1. GROW A BIG ASS WIZARD BEARD (but only from Monday - Thursday)
2. Dispel all major international conflicts by way of X-Box live, and the Playstation network. FIFA 10 should do it (It unites friends anyway, why not enemies?)
3. Help feed the hungry.
4. Eliminate gang, mafia, and hate group violence. (Let them believe what they may, so long as no one gets hurt. I don't think it's right to try and change people's thoughts with anything but words)
5. Spend about a week going around the Earth, throwing dogs at people in need of a friend... BIG dogs.
6. Create a Ghanaian national Rugby Team.
7. Make Triplicates of all DMV employees (that should increase productivity to a whopping 3%!!)
8. Release actual Werewolves and Vampires into every screening of Twilight. (Not to hurt people, but to give people a little fictional-reality check)
9. Talk to animals. I imagine conversations going like this:
Me: "Yo Blue Whale, what's going on?"
Blue Whale: "Ain't no thang, man. Just hanging out. Swimmin' and sh**, you know. Baleen feeding every now and then, same ol' same ol'."
Me: "I hear you. Hey, sorry to hear about the Oil on the Gulf. How have you and the family been holding up?"
Blue Whale: "You know, truth be told, if you don't mind the smell, it really exfoliates the pores man. My family's got skin as smooth as dolphins"
...too soon?
10. Have Morgan Freeman, John Madden, Dave Chappelle, The Man Your Man Could Smell Like If He Used Old Spice, DJ Bernhard and DJ Wonderful of Radio MaliBoom Boom, and The Sports Commentator for the Spanish channel take turns narrating different parts of my life.
more to come :^)
Thursday, July 29
My Portfolio Is Due TOMORROW!!! (I'm still calm about it though)
Ok, so here's the deal. I have to submit 10 of my works to the Art Department by TOMORROW! They have to be my 10 best, so I need a favor of you. Check out my photos on Facebook (in my "Photos", "Drawings", and "Portfolio Submissions" photo...things, and my gallery on my deviant art page, and tell cast your votes for which pieces (photos, and drawings) that I should include. I need a top 10 from you, so be sure to rank them, and put a number from 1 through 10 on the pieces you feel are my best. In addition, put a little comment next to it telling me what's good and bad about it.
Sorry for the short notice.
...wait
...THIS ISN'T SHORT NOTICE!! I've been talking about this for weeks, but no one's said anything yet!
the problem it I can't pick anything myself, because I'm the one that created them, and I'm too busy trying to make them to set myself apart and critique them. I'd really appreciate the help.
I will tally the votes, and make another post here with pictures of the selections that made the cut. Then you'll get to see if the ones you voted on made it through.
-Nii
Sorry for the short notice.
...wait
...THIS ISN'T SHORT NOTICE!! I've been talking about this for weeks, but no one's said anything yet!
the problem it I can't pick anything myself, because I'm the one that created them, and I'm too busy trying to make them to set myself apart and critique them. I'd really appreciate the help.
I will tally the votes, and make another post here with pictures of the selections that made the cut. Then you'll get to see if the ones you voted on made it through.
-Nii
Saturday, July 24
Free Will Is Not A Whale
In order to do this, it is of critical importance to establish a definition for “free will”. What is it exactly? The common explanation is that free will is the ability to do what one pleases in one's life. This is not exactly accurate, and does not satisfy what is needed in this discussion. Dictionary.com provides a helpful suggestion, in that the concept of free will is “a doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces”. It is not the ability to do as one pleases! Free will lies in thought and decision, rather than action. It is a capacity for action rather than an assertion of personal desire, and should be taken as such (an ability to choose), as opposed to an assertion of desire. It is not “the ability to do as one pleases”, but rather the “ability to please in the first place”. Consisting entirely of cognition, it is completely independent of resources and thus is not inhibited by an apparent absence of choices.
Let's begin by examining the arguments opposing the existence of free will. Having established the concept of free will, we can now begin to investigate the point of view of the determinist. Determinism is the belief that there is no such thing as free will. It is rooted in the ideal that there is always an underlying cause for every event, action, and choice which often can be drawn back to a divine being (God) as an original source. Determinism poses the question “Does God impede on free will?”, but does so rhetorically.
Determinism is bad for free will. It assumes that there is no free will because all actions, and decisions have been planned and thought out for you. God being all knowing would have to know what you are thinking as well; in addition God will have to know what you Will Be thinking throughout your lifetime. How then are you free to have freedom in thought, if your thoughts are known before you think them? If God knows how our lives are going to end up, do we have any sort of free will at all? If God as the all powerful has our lives planned out for us, where can we go that is not already predetermined for us? Would free will then only be an illusion? Would that not make God then a great and powerful deceiver?
Next is the problem other people cause in the world. How are we given free will if the will of others imposes itself on our own will? If someone makes a decision, immediately everyone's range of options is effected. For example, if you eat someone's cake, how can they have it too? A manifestation of the application of this dilemma in the human development of Government and structure, laws are created to prevent certain manifestations of free will to negatively impact others (especially in grim ways). Is it really free will if we have rules to abide by? How are we given free will if there are finite numbers of options? What happens if you aren't able to get what you want? Where's the freedom in that? To make my challenge even MORE difficult, masochistically I present the Humean answer to whether or not we have free will.
Everything according to David Hume must be derived from experience; he was an empiricist which is the outlook originated by John Locke that takes the position that all knowledge that is available to us is derived from the senses. Sensory data is as close as human beings get to certain knowledge. In his classification of all knowledge Hume created a distinction between “matters of fact”, and “relations of ideas”. Relations of ideas includes empirical, and demonstratively proven knowledge such as Geometry, Algebra and other such mathematics. Matters of fact are all other facets of knowledge. The problem with the latter is that their contrary is quite possible, because it can never present a contradiction. Matters of fact are a posteriori; meaning they do not exist in the mind prior to occurrence or experience.
Hume had a problem with Relations of ideas because they were a priori, to which he responded (for the sake of his empiricist beliefs, since a-priori necessary truths would prove to be a detriment to empiricism) that these ideas are merely tautological. “That by saying 'all sisters are siblings' we say nothing about them that was not already known by calling them a sister in the first place, even though it is a necessary truth.” (Palmer 181). Thus we can not expect anything from Relations of Ideas other than near arbitrary truths. So, Hume turned a majority of his focus to Matters of Fact as he concluded that these tell us more of the universe around us.
Hume is known in particular not for his empiricism, but his skepticism. Skepticism is rooted in the belief that true knowledge can not be obtained (even by sensor data) and that reality is therefore unknowable as it is. Humean skepticism has its empirical implications, and thus presents an anthropocentric view of the world due to the fact that any claim of truth would have to be drawn from a human experience.
He went on further to develop what is known as the induction fallacy. The induction fallacy contradicted nearly all scientific knowledge by suggesting that the fact that we have not witnessed every instance of an occurrence of which we claim to have certain knowledge is enough to say that we can not be sure that just because something occurred millions of times in the past that it necessarily mean it will continue to do so in the future. Just because you notice that every swan that you have ever seen has been white (even if several others confirm that), it doesn't necessarily follow that every swan is white. From this, Hume went on to conclude that no two events are necessarily connected.
To relate Hume's skepticism back to the issue at hand, it is my belief that Hume's position on free will would be the same as his position on the existence of God; bearing in mind that Hume was an established atheist. So let us look at how he reasoned God out of his life. Hume's empiricism was so ingrained that he reasoned that since there is no way to verify the presence of God through sensory data, God must therefore not exist. The same can be said of Free Will as an a priori concept. To go even further, it can be said that both God and Free will are relations of ideas, and that to say that “God exists” and that “free will exists” do not contradict their negatives, that “free will does not exist” and that “God does not exist”. Therefore, they are placed in the non-empirical category of Relations of ideas, for which Hume had no time.
Hume would also present what came to be known as Bundle Theory as an opposition to the existence of free will, due to the fact that within the theory the self doesn't exist either. Bundle theory suggests that everything we come to know through sensory data (which is only as close as we get to real knowledge, without actually being real knowledge) is merely a collection of properties which are projected by whatever we perceive in order for that thing to be perceived. Hume posed the challenge that you should try and imagine an object with properties uncharacteristic of what it is known or perceived to be. For this reason, you can not imagine a square circle. Next step then is to imagine an object with all of its properties removed. “Imagine a granny smith apple. You picture something that is round, green, small, shiny and delicious. Now take away every descriptive property I have just named and you get nothingness. The object ceases to exist.” It is for this reason that David Hume began to believe that all existence is a swirling array of properties wandering aimlessly that the mind puts together to create every object, including what is thought to be “the self” which according to him didn't exist either. Apply this then to free will, the properties of which aren't present anyway, and you could say that this could not POSSIBLE exist as anything more than nonsensical dribble. It would have failed a second time to exist by virtue of not being a thing with properties, which would still have been reduced to nothingness should those properties have existed in the first place. For Hume, there was no place for free will.
The opposition presents very powerful arguments against the belief in the existence of free will, to which I respond with the following arguments in favor of the existence of free will
Libertarians believe that everyone to some degree has free will. You are therefore responsible for everything you do. If God determines our life's paths that strongly, why would he not make us all believers in him? This is in favor of free will in belief and thought, and would avoid individuals going through paths unfavorable to God, and thus not in their best interests?
The same events follow from the same causes, and from this we believe we can be sure of what people are going to do. If you know that a person is inclined to do something, you are not surprised by what they chose to do. In response to the determinist argument that God's foreknowledge of our thoughts implies a lack of free will I would like to point out the following distinction. God knowing what one's thoughts are does not necessarily mean that God thought those thoughts for you, or even manipulated you to have them.
To counter the assertion that we may not have free will if God has our lives planned out for us, I would like to present the following objection. Why would God allow people to question both him and his existence if he has complete authority over out lives and thoughts? It seems futile to make your followers not believe in you on purpose. God doesn't seem like the masochist type. I propose then that this is not an intentional occurrence on God's part. That there is some influence independent of God that causes atheism, agnosticism, and belief in other divine bodies (free will perhaps?). Free will then would not be an illusion, and God would not then be a great deceiver for it.
Also,from a bit of an existentialist standpoint, consider the following: if God could control the actions of every individual for the entirety of their lives, then as a benevolent maker, would there be any reason to even have human consciousness? To rephrase this question, “why make dolls think?”. It wouldn't matter anyway, right? One might as well save them the hardship, pain, and embarrassment they would face should they actually have consciousness. Why feel as if you must take into any sort of consideration the input of anything over which you have control? This argument for the record is trying to illustrate the futility in believing that we can be both pawns in God's divine chess game AND be given a consciousness just to be able to realize that cruel fact.
Imagine each individual as a character in an existential video game. Those characters have no free will for the following reasons: They can be forced into performing the same task over and over again regardless of the result. They can be made to enter situations that contradict their best interests. They can face the option of standing there motionless in the presence of great turmoil. They have invisible boundaries. Can not freely walk into the ocean. Any progress in their lives is the result of them having passed a certain checkpoint. The reason why this does not apply to our current situation is that unlike the virtual reality faced by these characters, our reality involves individualized personal free wills whose only limitation is the presence of other free wills.
It was asked whether we have free will if we are faced with rules and limitations; that given a finite amount of options, there is no real “freedom” of will. Firstly, if you aren't given restraints, your existential homeostasis would never be disturbed so essentially you would have no motivation to do anything at all. Secondly, within every finite existence lies some sort of infinity. Within every straight line, no matter how small, there lies an infinite amount of points. For another example, perhaps more closely related to the issue of free will, if I am performing a task there are an infinite amount of opportunities for me to choose to stop what I am doing entirely. There were an infinite amount of chances, while writing this paper, for me to have stopped and done something more fun.
Also, to assume that once options are “removed” the freedom to choose from the removed options is also removed (thus crippling free will), is to suggest that free will is rigid, static, and unadaptive. This CAN NOT be, because of the nature of human beings as flexible, dynamic, and highly adaptive creatures would be inconsistent with that type of free will. Free will then HAS TO change over time because the conditions that affect it also undergo changes. In addition, through our ability to manipulate imagination we also have that degree of free will. In such a case we are able to increase our capacity for free will. Free will should be taken then as a capacity for action (ability to choose), as opposed to an assertion of desire. Once again, it is not “the ability to do as one pleases”, but rather the “ability to please in the first place”
In response to Hume's entire argument, which is difficult to counter considering the depths of the purely objective logic applied in its creation, I feel it is important to know how David Hume himself responded to his own skepticism. In writing his “Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”, he most likely (and almost certainly) had to drop his pen and perform normal human functions (eat, sleep, relieve himself) leading one to believe that a part of him could not accept his own skepticism for the sake of living a normal life. “Though many of these things he speaks of may not exist, we must still live as though it does”. His skepticism was bad for both philosophy and for life. In addition, it could be argued that his skepticism was based on empiricism, which was grounded in the belief in sensory data as the only knowable truth. What this means is that his skepticism had to have been grounded in a non-skepticism for him to have even adopted it!
I believe that the problem with free will is that it is viewed with such egocentrism that in discourse it is often mistakenly confused with having relativistic implications and objectivity, as opposed to subjectivity. Free wills interact with other free wills. This interaction merely affects the options, and not the wills themselves, in what can be described as a clash of wills. It is important to note for the sake of free will that within a finite amount of possibilities, there can and still are an infinite amount of choices. It is possible and highly likely to have free will in spite of the once thought Judeo-Christian inconsistencies. I believe the problem there is that God himself has been misunderstood.
- "determinism." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 13 May. 2010.
. - Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
- Palmer, David. Looking At Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness Of Philosophy Made Lighter. 2nd Edition. Mayfield, California: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1994. Print.
- "Three Minute Philosophy - David Hume ." Youtube. Web. 12th April.
- Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Sunday, July 18
Regarding "The Last Airbender" Movie
Dear M. Night Shyamalan,
I want you to know that everything I say now, I say as a fan of the "Avatar: The Last Airbender" animated series. It was quite possibly one of the greatest shows to emerge from the West in the Eastern style. With that being said... WHAT HAVE YOU DONE???
I left you alone after "The Happening" which by the way deserves its own rant. (Seriously, what was that all about? The TREES are pissed? You had people spending half of a movie running away from THE WIND! Way to have an almost-scary movie, that made everyone laugh). I turn my back for ONE moment and find that you've been eating your fill of the soul of a beloved cartoon series, just so that you can produce one flaming turd of a movie.
As I payed 8 dollars to watch you take an hour and 43 minute piss, I tried desperately to find out the cause of my discomfort. It wasn't the fact that I couldn't find the pieces of popcorn I spilled on myself. It wasn't the little kids sitting in front of me that felt they weren't missing much by looking back and forth at each other, instead of at the screen. It wasn't even the $20 worth of snacks that we finished before the movie PREVIEWS were over. I don't even think you can blame the actors; they actually TRIED to stay close to the series and the characters they played. No, I find that your directing was what upset me. I haven't been this disappointed from something I had seen since the morning I woke up from the time I dreamt in HD (Such vivid crystal clarity! REAL LIFE didn't look that good).
I was quite baffled at how a director could choose to slow down the action scenes... but speed up the plot??? I understand that you had to summarize an entire season into a feature length film, and as such I walked into the theatre willing to be understanding. YOU, however, took full advantage of my patience. You had ONE JOB TO DO! In fact... YOU DIDN'T EVEN NEED TO COME UP WITH A SCRIPT! Everything was there for you. Did you even watch the show? You left key things, like... CHARACTERS!!!
Before I continue any further, let me tell you what I actually liked about the movie. I rather enjoyed the fight scene between Zuko (who had... A FULL HEAD OF HAIR???), AND the Avatar at the northern water tribe. Funny thing about this fight was, there was no bending involved. Which meant, no CGI to slow anything down. It was well choreographed. I also liked the fact that there was a mostly racially ambiguous cast. It actually played harmoniously into the theme set by the series. Although... the mostly Indian Firebenders was a bit weird; not bad, just weird. I also REALLY liked the animation you played during the end credits, where it looked like silhouettes of the elements bending themselves; nice touch.
Intermission
...
...
...
...
...
End of Intermission
WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE MAKING UP NAMES FOR CHARACTERS THAT ALREADY EXIST??? ONG? Where did you hear that one, Thailand? His name is Aang. AAng. AANG!... jackass.
And freakin' work on the other pronunciations! I almost didn't recognize people. In fact, just stick to the freakin' story! Firebenders don't need a fire source to bend, they create it. Only Earth, and Water benders need a source. Oh how quickly we forget, MR. Shyamalamalaaaaaaan (see? don't I sound like a grand douche saying it any which way I want?) that even if this is YOUR movie, this ISN'T YOUR STORY! STOP changing whatever you feel like changing. This wasn't "creative licensing", this was sheer jackassery. If I had a dime for every moment that your rendition of this story sucked, I would have enough to pay for every snack in the theatre (a couple hundred thousand dollars I'm guessing, since they consider 15 dollars to be a reasonable price for popcorn and a drink (I blame you for that too)).
I've noticed that you like CGI technology. You felt like James Cameron for a moment there, didn't you? WRONG AVATAR THERE, BUDDY! It was like watching the work of someone who JUST discovered photoshop as they try to use every special effect at their disposal. Rubbish! I think that the only movie I saw this summer that was a worse live-action remake of a cartoon, was Dragon Ball evolution. Do NOT let me find out that you played any sort of hand in that movie either! I saw people stop moving just so that fire can pass. Also, for someone who likes to pull CGI out of his ass, you certainly pissed away the golden opportunity to catch our attention with the opening credits. The only redeeming factor in it was the guy you had representing the air benders; he did a fantastic job, and clearly took his Ba Gua lessons seriously.
Before I leave, I feel it only right to address the corniness of certain points in the film. Let's count them down:
5. The Earthbending camp where the guy built a wall to defend his son against the fire coming toward his son. Touching father son moment... corny ass fire earth CGI crap.
4. The scenes in which Aang is in the spirit world talking to the dragon (WHO WAS NEVER EVER SUPPOSED TO TALK IN THE FIRST PLACE, BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AVATAR ROKU, YOU SLEEPY LOOKING NON-GOOD MOVIE MAKING, CGI-HAPPY, 3-D WHORE OF A FORMERLY DECENT DIRECTOR!). Him wandering through some weird ass forest having visions of crap that's actually happening right next to him doesn't give the impression that he's in the spirit world. It just makes me think he's higher than the Apollo mission.
3. The scene with the little boy that told Iroh the story of "the Firelord's son". That was awkward, and near-pedophilia, and could have been done better if you didn't make it seem as if the little boy knew EXACTLY what Zuko needed him to say in order to prove his point. It looked like the boy rehearsed it, and practiced the story often in a mirror. The problem is, the character did that too; not just the child actor.
2. The way they killed Admiral Zhao was whack. He was whack. That scene was whack. The dialogue was whack. My seat was whack. His sideburns were cool. His bending was whack. You are whack. NEXT!
#1. FINAL corniest scene in the whole movie, was Iroh's rage at Zhao killing the moon spirit (BY STABBING IT??? Is this OZ? Did the fish owe him cigarettes? Why shank a fish??). Upon seeing this, and having his demands disobeyed, Iroh threw a fit. The same kind of fit my cousin's chihuahua throws on occasion, but replace the barking with fire. Oh, lordy lordy he was SOOOO PISSED he exuded flames from his arms and JUST STOOD THERE holding his hands up. Leave it to M. Night Shyamalan to make something almost-scary, and almost-cool. In the series, Iroh KNOCKED THEIR ASSES OUT! You mean to tell me, that it wasn't enough that you ruined the movie for me, but you ruined one of my favorite characters as well? I ought to set my foot on fire, and put it so far up your ass the spit from your mouth would extinguish it!
Could this movie have sucked more? Yes it could have, and I'm very grateful it didn't. Will there be a sequel? There has to be, but please pass the torch to someone like Clint Eastwood? Quentin Tarantino? Stanley Kubrick? Steven Spielberg? Ron Howard? Freakin' Drew Barrymore even! Was this a terrible movie? It was a terribly directed movie. The actors were OK, and did their jobs. I admire them for it.
You suck, I'm going to bed.
-Love, Nii
I want you to know that everything I say now, I say as a fan of the "Avatar: The Last Airbender" animated series. It was quite possibly one of the greatest shows to emerge from the West in the Eastern style. With that being said... WHAT HAVE YOU DONE???
I left you alone after "The Happening" which by the way deserves its own rant. (Seriously, what was that all about? The TREES are pissed? You had people spending half of a movie running away from THE WIND! Way to have an almost-scary movie, that made everyone laugh). I turn my back for ONE moment and find that you've been eating your fill of the soul of a beloved cartoon series, just so that you can produce one flaming turd of a movie.
As I payed 8 dollars to watch you take an hour and 43 minute piss, I tried desperately to find out the cause of my discomfort. It wasn't the fact that I couldn't find the pieces of popcorn I spilled on myself. It wasn't the little kids sitting in front of me that felt they weren't missing much by looking back and forth at each other, instead of at the screen. It wasn't even the $20 worth of snacks that we finished before the movie PREVIEWS were over. I don't even think you can blame the actors; they actually TRIED to stay close to the series and the characters they played. No, I find that your directing was what upset me. I haven't been this disappointed from something I had seen since the morning I woke up from the time I dreamt in HD (Such vivid crystal clarity! REAL LIFE didn't look that good).
I was quite baffled at how a director could choose to slow down the action scenes... but speed up the plot??? I understand that you had to summarize an entire season into a feature length film, and as such I walked into the theatre willing to be understanding. YOU, however, took full advantage of my patience. You had ONE JOB TO DO! In fact... YOU DIDN'T EVEN NEED TO COME UP WITH A SCRIPT! Everything was there for you. Did you even watch the show? You left key things, like... CHARACTERS!!!
Before I continue any further, let me tell you what I actually liked about the movie. I rather enjoyed the fight scene between Zuko (who had... A FULL HEAD OF HAIR???), AND the Avatar at the northern water tribe. Funny thing about this fight was, there was no bending involved. Which meant, no CGI to slow anything down. It was well choreographed. I also liked the fact that there was a mostly racially ambiguous cast. It actually played harmoniously into the theme set by the series. Although... the mostly Indian Firebenders was a bit weird; not bad, just weird. I also REALLY liked the animation you played during the end credits, where it looked like silhouettes of the elements bending themselves; nice touch.
Intermission
...
...
...
...
...
End of Intermission
WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE MAKING UP NAMES FOR CHARACTERS THAT ALREADY EXIST??? ONG? Where did you hear that one, Thailand? His name is Aang. AAng. AANG!... jackass.
And freakin' work on the other pronunciations! I almost didn't recognize people. In fact, just stick to the freakin' story! Firebenders don't need a fire source to bend, they create it. Only Earth, and Water benders need a source. Oh how quickly we forget, MR. Shyamalamalaaaaaaan (see? don't I sound like a grand douche saying it any which way I want?) that even if this is YOUR movie, this ISN'T YOUR STORY! STOP changing whatever you feel like changing. This wasn't "creative licensing", this was sheer jackassery. If I had a dime for every moment that your rendition of this story sucked, I would have enough to pay for every snack in the theatre (a couple hundred thousand dollars I'm guessing, since they consider 15 dollars to be a reasonable price for popcorn and a drink (I blame you for that too)).
I've noticed that you like CGI technology. You felt like James Cameron for a moment there, didn't you? WRONG AVATAR THERE, BUDDY! It was like watching the work of someone who JUST discovered photoshop as they try to use every special effect at their disposal. Rubbish! I think that the only movie I saw this summer that was a worse live-action remake of a cartoon, was Dragon Ball evolution. Do NOT let me find out that you played any sort of hand in that movie either! I saw people stop moving just so that fire can pass. Also, for someone who likes to pull CGI out of his ass, you certainly pissed away the golden opportunity to catch our attention with the opening credits. The only redeeming factor in it was the guy you had representing the air benders; he did a fantastic job, and clearly took his Ba Gua lessons seriously.
Before I leave, I feel it only right to address the corniness of certain points in the film. Let's count them down:
5. The Earthbending camp where the guy built a wall to defend his son against the fire coming toward his son. Touching father son moment... corny ass fire earth CGI crap.
4. The scenes in which Aang is in the spirit world talking to the dragon (WHO WAS NEVER EVER SUPPOSED TO TALK IN THE FIRST PLACE, BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AVATAR ROKU, YOU SLEEPY LOOKING NON-GOOD MOVIE MAKING, CGI-HAPPY, 3-D WHORE OF A FORMERLY DECENT DIRECTOR!). Him wandering through some weird ass forest having visions of crap that's actually happening right next to him doesn't give the impression that he's in the spirit world. It just makes me think he's higher than the Apollo mission.
3. The scene with the little boy that told Iroh the story of "the Firelord's son". That was awkward, and near-pedophilia, and could have been done better if you didn't make it seem as if the little boy knew EXACTLY what Zuko needed him to say in order to prove his point. It looked like the boy rehearsed it, and practiced the story often in a mirror. The problem is, the character did that too; not just the child actor.
2. The way they killed Admiral Zhao was whack. He was whack. That scene was whack. The dialogue was whack. My seat was whack. His sideburns were cool. His bending was whack. You are whack. NEXT!
#1. FINAL corniest scene in the whole movie, was Iroh's rage at Zhao killing the moon spirit (BY STABBING IT??? Is this OZ? Did the fish owe him cigarettes? Why shank a fish??). Upon seeing this, and having his demands disobeyed, Iroh threw a fit. The same kind of fit my cousin's chihuahua throws on occasion, but replace the barking with fire. Oh, lordy lordy he was SOOOO PISSED he exuded flames from his arms and JUST STOOD THERE holding his hands up. Leave it to M. Night Shyamalan to make something almost-scary, and almost-cool. In the series, Iroh KNOCKED THEIR ASSES OUT! You mean to tell me, that it wasn't enough that you ruined the movie for me, but you ruined one of my favorite characters as well? I ought to set my foot on fire, and put it so far up your ass the spit from your mouth would extinguish it!
Could this movie have sucked more? Yes it could have, and I'm very grateful it didn't. Will there be a sequel? There has to be, but please pass the torch to someone like Clint Eastwood? Quentin Tarantino? Stanley Kubrick? Steven Spielberg? Ron Howard? Freakin' Drew Barrymore even! Was this a terrible movie? It was a terribly directed movie. The actors were OK, and did their jobs. I admire them for it.
You suck, I'm going to bed.
-Love, Nii
Thursday, July 15
Since When Do Women Play Rugby?
An article from Askmen.com reports the salary difference between some of prominent names in the NBA and WNBA. Sue Bird of the Seattle Storm was reported as having made $87,000 dollars in a season. Shaquille O'Neal on the other hand was reported as having made 20 million dollars in a single season. The shock lies in the fact that Sue made the highest wage in the WNBA. The average NBA player made 3.17 million dollars in 2000, whereas the average WNBA player made $55,000. “That means that the men made almost 60 times more than the women”. That is a startling and possibly infuriating statistic. But what is the issue here? I assume from observation that Men's and Women's sports are viewed with a differing levels of professionalism, Women's athletics are seen as being on a lower level. As for the question “why”, we must break down this observation in search of the source for this gendered mismatch.
Women's athletic events are seen as less exciting, with very few exceptions. Those exceptions include (but for the record are not limited to) volleyball, gymnastics, softball, and field hockey; these are seen as woman-dominated sports. Through discussion I found that the perception as to why men do not watch Women's sports is not based on the fact that there are women playing, rather the issue is that their abilities aren't seen as exciting enough. Let's turn to rugby for a moment, since this is an area that illustrates this point well. The first difference noted between watching a Women's rugby match, and a Men's rugby match is that the ball is on the ground more often in Women's matches. Also, there is less variety in tactical kicking which spectators find to be one of the aspects of the game that brings the most excitement. What then is the cause of this? Why don't women rugby players perform in a more exciting fashion? For argument's sake, we will ignore physiological differences on the basis of biology.
I propose that training has something to do with the performance. (Fair assessment, no?). In talking to some Women's rugby players I got a insider's view into the teaching and coaching process. The most noticeable difference in teaching the feminine player vs the masculine player lies in the very fundamental element of the game. Just holding the ball becomes an issue with the feminine player as there is greater emphasis placed on it than with the masculine. When asked of her first day experience, Alicia Wiles (a new prospect for the UNC Charlotte e\Women's team) told me of what she felt was the reasoning behind this. Her point, which was reinforced by a fellow woman rugger was that “this is a new sport, with a new ball. The ball looks like it needs to be handled differently, so I was hesitant on what to do”. This uncertainty carried over into many other aspects of performance as well.
The “ruck”, one of the key aspects of Rugby, takes will, focus, precision, technique, determination, and for the individual involved to be goal oriented. When a player is tackled, they go to the ground, present the ball to their team, and a ruck forms over them. The purpose of the ruck is to secure the ball and maintain possession(if you're in possession), or contest for possession. I bring this up because it is essential to have this in mind as you watch a player going into the ruck. Having observed from personal experience male players new to the ruck as they first attempt it, I notice that there is almost always a penalty committed. Simply put, it is done wrong (not to put down their efforts). There is the right amount of intensity, but the right technique is not there. Now according to Arlene Mehelich, a member of UNC Charlotte's own Women's Rugby Team, when teaching new girls how to ruck there is a lot of standing about. “They do everything right up until the part where they are standing above the fallen ball carrier. In an offensive ruck, the ball is secure but they stand there swaying back and forth ready to do something, but looking at each other not knowing what to do next. While watching one of their practices, I've observed that in a defensive ruck, -**this is more demonstrative of the point I'm trying to make right now**- if the ruck is set (even if the defense has won) the offense often maintains possession. How can this be? Why, when you've won the ruck, do you not regain possession? Well the inexperienced masculine player, while learning, tends to pick up the ball from a ruck even when he's not supposed to. They also tend to approach the ruck from the wrong “entrance”, push with the hands as opposed to the shoulders, and join a ruck in a standing position which renders them practically useless. The feminine player however usually is more successful in forming the ideal ruck. The technique is there, body position for the most part is appropriate, however the main objective (THE BALL!!!) is not always the point of focus. The objective of rucking is secondary to the desire to do everything correctly.
What is it that makes the feminine player so concerned with their own body position on the field to the point where the ball itself is forgotten? Why is the feminine athlete so concerned with * looking good * on the field? Nina Hobbs a runner for the UNCC Track Team believed that this was a result of an aim to please. “This doesn't really apply to me, but I notice that they're trying really hard to do everything right to get that 'pat on the back'”. Even when coaching feminine athletes, there is a difference in approach. The training is seen as less intense, and from what came up in discussion, it... kind of has to be. In analysis of Iris Young's “Throwing Like A Girl”, it appears as if there is a perpetual spiral of self doubt in the feminine individual's relationship with their own body, the seeds for which were planted at an early age. The female athlete with this internal block has to be coached with a more positive and delicate touch, so to speak (in Rugby, nothing is *delicate*), in order to avoid the perpetuation of hopelessness, and to foster the female athlete's development. Listening in on the practice sessions between the Men's and the Women's rugby team is no less than an affirmation of this claim. Let's examine some of the many motivational and inspirational sayings and mannerisms of some of our respective coaches:
Which of these practices would be more entertaining to watch?
Note that the coaching style for teaching the feminine athlete has an undertone of “don't worry, you're doing fine”. As if to say, that it is understood that there are definite issues with confidence in performance. Young believes that the feminine body is seen as a burden. A “thing” that has obligations to the species but can not be trusted, by the person in control of it, to accomplish the tasks that they wish to accomplish. Through thousands of years of cultural acceptance of limitations, there aren't many high expectations placed on women in terms of athletics or other such physical activities. The expectations of masculinity set by society are to improve performance constantly by using the body as a tool. “I need to work harder because I can't do this yet”, as opposed to “ I can't do this in particular, however I can do _________...”. Another issue presented that many attribute to a lack of excitement in Women's rugby is the feminine “value” of self preservation. Alicia main concern when trying to catch a pass was that she was afraid she would get hit in the face, and that it would hurt. Watching some of the tackles in a Women's rugby match I could tell that the fear of getting hurt is a major performance inhibitor. An uncertainty and lack of confidence in one's own body is the only logical basis for this, because there is often that “I did not know I could do that, until I tried it” experience noted when a feminine athlete makes a big play. To illustrate Young's point about the phenomenon that occurs when an non-athletic man approaches a sport, we turn to the tackle, Rugby's basic common element. No matter what position you play, you have to know how to tackle. An inexperienced tackler, be they male or female, will often throw themselves at the opposition and hope for the best (often getting blown over in the process). I have noticed though, that the male player still approaches this poor tackle with arms spread, and legs wide. Essentially making themselves a larger obstacle. Spacial command is more prominent in masculinity than in femininity. Watching a member of the UNC Charlotte Women's team perform her poor tackle, I observed that she crossed her arms across her chest, threw herself at a larger opponent, and turned slightly so that her shoulder was the first thing to completely bounce off of the ball carrier. She made herself even smaller than she actually was for a task that really had little to do with physical size. This shows the dissociation between feminine physicality, and spacial command.
I respect Women's athletics for the amount of hard work and effort put into it. Admittedly I must say that to a slightly lesser extent, I enjoy watching Women's sporting events. I am more likely to watch a Men's boxing match than a Women's boxing match. There are some sports that have transcended the gender boundary. Tennis for instance (which had a major surge with the whole “Billie Beat Bobby” craze) is one, and soccer also. However I feel like Women's sports will never get the recognition it may deserve. Louise “Lu” Keefe of the UNC Charlotte Men's rugby team commented on this societal fixation. “I think that we see Women's and Men's sports in the same way we see professional and high school football. The players aren't as strong, and the action not as fast paced. I'd always watch an NFL game, but I'd only watch a high school game as they near the playoffs, or state championships. That way whoever is playing is actually really good, and fun to watch”. Lu pointed out what I've assessed to be the majority view on this. A woman athlete is viewed as having a lower level of professionalism than her male counterpart even with them both at the “pro” level. The media has taken advantage of this as well. It is for this reason that you see no WNBA video games... or any Women's sports for that matter, with the exception of Women's volleyball. Yet still, I am uncertain as to whether or not this is a testament to male dominance in society as it relates to sporting events. Why would a lot of women have the same view? Perhaps these women are also conditioned to believe this, but why with the rise in “girl power” and the female empowerment movement, would so many women maintain this stance? Perhaps we'll still change the channel when the half-phrase “Women's Professional...” is uttered. Sorry, ladies.
Citations
1.Seepersaud, Steve. "Female Athlete Salaries." http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_150/190_sports_business.html (accessed October 9th, 2009).
2.Young, Iris M. "Throwing Like A Girl: A Phenomenology Of Feminine Body Comportment, Motility, and Spaciality." [163-172].
Women's athletic events are seen as less exciting, with very few exceptions. Those exceptions include (but for the record are not limited to) volleyball, gymnastics, softball, and field hockey; these are seen as woman-dominated sports. Through discussion I found that the perception as to why men do not watch Women's sports is not based on the fact that there are women playing, rather the issue is that their abilities aren't seen as exciting enough. Let's turn to rugby for a moment, since this is an area that illustrates this point well. The first difference noted between watching a Women's rugby match, and a Men's rugby match is that the ball is on the ground more often in Women's matches. Also, there is less variety in tactical kicking which spectators find to be one of the aspects of the game that brings the most excitement. What then is the cause of this? Why don't women rugby players perform in a more exciting fashion? For argument's sake, we will ignore physiological differences on the basis of biology.
I propose that training has something to do with the performance. (Fair assessment, no?). In talking to some Women's rugby players I got a insider's view into the teaching and coaching process. The most noticeable difference in teaching the feminine player vs the masculine player lies in the very fundamental element of the game. Just holding the ball becomes an issue with the feminine player as there is greater emphasis placed on it than with the masculine. When asked of her first day experience, Alicia Wiles (a new prospect for the UNC Charlotte e\Women's team) told me of what she felt was the reasoning behind this. Her point, which was reinforced by a fellow woman rugger was that “this is a new sport, with a new ball. The ball looks like it needs to be handled differently, so I was hesitant on what to do”. This uncertainty carried over into many other aspects of performance as well.
The “ruck”, one of the key aspects of Rugby, takes will, focus, precision, technique, determination, and for the individual involved to be goal oriented. When a player is tackled, they go to the ground, present the ball to their team, and a ruck forms over them. The purpose of the ruck is to secure the ball and maintain possession(if you're in possession), or contest for possession. I bring this up because it is essential to have this in mind as you watch a player going into the ruck. Having observed from personal experience male players new to the ruck as they first attempt it, I notice that there is almost always a penalty committed. Simply put, it is done wrong (not to put down their efforts). There is the right amount of intensity, but the right technique is not there. Now according to Arlene Mehelich, a member of UNC Charlotte's own Women's Rugby Team, when teaching new girls how to ruck there is a lot of standing about. “They do everything right up until the part where they are standing above the fallen ball carrier. In an offensive ruck, the ball is secure but they stand there swaying back and forth ready to do something, but looking at each other not knowing what to do next. While watching one of their practices, I've observed that in a defensive ruck, -**this is more demonstrative of the point I'm trying to make right now**- if the ruck is set (even if the defense has won) the offense often maintains possession. How can this be? Why, when you've won the ruck, do you not regain possession? Well the inexperienced masculine player, while learning, tends to pick up the ball from a ruck even when he's not supposed to. They also tend to approach the ruck from the wrong “entrance”, push with the hands as opposed to the shoulders, and join a ruck in a standing position which renders them practically useless. The feminine player however usually is more successful in forming the ideal ruck. The technique is there, body position for the most part is appropriate, however the main objective (THE BALL!!!) is not always the point of focus. The objective of rucking is secondary to the desire to do everything correctly.
What is it that makes the feminine player so concerned with their own body position on the field to the point where the ball itself is forgotten? Why is the feminine athlete so concerned with * looking good * on the field? Nina Hobbs a runner for the UNCC Track Team believed that this was a result of an aim to please. “This doesn't really apply to me, but I notice that they're trying really hard to do everything right to get that 'pat on the back'”. Even when coaching feminine athletes, there is a difference in approach. The training is seen as less intense, and from what came up in discussion, it... kind of has to be. In analysis of Iris Young's “Throwing Like A Girl”, it appears as if there is a perpetual spiral of self doubt in the feminine individual's relationship with their own body, the seeds for which were planted at an early age. The female athlete with this internal block has to be coached with a more positive and delicate touch, so to speak (in Rugby, nothing is *delicate*), in order to avoid the perpetuation of hopelessness, and to foster the female athlete's development. Listening in on the practice sessions between the Men's and the Women's rugby team is no less than an affirmation of this claim. Let's examine some of the many motivational and inspirational sayings and mannerisms of some of our respective coaches:
Men's Motivational Quotes
-“What is that???? That Scrum looked like a Fucking ABORTION!! Do it again!”
-“Who dropped that ball?”
“I did Coach”
“Oh, so you're the weakdog?”
-“Look at this clusterfuck!! It's like watching 2 hedgehogs try to fuck a ping pong ball!”
-“Hey, Badger!” (nickname)
“Yes, Kiwi(Coach)”
“You suck, get out (of the drill)”
-“Nice knock-on, Nii. Does your husband play rugby too?”Women's Motivational Quotes
-“Ladies get in there. Keep driving this
scrum, look forward! You're doing fine.”
-“Wooo, Alli! Great run! Start heading to the inside!”
-“Don't just stand there!! Move forward as you pass!!”
-“Lisa I told you not to stand there, you're
a back line player, get out of there!”
Which of these practices would be more entertaining to watch?
Note that the coaching style for teaching the feminine athlete has an undertone of “don't worry, you're doing fine”. As if to say, that it is understood that there are definite issues with confidence in performance. Young believes that the feminine body is seen as a burden. A “thing” that has obligations to the species but can not be trusted, by the person in control of it, to accomplish the tasks that they wish to accomplish. Through thousands of years of cultural acceptance of limitations, there aren't many high expectations placed on women in terms of athletics or other such physical activities. The expectations of masculinity set by society are to improve performance constantly by using the body as a tool. “I need to work harder because I can't do this yet”, as opposed to “ I can't do this in particular, however I can do _________...”. Another issue presented that many attribute to a lack of excitement in Women's rugby is the feminine “value” of self preservation. Alicia main concern when trying to catch a pass was that she was afraid she would get hit in the face, and that it would hurt. Watching some of the tackles in a Women's rugby match I could tell that the fear of getting hurt is a major performance inhibitor. An uncertainty and lack of confidence in one's own body is the only logical basis for this, because there is often that “I did not know I could do that, until I tried it” experience noted when a feminine athlete makes a big play. To illustrate Young's point about the phenomenon that occurs when an non-athletic man approaches a sport, we turn to the tackle, Rugby's basic common element. No matter what position you play, you have to know how to tackle. An inexperienced tackler, be they male or female, will often throw themselves at the opposition and hope for the best (often getting blown over in the process). I have noticed though, that the male player still approaches this poor tackle with arms spread, and legs wide. Essentially making themselves a larger obstacle. Spacial command is more prominent in masculinity than in femininity. Watching a member of the UNC Charlotte Women's team perform her poor tackle, I observed that she crossed her arms across her chest, threw herself at a larger opponent, and turned slightly so that her shoulder was the first thing to completely bounce off of the ball carrier. She made herself even smaller than she actually was for a task that really had little to do with physical size. This shows the dissociation between feminine physicality, and spacial command.
I respect Women's athletics for the amount of hard work and effort put into it. Admittedly I must say that to a slightly lesser extent, I enjoy watching Women's sporting events. I am more likely to watch a Men's boxing match than a Women's boxing match. There are some sports that have transcended the gender boundary. Tennis for instance (which had a major surge with the whole “Billie Beat Bobby” craze) is one, and soccer also. However I feel like Women's sports will never get the recognition it may deserve. Louise “Lu” Keefe of the UNC Charlotte Men's rugby team commented on this societal fixation. “I think that we see Women's and Men's sports in the same way we see professional and high school football. The players aren't as strong, and the action not as fast paced. I'd always watch an NFL game, but I'd only watch a high school game as they near the playoffs, or state championships. That way whoever is playing is actually really good, and fun to watch”. Lu pointed out what I've assessed to be the majority view on this. A woman athlete is viewed as having a lower level of professionalism than her male counterpart even with them both at the “pro” level. The media has taken advantage of this as well. It is for this reason that you see no WNBA video games... or any Women's sports for that matter, with the exception of Women's volleyball. Yet still, I am uncertain as to whether or not this is a testament to male dominance in society as it relates to sporting events. Why would a lot of women have the same view? Perhaps these women are also conditioned to believe this, but why with the rise in “girl power” and the female empowerment movement, would so many women maintain this stance? Perhaps we'll still change the channel when the half-phrase “Women's Professional...” is uttered. Sorry, ladies.
Thursday, July 8
Does patriarchy force women to live in bad faith? What might this mean? What would it look like? How does one then resist it? Or is Sartre’s analysis of bad faith too blunt to capture the considerations and complications that arise when we shift the emphasis from the privileged (i.e., male/masculine) to the oppressed (i.e., female/feminine) subject? If so, how might we refine Sartre’s theory of bad faith to account for subjects with different relations to privilege?
Bad faith as Sartre describes it, has the following components: It is to hide an unpleasant truth, or to present as truth a pleasing untruth. It is similar in nature to the idea of cognitive dissonance, where one is caught in the position of holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. One does this when they try to convince that a desired object beyond their reach is in fact not as desirable as once thought. One option is (from my understanding) the holding of an apparent truth; whereas contrariwise, there is the truth that we wish was the truth. Steven Colbert describes that as “Truthiness”, or the preference of truths that one wishes were true over that which is actually true. Sartre says that the person living in bad faith is both the crafty deceiver, and the gullible decievee (that's a word, right? Because it fits, and I'm not changing it). What I find interesting, is that the deceivers, in Sartre's perspective, MUST know the truth very accurately in order to be any successful at being believed by themselves.
Sartre tells of a woman who is out with a particular man for the first time. “She knows very well his intentions, and that she will soon have to make a decision” (Sartre pg 89). He argues that she wants to delay this decision as much as possible, and as such convinces herself that the man's advances, and suggestive flirty words and gestures are little more than that. Despite how hypersexual his thoughts may be, to her he is built up as the perfect gentleman. And for what? To hide the fact that sooner rather than later she will have to address his desires with her own. This woman is said to be exhibiting bad faith.
On the issue of women and bad faith, it could be argued that a woman's mental self-image in a patriarchal society is an example of that sort of cognitive dissonance. Iris Young investigated the complexity of female body comportment and self-image in “Throwing Like A Girl”. In it, it was explained that the woman in a patriarchal society lives a contradiction; seeing herself as someone (else). The issue with this is that it does not necessarily allow her to believe that she can accomplish whatever task she envisions before her. She may be convinced therefore that a task is beyond her capabilities, without even attempting it. This presents her body as a burden, and that it is faced with these challenges of which she has no great influence or determination
I don't see this necessarily as a imposition of bad faith. For if the deceiver must know of the exact truth in order to deceive the decievee, then that would imply that in order for the woman living her contradiction in a patriarchy to deceive herself, then she must know on some level that she is capable of that which she thinks she is not capable of. Capable she may be, the fact remains that if she has no knowledge of this truth, then the rules of deception do not apply to her anymore than they apply to “the man who is ignorant of what he is perceived to be lying about (Sartre pg 87). If the woman is not in possession of the truth of her capabilities, then she can not be in bad faith for having presented as truth that untruth. To answer the question of whether or not a patriarchal society forces women to live in bad faith, I believe the following until proven otherwise; that if the society as a whole hides that truth from the the group, then that group is by no means living in bad faith.
However, as with the woman on the date with the closet freak mentioned above, in order for women convinced of an untrue incapability within themselves to overcome this, then a realization must occur that hurries the decision making process. For the woman on her night out, it was the man holding her hand. For women in a patriarchy, this is the perhaps the point when they witness the testimonials of other women who have overcome this obstacle. Whenever one is presented with knowledge, they are also presented with both the tools for a decision, and the decision itself. This may have been the point of action rallies in the feminist movement, and the work of activists like Gloria Steinem. Not particularly for the acts themselves to bring trouble, but to shake the individual with this truth, and stir the individual to the point where the would be deceiver and the would be decievee would maintain the same true truth (despite the fact that some may hold on to the untrue truth). Perhaps the feminist movement gave women the capability to live in bad faith? From this I draw that it is possible and highly likely that bad faith itself may be a bad thing, but the capacity to have it is good.
The Homeless Dream
I had an interesting dream last night. It started off as one of my recurring dreams, in which I am involved in a blue SUV car crash in a lit tunnel that happens to have a wet road. So after I crashed into the usual 18 wheeler tractor trailer which sets off the usual chain of crashes, I crawled out of the wreckage and walked to go meet my friends.
Then began another one of my recurring dreams, where I wander around the city in the rain trying to find my friends to go play soccer with a basketball. This time though, my dream shifted once again. I found myself in the middle of a closed road with one faceless friend of mine, talking to a homeless man. He had my complexion, a gray beard, glasses, and somewhat of a flat top. I don't remember what the circumstances were that led to this, but I needed to borrow a suit from him (it was an emergency). The suit that he was in fact wearing at the time. I somehow knew that he was given that black pin-striped suit from either a company I worked for, or a non-profit that I volunteered with. As he took off parts of the suit to give to me, it became apparent that he was wearing a denim two piece under it. Which was odd, because it was the middle of the summer, but 1. It wasn't hot at all, and 2. It had just rained.
Still, as I started to put the suit on, I realized that it fit me just as perfectly as it fit him. This meant that he had my exact same measurements. I began to think that God wanted to show me who I was going to be later in my life, and mentioned it to my friend. I actually started to believe that that man was me, because he had my habits, and character traits as well.
In exchange for letting me borrow the suit, we gave him a bag that we filled with all the money we had, some snacks and protein bars, dry-cleaning tickets, zip-locks, and some documents/forms, and some candy. There was one VERY IMPORTANT difference between me and this man that showed me that this was not a future version of me...
...
...he loved the Almond Joys that were in the bag.
**Disclaimer: I HATE Almond Joys so very, very, much. They are terrible candy**
What I thought about all day today was what this man said to me as he gave me this suit. He spoke on and on about my generation. How happy he was just to have received this suit. That it was through the work of people my age that he was able to have this suit. He said that he appreciated everything that had been done for him, because it showed that some young people actually thought about him and his needs. And the part that replayed in my mind all day was this quote: " This generation is important. God has shown me through them that there are still people... that you... how can I put this? That you can call on. That you can call on when you need someone." I don't remember much after that.
I learned much from this dream. I have a lot of respect for that homeless man. After talking to him, and finding out what a great human being he was, I honestly would be quite happy with my life if I grew old to be like him (even if somehow I was homeless).
Then began another one of my recurring dreams, where I wander around the city in the rain trying to find my friends to go play soccer with a basketball. This time though, my dream shifted once again. I found myself in the middle of a closed road with one faceless friend of mine, talking to a homeless man. He had my complexion, a gray beard, glasses, and somewhat of a flat top. I don't remember what the circumstances were that led to this, but I needed to borrow a suit from him (it was an emergency). The suit that he was in fact wearing at the time. I somehow knew that he was given that black pin-striped suit from either a company I worked for, or a non-profit that I volunteered with. As he took off parts of the suit to give to me, it became apparent that he was wearing a denim two piece under it. Which was odd, because it was the middle of the summer, but 1. It wasn't hot at all, and 2. It had just rained.
Still, as I started to put the suit on, I realized that it fit me just as perfectly as it fit him. This meant that he had my exact same measurements. I began to think that God wanted to show me who I was going to be later in my life, and mentioned it to my friend. I actually started to believe that that man was me, because he had my habits, and character traits as well.
In exchange for letting me borrow the suit, we gave him a bag that we filled with all the money we had, some snacks and protein bars, dry-cleaning tickets, zip-locks, and some documents/forms, and some candy. There was one VERY IMPORTANT difference between me and this man that showed me that this was not a future version of me...
...
...he loved the Almond Joys that were in the bag.
**Disclaimer: I HATE Almond Joys so very, very, much. They are terrible candy**
What I thought about all day today was what this man said to me as he gave me this suit. He spoke on and on about my generation. How happy he was just to have received this suit. That it was through the work of people my age that he was able to have this suit. He said that he appreciated everything that had been done for him, because it showed that some young people actually thought about him and his needs. And the part that replayed in my mind all day was this quote: " This generation is important. God has shown me through them that there are still people... that you... how can I put this? That you can call on. That you can call on when you need someone." I don't remember much after that.
I learned much from this dream. I have a lot of respect for that homeless man. After talking to him, and finding out what a great human being he was, I honestly would be quite happy with my life if I grew old to be like him (even if somehow I was homeless).
The DMV >:^(
Yesterday I went to the DMV with my cousin Jeffrey to get his license (congratulations Jeffrey! :^)
... >:^( Let me tell you about the US Department of Motor Vehicles. I would rather watch Channing Tatum do a remake of the movie Bio-Dome starring Pauly Shore than go to the DMV. Where do I begin?
1. We got there 1 hour and 15 minutes before they opened their doors at 8am (6:45 am). That's the time we GOT THERE. By which time, a line had already formed that stretched to the next building on the strip.
2. Waiting for the DMV to open was FAR more thrilling and joyous than being there after it opened. Mind you, the MINUTE the door was open the stereotypical mean old woman with the blue/silver eye make-up and lipstick of unusually strong color came out to tell us what the deal was. She asked everyone what they were there for, then grouped a few people into a short sub-line. OK! Now HERE is where my day went downhill: She told my cousin to join the sub-line, which I was also told to join since I was there with him. BUT, Ms. Blue Steel changed her mind, and then asked ME why I was in the second line, and that I shouldn't be there. Oh BOY! Just what I love to have cast on me like one of those various nets that catch fish, an awkward moment NOT of my doing. Thank you Ms. Jackassmaker, for making me look like a jackass.
3. As the heat index undoubtedly steadily rose, along with the temperature and my silent, deadly, deadly, suppressed, internal rage, I had a lot of time to think about things. I also had plenty of skin exposed for the approximately 5 mosquitoes who are now on my personal "Do Not Fly" list. So I decided to have a bit of a wander around the compound. I quickly grew bored of that ENTIRE AREA and anything it had to offer... although the cashier at the Walgreens I walked into was quite pleasant and cute. I digress. I also believe that whatever was lurking in the thick foliage was stalking me. (My inner Ghanaian then took over causing me to walk faster, and never walk there again). The line at this point was ass.
4. As I strolled carelessly, I was able to reflect on what I was doing, things I saw, and the life around me (yes, I believe life is Viewtiful, thus I admire its viewty). I saw a bird dive-bomb poop next to the line as it past us. YES, it's true, my day at the DMV turned to crap.
5. As I stood behind the line, since I wasn't allowed inside to join my cousin (Ms. Blue Steel's doing), since I didn't really have "business" there, I found that standing on the curb somehow indicates to drivers that they can pull up to where you are standing (risking running over your feet), just to get to the Family Dollar behind you, even though you can't park in a fire lane... which was RIGHT NEXT TO THE PARKING LOT!!?? I wish I could make the words I speak into tangible objects; that way I could actually use them to BEAT SENSE into people.
6. 4 hours rolls by before My cousin's number was finally called. He was #411. They started with #124...
anyway, after a 4.5 hour test of my patience, I came away from that abyss of true human suffering with the following realization: NEVER BEFORE have I seen such a gathering of large-assed co-workers as I did today at the DMV. EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE there's got back. Even the DUDES! What was up with that?? It's as if one of the requirements for employment is that every employee must be endowed with a donk.
In short, this sucked. But my cousin got his license. THAT part doesn't suck. The rest does.
... >:^( Let me tell you about the US Department of Motor Vehicles. I would rather watch Channing Tatum do a remake of the movie Bio-Dome starring Pauly Shore than go to the DMV. Where do I begin?
1. We got there 1 hour and 15 minutes before they opened their doors at 8am (6:45 am). That's the time we GOT THERE. By which time, a line had already formed that stretched to the next building on the strip.
2. Waiting for the DMV to open was FAR more thrilling and joyous than being there after it opened. Mind you, the MINUTE the door was open the stereotypical mean old woman with the blue/silver eye make-up and lipstick of unusually strong color came out to tell us what the deal was. She asked everyone what they were there for, then grouped a few people into a short sub-line. OK! Now HERE is where my day went downhill: She told my cousin to join the sub-line, which I was also told to join since I was there with him. BUT, Ms. Blue Steel changed her mind, and then asked ME why I was in the second line, and that I shouldn't be there. Oh BOY! Just what I love to have cast on me like one of those various nets that catch fish, an awkward moment NOT of my doing. Thank you Ms. Jackassmaker, for making me look like a jackass.
3. As the heat index undoubtedly steadily rose, along with the temperature and my silent, deadly, deadly, suppressed, internal rage, I had a lot of time to think about things. I also had plenty of skin exposed for the approximately 5 mosquitoes who are now on my personal "Do Not Fly" list. So I decided to have a bit of a wander around the compound. I quickly grew bored of that ENTIRE AREA and anything it had to offer... although the cashier at the Walgreens I walked into was quite pleasant and cute. I digress. I also believe that whatever was lurking in the thick foliage was stalking me. (My inner Ghanaian then took over causing me to walk faster, and never walk there again). The line at this point was ass.
4. As I strolled carelessly, I was able to reflect on what I was doing, things I saw, and the life around me (yes, I believe life is Viewtiful, thus I admire its viewty). I saw a bird dive-bomb poop next to the line as it past us. YES, it's true, my day at the DMV turned to crap.
5. As I stood behind the line, since I wasn't allowed inside to join my cousin (Ms. Blue Steel's doing), since I didn't really have "business" there, I found that standing on the curb somehow indicates to drivers that they can pull up to where you are standing (risking running over your feet), just to get to the Family Dollar behind you, even though you can't park in a fire lane... which was RIGHT NEXT TO THE PARKING LOT!!?? I wish I could make the words I speak into tangible objects; that way I could actually use them to BEAT SENSE into people.
6. 4 hours rolls by before My cousin's number was finally called. He was #411. They started with #124...
anyway, after a 4.5 hour test of my patience, I came away from that abyss of true human suffering with the following realization: NEVER BEFORE have I seen such a gathering of large-assed co-workers as I did today at the DMV. EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE there's got back. Even the DUDES! What was up with that?? It's as if one of the requirements for employment is that every employee must be endowed with a donk.
In short, this sucked. But my cousin got his license. THAT part doesn't suck. The rest does.
Why I have this headache...
Ok, so I have had a headache for the past two days now, and this is how it happened. It all started when I was getting ready to leave the house, so... I decided to listen to some music as opposed to having the TV on. That way, I can go anywhere in the house and still enjoy the full effect. However, the rhythm within me moved me to dance. All was going well... until I go the idea to try a dance move I haven't done in years just to see if I could still do it. Want to know what dance move it was?
The Worm. YES, the break dance move, the Worm. My chest hit the ground harder than it has in a long time, and when it did, my neck and brain shook. Now... I don't know what it looked like, but I do know what it felt like.
After some thinking time, I came to the following realizations:
1. I haven't done the worm years, so I don't remember how to do it correctly.
2. I have gained some weight since the last time I did the worm. I was probably within the 160-180 range around that time. I for sure wasn't the 235 - 250 range I am now.
3. I believe some of that weight is in my chest, shoulders, and head. I don't know why my head is heavy (perhaps I need to shave). It's a bit strange to think that a person's head can get fatter over the years.
4. I was also shorted then. You know, closer to the ground. The means that the fall probably wasn't that much of an issue back in the day, but now what I have enough time to file an insurance claim between the time when I initially trip, and the time I finally fall, it's a bit of a problem.
Lesson learned: Be sure to factor in changes to your own body before you try to do things you used to do.
The Worm. YES, the break dance move, the Worm. My chest hit the ground harder than it has in a long time, and when it did, my neck and brain shook. Now... I don't know what it looked like, but I do know what it felt like.
After some thinking time, I came to the following realizations:
1. I haven't done the worm years, so I don't remember how to do it correctly.
2. I have gained some weight since the last time I did the worm. I was probably within the 160-180 range around that time. I for sure wasn't the 235 - 250 range I am now.
3. I believe some of that weight is in my chest, shoulders, and head. I don't know why my head is heavy (perhaps I need to shave). It's a bit strange to think that a person's head can get fatter over the years.
4. I was also shorted then. You know, closer to the ground. The means that the fall probably wasn't that much of an issue back in the day, but now what I have enough time to file an insurance claim between the time when I initially trip, and the time I finally fall, it's a bit of a problem.
Lesson learned: Be sure to factor in changes to your own body before you try to do things you used to do.
Welcome to my blog
...yeah, this works. I enjoy thoughts too much to let them go by not sharing them, or not writing them. Follow me on this adventure into my mind. (But stay close to your tour guide. This can be a very confusing and dangerous place)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)