Ong-Bak

My friends can testify to the fact that I'm... how can I phrase this... rather impressionable when it comes to fictional things. When I was a kid, I carried a hot wheels General Lee with me everywhere, especially when I watched the Dukes of Hazzard, and when the car jumped on TV, mine jumped in real life. Yeeeeeeha! When I was a little older, I knocked myself out with plastic nunchucks pretending to be a Ninja Turtle. Cowabunga! When Rounders came out, I tried to make a living playing poker. If you can't spot the sucker in your first half hour at the table, then you are the sucker. When the Fast and the Furious came out, I had to start tuning my Saturn (that's right, I said Saturn.) I live my life a quarter-mile at a time... And to this day, I still have dreams of one day becoming a jedi knight. Try not... do... or do not. There is not try.

In my defense, I think that all of these things are legitimate interests that were simply awakened a bit more by their dramatization on the screen. I like cars (fast ones, namely). I like playing cards (though I've managed to ween poker out of my diet). And I'm still interested in the martial arts. I'm taking Tai Chi now, and if the day comes that I deem myself to have "mastered" it, I'd like to study something else. Something like, oh, I don't know... Muay Thai Boxing?

Which brings us to the title of this posting: Ong-Bak. This is, arguably, one of the best modern martial arts films made. There are no strings. There are no special effects. There are no stunt doubles. And a lot of the stunts are filmed from multiple angles, and shown back to back in the movie, so you can truly appreciate the skill with which Tony Jaa (thus far a more-or-less unknown, but after this movie he's gotta be the next Jet Li or Jackie Chan) performs his moves. To quote (or at least kinda quote) Maxim: They're moves that would make Jackie Chan need a chiropractor.

Anyway, the form that Tony Jaa has studied is known as Muay Thai, or just Thai Boxing. The elbows and knees are some of the hardest bones in the body, and it is these bones that Muay Thai focuses on. Remember Sagat, the boss from Street Fighter 2? His light and medium punches were elbow shots, and his light and medium kicks were knee blows. Guess what: He hailed from Thailand. His style was Muay Thai. Now, I'm not going to venture a guess as to which style throughout all the world is the best. (If I had to, I'd say Tai Chi; that's why I'm studying it. It focuses on the internal, and lets the external take care of itself.) But I love Muay Thai because it's great to see something besides punches and kicks being thrown. It's just neat to see a different perspective. Check out www.ongbakmovie.com if you like martial arts movies.

Jealousy

I think I've finally figured out the answer to... okay, not so much an "answer to," but the reason behind my jealous nature. It's kinda puzzled me for a while, because I get jealous (and I'm talking women here) when I have absolutely no need, justification, or right to be so. (I should quantify that statement; by "jealous," I don't mean "punching walls in anger and hating the world." I mean "a little disheartened because someone else is getting attention that I'd rather me be getting.") Case in point: there's a girl at work with whom I share a flirty friendship. This consists of talking and laughing, as most friendships do, but also not-infrequent (mutually exchanged) ass-smacks, back scratches, and huggy things. Now I want to make myself clear here, in that I have no desire to date this girl, for multiple reasons (not including the generic "I'll probably wind up on my own" way of thinking). 1) she has a boyfriend. In my younger, less mature, more inconsiderate past, that would've been of no concern. But I've wisened, I like to think, as I've grown older, and I have no real interest in breaking up a relationship for my own personal benefit. (Trying to break up a couple for what I perceive to be the benefit of those involved, however, is unfortunately still in my repetoir.) 2) She's too young for me. By FAR. Better suited for my brother (who just started college today) than myself (who's been out of college for the better part of three years now). 3) I don't think we'd work. We have fun, sure, and I have no doubt that physical stuff would be great. But there's more to a relationship than fun and attraction. I'm not sure there's enough commonality between us for an actual relationship. Not at this point, anyway. In my experience, people change a lot between the ages of 15ish and 23ish. It's why I put no stock in highschool relationships. And I have best friends that I wouldn't want to date even if they were women (and some of them are). However, despite those three points, I do enjoy our little flirty-thing; it's fun. And I get jealous when she's flirty with someone else! And just yesterday I think I managed to figure out why.

When she's flirting with me (harmlessly, with no intentions or plots behind it) and/or me with her, it makes me feel special. Maybe, in that sense, it helps to achieve something that is normally only done through a relationship. In relationships, the two people involved typically give each other more (in any sense of the word) than they do anyone else. Their significant other is elevated to a point above all other people in the world, and their significant other does the same for them. So my thinking is that when she flirts with me, I wind up with a little bit of that feeling special; so when I see her flirting with someone else, it makes me feel just a little less special, you know? I'm kinda glad that I've come to see this now, though; diagnosing a problem, to me, always is harder than actually fixing it once you've found it. Now that I can see why I struggle with this, I can more readily change how I see things to eliminate the problem.

On a similar, yet side, note, I've been wondering exactly what it is in us that makes us more attracted to someone we're dating than we might otherwise be. What I mean is that we all undoubtedly find the objects of our desire to be attractive; they wouldn't be objects of desire if they weren't in some way. But, after a break-up, or falling out, or being shot down, or what-have-you, we see that person with (for lack of a better description) clearer eyes. The model we were dating somehow becomes just an ordinary person. (The supermodel just a model; the ordinary person a skank ho; again, what-have-you. Same thing goes for you women too, I'm sure. In a relationship I'm "so thoughtful"; afterwards I'm sure it's like "god, what a nerd...") If I could somehow figure out what accounts for that difference, and make it a conscious reaction, I'd be set. (Hell, if I could somehow bottle and sell that knowledge, I'd be really set.) I mean, think about it. If you could go through life and not give anyone a second look unless you actually wanted to, life would be a bit simpler. You could focus on doing what you wanted, what you liked, where you wanted to be, etc. And if in the process of that, you find someone who really meshes well with you, someone who seems to share your every thought and ideal and dream, then you could turn on the "love goggles" (still lacking that better description) and that person would become as attractive physically as they were emotionally or intellectually. That's the way to go. Me? I think I'll be lucky if I can find the above-mentioned-person that seems to share my thoughts, ideals, and dreams. If I think they're attractive too, it'll be because I'm dead, and in heaven. There'd be no other explanation.

Situation End

Okay, 3 out of 3 people said to just ignore her. And I couldn't... maybe I'm too nice... maybe I've been ignored one time too many... I dunno. But I had to give out resolution; I couldn't just leave it hanging. So I texted back that I was fine, how was she. She said she was about to go to sleep, could she text me tomorrow? I said something almost verbatim along the following lines:

"Hon, we have some things in common, but I just think we're two very different people. I can't handle being chided every time you disagree with me. I love you, but I don't think we're going to have any more luck as friends than we did as a couple. Please take care."

That was good, right? Short, caring, but point made. See, I couldn't just ignore her because that's something we humans do too often; because it becomes inconvenient for us to talk to someone else, we simply don't. And that's not a good way to treat people. I may not get along with her, but I still respect her and love her. Not 'cause she's my ex; because she's a human being... and because she's a specific human being. Yang love and Yin love... love because of what something is, and because of who they are. I'm going to make the effort to live my life with those two present, caring for even those I don't really like. Heh... wish me luck.

Advice?

So my ex texted me today... Say hi, see how I was. I'm not sure if I want to text back or not. See, if you recall, the last time we really talked (in our efforts to be friends), she berated me for wanting a simpler life; called the decision "disgusting." I was ready to write her off write then and there, but then a routine test showed a black mass on her ovary, and I figured I should stay around for moral support should it be the worst. THAT situation ended with her texting me that she was fine; when I asked what it was, I got no answer. And that was the last time we had talked at all. That was 2-3 weeks ago. I figured that things weren't really okay, but that she didn't feel like sharing, and after the tongue-lashing I'd received, I had no interest in probing either. So now I don't know if I want to resume any kind of conversation at all. I mean, our brief relationship consisted of mostly okay times with the occasional my-being-yelled-at because I expressed an opinion she disagreed with. I don't really want that anymore, but I don't want to be ignorant either. (Ma always said I was too nice.) Do I just text her and say that I don't want to talk to her anymore? Do I say why? Do I try to keep things cordial, but just not hang out anymore? Do I just not answer? I don't know... I don't like to hurt people, but I have no real desire to put myself in a situation to feel attacked again either. Suggestions would be welcome.

Too much of a good thing

So, I've more or less spent the past 2.5 days sleeping. Working tonight is the first time I've been out of the house in 3 days. I think I'm going to go sleep some more, actually. I'm still not 100% better, but there's nothing like sweating out a cold while you're trying to wait on seven tables, right? That's one of a few things I really don't like about being a server; no sick days. (No sick pay either, for that matter.) Either you find someone to work for you, or you're working. Good times, good times...

cough cough

It's funny how some things sneak up on you without you realizing it; hunger, exhaustion, full bladders... COLDS. Isn't it weird? I mean, this was a particularly busy weekend (i.e. particularly profitable as well), so I should've seen this coming. When I work hard, and a lot, and frequently, with little time for proper nutrition or rest, I tend to get sick. But other than that, there were no warning signs. It was out with Jackson last night; up, sick and irritable today.

I hate being sick. I mean, I know noone enjoys it, but I think the common cold is the worst of em all. Why? Because I'm not incapacitated. I mean, I can basically function fine (and I certainly don't have justification to call out of work), I just feel crappy while I do it. I'm not even all that tired, so I can't just go to bed, 'cause I'll just toss and turn and be miserable and not be able to sleep. So I'm here, bitching to you. I know what you're thinking: what a wuss. You're right. Nah, I'm not really that bad, I don't think. I try to take care of myself; rest up, drink fluids, etc. Just, uh... just don't talk to me too much. You might get snapped at...

"We're in a world

where good's not good enough." Ah, Shirley Manson... you phrase things so eloquently. I went to the diner with Jackson last night after I got out of work. (Poor guy didn't realize he had to work in the morning until it was 1:00AM and we were paying the check.) Anyway, we talked about a great many things from immigration to war to homelessness, etc. And in many cases we agreed: people have no clue what they're talking about when they talk about such things, and the points of view that they do express are most often centered around themselves and what's best for them.

But he was saying that a friend of his was anti-capitalistic. (The same friend who, apparently, just got promoted at work, now makes $15/hour and bought a new car; sounds like capitalism is doing him okay, right?) But the friends idealistic line of thinking was that in capitalism, people put too much value on menial things. And I personally also think that people do. But that's not capitalism's fault; it's commercialism's fault. It's people's fault. Captitalism is wonderful; it lets us own houses (not myself just yet, but I'm getting there), own cars, work where we choose (so long as it chooses us), have money to do things we like. As much as I tend to distrust government-types, I have to say that as far as an economy is concerned, capitalism is pretty much the way I'd want things to go. The problem is that people use and abuse it. Unfortunately, that's the problem with just about any theory of economics or politics. Take communism for example. Communism, at it's core, is a great idea. Everyone does equal amounts of work, and everyone receives (recieves?... damn "i before e except after c except in some cases" rule...) the same amount in return. But people corrupt the system, just like we do everything else. The same is true of capitalism; capitalism is fine, but people get greedy and "good" becomes "not good enough" and we strive to get more and more and more; more than our neighbors, more than our friends, more than what we used to have. We strive to get "what we deserve," what we've "earned." Pish-posh! I'm gradually learning to be happy not even with "good," but with "enough." And my life is truly happier for it.

Whilst we were talking about the various societal ails, and our respective desires to help, Jackson point out that it wasn't the less fortunate he wanted to help, but rather those who were all-too-fortunate and didn't realize it 'cause their heads were so far up their own asses. (My words, not his.) And that's a very noble goal of his, but I'm not sure if it's a realistic one. I, of course, pledged my support if he comes up with an idea. But seriously, how does one make someone who drops 30Gs a year for a country club membership feel pity for a homeless person? You can't. ... my mind is coming up empty in my search for which philosopher said this, but basically, in an ethical hierarchy, you can't convince someone lower on the rungs to move higher up. (I think his ordering was: driven by money, by aesthetics, and finally by ethics.) But someone who appreciates art and beauty has no more chance of talking a money-loving person into loving art than a minister could convince a poet that love of one isn't as great as the love of all. There is no rational reason someone on a higher rung can give to someone on a lower rung to make them realize they need to move up a rung; it has to be self-motivated, self-realized. And, unfortunately, most people are motivated, but only about themselves.

Family?

So I'm lying in bed, and I'm tossing and turning (which is uncommon; too much soda at work maybe?) and I'm thinking about my extended family (cousins, aunts uncles, etc) and I'm thinking of how they (one side of the family anyway) tend to be quite judgemental. There's just a sneer, a certain attitude in the way they carry themselves. And I have to wonder how much loyalty am I supposed to have to such people... I mean, honestly, with the holidays coming up, I'd rather spend them with my immediate family and/or friends than extended family. And part of me feels guilty for feeling that way, and part doesn't.

Guilt, I think, comes from thinking differently than we feel like we're supposed to think. And what we're supposed to think is taught to us throughout our lives by others; but what if they way we're taught to think and feel is wrong?

I feel almost like a traitor in this line of thinking... But on the flip side, it doesn't feel right to give someone extra consideration because of an accidental relation. I mean, my parents, my brother... I grew up with them. There's an actual bond there; there've been good times and bad times shared. But my other relatives? I see them, maybe, once a year. There's no bond. They're just people who my parents know whose names go in a box with mine every year to decide who we're gonna arbitrarily buy a christmas for. It's not the buying of the present that bothers me... I mean, I'm not gonna bitch about shelling out $20 for a gift, you know? It's just a wondering I'm stuck with right now, and it's kinda keeping me awake.

On the flip side, I'm gonna drop a plug right now for The Dresden Dolls (www.dresdendolls.com). They've rapidly moved their way from a band I've never heard of to my second favorite group. (I don't know if anyone can top Garbage. God love Shirley Manson, and her wonderful scottish lilt.) Anyway, I never thought the Dolls were anything like mainstream, but they're apparently being sold at Target (and I think Best Buy) so good for them, 'cause they didn't sell out to get there. They're a punk/cabaret band, which I never would've thought a possible blend of music. There's two members; the guy plays drums, and the girl sings and plays the keyboard/piano. The music def has a cabaret feel to it; for almost every song, I can visualize something on stage happening to go along with the music. The punk comes from kind of their look, but punk originally meant "doing it yourself," and the Dolls do that, so as far as I'm concerned that's enough to dub them punk. But stop by their site and check 'em out. They have a few clips of their songs (maybe a few entire songs?) to listen to. They have good beats and the lyrics are quite witty. So that's my plug. Sue me. And good night.

It's funny 'cause it's not true..

Though it may as well be:

********

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory.

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."
"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."


********

I love The Onion.

Spam

And it finally came (and hopefully went). My dearest spam... "I agree with your post. Check out this site!" Seriously... is that the best they can do? I mean, I understand that the very notion of spam is that it's not personalized, but if that's the case, why attempt to make it personalized? I mean, I wouldn't have bothered to check out that site except for the fact that this guy agreed with my post about juice! Hoo-wee, count me sold! (Incidentally, I have not a clue what "this site" wound up being; didn't waste my time.)

In response to the past two legit comments:

1) Yes, green beans do suck. Honestly, I'm not such a big fan of broccoli either. And spinach? Let's say that spinach is tredding on thin ice; it should watch it's ass. I think I can blanket say that I'm not a fan of green food. (Except on St. Patty's day, when I get green pancakes and green beer, etc.) I'm trying though; tryin to gets me some vitamins. But I don't plan to use green beans again; I'm thinking broccoli isn't going to make the cut either. Carrots, and some spinach. If that doesn't work (and I'm kinda scared to try), I'll just rock V8 and my fruit juice.

2) Charity... yeah... I've been meaning to volunteer for a loooooong time now; it is kinda the whole shyness/new-thing fear that's been in the way, but it's also the less noble fact that I, too, am not such a fan of most people. I would think that those involved in charities wouldn't be quite the pain in the rump that many people (namely my customers) seem to be, but who knows. I think I'd feel bad bitching about co-volunteers, you know? "Tim was spooning some stew into this guy's dish, right? And he was holding the scoop all wrong! Like, his hand was UNDER it somehow! What's up with that?" It just doesn't work.

Brief side note: I don't know what to think when a blurb on the nightly news says "Car in House" and it shows a picture of a car waist-deep into someone's outer wall. Then another shot shows a solid 50-60 yards of tire tracks across the yard, through a fence, and up a deck before they end at the aforementioned car. What was that guy smoking?

... okay, now that that side note has passed, I think I'm done for the night. Until next time, may your tunics never tear. Or somesuch. Toodles!

Juice Episode 2: The gripe

Okay, that jumble of lines that's at the end of the juice post? That's supposed to be the logo of the shooting star that flies across the screen after whatever famous actor has just finished their pitch about loving your sports car or whatever. For whatever reason, blogger doesn't like random spaces in its posts, so all my effort just got jumbled together. But I can see it in my mind, and it looks beautiful...

Juicing

So, at the incessant promotion by a friend of mine, a week or two ago I broke down and bought a juicer, convinced of it's wonders by him, and knowing myself well enough to know that if I was serious about trying to be healthier, my best chance of intaking fruits and vegetables was in juice form. Now, juicing fruit is fantastic. I love it. The juicer's a pain in the ass to clean, but the juice tastes great. I've mixed everything together, keeping a blueberry/dark grape base, and it's awesome AND it's good for me.

Now, vegetable juice? That's another story. That tastes so god-awful that in two weeks I can't remember if I've attempted to make veggie juice two times or three times. In either case, I did not finish my juice. Now, maybe I'm just not doing the right veggies; the above-mentioned friend suggested a base of carrots. So that was my undertaking today: mostly carrots with a healthy (mind the pun) dose of broccoli, green beans, spinach, lettuce, and tomatos. I think my mistake was moving beyond the carrots. No, that's not true. I think my mistake was that although there were more carrots than any other one vegetable, there were more NON-carrot vegetables than there were carrots. (Kinda like when 3 people run for president, and one gets 40% and the other two get 30%? The 40% guy wins, even though 60% of the people didn't want him to. The difference, I guess, is that in this case the two 30%s won, 'cause I'll be damned if I could taste carrot.) In any event, I'm going to steel myself for one more veggie juice attempt. (Not just this minute; I need some recovery time.) We're gonna try something like 90% carrots, and maybe some spinach. And just leave it at that, and see how that goes. If that works, then I'll maybe try to branch out, in bits and peices, to include perhaps a third vegetable. But I think that's as far as I'll go. I've been drinking bleach for the last 30 minutes and that horrid taste is still there; it's as though the bleach has burned away every living cell EXCEPT my tastebuds and those cells that still have nasty-juice clinging to them. Ugh. If the carrot/spinach combo doesn't work, I'm just gonna stick to V8. It's not the best tasting stuff, but it's better than the rank, gross, rancid, disgusting, vile, putrid (ooh! good word! let's end there) stuff that I've been making. And it's healthy!

Author's note: Kids, we discussed a serious subject here today: drinking bleach. It's no laughing matter; it can flat out kill you. So never, EVER drink bleach unless you're at a really kickin' party and someone dares you. Even then, make sure you have a chaser of Everclear or some home-brewed Absynth ready.
* -The more you know...
* __
* _/ \_
* _/ *

Types of love. And more!

I bought a book titled… dammit… it’s something like “The Yin of Tai Chi.” It’s a good read so far, and one of the things that I’ve learned from it is a type of love that I haven’t considered before, and is frightfully amiss in my life. The book refers to two different kinds of love (neither of which is romantic love, interestingly enough). The first is yang love; this is to love someone because of what they are. Ghandi loved Sara and Paul and little Billy because they were human. Yin love, on the other hand, is a mother’s love. It’s loving unconditionally, though perhaps with a bit of sadness in some cases. Yin love loves Sara and Paul and little Billy because they are Sara and Paul and little Billy; even if Sara’s a slut, Paul’s on the sauce, and little Billy sells drugs to his 4th grade classmates. It’s loving them not in spite of their flaws, but because of their flaws; because their flaws are part of what makes them who they are. Again, a certain bit of sadness can accompany that love; but that’s the love the universe (Tao, God, Yahweh, Allah, Abba, Brahma; pick your term) has for us, because it created us. We are it’s children, as are the plants, animals, rocks, mountains, rivers, valleys, etc. Imagine if we all treated each other as family; if we could put away our cynicism, our distrust, our selfishness, our arrogance, and realize that we are no different than anything else around us.

I am gradually becoming a better person; I think. I use my attitude towards my job (namely, towards the customers at my job) as proof of that. I had four people come in two minutes after close (10 PM) tonight, and I stayed in a good mood. Why get angry over that? It wouldn’t have changed anything. So I stayed upbeat and just did other things I had to do while they were eating. (Granted, I got a little irritable when 11:15 rolled around and they were still there. What do you want from me? I say “wannabe” sage…) But I’m slowly, gradually, but I think definitively, becoming more and more the man I want to be. Between taking Tai Chi, and continuing to seek the divine, and meditating, and staying calm, and paying off bills, and trying to live more simply… I’m getting there. The next step is volunteering and helping others. That’s gonna be a hard step for me to take though; I don’t mind change when it happens to me, but initiating change has never been an easy task for me. I do it, mind you… I started taking Tai Chi classes, didn’t I? But it takes me a while to find the courage. But I will. I feel like my feet are finally on the path that I should be walking, and I’m not going to stray (easily) from it again.

The Legend of Bagger Vance

I would just like to say that this is possibly the most unknown, most underrated great movie is The Legend of Bagger Vance. I'm not a big golf fan. It's an okay sport, I suppose, and putt-putt is a respectable first date. But although the setting is golf-based, the movie offers a great many lessons about life, and it's just a great movie. If you haven't seen it before, shell out the $5-ish bucks at your local Blockbuster and give it a whirl. If you aren't happy with how those two hours get spent, I'll... um... give you the next hour for free.

Arrogance

Okay, I think this letter printed in The Sun (our paper here in maryland) is a good example of one of people's major flaws. I'm going to retype it here in its entirety, and see if you can figure what about it is the cause for today's rant before I actually start my rant. Ready? Here we go:



Some people, including our president, think public schools should teach "intelligent design" along with the theory of evolution when teaching the subject of human origin. But when they say "intelligent design," do they mean the Judeo-Christian version? Or will the schools also teach theories about intelligent design by other religions as well? Shouldn't they also include creation stories of the various tribes of American Indians? And we shouldn't leave out the Incas and the Mayans, so as not to slight those who ave come to this country from lands to the south and have a different view of creation.

And why stop with creation? When the schools teach about birth, shouldn't they mention that some people think babies are delivered by the stork? And when they teach hygene, shouldn't they include the theory of the Tooth Fairy as well, since many young children believe these stories? The intelligent design subject is much too involved to be taught in the public schools. It is best left to be taught to children by their parents or in the religious schools of their choice. -Murray Spear (Saturday, Aug 13, 2005)



Okay now, who can spot my issue? Anyone? Smitty? Jessica? No? Okay, here's the deal. People today (myself not excluded, I"m sad to say) have become obsessed not only with being RIGHT, but with making their opponent appear SO wrong that they look silly or just plain dumb. Don't believe me? When was the last time you said (or thought to yourself) "well, I may not be right, but you aren't either." It happens all the time. Our arrogance has risen to the point where it's not just about us being right; it's about ensuring that the other person can't be right. Whether we're right or not is irrelevant, so long as someone else isn't.

Ordinarily, I hate reading editorials in the paper, because they're rarely more than the blathering of idiots who have no clue about the subjects on which they write. I had THOUGHT that Mr. Spear here was an exception, because he's right on one note: most proponents of intelligent design DO have simply the judeo-christian tradition in mind, and they ARE ignoring the fact that there is more than one intelligent design story. I was all onboard with him. ...until that second paragraph...

People think babies are delivered by storks? I'm willing to bet the mothers of the world could set these imbeciles straight. And the "theory of the tooth fairy?" That statement made me want to reach through the paper somehow and smack this dude on the back of the head. Scientists in the 3rd and 4th grade have long since disproven the tooth fairy theory. There has actually been recorded evidence that the tooth fairy is none other than the parents of said child sneaking in at night and replacing the tooth with money. The real question is what they do with the tooth afterwards. Seriously folks; intelligent design is not some fictional story told to 8-yr-olds to spur on their imagination. Is it a proven fact? Of course not. But it has been debated (in such childish fields as biology, physics, chemistry, philosophy, and theology) using reason coupled with experience for centuries now, probably millenia.

On the flip side, while we're on this subject, evolution is also NOT a fact, but a theory. And although I doubt the assertion that these two points of view are mutually exclusive (Hands up, who can concieve of a creator who made the universe in such a way that it would evolve?), the fact is (and it's probably the only real "fact" of this matter) is that both theories revolve around how humans came to exist, and both are popular and researched enough to warrant being taught in public school. Does creationism have to include the whole "God spake, saying "Let there be light" thing from Genesis? Of course not. But it could point out the intricacies of the universe, and the complexities of human existence, and say "There's a good chance that someone or something MADE all this." In the same tone, evolutionism doesn't have to mention the search for the missing link between man and ape. (Surprise, all you atheistic, sensless evolutionistic blatherers: Darwin's theory NEVER claimed that man evolved from monkeys. Ever. A student of his misrepresented what Darwin wrote for a similar reason that you attack creationism now: To be right, and to prove us religious types are just silly dunderheads. Darwin only asserted that existent humans changed minor facts about ourselves over time. Example? We're (for the most part) not as hairy as we used to be because we now wear clothes to keep ourselves warm.) In any event, I (don't) look forward to reading more about this in the paper as the subject will surely continue to be argued so long as people feel the need to be right and make the other person look dumb.

Incidentally, yes, I did try to ridicule the find, upstanding gentleman who wrote this article. Firstly, I said upfront that I, too, was guilty of this tactic. Secondly, he started it. Thirdly, come on. He said "the theory of the tooth fairy." If that very statement didn't make you want to beat the life out of him due to it's utter inanity and misusage, than I guess you are a better person than I.

REALLY PISSED

pissed because (counting this one) blogger decided not to post my full blog posting 4 times now, and I had to go back and edit the posts to get my points across. If this weren't free, I'd demand my money back.

American Egotism

I'll be brief here, 'cause I must off to work. Last night, a coworker was trying to make the point that depending on one's outlook, we react differently to the same things. And as evidence, she asked if I was horrified by 9/11. I could only respond "well..." She looked to another coworker for verification, who, thankfully, was equally non-aghast. I eventually did say that I wasn't happy about what happened, which was enough to prove her point that bin Laden and myself clearly had different reactions to the same event.

A bit later though, she expressed disbelief/disapproval that my coworker and myself weren't distraught over the massive loss of life of 9/11. I said, "Honey, that stuff happens all the time, all over the world."
"Well, yeah, but it's like how I'm more upset when my grandfather dies than when yours does, you know?"
"No, not really."
"You wouldn't be more upset if your grandfather died than if mine did?"
"No... death doesn't really upset me in the first place; it's just a natural part of life. Its one thing to miss someone, but to be upset about it is selfish, and it's even moreso to be more upset when mine dies vs. yours." All this brings me to my point for this post: Almost all americans were mortified over what happened on Sept 11 2001. And I certainly agree that it was a tragedy. However: these things happen around the world all the time. It is a massive display of arrogance that we (mostly) pay those things no mind but expect the world to share in our outrage when it actually happens to us. On a similar note, I've heard countless people say that we shouldn't be in iraq because of all the death. No, they want us out because of all the american deaths. Iraqis were dying (and worse, being tortured, oppressed, forced to watch family die, etc) before we got there. But, again, people here don't care about that because they aren't "our" people. All peoples are part of this earth, and it is as much our responsibility to try to take care of the people in iraq, france, north korea, england, russia, or kerblachistan as it is to take care of people in the United States. This is the same as the fact that it's our responsibility to reach out to those less fortunate (homeless, jobless, friendless, etc) regardless of whether or not we know them. Unfortunately, the american public will likely continue to ignore the problems of the world, claiming that they aren't our problems, and then express surprise and disgust when those problems eventually spill over onto our soil.

Mean stuff can be funny

I just think it's funny that there's a t-shirt out there that, in reference to the Harry Potter series, says "-someone- dies on page 596. There, I just saved you 4 hours and $30." (I substituted the "-someone-" because I'm not quite mean enough to blow that surprise here; just mean enough to laugh at it.) I think it's funnier that the company selling the shirt, in its description of the shirt, basically says "At least we didn't tell you it was -so and so- Oh yeah... *Warning: Harry Potter Spoiler Alert*"

I don't get it

A coworker of mine is recently (within the past two weeks) separated from her husband. Tonight she asked me if I thought it would be hokey to put herself on match.com or some website like that. Let me begin by saying that I don't think such a thing is hokey. I've done it myself, in my younger, "gosh I need a girlfriend, please god, let me get a girlfriend" days. And it seems to work for some people. (I think they're the minority, but they exist nonetheless.) But her asking me brought to a head (again) this seemingly universal urge that almost every person has to "find someone." Two weeks... why worry so soon about finding someone else? Take that time to reconnect with yourself. Do things that you like to do, and eventually you wi

Okay, this fucking thing cut off my post and I'm typing this as an edit. Thankfully enough for my computer's sake, it only lopped off about two paragraphs. Here's the gist:
1) It's silly to miss out on life because you're desperately chasing after the ideal of a significant other
2) After 6 years of bachelorhood, I'm happy with who I am, and if I meet a gal that totally meshes with who I am and what I want, that's fantastic; but I'm not going to sacrifice my individuality by settling for someone who doesn't. And I'm certainly not going to waste my time looking for such a person...
That said, I shake my fist at blogger for cutting out the initial writings, but I'm secretly grateful 'cause I got to add a line about "chasing after someone to settle for," which I think made a good ending to the rant. So everything about this post worked out, even if it felt like it wasn't going to... how very Taoist...

One more note...

I read recently an example of a woman who was intelligent, good-looking, etc, etc. But she wound up in dysfunctional after dysfunctional relationship. Eventually, after a particularly abusive one, she started taking group therapy. At the first session, tears in her eyes, she desperately asked what she could do to "meet the right guy."

The therapist asked her "What do you want to do?"

The question caught the woman off-guard, and eventually she said that she liked to cook, and the therapist suggested that she take a cooking class. But, the woman wanted to know, how would she meet a man at a cooking class?

The point, of course, is that when it comes to finding happiness, people have to stop looking outside of themselves. They have to do what comes naturally to them, and simply enjoy life as it comes. I think this is what fuels the stereotype that dating coworkers is a bad idea. The fact of the matter is that the odds are against you having anything useful in common with a coworker because the starting common ground is work! Few people like their jobs enough that it would be a hobby for them even if it weren't a job; so really, the only thing two people who meet at work are nearly-gauranteed to have in common is that they don't like their work! On the flip side, when you meet someone whilst you're out doing something you enjoy, then you at least have the foundation for something workable because then there's at least one thing in common that you both do in your fun-loving, easy-going, down-time.

Laundry

For the record, what is a blog for if not to air laundry? ("Dirty" is a judgement call; I don't really see too many of the emotions that I have as dirty (It's too much of a guilty-conscience concept for me), and those few that I do see as dirty don't really make it on here. This isn't an adult-only blog, after all...) But, seriously, what else is it for but to get emotions out and onto something tangible? Am I just supposed to write about the food I ate, and the fact that I got gas today? ... I mean for my car, btw; I know "gas" has a different connotation when it's used around "food." Anyway, this has been, and will probably continue to be, where I come to vent. And I don't really see a problem with that...

Nausea

Lung Shu said to the physician Wen Chi, "Your art is subtle. I have an ailment; can you cure it?"

The physician said, "I will do as you say, but first tell me about your symtoms."

Lung Shu said, "I am not honored when the whole village praises me, nor am I ashamed when the whole county criticizes me. Gain does not make me happy, loss does not grieve me. I look upon life as death, and see wealth as like poverty. I view people as pigs, and see myself as others. At home I am as though at an inn, and I look upon my native village as like a foreign country. WIth these afflictions, rewards cannot encourage me, punishments cannot threaten me. I cannot be moved by sorrow or happiness. Thus I cannot serve the government, associate with friends, run my household, or control my servants. What sickness is this? Is there any way to cure it?"

The physician had Lung Shu stand with his back to the light while he looked into his chest. After a while he said, "Aha! I see your heart; it is empty! You are nearly a sage. Six of the apertures in your heart are open, one of them is closed. This may be why you think the wisdom of a sage is an ailment. It cannot be stopped by my shallow art."

* * * * * * * * *

Along those lines, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote a book entitled "Nausea." In "Nausea," if memory serves (the exactly details are a tad fuzzy, but the concept is still there), the main character begins to feel very out of place in the world. Everything he has known starts to become foreign. Ordinary household objects and events become very strange, and day-to-day events become earth-shattering. These gradual/rapid (it happens over time, but nevertheless feels rapid) are enough to make him nauseous; hence the title of the book. But in the end, he realizes that this sense of the foreign has happened to him in accompaniment with his understanding that there is no inherent meaning to life. There is no set, default purpose. And it is a combination of that realization, that whatever presupposed meaning he had used to think belonged to life didn't exist, coupled with the awareness that he was alone in this realiztion, that made him more nauseous than ever.

There is a lot in my life that is begining to feel foreign. I am having new viewpoints about mundane things (like work, cars, tvs) as well as some important things (religion, friends, family). And I feel lost. No one, no one else in my life views life as I see it. No one else seems to realize that the only, only meaning to our lives, the only purpose God intended for us, is to live as true to ourselves as possible. Now, this doesn't mean selfishly, of course; in understanding ourselves, and our inner nature, we have an awareness that we are one with the world around us, and that we have a responsibility to take care of it and everyone in it as we would ourselves. But in order to truly accomplish that, we must stay true to who we are; make decisions based only on what we know is right for us and best for everyone around us. A gardener shouldn't run the finances for a large non-profit company any more than an accountant should be in charge of the creation of a new city park. When we violate our inner nature, when we try to make things work, we only make things worse. When we let things happen, and acknowledge who we are, then the things that need to get done, get done.

I finally realized, btw, why I dislike the "WWJD" slogan so much. It's because the concept it promotes (that we should consider what Jesus would have done in a given situation, and then do it) erases any chance for individuality. We are not Jesus, none of us. And, truth be told, although being like him is a very admirable and lofty goal, the fact of the matter is that the world would get nowhere if everyone left everything behind (family, job, etc) for the sake of preaching to others. I think a better slogan, one more suited not only to individuality but also to what God would really prefer, is "WWJWMTD: What Would Jesus Want Me To Do?" Doesn't quiet roll off the tongue as well, but it's a work in progress...

I am begining to feel very alone. I think if I had to describe it, I'd say it must be similar to Neo being "unplugged" from the Matrix. There are people around him, but he nevertheless feels alienated, and uncomfortable, and no doubt he longs to be among the countless others who remain a part of the matrix. But at the same time, he knows there is no going back. Once he's awakened, he can't go back to sleep. And he really doesn't want to, except in moments of loneliness and weakness.

I can't go back to just a regular, day-to-day life. I can't go back to dreaming about cars, or wishing I had a girlfriend (which, in all honesty, I haven't done for some time), or making things work with a girlfriend, or planning out some career path, or anything that everyone else seems perfectly content to do. When I have the time to think about things, my decisions fall under only two categories: What I should do, and what I shouldn't do. And the things I feel I should do don't seem to line up with what anyone else is doing, nor what they think I should do. And so I make myself more and more alone with every passing day, but I don't see as how I could choose to do otherwise. And to be honest with you? It's making me nauseous...