5-18-4
So yeah.
Sitting in lab, killing time, rambling, I guess.
It's funny. I really haven't had anything to say lately. I find myself being rather content as I am. I'm in a bit of a growth phase, still, either that or I just ended one and haven't noticed, but I doubt that.
Things are bright for me. Maybe it's the weather. Maybe it's the drugs. Maybe it's the music I've been listening to. I have to say, though, the teenage angst stuck around a lot longer than I'd anticipated. I'm going to be in my late 20s in a few months. It's just so wierd. Or is it weird? I can never remember. The whole growth process is fascinating to me. I'm definitely going through something. Noël was over a while ago, and she knew exactly what was going on. She'd been through it, too. What it is, I can't fully explain. It's a new perspective. It's odd. It's an intangible, indescribable state of mind.
I've been listening to a lot of new music, rather music that I haven't ever listened to, mostly women, Pink, Patti Smith, Eliza Carthy, etc. I know Pink doesn't really have anything in common with the other two. Matter of fact, none of them have much in common at all.
I just took an online quiz to tell me where my political compass is. I'm 3.25 Left (as opposed to Right) and 4.25 Libertarian (As opposed to Authoritarian). I don't know what that all means. According to the graph, I'm in the same area as Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama, but closer to the middle. You can take the test at http://www.politicalcompass.org/.
So, why'd I start rambling? No idea. I don't really know where I'm going with all this at all. As I said, I really don't have anything to say.
4-13-4
So, I'm procrastinating. I need to do a book review on that Puritan Family book I read. There's really not much to say about it. It's very informative and enlightening. It's actually pretty enjoyable for that kind of book. I learned a lot from it. But the author isn't really trying to make an argument. It's more of a painting than an argument. I would recommend it to anyone curious about Puritanism. I think what he's trying to do, and it even says this in the book, is to illustrate the depth to which their religion influenced their lives and the lives around them. He also fosters a deeper understanding of the Puritans, and he dispells a lot of the myths that most of us cling to, like how Puritans outlawed everything that could be construed as fun, and that sex was never ever had, except for the explicit purpose of havig children. That whole bit.
Really, these people are about as regular as you or I. Well, maybe not that much, but you know. A lot of what the Puritans practiced was done in terms of moderation. They didn't allow alcohol or anything like that, but everything they did was for a purpose. It's pretty interesting. Matter of fact, I think I'll use this ramble here as the basis for my paper. It only has to be 2-3 pages. No biggie.
I have a paper on Locke due a week from tomorrow. I haven't even started to think about it. I'll need to get the Puritan one out of the way first. I'm not terribly worried. I've been doing all right in my philosophy class, not as good as I'd like, but then, I really don't care much for the class.
Trent commissioned a Lucy Liu-Bot from me. I have to start on that. I also need to work on Yoda a bit more. I'm almost done with all the greenscreening.
Yesterday, I tried to edit down all the Clone Wars episodes into one cohesive... thing. It looks pretty good, but I can't get Premiere to export it as an mpeg file so I can make a VCD. I keep getting an error message at frame 1428, which sucks ass, because the whole thing is 121036 frames long. Or somewhere thereabouts. Maybe it's a problem with the first file, and I can get around it somehow. At any rate, it's pissing me off.
Anywho, that's what's new with me. Nothing terribly interesting or profound. Maybe next time. I only have half an hour left, and I still need to change the front page and fix a broken image.
3-17-4
I'm not assertive enough.
I avoid confrontation. It makes me uncomfortable. I don't like telling people no. I'm always trying to be nice and agreeable. This just needs to stop. I won't be a pushover anymore, I don't think. So, how do I fix this? I have no idea. I was brought up to be nonoconfrontational, and it's hard to go against 20+ years of experience.
Maybe I need a commanding, intimidating voice. That would be cool.
I need to stop trying to accomodate people I don't know. Where is the line between nice guy and wuss though? It's very hard to see.
I got involved in a Star Wars discussion on SA today. I'm such a geek.
Here's the thing. I like Star Wars. I like the originals. I like the special editions. I like the prequels. I like them all for different reasons.
The originals are just classics. They were amazing feats in movie-making. The Special Editions were also cool. They had some flaws, sure, but they also fixed a lot of things (like transparent X-Wings on Hoth). I like the prequels because the whole overall story of Anakin Skywalker intrigues me. Now if only Lucas could actually write and direct well....
I can't seem to get rambling here. That's odd. Usuallly, I just start with a topic that's kind of on my mind and spew out a long diatribe of peanutty goodness.
Oh well.
I keeo thinking about action figures. As you probably know, I'm a big fan of the action figures (or guys as I called them as a kid). It was mostly just my GI Joe guys and my Jedi guys. (I only started actually buying them when Jedi came out. They were all on ROTJ cards, hence Jedi guys.) The Joes and the Rebels would routinely team up to fight the evil Cobra/Empire, um, empire. I'd have Hawk fl around in a B-Wing, and Luke would stay on the ground and drive around in a tank. It was great. When I was a kid, I could get a GI Joe guy for 2 bucks and a Jedi guy for 3. I guess licensing fees add to the cost, huh?
Here's the thing. I never had any real friends as a kid. Most of the socialization I received was familial. Joe and I had an interesting arrangement. Any time a new wave of GI Joe came out, we'd go through the little catelogue or flyer or whatever had all the new and exciting products, and we'd decide beforehand who got what. This was a very strict arrangement, too. If I called dibs on Hawk, then, by God, I got Hawk. Once, he called dibs on Quick Kick. I showed him, though. One night, I was out with Mom and Dad, and I got Quick Kick. I guess this was in retaliation for him getting a FANG for his birthday. I was very upset about that.
This trend has followed me through life, though, sort of. If Joe gets it, I don't. It's not like anyone actually made this rule, let alone enforced it. It was all just internal. To this day, I can't even think of myself owning a Springsteen album. Bruce Springsteen was Joes territory, and I respect that. I was watching I Love the 80s this week, and they had a bit on the Born in the USA album, which is one of my childhood favorites. It occurred to me that I hadn't heard that for years, because Joe had gone through his Springsteen phase. But I don't live with Joe. And I can get my own copy. But still, it just seems so... wrong.
I've always liked the figures. I've developed an intimate attachment to them, which is really sad and pathetic. They've played a large role in my life, though. Any time I went to Target or K-Mart or wherever, it was always straight to the toy dept. to look for GI Joe guys. I'd also look for Jedi guys, but not as much, and this was for two reasons: Joe tried to convince that GI Joe ones were better (because they were more poseable), and Star Wars guys had a pretty limited run. Nevertheless, it was always guys for me. I was rabid. I figured I'd outgrow it eventually. Even after the Nintendo came along, I was all over the action figures. Over time I'd developed a sort of authoritative knowledge of them.
I still love action figures, and I still but them. Mostly it's for one of three reasons:
1. Nostalgia, like when I bought Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow. All Star Wars guys fall under this category, too.
2. Custom fodder. I like finding well-made figures for cheap so I can use their parts.
3. They look cool. Plain and simple. If I think a figure just plain looks cool, like that Onimusha 2 guy I have, I get it. Also, if it's based on a celebrity, and the likeness is accurate, like the E.T. Drew Barrymore one, I'll get it.
While I still have that special warm place in my heart for these guys, my appreciation for them has grown to a more artistic perspective. I am genuinely intrigued at the prospect of small, durable sculptures. That is basically what they are (or, in some cases, used to be). There is a definite and highly unappreciated art form in action figure design. In my years of playing with, and later customizing, I've come to know this more and more. There are many factors to take into consideration. You have articulation, durability, playability, and appearance. All these factors are in conflict with each other, and it's a challenge to put something together that gets the most out of all of them.
Earlier, I mentioned that Joe used to tell me that GI Joe guys were superior to Jedi guys. Well, in some cases, that may be the case. In others, not so much. Both were very prone to thumb loss, although I think GI Joes were slightly moreso, since they're made of a harder, more brittle plastic. Jedi guys had 5 points of articulation at most: leg, leg, arm, arm, head. Joes had far more because of their rubber band structure. The heads could turn and later on nod. The arms and legs could move outward as well as forward and back. The arms and legs also bend at the knees and elbows. Almost all of them also had the amazing Swivel-Arm Battle Grip, which, as you probably know, allows the biceps to swivel. With all this great poseability comes great opportunity for breakage. First of all, you have the rubber band. Rubber bands deteriorate over time. Fortunately you could replace it by unscrewing the back (which led to lots of customizing as a kid). Limbs were also more likely to pop off. In most cases, that could be repaired, but sometimes, like with thumbs of knee joints, it's just useless to try. Jedi guys, in lacking articulation, gained stability. They were still prone to losing thumbs, and heads also really liked to come off, but on the whole, I think more of them survived years of tireless play than Joes.
3-10-4
Yeah, so...
I have a doctor's appointment in less than an hour. Yippee.
My ramblings have become too focused, I think. It defeats the purpose. Oh well.
I've been pretty irritable and annoyed lately. I don't know why. I just am. I need a real get away from it all vacation. Today, during class, I just couldn't concentrate. Spinoza made my brain hurt. It's annoying. Plus there's this weekend, which I don't really wanna go into, mainly because I don't know what I think of the whole situation. Not to mention I'm frickin starving.
Jed's recent editorial thingie is just so tired. It's about that ad from moveon.com. Let's all just ignore facts and go with sensationalis. It's much mor interesting. It's the same problem with the news. There aren't really any objective American news sources. If you want to find out what's going on, check the BBC. Otherwise, you're not getting the whole story.
I hate people.
I just want to scream and go to my room and cry about $50 hoodies.
2-24-4
I haven't been updating nearly as much as I'd like to. I just haven't had anything to put up lately. No new pictures, not many movie reviews, no finished figures, you know. I need to finish that book, though. I also have a philosophy paper to write. It's supposed to be about whether Descartes' argument for the existence of God is circular or not. I haven't thought about that one for years. Oh well.
So, the president fucking scares me. You've probably read my thing on the State of the Union address he gave earlier this year. Today, he publicly endorsed a Constitutional Amendment that would basically prevent gays from marrying. Actually, what it would say is that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Why do we need a Constitutional Amendment that does nothing more than clarify a definition? That's ridiculous, but I'm sure people are going to argue just that. The thing is, though, that the Amendment will, in effect, prevent gays from marrying. Cuz we just can't have that. Here's the argument as I see it (from the government's perspective): Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and woman, and we should respect that. In fact, we should put it in the Constitution so it'll be set in stone, essentially, that marriage is only between man and woman.
This begs the question, of course, why do we need this amendment? If it's just a matter of respecting the sacred institution of marriage, why does it have to be added to the Constitution?
Well, because it's a sacred institution based on a moral tradition. That doesn't answer the question. The only real answer the the question is that it'll keep the fags from marrying up the place, and we just can't have that. Please.
Why is this an issue? Well, because the Constitution doesn't spell out marriage laws (even though that's all supposed to be in the hands of the states anyway), and it should be limited to heterosexual couples only. But why? Because marriage is defined as blah blah blah. The whole semantics argument is circular and pointless. Why shouldn't gay couples enjoy the same honors and privileges as their straight counterparts?
Seriously, I have no idea why this is a problem? The answer of course is that the gays can have civil unions that are essentially the same, but they can't be called marriage. Separate but equal, if you ask me.
So, why do we need a Constitutional Amendment that restricts the rights and liberties of a specific group of people (or, conversely, an amendment that grants only certain people certain rights and liberties) based on natural differences? I don't get it. I have to say, if Bush keeps this shit up, and if he gets reelected, I'm going to look into buying a firearm, because, as granted by the Constitution, I'm allowed to do that to protect myself and my rights. Dave was right about the right to bear arms. It's the last check and balance against the government. There was a time when I thought that was a bunch of hooey, but damn, this president is really frightening me. And to think I actually voted for the little fucker.
And people say he's the best president ever.
Granted it's still unlikely that this whole thing will come crashing down and my worst fears will come to fruition, but it's still possible. It's happened in the past. Much as I hate when people compare world leaders to Hitler, I feel like I'm seeing it happen. I hate people. I hope Bush loses the election, but if he doesn't, and if he keeps this shit up, I dunno what I'm gonna do. Gun or Canada. I'm genuinely scared.
2-10-4
So, Tina has a birthday coming up. I already bought her presents. Still need to make a card. I haven't had much on my mind lately. The computer's up and running, and I can finally work on Yoda again. I finished all the green screening (I think), and I have some visual effects to put in, then it's off to sound. That'll be fun.
I've been listening to a lot of Goerge lately. That's kind of weird to say. Usually, I'm saying I 've been listening to a lot of U2 or EELS, but George? Huh. Odd. Anywho, yeah.
As for the gay marriage argument I've been having, I resumed it after taking a break. Things got a little heated. I think Bubba's starting to realize he's full of shit. That in itself is rewarding enough.
I bought a donut from the vending machine, and I swear to all that is good and righteous, it was the worst donut I've ever tasted. I couldn't eat more than a third of it, and I'm a donut guy. This was 3 hours ago, and I can still smell its putrid essence. It's disgusting and unholy. Neither man nor beast is fit to consume such a travesty. This donut was a confectionary abortion fit only for the devil himself. I shudder at the thought of the authorities approving this for human consumption. Its texture was like bread soaked in water for a fortnight. It was covered in something brown that I first assumed to be chocolate. Upon closer examination, it revealed itself to be something much more sinister. The donut itself was sickeningly sweet. Its nauseating sickly saccharine still permeates through my sinuses, and I won't soon be rid of it. No hellish concoction could ever overome this untasty treat. The mere thought of it makes me want a root canal. This donut was, in a word, bad.
Ugh.
1-27-4
Golly.
It's all snowy outside.
I'm hungry, too. Maybe I'll go bother the vending machines.
Hold on.
Ok, I'm back.
Now, where was I?
Oh yeah.
The gays.
I've been participating in an argument about gay marriage, playing Socrates, and trying to find out the legal and just basis for the government's not recognizing gay marriage. Here's what I've gotten out of them:
Because, as a whole, children born to heterosexual married couples are generally better off (concerning mental health, criminal tendencies, etc.) than children not living in traditional households (i.e. everyone else), hetero marriage is the ideal for raising children, and, as such, it is the responsibility of the government to uphold that ideal and discourage any other form of family. If couples cannot/will not have children, the same applies, meaning that heterosexuals can still marry because it upholds the heterosexual ideal, while homosexuals can't marry because it's detrimental to the ideal and, therefore, detrimental to our youth.
Furthermore, since marriage is not a right in this country, it is perfectly legal to exclude homosexuals from the benefits received by those who enjoy the privilege of marriage.
While gays can be gay in their own time, it is wrong to consider them married for the following reasons:
Let's pick this apart, shall we?
Marriage is defined as being between a man and woman.
Definitions change, expand, and evolve all the time. There is nothing preventing the expansion of the definition of marriage. There was a time when marriage referred only to a man and woman of the same race. Before that, it was only between a white man and woman.
Gay marriage is detrimental to society.
How so? This has yet to be proven.
Gay couples cannot experience coitus (i.e. heterosexual vaginal sex), and can, therefore, never experience the same level of intimacy as straight couples.
So, gay couples can only have gay sex, and that's inherently inferior? That's stupid and circular.
It is perfectly acceptable to have laws based on religious ideals, provided it does not impede on anyone's rights, and marriage is not a right.
Not so. Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, fucker.
Gays can't produce children.
Neither can a lot of straight couples.
Because, as a whole, children born to heterosexual married couples are generally better off (concerning mental health, criminal tendencies, etc.) than children not living in traditional households (i.e. everyone else), hetero marriage is the ideal for raising children, and, as such, it is the responsibility of the government to uphold that ideal and discourage any other form of family. If couples cannot/will not have children, the same applies, meaning that heterosexuals can still marry because it upholds the heterosexual ideal, while homosexuals can't marry because it's detrimental to the ideal and, therefore, detrimental to our youth.
This whole bit is based on personal opinion and skewed statistics.
I hate people.
So.
Happy new year.
I really haven't had much on my mind lately. At least nothing I haven't written about many many many times before.
Return of the King was good, though, huh?
Tina even liked it.
Hm.
I've been wanting to write a story, but I can't seem to write good fiction. At least nothing engaging. I can write great philosophy papers and personal stuff, like this, but when it comes to an actual story, I don't know where to begin.
But I get all these great ideas.
Well, not a lot of them.
And they're not all that great.
Just last night, I had this idea for a story. There's two planets, and Planet B sees Planet A as a threat, so they attack Planet A. Planet A has superior weapons technology and a much stronger and better military. Planet B has older weapons but a very strong military tradition. They fight relentlessly, and Planet A decides this war needs to end, so they unveil their new superweapon and wipe out some of Planet B's colonized moons, so Planet B surrenders.
Or how about this one:
There's a teenage girl. Her father is an attorney, a public defender, actually. Her cousin comes to visit, and he rapes her. Her father has to defend him in court. How about that?
Great, now flesh it out. How? No idea.
Gateway's sending us a new hard drive, since the old one's pretty much a lump of squidass.