I posed some of my questions to my astronomy professor and here are his responses.
1. If the universe is eternally expanding, is it possible to be completely motionless?
Motionlessness is just as relative as motion is. One object can neither be motionless nor have an absolute velocity-- motion is a relationship between at least two objects. In relativity, anyway-- who knows how that view might change. So the expansion of the universe is a statement about the increasing distances of things that are very far from us-- but something very nearby could have no motion relative to us. However, complete motionlessness is an impossible limit-- at some level there would always have to be some motion, but we might not be able to detect it with a particular instrument.
2. If I could accelerate the earth until the entire thing was moving at the speed of light would time stop on the earth? Would people on earth age or be able to procreate? Would mechanical objects such as watches stop? Would people not age but still die because they wouldn't be able to digest/cook food/ have natural body processes?
No, there is no speed, relative to something else, that would make Earth's time appear to stop-- because we would always think it was the other thing whose time had stopped. They would think our time stopped, but we wouldn't think that. However, all the other things that were moving at the speed of light, which in your situation would be the whole rest of the universe, would be so length contracted in the direction of the motion that the whole universe would seem to be right at our doorstep and it would have to be infinite for us to not run into the end of it very quickly. Basically, it is an impossible scenario to be moving at the speed of light, for anything but light.
3.If everything is accelerating away from everything else at increasing speeds could it be visually represented as dots (representing objects in space planets etc.) inside of bubbles and the bubbles continually get larger pressing every surrounding bubble away from them and being pressed away as well?
Yes, bubbles or balloons are a commonly used analogy. They work for a two-dimensional universe that closes back on itself, but ours has three spatial dimensions and probably does not close back on itself, so the analogy can't be taken too seriously, but it's not too bad.
I am on a Roll
I keep thinking of things and it feels good. I emailed one of my professors about some of my questions. BUT my latest thoughts are about the expansion of the universe.
Every galaxy in the universe is getting further away from overy other galaxy in the universe. Research suggests it is doing this at an increasing speed. Here's the way I visualize it. Imagine Dots (each representing a galaxy) around each dot is a sphere or bubble, the bubbles are increasing in size, pushing every other bubble away but also getting pushed by every bubble, meaning they are all distancing themselves from every other one. Say every bubble grows at the rate of doubling in size every hour. If it starts with a diameter of 2inches, in an hour it will have a diameter of 4 inches, and in two 8 inches. Basically each bubble would grow exponentially and that would cause acceleration. If the universe's expansion is accelerating this must mean there is a constant energy source causing this. I have Three theories.
1. There could be an outside force at some far distanced "border" to the universe pulling all objects equally.
-This seems hard to believe because the way I understand most forces the act more forcefully on objects closer to them (just thinking of gravity here) so things further from the border wouldnt be accelerating as fast as one's on the border.
2. The universe is finite, and is contained in something that is being depressurized. Ever seen a marshmallow in a vacuum chamber? it expands. Think of the universe as that marshmallow in a vacuum chamber.
-This one needs more thought
3.There is as scientists say some dark energy throughout that propels the expansion. Either this is an infinite source of energy, or it is finite and eventually the expansion will stop, the moving objects having taken all the energy from the dark matter.
-Random thought, what if the universe would expand til all matter was gone, then because so much energy had absorbed some how start over. A cyclical universe?
Every galaxy in the universe is getting further away from overy other galaxy in the universe. Research suggests it is doing this at an increasing speed. Here's the way I visualize it. Imagine Dots (each representing a galaxy) around each dot is a sphere or bubble, the bubbles are increasing in size, pushing every other bubble away but also getting pushed by every bubble, meaning they are all distancing themselves from every other one. Say every bubble grows at the rate of doubling in size every hour. If it starts with a diameter of 2inches, in an hour it will have a diameter of 4 inches, and in two 8 inches. Basically each bubble would grow exponentially and that would cause acceleration. If the universe's expansion is accelerating this must mean there is a constant energy source causing this. I have Three theories.
1. There could be an outside force at some far distanced "border" to the universe pulling all objects equally.
-This seems hard to believe because the way I understand most forces the act more forcefully on objects closer to them (just thinking of gravity here) so things further from the border wouldnt be accelerating as fast as one's on the border.
2. The universe is finite, and is contained in something that is being depressurized. Ever seen a marshmallow in a vacuum chamber? it expands. Think of the universe as that marshmallow in a vacuum chamber.
-This one needs more thought
3.There is as scientists say some dark energy throughout that propels the expansion. Either this is an infinite source of energy, or it is finite and eventually the expansion will stop, the moving objects having taken all the energy from the dark matter.
-Random thought, what if the universe would expand til all matter was gone, then because so much energy had absorbed some how start over. A cyclical universe?
Motion
So i kept thinking after writing that last one. We looked into what could possibly happen if you went as fast as you can. But what if you remain completely motionless? Is it possible to be completely motionless. I don't mean just lying on the ground not moving. I mean relative to everything else, completely motionless. I am not moving on the earth, the earth is moving so I am moving. I go into space and don't move in space but space is ever expanding, I am still moving. Is there a way for everything to movie in relation to me but I am motionless? Would I technically be the center of the universe then? What would happen to me?
I looked into this a bit. According to big bang, there was nothing, and the space began uniformly expanding, meaning there is no center and everything is accelerating away from everything else at increasing speed, and not just objects, but the imperceivable space itself. Meaning basically our bubble is getting bigger and the contents inside are getting less dense.
Here's the website I am getting my info from http://cnx.org/content/m13580/latest/
look into it, interesting shit.
I just got this idea about the expansion of the universe that I need to draw to illustrate correctly.
I looked into this a bit. According to big bang, there was nothing, and the space began uniformly expanding, meaning there is no center and everything is accelerating away from everything else at increasing speed, and not just objects, but the imperceivable space itself. Meaning basically our bubble is getting bigger and the contents inside are getting less dense.
Here's the website I am getting my info from http://cnx.org/content/m13580/latest/
look into it, interesting shit.
I just got this idea about the expansion of the universe that I need to draw to illustrate correctly.
Planck Time
A wikipedia article relating to smallest divisible amount of time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
Return
So this is my return to blogging. I have been absent I know.
so...science has been blowing my mind lately. So far my classes have no enthralled me, only introduced me to topics that spark an interest. The only time I get really into things and really learn from classes is when I go out on my own time and research that spark.
In my astronomy class we talked about the speed of light. I have looked into this only lightly and only have a rudimentary understanding so PLEASE correct me if I am wrong or provide any insight you may have.
Ok so something traveling at the speed of light is strictly traveling through space and not through time at all. MEANING all light around is is everpresent in every moment that it exists. The light can look at everything around it as if it is a three dimensional photograph so to speak. COOL.
Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Example: Driver A drives towards driver B at 70 mph, driver B goes the same speed toward driver A. They both appear to be going faster in reference to the other since they are traveling towards one another. BUT if both A and B are going towards each other at the speed of light they both appear to be going the speed of light, rather than faster because THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.
Say I can travel at the speed of light around the world. Time would stop for me but I wouldn't be able to chill in it and wander around as if in a photograph because I am going the speed of light. It'd be like sonic the hedgehog trying running around in a photo. If I am in a spaceship, and the spaceship is going at the speed of light I am free to roam around in the spaceship while time has stopped. so the spaceship would be cruising super fast but I would not be moving through time. What this brings me to is that if we could accelerate the earth to the speed of light, time would stop on the earth. Pretty neat.
Now to connect the two ideas. If nothing can go faster than the speed of light, or at least conceived to be going faster than the speed of light. Then what if, strictly theoretical. There is a second realm or tandem universe. This tandem universe, in its entirety, is moving faster than the speed of light. Is there a possibility the tandem universe could be active within our own, but not able to be perceived, and how would that universe move through time? Could it move freely through time since it is going faster than the speed of light? Or would it cease to move through both time and space? I have no idea, but this type of thinking is really getting me going. Please provide thoughts, other circumstances and corrections.
another thing I thought about. If nothing can go faster than the speed of light and the speed of light is approx. 299 792 458 m / s then wouldnt the shortest division of time possible be 1/299792458 seconds? That is the shortest amount of time that can exist? Is that the framerate of the universe or the exact time measurement of a moment?
fun stuff
so...science has been blowing my mind lately. So far my classes have no enthralled me, only introduced me to topics that spark an interest. The only time I get really into things and really learn from classes is when I go out on my own time and research that spark.
In my astronomy class we talked about the speed of light. I have looked into this only lightly and only have a rudimentary understanding so PLEASE correct me if I am wrong or provide any insight you may have.
Ok so something traveling at the speed of light is strictly traveling through space and not through time at all. MEANING all light around is is everpresent in every moment that it exists. The light can look at everything around it as if it is a three dimensional photograph so to speak. COOL.
Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Example: Driver A drives towards driver B at 70 mph, driver B goes the same speed toward driver A. They both appear to be going faster in reference to the other since they are traveling towards one another. BUT if both A and B are going towards each other at the speed of light they both appear to be going the speed of light, rather than faster because THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.
Say I can travel at the speed of light around the world. Time would stop for me but I wouldn't be able to chill in it and wander around as if in a photograph because I am going the speed of light. It'd be like sonic the hedgehog trying running around in a photo. If I am in a spaceship, and the spaceship is going at the speed of light I am free to roam around in the spaceship while time has stopped. so the spaceship would be cruising super fast but I would not be moving through time. What this brings me to is that if we could accelerate the earth to the speed of light, time would stop on the earth. Pretty neat.
Now to connect the two ideas. If nothing can go faster than the speed of light, or at least conceived to be going faster than the speed of light. Then what if, strictly theoretical. There is a second realm or tandem universe. This tandem universe, in its entirety, is moving faster than the speed of light. Is there a possibility the tandem universe could be active within our own, but not able to be perceived, and how would that universe move through time? Could it move freely through time since it is going faster than the speed of light? Or would it cease to move through both time and space? I have no idea, but this type of thinking is really getting me going. Please provide thoughts, other circumstances and corrections.
another thing I thought about. If nothing can go faster than the speed of light and the speed of light is approx. 299 792 458 m / s then wouldnt the shortest division of time possible be 1/299792458 seconds? That is the shortest amount of time that can exist? Is that the framerate of the universe or the exact time measurement of a moment?
fun stuff
Intense
I just watched the movie Gone Baby Gone. I fell asleep during a part of it but I got the main points. I liked it a lot. It forced me to take sides. I was on the female character’s side. That’s one thing that really pisses me off about today’s people. People have to be accepting of everything, or at least open to it. I want to modify that rule. People should consider every new option, but pick a side. This doesn’t mean you have to deny the other person the right to have their side or fight to eliminate all opposing sides. Just that people can man up and pick a side. People are so scared to be caught wrong, or to offend some other person that they cant commit to anything and it frustrates the hell out of me. Make bold statements. Take a side. Don’t be afraid to tell people you disagree with them and why you do. I am tired of this politeness in conversation when someone brings up something wholly offensive and the other person just sits and gets offended or says something to the meager affect of “you may be offending some here.” Strong willed people with convictions, principles and futures are going to offend people from time to time. Jesus pissed a lot of people off, so did Hitler, so did Roosevelt, so has Ghandi I am sure. They didn’t piss people off because they are going out there and trying to rile people up or grind their gears, they just weren’t afraid to fight for and lead for what they believe in. They have gone down as historic figures whether they be the villain or the hero. I’d rather be a villain than that confused man standing in the crowd not sure where to go before he gets pounced upon by a lion. I think I like extremes, I like bold things. The music that most pleases me is music that I think sounds fatal. A song that sounds like it could kill you if listened to wrong, or if you weren’t prepared for it. I like that much passion in anything I absorb. I don’t want to read a book where the stakes are, is Johnny going to break up with me, I want to read a book where it’s did Johnny murder my mother, and if he did what am I going to do about that? The stakes are high. People don’t realize that stakes are high in this world. Donald Trump didn’t get to where he is by playing it easy and slow as if losing the race just meant you won 50 dollars instead of 75. Revolutions are never succeeded in on the basis of, “if we lose, oh well, there’s always tomorrow.” People that change the world and make a big impact realize the stakes are big. Life is big. You have one. It’s a harsh thing. Live it harshly, intensely. Harsh does not just mean bad, eliminate the connotations and dig to the root. I like the word intense. It’s focused energy. Energy with intent. Steven Henning wants to be intense and I understand why. You can’t just be intense though because of that one specification. What is your intent? Where is your energy focused. My girlfriend told me she likes me because I am interesting the other day and I thought, “that is simply not true.” This has been told me to for, sometimes in other variants such as odd, weird, freaky, sociopathic or cold. I think I am interesting because I am intense. My focus is me. I live my life intensely focused on me. Every moment I am in my head running analyses, projecting images, making decisions, playing out the what if’s, and planning my words. I am intensely focused on myself. Narcissism but without the pride. Somehow I think people can sense this and they want to figure it out. Maybe I am interesting. If my mind has turned it’s focus almost entirely on itself, there must be something there to find. Or maybe that’s just me tricking myself. Who knows. All I know that is tonight I want to be the berserker on the field taking off heads with the long hard swings of his battle axe. He may go down sooner than all the others but he knew his purpose the entire time was to kill, not to survive and you can bet he killed more than the soldiers who made it out that day. I just realized something important when I considered posting this online. Posting this online would be bold, it could make people argue with me and react negatively. It could lose me friends or gain me associations I don’t like. I like the idea of risk and bold moves and high stakes, but don’t always like participating in them myself. Inner insight.
Negativity
Who else is getting a little down about the state of affairs in the United States? I am super excited for Obama, don't get me wrong, but I honestly feel we have another depression on our hands. All I see in the news is how bad our economy is, how much the DOW jones is dropping, what companies are going to go bankrupt, how everyone is buying guns. It is extremely hard to be optimistic about the future of the united states. I can honestly say the only light I see in our future is Barack Obama and while he may be extremely capable and motivated to change the U.S. I just don't know if he can do it. Definitely not in 4 years. Then again the idea of economic collapse kind of thrills me. It means people can get away with more. Deterioration of laws and a return to a different kind of society. I honestly think it could be good for the united states. Unification through common struggle. I want this to happen.
One of my favorite books of all time is Atlas Shrugged and this situation in some ways reminds me of that books. Basically the public/ gov't does not appreciate the services large companies (railroads, steel producers) provide for them, so all the Companies just shut down and the world retreats in the chaos. The only big difference in that situation is the companies in Atlas Shrugged were driven by strong moral codes of wanting progress and providing service rather than making their CEO the most money. In the real world CEO's really do seem to be greedy bastards. ANYWAY, at the end of Atlas shrugged the world goes dark, electric companies stop, no more gas or coal, no transportation. People are thrown back into pioneer days. That excited me. I would love to be a part of that struggle. So right now, in this crazy mood I'm in I say whoever is holding up our economy should just throw it on the ground, shatter it, bring it on bitch.
One of my favorite books of all time is Atlas Shrugged and this situation in some ways reminds me of that books. Basically the public/ gov't does not appreciate the services large companies (railroads, steel producers) provide for them, so all the Companies just shut down and the world retreats in the chaos. The only big difference in that situation is the companies in Atlas Shrugged were driven by strong moral codes of wanting progress and providing service rather than making their CEO the most money. In the real world CEO's really do seem to be greedy bastards. ANYWAY, at the end of Atlas shrugged the world goes dark, electric companies stop, no more gas or coal, no transportation. People are thrown back into pioneer days. That excited me. I would love to be a part of that struggle. So right now, in this crazy mood I'm in I say whoever is holding up our economy should just throw it on the ground, shatter it, bring it on bitch.
What is worth it
I've been a busy bee lately and thought makes me think a lot about what is a good use of my time. I do my schoolwork, workout, work both of my jobs, try to fit a social life in, make time for a significant lady, relax and explore my own interests all in a 24 hour day. Now mind you, this is not a gripe. I am well aware most have equally busy schedule and the many have far busier. This is just my story.
When all you are is busy, and you are presented with freetime it's hard to know what to do with it. I no longer know how to fully relax. I'm finding more and more that my apartment that I used to love hanging out at so much has become a place of infinite stresses. My room is never clean, there are always dirty dishes, those DVD's on my shelf need to be re-alphabetized, I could write that letter to my grandma, and oh yeah, I just remembered I need to call my parents tonight. These days the only way I can relax is to get out of the house. I'm beginning to understand this idea of vacations more. Back in the day, my idea of vacation was sitting at home, watching movies, reading, and maybe playing a few videogames. Now, because the place I live in is more my own I see all the stressors that surround me, and while trying to relax and cannot help but think of the productive things I could be doing. I know right? Rather than be a bitch about it though, I'm looking for ways to improve. I am looking to find new methods of relaxation and to eliminate stressors and things I don't need.
Things I could eliminate.
Real Quick, Things that are worth my time:
When all you are is busy, and you are presented with freetime it's hard to know what to do with it. I no longer know how to fully relax. I'm finding more and more that my apartment that I used to love hanging out at so much has become a place of infinite stresses. My room is never clean, there are always dirty dishes, those DVD's on my shelf need to be re-alphabetized, I could write that letter to my grandma, and oh yeah, I just remembered I need to call my parents tonight. These days the only way I can relax is to get out of the house. I'm beginning to understand this idea of vacations more. Back in the day, my idea of vacation was sitting at home, watching movies, reading, and maybe playing a few videogames. Now, because the place I live in is more my own I see all the stressors that surround me, and while trying to relax and cannot help but think of the productive things I could be doing. I know right? Rather than be a bitch about it though, I'm looking for ways to improve. I am looking to find new methods of relaxation and to eliminate stressors and things I don't need.
Things I could eliminate.
- My second job at geography (getting up at 7:30 every morning has a toll on you)
- My addiction to shows like Always Sunny, Scrubs, Magnum P.I. and Dexter
- Sleepovers
- Idle TV watching (thinking of moving my TV into room and making it a 2nd monitor)
- Excess Drinking
Real Quick, Things that are worth my time:
- Friends
- School
- Girl
- Mind Expansion
- Exercise
- Movies
A Tribute to the People I Like
So I took a nap today and awoke in quite the grumpy mood. One thing I am proud of is that whenever I am in a mood I am usually aware that it is just that, "a mood" and that with enough effort and time I can snap back into my usual cheery self. Often, I can learn from these moods by looking at what intensifies the mood, what causes the mood, and what things make me happy even when I am in a mood.
A lot of people take walks, or listen to music, or do drugs to calm themselves. I usually go workout, think about the mood while working out, draw some conclusions, and if the conclusions are decent enough, write them here.
So the big thought for today goes something like this. I am generally in love with the world and humankind but for the most part don't really like people. One thing I have always prided myself on the most is that I can read people. If I meet a person I am very usually able to know their intentions, a general idea of the thoughts in their heads, their insecurities and so forth. I am usually able to draw the good or bad essence out of people, analyze their motivations behind that good/bad essence and then decide if they fit into the generally good or bad category (I'll probably write a later blog on just this). What I discovered today though is that my reading people powers only works on simple people. Then I thought to myself, if I really dislike people so much, why do I have such good friends? What do all my friends have in common? I think it is that I can't exactly read them. All the people I genuinely like, appreciate the company of and value my relationship with are complex. I feel they all have some deep aspirations and dreams that they are striving for but also have conflicting priorites/concerns. Basically all the people I genuinely like I feel have the same inner battles I do and go a little deeper than "I can drink 13 more beers than you"
So thank you to everyone I love for being complex and living for more than simple reasons. I genuinely appreciate you, am glad to have met you and look forward to growing as a person with you. Rarely am I sincere in an expression of emotion, but I really mean it this time.
(BTW you people I am talking to should know who you are. Bitches)
Side notes:
1. Pat Quinn, contrary to popular belief, does not rape children (even though I am sure it is a struggle for him every day to resist)
Other things that have been getting on my nerves recently:
1. Nothing is secret anymore. There are cameras everywhere. Anything anybody wants to find out about you they can. You can't get away with anything anymore
2. There are not enough hours in the day
3.If you have a mental problem (like I do) where you really like to be right, life is really frustrating because in this day and age technically nothing is right and no matter what somebody can argue the opposite side so really even though I HAVE to be right I never can and thats fucking frustrating
4. There is a slim possibility that McCain could be elected and honestly that stresses me out every G'Damned day --- On a further note, if that were to happen I would be even more stressed out because gaining citizenship in another country can be difficult, and I imagine flights out of the country will be packed if he is elected and how do you tell your parents you are leaving the country?
5. There are so few good journalists out there that dont just badger and badger til they get the candidate to say what they want and then leave the situation.
Things that Made me Happy today
1. There was this cute little kid with his mother at hotel vetro today just running around and talking about what he wanted to do.
2.The kid suddenly switched languages and started talking to his mother in German, I understood every word and learned that it was his birthday which is even better
3. We gave final project pitches in Film class today and nobody clapped for anybody's pitch until mine and people said, "wow" and similar things
4. Out of about 12 ideas for the Bran and Park shoot, mine was picked by a landslide
5. I took the time and made a delicious sandwich today
6.I had a funny realization that my sophomore year of highschool and sophomore year of college mentalities have been very similar
7. Geoff is playing at the Mill tonight
A lot of people take walks, or listen to music, or do drugs to calm themselves. I usually go workout, think about the mood while working out, draw some conclusions, and if the conclusions are decent enough, write them here.
So the big thought for today goes something like this. I am generally in love with the world and humankind but for the most part don't really like people. One thing I have always prided myself on the most is that I can read people. If I meet a person I am very usually able to know their intentions, a general idea of the thoughts in their heads, their insecurities and so forth. I am usually able to draw the good or bad essence out of people, analyze their motivations behind that good/bad essence and then decide if they fit into the generally good or bad category (I'll probably write a later blog on just this). What I discovered today though is that my reading people powers only works on simple people. Then I thought to myself, if I really dislike people so much, why do I have such good friends? What do all my friends have in common? I think it is that I can't exactly read them. All the people I genuinely like, appreciate the company of and value my relationship with are complex. I feel they all have some deep aspirations and dreams that they are striving for but also have conflicting priorites/concerns. Basically all the people I genuinely like I feel have the same inner battles I do and go a little deeper than "I can drink 13 more beers than you"
So thank you to everyone I love for being complex and living for more than simple reasons. I genuinely appreciate you, am glad to have met you and look forward to growing as a person with you. Rarely am I sincere in an expression of emotion, but I really mean it this time.
(BTW you people I am talking to should know who you are. Bitches)
Side notes:
1. Pat Quinn, contrary to popular belief, does not rape children (even though I am sure it is a struggle for him every day to resist)
Other things that have been getting on my nerves recently:
1. Nothing is secret anymore. There are cameras everywhere. Anything anybody wants to find out about you they can. You can't get away with anything anymore
2. There are not enough hours in the day
3.If you have a mental problem (like I do) where you really like to be right, life is really frustrating because in this day and age technically nothing is right and no matter what somebody can argue the opposite side so really even though I HAVE to be right I never can and thats fucking frustrating
4. There is a slim possibility that McCain could be elected and honestly that stresses me out every G'Damned day --- On a further note, if that were to happen I would be even more stressed out because gaining citizenship in another country can be difficult, and I imagine flights out of the country will be packed if he is elected and how do you tell your parents you are leaving the country?
5. There are so few good journalists out there that dont just badger and badger til they get the candidate to say what they want and then leave the situation.
Things that Made me Happy today
1. There was this cute little kid with his mother at hotel vetro today just running around and talking about what he wanted to do.
2.The kid suddenly switched languages and started talking to his mother in German, I understood every word and learned that it was his birthday which is even better
3. We gave final project pitches in Film class today and nobody clapped for anybody's pitch until mine and people said, "wow" and similar things
4. Out of about 12 ideas for the Bran and Park shoot, mine was picked by a landslide
5. I took the time and made a delicious sandwich today
6.I had a funny realization that my sophomore year of highschool and sophomore year of college mentalities have been very similar
7. Geoff is playing at the Mill tonight
Economy
Reportedly the Dow Jones fell 500 points today. That sounds bad. My highschool economy class was a joke, so I can't pretend to fully wrap my mind about repurcussion of the current economic situation, but I can say it sounds bad and I'm kind of worried.
What it does make me hopeful for however, is that we will continue to see a shift in movies. I've read several articles about how movies tend to be more uplifting, escapist and fantastical when times are bad for the country. I love movies set in different universes and worlds where a creator is free to set their own rules. (I've talked about this previously with how I really love how Marvel is establishing a cross-character universe) There has been a trend to create more superhero movies, more action movies set in alternate realities, more otherworldly fantasy epics and I love it. I just hope things continue to go in that direction because, honestly, constantly hearing that EVERY movie is reimagining something with a darker tone is starting to get old. "We're remaking Curious George, but it's going to be grittier and more violent, you will really get to see what turned George into the animal he is." I don't want to hear that. Curious George is an adorable monkey. I like adorable monkeys. I'm not saying I don't enjoy darker reimaginings. I mean I love stylized violence. Just, enough is enough. Darker should not equivocate quality is basically what I am saying.
I just love imagination in movies and being completely caught up in a different world. Completely forgetting that you are on earth as you watch a movie. Basically what spielberg does best. Also, I dont want to see another film about some depressed girl, who meets some messed up alcoholic/blind/druggie/autistic/torchured character and they pout and then try to make some meaning. END.
What it does make me hopeful for however, is that we will continue to see a shift in movies. I've read several articles about how movies tend to be more uplifting, escapist and fantastical when times are bad for the country. I love movies set in different universes and worlds where a creator is free to set their own rules. (I've talked about this previously with how I really love how Marvel is establishing a cross-character universe) There has been a trend to create more superhero movies, more action movies set in alternate realities, more otherworldly fantasy epics and I love it. I just hope things continue to go in that direction because, honestly, constantly hearing that EVERY movie is reimagining something with a darker tone is starting to get old. "We're remaking Curious George, but it's going to be grittier and more violent, you will really get to see what turned George into the animal he is." I don't want to hear that. Curious George is an adorable monkey. I like adorable monkeys. I'm not saying I don't enjoy darker reimaginings. I mean I love stylized violence. Just, enough is enough. Darker should not equivocate quality is basically what I am saying.
I just love imagination in movies and being completely caught up in a different world. Completely forgetting that you are on earth as you watch a movie. Basically what spielberg does best. Also, I dont want to see another film about some depressed girl, who meets some messed up alcoholic/blind/druggie/autistic/torchured character and they pout and then try to make some meaning. END.
Everyone hates a poser
I've been thinking about what qualities I really admire in people and I think I've known all along that I value Integrity the most. It's funny that in the fifth grade I was forced to write a report about integrity after getting into some shenanigans in computer class and am now so appreciative of it. For me as long as a person is living with integrity and being completely honest with themselves I can respect them. So many people just live day to day with the intention of making it to the end or act in situations how they feel they are expected to act. That aggravates me to no end. Allow me to illustrate an example.
First I do not believe anyone should ever try to be just like someone else. Yes, I think emulating one's good qualities is a noble endeavor, but trying to be them is a different far less noble one. I cannot tell a lie, there are characteristics of my older brother I admire, I often try to summon those up in me. But if I were to go out, dress just like him, try to think of what he would say and say that, walk like him, live like him, I would no longer be me. I would lose all remnant of self. I would be a phony, or as I would say back in my wannabe punker days, a poser. Everyone hates a poser.
On the other hand if I were to look past actions, words, and appearances to look to the underlying intentions and integrities of them, and draw out those qualities I could use them. Not in the sense that I would be imitating but really in a way evolving. I would think to myself, "ok I've pinpointed the underlying quality that I truly admire, now how would I use that quality." You have to ask yourself, "why is this quality admirable? What is it that I admire about it? What can I learn from this?" and then use your newfound knowledge.
I really should have prefaced this all by saying integrity is really a multi-faceted thing and one important part is truth to ones self and genuineness.
It is cheesy but also very try that one must never try to be someone they're not. It is far more admirable for one to come to you exactly as what they are. whatever that may be, rather than be able to imitate something they're not to near perfection.
I also want to make a shout out to a shining example of genuineness -Geoffrey P.
First I do not believe anyone should ever try to be just like someone else. Yes, I think emulating one's good qualities is a noble endeavor, but trying to be them is a different far less noble one. I cannot tell a lie, there are characteristics of my older brother I admire, I often try to summon those up in me. But if I were to go out, dress just like him, try to think of what he would say and say that, walk like him, live like him, I would no longer be me. I would lose all remnant of self. I would be a phony, or as I would say back in my wannabe punker days, a poser. Everyone hates a poser.
On the other hand if I were to look past actions, words, and appearances to look to the underlying intentions and integrities of them, and draw out those qualities I could use them. Not in the sense that I would be imitating but really in a way evolving. I would think to myself, "ok I've pinpointed the underlying quality that I truly admire, now how would I use that quality." You have to ask yourself, "why is this quality admirable? What is it that I admire about it? What can I learn from this?" and then use your newfound knowledge.
I really should have prefaced this all by saying integrity is really a multi-faceted thing and one important part is truth to ones self and genuineness.
It is cheesy but also very try that one must never try to be someone they're not. It is far more admirable for one to come to you exactly as what they are. whatever that may be, rather than be able to imitate something they're not to near perfection.
I also want to make a shout out to a shining example of genuineness -Geoffrey P.
an assignment for class I liked
I am an extremely visual person. My observations aren’t broad but extremely focused. I wouldn’t say that I am observant, my friends often criticize me for completely missing the obvious or for being a sort of space cadet at times. It’s usually because I actually did observe something a bit ago and am now playing with it in my head. I notice a room with a table and think of all the variants of the table, or scenes involving the table. What if the table could move? Would it hover or walk with its legs? Where is it heading and why? What kind of dinner would be placed on it next? What if three men in a barroom brawl slammed through the nearby door and one of them ended up being thrown on to the table, breaking it into pieces?
When I see words I play a mixture of scrabble and text-twist in my mind. Letters are rearranged, words are mispronounced, and letters become objects rather than pronounceable symbols. Sentences in books are zoomed in on and become terrains for tiny people to climb upon and attempt to conquer.
What is frustrating about all this is when you see a table, turn to your friend and say, “Hey dude, what if that table suddenly got really mad?” The friend looks at you like you’re an idiot. You try to explain that, obviously, the table would attack us and go on a rampage kind of like a mad horse but they still give you that blank stare. It’s no use trying to communicate these absurd visuals to others. When you find a particularly curvy object in the distance, an uneven fence for example, and begin to trace its curves with a pointed finger, making swooshing noises with acceleration and your friend asks you, “Bryce, what the heck are you doing?” What can you say? Do you try to explain that there could be an awesome snowmobile chase scene on that fence or just shake it off and say, “nothing?” It usually ends up being the “nothing.”
I want people to be able to imagine the same things I do. It all goes back to me playing with Legos, where I’d create wild flying vehicles, then recreate a scene for my mother to watch. I want to share my visuals. That’s why I’m here as a Cinema major and why I enroll in writing courses. When you don’t have the time or capabilities to shoot a movie you can write it out, or explain it. Whenever I want to explain a concept to people, such as “what I do at my job” I begin to act it out rather than just tell them. Others who know have to chime in and clarify.
Basically I want to be clear myself and eliminate the need for others to aid my communication, illustrate my imagination in whatever form best fits the image, and then share that image with others to see what they think of it.
When I see words I play a mixture of scrabble and text-twist in my mind. Letters are rearranged, words are mispronounced, and letters become objects rather than pronounceable symbols. Sentences in books are zoomed in on and become terrains for tiny people to climb upon and attempt to conquer.
What is frustrating about all this is when you see a table, turn to your friend and say, “Hey dude, what if that table suddenly got really mad?” The friend looks at you like you’re an idiot. You try to explain that, obviously, the table would attack us and go on a rampage kind of like a mad horse but they still give you that blank stare. It’s no use trying to communicate these absurd visuals to others. When you find a particularly curvy object in the distance, an uneven fence for example, and begin to trace its curves with a pointed finger, making swooshing noises with acceleration and your friend asks you, “Bryce, what the heck are you doing?” What can you say? Do you try to explain that there could be an awesome snowmobile chase scene on that fence or just shake it off and say, “nothing?” It usually ends up being the “nothing.”
I want people to be able to imagine the same things I do. It all goes back to me playing with Legos, where I’d create wild flying vehicles, then recreate a scene for my mother to watch. I want to share my visuals. That’s why I’m here as a Cinema major and why I enroll in writing courses. When you don’t have the time or capabilities to shoot a movie you can write it out, or explain it. Whenever I want to explain a concept to people, such as “what I do at my job” I begin to act it out rather than just tell them. Others who know have to chime in and clarify.
Basically I want to be clear myself and eliminate the need for others to aid my communication, illustrate my imagination in whatever form best fits the image, and then share that image with others to see what they think of it.
10 things you didnt know about Dell Computers.
1. Dell computers are used in 431 nations across the World, the widest spread company besides McDonalds.
2. In Western Somalia, Dell's are called Djitwali which translates to "problem solver"
3. in 1983 Michael Dell was involved in a car accident with what some believe was a U.F.O.
4. Dell computers are responsible for 13.6 percent of the U.S. energy output, with that energy we could run Las Vegas for 240 years!
5. According to a recent Times poll, The Dell brand name is more recognizable to American fifth grade students than Adolf Hitler.
6. In 2001 Dell introduced a short lived marketing scheme entitled "Dellicious" in which 25 edible Dell computers were given away to lucky winners.
7. Michael Dell was one of the founding members of Krispy Kreme before leaving after a dispute over custard filling.
8. In the movie "Wag the Dog" Vincent D'onofrio's character mistakenly refers to Dell's as Delms
9. Michael Dell's great grandfather Theodore Dell worked his way up from peanut salesman to ringleader in an early Barnum and Bailey's circus.
10.On all Dell computers made after the year 1992, there appears the phrase "vesti siu lada de Olympia" which in latin means roughly "calculate with speed of olympians"
2. In Western Somalia, Dell's are called Djitwali which translates to "problem solver"
3. in 1983 Michael Dell was involved in a car accident with what some believe was a U.F.O.
4. Dell computers are responsible for 13.6 percent of the U.S. energy output, with that energy we could run Las Vegas for 240 years!
5. According to a recent Times poll, The Dell brand name is more recognizable to American fifth grade students than Adolf Hitler.
6. In 2001 Dell introduced a short lived marketing scheme entitled "Dellicious" in which 25 edible Dell computers were given away to lucky winners.
7. Michael Dell was one of the founding members of Krispy Kreme before leaving after a dispute over custard filling.
8. In the movie "Wag the Dog" Vincent D'onofrio's character mistakenly refers to Dell's as Delms
9. Michael Dell's great grandfather Theodore Dell worked his way up from peanut salesman to ringleader in an early Barnum and Bailey's circus.
10.On all Dell computers made after the year 1992, there appears the phrase "vesti siu lada de Olympia" which in latin means roughly "calculate with speed of olympians"
Internet Authority
So I read a lot of top 10 or top 100 lists in my boredom. Today I read 100 facts that should change the world. There were facts along the lines of Americans spend so and so on pornography every day, the same amount as is spent on aids relief in Africa. I thought, " wow I have no idea where this info is coming from. It could all be bull but because this guy writes with authority I tend to believe it. I am going to take this method and make my own lists. It will be fun.
Media
Fourth. I have been realizing that a lot of what people tend to learn about their candidates of choice has to do with what media source they read. I tend to get the majority of my info straight from obama’s website and speeches. OR through Time and CNN’s RSS feeds. I have to say Time is proving to be unbalanced toward the liberal side, cnn seems to at least attempt to be more balanced (although liberal leaning at heart) so I gotta say, I get most of my info from liberal sources. The other day I was watching fox news though. Holy shit that channel loves being overly bluntly offensively conservative.
Sarah Palin
Third blog. Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is a gimmick, and a poorly chosen one at that. At first all you hear about is will the democrats unite? There exists a conceived split between hillary supporters and Obama supporters. McCain is simply trying to capitalize on Palin being a woman. He wants the supporters and he will sink to this low to get it. Palin also has less experience than Obama. She hasn’t even served a full term as governor. AND she is governor of a state that is not in the least bit representative of the united states as a whole. She is involved in an ongoing investigation regarding a time she may have over stepped her boundaries and tried to us her influence illegally. Her 17 year old daughter is pregnant. This one really gets to me for a multitude of reasons. 1. A 17 year old girl should not be a news story, especially for her pregnancy. BUT whose fault is it the 17 year old girl is in the spotlight and probably undergoing immense stress? Her mother’s. If her mother had not accepted the nomination her family would not be undergoing any unwanted scrutiny and stress. ALSO, if a mother cannot instill her daughter with enough morals to not be having sex at her age she should at least be able to raise her smart enough to use contraceptives if doing so. If a woman can’t keep control over her own family, how can she lead a country? What makes me so mad about it all is McCain did not pick this person for her leadership prowess, he chose her for her and her family’s image. They are the every American, people vote for the every American. The thing is though, do you want neighborhood Bob from the mechanic’s shop leading your country? Everyman Bob discussing national safety with the heads of foreign nations? Or do you want someone ahead of the pack? Tell me this. Would you vote for Sarah Palin if she was running for president and McCain vice? Hell no. Would you vote for Biden if he was running with Obama as vice? Not nearly as eagerly, but yes.
Also I type these quickly and don’t check for typos or errors, so forgive me.
Also I type these quickly and don’t check for typos or errors, so forgive me.
McCain
The second blog is one about John McCain and his choice of running mate. John McCain, I honestly think is a fairly well intentioned man I think he honestly wants the best for his country. I mainly have about 4 problems with him.
1. Dude is old. If he dies in office that’ll cause the U.S. undue stress (due to some reasons I will explain in blog 3) and do we really want a president who is going to spend more time in the hospital than leading our country?
2. He is being run by the campaign rather than running it himself. He gives prepared answers that his campaign wrote for him, and if the question is worded strangely or about something he hasn’t been TOLD the answer to he doesn’t know what to do. He’s just going to be another puppet president like Bush.
3. His scripted answers are too absolute. Where obama would answer something like, “for the most part yes, but we must carefully consider the following…” McCain would say, “YES, we must eradicate the enemy at all costs.” Absolutes don’t work, it’s not how the world works. Absolutes don’t work because everything has the exception and if the absolute believer refuses to see the exception he has to create lies to compensate. Kind of why I don’t subscribe to any established religion, the absolutes.
4. He’s like a grandfather who will refuse to drive his car using GPS, because he’s been doing it by roadmap for 65 years and it’s always worked for him. One of those people that says, “hey this works, why change?” When in reality, yeah, cassettes still work, but iPods and digital distribution work better. The type of old stubborn mind that is not open to change
1. Dude is old. If he dies in office that’ll cause the U.S. undue stress (due to some reasons I will explain in blog 3) and do we really want a president who is going to spend more time in the hospital than leading our country?
2. He is being run by the campaign rather than running it himself. He gives prepared answers that his campaign wrote for him, and if the question is worded strangely or about something he hasn’t been TOLD the answer to he doesn’t know what to do. He’s just going to be another puppet president like Bush.
3. His scripted answers are too absolute. Where obama would answer something like, “for the most part yes, but we must carefully consider the following…” McCain would say, “YES, we must eradicate the enemy at all costs.” Absolutes don’t work, it’s not how the world works. Absolutes don’t work because everything has the exception and if the absolute believer refuses to see the exception he has to create lies to compensate. Kind of why I don’t subscribe to any established religion, the absolutes.
4. He’s like a grandfather who will refuse to drive his car using GPS, because he’s been doing it by roadmap for 65 years and it’s always worked for him. One of those people that says, “hey this works, why change?” When in reality, yeah, cassettes still work, but iPods and digital distribution work better. The type of old stubborn mind that is not open to change
Newfangled
There have been a couple of political blogs I have been meaning to type up recently that I haven’t taken the time to do yet. The first of which is kind of a retrospective on how much the last election pissed me off. I was 17 at the time and not able to vote. YET my peers and older students would press and push about whatever candidate they liked or wanted me to like and continually asked me for whom I was voting. I was 17, I wasn’t voting for anyone. I generally was not interested in who won because I could play no part in it. It would frustrate me that people would get angry that I don’t care about politics. NOW I am able to vote and will most definitely exercise that right. The United States isn’t doing the best, and there is actually a candidate that I think could bring us to our best. I am riveted following this campaign. Things infuriate me, inspire me and cause me to go out and tell people what I think. I don’t think It’s just because I can vote now, but more so that Obama is running. That’s just that quick statement.
McCain Interview
obviously I am for Obama, I've said it again and again. SO for your sake, here's an interview with John McCain
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1836909,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
Listen to that crazy old coot be a puppet jackass. You want that guy as prez?
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1836909,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
Listen to that crazy old coot be a puppet jackass. You want that guy as prez?
Vacation
Everyone should take vacations, even if you technically don't deserve them. I by no means have earned a vacation, I work relatively little at two extremely easy jobs and party far too much. When I am not partying or working I usually don't do much productive. If I were my boss, I'd say, " No Bryce, you cannot have vacation time until you actually do some work." Well, I may not be my job boss (yet) but I certainly am my life boss so when I asked myself for vacation time I told myself, "sure why not, take even more of a load off." I went home, rarely moved, and watched about 10 movies in 2 days. What I found most valuable about it was not the stress relief, physical relaxation or abundance of rest, but the fact that it was different than my routine. I wasn't at my home doing the same thing I have done every week for months and I wasn't surrounded by all the same people. I am not saying that my usual routine and usual cronies are bad at all, just that everyone needs to take time away to regain a clarification of self. The best part of my vacation was that I was alone with myself with no one to entertain me but me. It was good, I had time to think about everything. Not that there were any large pressing issues, it's just good to reconsider the universe every now and then. I took the time to expose myself to films I had been wanting to for a long time and am greatly happy for it. If you have a chance go see the movie "Once" it is beyond beautiful. I would also recommend In Bruges, it's not romp-roaringly hilarious as the back cover would suggest, but it is damn good. All in all I think everyone needs a place to escape to every now and then where they are all alone, and completely rely on their mind. You can reconfirm your identity, rediscover why you love what you do and eliminate background stress that you may not have known you had but is always silently building by just having a routine. I've considered renting out a hotel room for a weekend every two months or so, just to seclude and repeat the Vacay. Tis grand, everyone should do it.
Dream
Ever since I've moved away from home I have remembered my dream nearly every night and am considering making a dream diary. I am going to write my one from last night down so I don't forget it. It was especially potent. I also want to open it up to the masses for interpretation and fun. In the dream I was hanging out with a few friends, I don't remember which ones just that it consisted of me, two guys, and a girl. It seemed like the girl was very special to me. We were in some public location and 3 men in suits showed up and pulled out guns, without warning they started firing. I think we were in a city park. My friends ducked and went for cover but I went berserk, diving at the middle man as he fired directly at me. Brutishly I attacked him as the other two continued to fire at me. The first man went down, I had his gun. I fired at the second man while taking cover. A bullet went directly into his face blowing it exxageratedly apart. My gun was empty. The third man, sole survivor, began to ignore my existence. To me, the dream me, this seemed odd, after all I had been the attacker while the others ducked smartly to their safety. The man turn to where my friends were hiding and began to fire at their spots. I never saw them all I saw was the back of the man's trenchcoat. Without a thought I grabbed a jagged stick, rushed the man and jabbed it repeatedly into his side, killing him as well. The next part of the dream is like the following scene if it were a movie. No transition. I'm just in a new place. I'm in a rundown hospital with one of the guys who was with me at the park. I'm sitting on the checkup table like you were waiting for the family doctory. A doctor walks in, tells me to take off my shirts. I look down and I have holes all over. Two of them have bullets sticking out of them. I just go, "woaaah," the doctor goes, "hmmmmmmm," counts to seven and says, "looks like you've been shot seven times." Then a girl walks in. She is wonderful in every way a girl can be wonderful. She hands a clipboard to the doctor and waits by his side. She is wonderful. The doctor tells me he will remove the bullets later but for now go have a good time. I then go out into a sort of waiting area that reminds me of an orphanage. I see a lot of people the dream me knows and I go around telling everyone how I got shot seven times and how I'm kind of like fiddy. The wondress, the young beauty from the office, steps behind me and says, " oh shut your mouth, fiddy got shot nine time and you only got shot 7 yah prick." She had an accent. It was wonderful. She took me into the other room and pulled out the first of the bullets. Dream me begins to wonder at the fact that I had been shot 7 times, not been bangaged, was still bleeding all over the place, had a bullet in me, but was walking around shooting the shit like I was at the governor's ball. Also I realized, what happened to the other two in my crew? The one other guy and the girl who I felt connected to? Either way, the wonderful girl and I (she really is wonderful) chat it up playfully while she rips metal from my gut. Before she rips out the other I say, " we can save that for later, lets go somewhere." We go to some neighborhood and sit on the curb as cars pass. I wear a blood-soaked shirt and she wears something wonderful. I don't know what we talk about just that we laughed, bled and formed a bond. Now not only was she wonderful, but so was I. We were wonderful. Later I was walking down that street feeling sad and thinking about something. The dream switched to what I was thinking about. A memory within a dream. What's that all about? It was of the wonder couple, she and I in some sort of situation where she was sitting behind me and forced to clasp her arms around my middle to hold on. I twinged with pain with her arms on my still open wounds. I yelped and mentioned that she was hurting me, she laughed, stuck her thumb in a wound and flicked the bullet that was still hanging out. I laughed at that, thought it hurt like the dickens. Back to me walking. I pull up my shirt, now crusty with bloods and look down at my wounds. They are no longer bleeding, they are clean but open. They looked like if you paper hole punched a pig corpse that had been drained of blood. Anyway, I look a the bullet sticking out. I reach down, grab it and pull it out, Something white and round falls out and bounces down the cobblestone street. Did I mention it was cobblestone? I look at what I pulled out, the bullet, and it's not a bullet. It's a cigar with the inside emptied out. The empty space has been filled with pearls. I look at the open wound and see pearls inside me. I squeeze and pop them out like they are the pus from a zit. Some are pretty deep. I continue to walk, jingling the pearls in my palm and walk up to the Wonderful girl. Things are generally sad. I toss her a pearl. She catches it, looks up at me from her squaggly legged spot on the curb. She looks wonderful. She stares at me, then at the pearl, and then at me, then stands up with tears and yells at me. Then I wake up. That's it.
What the fuck is that? Somebody please tell me what that is.
What the fuck is that? Somebody please tell me what that is.
Going out on a Limb
I'm just going to finally go out on a limb and declare to the world that I fully support Barack Obama and his quest for the presidency. Also I wish to boldly state that McCain just stands absolutely no chance. If that geezer lives until November he only held on to life two months in order to witness his crippling defeat. Obama is the only candidate I have ever witnessed (not that I've witnessed many) that has ever been able to actually coerce people from the opposite party to support him. The thing that really gets me supporting this guy is that he makes a ton of promises (as all candidates do) and while he no doubt will not be able to achieve all of them, when he makes these promises they are not empty. I fully trust that even though not all of them are fully achievable, Obama will give it his damndest to get as close as possible on all of them. I also love how the other party is just aching for some kind of scandal to emerge. They are attempting to capitalize on any tiny crumb they can dig up and it is just pathetic. When Obama was in the middle east he put a prayer not in a traditional prayer wall. A journalist purloined it and published it. I'm sure McCain's team thought to themselves, "we got him now, he probably prayed for a win and for bad things against McCain." Yet, it turns out it was just Obama praying for strength for him and his family and strength against pride. Wow, real scandalous. Or this recent news story about how Obama stated in a meeting that He has become a symbol for change in the United States or something of that sort. The McCain machine pumped that out with the notion that Obama's ego was too high. Hmmmmmm sounds more like he is seeing what is actually happening, is thrilled and wants to be that change that people see him as. Or when reports came about that Obama tried Cocaine and Marijuana in college. Obama was like, "yup" He is actually quoted as saying "It was reflective of the struggles and confusion of a teenage boy, Teenage boys are frequently confused."* I hate how people assume presidential candidate have lived their entire life as a presidential candidate and aren't allowed to make any mistakes along the way. Obama probably had no idea he'd be running for president when he was 18 or even 25. Why do people judge the boy he was then when we can judge the man he is now? Also I love how I have yet to see an add criticizing McCain or his policies, yet the only McCain add I've seen says less about McCain and reads more like a propoganda add against Obama. I watched a town hall meeting with Obama the other day in Rolla, Mo and Obama actually answered people's questions, got his facts right, handled one heckler very respectably, spoke eloquently, occasionally criticized McCain's polices, but always made sure he criticized the policies and not the man himself. He even seemed down to earth. When he asked the crowd to "raise your hand if you make over 2 million a year (the actual number i dont remember)" when an 18 your old guy raised his hand Obama said something along the lines of, " man, how old are you, 18? If you're making that kind of money at 18 I am impressed" Either way I cannot praise the man enough for his integrity and even if you disagree with some of his policies or views you have to at least realize, Obama is a damned respectable human being with nothing but the most benevolent intentions for our country. He is a man that will work his hardest to achieve his goals and take them as far as I can.
My only criticisms of Obama I have come across so far.
1. during his town hall meeting in Missouri he repeatedly said "missoura"
2. He does not support gay marriage*
*The quote is from a Herald-Tribune article http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/24/news/dems.php
*a note on gay marriage, I've never been a huge advocate or like an equal rights fighter, but heck, I wouldn't mind it if gay people could get married, if any of my gay friends told me they intended to marry I'd be like "go for it dude" I kind of want my president to have the same mindset. Kind of like "this isn't my battle, but I'm going to stand up for it if it comes to my doorstep"
My only criticisms of Obama I have come across so far.
1. during his town hall meeting in Missouri he repeatedly said "missoura"
2. He does not support gay marriage*
*The quote is from a Herald-Tribune article http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/24/news/dems.php
*a note on gay marriage, I've never been a huge advocate or like an equal rights fighter, but heck, I wouldn't mind it if gay people could get married, if any of my gay friends told me they intended to marry I'd be like "go for it dude" I kind of want my president to have the same mindset. Kind of like "this isn't my battle, but I'm going to stand up for it if it comes to my doorstep"
Beast
I've been doing some more dwelling on this regimented man vs manbeast type thing and have pinpointed what it is I am really looking for. I get the idea of the regimented man, the spartan raised since birth to kill who has experience in no other regards of life. I got that. The problem is though, no matter how a child is raised, whether it be by scientists, warriors or wolves, he is still human. I cannot figure out a way for the adversary of this warrior to be technically, specie-ally, human yet still be a natural beastlike killing machine. I need a way to dehumanize a person and make that person a direct adversary of the well regimented soldier. In what situation can a person be nothing but a beast but still technically a human? Of course in the plot the subject of humanity would be a large theme and the debate over whether or not the regimented soldier has become something other than human but my real problem right now is finding a character where the line between human and beast is indistinguishable and leans more towards beast, a lot more. AND I need the life steps that would be required to create that character. Somebody help me with this one, it's bugging me.
Battle
So I've come up with this concept that I want to develop further that goes along with my previous regime rant. I keep thinking who would win in a fight, a person who has just been highly trained and regimented their entire life or a natural so to speak. Kind of like a nature vs nurture type of thing. Like if a Green Beret fought a Bear. The green beret has been trained to be a killing machine and the Bear is just built naturally to kill. But I dont exactly mean it in that sense. I can think of plenty of human characters that resemble a regime, specifically Rambo. but I have been having a hard time thinking of a situation where a human character is naturally a killing machine. I would like to kind of develop a plot with this situation in mind but am struggling with the natural killing machine character (which I have been referring to in my brain as the beast). Of course it wouldn't be a straight up 1 on 1 here they go fight type of situation. It would be more of an experiment in nature vs nurture or man vs beast. so what i need is suggestions of a preexisting character that would be a beast or a natural killer or something of the sort. I basically need it to develop that half of the plot and see where this idea could go. ANY suggestions people? a character that could represent the nature of this duo?
My Number One
A good friend of mine presented me with an excellent idea for a blog and I have chosen to expand it into a series. Dave asked me what I believe are some of the most important movies to watch in the history of film. I am going to twist it a bit and write about some that really inspire me and I believe present shining examples of one thing or another. We'll start with my number one, favorite film of all time; John Carpenter's "The Thing." The first time I saw it I was in middle school, and sitting home alone on a stormy saturday night. No lie, it scared the hell out of me. I can watch scary movies all day long all alone, in the pitch black on the scariest stormy nights and not be the least bit affected. There are select few that can get me. The Thing was the first. Carpenter does a spectacular job of creating a feeling of true isolation. He creates a tiny microcosm trapped off from the rest of the world. He creates 2 options for his characters, die slowly from the cold, or get ripped apart by an alien body occupying menace. He ends it with both characters seemingly defeating the monster, but still doomed to die. Another thing this movie did for me was to create a true appreciation for make-up and tangible special effects. If I were to someday be able to create movies I would limit the CGI as much as possible. The Thing was made in 1982 and the creature effects and makeup are truly sick and scary like nothing I've ever been able to see CGI recreate. The dog in the jail cell transforming into a beast and killing the other dogs set to only darkness and haunting music is a truly scary scene. To say the least, the Thing is the movie the I believe is the epitome of what a horror movie should be and the movie that made me want to make movies. GO SEE THE THING.
I have decided while writing this that I am going to call this epitome serious, where I select genres and select my favorite out of them and then write why they kick ass.
I have decided while writing this that I am going to call this epitome serious, where I select genres and select my favorite out of them and then write why they kick ass.
Why Film
For the latter years of my short beginning of a life I have known that I was meant to be a creator. Never could I occupy myself with a life of tasks with no end result. A life enclosed in a cube, filling out papers as a piece of a machine is not for me. I am not a wrench to be used by someone else in fixing something, nor am I a gear being pushed by one thing and in turn pushing another. I am the man who uses that wrench to put the gears in place, pulls the rip chord to get the machine humming and then leaves it to it’s work. I am a creator. The way I see it there are two things you can create: a utility and an art. Of course these two can intermingle. Apple’s utilities contain a lot of art but are primarily a utility, and any piece of Bruce Springsteen’s music, though utilized to inspire Barack Obama supporters, is still primarily an art. I am extremely interested in utilizing art to improve the national and global mindset. Film is the most effective art form for social change in that it contains all forms of art collaboratively, creates icons and can illustrate and conclude on an issue most completely and directly.
Music can deliver a message, evoke emotion and provide an outlook or attitude. It can provide a way of looking at things without an example of how these things would actually look. Take the lyrics to “Dosed” by Red Hot Chili Peppers
I got dosed by you and
Closer than most to you and
What am I supposed to do
Take it away I never had it anyway
Take it away and everything will be okay
In you a star is born and
You cut a perfect form and
Someone forever warm
You get the idea, there was a relationship involving two people that ended. You get one side’s view of the other and an idea of the emotions involved, but it’s lacking the entire picture. A film could provide both sides, provide causation for the emotion, create a sympathy for the characters involved in the song and create all of these things without directly saying them. It may include this song in the background for an enhancing effect but it wouldn’t rely on it.
Or take “I’m the Biz Markie” by Biz Markie. In it he describes himself as best he can.
It's me the diabolical, Biz Mark symbolical
I shakes from scripts of hits I made a while ago
Now I'm on the run again starting other capers
And people couldn't catch me even if I was "The Vapors"
I leave you in trauma with my funky personna
Cause I'm jamming just like Teddy but I'm nasty like Madonna
Cause me without big strong thoughts for a Biz song
Is like Patty LaBelle not singing with a wig on
I don't give a damn if my record gets panned
Cause my style stays fresh like I rap in Saran
Biz gives you an idea of who he is and may cause some young ‘n’s to want to be like him, but the young ‘n’s only get an idealized idea of the biz and he isn’t a true icon, he could possibly be a role model, or an image people try to imitate but he can never set or fight a precedent of an entire generation like an actor could. Music can change things and put ideas in people’s head’s but with less behind it. Most people I know don’t listen to music to challenge themselves or to symbolize their life outlook (aside from a few music scenes of course).
On the other hand, people do read to challenge themselves and to help define their vision of what life is. For presenting a philosophy a book may be the most complete medium simply for the reason there is no common length restriction on books. People read 5 page books and people read 2000 page books. Where a movie is more effective is getting people interested in a philosophy, presenting its basics and showing them in action. A movie can effectively show the positives and negatives of a philosophy or life course more quickly and well-roundedly than a book can simply because it can present both sides simultaneously while a book requires alternating sides in paragraphs or sentences. It can show both side A and side B in conflict on the same screen and a viewer can be analyzing both sides as they enter his perception at the same time. In a book the reader is presented with A for a while, takes time to ponder it, then gets side B, then side A again. Less effective.
Another place where literature can often fail (not always) is that because novels and such are often consumed over long periods of time aspects can be lost over time. There may have been something in the beginning that the reader found significant that they have completely forgotten by the end. The message can be fragmented.
On to images: paintings, drawings, prints, photography, sculptures, etc. Images can only do so much. You can look at an image and say “that’s pretty,” and appreciate it for it’s aesthetic beauty. An image can evoke emotion, an image can even make a statement, but the statement is rarely definite unless it is overly direct, and I am always for subtlety.
For example, the image of the man standing in front of a tank at Tiananmen Square; you feel a sadness that this type of thing can happen in our world, you feel his determination and some can even respect the composition. But wouldn’t it be a fuller understanding if you saw this man the day before this happened, saw the tank roll over him, and saw the effects on other’s in the country? An image can evoke many emotions, but a film has thousands of images, and under the directions of a true visionary each image can contain as much emotion as a fine artwork. Even more, the film can show the development and evolution of that emotion.
A film in most cases has the ability to surpass the abilities of each art-form individually in that it contains all of them. It can work the three together for both utility and art. A director has to be able to create thousands of beautiful images. More challengingly, his images have to move, remain powerful and beautiful while moving, and, if they’re really good, have the movement and the image enhance one another. A director has to be able to either create or find the correct music to enhance the image without overwhelming it. The music has to aid the emotion in coming across, or the music can provide the outlook of the world on a character, as the character is on the screen acting towards the world; Two sides in one image with the sound there to help. Finally, a screenwriter has to be able to write in a powerful fashion while thinking of the visuals going on, and in Cameron Crowe’s case, even providing input on the soundtrack going on in the scene. Think of the writer, director, producers out there, the Steven Spielbergs and Guillermo Del Toro’s who have their hands in every aspect of the film. They have to be masters of the visual, the literal and the musical. Rather than being a master of one they have to be master of all of them as well as masters of combining them consistently throughout a two-hour piece.
To me, Film is the ultimate art form because thousands more ideas, visions, and considerations have to go into it to present the creator’s vision exactly. American History X shows so many sides of an issue, from the racist’s, from someone growing up with a racist, the non-racist families of a racist, the people persecuted by the racist, a racist coping with recovery, a loving son, people of all ages facing pressure from loved ones, and even more. That’s at least seven, I’d like to see a song do that. I’d like to see a book do that successfully with the consumer of the piece able to absorb each one as fully as he can with a film. That’s why film. Film can set the outlook for a generation. James dean inspired millions in the 50’s. Carey Grant defined masculinity from the 30’s onward. Menace II Society epitomized LA gang-life like no song could. Fast Times as Ridgemont High provided millions with a definition of 80’s. Movies tackle complex issues like no song can. Movies change the world. Would the white-world ever have been to fully accept African-American’s as their equals had Sydney Poitier not been on screen showcasing his ability and intelligence? Twenty years down the road I’m sure Brokeback Mountain will no longer be joked about as it is, it will be viewed as a film that caused skeptics to see that a gay relationship can be legitimate and as strong as a straight one. Go see Thank You For Smoking and try not to sympathize with the Tobacco Lobbyist. Movies can force people to look at things in a new way and seriously consider it. Movies have a power no other medium has. That’s Why Film.
I really want to hear back on this one. Comments, criticisms, additions. I’ll take it all, half of the joy of writing these is to see how they are received and to find where I may be off or entirely misguided.
Either leave a comment or send me an e-mail bryce-anderson@uiowa.edu
I promise to reply to anything and welcome any sort of discussion.
Music can deliver a message, evoke emotion and provide an outlook or attitude. It can provide a way of looking at things without an example of how these things would actually look. Take the lyrics to “Dosed” by Red Hot Chili Peppers
I got dosed by you and
Closer than most to you and
What am I supposed to do
Take it away I never had it anyway
Take it away and everything will be okay
In you a star is born and
You cut a perfect form and
Someone forever warm
You get the idea, there was a relationship involving two people that ended. You get one side’s view of the other and an idea of the emotions involved, but it’s lacking the entire picture. A film could provide both sides, provide causation for the emotion, create a sympathy for the characters involved in the song and create all of these things without directly saying them. It may include this song in the background for an enhancing effect but it wouldn’t rely on it.
Or take “I’m the Biz Markie” by Biz Markie. In it he describes himself as best he can.
It's me the diabolical, Biz Mark symbolical
I shakes from scripts of hits I made a while ago
Now I'm on the run again starting other capers
And people couldn't catch me even if I was "The Vapors"
I leave you in trauma with my funky personna
Cause I'm jamming just like Teddy but I'm nasty like Madonna
Cause me without big strong thoughts for a Biz song
Is like Patty LaBelle not singing with a wig on
I don't give a damn if my record gets panned
Cause my style stays fresh like I rap in Saran
Biz gives you an idea of who he is and may cause some young ‘n’s to want to be like him, but the young ‘n’s only get an idealized idea of the biz and he isn’t a true icon, he could possibly be a role model, or an image people try to imitate but he can never set or fight a precedent of an entire generation like an actor could. Music can change things and put ideas in people’s head’s but with less behind it. Most people I know don’t listen to music to challenge themselves or to symbolize their life outlook (aside from a few music scenes of course).
On the other hand, people do read to challenge themselves and to help define their vision of what life is. For presenting a philosophy a book may be the most complete medium simply for the reason there is no common length restriction on books. People read 5 page books and people read 2000 page books. Where a movie is more effective is getting people interested in a philosophy, presenting its basics and showing them in action. A movie can effectively show the positives and negatives of a philosophy or life course more quickly and well-roundedly than a book can simply because it can present both sides simultaneously while a book requires alternating sides in paragraphs or sentences. It can show both side A and side B in conflict on the same screen and a viewer can be analyzing both sides as they enter his perception at the same time. In a book the reader is presented with A for a while, takes time to ponder it, then gets side B, then side A again. Less effective.
Another place where literature can often fail (not always) is that because novels and such are often consumed over long periods of time aspects can be lost over time. There may have been something in the beginning that the reader found significant that they have completely forgotten by the end. The message can be fragmented.
On to images: paintings, drawings, prints, photography, sculptures, etc. Images can only do so much. You can look at an image and say “that’s pretty,” and appreciate it for it’s aesthetic beauty. An image can evoke emotion, an image can even make a statement, but the statement is rarely definite unless it is overly direct, and I am always for subtlety.
For example, the image of the man standing in front of a tank at Tiananmen Square; you feel a sadness that this type of thing can happen in our world, you feel his determination and some can even respect the composition. But wouldn’t it be a fuller understanding if you saw this man the day before this happened, saw the tank roll over him, and saw the effects on other’s in the country? An image can evoke many emotions, but a film has thousands of images, and under the directions of a true visionary each image can contain as much emotion as a fine artwork. Even more, the film can show the development and evolution of that emotion.A film in most cases has the ability to surpass the abilities of each art-form individually in that it contains all of them. It can work the three together for both utility and art. A director has to be able to create thousands of beautiful images. More challengingly, his images have to move, remain powerful and beautiful while moving, and, if they’re really good, have the movement and the image enhance one another. A director has to be able to either create or find the correct music to enhance the image without overwhelming it. The music has to aid the emotion in coming across, or the music can provide the outlook of the world on a character, as the character is on the screen acting towards the world; Two sides in one image with the sound there to help. Finally, a screenwriter has to be able to write in a powerful fashion while thinking of the visuals going on, and in Cameron Crowe’s case, even providing input on the soundtrack going on in the scene. Think of the writer, director, producers out there, the Steven Spielbergs and Guillermo Del Toro’s who have their hands in every aspect of the film. They have to be masters of the visual, the literal and the musical. Rather than being a master of one they have to be master of all of them as well as masters of combining them consistently throughout a two-hour piece.
To me, Film is the ultimate art form because thousands more ideas, visions, and considerations have to go into it to present the creator’s vision exactly. American History X shows so many sides of an issue, from the racist’s, from someone growing up with a racist, the non-racist families of a racist, the people persecuted by the racist, a racist coping with recovery, a loving son, people of all ages facing pressure from loved ones, and even more. That’s at least seven, I’d like to see a song do that. I’d like to see a book do that successfully with the consumer of the piece able to absorb each one as fully as he can with a film. That’s why film. Film can set the outlook for a generation. James dean inspired millions in the 50’s. Carey Grant defined masculinity from the 30’s onward. Menace II Society epitomized LA gang-life like no song could. Fast Times as Ridgemont High provided millions with a definition of 80’s. Movies tackle complex issues like no song can. Movies change the world. Would the white-world ever have been to fully accept African-American’s as their equals had Sydney Poitier not been on screen showcasing his ability and intelligence? Twenty years down the road I’m sure Brokeback Mountain will no longer be joked about as it is, it will be viewed as a film that caused skeptics to see that a gay relationship can be legitimate and as strong as a straight one. Go see Thank You For Smoking and try not to sympathize with the Tobacco Lobbyist. Movies can force people to look at things in a new way and seriously consider it. Movies have a power no other medium has. That’s Why Film.
I really want to hear back on this one. Comments, criticisms, additions. I’ll take it all, half of the joy of writing these is to see how they are received and to find where I may be off or entirely misguided.
Either leave a comment or send me an e-mail bryce-anderson@uiowa.edu
I promise to reply to anything and welcome any sort of discussion.
Beat on the Street
Occasionally I just like to marvel at the way things work and affect us. Today's marvelation is music. Yes, marvelation is now a word, deal with it. I am just so amazed by how much of an effect music can have. I come home some nights, I'm in a mood and I know the song that fits it. I just have to hear it. But what is more startling is how a song can change a mood. Occasionally I will sit in my room and realize, "Damn, I'm feeling down on myself, I dont really have a reason to, why the hell do I feel so bad?" then I realize that there is music in the background with a somber melody that has been subconsciously bringing me down. My mood was being entirely decided by the song. If I switch to an upbeat happy song it can change just as fast. What is this link between songs and emotion? How did this form in the evolutionary cycle of things? Does it have some hidden significance? If anybody knows the science behind this I would love to know it. I just love how I hate poetry, but if someone were to sing me the same poem they just read it could get to me and I could totally feel what they meant. Also, one thing I have never been able to do is sing earnestly in front of others. I can speak publicly just fine but singing is a different story. If I were asked to recite the national anthem, no prob. But sing it? I couldn't do it. I feel lke a lot of other people know what I am talking about, singing just reveals another side of people that they don't want to reveal. Anyway, how cool is it that music exists and that it is so universally and innately enjoyed.
Some hot jams of the night... " When Your Mind's Made Up" by Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova, just heard it tonight and it rocked my world, the video is amazing if you can find it.
Some hot jams of the night... " When Your Mind's Made Up" by Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova, just heard it tonight and it rocked my world, the video is amazing if you can find it.
Hi!
so I have had this project in mind involving stop motion animation and downloaded a trial of the program Framethief. I made a really short movie just to kind of test out the features and I thought I'd post it for all of you just for fun.
Wow
I was looking through past blogs. I have a lot of typos. I am going to start checking for those before posting from now on. They're embarrassing.
Get Smart Review
One thing that drives me nuts is when movie reviews judge and rate every movie according to one standard. Apocalypse Now should not be judged by the same standard Tommy Boy is judged by, it just does not make any sense. A reviewer should not say, " Tommy Boy will get no oscar worthy performances and the cinematography left something to be desired." Reviewers need to judge a movie based on whether not it was successful in it's goal. Apocalypse now has more of a message sending, make you think, win some oscars goal, while Tommy Boy had a lets make silly jokes and make my audience crack up goal.
That said, I liked Get Smart because it was pretty close to what it intended to be. It's summery and light, it makes you laugh and it makes you happy. I don't want to ride any actors about their performances, they're all good, although Dwayne Johnson doesn't always have the best comedic timing.
Don't go to Get Smart hoping to get the Oh My God I can believe they did that Superbad style laughter, think, well it reminds me of when Nickelodeon would make fun summery kids movies, like snow day. They were so enjoyable because they weren't shooting for greatness, just to get some enjoyment out of things. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's ok that Get Smart is the way it is because it wasn't shooting for the stars, it has flaws. Some gags have been done a little too much, and Carell is Carell as you have seen him in most situations, but that Carell is funny. One of my favorite bits involved a rat climbing into Carell's clothing as he is going through a laser field. I must admit the original get smart is before my time and I may be missing out on some underlying humor, but it didn't make the film any less enjoyable. Go to good smart if you want a a quick good time and don't expect an epic. It's just enjoyable.
On the Fury Comparison scale, Get Smart is a Brendan Fraser movie, like the Mummy, it's an action movie that's not that great, there are tons more that did it better, but you know if you catch it on TV you are going to sit down and watch it, because really, you liked watching it the first time.
That said, I liked Get Smart because it was pretty close to what it intended to be. It's summery and light, it makes you laugh and it makes you happy. I don't want to ride any actors about their performances, they're all good, although Dwayne Johnson doesn't always have the best comedic timing.
Don't go to Get Smart hoping to get the Oh My God I can believe they did that Superbad style laughter, think, well it reminds me of when Nickelodeon would make fun summery kids movies, like snow day. They were so enjoyable because they weren't shooting for greatness, just to get some enjoyment out of things. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's ok that Get Smart is the way it is because it wasn't shooting for the stars, it has flaws. Some gags have been done a little too much, and Carell is Carell as you have seen him in most situations, but that Carell is funny. One of my favorite bits involved a rat climbing into Carell's clothing as he is going through a laser field. I must admit the original get smart is before my time and I may be missing out on some underlying humor, but it didn't make the film any less enjoyable. Go to good smart if you want a a quick good time and don't expect an epic. It's just enjoyable.
On the Fury Comparison scale, Get Smart is a Brendan Fraser movie, like the Mummy, it's an action movie that's not that great, there are tons more that did it better, but you know if you catch it on TV you are going to sit down and watch it, because really, you liked watching it the first time.
The Fury System
Sorry for the week hiatus folks. I got into a gangfight last friday, broke 198 bones and was decapitated. I'm all healed now though, they replaced my bones with pure solidified testosterone and my brain with a TI-89 calculator. I can now rock complex math equations with ease, also, if I shut my eyes and think hard enough, I can run super mario on my eyelids.
but enough of that, I promised you all reviews and you are going to get them no matter how long ago I saw the movies. I am going to rate all the films I see on a "fury comparison scale" whether or not my readers comprehend it is to be determined, but I plan to have fun with it nonetheless.
I will explain the fury comparison scale upon request, and if I receive enough requests I guess I can do a public post, but I think you all will catch on.
The Incredible Hulk
First I must preface this by saying I love the character of the Hulk, he is my favorite superhero by far, and if you want to argue whether he or another character will win a fight, I will defend the Hulk's undefeatability until my voicebox collapses.
Onto the movie. The casting of Edward Norton is brilliant, possibly the perfect actor to play bruce banner, Eric Bana, I hate to say it, was to masculine. Bruce Banner isn't a tough guy, he's a geek and so is Edward Norton. I'm not a huge fan of Liv Tyler but she holds her own in this one, hold for a few awkward scenes with her father. Tim Roth is always good of course, and William Hurt, meh, he's always mediocre.
The story is a good one. I love that it has returned to the hulk on the run storyline similar to the old Bill Bixby show. It is exciting, Hulk kills people, breaks things, blows things up, yells, and is in general Badass. But one complaint I have is that he is not badass enough. The movie shows Hulk being held back by soundwaves, and getting humilitated by an awkwardly agile aging army agent (that alliteration just happened, weird), and then in the abomination fight at the end (which is spectacular) the hulk just did not dominate as a hulk should have (there are cuts on his skin?!) but those complaints are just because I'm rooting for my boy.
Another complaint I have is of course, the special effects don't quite work all the time which is to be expected when full characters are cgi. Luckily the direction is good enough that I didn't notice it too often.
But, the best thing this movie does( besides make you jump from you seat, look over at whoever is sitting next to you and go, "DAMN, Hulk F*cked that Bitch up) is it constructs a universe to set movies in. The marvel universe is developing into a thing where a director could just say, the setting is within the marvel universe and it gives him permission to make a movie where sonic hulk claps blowing out fires are just fine and fun, and crime fighting teams in costumes aren't so awkward. It references Captain America, Tony Stark makes an appearance, the avengers are mentioned, all these people are starting to be developed in this same world and I am excited for what else can happen in this world.
Overall on the Fury comparison scale the Hulk is a John Cena, He's big and loud and tons of fun and all over badass, but occasionally a Shawn Michaels is able to get the slip on him and you go wtf, how'd that puny bastard take down the champ?
also if anybody can answer these questions for me
1. Is there going to be a Thor movie and do you think a god is believable as a character in this newly developing Marvel universee.
2. What becomes of the scientist that trials to heal hulk, and ends up finishing blonksy's transformation to abomination?
but enough of that, I promised you all reviews and you are going to get them no matter how long ago I saw the movies. I am going to rate all the films I see on a "fury comparison scale" whether or not my readers comprehend it is to be determined, but I plan to have fun with it nonetheless.
I will explain the fury comparison scale upon request, and if I receive enough requests I guess I can do a public post, but I think you all will catch on.
The Incredible Hulk
First I must preface this by saying I love the character of the Hulk, he is my favorite superhero by far, and if you want to argue whether he or another character will win a fight, I will defend the Hulk's undefeatability until my voicebox collapses.
Onto the movie. The casting of Edward Norton is brilliant, possibly the perfect actor to play bruce banner, Eric Bana, I hate to say it, was to masculine. Bruce Banner isn't a tough guy, he's a geek and so is Edward Norton. I'm not a huge fan of Liv Tyler but she holds her own in this one, hold for a few awkward scenes with her father. Tim Roth is always good of course, and William Hurt, meh, he's always mediocre.
The story is a good one. I love that it has returned to the hulk on the run storyline similar to the old Bill Bixby show. It is exciting, Hulk kills people, breaks things, blows things up, yells, and is in general Badass. But one complaint I have is that he is not badass enough. The movie shows Hulk being held back by soundwaves, and getting humilitated by an awkwardly agile aging army agent (that alliteration just happened, weird), and then in the abomination fight at the end (which is spectacular) the hulk just did not dominate as a hulk should have (there are cuts on his skin?!) but those complaints are just because I'm rooting for my boy.
Another complaint I have is of course, the special effects don't quite work all the time which is to be expected when full characters are cgi. Luckily the direction is good enough that I didn't notice it too often.
But, the best thing this movie does( besides make you jump from you seat, look over at whoever is sitting next to you and go, "DAMN, Hulk F*cked that Bitch up) is it constructs a universe to set movies in. The marvel universe is developing into a thing where a director could just say, the setting is within the marvel universe and it gives him permission to make a movie where sonic hulk claps blowing out fires are just fine and fun, and crime fighting teams in costumes aren't so awkward. It references Captain America, Tony Stark makes an appearance, the avengers are mentioned, all these people are starting to be developed in this same world and I am excited for what else can happen in this world.
Overall on the Fury comparison scale the Hulk is a John Cena, He's big and loud and tons of fun and all over badass, but occasionally a Shawn Michaels is able to get the slip on him and you go wtf, how'd that puny bastard take down the champ?
also if anybody can answer these questions for me
1. Is there going to be a Thor movie and do you think a god is believable as a character in this newly developing Marvel universee.
2. What becomes of the scientist that trials to heal hulk, and ends up finishing blonksy's transformation to abomination?
Building and Rebuilding
So my last idea was a mediocre success. I had someone respond to my request for requests. AND I will be granting his request and writing on the recent midwest floods that affected both my hometown of Waterloo and my current town of Iowa City. Also I am going to announce my further future plans of this epic blog masterpiece, Movie Reviews. I have recently seen two new movies. The Incredible Hulk, AND Get Smart, so expect those reviews shortly.
ONTO THE FLOOD
So first things first, I kept making Halo flood references throughout flood week as jokes. No one got them. Dissapointing.
For me the flood didn't mean much besides not having to work for a full week, yet getting paid for both of my jobs. Which taught me in some ways how I deal with my free-time when it is unadulterated. But that is a topic of a later blog. Otherwise it was just kind of neat to have experienced first-hand a record setting event. Nothing like this has EVER happened before and I can say I was there. As my blog readers know, I'm all about having good stories to tell other people or my kids in the future. The thing is, my story will never be as good as any of the many people who were taken away from their homes or lost their belongings. They're story is one to really write about. My parents had to redo their basement. No big. My buddy's parent's were evacuated. Kinda big. Some people lost their house. That's big. So I am not even going to pretend like I have a good story to tell. I sat at home, drank, and played ps3 and got paid while tons of others were figuring out how to start their lives over. Support the flood clean up in any way you can. I've seen our campus, a fair amount is underwater, much of it in brand new buildings. I work at the University of Iowa Foundation's Telefund, the team that handles the majority of charitbale giving to the university. Visit http://www.givetoiowa.org/floodfund and see how you can help. I assure you it all will go to a good place.
ONTO THE FLOOD
So first things first, I kept making Halo flood references throughout flood week as jokes. No one got them. Dissapointing.
For me the flood didn't mean much besides not having to work for a full week, yet getting paid for both of my jobs. Which taught me in some ways how I deal with my free-time when it is unadulterated. But that is a topic of a later blog. Otherwise it was just kind of neat to have experienced first-hand a record setting event. Nothing like this has EVER happened before and I can say I was there. As my blog readers know, I'm all about having good stories to tell other people or my kids in the future. The thing is, my story will never be as good as any of the many people who were taken away from their homes or lost their belongings. They're story is one to really write about. My parents had to redo their basement. No big. My buddy's parent's were evacuated. Kinda big. Some people lost their house. That's big. So I am not even going to pretend like I have a good story to tell. I sat at home, drank, and played ps3 and got paid while tons of others were figuring out how to start their lives over. Support the flood clean up in any way you can. I've seen our campus, a fair amount is underwater, much of it in brand new buildings. I work at the University of Iowa Foundation's Telefund, the team that handles the majority of charitbale giving to the university. Visit http://www.givetoiowa.org/floodfund and see how you can help. I assure you it all will go to a good place.
An Idea
I want this blog to become more popular than it is. It may only be relevant to young people who know me but I want it to be popular anyway. I want everyone who knows me to read my blog and tell their friends about it.
but that's not the idea.
I kind of want to do an "Ask Alice" sort of thing up in here. I want people to e-mail me (bryce-anderson@uiowa.edu) and request a blog subject, or ask me what I think of something or just give me something to respond to. I can write posts that say, "Little Timmy from South Bend, Indiana writes -Bryce, I liked your blog about kittens, but what do you think of turtles?"
to which I would respond
"Thanks Lil' Tim, I think turtles are great little creatures but would rather have a pet tortoise"
Also I am going to count on my readers (that means you Dave, Cody and Jonathan) to spread the word. I think if I had higher readership I would devote more of myself to this blog and it really would just be highly enjoyable to get e-mails or comments that I could respond to.
but that's not the idea.
I kind of want to do an "Ask Alice" sort of thing up in here. I want people to e-mail me (bryce-anderson@uiowa.edu) and request a blog subject, or ask me what I think of something or just give me something to respond to. I can write posts that say, "Little Timmy from South Bend, Indiana writes -Bryce, I liked your blog about kittens, but what do you think of turtles?"
to which I would respond
"Thanks Lil' Tim, I think turtles are great little creatures but would rather have a pet tortoise"
Also I am going to count on my readers (that means you Dave, Cody and Jonathan) to spread the word. I think if I had higher readership I would devote more of myself to this blog and it really would just be highly enjoyable to get e-mails or comments that I could respond to.
Regime
I really like the word regime. This is going to be a blog that is based on something I like, rather than some message I am pretentiously trying to convey. My Mac tells me there are two meanings. I already knew this, but love that I am able to verify it so easily by pushing F12. Random gripe, the 12 is shorter than the F, fuck this font. Back to the regime though. The first meaning has to do with a particularly authoritarian government. The second meaning refers to a strictly adhered to way of doing things. I like the second meaning but with the added touch of the authoritativeness of the first. I always tell myself I am going to go on regime, not A regime, but "regime," kind of in the sense that it is opposite of vacation. Lots of people go on an exercise or dietary regimen, I say regimen isn't militaristic enough. So far most of my regimes have only lasted about 3 days. At least I beat Joseph Goebbels, his regime lasted about 5 hours. The idea of a regime has just always appealed to me though and I figure if I keep attempting them, eventually the attempting will outweigh the not attempting. Regime's are just so absolute, so controlled, so unquestioning and strict. I am a man of the moment and just haven't had the self control to keep myself to a regime. Anything that can be that efficient, exact and fully intentional in everything it does is of great admiration to me. I want that. I want to be the best soldier in an army of ants whose entire existence is based around becoming a better soldier. I want to be the taxi driver. I want to be Hitler's army. There's something about a regime that's just unstoppable. The word regime has power. This may be why communism has always appealed to me. I always thought the russian in Rocky IV was a complete badass, or the killer in No Country for Old Man, or The fucking Terminator. Completely regimented, unquestioning and powerful. It's probably because it is just so unlike me that I kind of want that regimented power. It's not something I really desire, it would squeeze out so many other of life's joys. But there is just something in me that has an infinite interest in the Robotic life of improvement. I admire that man who becomes obsessed with his mission, and spends more time at his business than with his family, or the man who loses all social contact to spend 18 hours a day at the gym. The machine of a human on regime is just somewhere in me and I want to awaken part of it.
So yeah. As always, not fully fleshed out, I'm not that Nabokovian writer on regime shooting for perfection, I just have a deep interest in his type.
also, yes, I do occasionally do blog research on Wikipedia, so sue me.
So yeah. As always, not fully fleshed out, I'm not that Nabokovian writer on regime shooting for perfection, I just have a deep interest in his type.
also, yes, I do occasionally do blog research on Wikipedia, so sue me.
Knapsack
I thought of a pretty decent analogy the other night, but it was like two in the AM, I was kind of drunk still, and I had work at 8 AM the next day. Needless to say I didn't flesh it out then. Why not take some time out of my busy schedule working here at my desk in Jessup Hall to write a blog? It began with me thinking about how I felt I hadn't kept up with my friends from my hometown well enough, or even people I have just met along the way for that matter. That led me to the saying my parents always told me, "Don't burn bridges because you may need to cross them again someday."
So there's friends you had in the past that you hold on to and stay in touch with and theres ones you kind of forget about but rarely is there a friends in the past, at least for me, that you intentionally torched the connection to. So really the phrase shouldn't be so much about not burning bridges, but constantly working to repair them. Here's where I get to my brilliant analogy. Life, of course, is like a journey into the wilderness. The keen and prepared wilderness explorer brings supplies with him so that the journey is slightly less difficult. Nobody wants to be like Bear Grylls stuck in the wilderness with nothing to get them by, so you bring your knapsack. Well in this analogy the knapsack is like the people and friends you have in life. You can carry a light knapsack, and dump supplies out after you think you are done with them. I already built the rope bridge, don't really need that rope anymore, lets just ditch it and keep going. Or you can think ahead, spend some time untying and rerolling the rope and keep it with you for the journey. It's like people you meet. I can think, "this was a fun dude to hang out with while I was in highschool, but heck I'm in college now, don't need him anymore." or the alternative is, I can recognize what type of valuable person he is, spend some time to keep him in my knapsack and keep on trekkin'. Of course, his extra weight in the knapsack is worth it if in the future you find out you need him, have to backtrack and fix any damage in order to get him back in your sack. The thing is, along the way, if you keep everyone that you meet in your knapsack, that thing is going to be a bitch to carry, and all those people are going to feel pretty cramped in there. So we have to carefully pick and choose who is most important to us to keep along our journey and we have to analyze our strength to correctly gauge how many people we can carry along with us. You have to decide if you are strong enough to drag an immense load with you through the forest or if you would prefer a lighter load and some more puzzling troubles along the way.
I am going to edit my phrase, and possibly edit again later, but for now, lets change it to, "Don't empty your knapsack too soon, you might need that rope later."
also this may sound like I view other people as to be used, and in a way I do. But I use the term use very loosely in the sense that a person providing quality friendship is in a way being used, but it's a reciprocal thing and in no way bad.
So there's friends you had in the past that you hold on to and stay in touch with and theres ones you kind of forget about but rarely is there a friends in the past, at least for me, that you intentionally torched the connection to. So really the phrase shouldn't be so much about not burning bridges, but constantly working to repair them. Here's where I get to my brilliant analogy. Life, of course, is like a journey into the wilderness. The keen and prepared wilderness explorer brings supplies with him so that the journey is slightly less difficult. Nobody wants to be like Bear Grylls stuck in the wilderness with nothing to get them by, so you bring your knapsack. Well in this analogy the knapsack is like the people and friends you have in life. You can carry a light knapsack, and dump supplies out after you think you are done with them. I already built the rope bridge, don't really need that rope anymore, lets just ditch it and keep going. Or you can think ahead, spend some time untying and rerolling the rope and keep it with you for the journey. It's like people you meet. I can think, "this was a fun dude to hang out with while I was in highschool, but heck I'm in college now, don't need him anymore." or the alternative is, I can recognize what type of valuable person he is, spend some time to keep him in my knapsack and keep on trekkin'. Of course, his extra weight in the knapsack is worth it if in the future you find out you need him, have to backtrack and fix any damage in order to get him back in your sack. The thing is, along the way, if you keep everyone that you meet in your knapsack, that thing is going to be a bitch to carry, and all those people are going to feel pretty cramped in there. So we have to carefully pick and choose who is most important to us to keep along our journey and we have to analyze our strength to correctly gauge how many people we can carry along with us. You have to decide if you are strong enough to drag an immense load with you through the forest or if you would prefer a lighter load and some more puzzling troubles along the way.
I am going to edit my phrase, and possibly edit again later, but for now, lets change it to, "Don't empty your knapsack too soon, you might need that rope later."
also this may sound like I view other people as to be used, and in a way I do. But I use the term use very loosely in the sense that a person providing quality friendship is in a way being used, but it's a reciprocal thing and in no way bad.
Buck up Chap
BA makes a return to the blogosphere. Hold your hats mates because this is big. Big like Flex Wheeler, but not as black. I haven't written in a long time because I haven't seemed to have any fully rounded thoughts on anything. Summer, or the lack of activity that comes with it, seems to spawn an overload of condensed thought. I am going to list a few topics I hope to touch on soon after the fleshing out process has reached completion.
1. Hometowns
2.Girls
3.Loneliness
4.Productivity
5. Focus
6. Priorities
7. Griping
8. The State of Affairs
9. Mild Irritations
10. Physical Attractiveness
11. I don't know what else
I like to take things I think about in relation to my life, find the underlying theme, and write about that. As you all know I try to keep this thing not autobiographical, but it does make it's appearances.
1. Hometowns
2.Girls
3.Loneliness
4.Productivity
5. Focus
6. Priorities
7. Griping
8. The State of Affairs
9. Mild Irritations
10. Physical Attractiveness
11. I don't know what else
I like to take things I think about in relation to my life, find the underlying theme, and write about that. As you all know I try to keep this thing not autobiographical, but it does make it's appearances.
People I miss
I've been missing people lately, not so much in a sad way, but more like Dude, I need more of this person in my life, so I am going to make a list of people I miss in no particular order
Wesley Schoo - Haven't seen him in like 2 weeks, going to miss him when he goes to cornell
Kirk Adkins - Thought of him in class today and busted out laughing
Ambica Nakhasi - talked to her in burge today and missed her
Sean Adkins- I always say GREAT in reference to him but none of my iowa friends get it
Ben Fain - Ben Fain is just furious
Ben Mescher - pretty sure I saw him earlier today but whatev
Chris Demory - Chris is pm a big douche but I love him
Nick Fischer - bitches be runnin' wild
Matt Free - everytime I watch scrubs
Julie Chiu - I see her fairly often but can never get enough
Yujin Hong - someday I will marry her
Charang Ham - I want to see her hop up and down
Tara Anderson - I randomly miss her sometimes
Briah Nunn - that girl is not around enough!
Chucky Adkins - he's so white
Jesse Coughlin - he reminds me of the good ol days
Jon Smith - hes fucking jon smith, nuff said
Steven Henning - sometimes you just need a good dose of awkward
Abby Sinnot - she's p great
DAVE PETERS - pm I want him every day in every way
Jordan Milano - that kid is a pimp, straight up
Azra Rizvic - she was damn hot
Jon Krueger - he's kind of a douche, but I miss him sometimes
Andrew Harnois - can't wait to turn him into the new wesley schoo
Josh Weidemann - kid is great, pm washburn personified
Austin Helgeson - I havent seen him in forevs
Chad Hackenmiller - remember that time he destroyed everyone in movie trivia?
Joe Moreno - my life has been stalkerless
Shanda Shakedown - she was the cutest, greatest lil thing
Tyler Luetkehans - I feel like I kinda pissed him off last time we hung out
Kelly Wenman - we never got a divorce, and I miss what we had, oh so precious
andy sherrill - our room will never have that same odor
Lucy Dahl - she was great and totally not crazy
The Cook Family - they were wonderful
Jennifer Lane - she had big boobs
Mr. Dawson - so shoot me
Ben Thissen - he and I need to get messed up together sometime - must
Carson Story - I think this kid is going crazy without me
ummmmm I probably forgot people, just thought I'd give some shout outs
Wesley Schoo - Haven't seen him in like 2 weeks, going to miss him when he goes to cornell
Kirk Adkins - Thought of him in class today and busted out laughing
Ambica Nakhasi - talked to her in burge today and missed her
Sean Adkins- I always say GREAT in reference to him but none of my iowa friends get it
Ben Fain - Ben Fain is just furious
Ben Mescher - pretty sure I saw him earlier today but whatev
Chris Demory - Chris is pm a big douche but I love him
Nick Fischer - bitches be runnin' wild
Matt Free - everytime I watch scrubs
Julie Chiu - I see her fairly often but can never get enough
Yujin Hong - someday I will marry her
Charang Ham - I want to see her hop up and down
Tara Anderson - I randomly miss her sometimes
Briah Nunn - that girl is not around enough!
Chucky Adkins - he's so white
Jesse Coughlin - he reminds me of the good ol days
Jon Smith - hes fucking jon smith, nuff said
Steven Henning - sometimes you just need a good dose of awkward
Abby Sinnot - she's p great
DAVE PETERS - pm I want him every day in every way
Jordan Milano - that kid is a pimp, straight up
Azra Rizvic - she was damn hot
Jon Krueger - he's kind of a douche, but I miss him sometimes
Andrew Harnois - can't wait to turn him into the new wesley schoo
Josh Weidemann - kid is great, pm washburn personified
Austin Helgeson - I havent seen him in forevs
Chad Hackenmiller - remember that time he destroyed everyone in movie trivia?
Joe Moreno - my life has been stalkerless
Shanda Shakedown - she was the cutest, greatest lil thing
Tyler Luetkehans - I feel like I kinda pissed him off last time we hung out
Kelly Wenman - we never got a divorce, and I miss what we had, oh so precious
andy sherrill - our room will never have that same odor
Lucy Dahl - she was great and totally not crazy
The Cook Family - they were wonderful
Jennifer Lane - she had big boobs
Mr. Dawson - so shoot me
Ben Thissen - he and I need to get messed up together sometime - must
Carson Story - I think this kid is going crazy without me
ummmmm I probably forgot people, just thought I'd give some shout outs
Self-Destruction
I am learning something more than ever that I think I have known deep down for a long time. I can't have everything exactly as I want it. Something along the lines of "you can't have your cake and eat it too." For much of my life I have kind of let it steer it self or I have maneuvered it in such a manner so that I kind my foot in everything I wanted it to be in without fully committing to one of them. I was basically keeping my options open and keeping my foot in every door because, "Dear God, what if 30 years down the road I find that because I took my foot out of the door at my church there would be some terrible life ruining repercussions ?" I am afraid to make the important choices because I don't want to be wrong or make one of those occurrences that is actually worth regretting. I have been faced with something that is one of those big choices, possibly the biggest of my life thus far. I can't escape that need to please every party, including myself to some extent. Even now I am trying finagle ways in my mind to keep all parts of the dilemma in a happy symbiosis. Slowly I am coming to realize that that is simply not an option. It is not going to happen, I am going to have to make that big choice, and I am going to do it myself. I don't know why this is so scary. I've never been one to be heavily influenced by other's advice, but for this one I wish a heavenly angel or other divine messenger would float slowly in a pure light out of the clouds, blow my hair back with the wind of his presence and whisper the answer into my ear. The terrifying thing to this is, I don't think there is a right answer, simply a righter one. Like those questions on the science tests that say Choose the answer that BEST answers the question. God I hate those. About that title, I know self-destruction doesn't seem relevant, but it's there because I am learning that I seem to make life difficult for myself. I don't think life is naturally difficult all the time, I think for the most part, as I've stated before, that it is meant to be enjoyed. I think that the parts that have been hard for me, especially this one, have been caused 99% by me.
Maybe I'll update you all later on how this situations turned out, probably not though, lets just hope I do the righter thing.
also, a note to my readers, I rarely check these blogs over for grammatical errors, so please excuse the if they exist.
Maybe I'll update you all later on how this situations turned out, probably not though, lets just hope I do the righter thing.
also, a note to my readers, I rarely check these blogs over for grammatical errors, so please excuse the if they exist.
Quick
So I read a friend's blog tonight and was reminded of some thoughts that have brewed occasionally in my mind. They are quick and underdeveloped but I though I'd express them. He wrote a blog about people caring what other's though of them and I reflected on myself, which is really all I can do. I realized there are only certain people I care about my appearance or actions in front of. There are certain people who I just do not care to impress or please. Mostly these are people I judge as failures or on their way to failure, oftentimes I come to find they just have a different ideal of success than I but if they definition of success is exactly opposite to mine then it would be failure in my mind wouldn't it? Anyway I find that I try to impress people who I know deep down I admire, or when I can gain from it. This sounds cold-hearted but I imagine everyone does it to some extent. I will note, however, that I have never slumped so low as to "suck up." I try to behave in an admirable fashion in front of young people because I enjoy being looked up to. I try to behave in a pleasant fashion at work because I enjoy having a job and would like to move up the ranks. I attempt to behave in a decent fashion in classes because I would like to do well in class. I even behave in a pleasant fashion in front of people I admire for selfish reasons, mostly because I feel that if people I admire see me in a positive light I am doing something right. As for my closest friends, I think sometimes I try to act in a manner that distances me from them yet keeps them close, I almost want to be looked up to by my friends. All the other selfish reasons seem fine and appropriate but the wanting my friends to look up to me is something about myself I have been battling. Friends should all consider themselves on the same level and I sometimes tend to place myself higher in my mind. Now, if I truly deserve it then I might as well take that pedestal, but for the most part, among my friends we all should be place at the same level. Selfish motivations for most actions. But that's really what I kind of believe in, furthering one's self without dampering the furthering of others.
anyway, not all that well developed and more randomly flowing but there might be something there.
anyway, not all that well developed and more randomly flowing but there might be something there.
Gifts
Alright people. This is a big one. This means something and it needs to be shared. Allow me to set up the scene. I am walking home this beautiful evening observing the world around me in all of it's glistening, white, snow-covered splendor. As often happens when the magnificence of the world is overwhelming me, God came to mind. Faith is something I have wrestled with for years and I am rarely able to pin it down long enough to give it a good look in the eyes. Tonight neither I nor God were willing to throw up our dukes and for the first time in a long while I knew what I believed. The logic behind my revelation is simple and easy to follow but the steps leading to it's occurrence are complicated. It came from a mixture of the snow today, a letter from my father, a lecture in my anthropology class and the thought of the oncoming holiday but it goes like this. I have always been sure of one thing in my faith and that is that I am sure God exists. Being in a slightly bummed out mood on my walk home I struck up a conversation with the big man. I told him that I was living my life for me and not him. Of course I instantly realized what I was saying to the Holiest of Holies and began rethinking my words. I thanked him for giving me the gift of life, other's lives and the world in which we reside. I was about to apologize for not always living up to expectations or "sinning" until I realized that this was silly. A big problem I always had when I was a strong Christian was that when I went out and had a good time I would come home and feel like a scumbag when I remembered that "God was watching us." I didn't want to feel guilty for enjoying life anymore. Here is where my anthropology class jumps in, I remembered how merely seconds ago I had thanked God for the GIFT of life, and the world. When I put my life and the world around me into the perspective of a gift it all came clear. We had been talking in anthro about how gifts are given for different reasons and have all sorts of meanings in different cultures. A good person doesn't give a gift to get anything in return. Think of a person you love and a gift you have given them. Did you give them whatever it was because you owed it to them, to get something in return, or to make them somehow indebted to you? No, if you really loved them you gave it to them so you could see that smile on their face. Real gifts are given to give the receiver happiness and to be appreciated. So when I put this image of a gift onto the world on my life I realized. God didn't give me life and put me in this world so I could spend my entire time trying to repay him. He gave it to me to be appreciated and enjoyed. To extend that thought further he gave it to all of us to be enjoyed and that means every bit of it. From the materials we consume to the people around us and all of man's accomplishments. I believe life is to be lived and enjoyed without debt to anyone. There are very little rules and no sins to commit. The only rule I would advise is to be thankful for life and either help other people enjoy their lives or at least don't prevent the enjoyment. Really if everyone thought like this things would go a lot smoother. Anyway thats kind of the tip of what I realized tonight. It makes life a whole lot more positive and less guilty and deep down I really just know it is based in truth. This is a blog I would really appreciate other's thoughts, comments, criticisms or suggested additions on. Thanks.
Tattoos
This Blog is going to be short and sweet
Back Tattoos that say your last name are dumb.
That is all
Back Tattoos that say your last name are dumb.
That is all
Self Control
To me the most important quality a person can have is self control. This goes along with my previous article about taking responsibility for one's self and actions. It occurred to me the other day when I thought about a few friends of mine. To preface this, I drink occasionally with my friends, have a good time, that sort of thing. If you read my other blogs you will also know that I am open to try just about anything once. But on a certain occasion my friend told me the reason he didn't want to drink along with us or join us in going out was because alcoholism "runs in his family" and he was scared he would be consumed by alcoholism as well. On another occasion when a different friend was casually asked if he would like to smoke with us, he replied, " I don't want to because I am scared I will become a pothead." Now, I fully respect any life decision a person wants to make regarding these things. If a person doesn't want to drink or smoke or whatever I have no problem with it, all the power to them. The problem I have with my friend's responses is that the reason they don't do it is because they are scared they don't have full control over themselves. To me this is, in a way, pathetic. If they were to have responded, "No, I don't really like drinking," or, "No, I think smoking is unhealthy," I would totally understand and respect their answer. But the responses filled with fear frustrate me. People need to realize that they are not held captive by some controlling power, and that their primal urges to become a raging alcoholic can not overpower their mind. Your mind controls what you do, if you are not a strong enough person to say, "Well, I've been drinking very frequently, I should probably stop," then you are straight up a weak person. If a person is scared to climb a tall tower because they are scared they will fall, that is a valid fear because that person, hate so say it, but they don't control gravity. People are in control of their body though, so why be scared that their body will somehow get a mind of its own and take over their brain? Neither thing is physically addictive so that's not excuse. I just cannot stand when people worry about things that they have a total power to change. I will try to think of a metaphor that characterizes how I think of it in my brain. It is like a person never sitting down because they are scared that if they sit down they will get too comfortable and not be able to get up. Well who controls those leg muscles? The brain! All they have to do is have enough self control to stand up. Problem solved.
This was kind of a rant, but this really frustrates me. Realize it people, you control what you do. Don't ever be afraid of losing control, just know that you control you, it's really very simple. If you are afraid of losing control in situations then work on your self control, ok?
This was kind of a rant, but this really frustrates me. Realize it people, you control what you do. Don't ever be afraid of losing control, just know that you control you, it's really very simple. If you are afraid of losing control in situations then work on your self control, ok?
Obama Speech That I Like
I like Obama. I watched his Call to Renewal speech the other day and thought he had a pretty darn good message. I couldn't find a link to the video anymore but I do have a transcript. It's pretty long but worthwhile. I got the transcript from his campaign website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/) and here it is.
Call to Renewal Keynote Address
| June 28, 2006
Washington, DC
Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here at the Call to Renewal's Building a Covenant for a New America conference. I've had the opportunity to take a look at your Covenant for a New America. It is filled with outstanding policies and prescriptions for much of what ails this country. So I'd like to congratulate you all on the thoughtful presentations you've given so far about poverty and justice in America, and for putting fire under the feet of the political leadership here in Washington.
But today I'd like to talk about the connection between religion and politics and perhaps offer some thoughts about how we can sort through some of the often bitter arguments that we've been seeing over the last several years.
I do so because, as you all know, we can affirm the importance of poverty in the Bible; and we can raise up and pass out this Covenant for a New America. We can talk to the press, and we can discuss the religious call to address poverty and environmental stewardship all we want, but it won't have an impact unless we tackle head-on the mutual suspicion that sometimes exists between religious America and secular America.
I want to give you an example that I think illustrates this fact. As some of you know, during the 2004 U.S. Senate General Election I ran against a gentleman named Alan Keyes. Mr. Keyes is well-versed in the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson style of rhetoric that often labels progressives as both immoral and godless.
Indeed, Mr. Keyes announced towards the end of the campaign that, "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama. Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has behaved in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."
Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama.
Now, I was urged by some of my liberal supporters not to take this statement seriously, to essentially ignore it. To them, Mr. Keyes was an extremist, and his arguments not worth entertaining. And since at the time, I was up 40 points in the polls, it probably wasn't a bad piece of strategic advice.
But what they didn't understand, however, was that I had to take Mr. Keyes seriously, for he claimed to speak for my religion, and my God. He claimed knowledge of certain truths.
Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, he was saying, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.
Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, but supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.
And so what would my supporters have me say? How should I respond? Should I say that a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? Should I say that Mr. Keyes, who is a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope?
Unwilling to go there, I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response in such debates - namely, I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can't impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois.
But Mr. Keyes's implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me, and I was also aware that my answer did not adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and my own beliefs.
Now, my dilemma was by no means unique. In a way, it reflected the broader debate we've been having in this country for the last thirty years over the role of religion in politics.
For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.
Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.
Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.
Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.
And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.
This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.
Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.
They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness.
And I speak with some experience on this matter. I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were. My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born Muslim but as an adult became an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I've ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I.
It wasn't until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma.
I was working with churches, and the Christians who I worked with recognized themselves in me. They saw that I knew their Book and that I shared their values and sang their songs. But they sensed that a part of me that remained removed, detached, that I was an observer in their midst.
And in time, I came to realize that something was missing as well -- that without a vessel for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone.
And if it weren't for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church.
For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.
And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship -- the grounding of faith in struggle -- that the church offered me a second insight, one that I think is important to emphasize today.
Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts.
You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.
It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.
That's a path that has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans - evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at certain turning points in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values.
And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.
Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.
In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.
More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical - if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.
Imagine Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address without reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King's I Have a Dream speech without references to "all of God's children." Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.
Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical, though. Our fear of getting "preachy" may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.
After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man.
Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby - but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix.
I believe in vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws. But I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation's CEOs could bring about quicker results than a battalion of lawyers. They have more lawyers than us anyway.
I think that we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys. I think that the work that Marian Wright Edelman has done all her life is absolutely how we should prioritize our resources in the wealthiest nation on earth. I also think that we should give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished.
But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman's sense of self, a young man's sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.
I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that.
In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that.
But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.
Some of this is already beginning to happen. Pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality.
And by the way, we need Christians on Capitol Hill, Jews on Capitol Hill and Muslims on Capitol Hill talking about the estate tax. When you've got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate.
Across the country, individual churches like my own and your own are sponsoring day care programs, building senior centers, helping ex-offenders reclaim their lives, and rebuilding our gulf coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It's going to take more work, a lot more work than we've done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.
While I've already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do -- some truths they need to acknowledge.
For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.
This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.
But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.
Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.
This goes for both sides.
Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.
The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.
But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.
So we all have some work to do here. But I am hopeful that we can bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us bring to this debate. And I have faith that millions of believing Americans want that to happen. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don't want faith used to belittle or to divide. They're tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that's not how they think about faith in their own lives.
So let me end with just one other interaction I had during my campaign. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination in my U.S. Senate race, I received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School that said the following:
"Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you."
The doctor described himself as a Christian who understood his commitments to be "totalizing." His faith led him to a strong opposition to abortion and gay marriage, although he said that his faith also led him to question the idolatry of the free market and quick resort to militarism that seemed to characterize much of the Republican agenda.
But the reason the doctor was considering not voting for me was not simply my position on abortion. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, which suggested that I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor went on to write:
"I sense that you have a strong sense of justice...and I also sense that you are a fair minded person with a high regard for reason...Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded....You know that we enter times that are fraught with possibilities for good and for harm, times when we are struggling to make sense of a common polity in the context of plurality, when we are unsure of what grounds we have for making any claims that involve others...I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."
Fair-minded words.
So I looked at my website and found the offending words. In fairness to them, my staff had written them using standard Democratic boilerplate language to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade.
Re-reading the doctor's letter, though, I felt a pang of shame. It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words. Those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.
So I wrote back to the doctor, and I thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own - a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.
And that night, before I went to bed I said a prayer of my own. It's a prayer I think I share with a lot of Americans. A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It's a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)