The Atlantic was Born Today
There are times when I just want to spill all my feelings out in some public forum for all to see. In years past, this was only possibly through public acts. A person announcing for all to hear their views and beliefs. Today, these are the (often religious) crazies on street corners with cardboard signs and megaphones.
Today we have the blog.
It's strange how, not long ago, a person had to enter the public vicinity and, in a sense, yell their view if they had any hope of more than 10 people understanding how they felt. Today, all it takes is a user name and a password for one to admit to (potentially) thousands (or millions even) of something as mundane as a shopping list or something as important as philosophical beliefs.
I think that the thing that draws people in to this digital yelling-on-a-rooftop is either a) the possible fame that could come from it, or b) the supposed (yet incredibly unlikely) anonymity that comes with posting something online.
I post this blog with a full understanding that nobody might see it, and millions might see it. The internets be warned: I understand the wiles of posting online! And all this is leading up to what? A simple admittance: I love Megan.
I love her with all my heart; and I want anyone and everyone to know. So, if you are one of the few (or many?) who happen upon this site, you have now been subjected to the emotional ramblings of an everyday blogger who expects nothing (yet hopes for everything) from his happenstance readers.
And now? To bed. I'm tired. But I wanted, desperately, to expose my (in my opinion, obvious) feelings to the world. Consider this my shouting-from-the-rooftops without the dangers of falling off and breaking bones.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Friday, December 05, 2008
Ivory Lines Lead...
I have a bunch of random thoughts floating around in my head and I feel like putting them down on...well, I was going to say "putting them down on paper," but that's hardly the case, now is it? More so like putting them into bunches of zeros and ones which will magically be reassembled in front of you through the internets (which I hear is like a bunch of tubes like those cool pneumatic devices in Home Depot, wizzing whatever I tap out to you in an easy to digest visual form!).
Despite being done with school, I have found myself to be increasingly busy; which has spurred me to design this post with your busy schedule in mind! I have devised a simple number scheme by which you might pick and choose only those parts of the post that interest you - so you can skip bits which you find irrelevant - in order to save you time and mental effort! And just so you know, each portion will (hopefully) be quite bite-sized; squeezing much thought into a (somewhat) thought-provoking tid-bit!
(Addendum: Good lord was I wrong! Get ready for some long-winded rambling!)
This post will go as follows:
(1) YouTube and Why We Love Violence
(2) Depersonalizing the Person
(3) Why the JWs Might Be On To Something
(4) Innocently Devious Vs. Deviously Innocent
and
(5) Movies
Let's begin!
(1) YouTube and Why We Love Violence
Some of the most popular videos on YouTube (and the internet video sites in general) are clips of people hurting themselves. And not just some guy tripping a small distance and getting a rug burn. Sites like Break.com are all about the most horrific things happening to people: broken bones, third-degree burns, possible paralyzation (<--made up word?), etc. I have seen my fair share of disturbingly painful videos and have always wondered why these clips are so popular. A while back I was at a Beck concert, standing in line for a beer, when I saw a person fall and crack their head on the unforgiving concrete. Unlike YouTube videos with comments like, "wut a dumass!!1," the first thing I felt was sick. A total stranger fell and wasn't moving. Whether he was dead, paralyzed, or totally fine didn't matter; what mattered was my immediate instinct to help him. A call to 911 and a some helpful medical professionals later and he was being led off to recuperate. This was totally unlike anything I had seen on the internet. So the question is: why didn't I laugh at this stranger's misfortune like the online witnesses or the countless viewers of the video? I've thought allot about it and here is my conclusion: catharsis mixed with schadenfreude. Why do we like being "scared to death" by horror films? Why do we like screaming our heads off on roller coasters? When we can be in a safe place, but feel like we're experiencing something awful (falling to our death on a 50-foot drop on a coaster/being chased by an axe-wielding maniac through the place-holder of an actor) we can face our fears in a controlled environment and come out safe and possibly less fearful of future personal incidents. It's not as obvious with pain; but I think that watching a person get their teeth mashed-in on an escalator both makes us thankful (happy even) that it's happening to someone else and releases the fear that it will happen to us.
Think of it this way: you see someone find a $100 bill on the ground. Chances are you then think, "darn, too bad it wasn't me," and part of your brain thinks that since it happened to someone else that it won't happen to you any time soon. In other words, if lightning strikes your friend while you're standing 10 feet away, you don't think that it will then happen to you any time soon; and chances are you think that the chances of it happening to you (since it just happened to your friend) are incredibly lessened. So watching pain happen to someone else is almost like taking a tincture insuring your safety.
(2) Depersonalizing the Person
I often wonder, since I'm a waiter, how some people treat others so awfully and still respect themselves. I have been treated like dirt (or even less than dirt) more times than I would like to remember. If you have never worked in the service industry, thank your lucky stars (or whatever you find lucky)...you have avoided a personal hell. If it were not for the decent pay, I would be out of this industry in a second. Show me another job where I could possibly make an easy $300 in 6 hours and I'll apply right now. So, what is it I'm referring to specifically?
I get that people from other cultures might not get our customs. I might not like a $10 tip on a $150 bill; but if the guests recently moved here from Argentina I understand to some extent. But what about the people who have lived here all their lives? What about the people who say to me, "Don't worry, I used to be a waiter, I'll take care of you," and then tip you 8% after near perfect service? What about the people who come in rearing for a fight and ready to tussle over how many discounts can be used at one table, or how the steak (all of which they just consumed) was not good quality and therefore a refund is in order and it's your (the waiter's) fault and is coming out of your tip? The people who put five one-dollar bills on the table at the beginning of the meal and every time something doesn't go perfect they take one away (but only when you are there to see it happen)?
My theory goes like this: our society has trained us to believe that we not only can, but should get everything desired. Even if that desire is unreasonable. Buying items off of the internet, over the phone, etc, has trained us to think that we aren't dealing with people so much as we are dealing with autonomous givers of all desires as long as a base amount of money is delivered. You wouldn't think to thank your computer for delivering your e-mail, that would be absurd. But the slippery slope begins. Next you stop thinking there is anyone to thank for deliver your physical mail (it's the mailman's job anyway, right?); plus you don't have to see the mailman, you can wait til the mail is there and then get it. Next you stop seeing the store-clerk as a person and more so a mediator between you and the cash-register (obviously...I mean, you don't tip the girl at Macy's for selling you a sweater). The problem arises when you reach industries like restaurant waiters.
I've talked to SO many people who think that high-end-restaurant servers make $10/12/15/per hour, plus tips. If this were the case, tipping 10% wouldn't be so bad; but what happened to putting some thought into our actions and checking up on etiquette? A mere 80 years ago (or less) the proper way to use a fork was a dire situation...now we just take a wild guess and call it a day. If I don't know how much to tip a valet, I freaking Google it and find out (or ask a friend, or find an etiquette guide, or ask the valet him/herself - trust me, they won't mind - or do any number of things to find out). We don't live this way with anything else...case in point: a person on the street runs up and washes your window while you're at a red light...do you assume they are doing it for free? No, you assume they want money and you go through the thought process of figuring out what they want (is $1 good enough? $5? $8 Do they deserve anything?). Your server makes minimum wage and lives off of tips. Two $150 checks a month will not sustain the average person. People have stopped seeing their servers as hard-working individuals, and more like robots who deliver food and desired accoutrements.
(3) Why the JWs Might Be On To Something
If you are confused, by JWs I mean Jehovah's Witnesses. You are most assuredly more aware of Mormons than you are JWs; but there are a mass amount of JWs around (they simply don't evangelize as aggressively). I will simply explain one of their main practices rather than assume you know or don't know about it. The JWs do not celebrate much of anything. Christmas, Easter, and even birthdays are not hallowed events to the stout JW. The JWs understand that almost every celebration on the Judeo-Christian calendar has a pagan origin. For example: Christmas (the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth) is not taken by hardly anyone as the actual date of Christ's birth. Whether it is the celebration of the winter solstice, Saturnalia, or Yule, the origins of celebrating on (or close to) December 25th is pagan. The early Christian church, in an attempt to rid society of such practices, placed "Christ's birth" on this day. The result? Instead of celebrating non-Christian gods, or non-Christian ideas, Christ became the center of the day and other meanings dwindled.
In other words, Christmas, the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth (arguably one of the most important Christian holidays (second only to Christ's death and resurrection)) is firmly planted in the middle of a pagan celebration. Whereas this is simply accepted by modern-day Christians, this is unacceptable to the JWs. Anything not explicitly "Christian" takes away from the faith.
So what do I mean by saying that they have gotten something right? Well, first off, in my opinion the JWs have taken it too far. They have understood that pagan holidays (in their original form) are meaningless in the Christian faith and have therefore "banned" them all. The upside to this is that the material and hallow aspects of certain holidays (e.g. Eartha Kitt's Santa Baby) are pushed aside. The downside is that any meaning is abandoned. Imagine if we applied this to everyday life: modern understanding of combustion (and the resultant creation of the combustion engine and all that comes with it) would be abandoned because the "pagan" Greeks believed in phlogiston (the negative-weighted element responsible for things like combustion and oxidation). I understand that my example comparing something non-physical (pagan holidays) with something physical (chemistry) is extreme; and you might disagree with such a comparison; but I am simply making my point exceedingly clear. A more appropriate example would be abandoning democracy (something that has worked relatively well for the U.S.) because Plato, the Greek philosopher, who was "pagan" according to modern identification, coined the term and crafted the base for our modern system.
So the end result? We can hardly abandon everything begun by those whose beliefs we disagree with; but at the same time, we should not give up on what we hold true simply because society tells us that it's ok. The good in the JWs beliefs is the realization that modern understanding (and devaluing (in a sense)) of the real meaning of a holiday is harmful. Rather than accept the giant bunny and chocolate eggs of Easter, remember the real reason and don't give up on celebrating the true meaning of what it is that you believe...whatever that may be.
(4) Innocently Devious Vs. Deviously Innocent
This topic is based solely on the observations of one person and my discussion of it will possibly alienate all 3 of you who check up on this blog. But ima do it anyway. I have often been told I look very young, very naive, and very innocent. This has been going on since high school. That - high school - is the earliest people should be considered innocent or not innocent in my opinion; if you are 10 years old and multiple people express their opinion that you are not innocent, there might be a problem. But I'm sure your police record confirms that and my assumption is unnecessary.
I work with a person, a woman, a slightly older woman (not old, but older than me by enough years to have more experience than I) who is pretty good with her psychology. Most everyone I work with has expressed, in one way or another, that I am trustworthy, innocent, and, well, childlike. So much so that during conversation explicitly sexual/vulgar, certain co-workers have yelled out, "Shhh, Grant can hear!" One conversation went as such:
Person 1: Man, Grant, you are really stressed!
Person 2: Seriously, you need to get laid.
Me: Heh.
Person 1: No, I don't think Grant is that kind of person
Person 2: What do you mean?
Person 1: Grant seems like the kind of person who needs to cuddle when he's stressed, not something overtly sexual.
The one exception, the woman I mentioned, was involved in a conversation with me and a few others about my age. It was a guessing game. The first person guessed I was 21. The second guessed I was 23. The third said I looked 22, but I was probably older; it was most likely the innocent face that made me look young. This woman, the psychology one, said, "Oh, he's not innocent. It's just an act. Trust me, he's nowhere as innocent as you might think."
The funny thing is that, at this point in the job, she could not possibly have known any of the intimate details of my life. She simply looked into my eyes and knew that my "innocence" was not actual, but physical (or "skin deep").
This raised the question in my mind: is it better to appear innocent and not be so, or appear not innocent (what we'll call corrupt) but actually be so? Yes, I do understand that there is a middle ground: the person who appears neither innocent nor corrupt and is neutral in the way of action (or some variation where neutrality is part of the equation). This person, however, is, at least in my mind, fictional. Pretend there is a scale of 1-10, 1 being totally innocent and 10 being totally corrupt. I would imagine that nearly nobody would be a 1 or a 10. The sweetest person on earth has probably had a daydream about dirty sex; and the most despicable serial killer has probably loved a kitten (or something similar, you get my point). This being the case, I'm examining the people who appear other than their actual personality.
First off, the person who seems corrupt but is not. The upside: proving people wrong can be incredibly gratifying, and people are more comfortable being themselves around someone who seems damaged. The downside: this person seems un-trustworthy and is treated as such (not getting as many job opportunities, missing out on romantic partners, etc).
Second off, the person who seems innocent but is not. The upside: people trust this person, jobs are more easily obtained, romantic partners are more easily obtained, and (if the "corruption" is significantly dominant) innocent people can be taken advantage of much easier. The downside: people think of this person as a goody-two-shoes and do not open up as much, he or she is seen as holier-than-thou and is somewhat despised for it, and any reveal of the "true self" is only accepted with shock, lack of belief, and disappointment.
So what's the end result? Neither are good...at least in most cases. I guess the best thing to be is totally open about your true nature so people treat you as you really are. If you are truly an innocent person, act that way, reap the rewards of it and deal with the downsides of it; if you are truly a corrupt person, act that way, reap the rewards of it and deal with the downsides of it.
(5) Movies
It's possible you read all that babble above (though unlikely), in which case, you need something light and refreshing. Like a lemon ice slushy on a hot summer's day. Hence the movie section!
Ok, so here we go with quick reviews of recently viewed films!
Wall-E
This was a seriously amazing addition to the all-CG film repertoire. As a film student, I am always impressed with films that rely wholly on the visual aspect. Yeah, dialogue is important; but if you can tell the story solely with visuals and sound effects, you have made a great film. The sound design in Wall-E is absolutely amazing. The few lines of dialogue move the film along; but one finds him/herself waiting impatiently for the next scene of purely "sound effect" driven action. It could have used a little less of the strong-handed, green-peace slaps across the face; but all in all a great film.
Australia
Baz Luhrmann is, in my opinion, one of the great directors of our time. He ignores convention and creates worlds unlike anything solely in our world or in the film world. He meshes modern rock with aristocrat-society/ballroom dance with modern romance/and urban insanity with archetypal romantic antiquity. So why shouldn't his attempt at a sweeping, romantic, Australian western work? Well, multiple reasons it seems. His love of quick cutting, seemingly unrelated inter-cutting, and modern music infusion leaves this film feeling disjointed...almost rushed. The entire beginning, almost 30 minutes of the film, are confusing at best. The story finally takes hold (and it truly is a good story); but Baz's desire to break the mold leaves the audience scratching their collective heads and hoping for some clarification. All in all, this is definitely a film worth watching; but here's to hoping that Baz sticks with what he does best in the future and leaves the wide-open-western for the less inventful.
James Bond: Quantum of Solace
This isn't a complaint - it's simply something I find amusing - but if you stood outside a theater showing this JB film and asked each person coming out what the title meant, 80% (if not more) would have no answer.
James Bond movies, to me, are films about a suave, debonair, woman's man who uses crazy gadgets, kills countless "baddies" in crazy ways, sleeps with every [attractive] woman encountered (somehow every woman involved with JB is smoking hot), and hardly breaks a sweat. This film breaks the mold. A blonde Bond goes rogue, uses no crazy high-tech gadgets, doesn't sleep with every woman available, and has a particularly hard time doing things that are no sweat to prior Bonds. In my opinion, this is incredibly refreshing and stimulates the Bond series. A same-old Bond doing the same-old thing is expected; but a Bond who breaks all stereotypes is just what the series needs. No, this isn't an Oscar-winning movie by any means; but an action flick that doesn't succumb to the expected is always welcome.
___
___
Alright, that was much longer than expected; but I got everything out that I planned to. Hopefully you picked one (or more!) topics and read my typically confusing and possibly incoherent (yet precisely worded) rant/s and got your mind stirring on why I'm right or wrong. I love a vigorous discussion based solely on what you find wrong with my ideas. Hey, without disagreement we wouldn't have much innovation at all, now would we?
Goodnight to you and yours.
P.S. Kudos to anyone who knows where this blog's title comes from. And extra kudos to anyone who knows what it means...because I sure as hell don't.
I have a bunch of random thoughts floating around in my head and I feel like putting them down on...well, I was going to say "putting them down on paper," but that's hardly the case, now is it? More so like putting them into bunches of zeros and ones which will magically be reassembled in front of you through the internets (which I hear is like a bunch of tubes like those cool pneumatic devices in Home Depot, wizzing whatever I tap out to you in an easy to digest visual form!).
Despite being done with school, I have found myself to be increasingly busy; which has spurred me to design this post with your busy schedule in mind! I have devised a simple number scheme by which you might pick and choose only those parts of the post that interest you - so you can skip bits which you find irrelevant - in order to save you time and mental effort! And just so you know, each portion will (hopefully) be quite bite-sized; squeezing much thought into a (somewhat) thought-provoking tid-bit!
(Addendum: Good lord was I wrong! Get ready for some long-winded rambling!)
This post will go as follows:
(1) YouTube and Why We Love Violence
(2) Depersonalizing the Person
(3) Why the JWs Might Be On To Something
(4) Innocently Devious Vs. Deviously Innocent
and
(5) Movies
Let's begin!
(1) YouTube and Why We Love Violence
Some of the most popular videos on YouTube (and the internet video sites in general) are clips of people hurting themselves. And not just some guy tripping a small distance and getting a rug burn. Sites like Break.com are all about the most horrific things happening to people: broken bones, third-degree burns, possible paralyzation (<--made up word?), etc. I have seen my fair share of disturbingly painful videos and have always wondered why these clips are so popular. A while back I was at a Beck concert, standing in line for a beer, when I saw a person fall and crack their head on the unforgiving concrete. Unlike YouTube videos with comments like, "wut a dumass!!1," the first thing I felt was sick. A total stranger fell and wasn't moving. Whether he was dead, paralyzed, or totally fine didn't matter; what mattered was my immediate instinct to help him. A call to 911 and a some helpful medical professionals later and he was being led off to recuperate. This was totally unlike anything I had seen on the internet. So the question is: why didn't I laugh at this stranger's misfortune like the online witnesses or the countless viewers of the video? I've thought allot about it and here is my conclusion: catharsis mixed with schadenfreude. Why do we like being "scared to death" by horror films? Why do we like screaming our heads off on roller coasters? When we can be in a safe place, but feel like we're experiencing something awful (falling to our death on a 50-foot drop on a coaster/being chased by an axe-wielding maniac through the place-holder of an actor) we can face our fears in a controlled environment and come out safe and possibly less fearful of future personal incidents. It's not as obvious with pain; but I think that watching a person get their teeth mashed-in on an escalator both makes us thankful (happy even) that it's happening to someone else and releases the fear that it will happen to us.
Think of it this way: you see someone find a $100 bill on the ground. Chances are you then think, "darn, too bad it wasn't me," and part of your brain thinks that since it happened to someone else that it won't happen to you any time soon. In other words, if lightning strikes your friend while you're standing 10 feet away, you don't think that it will then happen to you any time soon; and chances are you think that the chances of it happening to you (since it just happened to your friend) are incredibly lessened. So watching pain happen to someone else is almost like taking a tincture insuring your safety.
(2) Depersonalizing the Person
I often wonder, since I'm a waiter, how some people treat others so awfully and still respect themselves. I have been treated like dirt (or even less than dirt) more times than I would like to remember. If you have never worked in the service industry, thank your lucky stars (or whatever you find lucky)...you have avoided a personal hell. If it were not for the decent pay, I would be out of this industry in a second. Show me another job where I could possibly make an easy $300 in 6 hours and I'll apply right now. So, what is it I'm referring to specifically?
I get that people from other cultures might not get our customs. I might not like a $10 tip on a $150 bill; but if the guests recently moved here from Argentina I understand to some extent. But what about the people who have lived here all their lives? What about the people who say to me, "Don't worry, I used to be a waiter, I'll take care of you," and then tip you 8% after near perfect service? What about the people who come in rearing for a fight and ready to tussle over how many discounts can be used at one table, or how the steak (all of which they just consumed) was not good quality and therefore a refund is in order and it's your (the waiter's) fault and is coming out of your tip? The people who put five one-dollar bills on the table at the beginning of the meal and every time something doesn't go perfect they take one away (but only when you are there to see it happen)?
My theory goes like this: our society has trained us to believe that we not only can, but should get everything desired. Even if that desire is unreasonable. Buying items off of the internet, over the phone, etc, has trained us to think that we aren't dealing with people so much as we are dealing with autonomous givers of all desires as long as a base amount of money is delivered. You wouldn't think to thank your computer for delivering your e-mail, that would be absurd. But the slippery slope begins. Next you stop thinking there is anyone to thank for deliver your physical mail (it's the mailman's job anyway, right?); plus you don't have to see the mailman, you can wait til the mail is there and then get it. Next you stop seeing the store-clerk as a person and more so a mediator between you and the cash-register (obviously...I mean, you don't tip the girl at Macy's for selling you a sweater). The problem arises when you reach industries like restaurant waiters.
I've talked to SO many people who think that high-end-restaurant servers make $10/12/15/per hour, plus tips. If this were the case, tipping 10% wouldn't be so bad; but what happened to putting some thought into our actions and checking up on etiquette? A mere 80 years ago (or less) the proper way to use a fork was a dire situation...now we just take a wild guess and call it a day. If I don't know how much to tip a valet, I freaking Google it and find out (or ask a friend, or find an etiquette guide, or ask the valet him/herself - trust me, they won't mind - or do any number of things to find out). We don't live this way with anything else...case in point: a person on the street runs up and washes your window while you're at a red light...do you assume they are doing it for free? No, you assume they want money and you go through the thought process of figuring out what they want (is $1 good enough? $5? $8 Do they deserve anything?). Your server makes minimum wage and lives off of tips. Two $150 checks a month will not sustain the average person. People have stopped seeing their servers as hard-working individuals, and more like robots who deliver food and desired accoutrements.
(3) Why the JWs Might Be On To Something
If you are confused, by JWs I mean Jehovah's Witnesses. You are most assuredly more aware of Mormons than you are JWs; but there are a mass amount of JWs around (they simply don't evangelize as aggressively). I will simply explain one of their main practices rather than assume you know or don't know about it. The JWs do not celebrate much of anything. Christmas, Easter, and even birthdays are not hallowed events to the stout JW. The JWs understand that almost every celebration on the Judeo-Christian calendar has a pagan origin. For example: Christmas (the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth) is not taken by hardly anyone as the actual date of Christ's birth. Whether it is the celebration of the winter solstice, Saturnalia, or Yule, the origins of celebrating on (or close to) December 25th is pagan. The early Christian church, in an attempt to rid society of such practices, placed "Christ's birth" on this day. The result? Instead of celebrating non-Christian gods, or non-Christian ideas, Christ became the center of the day and other meanings dwindled.
In other words, Christmas, the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth (arguably one of the most important Christian holidays (second only to Christ's death and resurrection)) is firmly planted in the middle of a pagan celebration. Whereas this is simply accepted by modern-day Christians, this is unacceptable to the JWs. Anything not explicitly "Christian" takes away from the faith.
So what do I mean by saying that they have gotten something right? Well, first off, in my opinion the JWs have taken it too far. They have understood that pagan holidays (in their original form) are meaningless in the Christian faith and have therefore "banned" them all. The upside to this is that the material and hallow aspects of certain holidays (e.g. Eartha Kitt's Santa Baby) are pushed aside. The downside is that any meaning is abandoned. Imagine if we applied this to everyday life: modern understanding of combustion (and the resultant creation of the combustion engine and all that comes with it) would be abandoned because the "pagan" Greeks believed in phlogiston (the negative-weighted element responsible for things like combustion and oxidation). I understand that my example comparing something non-physical (pagan holidays) with something physical (chemistry) is extreme; and you might disagree with such a comparison; but I am simply making my point exceedingly clear. A more appropriate example would be abandoning democracy (something that has worked relatively well for the U.S.) because Plato, the Greek philosopher, who was "pagan" according to modern identification, coined the term and crafted the base for our modern system.
So the end result? We can hardly abandon everything begun by those whose beliefs we disagree with; but at the same time, we should not give up on what we hold true simply because society tells us that it's ok. The good in the JWs beliefs is the realization that modern understanding (and devaluing (in a sense)) of the real meaning of a holiday is harmful. Rather than accept the giant bunny and chocolate eggs of Easter, remember the real reason and don't give up on celebrating the true meaning of what it is that you believe...whatever that may be.
(4) Innocently Devious Vs. Deviously Innocent
This topic is based solely on the observations of one person and my discussion of it will possibly alienate all 3 of you who check up on this blog. But ima do it anyway. I have often been told I look very young, very naive, and very innocent. This has been going on since high school. That - high school - is the earliest people should be considered innocent or not innocent in my opinion; if you are 10 years old and multiple people express their opinion that you are not innocent, there might be a problem. But I'm sure your police record confirms that and my assumption is unnecessary.
I work with a person, a woman, a slightly older woman (not old, but older than me by enough years to have more experience than I) who is pretty good with her psychology. Most everyone I work with has expressed, in one way or another, that I am trustworthy, innocent, and, well, childlike. So much so that during conversation explicitly sexual/vulgar, certain co-workers have yelled out, "Shhh, Grant can hear!" One conversation went as such:
Person 1: Man, Grant, you are really stressed!
Person 2: Seriously, you need to get laid.
Me: Heh.
Person 1: No, I don't think Grant is that kind of person
Person 2: What do you mean?
Person 1: Grant seems like the kind of person who needs to cuddle when he's stressed, not something overtly sexual.
The one exception, the woman I mentioned, was involved in a conversation with me and a few others about my age. It was a guessing game. The first person guessed I was 21. The second guessed I was 23. The third said I looked 22, but I was probably older; it was most likely the innocent face that made me look young. This woman, the psychology one, said, "Oh, he's not innocent. It's just an act. Trust me, he's nowhere as innocent as you might think."
The funny thing is that, at this point in the job, she could not possibly have known any of the intimate details of my life. She simply looked into my eyes and knew that my "innocence" was not actual, but physical (or "skin deep").
This raised the question in my mind: is it better to appear innocent and not be so, or appear not innocent (what we'll call corrupt) but actually be so? Yes, I do understand that there is a middle ground: the person who appears neither innocent nor corrupt and is neutral in the way of action (or some variation where neutrality is part of the equation). This person, however, is, at least in my mind, fictional. Pretend there is a scale of 1-10, 1 being totally innocent and 10 being totally corrupt. I would imagine that nearly nobody would be a 1 or a 10. The sweetest person on earth has probably had a daydream about dirty sex; and the most despicable serial killer has probably loved a kitten (or something similar, you get my point). This being the case, I'm examining the people who appear other than their actual personality.
First off, the person who seems corrupt but is not. The upside: proving people wrong can be incredibly gratifying, and people are more comfortable being themselves around someone who seems damaged. The downside: this person seems un-trustworthy and is treated as such (not getting as many job opportunities, missing out on romantic partners, etc).
Second off, the person who seems innocent but is not. The upside: people trust this person, jobs are more easily obtained, romantic partners are more easily obtained, and (if the "corruption" is significantly dominant) innocent people can be taken advantage of much easier. The downside: people think of this person as a goody-two-shoes and do not open up as much, he or she is seen as holier-than-thou and is somewhat despised for it, and any reveal of the "true self" is only accepted with shock, lack of belief, and disappointment.
So what's the end result? Neither are good...at least in most cases. I guess the best thing to be is totally open about your true nature so people treat you as you really are. If you are truly an innocent person, act that way, reap the rewards of it and deal with the downsides of it; if you are truly a corrupt person, act that way, reap the rewards of it and deal with the downsides of it.
(5) Movies
It's possible you read all that babble above (though unlikely), in which case, you need something light and refreshing. Like a lemon ice slushy on a hot summer's day. Hence the movie section!
Ok, so here we go with quick reviews of recently viewed films!
Wall-E
This was a seriously amazing addition to the all-CG film repertoire. As a film student, I am always impressed with films that rely wholly on the visual aspect. Yeah, dialogue is important; but if you can tell the story solely with visuals and sound effects, you have made a great film. The sound design in Wall-E is absolutely amazing. The few lines of dialogue move the film along; but one finds him/herself waiting impatiently for the next scene of purely "sound effect" driven action. It could have used a little less of the strong-handed, green-peace slaps across the face; but all in all a great film.
Australia
Baz Luhrmann is, in my opinion, one of the great directors of our time. He ignores convention and creates worlds unlike anything solely in our world or in the film world. He meshes modern rock with aristocrat-society/ballroom dance with modern romance/and urban insanity with archetypal romantic antiquity. So why shouldn't his attempt at a sweeping, romantic, Australian western work? Well, multiple reasons it seems. His love of quick cutting, seemingly unrelated inter-cutting, and modern music infusion leaves this film feeling disjointed...almost rushed. The entire beginning, almost 30 minutes of the film, are confusing at best. The story finally takes hold (and it truly is a good story); but Baz's desire to break the mold leaves the audience scratching their collective heads and hoping for some clarification. All in all, this is definitely a film worth watching; but here's to hoping that Baz sticks with what he does best in the future and leaves the wide-open-western for the less inventful.
James Bond: Quantum of Solace
This isn't a complaint - it's simply something I find amusing - but if you stood outside a theater showing this JB film and asked each person coming out what the title meant, 80% (if not more) would have no answer.
James Bond movies, to me, are films about a suave, debonair, woman's man who uses crazy gadgets, kills countless "baddies" in crazy ways, sleeps with every [attractive] woman encountered (somehow every woman involved with JB is smoking hot), and hardly breaks a sweat. This film breaks the mold. A blonde Bond goes rogue, uses no crazy high-tech gadgets, doesn't sleep with every woman available, and has a particularly hard time doing things that are no sweat to prior Bonds. In my opinion, this is incredibly refreshing and stimulates the Bond series. A same-old Bond doing the same-old thing is expected; but a Bond who breaks all stereotypes is just what the series needs. No, this isn't an Oscar-winning movie by any means; but an action flick that doesn't succumb to the expected is always welcome.
___
___
Alright, that was much longer than expected; but I got everything out that I planned to. Hopefully you picked one (or more!) topics and read my typically confusing and possibly incoherent (yet precisely worded) rant/s and got your mind stirring on why I'm right or wrong. I love a vigorous discussion based solely on what you find wrong with my ideas. Hey, without disagreement we wouldn't have much innovation at all, now would we?
Goodnight to you and yours.
P.S. Kudos to anyone who knows where this blog's title comes from. And extra kudos to anyone who knows what it means...because I sure as hell don't.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
...
I have this feeling that if I lived in a place where rain was common I would be much more creative. Tonight is the first night of decent rain Brea has had in recent memory. As the sound of water drops hitting pavement, roofs, and metal drainage pipes began I almost immediately wanted to, almost needed to, do something creative. Or at least sit out under an overhang and just listen.
This feeling might be different (and I assume it would be to some extent) if it rained every other day. Maybe the rarity of the rain makes it something special that brings out the introspective nature in me.
I have friends who become quite depressed with even the smallest amount of grey skies and rainclouds. I can't help but feel somewhat exhilarated.
I'm heading home, to San Jose, tomorrow morning. Thanksgiving has shrunk from 20+ person gatherings with mountains of food and endless commotion, to an immediate family-sized reunion with enough quiet times to make me appreciate my family's ability to not have to fill all silence with meaningless babble.
Everything seems to be changing. From the closest of friends needing support I don't know how to give, to wanting (well, more so needing) a new job, to thoughts in my head I don't even know how to quantify (let alone begin).
I am truly thankful for all my friends. Even the ones who I rarely talk to and who probably think I don't care much about them. I am eternally thankful for so many things in my life that I become jaded. With so many things to be thankful for, each one loses a little bit of my attention until I simply think to myself, "Yeah, I'm thankful for my life." I know it seems cliche or some such negative word; but we should all really stop and think about those people and things around us that give us hope.
Here's to happiness in some form or another...
I have this feeling that if I lived in a place where rain was common I would be much more creative. Tonight is the first night of decent rain Brea has had in recent memory. As the sound of water drops hitting pavement, roofs, and metal drainage pipes began I almost immediately wanted to, almost needed to, do something creative. Or at least sit out under an overhang and just listen.
This feeling might be different (and I assume it would be to some extent) if it rained every other day. Maybe the rarity of the rain makes it something special that brings out the introspective nature in me.
I have friends who become quite depressed with even the smallest amount of grey skies and rainclouds. I can't help but feel somewhat exhilarated.
I'm heading home, to San Jose, tomorrow morning. Thanksgiving has shrunk from 20+ person gatherings with mountains of food and endless commotion, to an immediate family-sized reunion with enough quiet times to make me appreciate my family's ability to not have to fill all silence with meaningless babble.
Everything seems to be changing. From the closest of friends needing support I don't know how to give, to wanting (well, more so needing) a new job, to thoughts in my head I don't even know how to quantify (let alone begin).
I am truly thankful for all my friends. Even the ones who I rarely talk to and who probably think I don't care much about them. I am eternally thankful for so many things in my life that I become jaded. With so many things to be thankful for, each one loses a little bit of my attention until I simply think to myself, "Yeah, I'm thankful for my life." I know it seems cliche or some such negative word; but we should all really stop and think about those people and things around us that give us hope.
Here's to happiness in some form or another...
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Downfall of the American Economic Society
Despite the heady title, I'm not about to go into an economic lesson/tirade about the good 'ol US of A. In fact, I somehow got through 19 years of schooling without ever taking a course in economics. How the hell did that happen?
It's funny how financially hard times brings out something different in everyone and every situation. I understand that I am hardly qualified to complain like some people out there; but that's not going to stop me from pointing out strange effects these times have had on me personally (Is 'personally' unnecessary in that sentence from a grammatical point of view?).
First off, my job has become, um, strange? Whereas we used to be full all the time and could hardly keep up with all the diners hungry for cheese, now we have too many servers and not enough diners. Two easy solutions might be to fire the lesser workers thereby boosting the workload of those deserving, or playing the seniority card and giving more work to those with the longest (and best) track-record with the company. Instead, the restaurant has become, well, like this:
And that is only a slight exaggeration. We, the servers, were all informed that those who took the initiative to partake in menial tasks not in our job description, followed all the corporate rules to a T (even though they haven't cared up until this point), and basically brown-nosed, would be the servers who got shifts. So an atmosphere of at least semi-happy compatible servers has turned into a power-struggle to see who can outdo who. Since when does my choice to perform a busser's task (of course secretly hoping I'm being watched, otherwise who would care?) at the detriment of my own duties equal being allowed to work?
Secondly, the issue of food has become interesting. I start out the month like normal: make a sandwich for certain meals, cook some burgers for others, eat out occasionally, and snack on whatever's around when hungry in between. Towards the middle of the month I cut out eating out and rely on food from the freezer and fridge plus the occasional snack. By the end of the month (with rent looming) I find myself having conversations with myself like this:
G1: "Let's see, what can I have for dinner?"
G2: "You have no money, so you can't eat out."
G1: "True, and I'm out of sandwich meat and microwave burritos."
G2: *Points at something in back of cabinet* "What's what?"
G1: "A can of refried beans that's been there for 2 years."
G2: "Wrong, it's dinner!"
Third, I start making strange cutbacks that probably aren't making that much of a difference. Case in point: I need to return this movie to the store; but I am running on fumes in my truck. In order to get to the store I will have to fill up my gas tank. So....screw it, I'll return it later when I have gas and hope that I don't get fined thereby negating the savings I just made. But of course, if I were to stop and think, I would realize that I have to buy gas whether or not I go to the store today, and I will have to return the movie whether or not I do it today (unless I really want to own a copy of Baby Geniuses on BlueRay for a mere $25). This probably goes back to my lack of economic teaching; but I somehow convince myself that delayed spending is saving me money!
4, I indubitably make one or more stupid financial decisions. E.g. After adding up rent and utilities, counting how much I have in the bank, counting how much I have in my wallet, coming to the conclusion that since I only work one more day in the month I need to walk with $130 in that next shift or I will not make rent, and realizing that I haven't made that much in a shift in a long time (therefore it will be a long shot to make rent this month), I will wake up the next morning with furrowed eyebrows as to why I spent the night spending money to drink with friends <---This is, most assuredly, the longest sentence in this post, or in any recent post for that matter; which makes me want to go scan the archives to see what the longest sentence I have ever written is.
Times like this make you wish you had been smart with your savings when things were looking up. But nooooo, I needed the duplicate DVD just because it was a special edition with one added feature, the fancy name-brand headache painkillers that are 6x the price of the generics, the new digital camera with twice the megapixels (even though I have never printed anything requiring the max number of magapixels my current camera has), and the fancy foreign bottled water (my Brita filter makes the water taste like carrots!).
Oh well. Hindsight is 20/20 while current vision is like reading the bottom line of an eye exam chart from 100 yard through blue-tinted glass covered in mud.
Despite the heady title, I'm not about to go into an economic lesson/tirade about the good 'ol US of A. In fact, I somehow got through 19 years of schooling without ever taking a course in economics. How the hell did that happen?
It's funny how financially hard times brings out something different in everyone and every situation. I understand that I am hardly qualified to complain like some people out there; but that's not going to stop me from pointing out strange effects these times have had on me personally (Is 'personally' unnecessary in that sentence from a grammatical point of view?).
First off, my job has become, um, strange? Whereas we used to be full all the time and could hardly keep up with all the diners hungry for cheese, now we have too many servers and not enough diners. Two easy solutions might be to fire the lesser workers thereby boosting the workload of those deserving, or playing the seniority card and giving more work to those with the longest (and best) track-record with the company. Instead, the restaurant has become, well, like this:
And that is only a slight exaggeration. We, the servers, were all informed that those who took the initiative to partake in menial tasks not in our job description, followed all the corporate rules to a T (even though they haven't cared up until this point), and basically brown-nosed, would be the servers who got shifts. So an atmosphere of at least semi-happy compatible servers has turned into a power-struggle to see who can outdo who. Since when does my choice to perform a busser's task (of course secretly hoping I'm being watched, otherwise who would care?) at the detriment of my own duties equal being allowed to work?
Secondly, the issue of food has become interesting. I start out the month like normal: make a sandwich for certain meals, cook some burgers for others, eat out occasionally, and snack on whatever's around when hungry in between. Towards the middle of the month I cut out eating out and rely on food from the freezer and fridge plus the occasional snack. By the end of the month (with rent looming) I find myself having conversations with myself like this:
G1: "Let's see, what can I have for dinner?"
G2: "You have no money, so you can't eat out."
G1: "True, and I'm out of sandwich meat and microwave burritos."
G2: *Points at something in back of cabinet* "What's what?"
G1: "A can of refried beans that's been there for 2 years."
G2: "Wrong, it's dinner!"
Third, I start making strange cutbacks that probably aren't making that much of a difference. Case in point: I need to return this movie to the store; but I am running on fumes in my truck. In order to get to the store I will have to fill up my gas tank. So....screw it, I'll return it later when I have gas and hope that I don't get fined thereby negating the savings I just made. But of course, if I were to stop and think, I would realize that I have to buy gas whether or not I go to the store today, and I will have to return the movie whether or not I do it today (unless I really want to own a copy of Baby Geniuses on BlueRay for a mere $25). This probably goes back to my lack of economic teaching; but I somehow convince myself that delayed spending is saving me money!
4, I indubitably make one or more stupid financial decisions. E.g. After adding up rent and utilities, counting how much I have in the bank, counting how much I have in my wallet, coming to the conclusion that since I only work one more day in the month I need to walk with $130 in that next shift or I will not make rent, and realizing that I haven't made that much in a shift in a long time (therefore it will be a long shot to make rent this month), I will wake up the next morning with furrowed eyebrows as to why I spent the night spending money to drink with friends <---This is, most assuredly, the longest sentence in this post, or in any recent post for that matter; which makes me want to go scan the archives to see what the longest sentence I have ever written is.
Times like this make you wish you had been smart with your savings when things were looking up. But nooooo, I needed the duplicate DVD just because it was a special edition with one added feature, the fancy name-brand headache painkillers that are 6x the price of the generics, the new digital camera with twice the megapixels (even though I have never printed anything requiring the max number of magapixels my current camera has), and the fancy foreign bottled water (my Brita filter makes the water taste like carrots!).
Oh well. Hindsight is 20/20 while current vision is like reading the bottom line of an eye exam chart from 100 yard through blue-tinted glass covered in mud.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Evolution of Understanding of Government
I have to admit that I have never been very involved (read: interested) in politics. I know, I know, if I were in some other country that did not allow at least a semblance of democracy (since that's about all we have in the U.S.) I would do anything to have a say. Call me jaded; but at least I'm aware of my condition.
The method by which I vote has gone through three stages, and I think I have finally ended up with something workable:
18 Years Old: The first stage was to go along with whatever my parents told me. I honestly put no thought into voting, registered republican, and voted along with my parents. When your biggest concern is whether your parents will let you stay out 'til 10pm on Saturday night, the next president isn't exactly on the "things I really care about list."
22 Years Old: The second stage was to do some reading, do some thinking, and end up with a totally nihilistic view of my role in voting. My thoughts were: if California will always be a democratic state, it doesn't matter what I vote. If I voted democrat, a democrat would win; if I voted republican, a democrat would win (etc, etc). Due to this 'understanding,' I voted, not really caring or thinking it mattered. Now, there is some truth to this, but it is misguided and it led to my current thought.
26 Years Old: The third stage is to actually care enough to not go with a mob mentality. My mind still can't wrap around the idea that only someone from one of two parties will win. Why the hell is that? Why do people not even consider the other parties? Go ahead, ask someone to name candidates from a party other than the democrats or republicans and they will likely draw a blank (unless it's someone like Ron Paul who would have to be a write-in). What is my solution then? Simply to vote for someone I agree with. Screw the main two candidates, they are both bad choices. Yeah, I know that voting for a third party means that my choice will not win and that my vote will not go towards helping "the lesser of two evils." I'm sick of that phrase. Why does it have to be the lesser of two evils? If more people stopped following the crowd and read into the issues and voted on something other than a big D or R, we actually might get some of the much harped on "change" this country so badly needs.
So what's the end result? I used to think voting for anyone other than D or R would result in a thrown away vote. Now I see that by voting for someone other than the main two, those candidates will look at the states they lost, ask why, and see (hopefully) a good-sized chunk of votes going to some underdog. This will (hopefully) cause them to rethink why they were not voted for and make some changes. It will also (hopefully) give some power to third parties and help the hopelessly insignificant candidates to gain some significance and actually make some change.
Anyway, I'm off my soap-box. I hate politics. I really do. But I guess trying to make something you hate better is better than hating it and doing nothing about it.
I have to admit that I have never been very involved (read: interested) in politics. I know, I know, if I were in some other country that did not allow at least a semblance of democracy (since that's about all we have in the U.S.) I would do anything to have a say. Call me jaded; but at least I'm aware of my condition.
The method by which I vote has gone through three stages, and I think I have finally ended up with something workable:
18 Years Old: The first stage was to go along with whatever my parents told me. I honestly put no thought into voting, registered republican, and voted along with my parents. When your biggest concern is whether your parents will let you stay out 'til 10pm on Saturday night, the next president isn't exactly on the "things I really care about list."
22 Years Old: The second stage was to do some reading, do some thinking, and end up with a totally nihilistic view of my role in voting. My thoughts were: if California will always be a democratic state, it doesn't matter what I vote. If I voted democrat, a democrat would win; if I voted republican, a democrat would win (etc, etc). Due to this 'understanding,' I voted, not really caring or thinking it mattered. Now, there is some truth to this, but it is misguided and it led to my current thought.
26 Years Old: The third stage is to actually care enough to not go with a mob mentality. My mind still can't wrap around the idea that only someone from one of two parties will win. Why the hell is that? Why do people not even consider the other parties? Go ahead, ask someone to name candidates from a party other than the democrats or republicans and they will likely draw a blank (unless it's someone like Ron Paul who would have to be a write-in). What is my solution then? Simply to vote for someone I agree with. Screw the main two candidates, they are both bad choices. Yeah, I know that voting for a third party means that my choice will not win and that my vote will not go towards helping "the lesser of two evils." I'm sick of that phrase. Why does it have to be the lesser of two evils? If more people stopped following the crowd and read into the issues and voted on something other than a big D or R, we actually might get some of the much harped on "change" this country so badly needs.
So what's the end result? I used to think voting for anyone other than D or R would result in a thrown away vote. Now I see that by voting for someone other than the main two, those candidates will look at the states they lost, ask why, and see (hopefully) a good-sized chunk of votes going to some underdog. This will (hopefully) cause them to rethink why they were not voted for and make some changes. It will also (hopefully) give some power to third parties and help the hopelessly insignificant candidates to gain some significance and actually make some change.
Anyway, I'm off my soap-box. I hate politics. I really do. But I guess trying to make something you hate better is better than hating it and doing nothing about it.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Hey, you, stop giving a bad name to things that describe me!
This thought is nothing new, and I have surely talked about it before; but a movie (about to be released) has re-roused my passion for the topic. That movie is Religulous.
I want to explain, right off, that I am not in any way trying to belittle this film, start a boycott, or even say it is wrong in its message. In fact, I find the idea of the film to be a sobering one, especially for those who have faith in more than this mortal coil.
I recently watched an interview with Bill Maher, in which he explained that there are two basic kinds of religious people, 1) those who have hardcore faith, but know next to nothing about what they believe, and 2) those who know everything about what they believe, but exhibit weak faith (or blatantly admit that they're very possibly wrong). This is the common view that anyone who is smart enough will realize the stupidity of faith in the supernatural.
Something like %16 of people do not "have faith" (oh what a wonderfully vague phrase that is) according to the film, and Mr. Maher wants better representation of those people instead of religiosity being an assumed essential part of being in government, being moral, etc.
How can all the religious fanatics, the crazies, the violently zealous be the ones who control laws, set up appropriate behavior for family life, or quite literally get away with murder?
My basic problem is that (and I'll bring this close to home so as not to offend too many people) Christians are making Christianity stupid. No, I don't think that they are making it look stupid for having belief, or desiring a relationship with an invisible being, or anything of the sort. Christians are making Christianity stupid because they will jump headfirst into discussions, political positions, and alienating moral views because "that's what the Bible says." Most Christians have no ethical theory, theological training, hermeneutic understanding, etc, etc, etc.
Christians will jump on any bandwagon their pastor tells them to. They will vote for any presidential candidate who professes "Christian ideals." They will chastise those who go against biblical law, all the while committing secret sins of their own.
My point is that most people of faith are either too ignorant to show that their beliefs are not delusions of grandeur, or are too jaded to exhibit any sort of zeal for faith in something that, if true, is absolutely wonderful. Most people of faith hand people like Bill Maher a bat and say, "hit me."
What I wish (and I know this will never happen) is that people would do one of two things, either 1) actually take an interest in the thing that is supposed to be the most important part of their life, do some studying, and be ready to intelligently explain why they believe what they believe, or 2) simply admit that they are not well studied in the area, but that they have faith anyway, and therefore understand that they should not make sweeping generalizations or become fanatical about topics that they are totally ignorant in.
Don't think those are the only two options? Imagine a scientist who bases all his research on the theoretical hypothesis of string theory; but when you ask him why, he replies, "oh, I just believe it." Then imagine trying to argue that quantum theory is right and string theory is wrong, and this scientist (who has no basis or backing for his theory other than faith) becoming belligerently angry, saying you are wrong (though he can't say why), and accusing you of being ignorant.
Would you take that? No, of course not. Why? Because (despite string theory being a hypothesis) it's science, and saying, "just cuz" isn't good enough. Well the same thing goes for religion. If you are going to tell someone that they are wrong for what they believe, or that they must believe in a certain thing, you had better have some good reasons why you are right (and no, "um, because the Bible says so" is not a good enough answer.
I'm sick and tired of telling people I am a Christian and getting that look that says, "oh, heh, riiiight, let's change the subject before I offend your simple sensibilities." I almost feel like telling people, "I'm a Christian, but not one of the stupid ones."
On a final note, I'm not trying to take all faiths down a peg. I'm simply trying to point out that if you get angry by things like movies mocking your faith, take a look at yourself before accusing others. Also, no, not everyone falls into the categories of stupid with faith or smart without faith. I have, well, faith, that people will start putting a little more effort into their beliefs.
This thought is nothing new, and I have surely talked about it before; but a movie (about to be released) has re-roused my passion for the topic. That movie is Religulous.
I want to explain, right off, that I am not in any way trying to belittle this film, start a boycott, or even say it is wrong in its message. In fact, I find the idea of the film to be a sobering one, especially for those who have faith in more than this mortal coil.
I recently watched an interview with Bill Maher, in which he explained that there are two basic kinds of religious people, 1) those who have hardcore faith, but know next to nothing about what they believe, and 2) those who know everything about what they believe, but exhibit weak faith (or blatantly admit that they're very possibly wrong). This is the common view that anyone who is smart enough will realize the stupidity of faith in the supernatural.
Something like %16 of people do not "have faith" (oh what a wonderfully vague phrase that is) according to the film, and Mr. Maher wants better representation of those people instead of religiosity being an assumed essential part of being in government, being moral, etc.
How can all the religious fanatics, the crazies, the violently zealous be the ones who control laws, set up appropriate behavior for family life, or quite literally get away with murder?
My basic problem is that (and I'll bring this close to home so as not to offend too many people) Christians are making Christianity stupid. No, I don't think that they are making it look stupid for having belief, or desiring a relationship with an invisible being, or anything of the sort. Christians are making Christianity stupid because they will jump headfirst into discussions, political positions, and alienating moral views because "that's what the Bible says." Most Christians have no ethical theory, theological training, hermeneutic understanding, etc, etc, etc.
Christians will jump on any bandwagon their pastor tells them to. They will vote for any presidential candidate who professes "Christian ideals." They will chastise those who go against biblical law, all the while committing secret sins of their own.
My point is that most people of faith are either too ignorant to show that their beliefs are not delusions of grandeur, or are too jaded to exhibit any sort of zeal for faith in something that, if true, is absolutely wonderful. Most people of faith hand people like Bill Maher a bat and say, "hit me."
What I wish (and I know this will never happen) is that people would do one of two things, either 1) actually take an interest in the thing that is supposed to be the most important part of their life, do some studying, and be ready to intelligently explain why they believe what they believe, or 2) simply admit that they are not well studied in the area, but that they have faith anyway, and therefore understand that they should not make sweeping generalizations or become fanatical about topics that they are totally ignorant in.
Don't think those are the only two options? Imagine a scientist who bases all his research on the theoretical hypothesis of string theory; but when you ask him why, he replies, "oh, I just believe it." Then imagine trying to argue that quantum theory is right and string theory is wrong, and this scientist (who has no basis or backing for his theory other than faith) becoming belligerently angry, saying you are wrong (though he can't say why), and accusing you of being ignorant.
Would you take that? No, of course not. Why? Because (despite string theory being a hypothesis) it's science, and saying, "just cuz" isn't good enough. Well the same thing goes for religion. If you are going to tell someone that they are wrong for what they believe, or that they must believe in a certain thing, you had better have some good reasons why you are right (and no, "um, because the Bible says so" is not a good enough answer.
I'm sick and tired of telling people I am a Christian and getting that look that says, "oh, heh, riiiight, let's change the subject before I offend your simple sensibilities." I almost feel like telling people, "I'm a Christian, but not one of the stupid ones."
On a final note, I'm not trying to take all faiths down a peg. I'm simply trying to point out that if you get angry by things like movies mocking your faith, take a look at yourself before accusing others. Also, no, not everyone falls into the categories of stupid with faith or smart without faith. I have, well, faith, that people will start putting a little more effort into their beliefs.
Friday, September 26, 2008
So...much...happening...
Life has been crazy hectic lately; but not in a bad way. At the beginning of the month I hit NY with my family. Four days in Valley Stream and four days in the city. The prior half was filled with homemade food and grandmotherly guilt trips, and the latter half was filled with an increasingly strong desire to move to NY city.
In the city we saw three plays (though the last can hardly be described as merely a "play"). First was Xanadu. Basic premise: a rollerskating muse from Mt. Olympus intervenes in the life of a man (who is so effeminate that it's amazing the story says he's straight) who wants to open a roller-disco.
The second play was a Tony-award-winning play called August: Osage County. Basic premise: a family so dysfunctional that having having Michael Jackson as a daycare owning dad and Charles Manson as a brother would seem unremarkable in comparison. All in all, a show so depressing that despite the award-winning cast and well written story, I didn't care to even contemplate the play after it had ended.
The last "play" we saw was called Fuerza Bruta. Considering how difficult a time as I had trying to describe the Radiohead concert due to its amazing-ness, I am bound to fail at trying to describe this event. Imagine standing in a room with a couple hundred other people, fog machines blasting, giant fans, water cannons, a man on a treadmill crashing through foam-brick walls, and girls dancing in a water-filled Plexiglas cage that is being lowered over your head. That image, the one you have in your head right now, it's nothing compared to what I witnessed. If you ever, EVER have a chance to see this show, see it. I cannot explain how amazing it was. Ok, it was so good that at the end of the show, people were so hyped that they (including me) were willingly dancing in a downpour of water, not caring about the effects on electronics in pockets, or how it will affect getting home.
The rest of the trip was fantastic and wonderful and a bunch of other terms describing happiness that I don't feel like typing out right now.
::
::
Skipping a little bit of time, Megan surprised me with an early birthday present: Beck tickets. That's right, tickets to see Spoon, MGMT, and Beck at the Hollywood Bowl. The night consisted of free wine, a very tall man cracking his head open on the concrete in front of me, two great opening bands, more wine, and a machine-like Beck who pumped out around 30 songs in his set. Not only that, he had a 30-piece (or so) orchestra behind him so he could play songs from Sea Change. In other words, holy crap it was amazing. Every part of the concert was awesome.
Afterwards <---not a real word, is it? (and not a ton will be said about this) we hit Vanguard to dance the rest of the night away. All in all, a fantastic (if not early) birthday celebration.
And now? Well now there are dreams of cruise ships and new jobs and moving to new places and embarking in new enterprises. Life is fun and hectic and seriously draining all of my money...but I wouldn't trade it for all the world.
Life has been crazy hectic lately; but not in a bad way. At the beginning of the month I hit NY with my family. Four days in Valley Stream and four days in the city. The prior half was filled with homemade food and grandmotherly guilt trips, and the latter half was filled with an increasingly strong desire to move to NY city.
In the city we saw three plays (though the last can hardly be described as merely a "play"). First was Xanadu. Basic premise: a rollerskating muse from Mt. Olympus intervenes in the life of a man (who is so effeminate that it's amazing the story says he's straight) who wants to open a roller-disco.
The second play was a Tony-award-winning play called August: Osage County. Basic premise: a family so dysfunctional that having having Michael Jackson as a daycare owning dad and Charles Manson as a brother would seem unremarkable in comparison. All in all, a show so depressing that despite the award-winning cast and well written story, I didn't care to even contemplate the play after it had ended.
The last "play" we saw was called Fuerza Bruta. Considering how difficult a time as I had trying to describe the Radiohead concert due to its amazing-ness, I am bound to fail at trying to describe this event. Imagine standing in a room with a couple hundred other people, fog machines blasting, giant fans, water cannons, a man on a treadmill crashing through foam-brick walls, and girls dancing in a water-filled Plexiglas cage that is being lowered over your head. That image, the one you have in your head right now, it's nothing compared to what I witnessed. If you ever, EVER have a chance to see this show, see it. I cannot explain how amazing it was. Ok, it was so good that at the end of the show, people were so hyped that they (including me) were willingly dancing in a downpour of water, not caring about the effects on electronics in pockets, or how it will affect getting home.The rest of the trip was fantastic and wonderful and a bunch of other terms describing happiness that I don't feel like typing out right now.
::
::
Skipping a little bit of time, Megan surprised me with an early birthday present: Beck tickets. That's right, tickets to see Spoon, MGMT, and Beck at the Hollywood Bowl. The night consisted of free wine, a very tall man cracking his head open on the concrete in front of me, two great opening bands, more wine, and a machine-like Beck who pumped out around 30 songs in his set. Not only that, he had a 30-piece (or so) orchestra behind him so he could play songs from Sea Change. In other words, holy crap it was amazing. Every part of the concert was awesome.Afterwards <---not a real word, is it? (and not a ton will be said about this) we hit Vanguard to dance the rest of the night away. All in all, a fantastic (if not early) birthday celebration.
And now? Well now there are dreams of cruise ships and new jobs and moving to new places and embarking in new enterprises. Life is fun and hectic and seriously draining all of my money...but I wouldn't trade it for all the world.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Now People...
I had this fantastic philosophy teacher whose name I shall politely omit (not because I think he will stumble upon my blog -since the chances of that are less than the chances that Oprah will gain a conscience, donate all her personal belongings to charity and devote her life to feeding the poor- but because I respect the man too much to belittle him with a seemingly degrading blog post), since he has been such an inspiration to me that a humorous blog devoted to him seems mean-spirited.
Now don't get me wrong...I think naming a man and "making fun" of him is mean-spirited, however I am still doing it; but by not naming him I am merely pointing out a humorous part of my life without degrading an amazing person.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand...
I had a teacher who had, shall we say, a quirk. He would constantly interject the phrase "now people," or the word, "people," into his sentences. For example:
"Now people, don't get me wrong; but Kant didn't think this through..."
Or...
The only problem with this, people, is that existentialism ignored modern logic."
I'm not so sure you get my point. He said this phrase/word a LOT. As in a whole-friggin-lot.
I had taken a previous class with him and knew this quirk, so I decided, in one particular class, to take a tally of how many times he said it. I started out as a lone gunman, marking tallies between furious note-taking. Soon enough, my neighbors noticed something odd about my habits and asked what I was doing. When I informed them of my task, they gladly lended helping hands...pointing out "now people"s when I didn't notice.
The following picture is my tally sheet. I apologize for the poor quality:
It's not easy to see (click to enlarge), but he hit a max of 63 "now people"s on 3-28-05.
I considered making a nice laminated version of the tally sheet and giving it to him at the end of the semester; but I had this horrible vision of him feeling so much self-doubt about himself that he would fold into the fetal position in the middle of a class and never be able to teach again for fear that he would utter that god-forsaken phrase yet again. So I held on to it. And tonight I happened to stumble upon it and felt the insatiable need to share it with someone...even if that "someone" is the faceless internets that I stare into so many nights.
So enjoy, oh internets, and revel in the glory that is quirky teachers.
I had this fantastic philosophy teacher whose name I shall politely omit (not because I think he will stumble upon my blog -since the chances of that are less than the chances that Oprah will gain a conscience, donate all her personal belongings to charity and devote her life to feeding the poor- but because I respect the man too much to belittle him with a seemingly degrading blog post), since he has been such an inspiration to me that a humorous blog devoted to him seems mean-spirited.
Now don't get me wrong...I think naming a man and "making fun" of him is mean-spirited, however I am still doing it; but by not naming him I am merely pointing out a humorous part of my life without degrading an amazing person.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand...
I had a teacher who had, shall we say, a quirk. He would constantly interject the phrase "now people," or the word, "people," into his sentences. For example:
"Now people, don't get me wrong; but Kant didn't think this through..."
Or...
The only problem with this, people, is that existentialism ignored modern logic."
I'm not so sure you get my point. He said this phrase/word a LOT. As in a whole-friggin-lot.
I had taken a previous class with him and knew this quirk, so I decided, in one particular class, to take a tally of how many times he said it. I started out as a lone gunman, marking tallies between furious note-taking. Soon enough, my neighbors noticed something odd about my habits and asked what I was doing. When I informed them of my task, they gladly lended helping hands...pointing out "now people"s when I didn't notice.
The following picture is my tally sheet. I apologize for the poor quality:
It's not easy to see (click to enlarge), but he hit a max of 63 "now people"s on 3-28-05.
I considered making a nice laminated version of the tally sheet and giving it to him at the end of the semester; but I had this horrible vision of him feeling so much self-doubt about himself that he would fold into the fetal position in the middle of a class and never be able to teach again for fear that he would utter that god-forsaken phrase yet again. So I held on to it. And tonight I happened to stumble upon it and felt the insatiable need to share it with someone...even if that "someone" is the faceless internets that I stare into so many nights.
So enjoy, oh internets, and revel in the glory that is quirky teachers.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
"Wait, she's doing what?!?
I just got back from an amazing trip to NY and have some fun stuff to share; but it's late and I'm tired and you'll have to wait for that (if you can!).
In the meantime, I wanted to take a minute to brag about my little sister Ashley. She has put many years and countless hours into her dance and performance arts knowing full well that it might never pan out quite the way she hoped it would.
Well, it has started to pay off.
First off, keep an eye out for the commercial for the next season of Nip/Tuck. Ashley is one of the dancers playing the parts of Twiggy and some queen who I can't recall at the moment.
Second, and even more exciting, she just danced backup for Rihanna at the MTV Video Music Awards! Sorry for the horribly pixelated picture. It seems that even with all our advances in technology we still can't get a clean screen-capture of TV events (then again I'm complaining about something I'm relying on other people to do for me...how American!). She was chosen to be one of the few core dancers for Rihanna's performance and she got some great screen time. If you want to see the whole thing, Click Here.
On top of all of that, she recently modeled clothes at a celebrity function, tried out for a new Cirque Du Soleil show, and is being considered to be a model for a high-end jean company.
It's funny that it's my sister, because I usually get to tell stories that start off with, "Oh, I know this guy whose sister..." and now I get to say, "Hey, guess what my sister just did?" I'm incredibly proud of her and just thought I'd share.
Oh, and if you see her walking down the street, don't be shy, she only charges $10 for an autograph.
I just got back from an amazing trip to NY and have some fun stuff to share; but it's late and I'm tired and you'll have to wait for that (if you can!).
In the meantime, I wanted to take a minute to brag about my little sister Ashley. She has put many years and countless hours into her dance and performance arts knowing full well that it might never pan out quite the way she hoped it would.
Well, it has started to pay off.
First off, keep an eye out for the commercial for the next season of Nip/Tuck. Ashley is one of the dancers playing the parts of Twiggy and some queen who I can't recall at the moment.
Second, and even more exciting, she just danced backup for Rihanna at the MTV Video Music Awards! Sorry for the horribly pixelated picture. It seems that even with all our advances in technology we still can't get a clean screen-capture of TV events (then again I'm complaining about something I'm relying on other people to do for me...how American!). She was chosen to be one of the few core dancers for Rihanna's performance and she got some great screen time. If you want to see the whole thing, Click Here.On top of all of that, she recently modeled clothes at a celebrity function, tried out for a new Cirque Du Soleil show, and is being considered to be a model for a high-end jean company.
It's funny that it's my sister, because I usually get to tell stories that start off with, "Oh, I know this guy whose sister..." and now I get to say, "Hey, guess what my sister just did?" I'm incredibly proud of her and just thought I'd share.
Oh, and if you see her walking down the street, don't be shy, she only charges $10 for an autograph.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
"The only way I can describe it is 'transcendent.'"
Late last month Megan and I went to see Radiohead at the Hollywood Bowl. I had never seen them before so I was asking around to see which friends had seen them. You know, to get an idea of what I was in for. Without fail, every person who had seen them raved about how amazing they were. Now, I'm a pretty big fan of Radiohead, but I assumed that people were getting caught up in the hype of a band they adored. I never assumed I would experience what I did.
Without a doubt, Radiohead was the best live show I have ever seen. In fact, I don't even want to call it a "live show" since it was so much more. The strange thing is, I can't figure out why. I dissected each individual part of the night to see if I could understand better. Here's the closest I could come to a formula:
Amazing light show that must be seen to be understood (see picture at top)
+
As close to perfect of a performance from the group as possible
+
Almost every song I hoped to hear
+
Not too many completely annoying people around to ruin the experience
=
The perfect concert experience
But wait, that doesn't make sense. I've been to shows before that have all those elements and I still walked away from those shows thinking, "that was fun"...not, "that was the most amazing thing I have ever experienced."
It makes even less sense when you consider how many negatives surrounded the experience:
-We were sitting 3 rows from the very back of the Bowl (that's REALLY far away)
-I had had multiple alcoholic beverages (dulling the senses)
-The people in front of us spent the first part of the show talking quite loudly, as if they were at a party with friends and the music was just coming from the radio (though thanks to our seat-neighbors they were quieted)
-Megan had to work the next morning (at 8:30am) and the show was going late
-Etc, etc, etc
I look at the positives (which seem very generic), and I add in the negatives (which seem pretty annoying/distracting), and my first thought is that the end result should not be so great. So what is it that made that particular show so incredible?
It has to be soul.
Thom York (even from the back of the Bowl) exudes such passion for what he is doing that you can't help but be sucked in and entranced by every vocal utterance and musical sound. Watching him sing and play makes me think that if he was not making music, he would die. He puts so much of himself into every second of the show that it is no longer like watching a concert...it is more like watching a performance piece where the main character is bearing his every emotion for all to see.
I saw this show over a week ago and have stalled writing about it since then. I have a really hard time writing about something so meaningful when I know that my words will hardly convey how I feel or how the experience actually was. Imagine reading a blog about how amazing skydiving is. No matter how perfect the word choice is, you are not going to understand what skydiving is like...unless you do it.
The last two paragraphs are my biggest concern right now. First, I didn't want to write about this because I knew that my experience would never be fully conveyed in words. Second, I didn't want to start writing about the "oh-my-gosh-it-was-magical" aspect of the show because I knew it would start to sound pretentious. There seems to be no easy way of writing about a band like Radiohead. In one respect, they are just a band; in another, they are the mouthpiece for a generation that feels full of despair and hopelessness over the prospect of the future. They are some amazing conglomeration of the wholly physical and secular and wholly metaphysical and spiritual.
And in the end, I feel as if I should have kept all this to myself...like that kid you see cupping something in his hands and peeking at whatever it is he has while he smiles a smile that reads: I am the luckiest person in the world. At the same time, if I don't at least attempt to share experiences like this one, I will end up conveying that my life is uninteresting dross not worth your time. But just like I feel that my friend's stories and experiences are enlightening and life-enhancing, so I hope mine are.
Late last month Megan and I went to see Radiohead at the Hollywood Bowl. I had never seen them before so I was asking around to see which friends had seen them. You know, to get an idea of what I was in for. Without fail, every person who had seen them raved about how amazing they were. Now, I'm a pretty big fan of Radiohead, but I assumed that people were getting caught up in the hype of a band they adored. I never assumed I would experience what I did.Without a doubt, Radiohead was the best live show I have ever seen. In fact, I don't even want to call it a "live show" since it was so much more. The strange thing is, I can't figure out why. I dissected each individual part of the night to see if I could understand better. Here's the closest I could come to a formula:
Amazing light show that must be seen to be understood (see picture at top)
+
As close to perfect of a performance from the group as possible
+
Almost every song I hoped to hear
+
Not too many completely annoying people around to ruin the experience
=
The perfect concert experience
But wait, that doesn't make sense. I've been to shows before that have all those elements and I still walked away from those shows thinking, "that was fun"...not, "that was the most amazing thing I have ever experienced."
It makes even less sense when you consider how many negatives surrounded the experience:
-We were sitting 3 rows from the very back of the Bowl (that's REALLY far away)
-I had had multiple alcoholic beverages (dulling the senses)
-The people in front of us spent the first part of the show talking quite loudly, as if they were at a party with friends and the music was just coming from the radio (though thanks to our seat-neighbors they were quieted)
-Megan had to work the next morning (at 8:30am) and the show was going late
-Etc, etc, etc
I look at the positives (which seem very generic), and I add in the negatives (which seem pretty annoying/distracting), and my first thought is that the end result should not be so great. So what is it that made that particular show so incredible?
It has to be soul.
Thom York (even from the back of the Bowl) exudes such passion for what he is doing that you can't help but be sucked in and entranced by every vocal utterance and musical sound. Watching him sing and play makes me think that if he was not making music, he would die. He puts so much of himself into every second of the show that it is no longer like watching a concert...it is more like watching a performance piece where the main character is bearing his every emotion for all to see.
I saw this show over a week ago and have stalled writing about it since then. I have a really hard time writing about something so meaningful when I know that my words will hardly convey how I feel or how the experience actually was. Imagine reading a blog about how amazing skydiving is. No matter how perfect the word choice is, you are not going to understand what skydiving is like...unless you do it.
The last two paragraphs are my biggest concern right now. First, I didn't want to write about this because I knew that my experience would never be fully conveyed in words. Second, I didn't want to start writing about the "oh-my-gosh-it-was-magical" aspect of the show because I knew it would start to sound pretentious. There seems to be no easy way of writing about a band like Radiohead. In one respect, they are just a band; in another, they are the mouthpiece for a generation that feels full of despair and hopelessness over the prospect of the future. They are some amazing conglomeration of the wholly physical and secular and wholly metaphysical and spiritual.
And in the end, I feel as if I should have kept all this to myself...like that kid you see cupping something in his hands and peeking at whatever it is he has while he smiles a smile that reads: I am the luckiest person in the world. At the same time, if I don't at least attempt to share experiences like this one, I will end up conveying that my life is uninteresting dross not worth your time. But just like I feel that my friend's stories and experiences are enlightening and life-enhancing, so I hope mine are.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
This is...really sad
If you haven't seen this commercial, you should really see it. No, I take that back, you really shouldn't. It's got to be the most awful attempt at advertising I have seen in a long time. Pay close attention to the "friends" having a "awesome time" watching the lucky owner of the Guitar Idol!:
If you haven't seen this commercial, you should really see it. No, I take that back, you really shouldn't. It's got to be the most awful attempt at advertising I have seen in a long time. Pay close attention to the "friends" having a "awesome time" watching the lucky owner of the Guitar Idol!:
Friday, August 15, 2008
Does this thing still work?
So...after a little influence from the girlfriend I decided to start writing on this site again. It's been a while, and I'm not sure how much resolve I have; but hopefully I can start writing again for the 2 of you who still occasionally check the now 7 year old 50Fifty.
A ton has happened since I last wrote, but it seems futile to try and catch up. So why not just start from now and look to the future?
A couple days ago Megan and I went to see the Pageant of the Masters. If you've never seen this event, you really should. It's basically human "reenactments" of famous paintings and sculptures lit so perfectly that they seem to be 2-D (or made of metal/wood/plaster/etc). It's a truly amazing feat.
We showed up early to see the art exhibits being shown in the area outside the arena. It was interesting to compare the prices of the art I enjoyed versus the prices of the art I found pretentious and/or severely lacking in one way or another. Every time I saw a red dot next to a piece I would check the price:
-Hotel-worthy painting of the sea: $3900
-Twisted piece of metal: $5000
-Incredibly ugly characteratures of presidential candidates: $2500
Most of the art I was drawn to and amazed by was not only unsold, but oftentimes priced much more reasonably.
I found myself relieved that I did not attempt to make a living based on art I made. I would simply be devastated if something I put my heart and soul into never sold and never garnered any interest. Then again...my desired career is artistic; and it is very possible that something I put my all into will be mocked and put down. A car salesman can base his or her success on sales; but he or she will never go home crying because somebody put down a creation of his or hers. Art is a strange field where one's success is directly related to a totally subjective opinion.
Imagine if you were a waiter and you walked up to a table and this conversation ensued:
Waiter: Hi, welcome to ________, I'll be your server tonight.
Guest 1: Hmmm, honey, what do you think?.
Guest 2: I dunno, he's kinda pale...and skinny.
Guest 1: Yeah, and his hair is totally not in style.
Waiter: But, but I'm a great server! Seriously!
Guest 2: Oh, well, um...we're just looking.
Guest 1: Yeah, we're not too into this, sorry.
This is the kind of dejection that artists feel all the time. People walk up, look at their hard work, subjectively judge it, and very possibly reject it like it's not even worth their time.
I'm tempted to get into a big discussion of aesthetics (the subject of my last class in grad school); but I don't have the drive or the ability to make it intriguing enough to make you want to read it. So I'll leave this at one thought: how do you make aesthetic judgments?
I'd love to hear a few opinions. If you feel so inclined, leave as long a comment as you like explaining how you view beauty and the human inclination towards the "beautiful." I have my own opinions, but I'd love to hear yours. Another way of phrasing the question: when you look at something and say, "Wow, that is beautiful!" are you saying that as an objective judgments (i.e. everyone should see the beauty in this) or are you saying it subjectively (i.e. I find this beautiful, but hey, that's just my opinion); and either way, what are the criteria for something to be beautiful?
(Side question: why do we find the things we find beautiful, beautiful?)
Anyway, here's to writing in my blog again. Cheers.
So...after a little influence from the girlfriend I decided to start writing on this site again. It's been a while, and I'm not sure how much resolve I have; but hopefully I can start writing again for the 2 of you who still occasionally check the now 7 year old 50Fifty.
A ton has happened since I last wrote, but it seems futile to try and catch up. So why not just start from now and look to the future?
A couple days ago Megan and I went to see the Pageant of the Masters. If you've never seen this event, you really should. It's basically human "reenactments" of famous paintings and sculptures lit so perfectly that they seem to be 2-D (or made of metal/wood/plaster/etc). It's a truly amazing feat.
We showed up early to see the art exhibits being shown in the area outside the arena. It was interesting to compare the prices of the art I enjoyed versus the prices of the art I found pretentious and/or severely lacking in one way or another. Every time I saw a red dot next to a piece I would check the price:
-Hotel-worthy painting of the sea: $3900
-Twisted piece of metal: $5000
-Incredibly ugly characteratures of presidential candidates: $2500
Most of the art I was drawn to and amazed by was not only unsold, but oftentimes priced much more reasonably.
I found myself relieved that I did not attempt to make a living based on art I made. I would simply be devastated if something I put my heart and soul into never sold and never garnered any interest. Then again...my desired career is artistic; and it is very possible that something I put my all into will be mocked and put down. A car salesman can base his or her success on sales; but he or she will never go home crying because somebody put down a creation of his or hers. Art is a strange field where one's success is directly related to a totally subjective opinion.
Imagine if you were a waiter and you walked up to a table and this conversation ensued:
Waiter: Hi, welcome to ________, I'll be your server tonight.
Guest 1: Hmmm, honey, what do you think?.
Guest 2: I dunno, he's kinda pale...and skinny.
Guest 1: Yeah, and his hair is totally not in style.
Waiter: But, but I'm a great server! Seriously!
Guest 2: Oh, well, um...we're just looking.
Guest 1: Yeah, we're not too into this, sorry.
This is the kind of dejection that artists feel all the time. People walk up, look at their hard work, subjectively judge it, and very possibly reject it like it's not even worth their time.
I'm tempted to get into a big discussion of aesthetics (the subject of my last class in grad school); but I don't have the drive or the ability to make it intriguing enough to make you want to read it. So I'll leave this at one thought: how do you make aesthetic judgments?
I'd love to hear a few opinions. If you feel so inclined, leave as long a comment as you like explaining how you view beauty and the human inclination towards the "beautiful." I have my own opinions, but I'd love to hear yours. Another way of phrasing the question: when you look at something and say, "Wow, that is beautiful!" are you saying that as an objective judgments (i.e. everyone should see the beauty in this) or are you saying it subjectively (i.e. I find this beautiful, but hey, that's just my opinion); and either way, what are the criteria for something to be beautiful?
(Side question: why do we find the things we find beautiful, beautiful?)
Anyway, here's to writing in my blog again. Cheers.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Saturday, May 24, 2008
At the Risk of Sounding Overemotional...
(Wait...have I used that title before?
Maybe I should call it:
At the Risk of Sounding Senile...)
A lot is changing. I'll be finishing grad school in July and will officially be a master of philosophy...which means a whole lot of nothing to most of the world. I'll be many years behind the technological advances of the field I want to pursue. I'll be moving to a new place and crossing my fingers that I will be making enough money to take care of myself. I will be over 2 years into a fantastic relationship. I will be living the life of a "grown-up" even though that title is probably something I should have been living up to for quite a while now.
Things are changing and things are scary and I'm not sure I even know what "things" are.
But here's to the future. Nothing is the same as it was (which is probably a good thing); nothing will be as I imagine (which could be a good thing); and I'm just along for the ride. Life is interesting for a twenty-something with no real plan for the rest of his life.
(Wait...have I used that title before?
Maybe I should call it:
At the Risk of Sounding Senile...)
A lot is changing. I'll be finishing grad school in July and will officially be a master of philosophy...which means a whole lot of nothing to most of the world. I'll be many years behind the technological advances of the field I want to pursue. I'll be moving to a new place and crossing my fingers that I will be making enough money to take care of myself. I will be over 2 years into a fantastic relationship. I will be living the life of a "grown-up" even though that title is probably something I should have been living up to for quite a while now.
Things are changing and things are scary and I'm not sure I even know what "things" are.
But here's to the future. Nothing is the same as it was (which is probably a good thing); nothing will be as I imagine (which could be a good thing); and I'm just along for the ride. Life is interesting for a twenty-something with no real plan for the rest of his life.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
I'm such a slacker when it comes to writing on this site. At one point a few years ago I promised to update every day. That became an impossible task and I fell into the rut of updating every few weeks. Then every few months. Now? It's like winning the lottery to find a new post...only replacing the absurd amounts of money with some rather mundane words that are rather unimportant.
So here ya go. A post. Just for you. Because you're special.
And a picture:
So here ya go. A post. Just for you. Because you're special.
And a picture:
Friday, February 15, 2008
"You cannot hate other people without hating your self."
-Author: anonymous
Alternate Title: The Really Really Really Long Post
So I have a lot of totally un-researched, unproven, scientifically-supportless theories about how things work. Whether it be my theory:
1) that men are taught to be constantly sexual to the highest degree (by movies, magazines, music, and bad parenting, etc), so whether they are or are not, they act that way to be accepted socially (since a male who does not act like a sexual predator is deemed inept/gay/irregular); and women are taught to not be base enough to give in to the animal urge for sex (by latent Victorian standards, "studies" on how often women desire sex, "studies" saying women do not think of sex in the same way men do, etc), so whether or not they are overly sexual, they pretend to not care about it. This then results in men who are not overly sexual acting like they are and women who are at least moderately sexual acting like they are not and the two of them clashing when, in reality, they are much more like each other than they realize...
or 2) that many who claim to be oppressed end up (accidentally or intentionally) oppressing others...i.e. atheists who say "don't push your views of God on me" but fight to have their view be the only view taught in science/history classes thereby pushing their view of there being no God on every child in the educational system; or any group (be it women, blacks, illegal immigrants, etc) who at one time in the past (or even now, in the present) were/are put down upon, only to be angry that the equality effort on their behalf did not put them above those who oppressed them (thereby desiring oppression of others even though their anger is spawned from oppression in the first place). I.E. Feminists who are (rightly so) angry that women could not vote in the past and were treated as maids who reared the children; but then in an attempt to gain 'equality' demand jobs doing things like firefighting even when unqualified thereby causing the system to lower standards (and possibly put people in danger). Addendum to the last paragraph: I am NOT saying that women can't do jobs like front-line military service or fighting fires. I know that the upper 25th percentile of women have no problem meeting the same standards as men. I'm using this as an example that is sometimes true.
You'll have to forgive me, I'm a horrible hypocrite. I get easily angered when someone with no background in philosophy attempts to make a philosophical argument and completely ignores the entire field/dialog on the topic they are discussing in order to push their ignorant views; however, I'm more than willing to enter a field I have little background in (i.e. psychology) to tell everyone that I am right.
So...my point is that I am not formally educated in the field that would properly discuss this topic, yet, if one uses common sense, the point I am going to make is at lease valid and worth discussing. So I hope you'll read on and not dismiss this as ignorant.
::
::
The funny thing is that my entire point is very, very simple. Yet,I don't think too many people have put much credence in the idea. Here it goes:
The things that people hate in others are often things they hate in themselves,
Yeah, I know I need to qualify that statement.
Differentiation between different scenarios where I see this:
1. The Capacity Argument
We all have certain capacities to do certain things. Whether or not these capacities are ever realized, they are there. Easy example, I have the capacity to learn Spanish almost fluently. Will I ever? Who knows, but I have the capacity to. Capacities can be good, bad, or neutral. The capacity to learn Spanish is neutral. The capacity to become more compassionate and become the head of a non-profit organization would be viewed by many as good. The capacity to become an addict would usually be seen as bad.
You've heard people say, "I have an addictive personality, I need to be careful." This kind of person sees the possibility of becoming addicted to anything from caffeine to painkillers to video games. You've also heard people say, "That guy who [takes pain killers every day/drinks a ton of coffee/etc] is SO pathetic. He has no self-control." This often comes across as angry, adamant, and incredibly condescending. I would wager that those two comments are often said by the same person. The addictive personality person hates those addicted to something because he is restricted (at least personally) from doing them. Whether or not he wants to drink absurd amounts of coffee, he desires on some level to do the things he knows he can't. It's a red button and we all love pushing red buttons.
This is tricky, because the person is usually the opposite of the thing they hate:
The girl who works out 3 hours a day and has 5% body fat who hates obese people (because she sacrifices so much to not be like them). The guy working a minimum-wage job who hates rich people who blow their money on golden toilets (because he would love to live extravagantly but can't even afford toilet paper). The girl who hates religious people and rants about how stupid anyone following a religion is (because she, deep down, sees something in religion that seems right). And the list goes on.
2. The Actualized Argument
The next set of people are living the thing they hate. A prime example is the stand-up comedian. What do comedians make the most jokes about? Themselves. The fat ones make fat jokes. The gay ones make gay jokes. The ugly ones make ugly jokes. And so on and so on. People always have qualms with themselves. And seriously, how many times have you heard the question: "If there was one thing about yourself you could change, what would it be?" The easiest way to deal with disappointment is to mock it. This is the group of people who have some flaw (whether public or private) and relentlessly mock it when they see it in other people.
3. The Jealousy Argument
This is the type of person who shows extreme disdain for some trait/action/etc in others; but they secretly wish they could be like that person. For example, a person might hate people who live minute-to-minute (the kind who would up and move to another country at a whim) because "that kind of person is irresponsible." Yet the one hating wishes they could be that lacking in responsibility. But they have made a decision to accomplish something that does not allow for such spontaneity. Most people see something in others that they sometimes wish they could have, but for one reason or another disdain that quality.
Now trust me, I understand that this is not a universal evaluation. I might genuinely hate people who kill others and feel no remorse; but that does not mean I necessarily wish I could do the same or even have the propensity to do the same. I mean this in general. Also, there is the problem of the over-use of the word "hate"...so much so that the word hardly means anything anymore. Yeah, I hate eggplant, but that does not mean I want to be one. I'm speaking of "hate" on a deeper level.
Anyway, there's yet another unproven (and likely unprovable) assumption I have about humanity. Take it as you will.
-Author: anonymous
Alternate Title: The Really Really Really Long Post
So I have a lot of totally un-researched, unproven, scientifically-supportless theories about how things work. Whether it be my theory:
1) that men are taught to be constantly sexual to the highest degree (by movies, magazines, music, and bad parenting, etc), so whether they are or are not, they act that way to be accepted socially (since a male who does not act like a sexual predator is deemed inept/gay/irregular); and women are taught to not be base enough to give in to the animal urge for sex (by latent Victorian standards, "studies" on how often women desire sex, "studies" saying women do not think of sex in the same way men do, etc), so whether or not they are overly sexual, they pretend to not care about it. This then results in men who are not overly sexual acting like they are and women who are at least moderately sexual acting like they are not and the two of them clashing when, in reality, they are much more like each other than they realize...
or 2) that many who claim to be oppressed end up (accidentally or intentionally) oppressing others...i.e. atheists who say "don't push your views of God on me" but fight to have their view be the only view taught in science/history classes thereby pushing their view of there being no God on every child in the educational system; or any group (be it women, blacks, illegal immigrants, etc) who at one time in the past (or even now, in the present) were/are put down upon, only to be angry that the equality effort on their behalf did not put them above those who oppressed them (thereby desiring oppression of others even though their anger is spawned from oppression in the first place). I.E. Feminists who are (rightly so) angry that women could not vote in the past and were treated as maids who reared the children; but then in an attempt to gain 'equality' demand jobs doing things like firefighting even when unqualified thereby causing the system to lower standards (and possibly put people in danger). Addendum to the last paragraph: I am NOT saying that women can't do jobs like front-line military service or fighting fires. I know that the upper 25th percentile of women have no problem meeting the same standards as men. I'm using this as an example that is sometimes true.
You'll have to forgive me, I'm a horrible hypocrite. I get easily angered when someone with no background in philosophy attempts to make a philosophical argument and completely ignores the entire field/dialog on the topic they are discussing in order to push their ignorant views; however, I'm more than willing to enter a field I have little background in (i.e. psychology) to tell everyone that I am right.
So...my point is that I am not formally educated in the field that would properly discuss this topic, yet, if one uses common sense, the point I am going to make is at lease valid and worth discussing. So I hope you'll read on and not dismiss this as ignorant.
::
::
The funny thing is that my entire point is very, very simple. Yet,I don't think too many people have put much credence in the idea. Here it goes:
The things that people hate in others are often things they hate in themselves,
Yeah, I know I need to qualify that statement.
Differentiation between different scenarios where I see this:
1. The Capacity Argument
We all have certain capacities to do certain things. Whether or not these capacities are ever realized, they are there. Easy example, I have the capacity to learn Spanish almost fluently. Will I ever? Who knows, but I have the capacity to. Capacities can be good, bad, or neutral. The capacity to learn Spanish is neutral. The capacity to become more compassionate and become the head of a non-profit organization would be viewed by many as good. The capacity to become an addict would usually be seen as bad.
You've heard people say, "I have an addictive personality, I need to be careful." This kind of person sees the possibility of becoming addicted to anything from caffeine to painkillers to video games. You've also heard people say, "That guy who [takes pain killers every day/drinks a ton of coffee/etc] is SO pathetic. He has no self-control." This often comes across as angry, adamant, and incredibly condescending. I would wager that those two comments are often said by the same person. The addictive personality person hates those addicted to something because he is restricted (at least personally) from doing them. Whether or not he wants to drink absurd amounts of coffee, he desires on some level to do the things he knows he can't. It's a red button and we all love pushing red buttons.
This is tricky, because the person is usually the opposite of the thing they hate:
The girl who works out 3 hours a day and has 5% body fat who hates obese people (because she sacrifices so much to not be like them). The guy working a minimum-wage job who hates rich people who blow their money on golden toilets (because he would love to live extravagantly but can't even afford toilet paper). The girl who hates religious people and rants about how stupid anyone following a religion is (because she, deep down, sees something in religion that seems right). And the list goes on.
2. The Actualized Argument
The next set of people are living the thing they hate. A prime example is the stand-up comedian. What do comedians make the most jokes about? Themselves. The fat ones make fat jokes. The gay ones make gay jokes. The ugly ones make ugly jokes. And so on and so on. People always have qualms with themselves. And seriously, how many times have you heard the question: "If there was one thing about yourself you could change, what would it be?" The easiest way to deal with disappointment is to mock it. This is the group of people who have some flaw (whether public or private) and relentlessly mock it when they see it in other people.
3. The Jealousy Argument
This is the type of person who shows extreme disdain for some trait/action/etc in others; but they secretly wish they could be like that person. For example, a person might hate people who live minute-to-minute (the kind who would up and move to another country at a whim) because "that kind of person is irresponsible." Yet the one hating wishes they could be that lacking in responsibility. But they have made a decision to accomplish something that does not allow for such spontaneity. Most people see something in others that they sometimes wish they could have, but for one reason or another disdain that quality.
Now trust me, I understand that this is not a universal evaluation. I might genuinely hate people who kill others and feel no remorse; but that does not mean I necessarily wish I could do the same or even have the propensity to do the same. I mean this in general. Also, there is the problem of the over-use of the word "hate"...so much so that the word hardly means anything anymore. Yeah, I hate eggplant, but that does not mean I want to be one. I'm speaking of "hate" on a deeper level.
Anyway, there's yet another unproven (and likely unprovable) assumption I have about humanity. Take it as you will.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Movie Reviews, A Plea for Old Work, and New Art!
Alright boys and girls, Grant's Homage to Sarah Brown's Cringe is still taking place so send stuff in! If you have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, see the post below.
But in the meantime, here are some movie reviews of recent films I've seen so you can base all your movie rentals on my opinion. Since my opinion is so important.
Sweeny Todd
Do you like Tim Burton? Johnny Depp? Helena Bonham Carter? Morbid, dark, violent musicals? Then this film is for you! Seriously, even if you aren't really into musicals, this movie is genius. Sure it's a "remake," but it hits every important detail from amazing visuals to an intriguing plot to cutting lyrics to visceral killings.
Zodiac
I didn't know much about the Zodiac killer and definitely didn't know any sort of work on him was still being done up until a few years ago. This film was an interesting semi-history lesson packaged with some great crime/thriller motifs. It's from the director of Se7en so how bad can it be? Good acting and a decent film all around.
Eastern Promises
Fantastically acted film about the Russian mob in London. Didn't know the Russian mob worked in London? Well now you know. So see the film to get the down-low on prostitution, prison tattoos, and how one should protect him/herself if ever caught in a naked fight to the death.
The Borne Ultimatum
If you liked the first couple films, this one is a must. It was a great film that keeps you wondering what kind of crazy action scene will take place next. And if you're into film making details, the extras show how they got away with some pretty incredible stunts. A couple ethical dilemmas aside, there's not much depth, but a fun film nonetheless.
Hmm...I seem to be out of films. But I'm sure I'll remember something later. As for now, I should be asleep due to a final tomorrow. Until next time.
P.S. Thanks to Christina's friend John and a little graphic novel called Transmetropolitan (loosely based on a Hunter S. Thompson type character (therefore right up my alley)) I have begun drawing again. Here's the first serious thing I've drawn in a very long time:
Alright boys and girls, Grant's Homage to Sarah Brown's Cringe is still taking place so send stuff in! If you have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, see the post below.
But in the meantime, here are some movie reviews of recent films I've seen so you can base all your movie rentals on my opinion. Since my opinion is so important.
Sweeny Todd
Do you like Tim Burton? Johnny Depp? Helena Bonham Carter? Morbid, dark, violent musicals? Then this film is for you! Seriously, even if you aren't really into musicals, this movie is genius. Sure it's a "remake," but it hits every important detail from amazing visuals to an intriguing plot to cutting lyrics to visceral killings.
Zodiac
I didn't know much about the Zodiac killer and definitely didn't know any sort of work on him was still being done up until a few years ago. This film was an interesting semi-history lesson packaged with some great crime/thriller motifs. It's from the director of Se7en so how bad can it be? Good acting and a decent film all around.
Eastern Promises
Fantastically acted film about the Russian mob in London. Didn't know the Russian mob worked in London? Well now you know. So see the film to get the down-low on prostitution, prison tattoos, and how one should protect him/herself if ever caught in a naked fight to the death.
The Borne Ultimatum
If you liked the first couple films, this one is a must. It was a great film that keeps you wondering what kind of crazy action scene will take place next. And if you're into film making details, the extras show how they got away with some pretty incredible stunts. A couple ethical dilemmas aside, there's not much depth, but a fun film nonetheless.
Hmm...I seem to be out of films. But I'm sure I'll remember something later. As for now, I should be asleep due to a final tomorrow. Until next time.
P.S. Thanks to Christina's friend John and a little graphic novel called Transmetropolitan (loosely based on a Hunter S. Thompson type character (therefore right up my alley)) I have begun drawing again. Here's the first serious thing I've drawn in a very long time:
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
A New Project for a New Year
I have referenced her a couple of times in my blog, and I have been reading her site for 7 years now (thought it has gone through many changes). Her name is Sarah Brown and she has been an inspiration to me more times than I can count. I have based multiple writings on ideas that she has had, and I have tried to always give her credit (and I apologize if I ever failed to do so).
Sarah started this amazing things called Cringe. It started in New York and is, at its base, an open mic for relaying the best of old poems, journal entries, songs, and writings in general. And by "best" I mean "most horribly awkward and therefore funny." It has garnered much deserved attention and even takes place in England now. Next time I hit NY I'm bringing an old journal in hopes of shaking Sarah's hand and reading for everyone's pleasure.
In the meantime, since I cannot partake in the actual thing, I have decided to start a mini faux version on Cringe on my site. I'm not trying to make it big or get famous from this (as Sarah has done with her book coming out soon). This is more so for me and my close friends. But if you're new to this site and stumble upon this, please contribute.
So what I'm asking is that you e-mail me poems, letters you never sent, journal entries, songs, and anything you can find that you want to share. The point is to smile at our youthful indiscretion and now-comedic views that we once held so dearly.
So here are a few ground rules:
-You can ask to remain anonymous, or for your name to accompany your work. I will always respect your privacy.
-Please do not edit your work. You can take out names if you're worried about them reading it, but the more truthful to the original the better.
-There is to be no actual mockery of anyone's work. Laughter is the point, but not laughter at another's expense. Though this can be funny, these can still be painful/serious memories.
-Drawings/etc can be included.
-Things posted on the net are acceptable, but actual handwritten work can be more fun since chances are nobody has heard this before.
-A bit of setup is always appreciated. Year you wrote it and surrounding circumstances and the like.
-The older the better.
-Try to not "justify" the writing. Set it up and let it speak for itself.
And now, to show how serious I am about doing this, I will start with the first 50FIFTY Homage to Sarah Brown's Cringe:
I was 18 and it was 2001 and I was "dating" a girl for the first time. I put 'dating' in quotes because it was still up in the air at this time. I had, in a sense, stolen this girl from her boyfriend and was insanely caught up in my internal struggle to win her affections since she was obviously my one true love. Or so my 18-year-old heart thought.
We "broke up," and I put that in quotes because, how can you break up with someone if you're not dating in the first place?
I was so distraught that I wrote countless horrible poems in a little spiral-bound notebook. They became progressively more emo until it climaxed in a suicide-note style poem.
Two things to keep in mind: 1) I was listening to a lot of Eminem at this point in time, and 2) My dad found this and had a little "talk" with me.
Goodbye
How do I start this? Not with "hello"
For I know that's too happy to show
How I feel, how bout "hi", no no no
That's not real, doesn't go
What's the deal? I'll just screw it
And start with, "I feel like shit"
That'll hit 'em, stick with 'em and kick 'em
Out of their comfort zones
Cuz Grant wouldn't use that tone
And we know that he's not prone
To swear or to get real mad,
Grant is just never sad, then:
"This will make you real mad
But chance after chance I've had
To try and make myself glad.
And why does it never work?
I cry and I go berserk
I know that I've been a jerk
But I've tried to look at the perks
Of living and I can see none
I'm giving up, battle's done
I fought it off but it won."
I think I'll write my goodbyes.
This ink they'll read as they cry
Hearts sink, they ask, "Why'd he die?"
And now I will tell you bye.
"To my parents I loved you much
You cared which was proved by such
Warm actions, looks, even your touch
But this world was just too much.
To my friends, you guys are the best
I'd rest my life in your hands," ha, that's
Messed since I'm already dead,
My head leaking blood on my bed.
"And to all those who know me
Who weren't as close to me
This letter's supposed to be
A clearing of mysteries.
I hate all you wanna-be-crowd following pansies
I hope this let's you all see
That life isn't all dandy
But strife and much suffering,
A knife, I'm the offering
And now I don't feel a thing."
Somehow I know this is all
I need to write so I fight
The urge to just write and write
Cuz writing this is almost fun
But now that my letter's done
I pick up the deadly gun
Load the bullets one by one
I put the gun to my head
My hand shakes, heavy like lead
The sand makes its way on down
Time is up, my finger's round
The trigger as I pull it now
::
::
I ended it with a fake bullet hole surrounded by a red-pen-ink-bloodsplatter.
Wow was I pretentious.
Your turn!
I have referenced her a couple of times in my blog, and I have been reading her site for 7 years now (thought it has gone through many changes). Her name is Sarah Brown and she has been an inspiration to me more times than I can count. I have based multiple writings on ideas that she has had, and I have tried to always give her credit (and I apologize if I ever failed to do so).
Sarah started this amazing things called Cringe. It started in New York and is, at its base, an open mic for relaying the best of old poems, journal entries, songs, and writings in general. And by "best" I mean "most horribly awkward and therefore funny." It has garnered much deserved attention and even takes place in England now. Next time I hit NY I'm bringing an old journal in hopes of shaking Sarah's hand and reading for everyone's pleasure.
In the meantime, since I cannot partake in the actual thing, I have decided to start a mini faux version on Cringe on my site. I'm not trying to make it big or get famous from this (as Sarah has done with her book coming out soon). This is more so for me and my close friends. But if you're new to this site and stumble upon this, please contribute.
So what I'm asking is that you e-mail me poems, letters you never sent, journal entries, songs, and anything you can find that you want to share. The point is to smile at our youthful indiscretion and now-comedic views that we once held so dearly.
So here are a few ground rules:
-You can ask to remain anonymous, or for your name to accompany your work. I will always respect your privacy.
-Please do not edit your work. You can take out names if you're worried about them reading it, but the more truthful to the original the better.
-There is to be no actual mockery of anyone's work. Laughter is the point, but not laughter at another's expense. Though this can be funny, these can still be painful/serious memories.
-Drawings/etc can be included.
-Things posted on the net are acceptable, but actual handwritten work can be more fun since chances are nobody has heard this before.
-A bit of setup is always appreciated. Year you wrote it and surrounding circumstances and the like.
-The older the better.
-Try to not "justify" the writing. Set it up and let it speak for itself.
And now, to show how serious I am about doing this, I will start with the first 50FIFTY Homage to Sarah Brown's Cringe:
I was 18 and it was 2001 and I was "dating" a girl for the first time. I put 'dating' in quotes because it was still up in the air at this time. I had, in a sense, stolen this girl from her boyfriend and was insanely caught up in my internal struggle to win her affections since she was obviously my one true love. Or so my 18-year-old heart thought.
We "broke up," and I put that in quotes because, how can you break up with someone if you're not dating in the first place?
I was so distraught that I wrote countless horrible poems in a little spiral-bound notebook. They became progressively more emo until it climaxed in a suicide-note style poem.
Two things to keep in mind: 1) I was listening to a lot of Eminem at this point in time, and 2) My dad found this and had a little "talk" with me.
Goodbye
How do I start this? Not with "hello"
For I know that's too happy to show
How I feel, how bout "hi", no no no
That's not real, doesn't go
What's the deal? I'll just screw it
And start with, "I feel like shit"
That'll hit 'em, stick with 'em and kick 'em
Out of their comfort zones
Cuz Grant wouldn't use that tone
And we know that he's not prone
To swear or to get real mad,
Grant is just never sad, then:
"This will make you real mad
But chance after chance I've had
To try and make myself glad.
And why does it never work?
I cry and I go berserk
I know that I've been a jerk
But I've tried to look at the perks
Of living and I can see none
I'm giving up, battle's done
I fought it off but it won."
I think I'll write my goodbyes.
This ink they'll read as they cry
Hearts sink, they ask, "Why'd he die?"
And now I will tell you bye.
"To my parents I loved you much
You cared which was proved by such
Warm actions, looks, even your touch
But this world was just too much.
To my friends, you guys are the best
I'd rest my life in your hands," ha, that's
Messed since I'm already dead,
My head leaking blood on my bed.
"And to all those who know me
Who weren't as close to me
This letter's supposed to be
A clearing of mysteries.
I hate all you wanna-be-crowd following pansies
I hope this let's you all see
That life isn't all dandy
But strife and much suffering,
A knife, I'm the offering
And now I don't feel a thing."
Somehow I know this is all
I need to write so I fight
The urge to just write and write
Cuz writing this is almost fun
But now that my letter's done
I pick up the deadly gun
Load the bullets one by one
I put the gun to my head
My hand shakes, heavy like lead
The sand makes its way on down
Time is up, my finger's round
The trigger as I pull it now
::
::
I ended it with a fake bullet hole surrounded by a red-pen-ink-bloodsplatter.
Wow was I pretentious.
Your turn!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
