Malice

I really love the descriptor "malicious" and it's root word "malice. It means exactly what it intends to and so perfectly describes this thing I can not understand. The prefix "mal" basically means bad. and the end of malicious, "ous" means full of. Malicious is just full of bad. Badful, if you will.

To say I can't understand malice is a misstatement, I get how it comes to exist but from my standpoint it's just incomprehensible. Malice comes from many things, one of the most common being the hopes of increasing self confidence or security through acting out against something or someone else. I consider myself a fairly confident, content, and secure individual so malicious acts just never cross my mind. They're unfathomable to me.

The reason I got to thinking about all this is because of an occurrence the other day. A few of my friends and I were walking together at a large public gathering, chit-chatting and minding our own business. I was wearing plaid shorts. A larger man I would guess to be in his late 20's passes me, points at my shorts and exclaims, "wow dude, nice shorts! nobody's gotten a (expletive deleted) in plaid shorts since... since NAM!" and then continues walking.

I was of course left mystified as I had never seen this man in my life and he was now about 20 feet behind me walking as if nothing had happened. What I could not possibly understand is what motivated this person to randomly insult a stranger on such a trivial subject as fashion. What did he hope to gain from insulting a stranger? Did someone bet him $20 he wouldn't do it? Was he honestly concerned about my sex life based on my attire? I can't find a reason that the thought of insulting a random stranger would seem sensical to me. The only thing that results from his actions are bad things. The act was entirely malicious with absolutely no benevolence. I am always mystified by these things.

I know it sounds like what I am basically saying is, "why can't everyone just be nice?" but what I more truthfully intend to say is how can someone perform an action that is entirely malicious? I understand when someone thinks they are doing something for the good of themselves or someone else and make a malicious mistake, or even when someone is greedy and hurts others so that they benefit. In this situation the malice committer really does not benefit, other than that he can talk about it with his peers or feel slightly better about himself. It's all just incomprehensible to me. This has gotten me thinking about a previous post I did about contributing to the world and I think I will revisit that with another post.

I am not looking to answers about why this person did this and I am not trying to reach out to people to say, "just be nice" because (lets be honest) I personally know all of my reader's and none of them suffer from the troubles of maliciousness. This post is basically just a big, WOW, I can't believe people like that exist and maybe a little bit of, "I should examine things I say and do a little closer to eliminate any malice I have in me"

You don't have to be nice people, but don't be actively mean. Seriously.

ALSO

• I don't believe anybody wore plaid shorts in Vietnam, I think that joke is from Superbad and was either about Camo shorts or Cargo shorts (both of which would make more sense)
• I came up with tons of come-backs about an hour later and was bummed I'm not quicker on the draw
• Who still gives/gets (expletive deleted)'s?

The Writer's Dilemma

I have been thinking a lot about writing because I have a story idea that I want to develop. Creatively writing rather than blogging is a newer thing to me, especially in long form and I am thinking about the right ways to approach it.

At least I have the first step in mind, a general story outline. I know the points that I want to touch on and somewhat of an idea what I want the end result to be but that leaves the lines connecting the points undrawn, and I'm pretty sure it's not just like connect the dots. Where do I go from there? I don't know where to approach.

I wrote out a short plot synopsis with important details included but that still doesn't get me started writing the piece (what I want to be a screenplay) as a whole. Where do you begin your attack?

I feel like I can't start with the beginning because I am not sure how I want it to begin and I feel uncomfortable writing some random scene in the middle because that just seems out of place. So if I can't start at the beginning or the middle or the end, where is my jumping off point?

AND another thing, this whole writing something that others will read and possibly eventually see is to me a practice in temporarily inflating one's ego. I have an ego, but it is based on very little and seems to only be able to go down from here. To write something with the presumption that other people will find what you have to say interesting is bold and I don't know that I am that bold.

If any of you are curious my approach to developing this story/characters is going to be writing a series of short stories about specific characters until I feel comfortable taking it a step further. Writing is work and I am not used to working. I am slowly realizing that the writing process involves a bit more than just sitting at a coffee shop and typing away and that I am in for a long process.

I am open to any advice, but just thought I'd express what I am thinking about this thing that I plan on doing.

To My Health

Today I was walking outside, feeling very tired because I stayed up too late last night and felt kind of bummed, like "why am I never 100%?"

Then I got to thinking about how whenever I am sick I think of how I never seem to just have a period where nothing is wrong, either I am sick, or just had a bummer of an event happent, or have a bad pimple, or something of that sort.

On this day however I realized I was rocking around a 90%. I just stayed up too late otherwise absolutely nothing is wrong with me, I am in prime health. This made me feel good that during one of these long periods of good health and no problems I was able to realize that I was in said period of time and could therefore appreciate it.

From now on I plan to check my daily percentage to just kind of see how I am. I imagine I will find more often than not that I am doing much better than I think I am.

Mother Country

I read an article today about the probable switch to allowing the FDA to regulate tobacco and got to thinking about one thing that frustrates me about this country. The USA has a bad habit of regulating things or enforcing laws that restrict human freedom to harm themselves.

Good example: Seat belt laws. I should have the right to value my comfort over my personal safety. If I am going to injure somebody else via flying through a windshield then, ok, fine me for not wearing a seatbelt. But if the only person I can hurt is myself; why is there a reason to make it illegal?

On to cigarettes. Cigarettes are horrid for your health, yet on occasion I have smoked one or two, well aware of the consequences and willing to pollute my health for that momentary pleasure. I agree they shouldn't be advertised on media outlets frequented by younger individuals and that we should have education programs to let students know the risks of smoking but all I think we need is the warning that they are harmful.

If there is a sign that says "This sign is very hot, and very likely will burn you" and I read that and still want to touch it then that's my own dumb fault. The USA doesnt need a police officer in front of that sign who will arrest me if I want to burn myself on it.

On to drugs. If there were a drug that would cause me to often make stupid violent decisions, damage public property or possibly not be able to operate a motor vehicle yet restrict my ability to judge whether I should (...alcohol). That drug should be heavily regulated if misused. As for other drugs, the illegal ones, if the only thing they do is make the user feel good for awhile with the possible consequence of addicting him and making him dependant, the user should be able to use them, as long as he is aware of all the risks beforehand.

Alcohol: dangerous to self and those around self + addictive= LEGAL
illegal drugs: dangerous to self ( not others) + addictive= ILLEGAL

hmmm...

I was just reading today how it is easier for young people to get marijuana than alcohol because alcohol is regulated by the gov't and I thought to myself, that is really quite true. Drugs should be legalized and regulated and taxed like alcohol. We could use the billions of dollars made from taxing drugs to further educate people on why they are dangerous, or possibly to treat stupid people who become addicted. WIN WIN WIN

Basically I am just tired of the USA not giving its citizens enough credit to take care of themselves. We dont need laws that force us to wear seabelts, or bike helmets, or force us to not drink bleach. We just need warning labels that explain the risks.

It's like a child who wants to make his own decisions but his mother won't let him in fear he'll make the wrong ones. The child is either never going to learn or going to make the wrong decisions on purpose to spite the mother.

Comments on Comments

"What is that saying-- if you want to protect families, outlaw divorce instead of gay adoption? Having worked in the psych dept for almost 2 years, I've had to read some downright disturbing and heartbreaking stuff about what parents do to their kids. I can't recall any of these cases being of kids with two moms or two dads (not that gay parents automatically rocket you into being a super-kid) but the people who claim to be so concerned with the well-being of today's children need to look at how much divorce messes up kids, or how drug addicted parents are allowed to pop out boatloads of children before someone (if anyone) ever intervenes."

I will comment on this comment from a friend of mine:
I agree. A bad parent is going to be a bad parent whether they or gay or straight. In the 30 days video there is a young woman who tells the story of growing up with a gay father and the things that ruin her. She tells of how there would be graphic discussions of sex in front of her as a child and how her father would take her to sex shops. To me this sounds like her dad was just a bad parent, it's not as if because he was gay he couldn't help but to expose his daughter to things at a young age she shouldn't be exposed to it's more like because he was just a bad bad father.

also a later comment from the same person

"I was definitely that person who was like "Go gay people! I'll just be hanging out with my straight rights over here, but good luck!" I suppose I'll join you as well :)"

and my comments:
YAY!

GLBT Adoption

One of the short documentaries I watched that I watched that really got me both thinking and frustrated is an episode of Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days in which a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint's member goes to live with a gay couple raising four children (embedded after the article)

One of the most striking things about it is that while the woman (Katy) claims that she is willing to accept belief systems other than her own, she would still vote against this couple's right to adopt children. In my mind, if you would vote to eliminate the rights of another belief system, you are not accepting them.

I am not a member of the Mormon Church, and I believe that some of their teachings are incorrect. If a proposition were to arise from an Anti-Mormon group that proposes that Mormons should not be allowed to adopt children would she see the hypocrisy in her statements? Would that proposition not seem preposterous?

To take that a step further, it is extremely difficult to make the argument that a person was "born a Mormon" and they had no choice in their beliefs. Whereas it is very difficult to make the argument that a gay person was NOT born gay. I feel like it is more logical that a person can be denied rights because of a choice rather than for something that is inherit in them.

My biggest point is that it would seem preposterous for a GLBT group to try to remove a Christian's rights to adopt, or a Mormon's or anybody else's, yet it is acceptable for Christians, Mormons and other groups to propose to remove the same rights for a GLBT couple. It is hard for me to comprehend how anyone could vote against there being MORE rights in the world, yet time and time again movements are made to vote a group's rights away. A journalist, I cannot remember who, made the comment that the passing of Proposition 8 in California is the first time in United States history that a civil right has been voted away by majority vote.

I do believe in the rights of a GLBT couple to adopt. I don't believe the teachings of the majority of religious groups, and if I had it my way I wouldn't have children brought up under the schools of some of these groups, BUT I am not going to fight against these groups right to have a family. All I ask is that they do the same for GLBT families.





Comments on the Video:

• I think one of Katy's biggest hurdles to overcome in this video is to go into this type of situation trying to explore her and others' beliefs rather than going through it as a test to whether or not she can stick to her beliefs.
• In many of the situations in which Katy feels her beliefs are being attacked, I do not think they are, and I do not think she realized that by her standards she is attacking their beliefs just as much.
• I think a big breakthrough will be when religious groups realize that GLBT communities are not trying to attack others' religious beliefs but merely trying to defend their own.
  

A Post About Gay Stuff

I have recently had a series of thought provoking conversations, thinking sessions, and short documentary viewings that have changed my mindset about something.

My former mentality was something along the lines of, " I believe in GLBT rights, marriage and adoption, but as a straight man, don't really think it is my fight to fight."

My realization, largely aided by a good gay friend of mine, is that for GLBT rights to be recognized by people outside the GLBT community, those people have to see people within their community fighting for it as well.

We live in such retrospective times in such a retro-romantic nation that often our current situation is not taken as seriously. We look back at the 60's and think, "if only today were as radical as then," or look at great changers like MLK Jr. and think, "if only people like him existed today." I watched a show about an extremist spy infiltrating the U.S. Military last night and thought about how amazing that was, and then realized, "you know, I am sure that exact same thing is going on now but just hasn't been uncovered yet." Our problem is we cannot realize the magnitude of events until they are fully played out and can look back on them. I don't want to look back on these today, and then 10 years from now realize that I was not part of the biggest Equal Rights movement of our time.

So here's what I think now. If I had been alive during the bulk of the Women's Suffrage movement would I have marched with them? Would I have stood up when Black people were doing the bulk of their fighting for equal rights? Hell yes I would. Would I have thought to myself in the 1800s, "Well I don't agree with slavery, but since I am not a slave it's not my place to fight for them." Hell no.

GLBT people around the US and world are not given equal rights to straight people, and as a straight man I will not stand for that. This is my declaration of allegiance in the GLBT rights movement and belief in constructive, productive and non-hateful activism. It is also my invitation for other straight people not aiding the movement to join me.

Movie Review - Terminator Salvation

Terminator Salvation did one thing that not all movies can do that I really appreciate. It sparked immediate discussion between me and my fellow viewer as we walked to our car. Sadly it was discussion of our frustrations with the film. If I could remove myself from the canon of the previous films and watch TS as a stand alone action film I think I would enjoy it, but I love the series and as a part of canon it fails.

Warning: Minor Spoilers

The plot is just, just not thought out. You can tell it was patched together haphazardly to get it out on time. There's this mysterious man who was a prisoner in the past who appears in the future, but if you've seen the first 5 minutes it is basically spelled out exactly for you what he is and what role he will play. Foreshadowing=good, Eliminating any mystery=bad. Later unlikable characters make stupid decisions and then randomly have to blow up this skynet place. Why, nobody is really sure, but they make it sound like a big deal. They all receive orders from Michael Ironside who's just an overdone stereotype hard hitting leader that belongs in a Command and Conquer videogame. He hangs out in a ridiculous submarine base that John Conner can infiltrate just by diving from a helicopter. Kyle Reese basically just hangs around so people can ask him who he is and he can say "I'm Kyle Reese." Later we find out that ever member of the resistance has a loyal following to John Conner. This isn't really developed, it is just created at the end to provide an inspiring moment. They eventually go into the strangely unguarded Terminator base stupid things happen that shouldn't have been able to happen if the fictional world had been created with any sort of eye for detail. Big things happen and then at the wrap up it is explained that the big things didnt really matter at all. GREAT.

Basically this is just not what I wanted Terminator Salvation to be. I wanted a war of the future. I wanted the glimpses of the future you got in Terminator and Terminator 2. Laser beams and bodies flying and all out warfare on the battlefront. What we get instead is a resistance that I believe would be quashed within minutes in a desert base surrounded by landmines that only spring up when it is beneficial for the plot, All led by a 1980's joke character and followed up by characters that make irrational decisions based around John Conner, who isn't really that likeable of a character. Also the plot is just stupid.

Go see it if you must see the next piece in the series even if it will dissapoint you, or if you have never seen any of the others and want to see robots and explosions. I do warn you canon-ites though, you will be dissapointed.


Frustrations SPOILERS

1. Marcus has a robo skeleton, meaning he should weight like 800 pounds, yet he swims and young women drag him about.
2. On the motobike that John Conner hijacks I believe he uses a USB drive, that's just stupid
3. If this skynet place they blow up at the end is so important, why are they buckling down for more battles? Basically the reason they blow up this place at the end is not at all explained
4. The Blair Williams character breaks Marcus out knowing he is a robot. How stupid are you? Robots want to kill humans, he is a robot, therefore he is somehow working to kill you. DUH.
5.Their base is in a submarine
6. The humans could not believable have survived as long as they have. These robots would totally have killed them by now
7. The Arnold scene is just stupid and unecessary
8. When they blow up the base at the end using the batteries in the robots you have to think, would these robots really just leave a bunch of highly explosive batteries chilling on a table?
9. The mine in the minefield conveniently sticks to Marcus, yet later it seems fine to drive trucks around on it.
10. John Conner is way too pissed off, surly and stupid.
11. I rooted for the Robots. Honestly.
12. Helena Bonham Carter plays this like "brain of the terminators" character and she is just so unnecessary. The terminators are machines, they should just get sent commands from a faceless computer. They don't need a face, and certainly not Helena Bonham Carter's (though I like her)
13. In the scene where Marcus has carried out his purpose, Helena Bonham Carter explains everything to him, causing him to rebel. I would imagine she could just NOT do that and reprogram him so he is none the wiser. The explanation serves no purpose but to get him to rebel and actually help the resistance cause.
14. When he does decide to rebel he conveniently knows exactly what thing to rip out of his head.
15. In the terminator base, there are like 3 terminators. It's a freaking factory! It should be crawling with robotic beasts of destruction to annihilate John Conner. HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT!