31 July 2012

Am I Right or am I Right or am I Right?

Look at this.

Get a room!
Isn't that awesome? I mean, come on, if a cheetah and a dog can get along, why can't a serial killer and a lonely jogger share a nice glass of non-roofied beer at the local pub?

Because this is an anomaly. It's purely anecdotal.

Look, I get it. I really do. This is meant to be inspiring. To make someone say, "Aww," and feel like the world is a better place.

I want the world to be better, too. But, face it, cheetahs and dogs don't hang out in the back of a truck bed each day. By nature, cheetahs and any domesticated animal usually avoid head nudging.

It's not like people just walk up to lions and rough house with them.


Again, anecdotal.

Sure, these amazing things happen. No matter where you go, nor how long you live, it doesn't make them any less spectacular.

It doesn't make them central pieces of evidence for greater things, neither.

The picture that started this blog, the dog and the cheetah, came from my Facebook home feed. The same user who posted it posted two images just 11 and 13 minutes before it.

Over a billion people discriminated against. Or something like 5-10%.

Hey, chickens have to stand up for one another.
Now, it could be said - and will be said - that a person can not like gay marriage and still get along with gay people.

If that's the case, so have dogs and cheetahs, and people and lions.

And Republican Senators and gay-prostitute sting operators. (Although, if it stings when you operate it, seek care from a medical professional.)

To be fair, he self-titled himself as a quickie job creator.
Now, some might argue that using ol' Larry boy is unjust. After all, there have been corrupt and misleading politicians on both sides of the fence. Picking one is unfair, misleading.

Anecdotal.

[Credit: Leonel Reyes]
Others might say I failed in setting up a logically-sound argument.

In which case, yes.

See, people are just naturally geared to use what makes them right. It's this little thing called confirmation bias.We look for any little thing that supports our arguments and then we latch onto it.

It's the same reason why men think a woman's into him if she even makes eye contact for 18 nanoseconds. He'll say that she's timid. Conversely, if she douses his face with pepper spray and has him arrested, she's playing hard to get.

We were both on the same continent for five minutes and now he thinks I'm interested. [Credit: Jessica]
It's this drive to be right that allows us to post an image about separation, and 13 minutes later post one about love.

Just like the cheetah and the dog, and the man and the lions, if you grow up learning mutual respect and love for someone, then you usually maintain the bond.

It almost feels that if we taught everyone that to be right is to find the truth of an issue, and that to be right is to find a compromise, then being right wouldn't be all that bad. All of us could be right and get along.

Wait! I just want to reach a mutual agreement whereby compromise is achieved. [Source]

However, we're naturally drawn to being right, and selfishly, because it's what keeps us safe. And despite all those enjoying the beauty of that man's companionship with the lions, at least one person is cheering for carnage so he can wave animal rights posters and yell, "I told you so!"

Go for the jugular, Mufasa! [Credit: Bidna Capoeira]
Really, all we want is a reason to hate others. It's the those who oppose us are against us mentality. And, we're pretty sure everyone's against us. It starts early, too.

Sure, some issues are fairly cut and dry. Most people agree that a random flying suplex to a person with multiple sclerosis is a bad idea. Still, most also agree that bettering the human race is a good thing.

But even bettering the human race has its gray areas.

That's why sometimes it's just better to understand that some of us will never get along. There are just some people that love to hate.

Pictured here: The only evidence the founders of the U.S. had for removing the first amendment.
However, while most of us understand that we don't have to be like everyone else because we're individuals (mainly because we think we're better anyway), some of us have a problem understanding that not everyone has to be like us.

What makes a dog and a cheetah enjoying some cuddling is that it just shouldn't happen. Dogs and cheetahs don't naturally get along, which is the point.

If it were two dogs cuddling, or two cheetahs nudging, then we just say, "Aww," and wait for our next chance to attack someone who used the wrong "you're/your" combination.

After all, we just want someone to agree with us, right?

[Credit: Adam Cohn]

29 July 2012

You're Worthless, and That's Important

Being human has it's limits, mainly mortality. There's this thing about life and it ending, and ending too soon.

Depending on the mood you find someone in, you'll either hear them say that they don't want to be around in 80 years because the world is on the fast track to nuclear destruction, or you'll hear them say that they'd love to be here in 80 years because they'll finally be debt free and can afford to travel the world.

Ah, the first signs of winter. [Source: US Department of Energy]

I wish I could live forever.

There are many things happening that are bound to be awesome. Human expansion into space, increasing potential to understand many things we don't understand (otherwise known as knowledge), and they're even printing human body parts using printers like the one sitting on your desk.

Basically, living forever is becoming a possibility.

Way ahead of you. [Source: Cifonauta]

Sure, as technology advances so does weaponry. And then those weapons makers will have more reason to obliterate the hell out of earth. Since the world's climate is already changing, what's the problem with a few extra degrees?

It'll be okay, though,  because most of humanity will have ventured off into the regions of space, anyway.

There will also be a few additions to Google Maps.
[Sources: Earth, Moon - Shane Remer, Google Maps, Google Space Image - Shane Remer]

The more we travel into space and the more of it we can hopefully inhabit, hopefully the more peace treaties it brings. After all, no country owns any claims to the moon, just like no country owns any rights to Antarctica.

Everything about the nearly inhabitable (Antarctica), and the inhabitable (the Moon) has been set aside for science. That is until Antarctica melts and its hypothetically, economically beneficial resources are exposed.

Exploration proves useful and there's just something human about the need to explore. Whether it's other territories, the ocean, space, or a another person's body, people innately desire to learn, to understand, to go further.

And some spend thousands of dollars traveling abroad to find themselves. [Credit: Moyan Brenn]

Living forever would fix this problem. Everything could be accomplished.

The only problem is that living forever could lower the meaning of life. Some fear that increased lifespans would be to life what October 29, 1929 was to the economy.

Ignoring questions of sustainability given the increased population of the human race if life expectancy grew, what reasons would people have for accomplishing things if we had forever to finish them?

Yeah, I'll get to those next century. [Credit: Lex]

I'm of the belief that humanity has developed goals around its lifespan. Thousands of years ago, if you died at 40, congratulations. You got a stone tablet article the same way people turning 100 do today.

Sure, society had its differences. The definitions and reasons for marriage were different, but people often married young because they needed extra hands. Agricultural life has that effect.

"Okay, everyone, spread out and choose someone to marry." [Credit: woodleywonderworks]
 
As modern medicine has pushed forward and people can expect 70-80 good years, objectives such as getting married, having kids, and midlife crises occur later in life.

In other words, people dedicate more time to what they want and not so much to ensuring sure they wake up the next day.

Imagine if we lived 20 or 30 extra years, or even if we could expect to live forever, save for car accidents and lightning bolts. What would life be like?

As long as we both shall live? Thanks a lot, science! [Credit: Heather Williams]

Sure, maybe living forever isn't for everyone, but imagine seeing your great, great, great grandchildren? Imagine seeing Halley's Comet - twice, or even three times.

Knowing that our descendents might live a long time should make 70 years feel like an honor. It's this knowledge of our brevity that allows us to feel insignificant, and this insignificance is sometimes what inspires us to do great things.

Or waste three hours of our lives watching just one more video.

Perhaps giving us more time in life would allow us to see just how insignificant we really are as we watch the great inventions of our childhood reduced to antiquities and museum shelves.

Not that I want people to feel depressed.

But it's depressing knowing there are some awesome things happening in the realm of science that will forever change how we experience the world, or other worlds, or other living forms.

But, that depression sometimes leads the desire to better ourselves.

Pictured here: A Cold War era victory. [Source: NASA]

Whatever happens, I just want to be around because there's something inspiring about experiencing space flights around the moon or even into space, or alien life (no matter how small), or even seeing the U.S. national debt reach $1 quadrillion - which, of course, leads to the U.S. clearing all debts and auctioning our cities.

The ones we can, at least. [Credit: Race Bannon]

Basically, I'm just jealous in the same way that Aristotle and Newton would be if alive today. (And I'd want to be friends with them on Facebook because, well, why not?)

The future is disappointing to me only because I don't want the only thing I have to offer it be my past.

Yet, it's all I can give. Maybe I should be enlightened just knowing that something I did could make someone think, "Not bad. I want to do that, but better."

Given that thought, maybe our drive in life shouldn't be to be remembered, but to be a part of the reason why others are.

Until they're forgotten, too.

----------



By the way, if you don't already know this guy - Neil deGrasse Tyson - you should.

23 July 2012

Of Wise and Then


Old people have all the fun. Many of them are already retired so they do whatever they want each day. They spoil they're grandchildren. They play bingo. They say anything they want and smirk knowing someone will just pass them off as old, senile, and set in their ways.

It's perfect.

I can do this and pass it off as dementia. [Credit: kPluto]
See, being old is an eternal bliss in that anyone who's around old people usually feels like that moment is lasting eternally.

Elderly-dom is the golden years, the years of wisdom, the years where you can buy an RV and live in the yards of your children.When you go to buy things you can park just about anywhere you want.

To be fair, the Werther's Original was half-priced so she had to hurry. [Credit: Martin Cathrae]

These years of happiness are so happy that a lot of old people like to remind we youthful types that we're irresponsible, unwise, and unappreciative of everything.

Then they tell us to enjoy it.

They lament about their twenties. Or their forties. Frankly, if their knees stopped buckling and their bodily functions would just operate on a normal human schedule everything would be fine.

That seems to be the only regret of old age - the broken body. It takes three hours just to get to the Wal-Mart down the street and at least ten minutes just to make it to the mailbox.

"Aww, Chris and Louise mailed us a picture of their giant mutant baby for Christmas." [Credit: Jason Berberich]

That's why there's a huge market of scooters and rocket-powered walkers. While old people will say patience is a virtue, businesses will remind them that mobility is key, especially when there's a 3 a.m. breakfast special at the local Denny's. Locked-up knees and hips with 27 degrees of rotation are hindrances for saving 59 cents with that coupon that came with the AARP card. You can't get there in time without assistance.

Unless you hurl yourself out of a plane and let gravity do the rest.

(By the way, 2:35 - 3:18 for the actual jump, 4:50 - 5:12 for the awesome crash landing, and 5:39 to hear a 98-year-old man drop the F-bomb.)


As a young person, I can't appreciate this - all the wisdom and knowledge that comes with being old. I also can't appreciate my youth because I'm young. I'm stuck in youthful purgatory where I can have everything I want, but apparently don't know what that is.

Plus, there's that whole retirement thing to save up for.

So, I need to listen to the wisdom of the people who we youthful imbeciles assume only collect garden gnomes and talk about the good old days when people were better neighbors, the world was safer, and morals were standard.

After we burn the cross we're having a potluck, but no black or brown beans. [Credit: Katrina Fry]
No matter how hard I try, the old people and I will never fully understand each other. Life for youth today is completely different than it was forty or fifty years ago. Today, I can have a conversation, on Skype, face-to-face (digitally), with a Russian, in German, as part of a contracted tutoring job.

Sixty years ago, talking to a Russian in German was an automatic conviction of treason.

(And just being Japanese was enough to get you a nice plot of land in Idaho with thousands of other Japanese.)

Why isn't anyone smiling? [Source: wccls]
Just the same, (only reversed), I can't understand what it would be like to be old. My circumstances could be quite different. (Number one, no social security checks. Number two, my generation had some prejudices, too. Sorry everyone from the Middle East.)

I'll have life experiences that change my mindset and eventually alter and mold me into the person I'll be, a saggier and wiser version of me. I might even still hold onto beliefs that I formed when I was in my thirties and listen to music that formed my generation.

(Here's to telling the grandkids that "I smell sex and candy," that, "I like big butts and I cannot lie," and, "my name is Slim Shady." You know, the good old days.)

Basically, understanding old people now at my age would be like eight-year-old me attempting to understand how twenty-seven-year-old me talks to women.

I'm going to take you to a recess field and chase you around it. [Credit: Chris Sgaraglino]
No matter how hard I try, until I actually experience oldness, I'll never fully understand it. I should be fortunate to have my bowels decide to evacuate at random times. And the rhythmic popping of joints as my own personal band? Can't miss out on that. Jowls that shake when I talk? Awesome. Not being able to hear myself when I talk? Double awesome. A Life Alert belt? Jackpot!

But those are privileges.

As someone once said, "Do not regret growing older. It is a privileged denied to many." There were also some other quotes, but the old people I asked forgot them.

"A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, so start walking home Gladys because there's no chance in hell we're finding the car." [Credit: Alex]
Right now, the best thing I can do is continue living, mainly because suicide is frowned upon, and, unless I die, I really don't have any other options other than a substance abuse problem or life inside a house that uses tanning bed bulbs for lighting.

Besides, when I'm old, people will look up to me because society demands of it them. Kids will respect me because I smell funny and they don't want another hug. Politicians will (pretend) to care about me because I'll be a part of the only group that actually votes.

I look forward to that time because I can't wait to tell people that old age is just like a fine wine - the more you have of it, the more inappropriately you act.

Credit: Dougal McGuire

19 July 2012

Give It Truth: Rush Limbaugh and Bane

Rush Limbaugh opened his mouth and words came out. Specifically, words that insinuated that the character of Bane in the upcoming The Dark Knight Rises film is a left-wing attack on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

There are problems with Limbaugh's assertion, mainly the fact that Bane first appeared in the DC Comics's franchise in 1993.

Not only that, but he was ranked number 34 on IGN's Top 100 Comic Book Villain's list. Bane couldn't even beat Sinestro, who isn't from the U.S. or even Earth, for that matter, which means Romney's purported likeness in Bane couldn't even beat an undocumented alien.

Based on this picture, Romney would probably deny him the right to marry, too.

Despite the fact that Bane first appeared in 1993, and not in 2012 just for this movie, there's still one question that should be asked: Does it matter?

What if director, Christopher Nolan, purposely portrayed Bane as a resemblance of Romney just to cause confusion in the heads of voters?

It turns out Nolan might have supported the Democratic ticket in 2008. According to one Cracked.com writer, The Dark Knight contained a scene solely for political benefit. Coincidentally (or perhaps evilly schemed), The Dark Knight opened on July 18, 2008 - along side such critically acclaimed movies as Mamma Mia! and Space Chimps.

The liberal agenda here was most likely to refute Intelligent Design as the movie grossed less money domestically than it cost to produce the movie. No conservative would do that.

The proof is quickly piling up for Limbaugh's case, which is bad for Romney because the movie, Live Free or Die Hard, with the character name of John McClane did little to help John McCain's presidential run in 2008. The July 2, 2007 release date probably didn't help either.

The good news is the Die Hard franchise plans another movie in 2013, and a sixth installment for a future date - perhaps 2016 as Romney gives it another run.

Yet, this post is getting away from the real point of this topic, much like certain radio hosts.

To be fair, he thought he saw a Snickers bar or some Oxycontin.

The real point with Limbaugh's statement is that everyone should just give it truth. Nolan is purposefully using Bane's character to create false memories of Romney.

As Limbaugh told MSN.com, in a slightly incoherent sentence, "... The thought is that when they're going to start paying attention to the campaign later in the year... and Obama and the Democrats keep talking about Bain, not Bain Capital but Romney and Bain, that these people will start thinking back to the Batman movies, 'Oh yeah, I know who that is!'"

Sorry, Roseanne Barr supporters. She didn't make it.
It's a serious problem. People confuse politicians with movie stars all the time. In 2003, California voters elected Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Governor of California because they confused him for that nice killing machine who was just trying to find that Sarah Connor and her son, John.

Then there was Ronald Reagan, who people elected as president because they remember him as the heroic, all-American man, Web Sloane. After all, Sloane parachuted behind enemy lines in Korea, the Koreans captured and tortured him, and yet he never broke under the severe treatment he was given.

See? False memories occur with politicians and actors all the time.

Limbaugh has yet to see the liberal symbolism of a white guy who kinda-sorta freed black people, only to start killing really white people.

These false memories could have huge implications for Romney's campaign. The next association could be actual false memories - such as the ones Romney has in accusations of his role at Bain Capital. (Note: The word "accusations" here means proof of his role and involvement from SEC filings.)

Even just a couple hundred thousand voters, or perhaps a million, could sway an already tight race. As of July 17, Gallup had Obama at 47% to Romney's 45%. Yet, on July 18, Rasmussen Reports had Romney with 47% of the vote, and Obama at 46%.

Sure, these are two different polls, but the early news appears to indicate that the Bane/Romney confusion has raised Romney's share of the popular vote by 2%.

And we all know how much even half a percent of the popular vote can mean.

Winning the 2000 Presidential Election popular vote by .51%, the 43rd President of these United States, Albert Gore, Jr.

All Limbaugh wants is to help Romney by calling out the liberal media's indirect use of money to alter the thoughts of the American public. You know, Hollywood, the corporations, and all the rich millionaires that the Democratic party is trying to raise taxes on.

Limbaugh knows that the biggest contributor to the public's image of a candidate is the media. After all, imagine if there were a report about how Romney bullied a gay student while in school. The media would still be covering it. Bad reports stick with voters, well, basically forever.

And Limbaugh won't stand (or sit) by while the media destroy Romney's image.

Sure, Limbaugh's Bane-Batman attempts may point to Limbaugh being bat-shit crazy (ba-dum ching) and finding some loose connection between a movie and pro-Democrat agenda.

But it doesn't matter, because if there's one thing Limbaugh knows it's how much damage the media can inflict on someone. And the last thing he wants is someone from the media damaging Romney's image, whether by television, the movies, or the Internet.

Or the radio.


16 July 2012

The Problem With High School Literature

There is a lot of great literature out there. Unfortunately, you never get to discover it during high school. Mainly, because high schools are doing a great job of making you wish you were burning the book instead.

Something like that.
It starts when some person who would marry a piece of literature lands a job teaching English or reading. The state gives that teacher a big checklist with things you need to learn using literature.

That or the school buys a book from a program that's backed by loads of research - from a for-profit business.

Some of these teachers are allowed to choose what they teach. And what do they reach for? Something they've read forty-six times and cuddle with every night.

The first day you find out you're going to read it, the teacher spends the entire class talking about how wonderful it is and how much you'll love it. And the only thing you accomplish in that class period is to visually burn the cover of that book in your brain.

Then you're assigned the first 180 pages to read that night.

If I read twenty pages every hour I'll be done by 4 a.m.! [Source: Jayel Aheram]
That night, you discover your older brother's first girlfriend - the one that cheated on him with his best friend - had the same book you're reading now. Or pretending to read. You actually read the cliff notes for the first 180 pages.

The next day when the teacher starts reciting questions from her business-issued, school-purchased, reading guide to the book, you feel awesome knowing you understand everything about it because you bought the five-dollar version of that guide.

Except, your teacher is giving you all sorts of useless information about the thirty-second time they read it and how they love the line, "He lavishly devoured beets the color of ill blood for dinner (save for the one of happenstance that clutched its color despite the unfavorable conditions set against it), and proceeded in due time therefore to begin the regimen of flushing them down his sore throat, (which solemnly ran past the organs of his body, most notably his heart), with a mixture of liquid so murky and distasteful it made the consideration of sneaking sips from the sewage bucket leaned tenderly against the barn an oft considered choice dangerously bordering insanity."

Why do they love it? Because of the deeper implications regarding the inequalities of the social classes during the time.

That elaborate sentence above makes finding out the distance between the cliff edge and the rocks below very tempting. By the way, the deeper implication of the first sentence is death. [Source: Jennifer Boyer]


Why does your teacher do this? Because your teacher loves it and can't understand why you don't love it, too. And, now you're secretly vowing to yourself that you'll never read another book.



Your teacher can see you fading out, so there's this utter look of confusion and then a tirade about how you read magazines, and Internet articles, and texts, and phone numbers off bathroom stalls because Candy seems like a nice girl and she's promising a good time.

So why don't you love literature like you did when you were a kid? Why aren't you as excited about something Dickens wrote as you were about Green Eggs and Ham or Where the Wild Things Are or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or Hatchet or even that one book about those two lonely kids who only have each other until one of them dies?

Why? Because when you read them you picked them out, and someone read them with or to you, and you read because the story was good not because you were going to answer some stupid questions about random moments in the story.

Even the book reports were better because you made a connection with that one kid who didn't believe in Santa until that stupid train ran down the middle of his street and the bell he lost ended up back in his pocket.

Instead of reading like that now you force 180 pages and 11 different characters into your mind in less than 24 hours only to get hit with the first question on the test:  

On page 132, the author writes, "The rain was wet." In a short essay, give the author's deeper implications of this sentence. Include three references from other sections of the story and two passages of dialogue from secondary characters that support your answer. 

Additionally, choose one word, other than suicidal, to describe how you feel at this point. [Source: Zach Klein]

"Rain is wet because it's made out of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen?" you write.

"Wrong!" your teacher says. Then, looking at the answer key, "The author says rain is wet because the protagonist is feeling rain for the first time after a miserable existence under the guise that his life was wonderful."

You look at your answer, the short essay with three references from the first 180 pages and two passages from secondary characters to support your answer. And the book, the damn answer book with the damn question answered it with one damn sentence.

"This is stupid," you say. 

"But these exercises help you formulate opinions," your teacher says. "They help you develop the skills to see the deeper meaning in things and read between the lines, enabling you to form your own opinions."

And it's at this point you want to remind everyone that you're being graded on whether or not your answer matches that of a single person.

It's at this point that you hate literature. You hate books.

If literature were a religion, your teacher would be a heretic. For the writers (let's think of them as disciples) who spent their lives fighting the system to voice their opinions about government and those who were oppressed, suppressed, and depressed, it's a disservice.

James (Joyce), the elder.


The books contain the works of writers who spent their lives forming their own opinions in rebellion against those who tried to keep them quiet, and now you're being told how to view these books. John Steinbeck (known as John by the other disciples) didn't have his taxes audited almost every year just so someone could tell you what to do.

Besides, sometimes what we're taught is is so completely wrong that it's become accepted. A group of students at UCLA actually told Ray Bradbury that he was wrong about the meaning of his own book, Fahrenheit 451, when he told them it wasn't about censorship. 

Wait. It isn't?

See?

Of course, that's not to say that there aren't wrong and right answers in literature.

So you're saying The Grapes of Wrath isn't a childhood biography of the California Raisins?

The teaching of literature has become so strongly focused on the deeper meanings and the addressed issues and the implied references that sometimes we forget that there are stories and characters involved.

We care more about whether Sam is going to eat those green eggs and ham rather than the idea that it's important to try things. (Or that Montag hates those wall screens his wife watches everyday, or that Santiago is going to catch that fish even if it drags him to the bottom of the sea and kills him.)

It's the problems of those characters that drive a story more than the issues of debate.

Instead, we're forced to read literature - literature that is sometimes hard to read because, while past authors weren't always paid by the word, they were some times paid by the pages. (And words help fill up pages.) Then, by asking questions about wet rain the writing that's already complex becomes quantum physics.

The idea that's enforced in our heads is that reading should only be about understanding the deeper issues presented in a book. (Who cares if Jay Gatsby's a fake, what does his life and the settings say about society at the time?) While those issues are important and we shouldn't shy away from pushing ourselves to handle complex ideas, we're missing out on something.

To find it, just ask someone to tell you the story of how they first met the person they love, or a scary time when they were a kid, or a embarrassing event (sometimes happening at the same time as the scary event). When they do, watch how the others share their enjoyment.

Your grandma was a nurse and we met after a harlot lied to me about her lady parts one night...

Or not.



14 July 2012

Forward

It's hard starting a blog, but only if you want it to be entertaining or readable. If you want it to be boring you just use it as a diary and talk about everything you do each day.

 
Today I painted my toenails with Italian flags and wove pasta through them just to be more obviously symbolic. [Source: Mark Mitchell]

Even with the discouraging idea that who I am might not be entertaining to other people, I'm still drudging forward.

And that word (forward) makes the most sense to me in this attempt to write things online that others might actually want to read. It describes me better than any other word that I've used to describe myself when someone has asked me to describe myself with one word.

I am forward in how I talk, which leads people to think I'm inconsiderate sometimes. I like to think that I'm "notably advanced or developed" in my thinking.

I'm going to write about how bad government is by calling politicians stupid. [Source: Pedro Ribeiro Simões]


Most importantly, the whole point of this blog is to place myself out there, to step forward and garner an audience that might help the world see that I love writing. More specifically, might help agents and editors see that I love writing and people love reading it.

More forwardly, I'm doing this to promote myself.

After all, it's a blog, so it's going to be about me, or at least what's on my mind. Which, as a forewarning, can and does change as I get older, because I'm sure not getting any younger.