as anyone see this video of "Jessi Slaughter" aka Kerligirl13? the original has been taken down, but here is a copy of the original.
The video has gone viral in the last few days because clearly the father says some fairly ridiculous stuff. But this video is such a great example of the problems with the internet and this generation. I "backtraced" the story, and if it's real, it's really quite sad. Basically, this 11 year old girl "Jessi Slaugher" posted a video of her self mouthing off at "haters". Saying stupid shit like people only hate her cause she's perfect and all the haters should get AIDS and die and all this needless trash talk. Now, this is a problem to begin with. Why is an 11 year old girl on the internet talking like that? No matter how you slice it, THAT is the parents fault and problem, and it's sickening. Awesome way to raise your child. Let's move beyond that to the rest of the story. In response to that original video, and I would imagine a lot more shit talking from Jessi Slaughter, a bunch of people have been teasing and threatening Jessi. Apparently some people went as far to either expose or make up a rumor about how Jessi had been molested. The details are unclear and seem untrue, but I believe it was made to seem like her father molested her. Like I said, I'm not clear on the details, but either way, people were talking about how she was molested. Now whether that is true or not, that type of information can ruin someone's life, ESPECIALLY an 11 year old. Even just the teasing and threatening in general is absolutely horrible. And that is the real problem. Even if this little girl was running her mouth, which she shouldn't have, the internet and/or local community teasing her, and threatening her, and telling people she was molested is so incredibly disgusting it hurts. If she was molested, you go to the police and let them handle it. Needless to say, if it's made up, the person responsible should be brought up on criminal charges. Whether the father's reaction is funny or not (it KIND OF is) people are being completely fleeced past the fact that this little girl's life is ruined. Millions of people have now seen this video, even if she moves she will be around people that have seen it. There is no way for her to live this down, not in the near future. Other children have killed themselves over stuff like this.
Why are people just so incredibly evil? Why are these parents not keeping better watch of their 11 year old? Why are adults molesting helpless children? Even if she wasn't molested, why are people so mean that they would treat someone like this just to get back at her being a brat? And why do people find this so funny? It's a sick, sick world we live in and it makes me absolutely horrified to bring children of my own into it.
(If "Jessi Slaughter" is just a troll like some people claim she is, then she is an absolute genius)
Monday, July 19, 2010
No Religion is the New Religion.
everyone realizes that believing in the Big Bang Theory and Evolution is a religion right?
re-li-gion: (noun) a cause, principal, or system of beliefs held with ardor and faith.
yes, there are other definitions of the word that involve a more traditional thought and use words like "God" and such, but that is still a definition out of Webster's dictionary. And honestly even if it wasn't part of the official definition, my point remains the same.
I find it borderline hilarious that millions of people all believe in a similar notion and consider themselves with out religion. You believe that the entire universe sprang from a "singularity" (even though no one can truly explain a singularity) 13.7 billion years ago. A belief that, depending on your version, more or less pre-existing matter and energy collected itself together and exploded and created the universe and whatever. Now I could go several directions here. I could point out that there has never been a proven method of dating the age of the planet. Any method that has been developed to show the age of billions or millions of years has also been scientifically proven wrong. So the age is just a guess and hoping it's correct. I could also point out that the scientific evidence of the theory and process of the Big Bang is weak at best even in it's own science. It too is once again a theory based off I suppose the most evidence available that people chose to put stock into. And even if you come at me with a bunch of scientific "evidence" of how it's 100% accurate, which I will then just find evidence of how it's in fact NOT 100% accurate, I will just come at you with an age old fun Christian question called "well, where did that come from?" And I'll keep saying "well, where did that come from?" no matter how far back you try to explain until you run out of stories. Oooh it's fun being ignorant isn't it?
Let's also talk about how evolution itself proves it's own faults. Darwin himself said that for evolution to be accurate, it must be progressive and adapt. That's obviously not a direct quote, but it's real close and I'm real lazy. Does evolution exist on some level? Of course it does, if nothing else all species learn as they progress. Humans in the last two thousand years are 100% proof of evolution on at least some levels. But animals are doing an amazing job at proving evolution on a massive level wrong. The number of animals that have become extinct are in themselves a pretty hard hit against evolution. But you can argue that they just didn't evolve fast enough I suppose, even though I was pretty sure they've had millions of years to do so. Let's take a look at the prairie dog. When hunting for food or just out and about, the prairie dog has scouts that get a top the highest point they can to keep an eye out for predators, the "highest point" being small bushes and mounds of dirt. This is an extremely important, if not the most important, method of their survival. So why in the hell can't they climb trees?!?! They completely lack the ability to climb trees. Aside from the fact that climbing trees would give them another place of escape, it would allow them for a better vantage point for look out. So why, in millions of years of evolution, have they not developed the ability to climb trees? Squirrels, chipmunks and about a thousand similar other animals can climb trees, so why can't they? Personally I feel they've had the time to adapt... something must be wrong here. Also, why are bats still blind? Progressive adaptive evolution would suggest they would have sight by now. But I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Sonar is a pretty sweet ability, sometimes.
Ok, so, at this point most people reading this blog are probably itching with fun facts to throw at me trying prove that evolution is real, and I can't wait. I feel confident enough that there is evidence to make that evidence at least questionable. And for that matter, I am not even here to actually disprove evolution or the big bang or any of that. I am in no way even saying that you are wrong if that's what you believe. What I am saying is that there is no set in stone, 100% accurate, never been proven wrong evidence that this is how we came to be. "Science is not an exact science." Which means you are putting faith into this theory. Which means you are believing in "a cause, principal, or system of beliefs held with ardor and faith." RELIGION ALERT!!!
Let me save you some trouble and point out I don't buy every word the bible says, especially not on a literal level. It is events and stories collected by many people over many years and placed into a single book with the intent of getting many people to share a similar belief. Sounds like a history book to me. Unless of course you were there when George Washington crossed the Delaware, in which case I apologize. You weren't? It's just a story that people have retold and we're all choosing to believe is 100% historically accurate? Wow, no shit. One of my favorite phrases ever is "pre-recorded history". Hahaha, are you serious? Pre-recorded history? It hurts my brain to even say. You're telling me we are now basing our "pre-recorded history" off not even the words of someone else but just some random nick-knacks we dig up and give a story? "Oh, here's a tomb with some shiny clothes and some gold in it, he must have been a great emperor!" Or, perhaps he was a flamboyant thief with a great real estate agent? Or maybe some smart ass opened up that tomb hundreds of years ago and thought it would be hilarious to dump extra shit inside just to fuck with the idiots in the years to come. HOW CAN YOU HAVE KNOWN HISTORY IF IT WAS NEVER RECORDED?! We weren't there. Did you know that no portraits of any kings before like the 1800s are real? (I wish I could remember which king was the first, but I can't find it online at the moment). Most portraits of older kings and other leaders were in fact just of fairly random people they had stand in as a subject so the king or whom ever did not have to. But we've done a pretty good job believing that those portraits are what they looked like, or at least most people have. I won't even go into how many times we've discovered new history to prove our pre-existing "known" history wrong. You can look that stuff up yourself, but it will fry your brainards. Realistically ALL history involves faith. For all we know, the entire world got together in let's say 1640 and said "let's screw with the future" and just up and re-wrote every piece of known recorded history. They might have, we don't know. If they did, they are awesome and I want to hang out with them.
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." Oh how this beautiful phrase can be used for or against us no matter what we believe. Here's my nut in it's shell. Evolution/Big Bang, you've got some decent theories, and you've got a fair amount of evidence that can back up some of your aspects, but your own scientists have also got lots of evidence to prove themselves and you wrong. Christianity, you've got some pretty interesting historical inaccuracies going on in that bible of yours that don't help your case, but you've also got a lot of versions that have been backed up by many, many other historians even from separate cultures. Both groups have got their facts and their theories. Neither one of them can prove themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt. And this leaves us with faith. Faith that what we believe in, with all it's evidence, or lack there of, is correct. And when you've got millions of people that all put faith into something, you've got yourself a stone cold RELIGION. My suggestion would be stop denying religion, and follow the few intelligent people that have had the good sense to recognize their various forms of "non-religion" being a religion and get yourself a tasty tax exempt status. (There is actually a group of atheists that have formed a tax exempt group and hold meetings to discuss their beliefs... I smell a religion!)
At the end of the day, I don't give a shit what you believe. I don't attack anyone's beliefs unless provoked. All i've ever asked for is this same respect. You don't have to believe in God, or Jesus, or whatever your definition of religion is, and that's fine, to each their own. All I ask is that you shut the fuck up about it. Stop posting your jokes and smart ass comments about God and Jesus and all that on Spacebook or MyFace or Tweetler or whatever. If you want to rant about how you believe that you don't believe in anything, why don't you start a blog? That way we don't all have to have it thrown in our faces on a daily basis but instead offer a forum for your constructed thoughts that people can chose to read or not. Ah, but alas... you won't. Because it's not that you care if people care what you believe, just as long as you're able to continue shitting all over what other people believe. Sigh, this world is so screwed.
***I'm positive that I am going to have some ANONYMOUS posts providing evidence of why I'm wrong and all kinds of other fun stuff. Look, I didn't check a ton of facts to present in this blog. This blog is more or less an emotionally charged rant that I use to get out my exploding brain frustrations. All I can tell you is, despite my lack of professional debating, I have checked my facts. I have studied the evidence against evolution and I have studied the evidence against the Christian Bible. I KNOW ALREADY. If you are going to be an internet tough guy and post anonymous comments, all I ask is that you keep it intelligent and save the insults for some bro at the bar this weekend. Or at a minimum, and here's a crazy idea, LEAVE YOUR NAME WHEN YOU COMMENT.***
re-li-gion: (noun) a cause, principal, or system of beliefs held with ardor and faith.
yes, there are other definitions of the word that involve a more traditional thought and use words like "God" and such, but that is still a definition out of Webster's dictionary. And honestly even if it wasn't part of the official definition, my point remains the same.
I find it borderline hilarious that millions of people all believe in a similar notion and consider themselves with out religion. You believe that the entire universe sprang from a "singularity" (even though no one can truly explain a singularity) 13.7 billion years ago. A belief that, depending on your version, more or less pre-existing matter and energy collected itself together and exploded and created the universe and whatever. Now I could go several directions here. I could point out that there has never been a proven method of dating the age of the planet. Any method that has been developed to show the age of billions or millions of years has also been scientifically proven wrong. So the age is just a guess and hoping it's correct. I could also point out that the scientific evidence of the theory and process of the Big Bang is weak at best even in it's own science. It too is once again a theory based off I suppose the most evidence available that people chose to put stock into. And even if you come at me with a bunch of scientific "evidence" of how it's 100% accurate, which I will then just find evidence of how it's in fact NOT 100% accurate, I will just come at you with an age old fun Christian question called "well, where did that come from?" And I'll keep saying "well, where did that come from?" no matter how far back you try to explain until you run out of stories. Oooh it's fun being ignorant isn't it?
Let's also talk about how evolution itself proves it's own faults. Darwin himself said that for evolution to be accurate, it must be progressive and adapt. That's obviously not a direct quote, but it's real close and I'm real lazy. Does evolution exist on some level? Of course it does, if nothing else all species learn as they progress. Humans in the last two thousand years are 100% proof of evolution on at least some levels. But animals are doing an amazing job at proving evolution on a massive level wrong. The number of animals that have become extinct are in themselves a pretty hard hit against evolution. But you can argue that they just didn't evolve fast enough I suppose, even though I was pretty sure they've had millions of years to do so. Let's take a look at the prairie dog. When hunting for food or just out and about, the prairie dog has scouts that get a top the highest point they can to keep an eye out for predators, the "highest point" being small bushes and mounds of dirt. This is an extremely important, if not the most important, method of their survival. So why in the hell can't they climb trees?!?! They completely lack the ability to climb trees. Aside from the fact that climbing trees would give them another place of escape, it would allow them for a better vantage point for look out. So why, in millions of years of evolution, have they not developed the ability to climb trees? Squirrels, chipmunks and about a thousand similar other animals can climb trees, so why can't they? Personally I feel they've had the time to adapt... something must be wrong here. Also, why are bats still blind? Progressive adaptive evolution would suggest they would have sight by now. But I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Sonar is a pretty sweet ability, sometimes.
Ok, so, at this point most people reading this blog are probably itching with fun facts to throw at me trying prove that evolution is real, and I can't wait. I feel confident enough that there is evidence to make that evidence at least questionable. And for that matter, I am not even here to actually disprove evolution or the big bang or any of that. I am in no way even saying that you are wrong if that's what you believe. What I am saying is that there is no set in stone, 100% accurate, never been proven wrong evidence that this is how we came to be. "Science is not an exact science." Which means you are putting faith into this theory. Which means you are believing in "a cause, principal, or system of beliefs held with ardor and faith." RELIGION ALERT!!!
Let me save you some trouble and point out I don't buy every word the bible says, especially not on a literal level. It is events and stories collected by many people over many years and placed into a single book with the intent of getting many people to share a similar belief. Sounds like a history book to me. Unless of course you were there when George Washington crossed the Delaware, in which case I apologize. You weren't? It's just a story that people have retold and we're all choosing to believe is 100% historically accurate? Wow, no shit. One of my favorite phrases ever is "pre-recorded history". Hahaha, are you serious? Pre-recorded history? It hurts my brain to even say. You're telling me we are now basing our "pre-recorded history" off not even the words of someone else but just some random nick-knacks we dig up and give a story? "Oh, here's a tomb with some shiny clothes and some gold in it, he must have been a great emperor!" Or, perhaps he was a flamboyant thief with a great real estate agent? Or maybe some smart ass opened up that tomb hundreds of years ago and thought it would be hilarious to dump extra shit inside just to fuck with the idiots in the years to come. HOW CAN YOU HAVE KNOWN HISTORY IF IT WAS NEVER RECORDED?! We weren't there. Did you know that no portraits of any kings before like the 1800s are real? (I wish I could remember which king was the first, but I can't find it online at the moment). Most portraits of older kings and other leaders were in fact just of fairly random people they had stand in as a subject so the king or whom ever did not have to. But we've done a pretty good job believing that those portraits are what they looked like, or at least most people have. I won't even go into how many times we've discovered new history to prove our pre-existing "known" history wrong. You can look that stuff up yourself, but it will fry your brainards. Realistically ALL history involves faith. For all we know, the entire world got together in let's say 1640 and said "let's screw with the future" and just up and re-wrote every piece of known recorded history. They might have, we don't know. If they did, they are awesome and I want to hang out with them.
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." Oh how this beautiful phrase can be used for or against us no matter what we believe. Here's my nut in it's shell. Evolution/Big Bang, you've got some decent theories, and you've got a fair amount of evidence that can back up some of your aspects, but your own scientists have also got lots of evidence to prove themselves and you wrong. Christianity, you've got some pretty interesting historical inaccuracies going on in that bible of yours that don't help your case, but you've also got a lot of versions that have been backed up by many, many other historians even from separate cultures. Both groups have got their facts and their theories. Neither one of them can prove themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt. And this leaves us with faith. Faith that what we believe in, with all it's evidence, or lack there of, is correct. And when you've got millions of people that all put faith into something, you've got yourself a stone cold RELIGION. My suggestion would be stop denying religion, and follow the few intelligent people that have had the good sense to recognize their various forms of "non-religion" being a religion and get yourself a tasty tax exempt status. (There is actually a group of atheists that have formed a tax exempt group and hold meetings to discuss their beliefs... I smell a religion!)
At the end of the day, I don't give a shit what you believe. I don't attack anyone's beliefs unless provoked. All i've ever asked for is this same respect. You don't have to believe in God, or Jesus, or whatever your definition of religion is, and that's fine, to each their own. All I ask is that you shut the fuck up about it. Stop posting your jokes and smart ass comments about God and Jesus and all that on Spacebook or MyFace or Tweetler or whatever. If you want to rant about how you believe that you don't believe in anything, why don't you start a blog? That way we don't all have to have it thrown in our faces on a daily basis but instead offer a forum for your constructed thoughts that people can chose to read or not. Ah, but alas... you won't. Because it's not that you care if people care what you believe, just as long as you're able to continue shitting all over what other people believe. Sigh, this world is so screwed.
***I'm positive that I am going to have some ANONYMOUS posts providing evidence of why I'm wrong and all kinds of other fun stuff. Look, I didn't check a ton of facts to present in this blog. This blog is more or less an emotionally charged rant that I use to get out my exploding brain frustrations. All I can tell you is, despite my lack of professional debating, I have checked my facts. I have studied the evidence against evolution and I have studied the evidence against the Christian Bible. I KNOW ALREADY. If you are going to be an internet tough guy and post anonymous comments, all I ask is that you keep it intelligent and save the insults for some bro at the bar this weekend. Or at a minimum, and here's a crazy idea, LEAVE YOUR NAME WHEN YOU COMMENT.***
Sunday, July 18, 2010
the dream is over.
SPOILER ALERT. do not read any further if you have not seen Inception, this will ruin everything.
ok, here is a stack of definite evidence that the end of Inception ends in the real world.
i'll go backwards from the least compelling to most definitive.
for the sake of this blog, we'll call the main layer of the movie, Layer Zero. Layer Four being the sub-conscious construct, or "limbo."
1 - the top losing it's spin in the last seconds is evidence enough. if you've ever spun a top, as soon as it starts to lose it's gravity axis like it did in the very last scene, that is the beginning of the end, it can not return to a perfect spin. and they specifically point out that the top spins PERFECTLY in the dream world, and they show it doing so in the dream layers.
2 - Mal suggests that one slice of proof to Cobb that he's still dreaming in "Layer Zero" is that corporations and the american government are after him. well, for starters, that is his mind telling him that no matter what you believe, because it's on Layer Four. On the time line of the story itself, she doesn't try to convince him of that until after she kills herself. So that evidence doesn't fly in any sense, but let's use it anyway. That's not how the "being chased by your sub-conscious" works. ALL the projections come after you. So, doesn't work either way you look at it.
3 - there is no way that Mal would exit Layer Zero and either not wake him up in her "real world" or at LEAST come back in after him and try to wake him up again and again until it worked. And, all the other characters in the movie are at a minimum real people somewhere in Cobb's life, and someone would wake him up. Or if nothing else, he would wake up eventually on his own. You can argue that even if she's been dead for awhile that in her "real world" it may only pan out to minutes and it just hasn't happened yet. But that brings me to a new point...
4 - they explain the time ratio in Layer Zero, and it starts compounding there. Mere seconds in Layer Zero translate into minutes in Layer One, hours in Layer Two, etc etc. And you can't argue that it could be even less time in the "real world" because it compounds. It's not each layer is just multiplied, it's each layer compounds with the last, so by that logic, the entire movie takes place in milliseconds in the "real world." And even if you believe that that is possible, it's just plain ridiculous, and pushing it too far. Nolan is better than that.
5 - also, in that aspect, as I mentioned before, he would at least wake up on his own... well even the strongest compound available only keeps people asleep for 4 hours, equalling 40 hours in a first level dream. Well this movie takes place over several days, so that math once again doesn't work out. He would have to be asleep in the "real world" for over like 5 or 6 hours, which, is not possible according to the movie's own rules. this is not all that compelling of evidence and could be argued against fairly easily in various ways, but I threw it in anyway to prove there's a bunch of reasons leaning towards the end being real.
6 - FINALLY, and the most compelling... in Layer Zero, he spins the top twice in the first half of the movie and it topples. which means, by Nolan's own rules of this story, that is the real world. so Layer Zero is the real world no matter what you think of my other evidence. you don't think about those top displays, because the last shot of the movie makes you focus on the debate of if it's real or not. I only remember he spun the top and watched it topple twice because I saw the movie a second time. You could argue that maybe in his first level dream he makes up those totem rules, but then that's just stupid and ruins Nolan's own story... and for that matter you could say that about anything... Jurassic Park was just a dream too. And, as mentioned before, the things that happen in the dreams HAVE to stem from somewhere in his real life, that alone is the entire point of the movie. So the totem rules came from somewhere in "real life." And if the totem rules are legit, then once again, this evidence holds strong.
In hind sight, the last scene with the top spinning isn't as horribly clever as it seems. It's still absolutely one of the best movies I've ever seen, and I think Nolan did it to kind of have fun with the audience and give people something to talk about. But, if you think back through out the movie, that last scene really shouldn't fool anyone. But, it definitely does what he wanted it to, because even I had to wonder about it for awhile and here I am typing out this blog.
In my opinion, the last scene was the movie saying: "is this real life? maybe... wait for it... wait for it... YUP, it's real. thanks for coming!"
ok, here is a stack of definite evidence that the end of Inception ends in the real world.
i'll go backwards from the least compelling to most definitive.
for the sake of this blog, we'll call the main layer of the movie, Layer Zero. Layer Four being the sub-conscious construct, or "limbo."
1 - the top losing it's spin in the last seconds is evidence enough. if you've ever spun a top, as soon as it starts to lose it's gravity axis like it did in the very last scene, that is the beginning of the end, it can not return to a perfect spin. and they specifically point out that the top spins PERFECTLY in the dream world, and they show it doing so in the dream layers.
2 - Mal suggests that one slice of proof to Cobb that he's still dreaming in "Layer Zero" is that corporations and the american government are after him. well, for starters, that is his mind telling him that no matter what you believe, because it's on Layer Four. On the time line of the story itself, she doesn't try to convince him of that until after she kills herself. So that evidence doesn't fly in any sense, but let's use it anyway. That's not how the "being chased by your sub-conscious" works. ALL the projections come after you. So, doesn't work either way you look at it.
3 - there is no way that Mal would exit Layer Zero and either not wake him up in her "real world" or at LEAST come back in after him and try to wake him up again and again until it worked. And, all the other characters in the movie are at a minimum real people somewhere in Cobb's life, and someone would wake him up. Or if nothing else, he would wake up eventually on his own. You can argue that even if she's been dead for awhile that in her "real world" it may only pan out to minutes and it just hasn't happened yet. But that brings me to a new point...
4 - they explain the time ratio in Layer Zero, and it starts compounding there. Mere seconds in Layer Zero translate into minutes in Layer One, hours in Layer Two, etc etc. And you can't argue that it could be even less time in the "real world" because it compounds. It's not each layer is just multiplied, it's each layer compounds with the last, so by that logic, the entire movie takes place in milliseconds in the "real world." And even if you believe that that is possible, it's just plain ridiculous, and pushing it too far. Nolan is better than that.
5 - also, in that aspect, as I mentioned before, he would at least wake up on his own... well even the strongest compound available only keeps people asleep for 4 hours, equalling 40 hours in a first level dream. Well this movie takes place over several days, so that math once again doesn't work out. He would have to be asleep in the "real world" for over like 5 or 6 hours, which, is not possible according to the movie's own rules. this is not all that compelling of evidence and could be argued against fairly easily in various ways, but I threw it in anyway to prove there's a bunch of reasons leaning towards the end being real.
6 - FINALLY, and the most compelling... in Layer Zero, he spins the top twice in the first half of the movie and it topples. which means, by Nolan's own rules of this story, that is the real world. so Layer Zero is the real world no matter what you think of my other evidence. you don't think about those top displays, because the last shot of the movie makes you focus on the debate of if it's real or not. I only remember he spun the top and watched it topple twice because I saw the movie a second time. You could argue that maybe in his first level dream he makes up those totem rules, but then that's just stupid and ruins Nolan's own story... and for that matter you could say that about anything... Jurassic Park was just a dream too. And, as mentioned before, the things that happen in the dreams HAVE to stem from somewhere in his real life, that alone is the entire point of the movie. So the totem rules came from somewhere in "real life." And if the totem rules are legit, then once again, this evidence holds strong.
In hind sight, the last scene with the top spinning isn't as horribly clever as it seems. It's still absolutely one of the best movies I've ever seen, and I think Nolan did it to kind of have fun with the audience and give people something to talk about. But, if you think back through out the movie, that last scene really shouldn't fool anyone. But, it definitely does what he wanted it to, because even I had to wonder about it for awhile and here I am typing out this blog.
In my opinion, the last scene was the movie saying: "is this real life? maybe... wait for it... wait for it... YUP, it's real. thanks for coming!"
Friday, July 16, 2010
Inception, more than a dream.
I have just returned from seeing writer/director Christopher Nolan's latest triumph, Inception. I would like to say that I am speechless, but that is far from the case. To put it very blunt, Inception is the greatest movie I have ever seen. It is everything that a movie should be.
The film sits at a viewing time of 2 and 1/2 hours, but you would never know. In the later quarter of the film I had a feeling we were in the final stretch, and all I could think about was how I was no where near ready for it to end. Now, most films reviews include descriptions of the movie or at least an outline of the story, but honestly I don't want to say much of anything for the benefit of people who haven't seen it yet, and at the time this was written, that would be almost everyone.
All I'll say is what the commercials have already told you. Cobb, the lead roll incredibly portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio, is an extractor. And as claims in the movie, he's the best extractor there is. Through a process of shared dreams, he and his team are able to penetrate the human mind and extract information, even one's most hidden secrets. But with in no more than 20 minutes of the movie, they have been presented with a slightly off the mark task, to insert a thought into someone's mind. Needless to say, this is a next to impossible process. I will not go into it anymore than this, because one of the most beautiful parts of this film is the way the story unfolds. Every piece of information I was handed was just as exciting as the end of the movie. I was captivated one moment to the next through the gripping story telling and incredible performances. The entire cast is through and through unbelievable, no one misses their mark. But Joseph Gordon-Levitt delivers a truly unique performance, rivaling that of even Leo himself. Levitt proved to us in Brick that he was capable of playing much more than the young alien Tommy Solomon, but I don't think anyone knew to this extent. This performance is most certainly the start of a booming career as a Hollywood level actor.
I have been "Following" (pun intended) Christopher Nolan's work since the start, and have never been disappointed. Along the ranks of the Coen Brothers and Martin Scorcese, he has been of my favorite directors since the very first time I watched Memento. Nolan stated some months back (and I fail to remember his exact words) but more or less claiming that this is by far his finest work. He could not have been more right. He delivers every ounce of talent you have come to expect from him. From the story telling of Following and Memento, to the character development of The Prestige, to the grand production of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Inception has it all. It makes you look back at every film you've ever seen and question that perhaps they weren't as good as they could've been. Nolan has unquestionably reset the bar of film making... and it has been set very, very high.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
lose a job, ya hippie!
21st century "rights" activists... today's revolutionaries? or just spoiled brats?
Here's what upsets me about a lot of "modern day hippies." I find that most of them have to pick something to cry about because they don't have any real problems in their lives. I obviously don't know what everyone goes through, I'm not talking about anyone specific, I'm not judging anyone's motivations or how they live their lives. I am purely saying, that it appears to me, that most people that stand up for a lot of "rights", just have no real other problems of their own to worry about, so they have to make noise.
When was the last time you saw a homeless dude standing on the street with a sign that says "STOP EATING MEAT"? I'll tell you when... never, that's when. Is it a coincidence that celebrities are often the most outspoken activists? I would say no. Especially where most of these celebrities give less than 5% of their income to even their chosen charities. These people make millions and millions and millions of dollars a year and then they hand over 500k to a charity and we're suppose to think they're saints. Not buying it folks. I'm getting a little side tracked, but it's all relative. My point is that people that are homeless, single parents, work on the docks trying to support their families, recently laid off, have major drug problems, have a major disease, etc... these people are usually too busy to cry about things like people not eating meat, same sex marriage, legalizing marijuana, "sweat shops", stopping Wal-Mart, etc etc.
Just so people don't lose their minds, I will address my opinion on each of those topics.
First, I of course don't agree with a lot of the way animals are killed and processed. Anyone who knows me well knows that I love animals, I will sit and watch Animal Planet all day long if I can get away with it. Do I eat meat? Yes I do, but I am not opposed to the consumption of meat due to religious beliefs, I believe God made certain animals for people to live off of, but we won't be getting into that right now. If you don't want to eat meat for health reasons, that's your deal good for you. Lord knows I could eat much healthier, I'm a mess. And again, the way certain companies treat animals in the food process is terrible. But shut up about not eating animals, it's really annoying and there are so many bigger problems going on in the world. Yes, an average of 100,000 cows are slaughtered every day in order to feed the world's massive population, and that is unfortunate. However, while that is going on, an upwards of 70,000 PEOPLE die every day from disease, war, and hunger in JUST AFRICA! Don't eat animals? Do you people really have that little to worry about that you've got to tell me to not eat meat? As of 06/16/10, over 1200 animals have died from the current oil spill in the gulf, why aren't you whining about that, vegans? I'm sure some of you are, but I actually know people who are outspoken vegans that have zero opinion on the BP disaster. Really? I won't even get started on people that are against killing animals for meat but are pro-choice abortion, that will triple the length of this blog and then we have to start getting deep into religious stuff which I don't feel like doing right now. Furthermore, on a separate but related note, most people don't realize that about probably an average of 90% of vegan products contain animal bi-products in them anyway, so realistically a very small portion of people are actually eating organic and/or meat free. (Please contact me if you'd like to know more on the facts I just mentioned about the food products). I do also want to repeat, if you eat vegetarian for health reasons, I applaud your commitment, I personally could stand to be in better health myself and probably should change my diet a bit.
I'm sure you think i've got plenty to say about same sex marriage on the religious front. Nope. My point is once again, in my opinion it pales in comparison to all the other disgusting shit that goes on in this world and is at least not yet worth flipping out over. First of all, marriage is a religious institution (no matter what you believe in), so I don't know why people are freaking out at the government about it. You can live common law with a same sex partner and receive the benefits of doing so, so if you want to complain about same sex marriage, take it up with THE CHURCHES. And good luck with that, because the churches themselves are often the ones against same sex marriages. I am in no way saying that homosexuals should not have rights, this is not even about homosexuality or their rights at all. Granted I am not gay, so this does not directly affect me, but what I'm saying is, in my opinion you're barking up the wrong tree when getting into marriage specifically. With a damn near 50% divorce rate in this country, you're better off just taking the common law benefits and not losing half the shit you own when it ends anyway. If you ask me, I say let's wait until we've abolished all forms of racism before we pick a new civil rights revolution.
Legalizing marijuana time? This isn't getting more than a few sentences. Yes, it is bad for you, major permanent memory loss and brain function is a PROVEN result of continued marijuana use. This is of course a lesser example of this blog, but it blows my mind that people even bother. Daniel Tosh said it best, "grow up and do coke like an adult." It's just annoying at this point. Instead of worrying about whether or not marijuana is legalized in this country, why don't you spend some time worrying about children across the world that are bought, sold, abused, and killed in the world of international drug traffic and prostitution. That's what I thought.
Sweat shops. I don't know a TON about this, but there is one aspect that annoys me, so here goes. Let's take care of pandering the reader first. Of course I think forced labor, unfair pay, abuse, slavery, all that jazz is horrible. But what I will say is, some of these big companies that use "sweat shops" and pay children and women next to nothing to work... what you're forgetting is that if they weren't paying them next to nothing, they would be making nothing nothing. A lot of people fail to remember that SOME (I repeat some) of these companies "sweat shops" are the only thing keeping these people alive. No job = no money = no food = dead. That being said, one of the most annoying things to me is American Apparel. "Ooooh, I love American Apparel, it's so soft and it's sweat shop free, and the owner of the company is a disgusting womanizer who is constantly accused of abusing and sexually harassing women, and I just love their v-necks!" Wait? What was that middle part? Oh, right, the owner of the company Dov Charney is a full blown pervert who has repeatedly had sexual harassment and abuse charges brought on him. That's much better than companies who higher children to make their clothes. Also, did you know Ed Hardy was an outspoken racist? Of course you didn't, and obviously neither do all the people that buy and wear that clothing line.
Last, the cry to stop Wal-Mart. I'm really tired of typing right now and am going to make this short. Wal-Mart isn't killing America, it's helping it. I'm sure many of you have seen "The High Cost of Low Prices" documentary, now take some time and watch Pen & Teller's Bullshit episode about the truth of Wal-Mart. Like the oh so evil sweat shops, Wal-Mart is often a source of employment for people who can not get other jobs. I know people that have cashiered there at $12 an hour. Oh, those poor bastards, $12 an hour with no college education? How will they ever survive?! I will say that Wal-Mart is certainly not helping the small business man, and that is very unfortunate, but that goes beyond the Wal-Mart debate. To that I say WELCOME TO CORPORATE AMERICA. This is nothing new. I'm really sick of typing, just look into the great Wal-Mart debate, it's not what everyone thinks it is.
Oh, almost forget a good one. I refuse to name names, but here's a fun local example. There is actually a person in the New England area who is taking it upon them self to try to undo the hateful meaning of the swastika. Talk about having nothing better to worry about. It must be nice having so much free time and money that you can start a clothing company to try to reverse a symbol that has an unforgettable historical blemish on it. No matter how much it would be nice to take it's hateful power away, you can NEVER ask the people that have suffered it's pain to forget what they lived through, and exposing them to it on a t-shirt is just about the ultimate ignorance.
Sigh. Ok, now that i've listed but just a few examples of things that are barely worth complaining about and have stated my opinions on why they just might not be as big of deal as people think and/or people are just plain misinformed, I can go back to by beginning statement and wrap this up.
My over all point is, once again, people need to get their priorities straight. Just a bunch of spoiled brats with nothing else to complain about but animal rights and how much it costs these days to fill up their 2010 Jetta. Some folks need to keep in mind that there are a lot of people in the world, and even in this country, that could only dream of having the time or energy to complain about some of this stuff. But, unfortunately, a lot of them have to focus on if they're going to eat this week, or how they are going to afford diapers for their children, or how many different forms of medication and treatment they need. And thankfully, even some people with out immediate personal problems are busy worrying about the lack of education across the world and in our own country, the millions of people with out reliable food or water, or the slaughtering of innocent people over oil and diamonds, or the amount of children bought and sold like sex objects. There are a lot of topics I am unfamiliar with and probably many that I am misinformed about. I don't claim to know everything, I don't claim to be better than anyone else, I am no philanthropist (though if I had the means I would certainly donate great deals of money to the appropriate charities and lend my hands to things like the gulf cleaning). But my point is priorities.
Your priorities are of course different from mine, I'm sure some of the things I've talked about are your priorities. Which is why those of you who disagree with me are going to either make a safely anonymous comment arguing with me, or at the very least will ignore what you've read and keep fighting your fight. But that's the beauty of opinions, and this one is mine. All I ask is that you consider what's really important and what will really make this world a better place. Buying tofu instead of hamburger is not going to help our children or their children live in a better world. Instead, why don't we all send some money towards getting a child out of the hell they live in over seas or perhaps contributing to finding a cure for cancer? Just an idea. Enjoy your Tofurky and American Apparel deep V.
Here's what upsets me about a lot of "modern day hippies." I find that most of them have to pick something to cry about because they don't have any real problems in their lives. I obviously don't know what everyone goes through, I'm not talking about anyone specific, I'm not judging anyone's motivations or how they live their lives. I am purely saying, that it appears to me, that most people that stand up for a lot of "rights", just have no real other problems of their own to worry about, so they have to make noise.
When was the last time you saw a homeless dude standing on the street with a sign that says "STOP EATING MEAT"? I'll tell you when... never, that's when. Is it a coincidence that celebrities are often the most outspoken activists? I would say no. Especially where most of these celebrities give less than 5% of their income to even their chosen charities. These people make millions and millions and millions of dollars a year and then they hand over 500k to a charity and we're suppose to think they're saints. Not buying it folks. I'm getting a little side tracked, but it's all relative. My point is that people that are homeless, single parents, work on the docks trying to support their families, recently laid off, have major drug problems, have a major disease, etc... these people are usually too busy to cry about things like people not eating meat, same sex marriage, legalizing marijuana, "sweat shops", stopping Wal-Mart, etc etc.
Just so people don't lose their minds, I will address my opinion on each of those topics.
First, I of course don't agree with a lot of the way animals are killed and processed. Anyone who knows me well knows that I love animals, I will sit and watch Animal Planet all day long if I can get away with it. Do I eat meat? Yes I do, but I am not opposed to the consumption of meat due to religious beliefs, I believe God made certain animals for people to live off of, but we won't be getting into that right now. If you don't want to eat meat for health reasons, that's your deal good for you. Lord knows I could eat much healthier, I'm a mess. And again, the way certain companies treat animals in the food process is terrible. But shut up about not eating animals, it's really annoying and there are so many bigger problems going on in the world. Yes, an average of 100,000 cows are slaughtered every day in order to feed the world's massive population, and that is unfortunate. However, while that is going on, an upwards of 70,000 PEOPLE die every day from disease, war, and hunger in JUST AFRICA! Don't eat animals? Do you people really have that little to worry about that you've got to tell me to not eat meat? As of 06/16/10, over 1200 animals have died from the current oil spill in the gulf, why aren't you whining about that, vegans? I'm sure some of you are, but I actually know people who are outspoken vegans that have zero opinion on the BP disaster. Really? I won't even get started on people that are against killing animals for meat but are pro-choice abortion, that will triple the length of this blog and then we have to start getting deep into religious stuff which I don't feel like doing right now. Furthermore, on a separate but related note, most people don't realize that about probably an average of 90% of vegan products contain animal bi-products in them anyway, so realistically a very small portion of people are actually eating organic and/or meat free. (Please contact me if you'd like to know more on the facts I just mentioned about the food products). I do also want to repeat, if you eat vegetarian for health reasons, I applaud your commitment, I personally could stand to be in better health myself and probably should change my diet a bit.
I'm sure you think i've got plenty to say about same sex marriage on the religious front. Nope. My point is once again, in my opinion it pales in comparison to all the other disgusting shit that goes on in this world and is at least not yet worth flipping out over. First of all, marriage is a religious institution (no matter what you believe in), so I don't know why people are freaking out at the government about it. You can live common law with a same sex partner and receive the benefits of doing so, so if you want to complain about same sex marriage, take it up with THE CHURCHES. And good luck with that, because the churches themselves are often the ones against same sex marriages. I am in no way saying that homosexuals should not have rights, this is not even about homosexuality or their rights at all. Granted I am not gay, so this does not directly affect me, but what I'm saying is, in my opinion you're barking up the wrong tree when getting into marriage specifically. With a damn near 50% divorce rate in this country, you're better off just taking the common law benefits and not losing half the shit you own when it ends anyway. If you ask me, I say let's wait until we've abolished all forms of racism before we pick a new civil rights revolution.
Legalizing marijuana time? This isn't getting more than a few sentences. Yes, it is bad for you, major permanent memory loss and brain function is a PROVEN result of continued marijuana use. This is of course a lesser example of this blog, but it blows my mind that people even bother. Daniel Tosh said it best, "grow up and do coke like an adult." It's just annoying at this point. Instead of worrying about whether or not marijuana is legalized in this country, why don't you spend some time worrying about children across the world that are bought, sold, abused, and killed in the world of international drug traffic and prostitution. That's what I thought.
Sweat shops. I don't know a TON about this, but there is one aspect that annoys me, so here goes. Let's take care of pandering the reader first. Of course I think forced labor, unfair pay, abuse, slavery, all that jazz is horrible. But what I will say is, some of these big companies that use "sweat shops" and pay children and women next to nothing to work... what you're forgetting is that if they weren't paying them next to nothing, they would be making nothing nothing. A lot of people fail to remember that SOME (I repeat some) of these companies "sweat shops" are the only thing keeping these people alive. No job = no money = no food = dead. That being said, one of the most annoying things to me is American Apparel. "Ooooh, I love American Apparel, it's so soft and it's sweat shop free, and the owner of the company is a disgusting womanizer who is constantly accused of abusing and sexually harassing women, and I just love their v-necks!" Wait? What was that middle part? Oh, right, the owner of the company Dov Charney is a full blown pervert who has repeatedly had sexual harassment and abuse charges brought on him. That's much better than companies who higher children to make their clothes. Also, did you know Ed Hardy was an outspoken racist? Of course you didn't, and obviously neither do all the people that buy and wear that clothing line.
Last, the cry to stop Wal-Mart. I'm really tired of typing right now and am going to make this short. Wal-Mart isn't killing America, it's helping it. I'm sure many of you have seen "The High Cost of Low Prices" documentary, now take some time and watch Pen & Teller's Bullshit episode about the truth of Wal-Mart. Like the oh so evil sweat shops, Wal-Mart is often a source of employment for people who can not get other jobs. I know people that have cashiered there at $12 an hour. Oh, those poor bastards, $12 an hour with no college education? How will they ever survive?! I will say that Wal-Mart is certainly not helping the small business man, and that is very unfortunate, but that goes beyond the Wal-Mart debate. To that I say WELCOME TO CORPORATE AMERICA. This is nothing new. I'm really sick of typing, just look into the great Wal-Mart debate, it's not what everyone thinks it is.
Oh, almost forget a good one. I refuse to name names, but here's a fun local example. There is actually a person in the New England area who is taking it upon them self to try to undo the hateful meaning of the swastika. Talk about having nothing better to worry about. It must be nice having so much free time and money that you can start a clothing company to try to reverse a symbol that has an unforgettable historical blemish on it. No matter how much it would be nice to take it's hateful power away, you can NEVER ask the people that have suffered it's pain to forget what they lived through, and exposing them to it on a t-shirt is just about the ultimate ignorance.
Sigh. Ok, now that i've listed but just a few examples of things that are barely worth complaining about and have stated my opinions on why they just might not be as big of deal as people think and/or people are just plain misinformed, I can go back to by beginning statement and wrap this up.
My over all point is, once again, people need to get their priorities straight. Just a bunch of spoiled brats with nothing else to complain about but animal rights and how much it costs these days to fill up their 2010 Jetta. Some folks need to keep in mind that there are a lot of people in the world, and even in this country, that could only dream of having the time or energy to complain about some of this stuff. But, unfortunately, a lot of them have to focus on if they're going to eat this week, or how they are going to afford diapers for their children, or how many different forms of medication and treatment they need. And thankfully, even some people with out immediate personal problems are busy worrying about the lack of education across the world and in our own country, the millions of people with out reliable food or water, or the slaughtering of innocent people over oil and diamonds, or the amount of children bought and sold like sex objects. There are a lot of topics I am unfamiliar with and probably many that I am misinformed about. I don't claim to know everything, I don't claim to be better than anyone else, I am no philanthropist (though if I had the means I would certainly donate great deals of money to the appropriate charities and lend my hands to things like the gulf cleaning). But my point is priorities.
Your priorities are of course different from mine, I'm sure some of the things I've talked about are your priorities. Which is why those of you who disagree with me are going to either make a safely anonymous comment arguing with me, or at the very least will ignore what you've read and keep fighting your fight. But that's the beauty of opinions, and this one is mine. All I ask is that you consider what's really important and what will really make this world a better place. Buying tofu instead of hamburger is not going to help our children or their children live in a better world. Instead, why don't we all send some money towards getting a child out of the hell they live in over seas or perhaps contributing to finding a cure for cancer? Just an idea. Enjoy your Tofurky and American Apparel deep V.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Dear Everyone: It's a second hand emotion.
A great scholar once begged the question "what's love got to do, got to do with it?" As true today, as the day it was written.
People put way, way too much stock in how they "feel" sometimes and are more that often not able to look outside these feelings that they are wrapped up in on a moment by moment basis. Just because you have this overwhelming feeling of need to be around another person, that does not mean you should be around them. It has been said that "love conquers all." This is true in some rare situations. When two people TRULY love each other, it can absolutely over come any obstacle, but what a lot of people tend to forget is that when two people TRUL love each other, most obstacles never present themselves.
Let's address the most obvious of relationship obstacles, infidelity. Can love conquer infidelity? Potentially. But what you should really be asking yourself is not "do we love each other enough to get past this?" but instead "why did this happen in the first place?" I've got a harsh fact for you people, no matter what you feel, or think, or are told, if someone cheats on you THEY DO NOT LOVE YOU! Think about a time when you have been truly in love, a real honest love. Think of how it made you feel, how you would do anything for that person, how there was little to nothing you wouldn't be willing to do to see that they never feel any pain. Remember that? Now, would you have ever cheated on that person?! Of course not you moron! And if your answer was "yes" or perhaps "well, I loved them, but I did cheat", then NO, you did not love them. You can argue that you loved them all you want, I'm sure you felt strong desires towards them of some kind, but it wasn't love. Love is not capable of cheating, CASE CLOSED.
It seems like a lot of people, especially as the days go by, are a bit confused with the feeling of love, and the feelings of infatuation, obsession, need, and habits of routine. There is no shame in falling to these traps, I myself have been there many times, we all go through it. I would say that part of growing in life is realizing the real differences between what is and is not love. Some figure it out early, some may not figure it out for years to come, some may never figure it out, but there is a big difference.
Let's now take a look at complacency. Sticking with someone because you "love" them, but realistically do not see the relationship lasting in the long run. Great Patrick Swayze's ghost! Do yourself and them a favor and just end it!! It is both a waste of time and insanely selfish to continue a relationship like that. It's certainly different if both people involved have established they don't see it lasting and perhaps just would like to continue to date for while because they enjoy each other's company. That's wonderful, more power to you. But if someone in a serious relationship can no longer see it lasting, be it marriage or whatever the long term plan is, it is already over. No point in biding wasted time.
People need to remember the age old phrase "there are always other fish in the sea." Normally reserved to comfort someone after a break up of some kind, but it is something to keep in mind if you are constantly going through problems. I'm certainly not suggesting that every time you hit a rough patch you leave that person. Relationships are a lot of work and always will be. But if someone has cheated, or you are fighting every day about stupid shit, or worse fighting every day about serious shit, or you just don't see yourself with that person in 10 years, or you don't trust the person, or they annoy you on a daily basis, or you just aren't attracted to them anymore... why bother? Oh wait, cause you LOVE them right? WRONG! Imagine who else might be out there? Whether you believe that there is one person out there that is MEANT for you or not, there is definitely at least someone out there that can make you ultimately happy. Based on nothing but statistics alone, their literally has to be someone out their that is just chemically built the right way that you can get along with damn near 24 hours a day. What is even the point in staying around someone that you just fight, scream, argue, bicker, or whatever with? There is literally no point. Let's pretend for a second you "really do love them" or whatever you've convinced yourself of... WHO GIVES A SHIT HOW YOU FEEL. The fact of the matter is, if you're miserable on a day to day basis, it is a bad relationship, ruuuuunnnnn!!! You WILL find someone else.
Bottom of the line, I know that it's easy to say when you're not in the situation. That of course is the whole problem. When you're in a relationship that is not working for one reason or another, but you feel you love the person, you of course want it to work and are going to put up with just about anything to make that happen until you hit your ultimate breaking point. And as always, you aren't going to listen to myself nor anyone else no matter how many times you hear these things. But just remember, no matter who you are, no matter what is in your past, no matter what your "problems" are, no matter what no matter what no matter what... there is someone out there that will love you no matter what. Find them. Don't tread water in a mediocre relationship because you "love" someone. If you are not jubilant on a day to day basis, it's not a good thing. Like I said, there will always be hard times, there will always be fighting, there will always be work. But if you're not waking up almost every single morning and falling asleep almost every single night with a smile on your face, thinking of the person you are with... then maybe you're thinking of the wrong person.
People put way, way too much stock in how they "feel" sometimes and are more that often not able to look outside these feelings that they are wrapped up in on a moment by moment basis. Just because you have this overwhelming feeling of need to be around another person, that does not mean you should be around them. It has been said that "love conquers all." This is true in some rare situations. When two people TRULY love each other, it can absolutely over come any obstacle, but what a lot of people tend to forget is that when two people TRUL love each other, most obstacles never present themselves.
Let's address the most obvious of relationship obstacles, infidelity. Can love conquer infidelity? Potentially. But what you should really be asking yourself is not "do we love each other enough to get past this?" but instead "why did this happen in the first place?" I've got a harsh fact for you people, no matter what you feel, or think, or are told, if someone cheats on you THEY DO NOT LOVE YOU! Think about a time when you have been truly in love, a real honest love. Think of how it made you feel, how you would do anything for that person, how there was little to nothing you wouldn't be willing to do to see that they never feel any pain. Remember that? Now, would you have ever cheated on that person?! Of course not you moron! And if your answer was "yes" or perhaps "well, I loved them, but I did cheat", then NO, you did not love them. You can argue that you loved them all you want, I'm sure you felt strong desires towards them of some kind, but it wasn't love. Love is not capable of cheating, CASE CLOSED.
It seems like a lot of people, especially as the days go by, are a bit confused with the feeling of love, and the feelings of infatuation, obsession, need, and habits of routine. There is no shame in falling to these traps, I myself have been there many times, we all go through it. I would say that part of growing in life is realizing the real differences between what is and is not love. Some figure it out early, some may not figure it out for years to come, some may never figure it out, but there is a big difference.
Let's now take a look at complacency. Sticking with someone because you "love" them, but realistically do not see the relationship lasting in the long run. Great Patrick Swayze's ghost! Do yourself and them a favor and just end it!! It is both a waste of time and insanely selfish to continue a relationship like that. It's certainly different if both people involved have established they don't see it lasting and perhaps just would like to continue to date for while because they enjoy each other's company. That's wonderful, more power to you. But if someone in a serious relationship can no longer see it lasting, be it marriage or whatever the long term plan is, it is already over. No point in biding wasted time.
People need to remember the age old phrase "there are always other fish in the sea." Normally reserved to comfort someone after a break up of some kind, but it is something to keep in mind if you are constantly going through problems. I'm certainly not suggesting that every time you hit a rough patch you leave that person. Relationships are a lot of work and always will be. But if someone has cheated, or you are fighting every day about stupid shit, or worse fighting every day about serious shit, or you just don't see yourself with that person in 10 years, or you don't trust the person, or they annoy you on a daily basis, or you just aren't attracted to them anymore... why bother? Oh wait, cause you LOVE them right? WRONG! Imagine who else might be out there? Whether you believe that there is one person out there that is MEANT for you or not, there is definitely at least someone out there that can make you ultimately happy. Based on nothing but statistics alone, their literally has to be someone out their that is just chemically built the right way that you can get along with damn near 24 hours a day. What is even the point in staying around someone that you just fight, scream, argue, bicker, or whatever with? There is literally no point. Let's pretend for a second you "really do love them" or whatever you've convinced yourself of... WHO GIVES A SHIT HOW YOU FEEL. The fact of the matter is, if you're miserable on a day to day basis, it is a bad relationship, ruuuuunnnnn!!! You WILL find someone else.
Bottom of the line, I know that it's easy to say when you're not in the situation. That of course is the whole problem. When you're in a relationship that is not working for one reason or another, but you feel you love the person, you of course want it to work and are going to put up with just about anything to make that happen until you hit your ultimate breaking point. And as always, you aren't going to listen to myself nor anyone else no matter how many times you hear these things. But just remember, no matter who you are, no matter what is in your past, no matter what your "problems" are, no matter what no matter what no matter what... there is someone out there that will love you no matter what. Find them. Don't tread water in a mediocre relationship because you "love" someone. If you are not jubilant on a day to day basis, it's not a good thing. Like I said, there will always be hard times, there will always be fighting, there will always be work. But if you're not waking up almost every single morning and falling asleep almost every single night with a smile on your face, thinking of the person you are with... then maybe you're thinking of the wrong person.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
oh MY God
Why is it when someone of religion does something questionable, it is not only viewed as so much worse, but also seems to make people look poorly on the entire religion.
The main example I can site is of course catholic priests accused of molestation and such. Now, let me make one thing perfectly clear first, I am of course in NO WAY trying to lighten the acts of individuals, all I am questioning is why it's worse when it is committed by a person of "religion." Back to the priest thing, obviously when anyone molests or rapes another person it is of course despicable in every way, but unfortunately it goes on every day and thankfully a lot of people are held accountable for their actions. But why is it worse that a priest did it? And why does it hold ANY reflection on the religion at all. Here's a FACT everyone, people of religion are STILL HUMAN just like everyone else. "Religious" people still have desires and temptations and all around poor decision making. Just because they believe in a God or god(s) does not mean they are not capable of making mistakes and should not be held any more accountable then anyone else. Remember, if these people's religion is correct, they will be held accountable by their God, no matter what religion it is. I bet with the priest situation, one argument that can be made is "well children were entrusted in the care of these priests and they are suppose to be holy men." Well to that I say two things. One, again why is it any worse just because they have attempted to follow a "holy" path and failed? And two, children are also entrusted with teachers, parents, friends, coaches, relatives, etc etc and those people are capable of the same horrible acts AND commit them just as often. One is no better or worse than the other.
Honestly, I feel ridiculous making a case in any kind of defense for the priest/rape situation because it makes me sick to my stomach, but please keep in mind I am only using it as an example. Ultimately it stretches out to anything. Cheating, stealing, violence, even lying, whatever... someone being accused of something should never include the phrase "and he was a Christian too." Of course feel free to replace the word "christian" with any other form of religion, I just use christian as an example because I see it the most, for whatever reason people really love to shit all over christians, but that subject is for another time. (OMG I'm a Christian and I said SHIT, how could I?!)
As mentioned before I also don't understand why a person of religion doing something wrong effects the outlook of their whole religion? A muslim terrorist does not mean all muslims are terrorists. A catholic rapist does not mean all catholics, nor does it mean all christians in general, are rapists. A sketchy lawyer that happens to be jewish does not give someone the right to further a "cheap" stereo type. It's literally all the same bull shit. It is ignorance and it is based on nothing but fear and a lack of intelligence.
Most religions at some point have done something on a large scale to make their entire religion look bad. But just because one, or a hundred, or a hundred thousand, or a million people of a religion do something wrong, it does not mean that the MILLIONS of other people in that religion are the same way. Humans are humans, they are ALL capable of doing horrible things. Some humans can behave, some humans can't, but what religion they are apart of is irrelevant. It's not religion that kills, it is MAN that kills. Man acts on their beliefs. Whether it be the greed of money, or the rights of animals, or the lust of sexual desire, or the need to take what is not yours, whether it be spreading the word of your God or destroying the word of someone else's, man will believe what he believes on an individual basis. What he choses to do with his beliefs and his knowledge is of his own accord and should not be held against anyone else.
No religion's holy book or teachings are encouraging people to do the awful things they do. It just so happens that some people decide to follow a religion and no matter how hard they try to live that life, a lot of them still fall short.
The main example I can site is of course catholic priests accused of molestation and such. Now, let me make one thing perfectly clear first, I am of course in NO WAY trying to lighten the acts of individuals, all I am questioning is why it's worse when it is committed by a person of "religion." Back to the priest thing, obviously when anyone molests or rapes another person it is of course despicable in every way, but unfortunately it goes on every day and thankfully a lot of people are held accountable for their actions. But why is it worse that a priest did it? And why does it hold ANY reflection on the religion at all. Here's a FACT everyone, people of religion are STILL HUMAN just like everyone else. "Religious" people still have desires and temptations and all around poor decision making. Just because they believe in a God or god(s) does not mean they are not capable of making mistakes and should not be held any more accountable then anyone else. Remember, if these people's religion is correct, they will be held accountable by their God, no matter what religion it is. I bet with the priest situation, one argument that can be made is "well children were entrusted in the care of these priests and they are suppose to be holy men." Well to that I say two things. One, again why is it any worse just because they have attempted to follow a "holy" path and failed? And two, children are also entrusted with teachers, parents, friends, coaches, relatives, etc etc and those people are capable of the same horrible acts AND commit them just as often. One is no better or worse than the other.
Honestly, I feel ridiculous making a case in any kind of defense for the priest/rape situation because it makes me sick to my stomach, but please keep in mind I am only using it as an example. Ultimately it stretches out to anything. Cheating, stealing, violence, even lying, whatever... someone being accused of something should never include the phrase "and he was a Christian too." Of course feel free to replace the word "christian" with any other form of religion, I just use christian as an example because I see it the most, for whatever reason people really love to shit all over christians, but that subject is for another time. (OMG I'm a Christian and I said SHIT, how could I?!)
As mentioned before I also don't understand why a person of religion doing something wrong effects the outlook of their whole religion? A muslim terrorist does not mean all muslims are terrorists. A catholic rapist does not mean all catholics, nor does it mean all christians in general, are rapists. A sketchy lawyer that happens to be jewish does not give someone the right to further a "cheap" stereo type. It's literally all the same bull shit. It is ignorance and it is based on nothing but fear and a lack of intelligence.
Most religions at some point have done something on a large scale to make their entire religion look bad. But just because one, or a hundred, or a hundred thousand, or a million people of a religion do something wrong, it does not mean that the MILLIONS of other people in that religion are the same way. Humans are humans, they are ALL capable of doing horrible things. Some humans can behave, some humans can't, but what religion they are apart of is irrelevant. It's not religion that kills, it is MAN that kills. Man acts on their beliefs. Whether it be the greed of money, or the rights of animals, or the lust of sexual desire, or the need to take what is not yours, whether it be spreading the word of your God or destroying the word of someone else's, man will believe what he believes on an individual basis. What he choses to do with his beliefs and his knowledge is of his own accord and should not be held against anyone else.
No religion's holy book or teachings are encouraging people to do the awful things they do. It just so happens that some people decide to follow a religion and no matter how hard they try to live that life, a lot of them still fall short.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
tattoo acceptance?
just saw a page on Facebook called "Tattoo acceptance in the work place."
that's all well and good, I myself have a very visible tattoo on my arm that sticks out past even a long sleeve shirt, so I appreciate the plight. however seeing this Facebook page with 600,000 fans, and most of them bitching about how visible tattoos should be allowed in the work place raises many questions and thoughts:
1) why do you have visible tattoos and working in a place they aren't allowed?
2) if you are that concerned with a good, high paying job, then tattoos should be the least of your concerns.
3) some businesses will never allow tattoos to show, but they also will not allow you to wear a baseball cap at work either. I think you'll find most places are not judging your "body art" but just your over all presentability.
4) are there really even many businesses left that don't allow reasonable visible tattoos?
5) do you HONESTLY think, that just because YOU like your tattoos that everyone else wants to see them on your neck and hands and etc? because not everyone does. some people don't want to see your Metallica shirts or nose rings either. get over it. it was YOUR choice to present yourself that way.
and last, and maybe most important:
6) "WAH WAH WAH, I didn't get the job I wanted cause they didn't like my song bird tattoo! waaaahhhh! how dare they! I got this unique and special tattoo for my grandmother! boo hoooo. now I have to go apply to a different job."
shut up.
that's all well and good, I myself have a very visible tattoo on my arm that sticks out past even a long sleeve shirt, so I appreciate the plight. however seeing this Facebook page with 600,000 fans, and most of them bitching about how visible tattoos should be allowed in the work place raises many questions and thoughts:
1) why do you have visible tattoos and working in a place they aren't allowed?
2) if you are that concerned with a good, high paying job, then tattoos should be the least of your concerns.
3) some businesses will never allow tattoos to show, but they also will not allow you to wear a baseball cap at work either. I think you'll find most places are not judging your "body art" but just your over all presentability.
4) are there really even many businesses left that don't allow reasonable visible tattoos?
5) do you HONESTLY think, that just because YOU like your tattoos that everyone else wants to see them on your neck and hands and etc? because not everyone does. some people don't want to see your Metallica shirts or nose rings either. get over it. it was YOUR choice to present yourself that way.
and last, and maybe most important:
6) "WAH WAH WAH, I didn't get the job I wanted cause they didn't like my song bird tattoo! waaaahhhh! how dare they! I got this unique and special tattoo for my grandmother! boo hoooo. now I have to go apply to a different job."
shut up.
Drake: Forget Me Later
I'm about three weeks away from being completely sick of hearing about Drake. The dude is so unbelievably over rated it gives me a head ache. His album may be done well and I don't doubt that it's very catchy and fun to listen to, especially by today's bullshit music standards. As I'm typing, I do also realize that being catchy and fun to listen to I guess is really all that matters in being a successful artist anymore, but that's beside the point of my ranting. What annoys me is how huge he is with very little actual musical talent. His lyrics are garbage, his rap flow is that of a retard, and if you ever heard his singing with out auto-tune on you would throw up. I will also admit that I do at least admire his interest in bettering his ability, I know he actively takes voice lessons which is cool. Perhaps he will grow into a respectable artist, but the skill to success ratio is WAY off. He is currently no different from Ke$ha in my eyes. If his next album proves me wrong I will be the first to admit his improvement, but for now he is just more proof of the downfall of music. Marketing = money. Musical ability = good luck with your local shows.
I am very interested in seeing what happens to Drake in the next couple years. He has no choice but to release a mind blowing sophomore album or he is screwed. When you get as big as he is as fast as he is you are 10 times more likely to never be heard from again in the near future. For the most part, only the artists who have truly climbed their way to the the top are the ones that have a long lasting career. History has proven that time and time again. Drake certainly seems to be a hard worker for what he wants, so time will tell.
I am very interested in seeing what happens to Drake in the next couple years. He has no choice but to release a mind blowing sophomore album or he is screwed. When you get as big as he is as fast as he is you are 10 times more likely to never be heard from again in the near future. For the most part, only the artists who have truly climbed their way to the the top are the ones that have a long lasting career. History has proven that time and time again. Drake certainly seems to be a hard worker for what he wants, so time will tell.
Friday, July 2, 2010
movies I figured would suck, but the trailers are suggesting otherwise:
Paranormal Activity 2
looks like they may actually pull this sequel off.
Let Me In (aka Let The Right One In)
skeptical of a Hollywood remake, but the trailer looks legit.
looks like they may actually pull this sequel off.
Let Me In (aka Let The Right One In)
skeptical of a Hollywood remake, but the trailer looks legit.
how to tell if your opinion in music matters or not:
here is a list of albums (presented in no particular order) that if you don't like, your opinion in music no longer matters.
Fleetwood Mac - Rumors
Thrice - The Artist in the Ambulance
Cursive - Domestica
Refused - The Shape of Punk to Come
Coldplay - A Rush of Blood to the Head
Dave Matthews Band - Crash
Peter Gabriel - So
Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon
Jimmy Eat World - Clarity
Bloc Party - Silent Alarm
A Tribe Called Quest - Midnight Marauders
At The Drive In - Relationship of Command
The Beatles - Sgt. Pepper and the Lonely Hearts Club Band
Jurassic 5 - Quality Control
Mew - No More Stories...
Led Zeppelin - IV
Mumford and Sons - Sigh No More
Mos Def & Talib Kwali - Blackstar
Rage Against The Machine - Rage Against The Machine
Jeff Buckley - Grace
Deftones - White Pony
No Doubt - Tragic Kingdom
Green Day - Dookie
Michael Jackson - Thriller
Paul Simon - Graceland
Incubus - Make Yourself
Linkin Park - Hybrid Theory
Cake - Fashion Nugget
Genesis - Invisible Touch
Queen - Greatest Hits
Wu-Tang Clan - Enter the 36 Chambers
The Who - My Generation
Radiohead - OK Computer
The Police - Synchronicity
Smashing Pumpkins - Melon Collie and the Infinite Sadness
Fugees - The Score
R.E.M. - Automatic for the People
Prince - Purple Rain
U2 - The Joshua Tree
*(there are certainly more, but these are what came to mind right away)
Fleetwood Mac - Rumors
Thrice - The Artist in the Ambulance
Cursive - Domestica
Refused - The Shape of Punk to Come
Coldplay - A Rush of Blood to the Head
Dave Matthews Band - Crash
Peter Gabriel - So
Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon
Jimmy Eat World - Clarity
Bloc Party - Silent Alarm
A Tribe Called Quest - Midnight Marauders
At The Drive In - Relationship of Command
The Beatles - Sgt. Pepper and the Lonely Hearts Club Band
Jurassic 5 - Quality Control
Mew - No More Stories...
Led Zeppelin - IV
Mumford and Sons - Sigh No More
Mos Def & Talib Kwali - Blackstar
Rage Against The Machine - Rage Against The Machine
Jeff Buckley - Grace
Deftones - White Pony
No Doubt - Tragic Kingdom
Green Day - Dookie
Michael Jackson - Thriller
Paul Simon - Graceland
Incubus - Make Yourself
Linkin Park - Hybrid Theory
Cake - Fashion Nugget
Genesis - Invisible Touch
Queen - Greatest Hits
Wu-Tang Clan - Enter the 36 Chambers
The Who - My Generation
Radiohead - OK Computer
The Police - Synchronicity
Smashing Pumpkins - Melon Collie and the Infinite Sadness
Fugees - The Score
R.E.M. - Automatic for the People
Prince - Purple Rain
U2 - The Joshua Tree
*(there are certainly more, but these are what came to mind right away)
currently on my mind.
movies are currently on my mind.
I just watched "The Road" directed by John Hillcoat and I am a bit disappointed. I have to admit my expectations were needlessly high so that didn't help much. What bums me out the most is that it is a truly amazing tale of humanity, survival and love and I only felt gripped about 50% of the time. There were definitely some really great moments but there were also a lot of scenes I just wasn't buying. Viggo Mortensen is certainly an incredible actor, but what I'm starting to see in him lately is that he thinks he is an incredible actor and is perhaps getting his head stuck a little further up his ass than he should. Newcomer Kodi Smit-McPhee plays Viggo's son and for the most part does a good job. My major complaint with Kodi's performance is it took about 30 minutes of the film for him to actually start acting. Over all, pretty good stuff, but I think it could have and should have been a lot better.
other quick move thoughts. "The Last Airbender" is getting raped by reviewers and it's bumming me out. I love Shyamalan. Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs are some of my favorite movies. The Village was slow but I still think the story is incredible and Lady In The Water I thought was a very interesting take of fairy tales. I even sat and tolerated The Happening. But I fear for M. Night's over all career. He appears to be sliding continuously down hill film after film. He had potential of a director of Hitchcock caliber but is rapidly proving that perhaps his first films were a fluke and he is running out of steam. Granted I have not yet seen The Last Airbender, but for it to be receiving this awful of reviews is not a good thing.
also, the new Spider-Man has finally been cast and it is in fact an awesome choice. Andrew Garfield, most notably as "Anton" from Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus has been chosen to fill both Spider-Man and Peter Parker's shoes.
I just watched "The Road" directed by John Hillcoat and I am a bit disappointed. I have to admit my expectations were needlessly high so that didn't help much. What bums me out the most is that it is a truly amazing tale of humanity, survival and love and I only felt gripped about 50% of the time. There were definitely some really great moments but there were also a lot of scenes I just wasn't buying. Viggo Mortensen is certainly an incredible actor, but what I'm starting to see in him lately is that he thinks he is an incredible actor and is perhaps getting his head stuck a little further up his ass than he should. Newcomer Kodi Smit-McPhee plays Viggo's son and for the most part does a good job. My major complaint with Kodi's performance is it took about 30 minutes of the film for him to actually start acting. Over all, pretty good stuff, but I think it could have and should have been a lot better.
other quick move thoughts. "The Last Airbender" is getting raped by reviewers and it's bumming me out. I love Shyamalan. Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs are some of my favorite movies. The Village was slow but I still think the story is incredible and Lady In The Water I thought was a very interesting take of fairy tales. I even sat and tolerated The Happening. But I fear for M. Night's over all career. He appears to be sliding continuously down hill film after film. He had potential of a director of Hitchcock caliber but is rapidly proving that perhaps his first films were a fluke and he is running out of steam. Granted I have not yet seen The Last Airbender, but for it to be receiving this awful of reviews is not a good thing.
also, the new Spider-Man has finally been cast and it is in fact an awesome choice. Andrew Garfield, most notably as "Anton" from Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus has been chosen to fill both Spider-Man and Peter Parker's shoes.
The Blog Times
so I have a pretty loud opinion on just about everything. a lot of it I say out loud, and sadly a lot of it I don't. I honestly don't really care if anyone reads this blog or not, but I need to be able to complain somewhere and I figure if it's in a concentrated area perhaps it will piss a few less people off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)