It is a fact, sad but true, that the majority of American TV watchers have very poor taste. How else do you explain reality television shows? Because of this poor taste in our nightly entertainment, many decent-to-awesome shows get cancelled before their time. This post is an homage to the fallen.
Touching Evil
Starring Jeffrey Donovan and Vera Farmiga
This show debuted on the USA Network back in 2004. Not to be confused with the British TV show of the same name, this series lasted for thirteen episodes. It was a fascinating show that followed David Creegan, a man re-entering his career as a serial crimes investigator after suffering a near-fatal gunshot wound to the head. As a result of this injury, a part of his brain was damaged, leaving him with virtually no natural inhibitions. As well as having a fascinating main character who was ever so slightly "off", this show also dealt with some pretty nasty serial crimes. Though Touching Evil garnered critical acclaim, networks are swayed by ratings, not intelligent TV. This show lasted only one season, and sadly, has not been released on DVD. (Fingers crossed, everybody!)
Due South
Starring Paul Gross and David Marciano
Due South was a late-nineties show about the ultimate in an unwilling partnership of opposites - at least at first. Constable Benton Fraser (of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police) travelled south of his country's border to Chicago on the trail of his father's killers. After joining forces with Detective Ray Vecchio of Chicago PD, Fraser secures justice for his father's murderers and ends up as a "liason" with the Canadian consulate. Thus, the straight-as-an-arrow Mounty partners up with the-ends-justify-the-means Italian-American police officer to solve crimes with equal parts politeness and cynicism. This show lasted for three seasons, but really only first two are worth watching. The actor playing Ray Vecchio left the show at the end of the second season, and a "replacement Ray" was written into the show in the most half-assed manner imaginable. If you watch it for nothing else, watch it for the handsome upright Canadian (and his pet wolf).
The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.
Starring Bruce Campbell
Those of you familiar with the Evil Dead films and the TV show Burn Notice surely realize how awesome Bruce Campbell is. He stars as Brisco County, Jr., a Harvard-educated lawyer who turns to bounty hunting after his well-known federal marshall father is murdered by an infamous gang of thieves. Though the show was set in the Old West, it was by no means bound by convention, frequently venturing into science fictional tangents (time-travel, mystical and mysterious Orbs, etc.). Sadly, this show met the same fate as many others that were shunted into the Friday night "death slot" on the Fox network, and lasted only one season.
Red Dwarf
Starring Craig Charles, Danny John-Jules, Chris Barrie, Robert Llewellyn, and Norman Lovett
Many (American) people who refuse to watch British TV blame it on the poor film quality and terrible acting. Both of these elements are present in Red Dwarf, but I still watch it, and that should tell you something. The Red Dwarf was a ship meant to establish a human colony in space, but hundreds of years after it begins its journey, lowly crewman Lister awakens from cryogenic sleep to discover that the rest of the crew perished soon after he went to sleep, and now his only companions are Kryten (an OCD android), Rimmer (a hologram of a former crew mate), Holly (a sarcastic ship computer), and Cat (the humanoid descendent of Lister's pet cat). This unapologetically cheesy series is watchable because of its very British space humor, fueled by the interactions of the characters and the crazy adventures in which they inevitably find themselves.
Mystery Science Theatre 3000
Starring Joel Hodgson, Mike Nelson, Kevin Murphy, and Trace Beaulieu
The ultimate cult series, MST3K (as it's known to those who love it) was driven by a flimsy plot to justify riffing on old and terrible movies. Joel (later replaced by Mike), an innocent but inventive maintenance worker, is shot into space by his mad scientist employer. After constructing companion robots with spare parts he could have used to return to Earth, Joel is forced to sit through awful B movies by Dr. Forrester and his henchman Frank TV (they're hoping to find a movie so bad that they could use it to take over the world). Fortunately, Joel's robot pals Crow T. Robot and Tom Servo join him in watching these films, and their comments make the movies more than watchable. Most movies, anyway. Some just cannot be saved. This show had very humble origins, but was picked up by Comedy Central, and then re-run on the SciFi channel after it was cancelled. And in my opinion, the DVDs cannot come out fast enough.
Believe me, there are many more TV shows that never got a fair chance (due to the aforementioned bad taste of the majority of viewers). If you're interested in seeing any of these series, I welcome you to join the cult of Netflix. Come to light! All are welcome!
Friday, December 11, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Frozen Chocolate Oranges
If you learn nothing from reading this post (which is probably an appropriate assessment of all of my posts), it should be this: chocolate oranges are best when frozen.
It's true. I have discovered this truth via extensive personal research. I've even considered submitting my work in writing to a few scientific journals. I defy anyone to refute my claim, and here's why:
1. Chocolate. Chocolate is God's way of saying that he loves us and wants us to be happy, if I may paraphrase Benjamin Franklin.
2. A hint of orange flavor. I am usually highly suspect of any product claiming to have an additional "flavor". For example: Vanilla Coke. I'm not opposed to vanilla flavoring in general, and I love Coke, but come on! Either we, as a society, have dulled our tastes to the degree that we must "crank up the volume" in our food products, or we have lost entirely the art of subtlety. I'd have to conclude the latter.
3. It's frozen. The delightful combination of my previous two points, arranged in a clever orange-like formation, is that much more enhanced by its frozen state. It's brisk, refreshing, and slower to melt all over your fingers. Also, the freezer doubles as an excellent hiding place from those would-be chocolate thieves who are not as enlightened as I.
And now to change the subject completely. The company at which I work has recently undergone a significant "restructuring". For those of you with no experience with corporate jargon, "restructuring" is usually a euphemism for "layoffs" - as in this case. Our company is relatively young, and therefore small. At the beginning of this month, we had thirty employees. Now we have twenty-one. Nearly a third of us.
I know that businesses must be cost-effective in order to succeed and make a profit. I know that sometimes that involves a reduction in personnel. I know how lucky I am to still have a job in this economy. But I believe, in our company at least, that layoffs are just as hard on the people who were not let go. Of course this situation affects us differently. The former employees now have to contend with finding new livelihoods. But we - the "survivors", if you will - now have significantly increased workloads, and additional pressure from our corporate management to meet the company's goals. It wouldn't be so bad if, along with the pressure, we also received corresponding support and encouragement from corporate, but that has most definitely not been the case.
The day that the layoffs occurred, the president of our company flew in to our facility to conduct a meeting with the remaining employees and explain the situation. Overall, I gave him two stars out of ten for consistency. The gist of his message was this: "We hated to do this. We're a family at this company. We should have done this a long time ago. We held off because we care about our employees. If you don't like it, we can replace you at any moment."
This was the last thing that we needed to hear. We were already trying to deal with the loss of many of our co-workers, but corporate's response/explanation was a thinly veiled threat. And in my capacity at the company, working in several different departments, I was privy to more information than the rest. I heard about how corporate had made the decision to cut nine people loose with little to no severance pay. I heard about how one of those employees, who had recently moved his family from California to join our company, had not even received any reimbursement for the cost of moving before he was let go, and now never would. I heard about too many things for me to ever extend corporate with any level of trust. These men are millionaires. If this is what it takes to make that kind of money - to make life-changing decisions for people you don't even know for the sake of the almighty dollar, then I take it as confirmation that business is not for me.
For some time now, I have been considering returning to school and obtaining a master's degree. This is not a decision that I'm rushing into. I want to carefully consider my strengths and weaknesses, conduct some self-exploration in an attempt to discover the optimal career path. I want a career that will allow me to comfortably support myself but also be something that I care about and keeps me interested. A certain degree of autonomy would suit me very well, but I don't want the responsibility of owning/running a business. In short, it's been something that I've been in serious contemplation about for some time, and I don't see myself making a final decision in the very near future. However, my recent experiences at work have driven home to me the knowledge that I must make a decision to point my life in a better direction.
In the meantime, however, there are always frozen chocolate oranges.
It's true. I have discovered this truth via extensive personal research. I've even considered submitting my work in writing to a few scientific journals. I defy anyone to refute my claim, and here's why:
1. Chocolate. Chocolate is God's way of saying that he loves us and wants us to be happy, if I may paraphrase Benjamin Franklin.
2. A hint of orange flavor. I am usually highly suspect of any product claiming to have an additional "flavor". For example: Vanilla Coke. I'm not opposed to vanilla flavoring in general, and I love Coke, but come on! Either we, as a society, have dulled our tastes to the degree that we must "crank up the volume" in our food products, or we have lost entirely the art of subtlety. I'd have to conclude the latter.
3. It's frozen. The delightful combination of my previous two points, arranged in a clever orange-like formation, is that much more enhanced by its frozen state. It's brisk, refreshing, and slower to melt all over your fingers. Also, the freezer doubles as an excellent hiding place from those would-be chocolate thieves who are not as enlightened as I.
And now to change the subject completely. The company at which I work has recently undergone a significant "restructuring". For those of you with no experience with corporate jargon, "restructuring" is usually a euphemism for "layoffs" - as in this case. Our company is relatively young, and therefore small. At the beginning of this month, we had thirty employees. Now we have twenty-one. Nearly a third of us.
I know that businesses must be cost-effective in order to succeed and make a profit. I know that sometimes that involves a reduction in personnel. I know how lucky I am to still have a job in this economy. But I believe, in our company at least, that layoffs are just as hard on the people who were not let go. Of course this situation affects us differently. The former employees now have to contend with finding new livelihoods. But we - the "survivors", if you will - now have significantly increased workloads, and additional pressure from our corporate management to meet the company's goals. It wouldn't be so bad if, along with the pressure, we also received corresponding support and encouragement from corporate, but that has most definitely not been the case.
The day that the layoffs occurred, the president of our company flew in to our facility to conduct a meeting with the remaining employees and explain the situation. Overall, I gave him two stars out of ten for consistency. The gist of his message was this: "We hated to do this. We're a family at this company. We should have done this a long time ago. We held off because we care about our employees. If you don't like it, we can replace you at any moment."
This was the last thing that we needed to hear. We were already trying to deal with the loss of many of our co-workers, but corporate's response/explanation was a thinly veiled threat. And in my capacity at the company, working in several different departments, I was privy to more information than the rest. I heard about how corporate had made the decision to cut nine people loose with little to no severance pay. I heard about how one of those employees, who had recently moved his family from California to join our company, had not even received any reimbursement for the cost of moving before he was let go, and now never would. I heard about too many things for me to ever extend corporate with any level of trust. These men are millionaires. If this is what it takes to make that kind of money - to make life-changing decisions for people you don't even know for the sake of the almighty dollar, then I take it as confirmation that business is not for me.
For some time now, I have been considering returning to school and obtaining a master's degree. This is not a decision that I'm rushing into. I want to carefully consider my strengths and weaknesses, conduct some self-exploration in an attempt to discover the optimal career path. I want a career that will allow me to comfortably support myself but also be something that I care about and keeps me interested. A certain degree of autonomy would suit me very well, but I don't want the responsibility of owning/running a business. In short, it's been something that I've been in serious contemplation about for some time, and I don't see myself making a final decision in the very near future. However, my recent experiences at work have driven home to me the knowledge that I must make a decision to point my life in a better direction.
In the meantime, however, there are always frozen chocolate oranges.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
The Ties that Bind
We live in an era of technology, and with that comes certain new challenges - ones that no other generation of humanity has had to face. In this age of instant gratification, there are people who are addicted to being "plugged in". There are people who become physically distressed if they do not have their means of communication with them, be it cell phone, laptop, etc. Does this distress go deeper than mere obsession or compulsiveness? Is this distress a symptom of some profound psychological fear of being alone? With the advent of the internet, connection to another human being is limited only by the wireless speed (who uses dial-up anymore?). A connection with someone on the internet may not be healthy, fulfilling, balanced, or even safe, but it is a connection. It is contact. I recently heard a poem in which the narrator said that even though relationships with others may hurt us in the end, we still pursue them, or others like them, because we are "creatures of contact". Though we make ourselves vulnerable in different ways when we start any kind of relationship, we are, in essence, telling that person "I am willing to risk letting you hurt me to a certain extent, because I don't want to be alone."
This brings me to something that I've been thinking a lot about lately. When one is already in an established relationship - one lasting years, or a lifetime - when and how does one decide to discontinue this relationship? I'm not necessarily talking about romantic relationships, though that situation comes up more often than not in romantic contexts. What do you do when you decide (or at least seriously consider) to cut off a relationship that involves certain ties? This is why technology has made this more complicated - at least for me. With all of the social networking applications that make the internet such an easy way to stay in touch with people, it is inevitable that the same applications present problems - essentially, that it makes it easy for people to find me. People with whom I'd rather not stay connected. Facebook has been a great tool for me to keep up on what is happening in other people's lives. It makes it easy for me to communicate with people that I don't have regular contact with. Unfortunately, I don't share the same philosophy about "friending" people that other people do. I only "friend" people that I know and want to continue some sort of relationship with. The "friend" option is not something that I use to stay connected with everyone I've ever known, including people that I'd rather forget.
I may as well get right down to it: recently, I received a friend request from an extended family member - an uncle, to be more specific. This uncle of mine has always been on the outs with some or other members of the family - relatively minor family disputes consisting of the usual infractions: careless and/or insensitive remarks, disputes about events that happened more than twenty years ago, general craziness, etc. It's not unusual for this kind of radio silence to last for years. None of my uncle's foolishness ever directly affected me personally however, so my relationship with him has always been civil, at least. I do my best not to get caught up in problems he may have with other members of the family, or problems that other members of the family may have with him. The last time he "disputed" with a family member, however, he crossed a line. I wasn't even present when this went down, but I was still very angry when I found out what had happened. So angry, in fact, that I never wanted to see him again - and this is saying a lot, because my uncle's track record is nothing to be proud of. The last thing I expected was for him to pop up in my life via Facebook, of all things.
I didn't accept his friend request, but I didn't ignore it, either. It's still on my Facebook notifications page, waiting for some sort of action. I feel foolish just thinking about it. I doubt he's even noticed that I have not confirmed him as a friend, or if he has, then he probably hasn't wondered why. I know that I'll probably never come into contact with him again, at least not willingly, but I still feel as though I would be breaking the "family rule" if I dismissed his friend request. You know the rule - the one that says that nothing is more important than family. The one that says that family comes first. "Family" means that there are people with whom you will always have a relationship, no matter what.
At what point can I say, "Enough is enough. You're out of my life, I'm out of yours", especially when it involves family? Does it depend on the type of family connection? He's only an uncle, after all. It's not as though he were my father, or brother. He's my father's step-brother, so really there's not even familial blood to consider. It's easier when these things are decided by, well, fate. It's easier when it's a gradual lack of communication, one that fades into a final and unspoken separation. It's easier when it's not a conscious decision, and the blame for breaking away cannot be laid at the feet of one person or another.
I'm not naive enough to think that severing family ties is an uncommon occurence. My own family history can attest to that. I suppose I just need to remember that relationships place certain responsibilities on the people involved, and between me and my uncle, it's obvious who the responsible one is. He failed in his familial responsibility, so I choose to fail in mine. That friend request will stay just as it is - a pathetic reminder to really consider what it means to make an end, but a small opportunity to possibly make a new beginning, however unlikely.
This brings me to something that I've been thinking a lot about lately. When one is already in an established relationship - one lasting years, or a lifetime - when and how does one decide to discontinue this relationship? I'm not necessarily talking about romantic relationships, though that situation comes up more often than not in romantic contexts. What do you do when you decide (or at least seriously consider) to cut off a relationship that involves certain ties? This is why technology has made this more complicated - at least for me. With all of the social networking applications that make the internet such an easy way to stay in touch with people, it is inevitable that the same applications present problems - essentially, that it makes it easy for people to find me. People with whom I'd rather not stay connected. Facebook has been a great tool for me to keep up on what is happening in other people's lives. It makes it easy for me to communicate with people that I don't have regular contact with. Unfortunately, I don't share the same philosophy about "friending" people that other people do. I only "friend" people that I know and want to continue some sort of relationship with. The "friend" option is not something that I use to stay connected with everyone I've ever known, including people that I'd rather forget.
I may as well get right down to it: recently, I received a friend request from an extended family member - an uncle, to be more specific. This uncle of mine has always been on the outs with some or other members of the family - relatively minor family disputes consisting of the usual infractions: careless and/or insensitive remarks, disputes about events that happened more than twenty years ago, general craziness, etc. It's not unusual for this kind of radio silence to last for years. None of my uncle's foolishness ever directly affected me personally however, so my relationship with him has always been civil, at least. I do my best not to get caught up in problems he may have with other members of the family, or problems that other members of the family may have with him. The last time he "disputed" with a family member, however, he crossed a line. I wasn't even present when this went down, but I was still very angry when I found out what had happened. So angry, in fact, that I never wanted to see him again - and this is saying a lot, because my uncle's track record is nothing to be proud of. The last thing I expected was for him to pop up in my life via Facebook, of all things.
I didn't accept his friend request, but I didn't ignore it, either. It's still on my Facebook notifications page, waiting for some sort of action. I feel foolish just thinking about it. I doubt he's even noticed that I have not confirmed him as a friend, or if he has, then he probably hasn't wondered why. I know that I'll probably never come into contact with him again, at least not willingly, but I still feel as though I would be breaking the "family rule" if I dismissed his friend request. You know the rule - the one that says that nothing is more important than family. The one that says that family comes first. "Family" means that there are people with whom you will always have a relationship, no matter what.
At what point can I say, "Enough is enough. You're out of my life, I'm out of yours", especially when it involves family? Does it depend on the type of family connection? He's only an uncle, after all. It's not as though he were my father, or brother. He's my father's step-brother, so really there's not even familial blood to consider. It's easier when these things are decided by, well, fate. It's easier when it's a gradual lack of communication, one that fades into a final and unspoken separation. It's easier when it's not a conscious decision, and the blame for breaking away cannot be laid at the feet of one person or another.
I'm not naive enough to think that severing family ties is an uncommon occurence. My own family history can attest to that. I suppose I just need to remember that relationships place certain responsibilities on the people involved, and between me and my uncle, it's obvious who the responsible one is. He failed in his familial responsibility, so I choose to fail in mine. That friend request will stay just as it is - a pathetic reminder to really consider what it means to make an end, but a small opportunity to possibly make a new beginning, however unlikely.
Friday, September 4, 2009
10 People Who Need to be Shot into Space
Let's just be clear - when I say that the following people should be "shot into space", I do not mean that I want them to die. What I mean is that they are so obviously unhappy here on planet Earth that it would be better for everyone if they would just go away and start anew. Hopefully their final destination would be made known to the world and written in history, so that some poor future space explorer doesn't accidentally land on their planet and suffer immediate and permanent cognitive deterioration. I apologize in advance if these selections seem too heavy on a particular group of people, but it's my blog. Next time, you can shoot me into space.
10. Dean Cain
Generations from now, when school children start to look up the definitions to naughty words in the dictionary, Dean Cain's picture will appear next to the word asshole. I admit to laughing at a very select few of his jokes, but prolonged obnoxiousness is not the same as being funny. Cain is comedy in its lowest form. In fact, I would go so far as to call it anti-comedy, because most of what he says cancels out anything in his act that may actually be funny. His movies alone would have put him on this list.
9. Paris Hilton
This woman embodies everything negative about the female gender. She's mean - any episode of that stupid show The Simple Life makes it obvious that she doesn't give two farts about anybody else in the world, except for maybe her dog. She's spoiled. She's never really worked a day in her life, and she never will. Neither will her children, should she have any, or her children's children. Hilton is so much of the opposite of who I am and who I'd like to be, that I can't even look at her. Besides, a person's body mass atrophies in space, and one slowly attains a more ball-like shape. I would love to see a Paris-balloon.
8. Michael Moore
It doesn't matter if I agree with someone's point of view or not - I'm not going to listen to a person who is preachy, smug, and belligerent. Michael, don't call out "Stupid White Men" before taking a good long look in the mirror.
7. Carrot Top
I really don't think an explanation should be necessary for this choice. I don't know of any other person in the world who gives me the shivers as much as this guy - and I include brutal dictators in that statement. In fact, we wouldn't be sending Carrot Top into space as much as we would be returning him.
6. Stephanie Meyer
I realize that this won't be a popular choice with some of you, but as I said: You're free to theoretically shoot me into space any time. Here's my reasoning: this is a woman who has single-handedly convinced a generation of teenage girls (and women who are old enough to know better) of the following untruths:
A. Falling in love at seventeen is wonderful, natural, and works out fine in the end.
B. There's nothing wrong with your boyfriend breaking into your room to watch you as you sleep - it's not creepy, it's romantic!
C. Vampires sparkle in daylight.
5. Michael Bay
This is the brilliant artistic mind that brought you the following cinematic gems:
Transformers (1 & 2)
The Island
Armageddon
Pearl Harbor
The Rock
I could go on, but I'll spare you. I'll just leave you with this thought: there should be some sort of horrible, horrible punishment for putting truck nuts on a Transformer. Being shot into space is a mercy.
4. John Malkovich
As stated in a previous post, I hate John Malkovich, and I don't care who knows it. Just say your damn lines, John! Quit waffling and just say the lines!
3. Michael Vick
As far as I'm concerned, his debt to society has not yet been paid - not to mention what he owes to the dogs who ultimately survived his cruelty. I know that Vick is not the first person to be busted for dog-fighting, and he won't be the last, but rather than let him back into the league, he should just be shot into space. Without a spaceship, if necessary.
2. Rush Limbaugh
It's hard for me to think of any radio personality I detest more than this man. I don't care what your political ideaology is - hate in any form is bad. This man embodies so many "ists" I can't even list them all.
1. Glenn Beck
I don't hate Glenn Beck. I pity him. His cognitive dissonance is so jarring that there has to be some sort of tragic underlying cause. I honestly think he'd be happier in space - I mean, he keeps bursting into tears on his program! The man is obviously unhappy here. In space, at least, he'd be able to make things up without looking like a complete idiot.
Wow. I sure was hard on the Michaels in this post. I can't be the name - I know several Michaels who are perfectly nice people.
10. Dean Cain
Generations from now, when school children start to look up the definitions to naughty words in the dictionary, Dean Cain's picture will appear next to the word asshole. I admit to laughing at a very select few of his jokes, but prolonged obnoxiousness is not the same as being funny. Cain is comedy in its lowest form. In fact, I would go so far as to call it anti-comedy, because most of what he says cancels out anything in his act that may actually be funny. His movies alone would have put him on this list.
9. Paris Hilton
This woman embodies everything negative about the female gender. She's mean - any episode of that stupid show The Simple Life makes it obvious that she doesn't give two farts about anybody else in the world, except for maybe her dog. She's spoiled. She's never really worked a day in her life, and she never will. Neither will her children, should she have any, or her children's children. Hilton is so much of the opposite of who I am and who I'd like to be, that I can't even look at her. Besides, a person's body mass atrophies in space, and one slowly attains a more ball-like shape. I would love to see a Paris-balloon.
8. Michael Moore
It doesn't matter if I agree with someone's point of view or not - I'm not going to listen to a person who is preachy, smug, and belligerent. Michael, don't call out "Stupid White Men" before taking a good long look in the mirror.
7. Carrot Top
I really don't think an explanation should be necessary for this choice. I don't know of any other person in the world who gives me the shivers as much as this guy - and I include brutal dictators in that statement. In fact, we wouldn't be sending Carrot Top into space as much as we would be returning him.
6. Stephanie Meyer
I realize that this won't be a popular choice with some of you, but as I said: You're free to theoretically shoot me into space any time. Here's my reasoning: this is a woman who has single-handedly convinced a generation of teenage girls (and women who are old enough to know better) of the following untruths:
A. Falling in love at seventeen is wonderful, natural, and works out fine in the end.
B. There's nothing wrong with your boyfriend breaking into your room to watch you as you sleep - it's not creepy, it's romantic!
C. Vampires sparkle in daylight.
5. Michael Bay
This is the brilliant artistic mind that brought you the following cinematic gems:
Transformers (1 & 2)
The Island
Armageddon
Pearl Harbor
The Rock
I could go on, but I'll spare you. I'll just leave you with this thought: there should be some sort of horrible, horrible punishment for putting truck nuts on a Transformer. Being shot into space is a mercy.
4. John Malkovich
As stated in a previous post, I hate John Malkovich, and I don't care who knows it. Just say your damn lines, John! Quit waffling and just say the lines!
3. Michael Vick
As far as I'm concerned, his debt to society has not yet been paid - not to mention what he owes to the dogs who ultimately survived his cruelty. I know that Vick is not the first person to be busted for dog-fighting, and he won't be the last, but rather than let him back into the league, he should just be shot into space. Without a spaceship, if necessary.
2. Rush Limbaugh
It's hard for me to think of any radio personality I detest more than this man. I don't care what your political ideaology is - hate in any form is bad. This man embodies so many "ists" I can't even list them all.
1. Glenn Beck
I don't hate Glenn Beck. I pity him. His cognitive dissonance is so jarring that there has to be some sort of tragic underlying cause. I honestly think he'd be happier in space - I mean, he keeps bursting into tears on his program! The man is obviously unhappy here. In space, at least, he'd be able to make things up without looking like a complete idiot.
Wow. I sure was hard on the Michaels in this post. I can't be the name - I know several Michaels who are perfectly nice people.
Friday, July 3, 2009
The Top Ten Worst Book-to-Movie Adaptations (That I have seen)
There have been a few movies released recently (and rumors of movies to come) that have made me ask questions - questions like "Why?! Why?! Oh God! Why?!" And it boggles my mind that any of these movies make any kind of money at all. And then I think of the of the level of intelligence of the people who would pay money to see these movies. After doing the math, I get horribly depressed. There are lots of astoundingly stupid people out there - and some of them are allowed to make movies. This introspection led me to make a list of one of the banes of my existence: book-to-movie adaptations. Bad ones. I apologize if you happen to like any of the movies in the following list. If you think it's a good movie, I urge you to read the book and reconsider. If you have read the book and still think it's a good movie . . . then I have no hope for you. Live in peace. Readers, I give you the top-ten worst book-to-movie adaptations that I have ever seen.
10. Sherlock
This 2002 made-for-TV movie made me want to cry. I love Sherlock Holmes. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created a fascinating character that the general public does not fully appreciate. I believe that this is because (in America, especially) he is seen as a stuffy, boring British ponce with a pipe permanently wedged between his teeth. Some of the film adaptations do nothing to dispel this perception, Basil Rathbone notwithstanding. Therefore I was somewhat intrigued when I saw that there was a post-1990's film adaptation, and unwittingly decided to add it to my Netflix queue.
It was terrible. Sherlock was not smart (Moriarty was kicking his ass, as far as mental acuity goes). Moriarty was not smart, and only mildly evil (he got Sherlock hooked on heroin and killed his love interest. That was all). Watson was not a veteran of Afghanistan, but a coroner. Mycroft was terribly disappointing. Sherlock had a love interest, and she was not That Woman (hopefully those of you familiar with the Sherlock Holmes stories will know what I mean).
Who's to blame for this? Director Graham Theakston and writer Piers Ahsworth. Don't be gentle on them.
9. The Adventures of Huck Finn
Elijah Wood child-stars in this 1993 bastardization of Mark Twain's classic. I don't blame him for it; he was just a kid at the time. I do, however, blame Stephen Sommers for writing and directing it. As I understand it, Mark Twain began writing Huckleberry Finn in much the same spirit as he had The Adventures of Tom Sawyer - but ended up with something much more significant than a mere coming-of-age young male adventure. It is a brilliant description of a journey from ignorance to awareness and an intelligent commentary on issues that are still important to us today. Perhaps I set my standards too high for this movie, but I was nine years old when I saw this movie and I still hated it. Enough said.
8. The Cat in the Hat
A problem that many book-to-movie adaptations face is that the people writing the adaptation sometimes have to make hard choices about content. It's difficult to compress the average novel into a two-hour film. That being said, the opposite problem should be avoided like the plague: having to stretch a children's picture book into a full-length movie. Don't try it! And if you absolutely must attempt it, do not depend on your lead actor(s) to carry the film. Those types of films are called "star vehicles", and are never a good idea. You can almost hear Mike Meyers' back breaking under the massive weight of the scenes that Alec Burg managed to squeeze into Dr. Seuss' wonderful little story. And the less said about the art direction of the film, the better. Bo Welch has enough to apologize for in this 2003 monstrosity.
7. Chicken Little
Please see my review for #8, but substitute Mark Dindal for Bo Welch and Alec Burg, 2005 for 2003, and remove any reference to star vehicles. There are some otherwise talented people inexplicably connected to this movie. Try not to hold it against them.
(See also: Polar Express)
6. Pride and Prejudice
Subtitled "A Latter-Day Comedy", this one actually made me throw up in my mouth a little bit - and I didn't even watch the whole thing. Jane Austen is one of my favorite authors, and while Pride and Prejudice isn't my favorite novel by her, it deserves more than this. Much, much more. I'm not even totally against the idea of shifting the story from the Victorian era to modern times, but this film makes me pray that it never happens again. It's a good thing that imdb.com doesn't give out contact information for writers and directors, or else I would feel honor-bound to send director Andrew Black and writer Anne K. Black (husband and wife, perhaps?) irate letters. And even that may not stop me. Again, I didn't watch all of this 2003 film, so I may have missed something. But I doubt it.
5. Troy
This film technically fills my requirement because it is based on Homer's Iliad. Loosely. I will say this: I appreciate the scale of this movie. Those massive battles between the Greeks and the Trojans are impressive, I admit. That being said, the one character I liked dies long before the end of the film, so everything after Hector's death is completely unbearable, rather than just marginally unbearable. Orlando Bloom plays whiner Paris, and inexplicably attractive Brad Pitt plays asshole Achilles. I recognize that it would be difficult to make such selfish characters remotely sympathetic, but I don't believe either of these guys even tried. This film was vomited upon the world in 2004 by director Wolfgang Petersen and writer David Benioff.
4. Bicentenniel Man
Some short stories can be made into good feature-length films. For that to happen, do not cast Robin Williams. Robin can be extremely good as part of an ensemble (see The Birdcage), but if his character is the focus of the entire movie, watch out. He'll pass in star vehicles, but not in an Asimov short story. And not when it's directed by someone who obviously doesn't understand Asimov, and has possibly never even read the story (I'm looking at you, Chris Columbus). This 1999 film was a strange modge-podge of Asimov and Robert Silverberg.
3. Eragon
This is a rare case. I didn't even really like the book this movie was based on, which makes its disappointment that much more terrifying. I was actually hoping that the so-so novel would make a more entertaining movie, and I couldn't have been more wrong. Also, I hate John Malkovich, and I don't care who knows it. Although the baby dragon was cute. We can lay the blame for this 2006 travesty at the feet of director Stefen Fangmeier and writer Peter Buchman. And I'll lump Christopher Paolini in there, too, for writing it in the first place.
2. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
I tried so hard to like this movie! I really, really did, but eventually I came to grips with myself and admitted it: the movie sucked. The casting was okay (except, of course, for John Malkovich), and the look of it was all right (except for Marvin's look - wtf?!), but it completely lacked the brilliance of Douglas Adams. All of his wit, his intricate plotline - it was somehow lost in this trans-media translation, and now there are people in the world who will never read the book because the movie was bad. And that is unforgivable. I'm going to blame this on the director, Garth Jennings, because Douglas Adams collaborated heavily on the screenplay before he died. Perhaps it would have been different had he been alive during production - he died in 2001, and the film was released in 2005.
1. Ella Enchanted
There was and is so much wrong with this movie, I don't know that I have the courage to go on. I will do my best, however. I read Ella Enchanted when I was in junior high, which was a difficult period in my life. This book made me happy. It won a Newberry award. It is a wonderful story about a girl just about my age (at the time) who overcomes a terrible curse and saves herself, her country, and the boy she loves. Ella (in the book) is an intelligent, independent, and irrepressible person who achieves her goals and richly deserves the happy ending that comes to her. Ella (in the movie) is Anne Hathaway, and stinks of Disney. Nothing is right in the movie. There's an evil royal uncle that should not be there. The evil stepsisters succeed only in being annoying. There is a bizarre and unexplanable romance between a giantess and an elf. Basically, the only thing that this film has in common with the book is the names of the characters, and sometimes they don't even get that right. A thousand curses upon director Tommy O'Haver and writer (I use that term in the loosest sense of the word) Laurie Craig. May they and all their children, and their children's children be bitten by fleas. Repeatedly.
Okay, I'm through it. Now for the dishonorable mentions: Dune (1984), War of the Worlds (2005), The Hobbit (1977), The Lord of the Rings (1978), The Black Cauldron (1985), Matilda (1996), and Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban (2004).
10. Sherlock
This 2002 made-for-TV movie made me want to cry. I love Sherlock Holmes. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created a fascinating character that the general public does not fully appreciate. I believe that this is because (in America, especially) he is seen as a stuffy, boring British ponce with a pipe permanently wedged between his teeth. Some of the film adaptations do nothing to dispel this perception, Basil Rathbone notwithstanding. Therefore I was somewhat intrigued when I saw that there was a post-1990's film adaptation, and unwittingly decided to add it to my Netflix queue.
It was terrible. Sherlock was not smart (Moriarty was kicking his ass, as far as mental acuity goes). Moriarty was not smart, and only mildly evil (he got Sherlock hooked on heroin and killed his love interest. That was all). Watson was not a veteran of Afghanistan, but a coroner. Mycroft was terribly disappointing. Sherlock had a love interest, and she was not That Woman (hopefully those of you familiar with the Sherlock Holmes stories will know what I mean).
Who's to blame for this? Director Graham Theakston and writer Piers Ahsworth. Don't be gentle on them.
9. The Adventures of Huck Finn
Elijah Wood child-stars in this 1993 bastardization of Mark Twain's classic. I don't blame him for it; he was just a kid at the time. I do, however, blame Stephen Sommers for writing and directing it. As I understand it, Mark Twain began writing Huckleberry Finn in much the same spirit as he had The Adventures of Tom Sawyer - but ended up with something much more significant than a mere coming-of-age young male adventure. It is a brilliant description of a journey from ignorance to awareness and an intelligent commentary on issues that are still important to us today. Perhaps I set my standards too high for this movie, but I was nine years old when I saw this movie and I still hated it. Enough said.
8. The Cat in the Hat
A problem that many book-to-movie adaptations face is that the people writing the adaptation sometimes have to make hard choices about content. It's difficult to compress the average novel into a two-hour film. That being said, the opposite problem should be avoided like the plague: having to stretch a children's picture book into a full-length movie. Don't try it! And if you absolutely must attempt it, do not depend on your lead actor(s) to carry the film. Those types of films are called "star vehicles", and are never a good idea. You can almost hear Mike Meyers' back breaking under the massive weight of the scenes that Alec Burg managed to squeeze into Dr. Seuss' wonderful little story. And the less said about the art direction of the film, the better. Bo Welch has enough to apologize for in this 2003 monstrosity.
7. Chicken Little
Please see my review for #8, but substitute Mark Dindal for Bo Welch and Alec Burg, 2005 for 2003, and remove any reference to star vehicles. There are some otherwise talented people inexplicably connected to this movie. Try not to hold it against them.
(See also: Polar Express)
6. Pride and Prejudice
Subtitled "A Latter-Day Comedy", this one actually made me throw up in my mouth a little bit - and I didn't even watch the whole thing. Jane Austen is one of my favorite authors, and while Pride and Prejudice isn't my favorite novel by her, it deserves more than this. Much, much more. I'm not even totally against the idea of shifting the story from the Victorian era to modern times, but this film makes me pray that it never happens again. It's a good thing that imdb.com doesn't give out contact information for writers and directors, or else I would feel honor-bound to send director Andrew Black and writer Anne K. Black (husband and wife, perhaps?) irate letters. And even that may not stop me. Again, I didn't watch all of this 2003 film, so I may have missed something. But I doubt it.
5. Troy
This film technically fills my requirement because it is based on Homer's Iliad. Loosely. I will say this: I appreciate the scale of this movie. Those massive battles between the Greeks and the Trojans are impressive, I admit. That being said, the one character I liked dies long before the end of the film, so everything after Hector's death is completely unbearable, rather than just marginally unbearable. Orlando Bloom plays whiner Paris, and inexplicably attractive Brad Pitt plays asshole Achilles. I recognize that it would be difficult to make such selfish characters remotely sympathetic, but I don't believe either of these guys even tried. This film was vomited upon the world in 2004 by director Wolfgang Petersen and writer David Benioff.
4. Bicentenniel Man
Some short stories can be made into good feature-length films. For that to happen, do not cast Robin Williams. Robin can be extremely good as part of an ensemble (see The Birdcage), but if his character is the focus of the entire movie, watch out. He'll pass in star vehicles, but not in an Asimov short story. And not when it's directed by someone who obviously doesn't understand Asimov, and has possibly never even read the story (I'm looking at you, Chris Columbus). This 1999 film was a strange modge-podge of Asimov and Robert Silverberg.
3. Eragon
This is a rare case. I didn't even really like the book this movie was based on, which makes its disappointment that much more terrifying. I was actually hoping that the so-so novel would make a more entertaining movie, and I couldn't have been more wrong. Also, I hate John Malkovich, and I don't care who knows it. Although the baby dragon was cute. We can lay the blame for this 2006 travesty at the feet of director Stefen Fangmeier and writer Peter Buchman. And I'll lump Christopher Paolini in there, too, for writing it in the first place.
2. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
I tried so hard to like this movie! I really, really did, but eventually I came to grips with myself and admitted it: the movie sucked. The casting was okay (except, of course, for John Malkovich), and the look of it was all right (except for Marvin's look - wtf?!), but it completely lacked the brilliance of Douglas Adams. All of his wit, his intricate plotline - it was somehow lost in this trans-media translation, and now there are people in the world who will never read the book because the movie was bad. And that is unforgivable. I'm going to blame this on the director, Garth Jennings, because Douglas Adams collaborated heavily on the screenplay before he died. Perhaps it would have been different had he been alive during production - he died in 2001, and the film was released in 2005.
1. Ella Enchanted
There was and is so much wrong with this movie, I don't know that I have the courage to go on. I will do my best, however. I read Ella Enchanted when I was in junior high, which was a difficult period in my life. This book made me happy. It won a Newberry award. It is a wonderful story about a girl just about my age (at the time) who overcomes a terrible curse and saves herself, her country, and the boy she loves. Ella (in the book) is an intelligent, independent, and irrepressible person who achieves her goals and richly deserves the happy ending that comes to her. Ella (in the movie) is Anne Hathaway, and stinks of Disney. Nothing is right in the movie. There's an evil royal uncle that should not be there. The evil stepsisters succeed only in being annoying. There is a bizarre and unexplanable romance between a giantess and an elf. Basically, the only thing that this film has in common with the book is the names of the characters, and sometimes they don't even get that right. A thousand curses upon director Tommy O'Haver and writer (I use that term in the loosest sense of the word) Laurie Craig. May they and all their children, and their children's children be bitten by fleas. Repeatedly.
Okay, I'm through it. Now for the dishonorable mentions: Dune (1984), War of the Worlds (2005), The Hobbit (1977), The Lord of the Rings (1978), The Black Cauldron (1985), Matilda (1996), and Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban (2004).
Monday, June 29, 2009
Little Green Bugs
Little green bugs are abundant where I live.
Tiny, short-range missiles of the insect world
Buzzing, crawling, sneaky little devils - what I wouldn't give
To get rid of them, all innocence with wings unfurled
Saying "Who could hate me? I'm so small and harmless."
Harmless, maybe, up to the point when one goes
Around and around my head, nothing is worse, unless
It's when it decides, after all, to fly up my nose.
Thank God for spiders, though not when they're inside
My home - No, when they craft their webs and set
Their traps. I can see the bodies of the bugs who died
Struggling in vain to free themselves, to glide
Up, up, and away. But the wise little spiders wait
Patiently, quietly, biding their time until bugs fly
Into their invisible, intricate snares made by eight
Clever legs - ready to suck them dry.
Thank God for the bats when they come out at night!
Little flying mammals navigating by the sound
Of squeaks and echos. I love the sight
Of them at dusk. I love watching them flit around
Darting this way and that. I never shared the fear
That these amazing nocturnal creatures change
Their taste for bugs into a taste for blood. It's clear
That they're happy with their diet, though it's strange.
Little green bugs are always landing in the pool
And drowning. On a long day when it's hotter than hell
I just want to come home, grab a book and cool
Off in the water - water filled with the bugs that fell
And couldn't get themselves out, but the silly things
Are at their most alarming when I'm asleep in my bed.
What are they doing when I'm unaware? A bug clings
To my hair, making its way to my ear to lay eggs in my head.
Or so I believe, when I wake up with a start.
I dig frantically at my ear, trying to get them out
Until I realize I'm dreaming, and my pounding heart
Goes back to its regular rhythm. I seriously doubt
Those insects intend to frighten me so.
They're just trying to live - the thought of them tugs
At my conscience. I feel sorry for them, though
I hate them. Damn those little green bugs.
Tiny, short-range missiles of the insect world
Buzzing, crawling, sneaky little devils - what I wouldn't give
To get rid of them, all innocence with wings unfurled
Saying "Who could hate me? I'm so small and harmless."
Harmless, maybe, up to the point when one goes
Around and around my head, nothing is worse, unless
It's when it decides, after all, to fly up my nose.
Thank God for spiders, though not when they're inside
My home - No, when they craft their webs and set
Their traps. I can see the bodies of the bugs who died
Struggling in vain to free themselves, to glide
Up, up, and away. But the wise little spiders wait
Patiently, quietly, biding their time until bugs fly
Into their invisible, intricate snares made by eight
Clever legs - ready to suck them dry.
Thank God for the bats when they come out at night!
Little flying mammals navigating by the sound
Of squeaks and echos. I love the sight
Of them at dusk. I love watching them flit around
Darting this way and that. I never shared the fear
That these amazing nocturnal creatures change
Their taste for bugs into a taste for blood. It's clear
That they're happy with their diet, though it's strange.
Little green bugs are always landing in the pool
And drowning. On a long day when it's hotter than hell
I just want to come home, grab a book and cool
Off in the water - water filled with the bugs that fell
And couldn't get themselves out, but the silly things
Are at their most alarming when I'm asleep in my bed.
What are they doing when I'm unaware? A bug clings
To my hair, making its way to my ear to lay eggs in my head.
Or so I believe, when I wake up with a start.
I dig frantically at my ear, trying to get them out
Until I realize I'm dreaming, and my pounding heart
Goes back to its regular rhythm. I seriously doubt
Those insects intend to frighten me so.
They're just trying to live - the thought of them tugs
At my conscience. I feel sorry for them, though
I hate them. Damn those little green bugs.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Don't-See TV
I promise that I'll try not to do this too often, but I'm going to have to rant - just a little bit. I promise that I'm not a major couch potato. I would rather read than watch TV, but I do turn the TV on for background noise while I'm cooking, and there are a few shows that I watch regularly. This posting is not about those shows - the good ones. This is about the bad shows. I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "Really? There are lots of awful shows on TV." Very true. I'm just going to focus on the ones that are particularly annoying to me at this time.
Jon and Kate Plus Eight:
I'm not ashamed to admit that I have never watched an episode of this show, but I sure am sick of hearing about it. I'm tired of all of the drama surrounding the parents on this show - did Jon cheat on Kate? What's the big announcement that the couple will soon make? How will this affect the show?
Can I respond with a question of my own? Thank you. Who the f*** cares?! These are people who took advantage of an opportunity - and who could blame them? Raising eight kids is no walk in the economic park. Still, they have brought this on themselves, and in my opinion have not considered the long-term effects of this stupid reality show on their children. I know that the children are reaping benefits indirectly, but I'm sure that no one asked their permission to appear in this show. What happens when they get older? If Jon and Kate do file for divorce, how are they going to be able to deal with that? My parents' divorce was bad, but it wasn't on national television.
Flavor of Love:
I swear to you that I'm not making this show up. Remember Flavor Flave, the guy who wears clocks around his neck and big Viking helmets? This show is all about him. It's like The Bachelor, with Flave as the Bachelor. This is a show that consists of Flave trying to choose from a bunch of pretty but psycho women, who obviously do not respect themselves or each other. It's cat-fight central. I only know about this show because it appears on the TV Guide channel, which also has the programming schedule, and I have to mute the channel whenever it's on - it's that bad. I assume that this ridiculous show is on the TV Guide channel because no other network would stoop so low.
Whale Wars:
I understand if none of you have heard of this show. Being the major geek that I am, I like to watch channels like National Geographic and Discovery. Whale Wars is on Animal Planet. It's a documentary show following the exploits of a group of activists who use every means short of outright violence to stop Japanese whalers from killing whales in the Antarctic. Please understand that I'm not expressing disapproval of their goals - I think that killing whales is a long-outdated and barbaric practice, and the Japanese whalers are using loopholes in the law in order to continue. They claim that they're conducting "scientific research". Killing whales for profit is obsene, okay? That being said, these activists are complete morons. They call themselves the "Sea Shepherds", and they were founded by a guy who was kicked out of Greenpeace. In fact, Greenpeace wants nothing to do with them at all. Basically, this is a ship full of idealists who are under the delusion that if they somehow manage to stop this particular whaling fleet, then whaling will be stopped, permanently, all over the world. Has the thought crossed any of their minds that there just might be more than one whaling ship in the world? And that's not even the worst part - for me, at least. The worst part is that most of these people have such a disdain for "the system" or "the Man" or any kind of authority that the way the ship is run is an absolute joke. In the first episode, three crew members were almost killed because the person who was lowering their small boat into the water had no clue what he was doing. If these people really cared about the whales, you'd think they would step up their game.
Okay. My rant is done now. Mostly. There will always be shows on TV that really suck. I'll just have to content myself with the good ones. I just had to rant a little in order to make myself feel better.
Jon and Kate Plus Eight:
I'm not ashamed to admit that I have never watched an episode of this show, but I sure am sick of hearing about it. I'm tired of all of the drama surrounding the parents on this show - did Jon cheat on Kate? What's the big announcement that the couple will soon make? How will this affect the show?
Can I respond with a question of my own? Thank you. Who the f*** cares?! These are people who took advantage of an opportunity - and who could blame them? Raising eight kids is no walk in the economic park. Still, they have brought this on themselves, and in my opinion have not considered the long-term effects of this stupid reality show on their children. I know that the children are reaping benefits indirectly, but I'm sure that no one asked their permission to appear in this show. What happens when they get older? If Jon and Kate do file for divorce, how are they going to be able to deal with that? My parents' divorce was bad, but it wasn't on national television.
Flavor of Love:
I swear to you that I'm not making this show up. Remember Flavor Flave, the guy who wears clocks around his neck and big Viking helmets? This show is all about him. It's like The Bachelor, with Flave as the Bachelor. This is a show that consists of Flave trying to choose from a bunch of pretty but psycho women, who obviously do not respect themselves or each other. It's cat-fight central. I only know about this show because it appears on the TV Guide channel, which also has the programming schedule, and I have to mute the channel whenever it's on - it's that bad. I assume that this ridiculous show is on the TV Guide channel because no other network would stoop so low.
Whale Wars:
I understand if none of you have heard of this show. Being the major geek that I am, I like to watch channels like National Geographic and Discovery. Whale Wars is on Animal Planet. It's a documentary show following the exploits of a group of activists who use every means short of outright violence to stop Japanese whalers from killing whales in the Antarctic. Please understand that I'm not expressing disapproval of their goals - I think that killing whales is a long-outdated and barbaric practice, and the Japanese whalers are using loopholes in the law in order to continue. They claim that they're conducting "scientific research". Killing whales for profit is obsene, okay? That being said, these activists are complete morons. They call themselves the "Sea Shepherds", and they were founded by a guy who was kicked out of Greenpeace. In fact, Greenpeace wants nothing to do with them at all. Basically, this is a ship full of idealists who are under the delusion that if they somehow manage to stop this particular whaling fleet, then whaling will be stopped, permanently, all over the world. Has the thought crossed any of their minds that there just might be more than one whaling ship in the world? And that's not even the worst part - for me, at least. The worst part is that most of these people have such a disdain for "the system" or "the Man" or any kind of authority that the way the ship is run is an absolute joke. In the first episode, three crew members were almost killed because the person who was lowering their small boat into the water had no clue what he was doing. If these people really cared about the whales, you'd think they would step up their game.
Okay. My rant is done now. Mostly. There will always be shows on TV that really suck. I'll just have to content myself with the good ones. I just had to rant a little in order to make myself feel better.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Story Central
Airports are interesting places. They are basically centers of flux. Everyone in an airport is in a state of transition. People are coming from everywhere and going everywhere else. It seems inevitable, at least to me, that with such a massive mash-up of origins and destinations there are so many individual stories coming together for one brief moment (or seven-hour layover, as the case may be) and then continuing on alone. Emotions run high in airports. People are leaving or returning, alone or together. The casual observer, sitting at the gate waiting for their flight to start boarding, can see many stories immediately surrounding them.
There's a single man sitting on his own in front of the large airport windows. I say single because he's traveling by himself, but it's obvious that he's involved with someone. He's holding a bouquet of flowers. Is he re-connecting with someone after a long separation? Is he on his way home or is he visiting her? She must be really important to him. Important enough to put up with the inconvenience of traveling with such a fragile carry-on item. He cares about her so much that he won't wait to buy these flowers after he arrives. He holds those flowers on his lap during the entire flight.
Another man is sitting on his own at the gate, himself and his possessions taking up all three of the seats in a short row. Though seats are scarce, both of his carry-on items occupy the seats on either side of him, and he has his laptop open and his headphones on, effectively closing himself off from the rest of his fellow travelers. A woman traveling on her own hovers hopefully near him and his seats, but if she expects a sense of chivalry to overpower the headphones she will be disappointed. He doesn't look up, doesn't acknowledge anyone outside of the bubble he's created, doesn't budge.
Two children traveling with their mother are obviously trying to make the best of a situation that they obviously believe could be improved upon. There's nothing with which to entertain themselves other than what they've brought, but children are inventive and adaptable when they need to be. One has a suspicion that this brother and sister would not normally willingly play together the way that they are, but beggars can't be choosers! Their improvised game of mis-matched toys (robots and dolls, respectively) spans the floor around their seats, the luggage sitting under the watchful eye of their mother, and sometimes even their mother, who puts up with their play with the obvious internal conclusion "It could be worse. They could be screaming."
A soldier in combat boots and desert fatigues is also sitting on his own, his last name stitched onto the back of his practical Army pack. Is he reporting to a base in the states, only to be shipped overseas? Is this his first tour? Unlikely, if his age is anything to go by. He looks like he's in his early thirties. My only thought, looking at him, is "Will he come back alive or in a box?" A wedding band on his finger makes me send a quick thought out to whatever gods may be listening - let him come home safely.
Airports are interesting places. I, for one, am glad that my time in this one was as short as possible. It may be fascinating to see the convergence of so many stories, but I have my own story to worry about.
There's a single man sitting on his own in front of the large airport windows. I say single because he's traveling by himself, but it's obvious that he's involved with someone. He's holding a bouquet of flowers. Is he re-connecting with someone after a long separation? Is he on his way home or is he visiting her? She must be really important to him. Important enough to put up with the inconvenience of traveling with such a fragile carry-on item. He cares about her so much that he won't wait to buy these flowers after he arrives. He holds those flowers on his lap during the entire flight.
Another man is sitting on his own at the gate, himself and his possessions taking up all three of the seats in a short row. Though seats are scarce, both of his carry-on items occupy the seats on either side of him, and he has his laptop open and his headphones on, effectively closing himself off from the rest of his fellow travelers. A woman traveling on her own hovers hopefully near him and his seats, but if she expects a sense of chivalry to overpower the headphones she will be disappointed. He doesn't look up, doesn't acknowledge anyone outside of the bubble he's created, doesn't budge.
Two children traveling with their mother are obviously trying to make the best of a situation that they obviously believe could be improved upon. There's nothing with which to entertain themselves other than what they've brought, but children are inventive and adaptable when they need to be. One has a suspicion that this brother and sister would not normally willingly play together the way that they are, but beggars can't be choosers! Their improvised game of mis-matched toys (robots and dolls, respectively) spans the floor around their seats, the luggage sitting under the watchful eye of their mother, and sometimes even their mother, who puts up with their play with the obvious internal conclusion "It could be worse. They could be screaming."
A soldier in combat boots and desert fatigues is also sitting on his own, his last name stitched onto the back of his practical Army pack. Is he reporting to a base in the states, only to be shipped overseas? Is this his first tour? Unlikely, if his age is anything to go by. He looks like he's in his early thirties. My only thought, looking at him, is "Will he come back alive or in a box?" A wedding band on his finger makes me send a quick thought out to whatever gods may be listening - let him come home safely.
Airports are interesting places. I, for one, am glad that my time in this one was as short as possible. It may be fascinating to see the convergence of so many stories, but I have my own story to worry about.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Agnostic
I wish that I could have an open and honest discussion about religion with my family. It's important to me. It's something that I give a lot of serious thought. The problem that I face with this kind of discussion (politics are the same way, actually), is that any sort of doubt that I may express about things that they believe is perceived as a symptom of profound mental imbalance, even brainwashing. And I understand, to an extent, why they feel that way. Their religious beliefs are extremely strong, and deal with such important ideas as existence before and after life on earth - things that are significant in an eternal, universal sense. I admire their faith. I would never try to persuade them not to practice their religion. I wish that they would extend me the same courtesy and respect.
These are the things that I think about the most:
Can anyone truly know God, God's will, and Its judgement while in this current mortal existence?
I'm not saying that everyone who claims to have communicated with God is lying or ill-intentioned - I don't believe that. What I have trouble with is that there are people who say that they know the way God wants us to do things. They know what is "right" and what is "wrong". They have no problem casting judgement themselves, so confident they are in knowing the mind of a Being who - by their own admission - is so powerful that It created the universe and everything in it. I'm asking in earnest - How do you know? I would quake at thinking that I know someone's eternal fate. I would shudder away from that kind of cosmic responsibility. I would have to be absolutely certain - no doubt whatsoever - to pass judgement like that, and I would also have to be sure that I had this Being's authorization to do so.
Is there only One True Religion, and will only those who believe in it go to Heaven (or whichever eternal paradise one believes in)?
This is tricky territory for any rational discussion of religion. No one wants to hear that their religion may not be the only one on earth with the real truth. This is the kind of thing that starts wars, that inspires killing in the name of God. It's funny that there are so many loopholes around "Thou shalt not kill". I'm pretty sure that it doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill, unless you do it to prove a point or get something you want". But aside from religious war/killings, what is it about any particular religion that makes them believe they are the only ones to be "saved"? I really find it hard to believe that if God knows us personally and loves each and every one of us, that It would condemn good people just because they didn't subscribe to a particular set of beliefs. This is something that I take very personally. I have been told that my particular and personal beliefs have no place in certain religions, and that I would need to change them if I were to be "saved". I don't appreciate being told, essentially, that I would be condemned for believing in different things. I don't claim to have communicated with God in any way that I can understand or recognize, but I don't get any feeling that God would disapprove of me or what I think. If I am one of Its creations, why would it be surprised when I question things? Am I somehow different than what It intended? And if so, who's at fault - me or God? I've been told that if I somehow don't receive confirmation from God that certain religious beliefs are true, then there is something wrong with me, not the beliefs. These beliefs indicate the existence of a Jealous God. I refuse to believe that a Creator could ever be such a Tyrant. People will tell you to stand up for what you believe in, but they're not so keen on the idea when your beliefs are not their beliefs.
How can holy books be the absolute Word of God when 1) there are so many of them, and 2) they have been handed down, revised, translated, re-translated, edited, formatted, and debated over thousands of years by so many different people?
This is one thing that I have a really hard time accepting (so I don't). I find it difficult to believe that people accept these texts as unassailable facts when there are so many inherent contradictions within the texts themselves, let alone what they preach and what people practice. This leads into my next big question:
What's with the inequality between men and women in most of the world's religions?
If God created us all, we should all be equal. And yet many religions insist on separation - sometimes to an extreme degree - of the sexes. "Separate" is not "equal". I believe that we have learned this in other areas of our history, but it's still something we struggle with. I won't believe that God ever intended women to be thought of as "lesser" or "inferior" in any way. I don't accept the roles offered me by some religions - roles that are entirely based on my gender. I don't like standards that are applied to women rigidly and men flexibly.
I hope that any of my religious friends who may read this posting will understand that I am not trying to tell them what to believe, or that any of their beliefs are wrong or bad. I'm just trying to articulate my personal spiritual questions. Please note that I tried not to indicate any religion in particular or by name, out of respect. Because I do respect your beliefs. I wouldn't dream of asking you not to practice. I know that there is a lot of good that comes from religion. But I don't feel comfortable subscribing to a particular belief system. I cannot commit myself to something that I don't know. I'm agnostic. I don't know - and I accept that.
These are the things that I think about the most:
Can anyone truly know God, God's will, and Its judgement while in this current mortal existence?
I'm not saying that everyone who claims to have communicated with God is lying or ill-intentioned - I don't believe that. What I have trouble with is that there are people who say that they know the way God wants us to do things. They know what is "right" and what is "wrong". They have no problem casting judgement themselves, so confident they are in knowing the mind of a Being who - by their own admission - is so powerful that It created the universe and everything in it. I'm asking in earnest - How do you know? I would quake at thinking that I know someone's eternal fate. I would shudder away from that kind of cosmic responsibility. I would have to be absolutely certain - no doubt whatsoever - to pass judgement like that, and I would also have to be sure that I had this Being's authorization to do so.
Is there only One True Religion, and will only those who believe in it go to Heaven (or whichever eternal paradise one believes in)?
This is tricky territory for any rational discussion of religion. No one wants to hear that their religion may not be the only one on earth with the real truth. This is the kind of thing that starts wars, that inspires killing in the name of God. It's funny that there are so many loopholes around "Thou shalt not kill". I'm pretty sure that it doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill, unless you do it to prove a point or get something you want". But aside from religious war/killings, what is it about any particular religion that makes them believe they are the only ones to be "saved"? I really find it hard to believe that if God knows us personally and loves each and every one of us, that It would condemn good people just because they didn't subscribe to a particular set of beliefs. This is something that I take very personally. I have been told that my particular and personal beliefs have no place in certain religions, and that I would need to change them if I were to be "saved". I don't appreciate being told, essentially, that I would be condemned for believing in different things. I don't claim to have communicated with God in any way that I can understand or recognize, but I don't get any feeling that God would disapprove of me or what I think. If I am one of Its creations, why would it be surprised when I question things? Am I somehow different than what It intended? And if so, who's at fault - me or God? I've been told that if I somehow don't receive confirmation from God that certain religious beliefs are true, then there is something wrong with me, not the beliefs. These beliefs indicate the existence of a Jealous God. I refuse to believe that a Creator could ever be such a Tyrant. People will tell you to stand up for what you believe in, but they're not so keen on the idea when your beliefs are not their beliefs.
How can holy books be the absolute Word of God when 1) there are so many of them, and 2) they have been handed down, revised, translated, re-translated, edited, formatted, and debated over thousands of years by so many different people?
This is one thing that I have a really hard time accepting (so I don't). I find it difficult to believe that people accept these texts as unassailable facts when there are so many inherent contradictions within the texts themselves, let alone what they preach and what people practice. This leads into my next big question:
What's with the inequality between men and women in most of the world's religions?
If God created us all, we should all be equal. And yet many religions insist on separation - sometimes to an extreme degree - of the sexes. "Separate" is not "equal". I believe that we have learned this in other areas of our history, but it's still something we struggle with. I won't believe that God ever intended women to be thought of as "lesser" or "inferior" in any way. I don't accept the roles offered me by some religions - roles that are entirely based on my gender. I don't like standards that are applied to women rigidly and men flexibly.
I hope that any of my religious friends who may read this posting will understand that I am not trying to tell them what to believe, or that any of their beliefs are wrong or bad. I'm just trying to articulate my personal spiritual questions. Please note that I tried not to indicate any religion in particular or by name, out of respect. Because I do respect your beliefs. I wouldn't dream of asking you not to practice. I know that there is a lot of good that comes from religion. But I don't feel comfortable subscribing to a particular belief system. I cannot commit myself to something that I don't know. I'm agnostic. I don't know - and I accept that.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Breaking News
Southwest U.S. resident Bri Buckley suffered a crippling ordeal commonly known as a "brain fart" Friday, May 8 when she tried and failed to remember how to spell the word "accommodations". The circumstances that caused Ms. Buckley's "brain fart" came about when she was trying to intelligently phrase an email to a consultant who is scheduled to visit her workplace later this May.
"Is it one 'c' and two 'm's, or two 'c's and one 'm'?" Co-workers report hearing the frustrated administrative/accounting assistant mutter to herself. Ms. Buckley allegedly refused to open a Word document or a Google tab for assistance in remembering how to spell the five-syllable word. "I can do this - I'm a good speller! It can't be two 'c's and two 'm's. That doesn't look right."
The word "accommodations" is a Latin-based term that, when used in the context that Ms. Buckley intended, means lodging or access to certain facilities. Whether the centuries of trans-continental influence and evolution of this word from Latin to American English happened in such a way as to make it particularly difficult to spell is still in question.
After several minutes of racking her brain, searching for any memory she had of vocabulary words or tests in which she would have learned the spelling of this word, Ms. Buckley reluctantly looked it up in an online dictionary. "Two 'c's and two 'm's?! Really?! That makes no sense. I could have sworn it was only one 'm'." Still, Ms. Buckley agreed that it was better to make sure of the spelling rather than send a professional email that contained a typo.
Experts say that though "brain farts" can be painful and frustrating, there is usually no lasting damage caused by the "brain fart" itself, only from any mistakes that may have been made under its influence. Ms. Buckley is expected to fully recover from the "brain fart", but the emotional and intellectual trauma she suffered in her failure to remember proper spelling may take more time.
"I know that it's not that important to most people, but I'm just disappointed in myself," Ms. Buckley told reporters. "It might take me a while to get over it, but I'm sure I'll get there eventually. I'll remember how to spell it next time."
"Is it one 'c' and two 'm's, or two 'c's and one 'm'?" Co-workers report hearing the frustrated administrative/accounting assistant mutter to herself. Ms. Buckley allegedly refused to open a Word document or a Google tab for assistance in remembering how to spell the five-syllable word. "I can do this - I'm a good speller! It can't be two 'c's and two 'm's. That doesn't look right."
The word "accommodations" is a Latin-based term that, when used in the context that Ms. Buckley intended, means lodging or access to certain facilities. Whether the centuries of trans-continental influence and evolution of this word from Latin to American English happened in such a way as to make it particularly difficult to spell is still in question.
After several minutes of racking her brain, searching for any memory she had of vocabulary words or tests in which she would have learned the spelling of this word, Ms. Buckley reluctantly looked it up in an online dictionary. "Two 'c's and two 'm's?! Really?! That makes no sense. I could have sworn it was only one 'm'." Still, Ms. Buckley agreed that it was better to make sure of the spelling rather than send a professional email that contained a typo.
Experts say that though "brain farts" can be painful and frustrating, there is usually no lasting damage caused by the "brain fart" itself, only from any mistakes that may have been made under its influence. Ms. Buckley is expected to fully recover from the "brain fart", but the emotional and intellectual trauma she suffered in her failure to remember proper spelling may take more time.
"I know that it's not that important to most people, but I'm just disappointed in myself," Ms. Buckley told reporters. "It might take me a while to get over it, but I'm sure I'll get there eventually. I'll remember how to spell it next time."
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Free the Market!
I'm getting a little tired of almost militant defense of capitalism and the free market. Let me say right now that I am not anti-capitalism. I think capitalism is just like any other good thing - too much can kill you. Everything in moderation, right? A capitalist economic system fosters healthy competition, at least in theory. It offers consumers the luxury of choice. That being said, may I politely tell you all to shut up about it? You're getting pretty shrill.
I acknowledge the benefits of a capitalist system, but it's not infallible, people. It's not the Pope, though it seems like some of you have an almost religious devotion to it. Those of you who are clamoring against any kind of market regulation would probably have a slightly different attitude if the market were something else, like a public swimming pool, for example. Let's explore some of these metaphors, shall we?
A lifeguard? Must be a Commie! Let's let the free market decide who can or cannot swim!
Chlorine is just more Big Government interference. I demand the right to swim in the untreated urine and God-knows-what-else of complete strangers!
Can you see how ridiculous those attitudes really are? Let's be realistic. There's no such thing as a perfect system, because people are not perfect, and they obviously sometimes act out of extreme selfishness (see current economic crisis). Can we accept that the free market does not have the population's best interests at heart? It is after all, the pursuit of money, not the happiness of those who are not stock-holders. Regulation (hopefully) ensures that our kids are not eating lead. It keeps our peanut-butter sandwiches free of salmonella. It forces large corporations to consider the little guy, rather than poisoning the air he and his family breathe. What we need is a healthy balance between a free(ish) market and fair protective regulation. So stop whining! Accept it as a necessary evil and don't place capitalism on a pedestal.
I acknowledge the benefits of a capitalist system, but it's not infallible, people. It's not the Pope, though it seems like some of you have an almost religious devotion to it. Those of you who are clamoring against any kind of market regulation would probably have a slightly different attitude if the market were something else, like a public swimming pool, for example. Let's explore some of these metaphors, shall we?
A lifeguard? Must be a Commie! Let's let the free market decide who can or cannot swim!
Chlorine is just more Big Government interference. I demand the right to swim in the untreated urine and God-knows-what-else of complete strangers!
Can you see how ridiculous those attitudes really are? Let's be realistic. There's no such thing as a perfect system, because people are not perfect, and they obviously sometimes act out of extreme selfishness (see current economic crisis). Can we accept that the free market does not have the population's best interests at heart? It is after all, the pursuit of money, not the happiness of those who are not stock-holders. Regulation (hopefully) ensures that our kids are not eating lead. It keeps our peanut-butter sandwiches free of salmonella. It forces large corporations to consider the little guy, rather than poisoning the air he and his family breathe. What we need is a healthy balance between a free(ish) market and fair protective regulation. So stop whining! Accept it as a necessary evil and don't place capitalism on a pedestal.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Who else will?
A co-worker recently asked me a question while we were making idle small-talk. I rarely have very serious conversations at work, partly because I don't care to deepen my work relationships too far out of my comfort zone, and partly because I don't believe that many of the people I work with have similar enough tastes in subject matter for me to believe the conversation meaningful and worthwhile. Anyway, we were discussing weekend plans, and I mentioned that I would be spending a day volunteering at Best Friends, a no-kill animal shelter located outside Zion National Park. My co-worker was slightly taken aback by how I was going to spend my Saturday, and he almost immediately asked "Why would you spend your time helping animals when there are so many people that need help?"
I was shocked that he'd even asked. So much so that I couldn't even articulate a good answer. I think I mumbled something about liking animals and that was the end of our conversation. I suppose that his question might be considered a fair one, especially when one takes into account the enormity of human suffering around the world. The current economic crisis is causing many people to lose their homes, some parents to choose between necessities like paying for gas to get to work in order to provide for their families, or buying food for their children to eat or paying for health care they desperately need. People are dying by the thousands all over the world: the genocide in Darfur, natural disasters such as the earthquake in Italy or typhoons in Southeast Asia. The plight of women in countries like Pakistan or Somalia, to name just a few. There is no doubt in my mind that there is plenty of human suffering to be found almost anywhere one cares to look. So why help animals, who after all are "lower forms of being"? Why spend time on creatures that aren't even sentient? Why donate money or even time to help ease the suffering of animals that we esteem so little as to experiment on them, raise them in huge numbers only to slaughter and eat them, or destroy their natural habitats to the extent of their inevitable extinction?
If we're going to debate the relative value of these issues, then why not compare other causes? Why raise money to research infertility and its causes when there are millions of homeless or foster children who need and deserve loving homes? Why fight to preserve the opportunity for students to learn not only language arts and mathematics, but also science, history, and the arts when the latter subjects are not life "essentials"? Why bother raising money for research into cures for diseases when the world is facing overpopulation problems?
The point that I'm trying to make is that comparing different causes is as useless as comparing apples and oranges. I could go insane trying to analyze the comparative value of many worthy efforts. And why would I want to restrict myself to contributing in only one way? The fact is that if it is only permissible to care for animals after all human suffering has been eradicated all over the world, or even in any single country, then it never will be permissible. I am realistic. There is not much that I can do to help all of the people who need it, and truth be told, in general I like animals much more than I like people. I feel comfortable around them because they make so much more sense than people do. They never try to deny their true natures. They don't play the cruel mind-games that humans practice without even thinking. When they offer love and affection, it is complete and unconditional. How many of us can say the same? And perhaps most important, they may not be "sentient" in the ways that humans have decreed that they must be in order to be considered a higher life form, but just because animals don't adhere to our standards doesn't mean that there's nothing there. Animals feel pain, sadness, happiness, love. The question is not "Can animals think?" but "Can animals suffer?", and I believe that the answer is yes. They're voiceless, however. They cannot fight for their rights in human society. They cannot understand when their people abandon them because of a stupid homeowner's association rule, or the fact that their people did not plan for how big they would get, or that their people simply don't want to take care of them anymore. Who will help them, if not me? As stupid as it may sound to some people, I care about them. I care about them in groups, I care about them as individuals. It breaks my heart that 150 dogs were euthanized without any evaluation in Indiana, simply because they were seized from a dog-fighting ring. Many of them were just puppies, who had not yet been trained to fight. It breaks my heart that millions of animals are euthanized every year because they were abandoned, and no one cared enough to adopt them. It breaks my heart that I am not able to take all of these needy animals and care for them, protect them. All I can do is what I can do.
I know the animals at Best Friends, well, the cats, mostly. It's more relaxing to work with the cats. The dogs are a little too high-energy for me. I know them the way their handlers know them: as individuals. I don't know them as well, but I appreciate the time that I am able to give them, and I like to think that they appreciate it, too. Visit the Best Friends website - www.bestfriends.org - to get an idea of what this sanctuary is like. Take a look at the animals that I have come to know and care for:
This is Gimble. He and his brother Ty were born with a neurological disorder that makes them lurch and wobble when they walk, as if they're drunk. They can eat out of their food bowls, drink from their water dishes, and use their litter boxes, but they will probably never be adopted, just because they're a little different.
This is Peepers. She's completely blind, but she still gets around fairly easily. She tends to stay on the ground because she can't judge the height or length of tables or chairs, but she's very sweet. If she senses that someone is near enough to pet her, she'll rear up on her hind legs and reach for them with her front paws. She will probably never be adopted, because it's always a challenge to take on animals with disabilities. They become ousted from society, just like humans with disabilities are sometimes. The difference is that a disabled human is not likely to be euthanized because of it.
This is Vante. She is a beautiful cat with very affectionate personality. She loves to ride on people's shoulders and purr against the back of their heads. She seems like a creature of the air, staying mostly on shelves and table tops and only venturing to the floor for food. She has been adopted several times, and returned to Best Friends every single time. Why? Because she has a digestive disorder that involves incontinence, and she cannot always make it to her litter box in time. She will probably never find a forever home, because for most people her loving nature does not outweigh the messes she can't help but make.
This is Peanut (above) and Bubba Lou (below). They are both paralyzed in their hind legs. Peanut was shot, and lost the use of her hind legs. She is able to get around by scooting around on her front legs. Bubba Lou was rescued by Best Friends during one of their special trips to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. He had been hit by a car, leaving his hind legs mangled and broken, but thankfully pain-free. He has now had both of them removed, in order to improve his mobility. It's probable that neither of these cats will be adopted. Their paralysis has also made them incontinent, and as I said before, it's difficult to take in animals with disabilities.
So why do I waste my time helping animals rather than humans? Because if I don't, who else will?
I was shocked that he'd even asked. So much so that I couldn't even articulate a good answer. I think I mumbled something about liking animals and that was the end of our conversation. I suppose that his question might be considered a fair one, especially when one takes into account the enormity of human suffering around the world. The current economic crisis is causing many people to lose their homes, some parents to choose between necessities like paying for gas to get to work in order to provide for their families, or buying food for their children to eat or paying for health care they desperately need. People are dying by the thousands all over the world: the genocide in Darfur, natural disasters such as the earthquake in Italy or typhoons in Southeast Asia. The plight of women in countries like Pakistan or Somalia, to name just a few. There is no doubt in my mind that there is plenty of human suffering to be found almost anywhere one cares to look. So why help animals, who after all are "lower forms of being"? Why spend time on creatures that aren't even sentient? Why donate money or even time to help ease the suffering of animals that we esteem so little as to experiment on them, raise them in huge numbers only to slaughter and eat them, or destroy their natural habitats to the extent of their inevitable extinction?
If we're going to debate the relative value of these issues, then why not compare other causes? Why raise money to research infertility and its causes when there are millions of homeless or foster children who need and deserve loving homes? Why fight to preserve the opportunity for students to learn not only language arts and mathematics, but also science, history, and the arts when the latter subjects are not life "essentials"? Why bother raising money for research into cures for diseases when the world is facing overpopulation problems?
The point that I'm trying to make is that comparing different causes is as useless as comparing apples and oranges. I could go insane trying to analyze the comparative value of many worthy efforts. And why would I want to restrict myself to contributing in only one way? The fact is that if it is only permissible to care for animals after all human suffering has been eradicated all over the world, or even in any single country, then it never will be permissible. I am realistic. There is not much that I can do to help all of the people who need it, and truth be told, in general I like animals much more than I like people. I feel comfortable around them because they make so much more sense than people do. They never try to deny their true natures. They don't play the cruel mind-games that humans practice without even thinking. When they offer love and affection, it is complete and unconditional. How many of us can say the same? And perhaps most important, they may not be "sentient" in the ways that humans have decreed that they must be in order to be considered a higher life form, but just because animals don't adhere to our standards doesn't mean that there's nothing there. Animals feel pain, sadness, happiness, love. The question is not "Can animals think?" but "Can animals suffer?", and I believe that the answer is yes. They're voiceless, however. They cannot fight for their rights in human society. They cannot understand when their people abandon them because of a stupid homeowner's association rule, or the fact that their people did not plan for how big they would get, or that their people simply don't want to take care of them anymore. Who will help them, if not me? As stupid as it may sound to some people, I care about them. I care about them in groups, I care about them as individuals. It breaks my heart that 150 dogs were euthanized without any evaluation in Indiana, simply because they were seized from a dog-fighting ring. Many of them were just puppies, who had not yet been trained to fight. It breaks my heart that millions of animals are euthanized every year because they were abandoned, and no one cared enough to adopt them. It breaks my heart that I am not able to take all of these needy animals and care for them, protect them. All I can do is what I can do.
I know the animals at Best Friends, well, the cats, mostly. It's more relaxing to work with the cats. The dogs are a little too high-energy for me. I know them the way their handlers know them: as individuals. I don't know them as well, but I appreciate the time that I am able to give them, and I like to think that they appreciate it, too. Visit the Best Friends website - www.bestfriends.org - to get an idea of what this sanctuary is like. Take a look at the animals that I have come to know and care for:
This is Gimble. He and his brother Ty were born with a neurological disorder that makes them lurch and wobble when they walk, as if they're drunk. They can eat out of their food bowls, drink from their water dishes, and use their litter boxes, but they will probably never be adopted, just because they're a little different.
This is Peepers. She's completely blind, but she still gets around fairly easily. She tends to stay on the ground because she can't judge the height or length of tables or chairs, but she's very sweet. If she senses that someone is near enough to pet her, she'll rear up on her hind legs and reach for them with her front paws. She will probably never be adopted, because it's always a challenge to take on animals with disabilities. They become ousted from society, just like humans with disabilities are sometimes. The difference is that a disabled human is not likely to be euthanized because of it.
This is Vante. She is a beautiful cat with very affectionate personality. She loves to ride on people's shoulders and purr against the back of their heads. She seems like a creature of the air, staying mostly on shelves and table tops and only venturing to the floor for food. She has been adopted several times, and returned to Best Friends every single time. Why? Because she has a digestive disorder that involves incontinence, and she cannot always make it to her litter box in time. She will probably never find a forever home, because for most people her loving nature does not outweigh the messes she can't help but make.
This is Peanut (above) and Bubba Lou (below). They are both paralyzed in their hind legs. Peanut was shot, and lost the use of her hind legs. She is able to get around by scooting around on her front legs. Bubba Lou was rescued by Best Friends during one of their special trips to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. He had been hit by a car, leaving his hind legs mangled and broken, but thankfully pain-free. He has now had both of them removed, in order to improve his mobility. It's probable that neither of these cats will be adopted. Their paralysis has also made them incontinent, and as I said before, it's difficult to take in animals with disabilities.So why do I waste my time helping animals rather than humans? Because if I don't, who else will?
Monday, April 13, 2009
A Little Light Reading
I was inspired by a friend's blog posting to update any interested parties on my current reading (she always has such good ideas). I love to read. As mentioned in a previous posting of mine, books are my drug of choice. There are few things that I can do for hours at a time without needing to break for trivial things like food, sleep, etc. Reading is one of them. When I take some new purchase home from the bookstore (especially if I've been anticipating it), only my training, instilled in me by my mother in her hope that I would function like a normal human being, prevents me from cutting myself off from the outside world completely. The very real possibility exists that I could end up in a hermit-like state, only venturing out to replenish my supply of food, darting furtively through crowds of outsiders at the grocery store and only relaxing when I return home, victorious. A few things prevent me from doing this: 1) I have no income, other than my job, that would sustain this lifestyle - I can't pay the rent without money, and I don't have a place to keep my books without an apartment. 2) Contrary to popular belief, I do not loathe all human contact - just most of it. I suppose there would be a point, eventually, when I would want to interact with another person, even if it's only the clerk at the bookstore. To my mother's relief, my addiction to the written word does not quite surpass the requirement of living and working in society (as long as I can get my "fixes").
For those who haven't yet quit reading this post to go on to more interesting things, here is a brief overview of my recent and immediate future reading:
Coming out April 14 (FINALLY!): Bloodhound, by Tamora Pierce
The second installment of Pierce's Beka Cooper series, Bloodhound promises to be just as good, if not better, than Terrier. By now Beka has finished her year in training to be a Provost's Guardswoman, and will soon be a junior partner to a senior Guard (we'll see how well this turns out - she was good with Tunstall and Goodwin, but Beka's got her own way of doing things). My guess (soon to be proved wrong, I'm sure) is that she'll tackle an illegal slave-trading operation, probably made complicated by her sort of love-interest, Rosto the Piper. At the end of Terrier, Rosto had secured his claim to the title of "Rogue", the king of the criminals. This should prove to be interesting!
Coming out sometime in May: The Last Olympian, by Rick Riordan
This is the fifth and probably final installment of Riordan's wonderful series Percy Jackson and the Olympians. For those of you who may be ignorant of this series, let me encourage you to at least read the first book, The Lightning Thief. In this book, Percy Jackson realizes that he is the half-mortal son of Posiedon, and that the gods and goddesses of Ancient Greece have adapted and hidden themselves to survive in modern culture. In The Last Olympian, Percy will come up against the Titan Kronos yet again, and finally understand the meaning of the prophecy that could change the world, and his life, forever. Riordan's engaging narrative and intricate plots are worth reading, no matter what your age.
Just finished reading this week: Lies My Teacher Told Me, by James Loewen
Lies My Teacher Told Me is an astute analysis of the way U.S. history is being taught in public schools, based primarily on a review of the most popular textbooks for said classes. Loewen barely skims the surface of the most glaring incongruities between our history and what is taught from the textbooks. His topics range from the truth about the first Thanksgiving to the treatment and analysis of events in the 2000s. I guarantee that you will learn something, and you will probably be shocked.
Just finished reading a few months ago: The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents, by Terry Pratchett
On the suface, a wonderful and exciting story about a street-wise cat and his partners in crime, a band of intelligent rats. Maurice (the cat) and the rats move from town to town, giving the people a "plague" of rats and then cashing in by having a piper (who is in on the scam) lure them away. All of that changes when they come to a town called Bath. For those of you who are brave enough to dig deeper, it is a deep exploration of themes like societal structure, ethics, and death. It is much more than it appears to be, trust me.
Currently reading: Cynicism from Diogenes to Dilbert, by Ian Cutler
I was inspired to order this book after reading a newspaper article about Cynicism as philosophical thought. I learned about one of the founders of Cynicism, the Greek philosopher Diogenes. Most of what is taught of and about Diogenes is anecdotal, as writing down the tenets of Cynicism would be completely contrary to its intention. Diogenes lived in a barrel, rolling it wherever he wished to go. According to lore he walked through the streets with a lit lantern in full daylight, and when people asked him what he was doing, he replied "Looking for an honest man." Alexander the Great was purportedly an admirer of Diogenes, and upon finding the philosopher lying on the ground and basking in the sun, introduced himself. Alexander offered to do him any favor he wished, and Diogenes, after some thought, asked him to move out of the way of his sunlight. Though Cynicism is widely believed to be something negative, the orginal thought behind it is not. Cynics strove to disabuse society of any illusions that it may have about itself. Animals were to be admired for their lack of self-denial. They never pretended to be anything other than what they were, and that was something to be emulated. Cynicism has evolved over the years as a way for people to protect themselves when they believe that society has become unbearable. In other words, it's my kind of philosophy!
So that's a small taste of what I have been reading, and hope to in the future. Let me know if you have any suggestions, or if you have any questions about these!
For those who haven't yet quit reading this post to go on to more interesting things, here is a brief overview of my recent and immediate future reading:
Coming out April 14 (FINALLY!): Bloodhound, by Tamora Pierce
The second installment of Pierce's Beka Cooper series, Bloodhound promises to be just as good, if not better, than Terrier. By now Beka has finished her year in training to be a Provost's Guardswoman, and will soon be a junior partner to a senior Guard (we'll see how well this turns out - she was good with Tunstall and Goodwin, but Beka's got her own way of doing things). My guess (soon to be proved wrong, I'm sure) is that she'll tackle an illegal slave-trading operation, probably made complicated by her sort of love-interest, Rosto the Piper. At the end of Terrier, Rosto had secured his claim to the title of "Rogue", the king of the criminals. This should prove to be interesting!
Coming out sometime in May: The Last Olympian, by Rick Riordan
This is the fifth and probably final installment of Riordan's wonderful series Percy Jackson and the Olympians. For those of you who may be ignorant of this series, let me encourage you to at least read the first book, The Lightning Thief. In this book, Percy Jackson realizes that he is the half-mortal son of Posiedon, and that the gods and goddesses of Ancient Greece have adapted and hidden themselves to survive in modern culture. In The Last Olympian, Percy will come up against the Titan Kronos yet again, and finally understand the meaning of the prophecy that could change the world, and his life, forever. Riordan's engaging narrative and intricate plots are worth reading, no matter what your age.
Just finished reading this week: Lies My Teacher Told Me, by James Loewen
Lies My Teacher Told Me is an astute analysis of the way U.S. history is being taught in public schools, based primarily on a review of the most popular textbooks for said classes. Loewen barely skims the surface of the most glaring incongruities between our history and what is taught from the textbooks. His topics range from the truth about the first Thanksgiving to the treatment and analysis of events in the 2000s. I guarantee that you will learn something, and you will probably be shocked.
Just finished reading a few months ago: The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents, by Terry Pratchett
On the suface, a wonderful and exciting story about a street-wise cat and his partners in crime, a band of intelligent rats. Maurice (the cat) and the rats move from town to town, giving the people a "plague" of rats and then cashing in by having a piper (who is in on the scam) lure them away. All of that changes when they come to a town called Bath. For those of you who are brave enough to dig deeper, it is a deep exploration of themes like societal structure, ethics, and death. It is much more than it appears to be, trust me.
Currently reading: Cynicism from Diogenes to Dilbert, by Ian Cutler
I was inspired to order this book after reading a newspaper article about Cynicism as philosophical thought. I learned about one of the founders of Cynicism, the Greek philosopher Diogenes. Most of what is taught of and about Diogenes is anecdotal, as writing down the tenets of Cynicism would be completely contrary to its intention. Diogenes lived in a barrel, rolling it wherever he wished to go. According to lore he walked through the streets with a lit lantern in full daylight, and when people asked him what he was doing, he replied "Looking for an honest man." Alexander the Great was purportedly an admirer of Diogenes, and upon finding the philosopher lying on the ground and basking in the sun, introduced himself. Alexander offered to do him any favor he wished, and Diogenes, after some thought, asked him to move out of the way of his sunlight. Though Cynicism is widely believed to be something negative, the orginal thought behind it is not. Cynics strove to disabuse society of any illusions that it may have about itself. Animals were to be admired for their lack of self-denial. They never pretended to be anything other than what they were, and that was something to be emulated. Cynicism has evolved over the years as a way for people to protect themselves when they believe that society has become unbearable. In other words, it's my kind of philosophy!
So that's a small taste of what I have been reading, and hope to in the future. Let me know if you have any suggestions, or if you have any questions about these!
Monday, March 30, 2009
Happiest place on Earth?
Disneyland bills itself as "the happiest place on Earth." Why does Disney think that it can make this claim? Is it because after you wait in line to buy an entrance ticket, then wait in line to enter, you are magically transported back into a state of childlike wonder once you make it past the body-counters at the gate? Or is it because when you pose with a beloved Disney character (after waiting in line), smiling wide enough to break your face, you still know at the back of your mind that underneath the guise of the happy, waving character beside you is a sweaty underpaid actor who couldn't care less about posing with you - all they can think about is the long line of people behind you and how many more damn pictures they have to pose for before the end of their shift. Perhaps the happiness comes from ten-dollar chili dogs accompanied by a three-dollar Coke, which you are able to acquire after waiting in line. Maybe the happiness spills over from the many small children, who signify their happiness by screaming and throwing hugely impressive tantrums.
Don't get me wrong - there are a few things that I really love about Disneyland. I love Space Mountain, Pirates of the Caribbean, and the Haunted Mansion. I love the theatre of the place - all of the amazing set dressing and costuming. I love the structures - the buildings, the rides, all of it. That said, one day at Disneyland every few years is plenty of the experience for me. My love of the craft of Disneyland is outweighed by my intense dislike of people (in general). Especially lots and lots of people in cramped circumstances. It's amazing, isn't it, that Disneyland (the happiest place on Earth, in case you forgot) is a lot like a Communist state - the few who can afford it receive special treatment, and everyone else gets to wait in line. What's even more amazing is that people pay lots of money for the privilege to do so.
If Disneyland is the happiest place on Earth, then I have little hope for happiness. If it isn't the happiest place on Earth, is it instead the place "where dreams come true"? What kind of dreams are people having if that's true? Their dream is to herd their unhappy children through a sweltering maze of people, subject them to being held by large, frightening creatures and whirled through the air in strange machines? What sadistic people we are. Why aren't we dreaming about world peace or saving endangered species of plants and animals?
The fact is that Disneyland, while it can make for a good time, should not be an example of "the happiest place on Earth" or a place "where dreams come true." What it should be is a fun-house mirror - a distorted reflection of ourselves. Perhaps to some of us, this reflection has made us look taller, slimmer - something that we want to obtain. To others, the result of this false happiness is ugly and twisted. It may be wonderful on the surface, but the distortion, the unnaturalness of it always lurks beneath. Keep an eye to the true heart of a thing, if you want to know what it actually is.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Geekiness
Recently a friend of mine posted a new blog entry about the definition of "cool". This friend had expressed some annoyance that a person she knew had characterized an obnoxious acquaintance of hers as "cool". This led her to wonder what truly makes someone "cool" - is "coolness" based on inclusive or exclusive criteria? My friend's blog entry made me think about "cool" as well - is there only one kind of "cool"? I suppose it depends on who you ask. If you look at it a certain way, there are as many types of "cool" as there are hobbies, genres, fan clubs, skills, etc. I might think that a certain pastime is complete waste of time, while someone else might devote large amounts of time and income in pursuit of it. Does this mean that this other person is not as "cool" as I am? If you ask me, the answer is yes. Not that I'm an expert, but here are a few different types of "cool." See if you can guess which "cool" category I might belong to (don't let the title of this blog entry give it away):
"Teen-cool": "Teen-cool" is a very exclusive kind of cool, although its only requirement is to be within the ages of thirteen and nineteen. Kids who are younger than thirteen can't wait to be teens - that's when the world will start to take you seriously. That's when you get to start doing the really grown-up things, like taking a driver's ed class or going on dates. That's when you're finally out from under your parents' thumb, with the freedom you know that you deserve. Those of you who are in your post-teen years are no doubt wiping away tears of involuntary laughter. Life is never what you expect it to be, especially when you try to pin it down with arbitrary deadlines - "Once I reach this age, life will be so much simpler, etc." Teens deal with the disappointment of their teenage years by trying to be "cool". "Teen-cool" is really nothing more than trying desperately to impress your peers instead of your parents. It is the height of embarrassment to have a sibling (older or younger) acknowledge you at school - God forbid one of your parents shows up! The only way to stay "teen-cool" is to disavow any connection with anyone who isn't a teenager - unless they happen to be really cool in a different way.
"Athletic-cool": There is a very common name for someone who is "athletic-cool". Anyone? That's right - jock. These are the people who can do almost anything that requires physical dexterity. These are the people who, in your high school gym class, no matter which sport the class happened to be "studying" at the time, somehow played the games as if generation upon generation of their family had been painstakingly cultivated and bred down to produce the perfect athlete. These are the people whose veins run with a combination of maximum-capacity oxygen-carrying red blood cells and Gatorade (with some steroids thrown in for good measure). These are the people who are born knowing the rules of football, or baseball, or basketball (and every method to circumvent those rules when the referee isn't watching). These were the people who passed U.S. History by showing up three times and having their finals graded on a curve.
"Geek-cool": This kind of "cool" is very rarely recognized by anyone outside it. "Geek-cool" is characterized by an excessive devotion to something with no practical physical value. This could be almost anything: stamps, comic books, video games, movies, computers, books, etc. This type of "cool" has its own exclusivity - not that people are beating down the door to join in. "Geek-cool" is based on knowledge. Whether or not this knowledge is considered useless by the rest of the world is irrelevant. It takes time to learn both of the Elvish alphabets and the Dwarvish alphabet and become fluent/literate in these made-up languages. It takes time to memorize the call-sign of every Imperial Storm-trooper in all six of the Star Wars movies (though technically in Episodes 1-3 the Storm-troopers were still part of a Republic). It takes time to go through the trailer of the next big comic book movie frame-by-frame to make sure that they're staying as true as possible to the original story. People who are "geek-cool" suffer the derision of almost all other types of cool - hence the lack of recognition. Geeks suffer for their coolness. They not only put in the time to learn the useless things that they know, they also have to put up with the endless torment inflicted upon them by - to pick a group at random - people who are "athletic-cool".
I'm not saying that any of these types of "cool" are necessarily better than the others. Some are just smarter.
"Teen-cool": "Teen-cool" is a very exclusive kind of cool, although its only requirement is to be within the ages of thirteen and nineteen. Kids who are younger than thirteen can't wait to be teens - that's when the world will start to take you seriously. That's when you get to start doing the really grown-up things, like taking a driver's ed class or going on dates. That's when you're finally out from under your parents' thumb, with the freedom you know that you deserve. Those of you who are in your post-teen years are no doubt wiping away tears of involuntary laughter. Life is never what you expect it to be, especially when you try to pin it down with arbitrary deadlines - "Once I reach this age, life will be so much simpler, etc." Teens deal with the disappointment of their teenage years by trying to be "cool". "Teen-cool" is really nothing more than trying desperately to impress your peers instead of your parents. It is the height of embarrassment to have a sibling (older or younger) acknowledge you at school - God forbid one of your parents shows up! The only way to stay "teen-cool" is to disavow any connection with anyone who isn't a teenager - unless they happen to be really cool in a different way.
"Athletic-cool": There is a very common name for someone who is "athletic-cool". Anyone? That's right - jock. These are the people who can do almost anything that requires physical dexterity. These are the people who, in your high school gym class, no matter which sport the class happened to be "studying" at the time, somehow played the games as if generation upon generation of their family had been painstakingly cultivated and bred down to produce the perfect athlete. These are the people whose veins run with a combination of maximum-capacity oxygen-carrying red blood cells and Gatorade (with some steroids thrown in for good measure). These are the people who are born knowing the rules of football, or baseball, or basketball (and every method to circumvent those rules when the referee isn't watching). These were the people who passed U.S. History by showing up three times and having their finals graded on a curve.
"Geek-cool": This kind of "cool" is very rarely recognized by anyone outside it. "Geek-cool" is characterized by an excessive devotion to something with no practical physical value. This could be almost anything: stamps, comic books, video games, movies, computers, books, etc. This type of "cool" has its own exclusivity - not that people are beating down the door to join in. "Geek-cool" is based on knowledge. Whether or not this knowledge is considered useless by the rest of the world is irrelevant. It takes time to learn both of the Elvish alphabets and the Dwarvish alphabet and become fluent/literate in these made-up languages. It takes time to memorize the call-sign of every Imperial Storm-trooper in all six of the Star Wars movies (though technically in Episodes 1-3 the Storm-troopers were still part of a Republic). It takes time to go through the trailer of the next big comic book movie frame-by-frame to make sure that they're staying as true as possible to the original story. People who are "geek-cool" suffer the derision of almost all other types of cool - hence the lack of recognition. Geeks suffer for their coolness. They not only put in the time to learn the useless things that they know, they also have to put up with the endless torment inflicted upon them by - to pick a group at random - people who are "athletic-cool".
I'm not saying that any of these types of "cool" are necessarily better than the others. Some are just smarter.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
It's Coming...
One of the advantages to living in the area that I do is that winter comes in late and leaves early. I have always been slightly skeptical of people who claim that they suffer from SAD, a clever little acronym made up of the following words: Seasonal Affective Disorder. This "disorder" is basically just cabin fever; the frustration and depression that people feel during the winter months. The days are shorter and darker, the weather is cold and unforgiving, and people tend to gain weight because there's nothing to do but sit curled up in a blanket with some comfort food. Married couples also tend to have a lot of children with birthdays in the fall.
Lots of people go through this, myself included. I know that it happens, but in my opinion, claiming to have an actual disorder is just going to perpetuate the depression - "I'm so sad and depressed that I must have a disorder, which makes me even sadder and more depressed." The people who don't claim to have this "disorder" are either winter people (who I really don't understand), or people like me. I get through the winter by thinking about what always comes after it: spring. Summer is my favorite season, but spring is the season that makes you believe in summer. Once the days start getting longer, once the weather starts to turn, I can believe that summer is coming. Not only that, but spring is a pleasant in-between season. The plants start to wake up and remember that they're alive and they're supposed to flower and be green. Spring is a season of recovery. The natural cycle of life is visible everywhere - animals are having their babies, fruit trees blossom - a brief sort of spring formal for them.
The days are warming up. It was sixty-two degrees yesterday, and today it might get up to seventy. The sun doesn't seem so cold and distant anymore. The dreaded winter coat takes up long-term residence in the closet. Scraping ice from the windows of your car becomes a memory, as does shivering in the driver's seat while waiting for the hot air to come out of the heater. Wearing sandals becomes possible. Leaving home with a light jacket or no jacket at all - a thing of beauty. Anticipating the re-opening of the apartment swimming pool. The sublime experience of lingering outside, motionless, eyes closed and basking in the sun. This is the kind of season that gives me hope for the future. However dismal things may seem during the winter, the simple yet subtle boost that warmer weather gives me is amazing. For any of you who may still be trapped in the seasonal depression known more commonly as "winter," feel free to breeze on down. We can enjoy it together.
Lots of people go through this, myself included. I know that it happens, but in my opinion, claiming to have an actual disorder is just going to perpetuate the depression - "I'm so sad and depressed that I must have a disorder, which makes me even sadder and more depressed." The people who don't claim to have this "disorder" are either winter people (who I really don't understand), or people like me. I get through the winter by thinking about what always comes after it: spring. Summer is my favorite season, but spring is the season that makes you believe in summer. Once the days start getting longer, once the weather starts to turn, I can believe that summer is coming. Not only that, but spring is a pleasant in-between season. The plants start to wake up and remember that they're alive and they're supposed to flower and be green. Spring is a season of recovery. The natural cycle of life is visible everywhere - animals are having their babies, fruit trees blossom - a brief sort of spring formal for them.
The days are warming up. It was sixty-two degrees yesterday, and today it might get up to seventy. The sun doesn't seem so cold and distant anymore. The dreaded winter coat takes up long-term residence in the closet. Scraping ice from the windows of your car becomes a memory, as does shivering in the driver's seat while waiting for the hot air to come out of the heater. Wearing sandals becomes possible. Leaving home with a light jacket or no jacket at all - a thing of beauty. Anticipating the re-opening of the apartment swimming pool. The sublime experience of lingering outside, motionless, eyes closed and basking in the sun. This is the kind of season that gives me hope for the future. However dismal things may seem during the winter, the simple yet subtle boost that warmer weather gives me is amazing. For any of you who may still be trapped in the seasonal depression known more commonly as "winter," feel free to breeze on down. We can enjoy it together.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Game of Inches
Recent events have reminded me about the fragile nature of life. It's something that I usually don't think about until I'm faced with death. Death is the reason that people are religious, why religion came about in the first place. Whatever it is about humanity's "higher consciousness" caused people to ask questions: Why do people die? Is that it? Are they gone forever - at least, the part of them that is uniquely "them"? If they're not gone forever, then where is it that they go? What happens to them when they get there? Somehow, people came up with answers for these questions, because the alternative - no answers at all - was too horrifying for people to live with. It's all a matter of comfort. It is comforting to believe that death isn't simply the end of someone - of everyone. It is comforting to believe that death isn't simply random sequences of events, that there might be some greater purpose behind it all. I suppose that it might be comforting, regardless of any "heaven" or "hell" that a person may end up in after they die, to know that they still exist.
I'm not saying that all religion is meaningless and that there is no God (or whoever). I just believe that if there is an omniscient being (beings?) keeping tabs on us, then I think it very presumptuous of us to believe that we know how this being works, thinks, or exercises whatever supreme power it might possess. I cannot make a definitive statement either way (and who would accept it if I did? I'm not an authority on the subject). I think that people (over very long periods of time) have projected human characteristics on this being because they want to think that they know this being, or at least that it knows them (and I'm not saying that it doesn't - it's impossible to know).
A discussion on religion and the existence is God was not really the course that I wanted this posting to take. I haven't been thinking so much about religion and death, but rather about life. A gun barrel tilted just a few degrees to the right or the left would have missed the femoral artery completely. The same barrel turned 180 degress would have seriously wounded or killed another person I know. A car five more miles to the east would have been closer to the hospital. The same car five miles to the west wouldn't have had a chance of getting to the hospital in time. How many times a day are we inches away from death without even realizing it? Leaving 30 minutes early from work would have put a car right in the middle of a deadly freeway accident. If a person had been looking in a different direction at a certain moment, they would have stepped into the path of a vehicle. Life is a game of inches, and we don't even know when we're playing for our lives.
I'm not saying that all religion is meaningless and that there is no God (or whoever). I just believe that if there is an omniscient being (beings?) keeping tabs on us, then I think it very presumptuous of us to believe that we know how this being works, thinks, or exercises whatever supreme power it might possess. I cannot make a definitive statement either way (and who would accept it if I did? I'm not an authority on the subject). I think that people (over very long periods of time) have projected human characteristics on this being because they want to think that they know this being, or at least that it knows them (and I'm not saying that it doesn't - it's impossible to know).
A discussion on religion and the existence is God was not really the course that I wanted this posting to take. I haven't been thinking so much about religion and death, but rather about life. A gun barrel tilted just a few degrees to the right or the left would have missed the femoral artery completely. The same barrel turned 180 degress would have seriously wounded or killed another person I know. A car five more miles to the east would have been closer to the hospital. The same car five miles to the west wouldn't have had a chance of getting to the hospital in time. How many times a day are we inches away from death without even realizing it? Leaving 30 minutes early from work would have put a car right in the middle of a deadly freeway accident. If a person had been looking in a different direction at a certain moment, they would have stepped into the path of a vehicle. Life is a game of inches, and we don't even know when we're playing for our lives.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Observations
The littlest things are the most interesting. It's all about noticing things. That's what stand-up comics do for a living. The reason why the really good comics are so funny is because they are speaking the truth - or at least a part of it, anyway. It's a fact that the things that make you feel the most - the angriest, the happiest, the saddest - are the things you know are true. Here are some small observations that I have found to be true:
There is an inverse relationship between penis/brain size and how "pimped" his ride is.
No matter how weird you think your family is, they can always get weirder.
Futons may sound like a good idea, but your butt wears out long before you get your money's worth. In a related observation, leather or vinyl furniture is never a good idea! They are cold to the touch during the winter, and act like an adhesive during the summer.
Time is relative. An entire lunch hour may seem to go by in 20 minutes, while the span of time between 4:40 pm and 5:00 pm seems like an hour.
A car is not a cloak of invisibility. Even though you may be alone in your car, people can still see you when you pick your nose.
Hot dogs are not food. If you don't know for sure what it's made of, DON'T EAT IT! (Neither is baloney.) (You may know what Sloppy Joes are made of, but don't eat them either. They're just gross.)
There is never a good time to do laundry.
Always chew tortilla chips thoroughly. They have sharp edges.
There is nothing amusing about people bringing out the worst in themselves and others. I'm looking at you, reality TV!
Nothing looks so appetizing as when you tell yourself you can't have it.
At 3:00 am, the Wonder Broom really is amazing.
There is always something that you don't know. Never assume anything.
Speaking loudly will not help a non-English speaker to understand you. Saying "el" and adding "-o" to the end of every word does not mean you're speaking Spanish.
So those are some random observations. I invite you to make your own - why are things the way they are? Find out!
There is an inverse relationship between penis/brain size and how "pimped" his ride is.
No matter how weird you think your family is, they can always get weirder.
Futons may sound like a good idea, but your butt wears out long before you get your money's worth. In a related observation, leather or vinyl furniture is never a good idea! They are cold to the touch during the winter, and act like an adhesive during the summer.
Time is relative. An entire lunch hour may seem to go by in 20 minutes, while the span of time between 4:40 pm and 5:00 pm seems like an hour.
A car is not a cloak of invisibility. Even though you may be alone in your car, people can still see you when you pick your nose.
Hot dogs are not food. If you don't know for sure what it's made of, DON'T EAT IT! (Neither is baloney.) (You may know what Sloppy Joes are made of, but don't eat them either. They're just gross.)
There is never a good time to do laundry.
Always chew tortilla chips thoroughly. They have sharp edges.
There is nothing amusing about people bringing out the worst in themselves and others. I'm looking at you, reality TV!
Nothing looks so appetizing as when you tell yourself you can't have it.
At 3:00 am, the Wonder Broom really is amazing.
There is always something that you don't know. Never assume anything.
Speaking loudly will not help a non-English speaker to understand you. Saying "el" and adding "-o" to the end of every word does not mean you're speaking Spanish.
So those are some random observations. I invite you to make your own - why are things the way they are? Find out!
Friday, January 16, 2009
Portrait of An Apartment Complex
It's odd what you notice when you pause for a moment of quiet reflection and different things come together to create a new perception of something. Sometimes your perception is so altered that you realize that you never really saw it in the first place. Many people would say that this kind of renewed vision comes only after you have a lot of time on your hands, and perhaps that's true some of the time. I would add that in those situations, some sort of artificial stimulant is probably involved as well. I remember during the summer I worked at the Utah Shakespearean Festival I was sitting with my room-mate on our small balcony, listening to the conversation of the guys in the apartment below us. The revelation of their conversation consisted mostly of the following:
Guy 1: This is good pizza.
Guy 2: (laughs) Yeah. I like the olives.
Guy 1: And the artichoke hearts.
(Pause)
Guy 1: Hey, have you ever really looked at an artichoke heart?
Guy 2: What do you mean?
Guy 1: Well, 'cause there's like, all these tiny little holes in 'em. See? Right there.
Guy 2: Ohhhhh, yeah! There's tons!
Mind you, this is only an approximation of the dialogue, but the gist is there. My room-mate and I were cracking up.
Back to the matter of new perceptions, however. I have recently begun to look at my apartment complex in a new light. There are a few things that I've noticed about it that seem fairly unique. First of all: my mailbox. We have the standard apartment mailbox which consists of a large metal box containing smaller metal cubes, one for each apartment. This mailbox is situated right next to the large dumpster, which is convenient for the disposal of ads that you never wanted in the first place, but less convenient when your neighbor has just thrown away what smells like a month's worth of burnt popcorn and rotten tomatoes. What makes my mailbox unique is not its proximity to the dumpster, however, but rather its close neighbor: The Hates-Life Lamp. The Hates-Life Lamp is a large street lamp that is supposed to illuminate the mailbox at night, as well as the surrounding parking lot. And most of the time, it fulfills its purpose. The reason that I have come to believe that it hates life is because whenever I come out to check my mail after dark, the lamp flickers out, leaving me to fumble with my mail key in the dark while checking nervously over my shoulder for Spends-A-Lot-Of-Quality-Time-With-His-Car Guy. Perhaps I'm being too hard on Hates-Life Lamp. After all, I have never seen anyone else check their mail at night, so maybe the lamp is not so much Hates-Life Lamp, but more Hates-Bri Lamp.
What was that? You're curious about Spends-A-Lot-Of-Quality-Time-With-His-Car Guy? Well, by all means, let me enlighten you. As you may have guessed from his name, this guy spends (in my opinion) an inordinate amount of time with his car. What's so strange about that? I know that some of you may be asking yourselves that. After all, lots of guys spend time on their cars. What makes Spends-A-Lot-Of-Quality-Time-With-His-Car Guy unique is not so much the amount of time he spends with his car, but what he actually does. You see, this guy is an older man who spends a lot of time parking his car (a new-ish Buick) and sitting in it. Almost every time I see this guy park, he backs into his parking space. Not so strange. But he does it about three times. Not because his first attempt wasn't good enough. For some inexplicable reason, he feels compelled to park and re-park until his Buick is exactly parallel with the guide lines, with the same amount of space on either side. He'll park once, open the door and evaluate, then park again, open the door again, etc. And when he's finally satisfied with the spacial relationship between his car and his parking space, he sits in his Buick for about ten minutes. God knows what he's doing in there.
I could go on about my neighbor next door who likes to play bass, most often when I'm more tired than usual and really need to get to sleep. Or perhaps I could mention my neighbor downstairs on the opposite side who's kind of cute but is also gay, unfortunately for me. His partner is also kind of cute, which is equally unfortunate for me. I could also talk about the lady I work with who lives on the other side of the apartment complex. She's a very nice lady and we get on well at work, but when she invited me over to watch a movie, I politely declined. Not because it would have been awkward, but because I know that she keeps tarantulas as pets.
So that's a portrait of my apartment complex. All right, maybe it's not a portrait. A nice school photo, then. Okay, okay. A candid.
Guy 1: This is good pizza.
Guy 2: (laughs) Yeah. I like the olives.
Guy 1: And the artichoke hearts.
(Pause)
Guy 1: Hey, have you ever really looked at an artichoke heart?
Guy 2: What do you mean?
Guy 1: Well, 'cause there's like, all these tiny little holes in 'em. See? Right there.
Guy 2: Ohhhhh, yeah! There's tons!
Mind you, this is only an approximation of the dialogue, but the gist is there. My room-mate and I were cracking up.
Back to the matter of new perceptions, however. I have recently begun to look at my apartment complex in a new light. There are a few things that I've noticed about it that seem fairly unique. First of all: my mailbox. We have the standard apartment mailbox which consists of a large metal box containing smaller metal cubes, one for each apartment. This mailbox is situated right next to the large dumpster, which is convenient for the disposal of ads that you never wanted in the first place, but less convenient when your neighbor has just thrown away what smells like a month's worth of burnt popcorn and rotten tomatoes. What makes my mailbox unique is not its proximity to the dumpster, however, but rather its close neighbor: The Hates-Life Lamp. The Hates-Life Lamp is a large street lamp that is supposed to illuminate the mailbox at night, as well as the surrounding parking lot. And most of the time, it fulfills its purpose. The reason that I have come to believe that it hates life is because whenever I come out to check my mail after dark, the lamp flickers out, leaving me to fumble with my mail key in the dark while checking nervously over my shoulder for Spends-A-Lot-Of-Quality-Time-With-His-Car Guy. Perhaps I'm being too hard on Hates-Life Lamp. After all, I have never seen anyone else check their mail at night, so maybe the lamp is not so much Hates-Life Lamp, but more Hates-Bri Lamp.
What was that? You're curious about Spends-A-Lot-Of-Quality-Time-With-His-Car Guy? Well, by all means, let me enlighten you. As you may have guessed from his name, this guy spends (in my opinion) an inordinate amount of time with his car. What's so strange about that? I know that some of you may be asking yourselves that. After all, lots of guys spend time on their cars. What makes Spends-A-Lot-Of-Quality-Time-With-His-Car Guy unique is not so much the amount of time he spends with his car, but what he actually does. You see, this guy is an older man who spends a lot of time parking his car (a new-ish Buick) and sitting in it. Almost every time I see this guy park, he backs into his parking space. Not so strange. But he does it about three times. Not because his first attempt wasn't good enough. For some inexplicable reason, he feels compelled to park and re-park until his Buick is exactly parallel with the guide lines, with the same amount of space on either side. He'll park once, open the door and evaluate, then park again, open the door again, etc. And when he's finally satisfied with the spacial relationship between his car and his parking space, he sits in his Buick for about ten minutes. God knows what he's doing in there.
I could go on about my neighbor next door who likes to play bass, most often when I'm more tired than usual and really need to get to sleep. Or perhaps I could mention my neighbor downstairs on the opposite side who's kind of cute but is also gay, unfortunately for me. His partner is also kind of cute, which is equally unfortunate for me. I could also talk about the lady I work with who lives on the other side of the apartment complex. She's a very nice lady and we get on well at work, but when she invited me over to watch a movie, I politely declined. Not because it would have been awkward, but because I know that she keeps tarantulas as pets.
So that's a portrait of my apartment complex. All right, maybe it's not a portrait. A nice school photo, then. Okay, okay. A candid.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Good Morning
6:17 AM
Still quiet. Not quite inclined to stir things up. Perhaps a little later. Definitely before the noisy thing goes off. If the human gets up before the noisy thing, usually it doesn't go off.
6:43 AM
Up on the bed. Waking the human: Stage One. Work from the feet first (though in emergencies, go directly to the head/face area, whatever you can reach). Slight foot movement under the sheets. Attack with extreme prejudice.
(THUMP)
6:44 AM
That was rude. The feet are not supposed to fight back. Back up on the bed. This time, focus on the stomach. Up on the dresser? Yes. Knock off a picture frame just because. Targeting stomach . . . locked. Bombs away!
(THUMP) (AAAAAH!) (THUMP)
6:45 AM
Victory. The human is up. No, no! Not to the bathroom first! Stupid human. Breakfast first! Not the crappy dry food. Breeeaaakfaaaasst! Breeeeaaakfaaaasst! (SCRATCH SCRATCH SCRATCH) Breeeeaaaakfaaaasst! Finally. Come on, come on, to the kitchen! That's where the breakfast is! They forget so easily. Oooh! Breakfast! Put it down, put it down! Ahhh.
(NOM NOM NOM NOM)
6:52 AM
(SLURP)
Not bad. Had better breakfasts in the past. Back up onto the bed. Still slightly warm under the covers. Time for the early-morning nap. Much more restful up here when the human isn't taking up the whole thing.
7:31 AM
Wha--what? Noooooo! No! Stupid human! Don't make the bed while I'm in it! No no no! (THUMP) Unfair. The human sleeps under the sheets all night.
(SHUN)
7:45 AM
Wait! The human is leaving already! No scratches? None? Wait! I'll come outside, too. (SLAM) Rude. See what kind of mess she comes home to.
Still quiet. Not quite inclined to stir things up. Perhaps a little later. Definitely before the noisy thing goes off. If the human gets up before the noisy thing, usually it doesn't go off.
6:43 AM
Up on the bed. Waking the human: Stage One. Work from the feet first (though in emergencies, go directly to the head/face area, whatever you can reach). Slight foot movement under the sheets. Attack with extreme prejudice.
(THUMP)
6:44 AM
That was rude. The feet are not supposed to fight back. Back up on the bed. This time, focus on the stomach. Up on the dresser? Yes. Knock off a picture frame just because. Targeting stomach . . . locked. Bombs away!
(THUMP) (AAAAAH!) (THUMP)
6:45 AM
Victory. The human is up. No, no! Not to the bathroom first! Stupid human. Breakfast first! Not the crappy dry food. Breeeaaakfaaaasst! Breeeeaaakfaaaasst! (SCRATCH SCRATCH SCRATCH) Breeeeaaaakfaaaasst! Finally. Come on, come on, to the kitchen! That's where the breakfast is! They forget so easily. Oooh! Breakfast! Put it down, put it down! Ahhh.
(NOM NOM NOM NOM)
6:52 AM
(SLURP)
Not bad. Had better breakfasts in the past. Back up onto the bed. Still slightly warm under the covers. Time for the early-morning nap. Much more restful up here when the human isn't taking up the whole thing.
7:31 AM
Wha--what? Noooooo! No! Stupid human! Don't make the bed while I'm in it! No no no! (THUMP) Unfair. The human sleeps under the sheets all night.
(SHUN)
7:45 AM
Wait! The human is leaving already! No scratches? None? Wait! I'll come outside, too. (SLAM) Rude. See what kind of mess she comes home to.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
The Best!
I was reading the New York Times today (at work, of course) and I read a piece by Stanley Fish in which he listed the ten movies that are, in his opinion, the best American movies. No doubt your interest has been piqued - which movies made the cut? Have you seen any of them? Perhaps one of your favorite movies is on the list? To satisfy your curiosity, here are Stanley's Top Ten:
1. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) starring Fredric March, Myrna Loy; dir. William Wyler
2. Sunset Blvd. (1950) starring William Holden, Gloria Swanson; dir. Billy Wilder
3. Double Indemnity (1944) starring Walter Neff, Barbara Stanwyck; dir. Billy Wilder
4. Shane (1953) starring Alan Ladd; dir. George Stevens
5. Red River (1948) starring John Wayne; dir. Howard Hawks
6. Raging Bull (1980) starring Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, Cathy Moriarty; dir. Martin Scorsese
7. Vertigo (1958) starring Jimmy Stewart; dir. Alfred Hitchcock
8. Groundhog Day (1993) starring Bill Murray, Andie MacDowell; dir. Harold Ramis
9. Meet Me in St. Louis (1944) starring Judie Garland, Margaret O'Brien; dir. Vincente Minnelli
10. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945) starring Peggy Ann Garner, James Dunn; dir. Elia Kazan
His honorable mentions include Quiz Show, The Wild Bunch, Nashville, My Darling Clementine, How Green Was My Valley, The Night of the Hunter, Lonely Are the Brave, Detective Story, All About Eve, and Ace in the Hole.
As a disclaimer (mine, not Mr. Fish's), please note that Stanley is an older gentlemen. This helped me to understand why eight out of ten of his picks were released prior to 1960, and the newest film in his list is Groundhog Day. There are 733 comments on Stanley's piece, most of them disagreeing with him and/or suggesting alternative films that exemplify American film-making. To me, this list read more like "My Favorite Films Growing Up, by Stanley Fish" than a truly accurate representation of the best domestic films. Because I know that you're all waiting for it, I now offer you my own "Top Ten Best American Films." (Disclaimer: my rating system is not written in stone. I hate having to choose my favorite movies. To me, it's how I would imagine parents would feel if they had to choose a favorite child - though perhaps that's a bad example. Lots of parents have favorites, even though they shouldn't! Anyway.) (Also, my list is limited to movies that I have seen.)
1. Casablanca (1942) starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman; dir. Michael Curtiz
2. Psycho (1960) starring Janet Leigh, Anthony Perkins; dir. Alfred Hitchcock
3. The Defiant Ones (1958) starring Sidney Poitier, Tony Curtis; dir. Stanley Cramer
4. On the Waterfront (1954) starring Marlon Brando; dir. Elia Kazan
5. The Godfather (1972) starring Marlon Brando, Al Pacino; dir. Francis Ford Coppola
6. Star Wars (1977) starring Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher; dir. George Lucas
7. Pulp Fiction (1994) starring John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson; dir. Quentin Tarantino
8. The Usual Suspects (1994) starring Kevin Spacey, Dean Keaton; dir. Bryan Singer
9. Schindler's List (1993) starring Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes; dir. Steven Spielberg
10. Philadelphia (1993) starring Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington; dir. Jonathan Demme
So that's it. Those are the ten movies that I believe are the best examples of American film-making. I know that there are those that may disagree with me, but since very few of them will read my blog, I feel secure in my choices. In fact, I'd like to take this opportunity to throw out a few honorable mentions: Fight Club, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Magnificent Seven, Some Like It Hot, The Great Escape, The Philadelphia Story, and Dr. Strangelove.
Now, some of you (you know who you are) may be thinking to yourselves "Hey! She's completely ignoring many time-honored classics - films that have made lists ever since they were made!" It's true. I am ignoring many of the films that you might learn about in a film class. But let's be serious: how many of you would have watched Citizen Kane if it hadn't been required viewing for said film class? I've seen it (for a film class), and I found it to be incredibly boring. And if you're still not satisfied with either my top ten or my honorable mentions, I invite you to make your own lists. Send me the link to your blog so that I can criticize your choices.
1. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) starring Fredric March, Myrna Loy; dir. William Wyler
2. Sunset Blvd. (1950) starring William Holden, Gloria Swanson; dir. Billy Wilder
3. Double Indemnity (1944) starring Walter Neff, Barbara Stanwyck; dir. Billy Wilder
4. Shane (1953) starring Alan Ladd; dir. George Stevens
5. Red River (1948) starring John Wayne; dir. Howard Hawks
6. Raging Bull (1980) starring Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, Cathy Moriarty; dir. Martin Scorsese
7. Vertigo (1958) starring Jimmy Stewart; dir. Alfred Hitchcock
8. Groundhog Day (1993) starring Bill Murray, Andie MacDowell; dir. Harold Ramis
9. Meet Me in St. Louis (1944) starring Judie Garland, Margaret O'Brien; dir. Vincente Minnelli
10. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945) starring Peggy Ann Garner, James Dunn; dir. Elia Kazan
His honorable mentions include Quiz Show, The Wild Bunch, Nashville, My Darling Clementine, How Green Was My Valley, The Night of the Hunter, Lonely Are the Brave, Detective Story, All About Eve, and Ace in the Hole.
As a disclaimer (mine, not Mr. Fish's), please note that Stanley is an older gentlemen. This helped me to understand why eight out of ten of his picks were released prior to 1960, and the newest film in his list is Groundhog Day. There are 733 comments on Stanley's piece, most of them disagreeing with him and/or suggesting alternative films that exemplify American film-making. To me, this list read more like "My Favorite Films Growing Up, by Stanley Fish" than a truly accurate representation of the best domestic films. Because I know that you're all waiting for it, I now offer you my own "Top Ten Best American Films." (Disclaimer: my rating system is not written in stone. I hate having to choose my favorite movies. To me, it's how I would imagine parents would feel if they had to choose a favorite child - though perhaps that's a bad example. Lots of parents have favorites, even though they shouldn't! Anyway.) (Also, my list is limited to movies that I have seen.)
1. Casablanca (1942) starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman; dir. Michael Curtiz
2. Psycho (1960) starring Janet Leigh, Anthony Perkins; dir. Alfred Hitchcock
3. The Defiant Ones (1958) starring Sidney Poitier, Tony Curtis; dir. Stanley Cramer
4. On the Waterfront (1954) starring Marlon Brando; dir. Elia Kazan
5. The Godfather (1972) starring Marlon Brando, Al Pacino; dir. Francis Ford Coppola
6. Star Wars (1977) starring Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher; dir. George Lucas
7. Pulp Fiction (1994) starring John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson; dir. Quentin Tarantino
8. The Usual Suspects (1994) starring Kevin Spacey, Dean Keaton; dir. Bryan Singer
9. Schindler's List (1993) starring Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes; dir. Steven Spielberg
10. Philadelphia (1993) starring Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington; dir. Jonathan Demme
So that's it. Those are the ten movies that I believe are the best examples of American film-making. I know that there are those that may disagree with me, but since very few of them will read my blog, I feel secure in my choices. In fact, I'd like to take this opportunity to throw out a few honorable mentions: Fight Club, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Magnificent Seven, Some Like It Hot, The Great Escape, The Philadelphia Story, and Dr. Strangelove.
Now, some of you (you know who you are) may be thinking to yourselves "Hey! She's completely ignoring many time-honored classics - films that have made lists ever since they were made!" It's true. I am ignoring many of the films that you might learn about in a film class. But let's be serious: how many of you would have watched Citizen Kane if it hadn't been required viewing for said film class? I've seen it (for a film class), and I found it to be incredibly boring. And if you're still not satisfied with either my top ten or my honorable mentions, I invite you to make your own lists. Send me the link to your blog so that I can criticize your choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)