for the whole show, which is hard to do in a large arena. so my only regret was that i was standing in front of a seat which impeded me from shakin my groove thang. otherwise the show was perfect. muse is good. real good.








about a month ago, i bought 'white stripes' tickets. for what day? september 19th of course. they are playing at the forum. 3 concerts in 3 days. it sounds excessive, and it is. not to mention a lot of money (more on this later). but i really want to go. all great bands. two guaranteed great shows. im sure the white stripes will be too, i just havnt ever seen them.







so ill probably try and complete the trifecta. why not? its all on daddy's credit card (i accidentally used my dad's card to buy the white stripes tickets. it was saved on the ticketmaster account. an honest mistake. really). anyone else interested? lets rock.

c-l-a-r-e-m-o-n-t-r-o-c-k-s, claremont rocks, oh yes!

that was an awesome cheer i remember my older sister doing for cross country in high school. and claremont does rock. check out this article. bam! have some of that. especially all my beloved oc (dont call it that) ignorant fools. claremont is really lovely and im happy its finally getting the recognition it deserves. well, not sure if it necessarily deserves this recognition, but it is a lovely town. although i do think the cons from the article are rather funny. you cant breathe or afford to live here, but otherwise, the place is a dandy. my brother and i discussed the article and both agreed that we enjoyed growing up in claremont and think it is a great town, but not sure if its worth the money it would cost to get in a home. average home $700,000! thats ridiculous. i remember my friend lindsey mullinax's family selling her home back when i was a senior in high school in 1998. i cant remember what it was selling for, but something between the 700K and million range and their home was huge, and easily two to three times my parents home. now that home would probably cost around 1.7 million. its outrageous. but if you have the money, its clearly the place to be. or if you are there, its probably wise just to remodel your home and plan on staying for the long haul.

but sometimes its hard being from claremont. because no one knows where it is. im always amazed at how little people from l.a. know their geography or where they are in relation to everything else. and i dont know if its their fault or just l.a.'s fault. meaning that l.a. is so spread out and unconnected, well its all connected, but not closely connected. there isnt really a big city feeling at all. so while there are 11 million+ people in the county, youre not really in close proximity to any of them. except while in your car in traffic, but you dont get much person to person interaction in traffic. its not like a new york or something where you throw everyone so close together you cant help but know the city (i think manhattan is only 7 miles long or so). granted, ive never lived in new york, so i dont know that its like that, but i feel like people there are more aware of their surroundings. l.a. is tough because its filled with tons and tons of suburbs. tons. and claremont is just another suburb. so i dont really expect people to know exactly where it is. i dont know where all cities in l.a. are located. ive heard of most of them, but i couldnt tell you where they are exactly. but im always shocked when people dont even know freeways. how are you getting around? oh thats right. youre from the oc and you dont ever leave except maybe to make the long journey down to laguna beach. no. not all oc people are snobs. but they all are ignorant fools.

so here is what happens. people will sometimes ask me where i am from. ill say claremont. sometimes they will have heard of it, sometimes not. which is amazing that some people havnt even heard of a city that is only an hour away from where they live. if i said i was from bisbee, arizona, id expect them not to know where it is. but im not. im saying claremont. its only an hour away. but thats fine. so when they ask where it is, im happy to explain. which i usually do by telling them how they could get there on the freeway. i usually say that its out off the 210 freeway. but this is when things can get interesting. some people are sort of familiar with that freeway, others have never even heard of it. so ill say, 'you know. its the pasadena freeway.' and they will say, 'oh right. ive heard of pasadena. so claremont is near pasadena?' 'well, no. i mean, sort of. claremont is closer pasadena than to huntington beach, but the 210 connects claremont and pasadena.' again, i dont expect you to know where claremont is, but now you havnt even heard of a large freeway.

so theyll usually look at me like im strange for mentioning a freeway they havnt heard of. if i was in utah or another state or something and trying to explain where claremont is, i would have just said its sort of by pasadena. if they havnt heard of that, ill just say, near l.a. but because im in huntington beach and really wanting to let this person know im from a great little legit town, i stick with it. so ill ask them if they are familiar with the 57 freeway. they usually are, as one side of the 57 freeway ends when it hits the 5 freeway, which a main freeway running through parts of the oc. but of course they arent familiar with the other end of the 57 freeway. (the 57 essentially goes from anaheim - near huntington beach to san dimas - near claremont). but sometimes they werent even aware of where that freeway originated. i think some people just think that freeways run forever in all directions. i think some people actually think that if they got on the 405 and drove south that they could make it to chile. so its shocking news to hear that the freeway ends, and no less near my city, which they still havnt heard of. again, i dont expect people to be freeway experts. im not exactly sure where the I-15 ends. or even the I-5. i know it goes up towards sacramento, but i couldnt exactly say where it ends, but i know its general direction. but at least in l.a. i know where it passes and what cities and freeways it intersects etc. but i dont know all of it. and i dont expect others to know either. but the 57 is only about 50 miles long. maybe you havnt driven all of it, but to act like you had no idea where it went once it left orange county is a little embarrassing for you, right? maybe not. probably not. nevermind. youre right. the 57 once it leaves orange county is irrelevant.

so now all i am left with is to start naming cities nearby and hopefully they have heard of one of them. so i usually begin by naming other nice cities in the area. upland, glendora, san dimas, la verne. these are all small communities like claremont, that are also nice, just not as nice, evidenced by their omission from the list. but people usually havnt heard of them, so im left in between a rock and a hard place.

a rock - pomona, a.k.a. 'p-town.' pomona is a hole. its the ghetto. and not just like someone from beverly hills calling a place like santa monica a ghetto (an otherwise really nice town except for homeless people scattered throughout - because it is a beach city). p-town isn like compton bad or east l.a bad. but when the l.a. riots occurred, there wasnt rioting in all of l.a., just a lot of the poorer, shadier neighborhoods, including, some lovely parts of p-town. p-town represented for our area. thanks guys. but pomona is a large city. there are also about 5 freeways that go through or near pomona, so chances are, even your infrequent freeways travelers have gone through pomona. so if i say claremont borders pomona, then they probably know where it is, unfortunately, they also are now afraid of claremont.

the hard place - the 909. you see, a little bit ago, ignorant fools started stereotyping people from cities with a 909 area code. true, i believe that stereotypes exist for a reason. if they werent true, the stereotype wouldnt have started. so the 909 stereotype is that people are white trash, raised ford truck driving, white beater wearing, nascar loving inbreds. and the 909 covers a lot of ground. san bernardino, fontana a.k.a. 'fontucky,' rancho cowabunga, hemet, rialto, ontario etc. basically its a lot of san bernardino county. not just the largest county in the u.s, but also the largest arm pit in the nation. so while the stereotype could be true in certain areas of the 909, its not in claremont. somehow, the people that made the area code put claremont in with all of those other cities, even though claremont isnt in san bernardino county. so if i dont opt for pomona, i have to say, 'well, its out in the 909.' people automatically think its 'super far out there in the middle of no where, with people sitting in their large trucks on their unmowed, brown front lawns all day waiting for it to cool down so they can go out at night and pick up on shady women in their daisy dukes at the local dairy queen.'

but they couldnt be more off about claremont. it doesnt even have a dairy queen. or any fast food for that matter. it wont allow it. nor billboards. nor parking on the street at night without prior permission from the police. and no lawn is brown. when my parents remodeled their home, they let the lawn die because after the home was finished they were going to remodel the yard. the city knew of this remodeling. my parents had to get city permits to remodel. they knew my parents had all intentions of fixing the yard after the house was done, yet the city still sent warning notices to my parents telling them that they were going to fine my parents if they didnt fix their yard. claremont. its a great little anal town. one of the top 5 in the nation. i would dare say. in fact, i will say it. and ill even back it up if necessary.
well, this turned into a long rant and i hardly made any selling points about the city. but maybe i dont want to. not because im ashamed or anything. maybe i like people not knowing the hidden gem that is claremont. (and yes i meant gem, its the proper word here. its like a diamond in the rough in that the areas around it may not be so nice and unless you gots lots of diamonds, there is no way you are affording a house there). im fine with it being a little obsure or undiscovered or not well known to the ignorant fools. those that bother to run into it or famliarize themselves with it, then they deserve to see that its a great little place, and everyone else can miss the two freeway exits and drive right on by judging it as another city similar to those that have 'defined the area.' and im sure other people will attack me when i dont know about their nice little town even though i 'should' because its so great. or their city too is misjudged or overlooked or i should really get to know it. people might even say im hypocritical when i dont care to go to their town or when i dont even know where it is on the map even though its great. is it because im becoming an ignorant oc fool living in huntington beach? perhaps. or maybe its, yep, thats right, i just remembered. your town isnt one of the top 5 in the nation.

an confusing truth?

so this isnt the usual type of post for me. but these are thoughts that have been mulling in my brain and just the other day i was emailing a professor about it and he gave me such a great response that i wanted to post it.

first of all, the professor is gary daynes. he was a professor of mine at byu. i took 'life and thought in the united states' from him. an excellent class. not only because it was interesting reading about the thoughts of influential american people from history, but professor daynes always had insightful thoughts to contribute as well. basically, it was just a class of reading people's thoughts and then discussing them for a few hours each week. a 'true' or 'pure' university experience.

so after the class concluded prof. daynes and i kept in touch. by kept in touch it basically consisted of me stopping by unannounced at his office or sending him emails and asking for his thoughts on various subjects. i was never much into politics and he was very well read on most subjects including politics, so i could just ask for his opinion or explanation on certain events going on and he would always give me an explanation and his viewpoint, which usually turned into my viewpoint. not that i wasnt a free thinker or anything, he always just presented things so rationally.

so anyways, the other day i emailed him asking for his opinion on global warming. im a little confused with it all. i watched 'an inconvenient truth.' it was alright. i enjoyed the information that was presented. it was essentially just a glorified power point presentation. i got bored with the 'al gore' segments. the parts when he was being driven around in his escalade and it would show him staring out of the car with his reflection in the window and he would give his personal thoughts on his life. i didnt need that. im sorry you lost gore. you gave it a good effort. perhaps the balloting was even rigged and you should have won. but its over. its been 6 years. no need to let all of america let you know you are still bummed about it. thats like telling the girl that dumped you that its been a year and you still sit at home on the weekend and stare out your window and wish that it wasnt your reflection but actually hers that was in the window. buck up little camper! move on. put yourself back in the public eye through other means, like scaring them about global warming.

alright, so i dont just think he is scaring people. i felt he was presenting legitimate information, until another video came out about other scientists that refute the main argument in 'an inconvenient truth' that humans are responsible for global warming. im not exactly sure what the opposing argument is, im pretty sure that they essentially say that its just natural warming that humans couldnt have done anything about and that 'an inconvenient truth' is just a big scare.

so my first reaction is a loss of faith in science. science is wonderful, but at times it gets upsetting because i feel like no matter what the theory or idea, there is a scientist out there that can find data or support the theory. its like in the movie 'thank you for smoking,' where they talk about the tobacco industry and how they found a german scientist that could 'prove' that smoking didnt cause cancer and so the tobacco industry hired him and he was 'their' scientist. the movie is of course fiction, but i think that idea occurs a lot. here, there are scientists on both sides stating that global warming is caused by humans and others saying its not.

so my second reaction is that im upset. why? because i feel like this is turning into a two party struggle. well, a conservatives and liberals struggle. perhaps two party, but im not quite sure. and im upset that it has come to this, because i dont know what is exactly going on, but i think there is a legitimate problem, or that the planet is being destroyed, but somehow people are taking sides on the issue and i dont know what to believe or who is correct etc. i feel like there is a big problem and if there is a way to fix it, then id like to know what i can do. i should probably by a 'clean' car anyways, just because it is good for the environment, but will it really make a difference? if it will, then why are people saying it wont? can humans really do anything? im sure this is a weighted issue and there are a lot of things filtering in on both sides and probably lobbyists and who knows what groups that are trying to sell the public on the issue. but in the meantime, i dont really know what to think.

so these are essentially the questions or confusion i brought to professor dayes, wondering what he thought about the whole issue or situation. i asked him other questions about his opinions on certain presidential candidates and other matters, but here is what he said concerning the global warming:

'It makes sense to destroy as little as possible when living on the earth for basic conservative reasons--we have a debt to our children to leave the world in good shape, and we have to believe that reckless destruction of anything is a (small-l) liberal activity. And I think we have to face up to the dilemma raised by the fact that if even a portion of what is predicted happens, the poor are going to get screwed again. So if only because the lives of Bangladeshis and Chadians are, at least in God's eyes, as important as my life, then I ought to do what I can to avoid actions that are going to lead to a worsening in what are already difficult living conditions. (Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren...) I didn't see Gore's movie. I don't understand the appeal...'

bam! i told you this guy was rad. what a great response. he has such a great viewpoint on everything. he is always thinking about and looking out for the little guy. realizing that everything filters outside of america's borders and affects so many more people that are outside my immediate realm or sphere of influence. he stays out of the two party arguments and focuses on the actual issue and forms his own opinion accordingly. were i like him i would form my own opinion instead of just latching onto his, but im not. so who knows if this is all a scare. regardless, i definitely believe that if nothing else, a responsibility exists for me as a human just to do whatever i can to not blatantly and deliberately destroy this world. not sure if that makes me 'green' or just an opinionless clone of prof. daynes (his opinion is just so sensible and logical is it not?). either way, sorry about the political rant. ill get back into useless pop culture thoughts next time. this was just something i was thinking about and wanted to put it out there for all 6 of my readers to enjoy.

yosemite

here is a photo of me on top of half dome. its a pretty incredible view.












here is another photo of all of us that went.










it was just my two brothers, matt and lance, my brother-in-law, eric, and my dad, ron. we went about a month ago. i didnt have my camera on the trip. its alright though since three of the five of us had cameras and everyone took some good photos to remember the trip. nice of them to all send me the photos after we got home.

so half dome was really my type of camping trip. im not much of a camper. i wanted to stay in a cabin and so that i could have a bed and relax in a hot tub after the long hike. i guess that means im not really a man's man (but im not sure that that is something that i am interested in trying to prove anytime in this lifetime anyways), or it just means im not a neanderthal. here's the deal, i enjoy the outdoors, i like getting out, but you have to put up with a lot when you go camping and usually, for me, the payoff isnt worth what i have to deal with. now there are a few exceptions, that i know of, and im sure there are many more. one exception is havasupai. its heaven on earth. literally. another one is half dome. and that is because the view from the top of half dome and the sense of accomplishment from such a grueling hike is very rewarding. plus climbing up the cables is a great bonus.

my problems with camping is that usually the destination isnt as exciting as the above mentioned places. usually it entails hiking to some dirt surrounded by pine trees. dont get me wrong, i do like to get out, but there are just some guarantees about camping that cant be avoided:

1. the sleeping situation. inevitably, someone, or all will have a poor nights rest. a couple years ago i went camping and made the idiotic decision to sleep under the stars. while it appeared like a great idea at first and had some initial fantastic benefits, it turned into a sleepless, freezing night. at yosemite, my air mattress partially deflated so i essentially slept on the ground. i wasnt too upset about it. there were 5 of us so one of our air mattresses had to have problems. they all couldnt function properly. that isnt allowed when camping. someone has to be on a slope or on a large rock or nest of wild boars or something. unfortunately the lot fell on me this time. plus, my sleeping bag was made sometime in 1987 i think and not recommended for temperatures below 75.

i understand that those problems can be fixed. i can get a dependable air mattress and a quality sleeping bag, and have a decent nights rest. but its just that, it will only be decent. perhaps good for camping, but decent compared to being on my bed at my house. and im fine with that for a night. maybe two, but then it just starts to ware on me. plus, between wildlife, early morning sun and just flat out being semi-uncomfortable for the night, you are only guaranteed 5 or 6 hours of sleep. i just cant enjoy myself too many days when running on such little poor sleep.

2. the food. we really rough it in the sommer family. it was a three day trip. we drove up thursday afternoon. ate lunch before leaving. had dinner at a hotel cafe before getting to our campsite. had breakfast pastries and naked juice for breakfast and trail mix and snacks for lunch all while on the trail on the climb up. then, for dinner that night, we drove 30 miles to civilization and scarfed down some taco bell as we sat in a cool movie theater and watched 'ocean's 13.' yep, we're tough guys. fear us. in the morning, we actually cooked a meal and made pancakes. we then left yosemite and had in-n-out on the way home for lunch. come to think of it, i dont know that i have any problems with food when camping. its great.

3. being dirty. once again, i think as a guy i should love this. and its not that i mind being dirty. i dont have problems with it at all. its just when it goes on for a few days, it really starts to become an issue. i dont mind sweating while hiking or getting dirty setting up camp etc., but when i then cant do anything about it for awhile, i just start to feel gross and uncomfortable. call me crazy and strange, but i just dont enjoy those feelings for extended periods of time. and they start to overshadow everything else and almost impede me from continuing to enjoy myself. i would like to enjoy the fresh mountain air, but its hard when my nose is clogged with booggers that are dark as night from having inhaled so much dirt and dust.

anyways, this is about the half dome trip. half dome was awesome. its an incredible hike. i would recommend it to anyone. well, anyone that is physically able to do it. its not easy by any means. i must commend my dad, he is 61 and he pulled it off. he wasnt exactly sprinting to the top and i thought he might have a heart attack at the top, but he did do it, which is more than most people even half his age could do. a guy i know, who is my age and considers himself an 'outdoorsy' guy and in shape (he plays ultimate frisbee), did the hike and couldnt even jog 3 days after getting home. so its tough. i also recommend yosemite. its just amazing. heck, i even recommend camping. i think i just prefer the beach. so i guess beach camping is ideal for me. especially if you are camping off 17th street in huntington because then i can just sleep in my own bed.