I am currently taking a course on economics in which I have had some pretty thought provoking conversations. Now, don't get me wrong, the average high school student could hardly claim to know how everything works (and it becomes evident after sitting for an hour in this particular class why they definitely should not make this claim). However, I do like to think that I have a well-developed, if relatively basic, understanding of the American economy. And it is clear to me that right now it is just not working.
Although we are currently managing to dig ourselves out of the largest recession we've seen in decades, there really is no way to avoid this happening again, as long as we remain in a free-market society (not that I am saying capitalism is the wrong way, since I believe that there is no such thing as a "right" way; I am just attempting to make an unbiased statement here). There are a few major reasons for this:
1. It is human nature to be greedy.
We all tell ourselves that we're good people, that we'd never willingly take advantage of others. But let's face it: money and power do terrible things to people. Here's the problem... as my economics teacher has said multiple times before, no matter how much money you make, you are going to need more. Not want, need. This may not make sense at first, but just think about the people you know who make a $60,000 gross salary or less a year. Now think about the ones who make more, maybe even over a hundred grand. Haven't they all complained about the economy since it's collapsed? The more you make, the more you spend, without fail. It's why we hear about lottery winners who blow it all in a couple of months and are left broke. They just can't handle themselves when they have that much money in their hands. That is why currency is one of the most dangerous things in this world: it has the power to destroy your life and leave you in excessive debt to others. Also, it sort of defeats our hopes of ever achieving equality.
Power, on the other hand, is thankfully something which cannot be owed. But don't be fooled, it is just as scary as money. Powerful business owners run their businesses the way they do for profit. Any motions they make to change procedure are always in the hopes that more money can be pulled into them individually. Usually, it only takes a few months of success to begin getting stingy and ripping off your workers. Power corrupts good people. Once you get a taste, you'll just end up wanting more. And there is just not enough to go around.
2. Big business absolutely must be kept in check, or we're screwed anyway.
Often we hear complaints about labor unions and how settlement-happy they can get. And sure, often the motions of many unions can be a little over exaggerated and even irritating, but without unions, the little guy would be in real trouble. In a free-market economy, the government keeps its nose out of businesses (for the most part). So if there are problems and the workers are being taken advantage of at Joe's Steel Mill down the road, and there isn't a labor union to communicate what is happening, there is no way for the government to know anything is even wrong. Keep in mind that there are hundreds of thousands of businesses in many industries across the United States. If you're having problems with your boss and the way you are treated at a little office building in the middle of nowhere, how are you going to get your voice heard? The only convenient, easy way is a union, as long as your claim is valid. And after that comes the state or even federal government. Now, it is important that the worker is protected by law. In fact, big businesses can often become too powerful for our own good. The heads of the big pharmaceutical corporations, for instance, have the federal government in their pocket. That is just scary to me, and it should scare you too. In all actuality, without labor unions, the government would be pushed out of the way, and then stomped like a pesky ant, and after that, who's there to protect all of us?
Now, I know this can be nerve-wracking, but these are only the basic reasons capitalism doesn't work. They aren't what caused the fall of our economy (well, greed is, but that's a different story).
No, what brought us into this mess was our own reliable folly. We can be pretty dim-witted when it comes to running a country (after all, don't forget that this country is run by the people, for the people), and tend to repeat our mistakes, despite the lessons history books teach us. The housing bubble killed the economy, and it won't be long before it happens again with a different type of investment sending self-proclaimed spending gurus racing to get themselves a piece of the action.
The American people got themselves into this mess, now they have to get themselves out of it. And guess what? It doesn't even matter. We're only going to make the same mistakes again.
12/08/2009
The "Barefoot Boy Bandit"
I just came across this article. I thought I would take the time to comment on what I thought about it and Colton Harris-Moore, this modern "folk legend."
So basically, this boy is a criminal (and I do admire his agility, you don't see that many subtle giants - he is 6'5.). I am not putting any kind of negative connotation on that word here, but by American standards, yes, he is a criminal. He has committed multiple felonies, hunts without a permit (I'm assuming on this one), and has possibly even shot at a police officer. However, after reading the comment section, I see that he is gathering quite the following of fans. After all, the article reports that pictures of him have sold online for 300 dollars, and there are movie deals and merchandise already involved.
I'm not going to lie, when I read the article I felt a little excited because the kid seems like the real smooth criminal type, just like all men want to someday be involved in a heist (but most are just too afraid of getting caught to actually follow through). For a second I wanted to be him. And I suspect that that is what is so attractive about this guy. He is a total badass, and men everywhere are bound to envy him.
This really got me thinking. We set laws in our country to protect the people, and when those laws are violated the violators are arrested and sentenced accordingly. Don't get me wrong, I know police brutality can be an issue and sometimes the law just doesn't seem fair. But everyone has to be treated the same in order to maintain justice in our society. In theory, what this teenage boy has been doing for years should be frowned upon, not celebrated. However, throughout the history of the United States, we have been celebrating heroes like Tony Montana, Robin Hood (I know, he is fictional), and so on. There have been countless criminals in history whom the people have admired and even come to love.
So why do we do this? I was thinking that maybe it has to do with the fact that people often feel oppressed by the government. Like it or not, politicians do indeed have a position of power, and it looks like we'll have a strong central form of government for a while. Theoretically, we should love our government, and love the protection and guidance that they provide for us. So why don't we? I am not criticizing American citizens, I am merely intrigued. And I think I may have the answer.
Since the beginning of man governments have risen and fallen, all according to what the people wanted. When it really comes down to it, the civilians have the power. That was the way that our country was designed, and even if it was a dictatorship, the people would still have the manpower to stage a successful revolt. Sure, the government is there for our convenience, but we often forget that. Some nations fear their leaders, we try and push ours around. What we really fear is losing power.
Man's basic instinct is to love power. The power to control one's own destiny, and even the destinies of others, is something that is very hard to resist. When given power, man never wants to give it up. And man, oh man, do we Americans have it. In fact, we as a whole can manipulate the federal government to do whatever we want. All it takes is a vote.
That right there is it. We hate the government. We hate the police. Deep down, every one of us hates them at least a little bit. And that is because we hate the fact that we have to share that power. Each and every one of us wants to do whatever we want, whenever we want. But we compromise our control to live up to the standards of society.
Colton Harris-Moore does not compromise anything. He lives his life the way he wants to. And we are jealous. That's all it comes down to. He can do what he wants, when he wants, whereas all of the rest of us have to be miserable (for the most part) and lead lives with economical struggles and difficult jobs.
But if we all followed Colton's example and essentially became barbarians, wouldn't it become much less admirable? I believe that it would no longer represent freedom, but chaos and insanity. Either way, we normal people will never be content with one side or the other. We all want to be powerful, and there just isn't enough power to go around.
So basically, this boy is a criminal (and I do admire his agility, you don't see that many subtle giants - he is 6'5.). I am not putting any kind of negative connotation on that word here, but by American standards, yes, he is a criminal. He has committed multiple felonies, hunts without a permit (I'm assuming on this one), and has possibly even shot at a police officer. However, after reading the comment section, I see that he is gathering quite the following of fans. After all, the article reports that pictures of him have sold online for 300 dollars, and there are movie deals and merchandise already involved.
I'm not going to lie, when I read the article I felt a little excited because the kid seems like the real smooth criminal type, just like all men want to someday be involved in a heist (but most are just too afraid of getting caught to actually follow through). For a second I wanted to be him. And I suspect that that is what is so attractive about this guy. He is a total badass, and men everywhere are bound to envy him.
This really got me thinking. We set laws in our country to protect the people, and when those laws are violated the violators are arrested and sentenced accordingly. Don't get me wrong, I know police brutality can be an issue and sometimes the law just doesn't seem fair. But everyone has to be treated the same in order to maintain justice in our society. In theory, what this teenage boy has been doing for years should be frowned upon, not celebrated. However, throughout the history of the United States, we have been celebrating heroes like Tony Montana, Robin Hood (I know, he is fictional), and so on. There have been countless criminals in history whom the people have admired and even come to love.
So why do we do this? I was thinking that maybe it has to do with the fact that people often feel oppressed by the government. Like it or not, politicians do indeed have a position of power, and it looks like we'll have a strong central form of government for a while. Theoretically, we should love our government, and love the protection and guidance that they provide for us. So why don't we? I am not criticizing American citizens, I am merely intrigued. And I think I may have the answer.
Since the beginning of man governments have risen and fallen, all according to what the people wanted. When it really comes down to it, the civilians have the power. That was the way that our country was designed, and even if it was a dictatorship, the people would still have the manpower to stage a successful revolt. Sure, the government is there for our convenience, but we often forget that. Some nations fear their leaders, we try and push ours around. What we really fear is losing power.
Man's basic instinct is to love power. The power to control one's own destiny, and even the destinies of others, is something that is very hard to resist. When given power, man never wants to give it up. And man, oh man, do we Americans have it. In fact, we as a whole can manipulate the federal government to do whatever we want. All it takes is a vote.
That right there is it. We hate the government. We hate the police. Deep down, every one of us hates them at least a little bit. And that is because we hate the fact that we have to share that power. Each and every one of us wants to do whatever we want, whenever we want. But we compromise our control to live up to the standards of society.
Colton Harris-Moore does not compromise anything. He lives his life the way he wants to. And we are jealous. That's all it comes down to. He can do what he wants, when he wants, whereas all of the rest of us have to be miserable (for the most part) and lead lives with economical struggles and difficult jobs.
But if we all followed Colton's example and essentially became barbarians, wouldn't it become much less admirable? I believe that it would no longer represent freedom, but chaos and insanity. Either way, we normal people will never be content with one side or the other. We all want to be powerful, and there just isn't enough power to go around.
12/05/2009
On the Current Twilight Fad...
First, a disclaimer: I have never read any of the Twilight books, and I have only seen about a third of the first movie in bits and pieces. So my criticism doesn't necessarily mean anything.
That being said, I think this whole cult-like following that Stephenie Meyer is gathering has become rather ridiculous. I always poked harmless fun at Twilight, but respected it because it was literature. However, from everything I have read in reviews and discussions about the series, I can tell that the books are just not that good. I discovered yesterday that one of my favorite writers and connoisseur of the horror and thriller genre, Stephen King, stated his opinion on Meyer's writing publicly in an interview early this year. And he wasn't exactly supportive.
Here is something I just read.
Now, the article is fairly unbiased up until the last paragraph, so I will just take it as it is. Before I relay exactly what I think of Twilight and just why I think it is not quality literature, here is a comment I discovered posted on that article, which I have adequately titled "Twilight Fangirl Defense" (click the picture for the full comment):
First of all, "Edward Cullen Lover loser," when analyzing the entire vampire fiction genre, there is absolutely no conceivable way you can claim that the FICTIONAL (meaning you probably shouldn't be so attached to him) Edward Cullen is not a wimp. He was designed to be the perfect guy (at least for sweet lovin'). The original vampires of old were objects of terror and sex, intimidating creatures which gave the reader nightmares. Read any novel in this genre, for example, King's own Salem's Lot, and you will see the differences between Meyer's vampires and all of the rest. Or you should see it, anyway. I'm not going to promise that you will, because it seems like it might be something which would be hard for you to grasp. The dreams young girls have of vampires now are not exactly nightmares... but even without considering that, the only evidence you need is right here: Edward Cullen sparkles. That's right. He doesn't fry in the sunlight. He doesn't fear wooden stakes. He doesn't balk at the thought of garlic. The only similarity between Cullen and the classic vampire is this, ironically: The book written about him is absolutely dripping with sexual undertones. The reason this is ironic is because Stephenie Meyer is a devout Mormon. She is all for abstinence and absolutely against promoting sexual activity in teens. Way to go, Stephenie. You completely contradict your own beliefs. Now all the teen girls in the world are out searching for their own Edward so they can have their own awkward silences for hours on end with them, and your books definitely are making a lot of them want to engage in some naughty activity. Anyway, let's forget all that. The only thing really making Cullen a vampire, which apparently is a very loose term to Meyer, is the fact that he drinks blood, and it isn't even human blood that he goes after. There is absolutely nothing intimidating or sexy about Edward. He seemingly has no personality, he stalks the girl he is in love with (at least he's in love with the scent of her blood - I'm still trying to wrap my mind about that weird romance), and he is not at all dangerous. The only purpose his vampirism serves is to make him seem like the tough, hot hunk at high school. Really mature stuff you're writing, Meyer. Maybe you should grow up.
Next, "Lover loser," you clearly display your ignorance for the entire internet to see and laugh at. I'll try and forget the fact that you equate an author being a literary genius with having a movie made about his or her book. No, what really annoys me is your sheer and utter stupidity and lack of an argument. "Have they (I'll presume you mean Hollywood here) made a movie about this dude's books," you ask? I'm glad you asked, allow me to educate your primitive brain: There have been approximately 80 movies and TV mini series made about King's various works. Try and think about that for a second. The score is 80-1, honey. I think I know who my money's on here. And if you don't believe me, here is a list.
Your evident lack of observational skills is also present in this post. Meyer uses a LOT of sensual themes and subtext in her Twilight series. I guess it's your problem if you can't see it.
If Stephen King has a mental disorder, I definitely want to be the next person diagnosed with it. His ability to write in depth and with actual character development and plot is enviable. So I don't really know if you're wrong here, but I guess it doesn't matter much to me.
Also, I really don't care whether you liked vampire stories before Stephenie Meyer's or not. The point is that a lot of people did, and they feel like this new transition to emo, sensitive, unstable stalker idiots is really totally uncool. It's not trendy, it just sucks.
OK, I'm done picking apart your post, and I didn't even touch on the many errors in grammar you have made. It seemed unnecessary to me, maybe even overkill, although your writing skills are comparable to Meyer's, apparently.
To all the parents out there who are saying to themselves that "it's OK that all these errors exist in Meyer's books, at least my kid is reading!": No. No, no, and no. This is not real literary work. Many people have compared Stephenie Meyer's writing to fanfiction, and I believe this to be an accurate summation. Your kid shouldn't be reading this stuff. They aren't getting any of the values you are looking for out of it. In fact, it might even be harmful. Twilight teaches your little girl that it's okay to be a damsel in distress, to be a dependent immature moron for the rest of her life. After all, Edward came along and rescued Bella from a life of having to be independent and strong, so let's all envy her and want an Edward of our own! Cullen is a rare breed (at least in looks), and he is a condescending jerk to Bella throughout the series (he stalks her because he feels the need to protect her? Oh, please...). Feminists everywhere are already rallying. Why aren't you? Also, in terms of actual reading quality: Meyers is not a good writer. She reuses phrases constantly, has no character development (to you fangirls out there, a challenge: tell me why Edward and Bella love each other?), and writes like she is a preteen girl indulging in her own fantasies. Because that's all Twilight really is: one woman's wet dream. It's trash. Take your kid to the library, get them a real book.
My real point is this: maybe all of you fans of Twilight out there should try reading something else every now and then. And I don't mean J.K. Rowling, I don't mean Christopher Paolini, I don't mean Judy Blume. I mean some real literature. You might discover that reading isn't as stupid as you all thought.
Here's one last link you parents might find interesting before I go back to watching this whole fad go down with a raised eyebrow and an amused smile.
That being said, I think this whole cult-like following that Stephenie Meyer is gathering has become rather ridiculous. I always poked harmless fun at Twilight, but respected it because it was literature. However, from everything I have read in reviews and discussions about the series, I can tell that the books are just not that good. I discovered yesterday that one of my favorite writers and connoisseur of the horror and thriller genre, Stephen King, stated his opinion on Meyer's writing publicly in an interview early this year. And he wasn't exactly supportive.
Here is something I just read.
Now, the article is fairly unbiased up until the last paragraph, so I will just take it as it is. Before I relay exactly what I think of Twilight and just why I think it is not quality literature, here is a comment I discovered posted on that article, which I have adequately titled "Twilight Fangirl Defense" (click the picture for the full comment):
First of all, "Edward Cullen Lover loser," when analyzing the entire vampire fiction genre, there is absolutely no conceivable way you can claim that the FICTIONAL (meaning you probably shouldn't be so attached to him) Edward Cullen is not a wimp. He was designed to be the perfect guy (at least for sweet lovin'). The original vampires of old were objects of terror and sex, intimidating creatures which gave the reader nightmares. Read any novel in this genre, for example, King's own Salem's Lot, and you will see the differences between Meyer's vampires and all of the rest. Or you should see it, anyway. I'm not going to promise that you will, because it seems like it might be something which would be hard for you to grasp. The dreams young girls have of vampires now are not exactly nightmares... but even without considering that, the only evidence you need is right here: Edward Cullen sparkles. That's right. He doesn't fry in the sunlight. He doesn't fear wooden stakes. He doesn't balk at the thought of garlic. The only similarity between Cullen and the classic vampire is this, ironically: The book written about him is absolutely dripping with sexual undertones. The reason this is ironic is because Stephenie Meyer is a devout Mormon. She is all for abstinence and absolutely against promoting sexual activity in teens. Way to go, Stephenie. You completely contradict your own beliefs. Now all the teen girls in the world are out searching for their own Edward so they can have their own awkward silences for hours on end with them, and your books definitely are making a lot of them want to engage in some naughty activity. Anyway, let's forget all that. The only thing really making Cullen a vampire, which apparently is a very loose term to Meyer, is the fact that he drinks blood, and it isn't even human blood that he goes after. There is absolutely nothing intimidating or sexy about Edward. He seemingly has no personality, he stalks the girl he is in love with (at least he's in love with the scent of her blood - I'm still trying to wrap my mind about that weird romance), and he is not at all dangerous. The only purpose his vampirism serves is to make him seem like the tough, hot hunk at high school. Really mature stuff you're writing, Meyer. Maybe you should grow up.
Next, "Lover loser," you clearly display your ignorance for the entire internet to see and laugh at. I'll try and forget the fact that you equate an author being a literary genius with having a movie made about his or her book. No, what really annoys me is your sheer and utter stupidity and lack of an argument. "Have they (I'll presume you mean Hollywood here) made a movie about this dude's books," you ask? I'm glad you asked, allow me to educate your primitive brain: There have been approximately 80 movies and TV mini series made about King's various works. Try and think about that for a second. The score is 80-1, honey. I think I know who my money's on here. And if you don't believe me, here is a list.
Your evident lack of observational skills is also present in this post. Meyer uses a LOT of sensual themes and subtext in her Twilight series. I guess it's your problem if you can't see it.
If Stephen King has a mental disorder, I definitely want to be the next person diagnosed with it. His ability to write in depth and with actual character development and plot is enviable. So I don't really know if you're wrong here, but I guess it doesn't matter much to me.
Also, I really don't care whether you liked vampire stories before Stephenie Meyer's or not. The point is that a lot of people did, and they feel like this new transition to emo, sensitive, unstable stalker idiots is really totally uncool. It's not trendy, it just sucks.
OK, I'm done picking apart your post, and I didn't even touch on the many errors in grammar you have made. It seemed unnecessary to me, maybe even overkill, although your writing skills are comparable to Meyer's, apparently.
To all the parents out there who are saying to themselves that "it's OK that all these errors exist in Meyer's books, at least my kid is reading!": No. No, no, and no. This is not real literary work. Many people have compared Stephenie Meyer's writing to fanfiction, and I believe this to be an accurate summation. Your kid shouldn't be reading this stuff. They aren't getting any of the values you are looking for out of it. In fact, it might even be harmful. Twilight teaches your little girl that it's okay to be a damsel in distress, to be a dependent immature moron for the rest of her life. After all, Edward came along and rescued Bella from a life of having to be independent and strong, so let's all envy her and want an Edward of our own! Cullen is a rare breed (at least in looks), and he is a condescending jerk to Bella throughout the series (he stalks her because he feels the need to protect her? Oh, please...). Feminists everywhere are already rallying. Why aren't you? Also, in terms of actual reading quality: Meyers is not a good writer. She reuses phrases constantly, has no character development (to you fangirls out there, a challenge: tell me why Edward and Bella love each other?), and writes like she is a preteen girl indulging in her own fantasies. Because that's all Twilight really is: one woman's wet dream. It's trash. Take your kid to the library, get them a real book.
My real point is this: maybe all of you fans of Twilight out there should try reading something else every now and then. And I don't mean J.K. Rowling, I don't mean Christopher Paolini, I don't mean Judy Blume. I mean some real literature. You might discover that reading isn't as stupid as you all thought.
Here's one last link you parents might find interesting before I go back to watching this whole fad go down with a raised eyebrow and an amused smile.
11/11/2009
A (sort of) delayed return
I just returned to deviantART, if anyone wants to view my profile (although nothing new is up yet, I removed a bunch of old stuff), here is a link.
Right now, I am just sort of zoned out, as I have been for the past week or so. I am sick and it's kind of taking a toll on me. I just finished the (web-?) book Bartender by Dan O'Brien. Despite its many grammatical and contextual errors, I really got a kick out of that one. Also, I just got back my ACT score yesterday, and I was definitely happy with a 33.
It was my first time taking it, and I took the SAT again this past weekend (shooting for 1500+ on the combined math and critical reading score, last time I got a 1350 on those two sections, 2050 total). I think I killed that one too.
I am looking forward to seeing "The Men Who Stare At Goats" on Friday, it looks hysterical, but I am not as excited about my full day of work Saturday.
I hope everyone is having a great week!
Right now, I am just sort of zoned out, as I have been for the past week or so. I am sick and it's kind of taking a toll on me. I just finished the (web-?) book Bartender by Dan O'Brien. Despite its many grammatical and contextual errors, I really got a kick out of that one. Also, I just got back my ACT score yesterday, and I was definitely happy with a 33.
It was my first time taking it, and I took the SAT again this past weekend (shooting for 1500+ on the combined math and critical reading score, last time I got a 1350 on those two sections, 2050 total). I think I killed that one too.I am looking forward to seeing "The Men Who Stare At Goats" on Friday, it looks hysterical, but I am not as excited about my full day of work Saturday.
I hope everyone is having a great week!
11/03/2009
Just discovered something today that really pissed me off, so I wasn't really in the blogging mood. But justice will be had, I guess. I just have to wait a few weeks. I felt like crap all day (think I am coming down with something, just like everyone else I know) so I pretty much came home and slept for two hours then tried to sleep for another two with a lot of noise and lights and stuff around me. But I guess things always work out in the end, I'm sure I'll feel better soon.
Anyway, I guess I can't really think of anything to blog about today. Oh, except this:
Two of my favorite humorists from Cracked.com, Dan O'Brien and Michael Swaim (who is also from the Comedy group "Those Aren't Muskets") have made a mini series, the first episode of which will air Monday. Here is the trailer, along with a word from DOB. I think it looks pretty promising, with Cracked's typical immature yet witty humor. If you don't already know about the site that they blog on, here is a link. You don't know what you are missing out on.
In related news, I finished reading David Wong's (editor-in-chief of Cracked) book, called John Dies at the End. It was just the right mix of funny and interesting, and some would even call it terrifying (although I, a huge fan of the likes of Stephen King, thought it was sillier than it was scary). This is another little piece of media that I would recommend everyone who happens to read this blog checks out. Although the ending kind of surprised me (read it; maybe you'll see what I mean, but I don't really want to post a spoiler), it was definitely one of the better books I have recently read.
So to sum up this post, check out this trailer, this site, and this book (which, apparently, is in the process of being made into a movie, and I think that is pretty cool).
Anyway, I guess I can't really think of anything to blog about today. Oh, except this:
Two of my favorite humorists from Cracked.com, Dan O'Brien and Michael Swaim (who is also from the Comedy group "Those Aren't Muskets") have made a mini series, the first episode of which will air Monday. Here is the trailer, along with a word from DOB. I think it looks pretty promising, with Cracked's typical immature yet witty humor. If you don't already know about the site that they blog on, here is a link. You don't know what you are missing out on.
In related news, I finished reading David Wong's (editor-in-chief of Cracked) book, called John Dies at the End. It was just the right mix of funny and interesting, and some would even call it terrifying (although I, a huge fan of the likes of Stephen King, thought it was sillier than it was scary). This is another little piece of media that I would recommend everyone who happens to read this blog checks out. Although the ending kind of surprised me (read it; maybe you'll see what I mean, but I don't really want to post a spoiler), it was definitely one of the better books I have recently read.
So to sum up this post, check out this trailer, this site, and this book (which, apparently, is in the process of being made into a movie, and I think that is pretty cool).
11/02/2009
Check this out
Some friends of mine over at this site came up with a little game that I just thought I would share with anyone who stumbles across my blog. Basically, you take captcha images (for those of you who don't know what captchas are, just look at the images I'll made and you'll instantly recognize them) made up of two words and make funny pictures with themes based on those words. For example, one of mine:
As you can see, a fairly simple game, but it really gets addicting once you see the hilarious pictures some people can come up with. Mine may not be that good, but I saw a few hilarious ones posted on the site linked above. Give it a try if you are bored and looking for something to do online!
As you can see, a fairly simple game, but it really gets addicting once you see the hilarious pictures some people can come up with. Mine may not be that good, but I saw a few hilarious ones posted on the site linked above. Give it a try if you are bored and looking for something to do online!
Procrastination
Let's face it: almost everybody we know procrastinates in one form or another, and nobody really even wants to do it. Well, most people don't want to. I consider myself a champion procrastinator, but am not necessarily proud of it. I have a lot of potential that gets wasted because of my tendency to get distracted, and I have lost out on certain opportunities because of my habit of putting things off until the last minute, most of the time not getting to them at all. The way I see it, the only time I really feel like doing something is if I am getting something for it in the short term (a paycheck, for example). This is a terrible way of thinking, and I really should stop, but there seems to be something programmed in my brain that just doesn't want to do anything that requires the least bit of work.
One of my long-term goals is to be a writer (fiction preferably), and I read constantly and consider myself an above-average writer, and I think I am a creative person. However, my laziness is getting in the way of things. So I decided that I am going to start writing on this blog as often as I can think of something to write about (but only one post per day for now). I guess it is to help me practice writing and getting past writer's block, although that has never really been a problem for me. Another reason is just pure boredom. I have so much to get done, yet it somehow never seems to be quite finished. And yet I STILL find time to be bored. So why not find something productive like writing to do in my free time? I am headed into college next year, and even with my aspirations of writing, I am planning on being a math major (something else I just happen to be good at). The way I figure it, it is tough to support yourself as an author. The way I have planned my future, it won't be as difficult. I want to be an engineer to earn a living and challenge myself, and to write fiction as a hobby on the side (at least until someone actually decides to buy something I have written, at which point I guess I have become a professional). This way I have a safe future, and am capable of raising a family while still having time to do the things I love. And some day, who knows, I may have an early retirement if I can earn some extra cash through my books.
Those are my dreams. For college, I am hoping to get into some pretty prestigious schools, even though I know the odds are slim. I know it isn't necessary to go to a school that is Ivy League or a top school in the nation, but the thing about those schools is these days they are offering pretty much free degrees to those who need them and are eligible to get into the schools. Yale, Columbia, and the Macaulay Honors College, my three top choices, would all be free for me to get a four year degree. So why not try?
The only thing that really is holding me back from achieving greatness is my aforementioned procrastination. I am only applying Early Action to one school of the eight or so I am applying to, and it isn't even necessarily one I want to go to all that much. Want to know why? Because I waited until the last minute. And that is a problem. So my goal for this year, before I head off to get a higher education, is to really strive to be the best I can be. Why let something as stupid as laziness get in the way of my chances?
One of my long-term goals is to be a writer (fiction preferably), and I read constantly and consider myself an above-average writer, and I think I am a creative person. However, my laziness is getting in the way of things. So I decided that I am going to start writing on this blog as often as I can think of something to write about (but only one post per day for now). I guess it is to help me practice writing and getting past writer's block, although that has never really been a problem for me. Another reason is just pure boredom. I have so much to get done, yet it somehow never seems to be quite finished. And yet I STILL find time to be bored. So why not find something productive like writing to do in my free time? I am headed into college next year, and even with my aspirations of writing, I am planning on being a math major (something else I just happen to be good at). The way I figure it, it is tough to support yourself as an author. The way I have planned my future, it won't be as difficult. I want to be an engineer to earn a living and challenge myself, and to write fiction as a hobby on the side (at least until someone actually decides to buy something I have written, at which point I guess I have become a professional). This way I have a safe future, and am capable of raising a family while still having time to do the things I love. And some day, who knows, I may have an early retirement if I can earn some extra cash through my books.
Those are my dreams. For college, I am hoping to get into some pretty prestigious schools, even though I know the odds are slim. I know it isn't necessary to go to a school that is Ivy League or a top school in the nation, but the thing about those schools is these days they are offering pretty much free degrees to those who need them and are eligible to get into the schools. Yale, Columbia, and the Macaulay Honors College, my three top choices, would all be free for me to get a four year degree. So why not try?
The only thing that really is holding me back from achieving greatness is my aforementioned procrastination. I am only applying Early Action to one school of the eight or so I am applying to, and it isn't even necessarily one I want to go to all that much. Want to know why? Because I waited until the last minute. And that is a problem. So my goal for this year, before I head off to get a higher education, is to really strive to be the best I can be. Why let something as stupid as laziness get in the way of my chances?
11/01/2009
Just a Thought...
Before I start my rant, understand this: I do not consider myself to be "emo" and do not even listen to emo music. In fact, I consider myself a fairly normal person, conforming to the cookie cutout music lover standards that exist in society today. I listen to a broad selection of rock music mainly, with emphasis on classic rock. I think music should be defined by those who listen to it, which brings me to my point:
Is "emo" a legitimate genre for music? I mean, emo stands for emotional, and it started out as meaning just that: raw vocals, with the singer pouring his or her heart out for the audience. When did it turn into this whole thing about complaining and slashing wrists? Isn't there a GOOD kind of emotional? Not this whiny, bad connotation that we give it today? Is this our macho-centered society's fault? I mean, when it comes down to it, couldn't ALL music be considered emo? Think about this: Robert Plant, had he began singing in current times, could be considered emo. Bob Dylan, if he just started out last year, could be another. Anyone who really even sings about issues they really care about could be considered emotional, when we think about it. So what happened to turn it into this whole deranged lifestyle, with its own fashions and everything? Just because you are emotional doesn't mean you are non-conformist. It just means you have feelings and aren't afraid to express them. Doesn't the term "emo" itself give power to those who consider themselves a part of it? They want to be a part of something, and they want an excuse to vent, so why not just get a particular haircut, begin listening to a certain type of bands and conform (yes, conform) to a new standard which has been set?
I say it's bogus. Music can't be classified into any kind of particular genre BUT emotional, when it comes down to it. And when you contort it and twist it around, then you are destroying its original purpose: to entertain. It isn't the theme song for you hurting yourself and thinking about how you are so much better than everyone else but have a worse life than all of them. Instead of calling it "emo," couldn't we just call it "whiny, self-indulgent crap?" It'd make it a lot easier for us legitimate music lovers to pick and choose what we really want to listen to, some of which is currently classified under such a broad term. The term emo scares off anyone who doesn't want to be a part of the scene, and it turns on anyone who does. So it is just helping to stereotype. And it sucks. And I am someone who doesn't even listen to any music that some people would consider emo.
Is "emo" a legitimate genre for music? I mean, emo stands for emotional, and it started out as meaning just that: raw vocals, with the singer pouring his or her heart out for the audience. When did it turn into this whole thing about complaining and slashing wrists? Isn't there a GOOD kind of emotional? Not this whiny, bad connotation that we give it today? Is this our macho-centered society's fault? I mean, when it comes down to it, couldn't ALL music be considered emo? Think about this: Robert Plant, had he began singing in current times, could be considered emo. Bob Dylan, if he just started out last year, could be another. Anyone who really even sings about issues they really care about could be considered emotional, when we think about it. So what happened to turn it into this whole deranged lifestyle, with its own fashions and everything? Just because you are emotional doesn't mean you are non-conformist. It just means you have feelings and aren't afraid to express them. Doesn't the term "emo" itself give power to those who consider themselves a part of it? They want to be a part of something, and they want an excuse to vent, so why not just get a particular haircut, begin listening to a certain type of bands and conform (yes, conform) to a new standard which has been set?
I say it's bogus. Music can't be classified into any kind of particular genre BUT emotional, when it comes down to it. And when you contort it and twist it around, then you are destroying its original purpose: to entertain. It isn't the theme song for you hurting yourself and thinking about how you are so much better than everyone else but have a worse life than all of them. Instead of calling it "emo," couldn't we just call it "whiny, self-indulgent crap?" It'd make it a lot easier for us legitimate music lovers to pick and choose what we really want to listen to, some of which is currently classified under such a broad term. The term emo scares off anyone who doesn't want to be a part of the scene, and it turns on anyone who does. So it is just helping to stereotype. And it sucks. And I am someone who doesn't even listen to any music that some people would consider emo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)