Today is November 11th, 2011, or 11-11-11. I agree with people that it is a bit of a novelty, being all ones, but is it as special as some people make it out to be. People are so excited to be getting married today that on the news I saw a line of people outside a courthouse just to file the papers to get married. I read an article a week or so ago in the newspaper about a woman who was adamant that she get married on either 10-10-10, 11-11-11, or 12-12-12, and she got today. I've been seeing 11-11-11 all over the place for the past month and, honestly, it's been bugging me a lot. I don't think I really realized why it bugged me so much until this morning at work.
I work at a job that takes care of developmentally disabled people and in the mornings I go to their houses and help them get ready for the day. As I was leaving one house this morning I noticed a flag on the lawn, placed there by the local boy scout troop in honor of Veterans Day. And that's when it hit me, today should be about veterans not the novelty.
Veterans Day has always been somewhat important to me, probably because it's the day after my birthday. Ever since I found out that Veterans Day was November 11th I have observed it in the very least by announcing to people that it's Veterans Day. This year however, Veterans Day has a more personal meaning to me. I feel that on Veterans Day we should not only honor those who have served in the armed forces but also those who are serving right now, regardless of their technical status as a "veteran." A few months ago my brother-in-law, husband of my sister, was deployed to Afghanistan. I'm gonna be honest about this and if he's reading, don't hate me for saying this. When I first met my Brother-in-law, Kelson, I found him annoying. When he dated my sister, I found him even more annoying, and when they got engaged was extremely annoyed, but something has happened. I've realized that Kelson is exactly what my sister needs and therefore exactly what my family needs. To hear that he was deployed was like hearing that my own brother had been deployed. I know that it's affected my sister, even if she puts the happy face on it whenever I talk to her. In the end though, Kelson is family.
This is for Kelson. Don't do anything stupid out there Kelson, because my sister needs you and we need you. I may still think you're kind of a doofus, but as Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly said, "You're part of my crew." So do what you need to do and get home safe.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Being an individual
I wonder about "individuals." What do people think being an individual is? I think that the most common definition is that being an individual means not doing things that everyone else does, but I feel like that explains everybody and nobody at the same time. On the one hand, everybody has their own things that they do, nobody really is an exact copy of anybody else. At the same time, most of the things we do we're only aware of because other people do those things. The guy at school might seem like he's really out of the ordinary because he's wearing a cape, until you see the other girl that wears a cape as well. Similarly, to all other eyes a person may seem like he conforms to social norms, but then you realize that person is a brony(That one's for you little brother). So really, what makes someone an "individual?"
In my opinion, an individual is not someone who chooses what they do based on how they feel about social rules. I always get tired of those people who enjoy something and then get tired of it because "everybody's doing it." An individual is someone who unabashedly does what they enjoy. If you're a brony, don't hide it, wear that t-shirt. If you like the way a cape feels, wear it for that reason, not because nobody else wears it. I own and wear two fedoras, not because I support snobby fedora wearers and not because I am opposed to those that don't wear fedoras. I wear my fedoras because I like them, they make me happy. If it makes you happy to wear the latest styles, then be an individual and wear the latest styles. If it makes you happy to wear a cape in public, do that.
Anyway, I just have something against people who say they're an individual when I don't think they are. I think they are just doing things because they don't want to conform. Conformity doesn't have to take away individuality and non-conformity does not add individuality.
In my opinion, an individual is not someone who chooses what they do based on how they feel about social rules. I always get tired of those people who enjoy something and then get tired of it because "everybody's doing it." An individual is someone who unabashedly does what they enjoy. If you're a brony, don't hide it, wear that t-shirt. If you like the way a cape feels, wear it for that reason, not because nobody else wears it. I own and wear two fedoras, not because I support snobby fedora wearers and not because I am opposed to those that don't wear fedoras. I wear my fedoras because I like them, they make me happy. If it makes you happy to wear the latest styles, then be an individual and wear the latest styles. If it makes you happy to wear a cape in public, do that.
Anyway, I just have something against people who say they're an individual when I don't think they are. I think they are just doing things because they don't want to conform. Conformity doesn't have to take away individuality and non-conformity does not add individuality.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Casey Anthony Trial
So, I was at home yesterday, turned on the news, and the anchorman was telling me that in just a little while I would hear the verdict of the Casey Anthony Trial. So I stuck around to see that verdict and to be honest, I'm not as pissed off about it as everybody else seems to be. Allow me to explain why.
First off, I have been following this trial to some degree. I work every morning from 6:30 to 8:30 am and have the opportunity to catch the news in that time. This means that I get the tail end of my local morning news and then I get the Today show. At 7:30 every morning for the past month, the Today show has covered what happened the day before in the Casey Anthony trial. I was aware of the evidence the prosecution had against Casey. I heard sound bites of testimony. I saw the prosecution and defense bicker like an old married couple over things I didn't understand. I saw so many pictures of Caylee and Casey that I have them permanently etched in my brain. What I'm saying is that I was very aware of this case, and a few things bugged me.
I should mention first of all that just before the trial started my sister wrote on Facebook:
I believe that quote helped me to look at the case in a more objective light. Yes, there are suspicious things about Casey's behavior, her lying, her car, etc. But just because you have suspicions doesn't mean you're right. All the evidence I saw in this case was circumstantial. There was no concrete proof that Casey murdered her daughter. And I can tell that I'm not the only person that believes that. Twelve jurors agreed that the evidence the prosecution brought forth was not enough to find Casey guilty of murder, manslaughter, or child abuse.
I think the reason people are so angry is because, first of all, very few people have a complete understanding of what happened in that trial. This trial was going from 9am to 5pm five days a week and 8:30am to 1pm on Saturdays, that's 44 hours and 30 minutes a week. When all was said and done there was over 230 hours spent in court on this trial, just over a week and a half. Are there any of us who had the time to sit down and watch that every day for a month? Were we there for the whole thing, or were we (like me) just getting little snippets on the news every morning and evening along with somebody analyzing it with the preconceived notion that Casey was a killer? I believe that the jury knew what it was doing in this case and that the verdict they arrived at was a demonstration of the justice system working in America.
I closing, give Casey a break, she has had to put up with your vile, hateful, toxic, attitude toward a situation of hers that you know nothing about. Stop treating her like scum and treat her, like my sister said, with respect.
Update: I just found this article from one of the jurors in the case.
First off, I have been following this trial to some degree. I work every morning from 6:30 to 8:30 am and have the opportunity to catch the news in that time. This means that I get the tail end of my local morning news and then I get the Today show. At 7:30 every morning for the past month, the Today show has covered what happened the day before in the Casey Anthony trial. I was aware of the evidence the prosecution had against Casey. I heard sound bites of testimony. I saw the prosecution and defense bicker like an old married couple over things I didn't understand. I saw so many pictures of Caylee and Casey that I have them permanently etched in my brain. What I'm saying is that I was very aware of this case, and a few things bugged me.
I should mention first of all that just before the trial started my sister wrote on Facebook:
I think the reason people are so angry is because, first of all, very few people have a complete understanding of what happened in that trial. This trial was going from 9am to 5pm five days a week and 8:30am to 1pm on Saturdays, that's 44 hours and 30 minutes a week. When all was said and done there was over 230 hours spent in court on this trial, just over a week and a half. Are there any of us who had the time to sit down and watch that every day for a month? Were we there for the whole thing, or were we (like me) just getting little snippets on the news every morning and evening along with somebody analyzing it with the preconceived notion that Casey was a killer? I believe that the jury knew what it was doing in this case and that the verdict they arrived at was a demonstration of the justice system working in America.
I closing, give Casey a break, she has had to put up with your vile, hateful, toxic, attitude toward a situation of hers that you know nothing about. Stop treating her like scum and treat her, like my sister said, with respect.
Update: I just found this article from one of the jurors in the case.
Monday, May 23, 2011
I got something stuck in my craw. . .
Y'know what my problem is? Well I gotta few. I'm not particularly good looking (which isn't that big a deal because I'm married, in fact that's not even really a problem now, considering I am married and would like to remain married), I'm kind of an airhead, I'm easily distracted, and so forth. But this isn't supposed to be about what's wrong with me, it's what's wrong with everybody else. That problem, my dear friends, is that we live in a society where people don't want to accept the consequences of their actions. I remember growing up and being taught that when you make a choice you have to deal with the consequences (I seem to remember some video in first grade involving a dragon or something talking about choices and consequences, but I don't remember it extremely well). Sure, people understand this concept on the surface, "If I'm not nice to my significant other they will leave me," or "If I eat this poisonous plant I will die." What gets me is how many people will make a choice, not like it, and then try to avoid unpleasant consequences.
The best example I have of this is abortion. We all learn that babies come from sex, it's just how babies happen, unless you're Angelina Jolie, in which case babies come from third world countries. Anyway, it is possible for a woman to avoid sex in most cases and it is also possible for a woman to, if she is having sex, avoid getting pregnant (again there are case where some things are unavoidable, but those are unsavory and I don't wish to discuss them today). I imagine that if a woman a) chooses to have sex and b) does not use contraception, then if she wake up one morning puking and finds out she has a baby growing inside her, she should totally not be surprised. It's the natural consequence of the choices she made. but in society today it is becoming more and more acceptable to avoid that consequence by getting an abortion, which in my mind is basically like saying, "So what if I made a stupid decision, I shouldn't have to deal with the logical course of events following that stupid decision."
My second example could be a touchy one for some people, but y'know what? The internet is a place where people say things they won't say out loud because they aren't jerky enough, so here I go. I have no problems with people who say they have ADD or ADHD, in many cases those are things that can actually make it very difficult for a person to function in school, work, or general social situations. What I have a problem with is parents who seem to not want to deal with the consequences of the decision they made to have children. I don't have kids yet, but I was raised with six younger siblings, so I am aware that children can be loud, needy, rambunctious, and so forth. I am aware that raising children will be hard when my wife and I start doing so. But if my kid is having trouble in school I'm going to try every other option I can before telling a doctor, "yeah, he probably has ADHD, what meds can we give him?" I feel like there are too many parents out there that don't want to deal with a kid who has ADHD and will put them on medication. When someone is put on medication early in life, what does that teach them? That if you're having trouble with something you just need to pop a pill and all your troubles will go away. Does anyone else think that sounds like someone who's likely to grow up abusing drugs? And those parents, what is their rationale? "I know kids can be difficult, but I didn't know it would be this difficult, if only there was some magic pill that made my child easier to deal with so I could have a break." I'm here to tell you something parents, you never get a break, I'm 23, married, and live 100 miles from my parent and they still don't get a break from me, my grandparents still worry about and deal with their children's problems. Kids don't just go away and they don't just magically become perfect specimens of calm focus. It's not going to happen.
In all, I'm saying, look at what you're doing in life, what your beliefs are. If you think that there are situations where someone shouldn't deal with the consequences of their actions, maybe you should re-think that point of view. But if you don't, whatever, your loss I guess.
The best example I have of this is abortion. We all learn that babies come from sex, it's just how babies happen, unless you're Angelina Jolie, in which case babies come from third world countries. Anyway, it is possible for a woman to avoid sex in most cases and it is also possible for a woman to, if she is having sex, avoid getting pregnant (again there are case where some things are unavoidable, but those are unsavory and I don't wish to discuss them today). I imagine that if a woman a) chooses to have sex and b) does not use contraception, then if she wake up one morning puking and finds out she has a baby growing inside her, she should totally not be surprised. It's the natural consequence of the choices she made. but in society today it is becoming more and more acceptable to avoid that consequence by getting an abortion, which in my mind is basically like saying, "So what if I made a stupid decision, I shouldn't have to deal with the logical course of events following that stupid decision."
My second example could be a touchy one for some people, but y'know what? The internet is a place where people say things they won't say out loud because they aren't jerky enough, so here I go. I have no problems with people who say they have ADD or ADHD, in many cases those are things that can actually make it very difficult for a person to function in school, work, or general social situations. What I have a problem with is parents who seem to not want to deal with the consequences of the decision they made to have children. I don't have kids yet, but I was raised with six younger siblings, so I am aware that children can be loud, needy, rambunctious, and so forth. I am aware that raising children will be hard when my wife and I start doing so. But if my kid is having trouble in school I'm going to try every other option I can before telling a doctor, "yeah, he probably has ADHD, what meds can we give him?" I feel like there are too many parents out there that don't want to deal with a kid who has ADHD and will put them on medication. When someone is put on medication early in life, what does that teach them? That if you're having trouble with something you just need to pop a pill and all your troubles will go away. Does anyone else think that sounds like someone who's likely to grow up abusing drugs? And those parents, what is their rationale? "I know kids can be difficult, but I didn't know it would be this difficult, if only there was some magic pill that made my child easier to deal with so I could have a break." I'm here to tell you something parents, you never get a break, I'm 23, married, and live 100 miles from my parent and they still don't get a break from me, my grandparents still worry about and deal with their children's problems. Kids don't just go away and they don't just magically become perfect specimens of calm focus. It's not going to happen.
In all, I'm saying, look at what you're doing in life, what your beliefs are. If you think that there are situations where someone shouldn't deal with the consequences of their actions, maybe you should re-think that point of view. But if you don't, whatever, your loss I guess.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
. . .sorry. . .
So, Y'all remember that schedule thing I was going to do? Yeah, I kinda screwed up, various events have zapped my desire to write a blog about silly things like that. In any case I think I'll go back to just writing what interests me at the time, which at this time is making sure my massive throngs of followers aren't disappointed that I haven't been writing. I am still alive everyone, but I'd like to know what I should write about. Give me some ideas, okay, i think I'll keep doing the R-Wad but I don't know when, as for SCuF, it takes so long, so unless I can outsource it to someone that has much more reliable internet access and a ton more free time than I do, I don't know if I can continue doing it weekly. Sorry. You'll be hearing from me soon, hopefully.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
SCuF for April 30, 2011
So, it's Saturday, time for the SCuF (Saturday Cuteness Factor)!
Without further ado, image one.
Without further ado, image one.
Fluffiness 2
Size (Tinier=better) 4
Affection 2
Anthropomorphism 0
Roundness 2
Eyes (Bigger=better) 3
Harmlessness 4
Total: 17
Explanation time!
Fluffiness - 2: Chihuahua's are furry but not really fluffy
Size - 4: This picture is definitely cheating in the size category, it's a chihuahua for crying out loud! The smallest dog in the world!
Affection - 2: This dog doesn't look so much affectionate as it looks bored, it doesn't even seem to care that it's getting its picture taken.
Anthropomorphism - 0: Honestly, this doesn't really look human-y tome at all, it just look dog-ish.
Roundness - 2: Okay, so his head is a little round but other than that you don't get much else.
Eyes - 3: In proportion to it's body, a little chihuahua has gigantic eyes, I just feel that if this one tried a little harder he could make his eyes HUUUUGE.
Harmlessness - 4: Like I said earlier, this dog looks bored, he ain't gonna hurt you at all.
So that gives this lazy chihuahua a score of 17, which, after a quick review is a record low. OUCH!
So, let's see what image two has for us.
Fluffiness 4
Size (Tinier=better) 4
Affection 4
Anthropomorphism 3
Roundness 3
Eyes (Bigger=better) 1
Harmlessness 5
Total: 24
Explanation:
Fluffiness - 4: The combined power of a fluffy baby chick and a big lazy furry St. Bernard gives this one a high fluff score.
Size - 4: This score is based, not so much on the size of both parties in the picture, but more on the juxtaposition, A St. Bernard will weigh, on average, 200 lbs, a baby chicken, however weighs 0.088184 lbs, which means this dog is approximately 2270 times the size of this chick, yet it is not crushing it. CUUUTE!
Affection - 4: These two look like they're about to freaking kiss each other, there's so much affection here, yeesh.
Anthropomorphism - 3: Other than the stated near-kiss that these two are doing, there's not much human-like about them.
Roundness - 3: A baby chick is inherently round, and a St. Bernard is somewhat rounded as well, but this picture might get a higher score if we had been able to see the roundness of the dog as well as the chick.
Eyes -1: Alas, the lowest score of this picture, it is because you can't really see a St. Bernard's eyes and the chick just doesn't have huge eyes anyways.
Harmlessness - 5: One look at this picture and you see that these two are in no position to harm each other at all, that chick wouldn't even get a scratch on that dog and that dog is too big and lazy to even try.
So, all tallied up that gives this picture a 24, which, surprisingly is a record high, easy to see who wins this one! Join me next week when I apply science to another set of pictures.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
R-WAD for April 27th 2011: Stan Goldberg
So, it's random Wikipedia article day and today's random Wikipedia article is on a man by the name of Stan Goldberg
So, if you're looking at the picture and thinking "eeeeeeewwwwww, he's an old guy." Then first, I have to agree with you, he is old. Second, do you know who else is old? Stan Lee, yeah, the guy who's responsible for all your favorite superheros that aren't Superman or Batman. "Why are you talking about Stan Lee in an article about ugly old Stan Goldberg," you ask? Well because this guy is responsible for Spider-man wearing red and blue. And I quote: "Stan [Lee] was writing Fantastic Four, Spider-man and all those books. I was doing the initial colouring on all those books; I was creating the colour schemes on all those characters" (Adelai Comics and Books). That's right, this guy put The Fantastic Four in blue, and Spider-man in red and blue. Also, he spells color weird, especially weird since he was born in New York.
 |
| This guy! |
Anyway, Stan started out working for Timely Comics (which was essentially the baby form to Marvel's full-grown adult) in 1949. In two years he had worked his way into the position of coloring-department manager and was in charge of, as he put it, coloring "every cover the rest of the decade," and during that time Timely Comics grew into the adolescent form, Atlas Comics.
In 1958 Stan went freelance and eventually ended up doing a lot of the coloring for Marvel. In 1968 he stopped doing freelance work for Marvel and then started being more associated with the Archie comics. He's did work for the Archie Comics up until mid-2006, since then it seems he's slowed down but still does a little bit of freelance work from time to time.
I get the feeling that a man like that never really grows up, sure he has to deal with adult issues, (bills, bills, bills, etc.) and now, because of his age (he'll be 79 on May 5th this year) he probably even has to deal with old person issues, (liver spots, sciatica, lumbago, rutabaga, asparagus, etc.) but he still probably finds the time and energy to add his own little touch to a few comics here and there. If there's one lesson I can learn from Stan Goldberg it's this. Never grow up, but even if you do, add a bit of you as a kid to everything you do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)