So I have this theory...
...and what better way to test a theory than to baselessly speculate about it on the internet. As was recently quoted (by a comedy TV show): "It's the internet. There's not place for truth on the internet."
Grant's [baseless] Theory of Age
When born, we (humans) are helpless beings, totally dependent on more competent humans to feed us, change us, make us happy, take care of us in case of sickness, etc, etc. Unlike other species (e.g. turtles), we cannot fend for ourselves; and without constant supervision, we (in our infant state) will surely perish.
As we age, we gain the ability to take care of ourselves. We reach an undetermined age (only undetermined because there is no way to ethically test it) where we could, if absolutely necessary, survive on our own. A 1-year-old on it's own will die. A 7-year-old on it's own might find a way to forge ahead and survive.
One day, however, we start to decline. Science today tells us that humans reach their pinnacle, their best if you will, at some point during the late 20's. As our brains deteriorate and our bodies decline, we find ourselves relying on the same assistance that we once needed as infants. Changing of diapers, feeding of nutrients, and help dressing/undressing are not uncommon for the elderly.
Our infant nature and our elderly state are often compared. We are born into diapers, and we die in them (with a brief interval free from safety-undergarments).
But I have another, possibly better, comparison for the human elderly state: the state of being drunk.
No, wait, hear me out. If you can, observe a group of elderly people. Take notes. Don't worry, they won't notice...they're old. Now observe a typical group of super-intoxicated younger people. Take notes. Don't worry, they won't notice...they're too drunk and self-involved (or on a sexual conquest) to notice.
Now make comparisons. Notice anything? You should. Here are some common quirks of drunkenness and their age-induced counterparts:
Forgetfulness: Drunk people forget their keys, where they parked their car, that they're married, and what they planned to order at the Taco Bell drive-through. Old people forget their keys, where they parked their car, that they've already taken their medication, or that they haven't eaten in 20+ hours.
Lack of Motor-Skills: Drunk people crash cars, trip over curbs (or even small cracks in the pavement), type poorly formed e-mails and text-messages, and attempt feeble punches aimed at larger (and obviously much more intimidating) bar-goers. Old people crash cars, trip over just about anything, call people the wrong name and retell stories told just minutes ago, and believe they can do tasks they could do when they were younger (e.g. carry the 30-pound bag of groceries to the car).
Confidence: Drunk people tell others of qualities/jobs/traits they do not possess, approach girls/guys so far out of their range it's laughable, and consider themselves God's gift to this earth. Old people mis-remember the past and boast of qualities/jobs/traits they never possessed, assure others they are capable of tasks they simply cannot do (e.g. drive), and due to point 1 (mis-remembering) still consider themselves to be part of the in-crowd or in the know.
Ignoring the Facts: Drunk people say they can still drive, boast of prowess (whether sexual, physical, or mental) they do not have, and proclaim loudly and often that they are not drunk. Old people say they can still drive, boast of prowess they either never had or no longer have, and proclaim loudly and often that they are not too old.
Point being, from what I can tell, being old is like being drunk without all the perks. The young person who is drunk has issues driving to the nearest Del Taco, forgets his order, crashes his car into the garage trying to park, passes out before he can "perform" for the girl he convinced to come home with him, and can't remember any of the night before; whereas the old person has issues driving to the nearest early-bird special, crashes his car into the telephone pole on the way home, can't perform for his wife of 40 years (time for a Viagra refill), and can't remember any of the night before. The difference is that the young person will sober up and not have to deal with all the previously mentioned symptoms. The old person lives perpetually in all the mentioned symptoms (with the exception being the amazingly-alert old person who still has memory and motor-skills).
The point in all of this? I can't wait to be old. It will be nice to forget to eat healthy, crash my car, and re-tell the same story 6 times in a row...and then have people say, "Oh, it's ok, he's old." At least then I'll have an excuse.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Memories
Once more inspired by Sarah Brown , I thought it was time for a random memory post. Hope you enjoy!
It’s Christmas morning. I am 9 years old and my brother and I share a room (the girls got their own rooms; apparently it’s better for the boys to share a room than the girls). We know Santa doesn’t exist; but that doesn’t curb our enthusiasm for the upcoming spectacle. It’s family tradition to head to the kitchen the morning of, and have a big glass of orange juice (coffee for the adults) before we head into the living room for present opening. 6am hits and I am wide awake. “Chad,” I whisper, “do you think the presents are there?” “Yeah,” he responds, hiding his excitement (for it’s a little kid thing to get so excited about presents…he’s too cool), “but we’re not supposed to look yet.” “Yeah,” I reply; and then I get up, sneak down the hall, and look down at the Christmas tree from the second-story balcony. In the early morning glow the tree is a beautiful silhouette and the presents glisten temptingly, hiding names on tags, hinting at untold glories ready to be unfurled upon anxious souls. No matter how good the gifts were, the waiting was always more fulfilling than anything that could come after.
I’m not particularly liked or disliked…but it’s junior year in high school and every glance and comment implies love or hate in my mind. I’m a theatre-nerd and a film-kid and my peers see me as “that guy.” Nobody loves me beyond all others, and only a few hate me (but that's a whole new story). Theatre is, oddly enough, a very respected extracurricular activity at my school, and I have a lead in the Senior-produced play. Our color-scheme is sepia, and my blonde hair doesn’t work well with said scheme. Rather than wigging up every night, I choose to use dye to solve the problem (even for my facial hair grown especially for said play). My goth-mentor (also in the play) buys some black hair dye and we sneak into the theatre after everyone has gone home. We go into the theatre restroom and I apply the dye to my hair, eyebrows, and facial hair. Since heat makes dye grab hold quicker I put a wig on over my plastic-bagged head. The wig is from a recent play, The Lark, and belonged to the lead girl (Joan of Arc) who had a boyish haircut. My friend and I spend a solid hour in the mostly dark and totally empty theatre acting out our favorite movie/film scenes on stage. The cleaners show up and stumble upon me, on stage, in a shaggy and choppy wig, pretending I am a Monty Python character who is ‘not dead yet.’ We laugh it off before washing out the dye and standing speechless looking at my now strikingly affected hair, eyebrows, and facial hair.
It’s Thanksgiving time and I am home with the family. I head out on Thanksgiving night with one of my all-time best friends. During high school we loved getting McFlurries from McDonalds. There’s something about that cheap ice cream and chopped up candy at 1am that blows all other desserts out of the water. During high school our favorite was always Butterfinger®. We hit up the local McD’s and through the crappy drive-through speaker requested two Butterfinger® McFlurries. We were promptly informed that the Butterfinger® variety of our favorite tasty treat is no longer an available option. Dejected and broken-hearted, we ordered plain vanilla McFlurries. I had a plan. We hit up an all-night grocery store and bought two Butterfinger® bars and headed back to my house. With a well–implemented meat-mallet and some ingenuity we had ourselves some genuinely delicious Butterfinger® McFlurries (take that McDonalds). The lesson learned: don't accept defeat...an all-night grocery might just have the answer to your dilemma.
Monday, April 06, 2009
I've been getting e-mails from some dating website and thought it was just spam. I decided to unsubscribe from a list I never actually subscribed to when I was brought to a profile page for a fellow "greenmoose." Here's a grab from the page:
And some more:
Now I'm pretty sure nobody would go through these lengths for a joke that only I would see. I guess this Hitler-loving Brit accidentally put my e-mail address in as his own and I'm getting his notifications.
Whatever the case, I guess this proves that not everyone who chooses "greenmoose" as a screen name shares similarities.
And some more:
Now I'm pretty sure nobody would go through these lengths for a joke that only I would see. I guess this Hitler-loving Brit accidentally put my e-mail address in as his own and I'm getting his notifications.
Whatever the case, I guess this proves that not everyone who chooses "greenmoose" as a screen name shares similarities.
Monday, March 09, 2009
No, Really, Who Does Watch the Watchmen?
Or:
A Fanboy's Dilemma
Quick side-note (or pre-note, or whatever): Even if you don't give a damn about the Watchmen phenomenon, skip to the end of this post where I critique a strange Asian alcohol ad.
Megan and I went and saw Watchmen today on a brand new Imax screen in a beautiful building with an incredible sound system and super-comfy chairs. If you have a chance to see a film at the Garden Walk in Anaheim, do it. I want you to know that I've never been huge into comics or graphic novels, have never read anything else by Alan Moore, and have never even been big into comic-to-movie adaptations. A friend from work lent me the book to read after I told him how great the trailer looked. I was, at the time, totally unaware of the massive following and cult-like love of this work. I plowed through the book (yeah, I'm calling it a book. Without going into detail, the amount of work that went into this work of art rivals many novels written today) in 2 days and was, at that point, even more excited for the movie.
If you haven't read Watchmen, you would be doing yourself a favor to do so. Even if you're not into graphic novels and have never picked one up in your life. Looking passed the exceptional art, the amazing writing, and all the costumed heroes is a story of an alternate history that our country could easily have gone through with a few simple (and even feasible) changes (ok, fine, aside from Dr. Manhattan). Moore creates a world in which all moral and ethical lines are blurred, metaphysics and our understanding of time and creation are brought into question, and art and real life imitate each other in ways that are creepily relatable to our actual world today. Somewhere in the midst of stories-within-stories, real life issues (such as impotence), and love and fraternity fraught with peril and deception, I lost myself in a make believe world that I grew to love.
Don't worry, all this setup is going somewhere.
The film, in my opinion, did an incredible job at taking amazingly dense material and turning it into a film that captured almost every necessary aspect of the story as possible. This is a feat which would scare me senseless if I were the one put to the task. The film pulled no punches, respected the original work to a worship-like degree, and captured the spirit of what Moore wanted to say (once more, this is all in my opinion. Many would disagree with me).
As I tried to understand the disparity in opinions (RottenTomatoes currently has the film at a meager 65%), I came to a conclusion: the subjective opinion of the film is directly related to the viewer's expectations. Hold on, don't laugh and control-q this post yet. Hear me out. This movie is somewhat unique in the "expectation" theory I just began explaining. If I am going to see The Dark Knight I have certain expectations: Batman should be similar in most respects to the actual character; there should be some amazing action; there should be some sort of moral choice that tests Batman; and the world of Batman should stay at least somewhat canon (e.g. Batman shouldn't suddenly and unexplainably have the gift of non-technologically-aided flight). Most everyone knows what they are getting into before going to see a Batman movie. If all those points are met, then the argument of whether the film is "good" will come down to artistic merit, acting skill, music choice, editing, etc, etc. Since nobody (hopefully) goes in to a Batman movie with the expectation of a feel-good romantic comedy full of personal redemption and maybe a goofy character to lighten things up with fart jokes and physical comedy, nobody walks out with their base expectations shattered.
Watchmen is a whole different consideration. Many people (in fact, I would say at least half, if not more) are going to see this movie based on the trailer alone. The trailer is pretty amazing...and if I were basing my expectations for the movie on the trailer, I would go in expecting a kick-ass action film full of awesome superheroes and mass amounts of mindless violence. If that was your expectation heading in to the film, Watchmen would be a major disappointment. I'm not trying to belittle the average action-film movie-goer; but if Transformers or any of the Riddick films are your cup of tea, metaphysical discussions, major human flaws, and governmental dealings with rogue vigilantes might not fulfill that deep desire for blood and guts.
I've talked to every person who I know who has seen the film; and questions lead to one of two outcomes:
Me: So, what did you think of Watchmen?
P1: It was amazing, I was totally blown away.
Me: Have you read the book?
P1: Yeah, I loved it.
Or...
Me: So, what did you think of Watchmen?
P2: Um, it was ok. I was kinda disappointed.
Me: Have you read the book?
P2: No.
Seriously, without fail, those who loved the movie have read the book, and those who were less than impressed have not. But wait, my point is not that those who have not read the book can't like the film, or that they are not capable of liking the film, or even that their not having read it invalidates their opinion. This realization has brought me to an interesting, if not confusing, crossroads:
Is a piece of art that seemingly cannot be appropriately enjoyed by those who do not have some sort of previous knowledge of the art-piece good art?
For example, Donnie Darko is one of my favorite films. It was from the start. But the more I delved into the online information of the film, the more I stumbled across extra material put out there by the director. Fake books "written" by characters from the film. Puzzles to solve that explained some of the mysteries. In the end, I had this amazing understanding of the intricacies of the film that few had. Many claimed that the film was partially incoherent and therefore unenjoyable. I tried to explain what I had found; but the common response was, "If the movie itself doesn't tell me all I need to know, it failed in its message." And trust me, I see that point of view.
But with Watchmen I am sympathetic. There is simply so much to the original book that this attempt seems epic and amazing to me on every level. And I can't help but think that with even a cursory reading of the original material, the movie would be enjoyed that much more. At the same time, there is something to be said about making something accessible to everyone whether or not they have previously read the source material.
Last example, and then a conclusion (before a really fun/funny Asian ad): If I go to an art museum and look at a painting, I can have multiple experiences. For example, I look at a Lochener painting like this:
I can have two reactions. The first is the uninformed reaction of like or dislike (usually based on color, or topic, or the artist's talent). The other reaction is the educated reaction that puts aside those aesthetic considerations to admire the use of the golden ratio, the triangle, the pentagram, the symbolism of the placement of the angels and how focus is drawn to the Christ-child, etc. After that admiration, those other considerations (color, talent, etc) can be incorporated into the decision of whether or not the piece is a great work of art or not. Neither approach is better than the other; and neither approach is necessary to viewing the painting. But each method results in drastically differing outcomes of personal enjoyment of the piece.
So my conclusion, what I've been trying to get at, is that Watchmen is a complicated piece of art. Few would say that the pacing, acting, timing, or visual effects are sub-par. In fact, most would say that the film is really amazing on those levels (if not other levels). This makes me think that if a greater understanding of the piece was had, that the intellectual value of the film, paired with the more obvious merits, makes this film something pretty special. I'm not going to judge Dostoevsky's Brother's Karamazov based on how fun it was to read; and I think that Watchmen should be approached from a view more elevated (read: intellectual) than that of the average action film.
::
::
On THAT note...I ended up at a Korean BBQ joint at 4am the other night. It's a long story. Ask me sometime. Anyway, the place-mats had an ad for some kind of fruit-flavored alcohol that I found absolutely hilarious. Here are the pictures in sequential form (sorry for the lack of quality, I'm lacking a scanner):
Man stalks sealion on beach. Notice his Bear Gryll's like tactic of blending in by imitating the stalked animal.
Oh no! The sealion has spotted him. The only choice is to hold his ground and imply ferociousness!
FIGHT!
Exhausted, the enemies lay in the sand, contemplating their next moves.
Next move? Take shots with the enemy! We all know that fights between males always end in hugs, alcohol, and slurred comments like, "Nothing personal, man...I love you, man!"
Seriously, we might find Japanese ads to be strange; but good lord do they have the upper-hand when it comes to something memorable. A man fights a sealion and ends up doing shots of some strange, fruity alcohol with it? Count me in!
Or:
A Fanboy's Dilemma
Quick side-note (or pre-note, or whatever): Even if you don't give a damn about the Watchmen phenomenon, skip to the end of this post where I critique a strange Asian alcohol ad.
Megan and I went and saw Watchmen today on a brand new Imax screen in a beautiful building with an incredible sound system and super-comfy chairs. If you have a chance to see a film at the Garden Walk in Anaheim, do it. I want you to know that I've never been huge into comics or graphic novels, have never read anything else by Alan Moore, and have never even been big into comic-to-movie adaptations. A friend from work lent me the book to read after I told him how great the trailer looked. I was, at the time, totally unaware of the massive following and cult-like love of this work. I plowed through the book (yeah, I'm calling it a book. Without going into detail, the amount of work that went into this work of art rivals many novels written today) in 2 days and was, at that point, even more excited for the movie.
If you haven't read Watchmen, you would be doing yourself a favor to do so. Even if you're not into graphic novels and have never picked one up in your life. Looking passed the exceptional art, the amazing writing, and all the costumed heroes is a story of an alternate history that our country could easily have gone through with a few simple (and even feasible) changes (ok, fine, aside from Dr. Manhattan). Moore creates a world in which all moral and ethical lines are blurred, metaphysics and our understanding of time and creation are brought into question, and art and real life imitate each other in ways that are creepily relatable to our actual world today. Somewhere in the midst of stories-within-stories, real life issues (such as impotence), and love and fraternity fraught with peril and deception, I lost myself in a make believe world that I grew to love.
Don't worry, all this setup is going somewhere.
The film, in my opinion, did an incredible job at taking amazingly dense material and turning it into a film that captured almost every necessary aspect of the story as possible. This is a feat which would scare me senseless if I were the one put to the task. The film pulled no punches, respected the original work to a worship-like degree, and captured the spirit of what Moore wanted to say (once more, this is all in my opinion. Many would disagree with me).
As I tried to understand the disparity in opinions (RottenTomatoes currently has the film at a meager 65%), I came to a conclusion: the subjective opinion of the film is directly related to the viewer's expectations. Hold on, don't laugh and control-q this post yet. Hear me out. This movie is somewhat unique in the "expectation" theory I just began explaining. If I am going to see The Dark Knight I have certain expectations: Batman should be similar in most respects to the actual character; there should be some amazing action; there should be some sort of moral choice that tests Batman; and the world of Batman should stay at least somewhat canon (e.g. Batman shouldn't suddenly and unexplainably have the gift of non-technologically-aided flight). Most everyone knows what they are getting into before going to see a Batman movie. If all those points are met, then the argument of whether the film is "good" will come down to artistic merit, acting skill, music choice, editing, etc, etc. Since nobody (hopefully) goes in to a Batman movie with the expectation of a feel-good romantic comedy full of personal redemption and maybe a goofy character to lighten things up with fart jokes and physical comedy, nobody walks out with their base expectations shattered.
Watchmen is a whole different consideration. Many people (in fact, I would say at least half, if not more) are going to see this movie based on the trailer alone. The trailer is pretty amazing...and if I were basing my expectations for the movie on the trailer, I would go in expecting a kick-ass action film full of awesome superheroes and mass amounts of mindless violence. If that was your expectation heading in to the film, Watchmen would be a major disappointment. I'm not trying to belittle the average action-film movie-goer; but if Transformers or any of the Riddick films are your cup of tea, metaphysical discussions, major human flaws, and governmental dealings with rogue vigilantes might not fulfill that deep desire for blood and guts.
I've talked to every person who I know who has seen the film; and questions lead to one of two outcomes:
Me: So, what did you think of Watchmen?
P1: It was amazing, I was totally blown away.
Me: Have you read the book?
P1: Yeah, I loved it.
Or...
Me: So, what did you think of Watchmen?
P2: Um, it was ok. I was kinda disappointed.
Me: Have you read the book?
P2: No.
Seriously, without fail, those who loved the movie have read the book, and those who were less than impressed have not. But wait, my point is not that those who have not read the book can't like the film, or that they are not capable of liking the film, or even that their not having read it invalidates their opinion. This realization has brought me to an interesting, if not confusing, crossroads:
Is a piece of art that seemingly cannot be appropriately enjoyed by those who do not have some sort of previous knowledge of the art-piece good art?
For example, Donnie Darko is one of my favorite films. It was from the start. But the more I delved into the online information of the film, the more I stumbled across extra material put out there by the director. Fake books "written" by characters from the film. Puzzles to solve that explained some of the mysteries. In the end, I had this amazing understanding of the intricacies of the film that few had. Many claimed that the film was partially incoherent and therefore unenjoyable. I tried to explain what I had found; but the common response was, "If the movie itself doesn't tell me all I need to know, it failed in its message." And trust me, I see that point of view.
But with Watchmen I am sympathetic. There is simply so much to the original book that this attempt seems epic and amazing to me on every level. And I can't help but think that with even a cursory reading of the original material, the movie would be enjoyed that much more. At the same time, there is something to be said about making something accessible to everyone whether or not they have previously read the source material.
Last example, and then a conclusion (before a really fun/funny Asian ad): If I go to an art museum and look at a painting, I can have multiple experiences. For example, I look at a Lochener painting like this:
I can have two reactions. The first is the uninformed reaction of like or dislike (usually based on color, or topic, or the artist's talent). The other reaction is the educated reaction that puts aside those aesthetic considerations to admire the use of the golden ratio, the triangle, the pentagram, the symbolism of the placement of the angels and how focus is drawn to the Christ-child, etc. After that admiration, those other considerations (color, talent, etc) can be incorporated into the decision of whether or not the piece is a great work of art or not. Neither approach is better than the other; and neither approach is necessary to viewing the painting. But each method results in drastically differing outcomes of personal enjoyment of the piece.So my conclusion, what I've been trying to get at, is that Watchmen is a complicated piece of art. Few would say that the pacing, acting, timing, or visual effects are sub-par. In fact, most would say that the film is really amazing on those levels (if not other levels). This makes me think that if a greater understanding of the piece was had, that the intellectual value of the film, paired with the more obvious merits, makes this film something pretty special. I'm not going to judge Dostoevsky's Brother's Karamazov based on how fun it was to read; and I think that Watchmen should be approached from a view more elevated (read: intellectual) than that of the average action film.
::
::
On THAT note...I ended up at a Korean BBQ joint at 4am the other night. It's a long story. Ask me sometime. Anyway, the place-mats had an ad for some kind of fruit-flavored alcohol that I found absolutely hilarious. Here are the pictures in sequential form (sorry for the lack of quality, I'm lacking a scanner):
Man stalks sealion on beach. Notice his Bear Gryll's like tactic of blending in by imitating the stalked animal.
Oh no! The sealion has spotted him. The only choice is to hold his ground and imply ferociousness!
FIGHT!
Exhausted, the enemies lay in the sand, contemplating their next moves.
Next move? Take shots with the enemy! We all know that fights between males always end in hugs, alcohol, and slurred comments like, "Nothing personal, man...I love you, man!"Seriously, we might find Japanese ads to be strange; but good lord do they have the upper-hand when it comes to something memorable. A man fights a sealion and ends up doing shots of some strange, fruity alcohol with it? Count me in!
Thursday, March 05, 2009
The Things We Call Normal
We all do it. There's no denying it. Men and women alike. We fall victim to primal urges and can't do anything about it. But there's no reason to be ashamed. It's natural...though some of us are more "out there" than others. So the next time someone asks you, "Do you do that, or am I just a freak?, you can respond, "Well, I might not do that, but trust me, I do things you would never consider."
Of course I am talking about idiosyncratic behavior. Wait, what did you think I was talking about? Oh...that...you're sick.
Anyway, I thought I would expose one of my behavioral "tics" (if you will excuse the loose definition of the term). I hate certain foods under certain conditions; but love those same foods under other conditions. Time for a bulleted list (I am particularly fond of bullets)! A prefix of "H" denotes hatred and a prefix of "L" denotes love:
Tomatoes
H: Whole tomatoes; large chunks of tomato; slices of tomato
L: Salsa with small chunks of tomato; ketchup; tomato sauce
Onions
H: Whole onions; slices of onion; chunks of onion (e.g. in salsa)
L: Onion rings; shallots cooked into cheese fondue; caramelized onions chopped finely
Peppers
H: Whole peppers; chunks of peppers
L: Appropriate dishes cooked with peppers that are then removed (leaving only the taste)
Mushrooms
H: Mushrooms in, well, just about any form
L: Non-mushroom-based broths with whole mushrooms that do not need to be eaten in order to consume the broth or items cooked in the broth
Blue cheese
H: Blue cheese dressing
L: Blue cheese in crumbled or whole form on just about anything
Cherries
H: Maraschino cherries; cherry-flavored candy; cherry-flavored drinks
L: Whole cherries (along the line of Bing cherries)
Pickles
H: Cucumbers; sliced pickles on any sort of sandwich, relish on anything
L: Pickle spears (whether sweet or sour)
Anyway, you get the idea. And analyzing it makes me realize something...I like the essence of items better than the item itself. This doesn't apply to everything. For example, I like bacon in it's whole, unadulterated, greasy, fatty form...but I wouldn't rather have essence of bacon in an omelet. So, since my theory of "essence over whole-form" doesn't apply across the board (by any means), there must be some other reason. My best guess is the item's texture.
Mouthfeel (a term often used with things like wine) is important to me. When I bite into a burger, the bun, sauce, and meat are all soft. The lettuce is a bit crunchy; but gives way rather easily and is rather tasteless (I could care less if lettuce is on a burger). But if you put a slice of tomato on my burger, there's the juicy, squishyness of the overripe or overcooked tomato competing with the other textures. Grilled onion is a super-crunchy and often taste-overloading addition. Pickles have a unique crunch and burst of salty-bitter flavor that isn't cohesive. I like food like burgers to be a united flavor and texture. The lettuce is a bit confusing; but I'd say it's more crisp than overwhelmingly crunchy; and it doesn't distract one from the burgery-goodness being enjoyed.
This textural take on why I like some foods some ways but not others seems so be applicable to all my weird likes/dislikes (other than, say, blue-cheese dressing; which I can't, for the life of me, explain). Tomatoes are either too gooey or too crunchy and watery; onions are either too crunchy, or too overpoweringly flavorful; peppers are the same as onions; mushrooms are too slick and mushy (not to mention the pungent flavor I can't ignore); cherries, in anything but natural form, taste acidic and medicine-like to me (Maraschino cherries taste like the fluoride-treatments I grew up hating); and pickles are too crunchy and have too much concentrated flavor.
I know, I know...I'm being picky. But at least I can eat most foods in some form. Sure, a raw tomato with the skin on is full of antioxidants due to the lycopenes; but better some tomato than no tomato...right?
In other words...I'm weird. I know that, and I accept that. My willingness to eat a huge chunk of onion if it's wrapped in fried batter is no weirder than your rule about not drinking any fluids while eating; having to face south to sleep soundly; or having to pump your hand up and down three times (exactly) while shaking hands. We all do strange things, and we all have our own (conscious or unconscious) reasons for doing so. But it's definitely fun every now and then to look at the things we do all the time and ask, "Um, why the heck do I do that?"
::
::
Stop reading here if this was uninteresting. Otherwise, it just gets worse from here on out.
Bonus Blog!!1
Here are some extra idiosyncrasies particular to me:
-I do things in symmetrical fours (e.g. If I'm walking down a hall and there are ridges on the wooden paneling and I tap one of said ridges with my right hand, I will then tap three more of said ridges; or (more strange and incriminating) if I run my tongue against my molars on the right side of my mouth, I will then do so on the left side, then the right side, and then finally on the left side again). Some might call this OCD, I call it...um, well, OCD.
-When I have a set number of things to do, I will often lay out the list in my head in bulleted or numbered form (e.g. "Ok, so seven more things before I go to sleep...grab my chapstick *grabs chapstick*, turn off the light *turns off light*, get in bed *gets in bed*, drink some water so I don't wake up dehydrated *drinks some water*, put on chapstick after drinking water so as not to compromise chapstick application *puts on chapstick*, turn off light *turns off light*, go to sleep *lays down and attempts to sleep*.) I'm not kidding.
No, I don't think everyone has such defined (or particularly strange) habits; but I do think that if we examine our lives, we often find mostly unexplainable actions that are regular (if not essential). For all I know, my love of symmetry (especially things in fours) goes back to 2nd grade where my teacher taught me that odd numbers are more difficult to reduce using division. Or maybe I'm just strange. Either way, analyzing our personal habits is a great way to delve into psychology (or just delve into the uniqueness of the human brain).
Anyway...I have 7 more things to do before I go to sleep, and I only swished my mouthwash on three sides of my mouth (so I need to swish once more). Sleep well oh internets, and remember, bizarre habits are what differentiate us, so carry on with your actions that nobody else will ever fully understand.
We all do it. There's no denying it. Men and women alike. We fall victim to primal urges and can't do anything about it. But there's no reason to be ashamed. It's natural...though some of us are more "out there" than others. So the next time someone asks you, "Do you do that, or am I just a freak?, you can respond, "Well, I might not do that, but trust me, I do things you would never consider."
Of course I am talking about idiosyncratic behavior. Wait, what did you think I was talking about? Oh...that...you're sick.
Anyway, I thought I would expose one of my behavioral "tics" (if you will excuse the loose definition of the term). I hate certain foods under certain conditions; but love those same foods under other conditions. Time for a bulleted list (I am particularly fond of bullets)! A prefix of "H" denotes hatred and a prefix of "L" denotes love:
Tomatoes
H: Whole tomatoes; large chunks of tomato; slices of tomato
L: Salsa with small chunks of tomato; ketchup; tomato sauce
Onions
H: Whole onions; slices of onion; chunks of onion (e.g. in salsa)
L: Onion rings; shallots cooked into cheese fondue; caramelized onions chopped finely
Peppers
H: Whole peppers; chunks of peppers
L: Appropriate dishes cooked with peppers that are then removed (leaving only the taste)
Mushrooms
H: Mushrooms in, well, just about any form
L: Non-mushroom-based broths with whole mushrooms that do not need to be eaten in order to consume the broth or items cooked in the broth
Blue cheese
H: Blue cheese dressing
L: Blue cheese in crumbled or whole form on just about anything
Cherries
H: Maraschino cherries; cherry-flavored candy; cherry-flavored drinks
L: Whole cherries (along the line of Bing cherries)
Pickles
H: Cucumbers; sliced pickles on any sort of sandwich, relish on anything
L: Pickle spears (whether sweet or sour)
Anyway, you get the idea. And analyzing it makes me realize something...I like the essence of items better than the item itself. This doesn't apply to everything. For example, I like bacon in it's whole, unadulterated, greasy, fatty form...but I wouldn't rather have essence of bacon in an omelet. So, since my theory of "essence over whole-form" doesn't apply across the board (by any means), there must be some other reason. My best guess is the item's texture.
Mouthfeel (a term often used with things like wine) is important to me. When I bite into a burger, the bun, sauce, and meat are all soft. The lettuce is a bit crunchy; but gives way rather easily and is rather tasteless (I could care less if lettuce is on a burger). But if you put a slice of tomato on my burger, there's the juicy, squishyness of the overripe or overcooked tomato competing with the other textures. Grilled onion is a super-crunchy and often taste-overloading addition. Pickles have a unique crunch and burst of salty-bitter flavor that isn't cohesive. I like food like burgers to be a united flavor and texture. The lettuce is a bit confusing; but I'd say it's more crisp than overwhelmingly crunchy; and it doesn't distract one from the burgery-goodness being enjoyed.
This textural take on why I like some foods some ways but not others seems so be applicable to all my weird likes/dislikes (other than, say, blue-cheese dressing; which I can't, for the life of me, explain). Tomatoes are either too gooey or too crunchy and watery; onions are either too crunchy, or too overpoweringly flavorful; peppers are the same as onions; mushrooms are too slick and mushy (not to mention the pungent flavor I can't ignore); cherries, in anything but natural form, taste acidic and medicine-like to me (Maraschino cherries taste like the fluoride-treatments I grew up hating); and pickles are too crunchy and have too much concentrated flavor.
I know, I know...I'm being picky. But at least I can eat most foods in some form. Sure, a raw tomato with the skin on is full of antioxidants due to the lycopenes; but better some tomato than no tomato...right?
In other words...I'm weird. I know that, and I accept that. My willingness to eat a huge chunk of onion if it's wrapped in fried batter is no weirder than your rule about not drinking any fluids while eating; having to face south to sleep soundly; or having to pump your hand up and down three times (exactly) while shaking hands. We all do strange things, and we all have our own (conscious or unconscious) reasons for doing so. But it's definitely fun every now and then to look at the things we do all the time and ask, "Um, why the heck do I do that?"
::
::
Stop reading here if this was uninteresting. Otherwise, it just gets worse from here on out.
Bonus Blog!!1
Here are some extra idiosyncrasies particular to me:
-I do things in symmetrical fours (e.g. If I'm walking down a hall and there are ridges on the wooden paneling and I tap one of said ridges with my right hand, I will then tap three more of said ridges; or (more strange and incriminating) if I run my tongue against my molars on the right side of my mouth, I will then do so on the left side, then the right side, and then finally on the left side again). Some might call this OCD, I call it...um, well, OCD.
-When I have a set number of things to do, I will often lay out the list in my head in bulleted or numbered form (e.g. "Ok, so seven more things before I go to sleep...grab my chapstick *grabs chapstick*, turn off the light *turns off light*, get in bed *gets in bed*, drink some water so I don't wake up dehydrated *drinks some water*, put on chapstick after drinking water so as not to compromise chapstick application *puts on chapstick*, turn off light *turns off light*, go to sleep *lays down and attempts to sleep*.) I'm not kidding.
No, I don't think everyone has such defined (or particularly strange) habits; but I do think that if we examine our lives, we often find mostly unexplainable actions that are regular (if not essential). For all I know, my love of symmetry (especially things in fours) goes back to 2nd grade where my teacher taught me that odd numbers are more difficult to reduce using division. Or maybe I'm just strange. Either way, analyzing our personal habits is a great way to delve into psychology (or just delve into the uniqueness of the human brain).
Anyway...I have 7 more things to do before I go to sleep, and I only swished my mouthwash on three sides of my mouth (so I need to swish once more). Sleep well oh internets, and remember, bizarre habits are what differentiate us, so carry on with your actions that nobody else will ever fully understand.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Weddings - Soul-Sucking Leeches or Fantasy-Realizations
First, a quick note: apparently I'm a totally abnormal fiance. The more shows I watch and books I read, the more I understand that men either don't care about wedding planning or have horribly bad ideas that their obsessive bride-to-be shoots down while belittling every aspect of their future husband. I, however, don't find this wedding planning stuff to be avoidance-inducing-poison. Plus, Megan and I have such similar tastes that our ideas almost always coincide. This, apparently, is not common. Case in point...a recent conversation at work:
Me: So we're going to a Crate & Barrel registry thing tomorrow.
Co-Worker 1: (Said sarcastically) Ugh...I'm sure that will be fun.
Co-Worker 2: Seriously.
Me: Um, well, I'm looking forward to it. It's all kinda fun.
Co-Worker 1: (Said to Co-Worker 2) Woah, who is this guy, it can't be Grant we're talking to.
Anyway, I've been warned time and again that planning a wedding will stress you out to the point where you simply want to crawl into a hole and hide 'til it's all over. And yeah, I can see that point of view. This past weekend I drove to and from Redlands to visit a venue (before having to work that night), to and from Pomona for a wedding expo, to and from Riverside to meet a photographer, and to and from Irvine to meet a videographer. An entire tank of gas and a lot of missed sleep later, I'm done. I never want to do that much wedding work in a 3-day period ever again.
The word "budget" is now my biggest enemy, and trying to find cost-effective solutions to one of the most expensive days I will ever participate in is maddening. There are literally hundreds of minute details that have to work perfectly together to make this upcoming day possible. The word "thousand" (as in $1,000) gets thrown around like it's no big deal. Suddenly eloping sounds like a wonderful option.
Megan and I don't get a lot of time together in the first place due to completely conflicting work schedules and a 45-minute drive between us. Now, instead of just getting to hang out every once in a while, we are spending almost all our limited and precious time together going over wedding details.
But...on the other hand, thinking of this day that is now 1 year and 3 months away, is completely joy-inducing. Putting together small pieces that will eventually equal a complete day is like doing a puzzle that I can't wait to see completed. Considering my future with Megan, the thing this day will officialize, makes me wish that it was happening tomorrow. Going through all the trials and difficulties of planning seems like a minuscule task when compared to the end result.
So in the end, weddings are both a worthy adversary, and a welcome friend. So far I wouldn't change anything. I know that no matter how hard things get, or how difficult things feel, in the end it will all be worth it. I simply can't wait to be Megan's husband.
First, a quick note: apparently I'm a totally abnormal fiance. The more shows I watch and books I read, the more I understand that men either don't care about wedding planning or have horribly bad ideas that their obsessive bride-to-be shoots down while belittling every aspect of their future husband. I, however, don't find this wedding planning stuff to be avoidance-inducing-poison. Plus, Megan and I have such similar tastes that our ideas almost always coincide. This, apparently, is not common. Case in point...a recent conversation at work:
Me: So we're going to a Crate & Barrel registry thing tomorrow.
Co-Worker 1: (Said sarcastically) Ugh...I'm sure that will be fun.
Co-Worker 2: Seriously.
Me: Um, well, I'm looking forward to it. It's all kinda fun.
Co-Worker 1: (Said to Co-Worker 2) Woah, who is this guy, it can't be Grant we're talking to.
Anyway, I've been warned time and again that planning a wedding will stress you out to the point where you simply want to crawl into a hole and hide 'til it's all over. And yeah, I can see that point of view. This past weekend I drove to and from Redlands to visit a venue (before having to work that night), to and from Pomona for a wedding expo, to and from Riverside to meet a photographer, and to and from Irvine to meet a videographer. An entire tank of gas and a lot of missed sleep later, I'm done. I never want to do that much wedding work in a 3-day period ever again.
The word "budget" is now my biggest enemy, and trying to find cost-effective solutions to one of the most expensive days I will ever participate in is maddening. There are literally hundreds of minute details that have to work perfectly together to make this upcoming day possible. The word "thousand" (as in $1,000) gets thrown around like it's no big deal. Suddenly eloping sounds like a wonderful option.
Megan and I don't get a lot of time together in the first place due to completely conflicting work schedules and a 45-minute drive between us. Now, instead of just getting to hang out every once in a while, we are spending almost all our limited and precious time together going over wedding details.
But...on the other hand, thinking of this day that is now 1 year and 3 months away, is completely joy-inducing. Putting together small pieces that will eventually equal a complete day is like doing a puzzle that I can't wait to see completed. Considering my future with Megan, the thing this day will officialize, makes me wish that it was happening tomorrow. Going through all the trials and difficulties of planning seems like a minuscule task when compared to the end result.
So in the end, weddings are both a worthy adversary, and a welcome friend. So far I wouldn't change anything. I know that no matter how hard things get, or how difficult things feel, in the end it will all be worth it. I simply can't wait to be Megan's husband.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Just something I want to say...
I have recently had some really amazing conversations with people that delved into the area of religion. I love talking about religious ideas. Let me reiterate. I absolutely love getting into deep conversations about "religious" issues. My love, however, is not the stereotypical Bible-thumping, ideal-force-feeding that most people are used to.
And in all truthfulness I feel horrible that I have to make the distinction between amazing conversation/debate and personal-ideal-bashing.
Many, many Christians today are all about luring people into conversation about the sin-nature of humanity only to end up debasing, devaluing, and undermining another's opinions. I find such actions despicable (especially when one's intentions are to get another to such a point where such actions are an option).
There is a difference in attempting to get one into conversation so that both parties can be edified and attempting to get one into conversation with the sole desire to prove the other party wrong at any cost.
So, my point (since I meant for this to be a short and to the point post): I implore you to ignore all the ignorant and stupidly-stubborn Christians out there and to find the educated religious people out there. I will gladly engage in philosophic, religious, scientific conversation with anybody. Yeah, I have religious beliefs; but that does not mean, by any means, that I am willing to ignore reason/logic/truth.
The Christians that most people are aware of are those portrayed by news stations. The ones who show up to the funeral of a gay soldier and scream, "Your son is going to hell!" through a megaphone. That makes me indescribably sad since the true meaning behind what I believe is not (in any way, shape, or form) understood.
For example: If a car company makes a car that I think is unsafe, I have two ways of going about telling people my beliefs. 1) I can stand on a street corner and scream and shout. I can confront people and belittle them for their belief that said car is safe. I can be bold and upfront and (seemingly) crazy about this car's lack of safety. Or 2) I can study, do my research, and come up with indisputable facts. I can then talk to people and show them my findings. If those people have counter-examples, I can take them into account and see if they hold any truth and then inform said people about how they have been fed misinformation.
This is just like the religious debates that happen today. Whether the topic is homosexuality, abortion, gun-control, pornography, health-care, etc, there should be a debate (read: discussion) about the issue. Life is not black and white, and neither is the religious view of these issues (though many would like you to think that it is).
In other words, I apologize on behalf of all the crazies out there. SO many people give religious belief a bad name, and I want to correct that. I realize that this is a losing battle. And I realize that no matter how many people out there are reasonable in their debate methods, there will always be a thousand more willing to ignore reason and stupidly argue for unprovable truths. But...I am still willing to fight to inform people that not every religious person is so ignorant. My end goal? If all the incredibly smart, incredibly logical people out there are willing to have meaningful discussions with the (equally incredibly smart) religious people out there, the end result will be more knowledge and understanding than we had in the first place.
And if knowledge is the end goal, I am all for it.
I have recently had some really amazing conversations with people that delved into the area of religion. I love talking about religious ideas. Let me reiterate. I absolutely love getting into deep conversations about "religious" issues. My love, however, is not the stereotypical Bible-thumping, ideal-force-feeding that most people are used to.
And in all truthfulness I feel horrible that I have to make the distinction between amazing conversation/debate and personal-ideal-bashing.
Many, many Christians today are all about luring people into conversation about the sin-nature of humanity only to end up debasing, devaluing, and undermining another's opinions. I find such actions despicable (especially when one's intentions are to get another to such a point where such actions are an option).
There is a difference in attempting to get one into conversation so that both parties can be edified and attempting to get one into conversation with the sole desire to prove the other party wrong at any cost.
So, my point (since I meant for this to be a short and to the point post): I implore you to ignore all the ignorant and stupidly-stubborn Christians out there and to find the educated religious people out there. I will gladly engage in philosophic, religious, scientific conversation with anybody. Yeah, I have religious beliefs; but that does not mean, by any means, that I am willing to ignore reason/logic/truth.
The Christians that most people are aware of are those portrayed by news stations. The ones who show up to the funeral of a gay soldier and scream, "Your son is going to hell!" through a megaphone. That makes me indescribably sad since the true meaning behind what I believe is not (in any way, shape, or form) understood.
For example: If a car company makes a car that I think is unsafe, I have two ways of going about telling people my beliefs. 1) I can stand on a street corner and scream and shout. I can confront people and belittle them for their belief that said car is safe. I can be bold and upfront and (seemingly) crazy about this car's lack of safety. Or 2) I can study, do my research, and come up with indisputable facts. I can then talk to people and show them my findings. If those people have counter-examples, I can take them into account and see if they hold any truth and then inform said people about how they have been fed misinformation.
This is just like the religious debates that happen today. Whether the topic is homosexuality, abortion, gun-control, pornography, health-care, etc, there should be a debate (read: discussion) about the issue. Life is not black and white, and neither is the religious view of these issues (though many would like you to think that it is).
In other words, I apologize on behalf of all the crazies out there. SO many people give religious belief a bad name, and I want to correct that. I realize that this is a losing battle. And I realize that no matter how many people out there are reasonable in their debate methods, there will always be a thousand more willing to ignore reason and stupidly argue for unprovable truths. But...I am still willing to fight to inform people that not every religious person is so ignorant. My end goal? If all the incredibly smart, incredibly logical people out there are willing to have meaningful discussions with the (equally incredibly smart) religious people out there, the end result will be more knowledge and understanding than we had in the first place.
And if knowledge is the end goal, I am all for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
