Sparticus

I'm getting really tired of privacy issues on the internet. Being in a position where I may one day be working with minors I hear a great deal of conflicting instructions, but the one I am going to talk about is the issue of being somebody.

We talk a lot in the Education Department about being a person, being relatable, being careful, being conservative, being experimental, being professional, being ourselves, and so on. So, where does that put me? Am I supposed to be careful of every little thing that I post on the internet? I haven't got any posts of illegal drug use, pornography, hate crimes (at least I don't think my "People I Hate" segments are considered hate crimes) or illegal activity (someone took down the picture of us walking left out of a parking lot that had a Right Turn Only sign), so what's the big deal? Sure, I drink and I swear and I make the occasional wild accusation, but the people that don't do that kind of stuff are the people who hide the fact that they do. So, should I join the conservatives and the cowards and try and erase my existence on the internet? I have two problems with that.
1) I'm not that good at the internet. It'd be like trying to clean up an oil spill with my bare hands.
2) Fuck that!
Why should I spend the time and effort to make myself digitally invisible? Why should the only information be an e-portfolio? Should I make all of my friends and colleagues sign confidentiality agreements before I act like myself? If we're going to let our potential employers dictate how we act, then we let them dictate who we are. And if we all tried to present ourselves as hard working, innovative, creative, involved cardboard cutouts, then future employers will just have to dig deeper to find out who you really are.

Many of you may already know my opinions on public and even private surveillance, but for those of you who don't, here's the truth: we all do things we wouldn't want other people to see. We all do things that we think separate us from everyone else. But, when everyone is doing something wrong, who's to say that it is wrong? If we were all seen as ourselves, then all the 'unacceptable' things that we do would be entirely normal.

So wouldn't it be great if we all let ourselves be who we are? What are our future employers going to do? Not hire anyone? The problem is, "I am Sparticus" doesn't work in this case when some people don't participate. Those people are fake. But maybe that's what you have to do to play the game.

Family Guy

So, I'm watching Family Guy the other day and I came to the conclusion that the show only contains one joke.
"Hey, you know when someone does something and the moment lasts for a short time?"
"Yeah."
"What if that happened for an unusually long period of time?"
"Ha ha ha!"
"- ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha-"
"Okay, Seth, I get it."
"- ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha-"
"No, really, shut the fuck up."
"-ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha-"
Wait for it.
"-ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-"
Keep waiting.
"-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh-"
You can see where I'm going with this.
"-hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... "


If you're laughing, punch yourself in the face right now for me.

Thank you.

That is the formula for the majority of the "comedy" air-time on that show. This includes those exchanges between characters where they both stutter and interrupt one another in an awkward denouement to a conversation. This interestingly parallels the show. The joke is analogous to the show itself. They take a concept that is amusing at first and extend it to a point where it is even funnier. Then they take it to a point where it is no longer funny. Then to a point where it is annoying. Then to a point where it is frustrating. Then to a point where it is - Look at me, I could write for the fucking show.

Think back to when your read the sample conversation I wrote earlier. You didn't read each one of those "ha's". You skimmed the first line, maybe, and the second line you got the fucking point. The third line you just assumed. It's the same as the joke. There is no punchline.

If comedy is like getting your ass kicked by comedy, Family Guy misses the mark. Comedy fights in many ways. British comedies fight like old-timey boxers; sometimes lots of quick and subtle jabs, definitely lots of footwork to set you up, and it both takes itself seriously and is just plain silly at the same time. Primetime comedies are like modern boxing matches; they hit harder, but don't set you up as well (it also can result in hugging). Most of your late-night comedies are like kick-boxing; a fast paced version for boxing that hits you where you don't see it coming. Your average sit-com is like a WWE wrestling match; the whole things is pre-planned, formulaic, and entirely staged. Family Guy is like being smothered with a greasy pig carcass.
But America loves it.

Shoulda Woulda Coulda

I'm tired of people ragging on Canada and the Olympic organizers for everything that goes wrong. "Their opening ceremony hydraulics didn't work and that one arm didn't go up!" Guess what? It's fucking Canada. It's cold. Things break. It worked a hundred times before when they were testing it, but on that night it didn't work. Grow up and move on.

"They should have moved the pillars!"
"They should have put in a wall!"
"They shouldn't make the luge track so fast!"
"They shouldn't even have pillars!"
"They should just make a track that you can't get hurt on!"

Shut the fuck up. Seriously. An athlete died. You don't know him. You never even knew his fucking name before he died. Hell you, wouldn't know his name if he hadn't died. He could have won the Gold Medal and you wouldn't remember his name two weeks after the event. It's hard, but that's the fucking truth.

I'm not saying it isn't sad; it is sad. I'm saying that all these people are picking their battles and they're picking the wrong ones. People die in accidents all the time. People die in war even more. And still even more people die from preventable diseases when they have no access to treatment. So who is the bad guy? The Vancouver Olympic construction and engineering team for their malicious use of pillars, or you for not giving a shit about thousands of lives you could save if you bought your purse at Sears instead of Loius Vuitton and donated the difference to a worthy cause.

Self-righteous? You betcha. But I'm not the one pointing the finger of blame when it comes to an accident.

Yes, it's sad that he died. If it had been some kid who thought he was the shit and died sledding down a hill and hit a lightpost, we would laugh and say that he got what was coming to him. The difference is that we told him to do it. We dared him. We egged him on. Maybe we're the ones responsible for his death and that's such a bitter pill to swallow that we keep looking for someone to blame.

Eraser

There are three points about this film that I would like to address.

1. "That place is like a fortress."
I never realized how much of a movie staple that is until tonight. But what's interesting is why we find it interesting. Is breaking into places we shouldn't be allowed a fantasy that we enjoy vicariously through the cinema? Maybe it's the repressed anger we feel about sticking it to our former employers, because, isn't that always the case?

2. The Railgun
Obvious physics problems aside, I don't understand why Arnie didn't use the guns the way they were meant to. They have x-ray scopes (despite x-rays not working like that) and could shoot through almost anything at nearly the speed of light. Arnie downs to guys in a warehouse and, rather than staying inside the warehouse where normal bullets couldn't hit him and shooting all the bad guys with the assisted heart-seeking x-ray scope, he walks out and shoots everybody with two railguns. He would have killed just as many, if not more, people if he had been using normal machine guns; probably would have done less damage to cousin Tony's docks, too.

3. Train Operators
They are people! I think movies really tend to forget this. For those of you who haven't seen Eraser, SPOILER ALERT, the bad guys die in the end. Arnie locks them in their limo and it gets hit by a train. Wonderful. But does anyone think about the guy who operates the train? No. Nobody does. This poor fellow is just driving a train through town assuming that when the gates come down on the road the path will be clear. But today the path wasn't clear. Today there was a limo on it. The engineer blows the horn and puts on full brakes, but it's too late. The point of no return has been crossed. The train obliterates the limo and although there will always be thoughts of "that was awesome," surely the engineer must be hoping that no one is inside.

"They had to catch a train," Arnie quips before he vacates the scene.

The train finally grinds to a halt. The engineer has already reported the incident. A dozen emergency vehicles drive down the gravel lined railway, hundreds of metres from the initial collision. They manoeuvrer slowly around the wreckage keeping a close eye out for bodies.

The engineer is questioned; detained even. The bombardment of questions fail to penetrate the guilt-wrought conscience of the engineer; only causing noise and distortion, like rain in an ocean.

"I could have stopped sooner. They might have made it..."

The death of three men lies solely on the conscience of the train engineer. An honest life forever stained, a soul tortured.Four men's lives were lost on that day.

Bad Arguments

Give give it a little bit of thought.
Now, I'm no scientist, but I did complete high school. Isn't methane flammable? And for that matter, isn't butane? I mean, that's what makes it so good for lighting on fire.

See if you can follow this reaction.
CH4 (methane) + 2 O2 -> 2 H20 + CO2 + energy
Or, hell, this one:
2 C4H10 (butane) + 13 O2 -> 10 H2O + 8 CO2 + energy
We can even go crazy and say,
2 CH3OH (methanol) + 3 O2 -> 4 H2O + 2 CO2 + energy

It seems to me that we exhale CO2, so we breathe it in naturally from our atmosphere. And inhaling water vapour never really hurt anyone. Seems to me you put three incredibly clean burning fuels on your list. Bad argument.

After all, we're not afraid of inhaling the fumes from our lighter, sewer gas (you inhale methane when you're in the shitter, get over yourself), or from a candle! How dumb do you have to be to not understand that when you burn a candle, the stearic acid they claim is in it burns into the atmosphere you breathe!

It seems to me that cigarettes are most dangerous when eaten. I know these people aren't smokers, but ignition is a vital part of the smoking process.

And finally, if you think all those "chemicals" are bad for you, you're not quite getting it. Chemicals aren't bad. Everything is made of chemicals (acetic acid is vinegar. You put it on your fries). Some chemicals are in other weird shit, but if that puts you off smoking, check this out.

I'm not pro-smoking, or anti-smoking. Do what you want. If it's not affecting other people, whose business is it? And if you want to talk about the smell, let me know and I'll prepare a lecture on perfumes.

Too Rich

I have three fundamental problems with leaf blowers.

1. Protection. Okay, so you have hearing protection. What about me? I'm outside too! Where once there were the sounds of the birds in the trees and the gentle breeze rustling the leaves, nature's beauteous splendour ev- b'RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR-WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRBWRRRRRRRR-RWRRRRRRRRRRWRBRRRRRRRRRRRRR-RRRRRRRBRRWRRRRWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRBR-RRRRRWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrwrrrrrbrrrrrrr!
- of life so peaceful.

Sorry, what was that?

2. Effectiveness. So the basic premise is that you blow the leaves onto someone else's property, right? Seems like it's not -

Motherfucker!

- air turbulence, right?

3. Cost.

-OR-

What's the fucking point?

Standard of Living

I think it must be an element of the human condition to desire in life the most what we do not have; to want to do what we can't do, or what we are, or at one point were, bad at. Some people aren't smart and think that life is better when you are educated. Some people are poor and think that life is better when you are rich. Some people are single and think that life is better being together.

What is odd is that only that last fact can go the other way. No rich person ever says, "fuck, what I'd do to just be poor!" No educated person ever says, "I wish I never learned any of that!" Maybe they'll say, "that was a waste of time," but they don't knock the education, just the time it takes. But people in relationships always seem to be able to wish they were single. Becoming single is easy. "This isn't working out." It's four to five words, depending on how well you enunciate. It's the reverse that is hard. Granted, "do you want to go out?" is only six words, but there is an argumentative factor. The response affects the outcome. You can't break up with someone and then they refuse to break up with you. That's not how it works.

One might say that it is the irreversibility of the process that is daunting. But education is also irreversible. So how can we say that one irreversible process is entirely positive while another is not? One might say that education doesn't hurt anyone, but we must always look deeper. Classes often fill completely up. Programs are often waitlisted. Your enlistment often ensures that someone misses their chance. Someone suffers the detriment of your benefit.

Being single is sometimes necessary, much like it is necessary that every start out uneducated, and that it is good for some people to be poor. But just because it's necessary and sometimes can be fun (let's face it, knowlegde can be a burden and finances bring a certain financial responsibility. Also, there is class comrodery. It's lonely at the top, they say) doesn't mean that it's ideal.

But this is just me. Some people must want to be single, just like some people might want to be poor and uneducated. Spiritual enlightenment, afterall, disregards institutional learning and material possessions.

Facebook: The Social Radar System

I've started to notice the total absence of sociability on the Facebooks. It has started to become a weird combination of two things:

1. a training blog
2. a voluntary low-end spy system

It seems we only use it to either post shit we find, think, or feel, or we're scouring it for what other people think, do, or look like. We very seldom talk to anyone other than a forced "It's been a while."

I'm not saying that I'm an advocate for keeping connected with Facebook. If I was I'd be Facebooking all the time and making lots of comments and plans and keeping in touch with all the people from way back when like we always say we will but never actually do. Now I'm finding myself, however, having to keep my head down on the old Facebooks. I suppose it has happened a few times in the past, but it's just an odd feeling. I don't know what is wierder, feeling like I have to keep off the grid or wanting to be on the grid.

For those of you who remember the disasterous Jenn-Charlotte situation, I contemplated quiting the Facebook then. I'm starting to think that it's a not bad idea. Granted, it is a way for people to inform me of things that are happening and for me to look at what other people are up to, but maybe it's time to step up the sociability and kick the network out of this social network. If I want to know how someone is, I should have to try some form of active communication to find out, rather than reconstruct a plausible timeline based on cross referencing photos, comments, and statuses between a number of friends and even friends of friends...

Then again, part of me really likes that. It's like playing Detective. Social Detective. Only like an 8 year old because you don't want to talk to people.

Playing make-believe is fun.

Desensitized

I've come to the conclusion that people are twats and desensitization is a good thing. This is not to be confused with bastardification.

Let me give you an example. We eat me, or at least a lot of us do. That meat comes from a living, breathing, and yes, thinking and feeling animal. It wants to live and hurts when it is killed. This is a fact of life. It's the food chain. We kill things and we eat them. Being humane isn't about not doing what we're designed to do because something gets hurt. Being humane is about being respectful for the life that ended to keep yours going. Look at most wild animals. A dog will shake the bejesus out of its prey to break its neck. A cat will go for the jugular to bleed it out as fast as possible. Given the tools that they have, this is a very good way to do it. It is the humane way to do it.

So understanding that animals are killed, bled out, cut into pieces and shipped to your grocer is something that I think is positive quality. Being able to see it and watch it and understand its necessity (for what portion of the process is entirely necessary. I do understand that a degree of slaughtering animals is a cost/time analysis) makes us better people because it keeps us from being ignorant. Enjoying it is another story. That's being a bastard.

That being said, if watching that sort of thing turns you off meat all together, then you're appropriately sensitive. What bothers me is the people who are bothered by killing animals but are comfortable eating them. It's the cold truth about the world that allows us to demand to make it better. If you disagree with killing animals but want to eat them then I urge you to tell someone how to kill animals without it being uncomfortable for you. The fact is, you can't do it. And if you say, "oh, just wait for them to die on their own" be prepared for less meat to cost way more. Animals that die on their own die in one of 4 ways, in order of likelihood:

1. killed by another animal
2. get sick and die
3. die in an accident,
4. or die of old age.

The maximum yield of meat from these events is thus

1. none (another animal ate it)
2. none (it's diseased. Unless you want to eat "we think we cooked what killed it out of it" beef)
3. variable (depends when you find it)
4. about half of what it could be (ever notice how old people are a lot skinnier than younger people?)

So stop whining about how we have to kill animals while you're busy grilling up another delicious steak. It's the circle of life.

If you don't like the meat debate, how about the encouraged desensitization we go through constantly? What about war? You can't watch an animal be killed for food but you can support the slaughter of a nation of people who aren't even necessarily fighting a cause, but are defending their country? How about our desensitization toward our fellow man? We hear about countless violent crimes every day and all we do is lock our doors. If you gave a shit about "humanity" you'd do something to stop it. If you cared about every life you wouldn't only be looking out for yourself. Start a neighbourhood watch. Investigate the crime. Make sure these criminals are put away. Feed the hungry. House the homeless. Hell, start small and give those cold bastards waiting for the bus a lift in your toasty 8 seater SUV.

Oh, I forgot you're doing your part by having a "fuel efficient" SUV. You're a real humanitarian.

Don't Elect Me, I'm a Fascist

So, I'm reading this article and I can't help getting mad. The summary of the article is that a child rapist wasn't executed because he didn't have a good enough vein to give him the lethal injection.

1. It's fucking poison! Who the fuck cares where it goes? Ice the motherfucker so everyone can go home.
2. Is that the only "humane" way to kill a man? Gas his cell and cut him up while he's asleep! Give him CO poisoning, "accidentally" burn his cell block, pay another prisoner to shank him if you don't want the blood to be on your hands.
3. Why the hell should we be treating child rapists humanely? Feed that fucker to the dogs! Have him fight tigers for our amusement! Give the tigers lasers.
4. It's fucking poison! I know this was point 1, but I thought it was such a good point I should mention it twice.

Seriously. If we're worried about hurting criminals' feelings, they're going to take advantage of us. In fact, they are taking advantage of us. We need to fight back by being cruel to the most heinous of our criminals. Come on, if we're putting people down, we might as well make it an unfavourable way to go. If I wanted to die, I could just go rape some kids and get a few years in a Federal Country Club before they put me to sleep forever (not before feeding me the best meal of my life).

Am I the only one who thinks we need to chain these guys together and have them break rocks for no reason for 18 hours a day? I want their lives to be miserable and meaningless. I want them to pray for death, and when it comes I want them to regret that prayer.

I mean, while we're killing people...

And I'm all for killing people.

People I Hate

1. Money droppers. Fuck you. You can hand me your money, or you can place it on the counter, but don't fucking throw it at me. I should start throwing change back.
2. In-your-facers. You have a question, not something to prove. Your toes shouldn't touch mine when we are talking. It's not like you have a secret or we're trying not to wake the baby. We can talk at arm's length.
3. "Where's the _____?" Just the opposite of the above. Shut the fuck up. If you haven't looked, try having a glance at our handy aisle signs. If you are still unsure, kindly approach an employee and ask. Notice how that did not include "yell from the other side of the store."
4. Retards and the Pompous. First, don't tell me what shit is, what shit isn't, or what shit is supposed to be. It is what it fucking is. Don't come into my store and ask, "Hey, bro, where the cold beer at?" because we don't fucking have any. We've never had any. In the who knows how many decades this store has been open, we have never had cold beer. Are you fucking new to this? If so, politely ask if we have cold beer, and I will politely tell you we don't, never have, and never will so long as we live. Secondly, don't assume like wine is common knowledge or that you're so much fucking better for drinking it. When I say, "no, I don't really drink wine" don't keep asking me how they fucking taste. They taste like grape juice that's gone bad! It's a fucking retail job. It's like the people who expect cashiers to know the posted price of every product in a giant store. What, do you think I go home every night and try a new bottle of wine so I can have a professional opinion on it? It's like asking a cashier at the grocery store if the fish is any good, and when they say "yes" you ask if the chicken is better! You should know which you like better! These people clearly make me the maddest.
5. That fucking foreign bitch from today.

Foreigner (from another country, not the band): Ackskuse, Ihk'm lüking fohr jus, hkelp in wit it chippe botil... wïne. Und eeehhh...
Me (while at the till finishing running someone through): I'm sorry, what was that?
Foreigner: "Hkelp!" You dohn't no vat hkelp iss?!
My brain: Fuck you! You don't know what "get ze fuck out" iss? Schnell!
Me: ....
Foreigner: Chippe botil wïne.
Me: How much are you looking to spend?
Foreigner: Chippist botil.
Me: The Rossini. Right (fucking) here.
Foreigner: People (motions with hands) drink it?
Me: People mostly use it for cooking-
Foreigner: Cookink! What people drink? Vat else?
Me: We have Barefoot, red and white, $8.39.
Foreigner: Vat?
Me: Barefoot. $8.39. Aisle 4.
Foreigner: Where?!
Me: Aisle 4.
Foreigner: Vat?
Me: 4. Aisle 4.
(I go to help another customer at the till)
Foreigner: Vat khind?
Me: Barefoot. Aisle 4. Red and white.

I mean, jesus fucking christ, woman. You yell at me for not hearing you mumble behind my back and you can't comprehend one fucking word that comes out of my mouth! What's worse, she walks her cart down aisle 3 and makes a 15 minute phonecall! The icing? She didn't buy the fucking Barefoot after 45 minutes of shopping.

I don't know who you are, where you came from, or where you're going, but I hope you go die in a fire.

Beards: The Public Pubic Hair?

Okay, okay, I know you're all thinking "but you have a beard. And more importantly, I have a beard!"

This is largely true (some of you may not be able to grow beards). But let's look at the facts, shall we?

1. Beards and pubic hair both start growing at puberty.
2. Beard hair is unlike head hair, much like pubic hair is unlike head hair.
3. Both yield a very good scratch when you have an itch.
4. You can experiment with making fun designs in them.
5. Proper maintenance is important.

Now you're thinking "yeah, okay, maybe, I guess. But it still doesn't sound very good." And, if you're a woman, you- I'm sorry, first let me welcome you to the blog - if you're a woman you're possibly thinking "but I don't like beards."

Here's what the problem is. A man grows a beard at puberty and separates himself from the boys. A woman grows pubic hair at puberty and separates herself from the girls. By removing the hair of our puberty we only attempt to emulate our childhood. First off, how sick is that?! We all know that every man is some percentage of a paedophile. If you say you've never looked at an underaged girl you're lying or a woman. But what about the women that desire men to emulate prepubescent boys? If a woman said that she shaved her pubic hair because it was expected of her we would be outraged, right? Who is a man to expect a woman to shave to look like a prepubescent girl? Yet women have conjured up this social expectation that men should have to remove their beards. What's worse is that some men reinforce this idea!

Now, I'm not saying that I'm opposed to anyone's removal of any of their hair (other than entire eyebrows... I just don't get that) but no one, man or woman, should feel obligated to remove a natural part of their adulthood, nor should anyone be told that they need to, or even that they should.

Now, I know what you women are thinking. First of all, I'd like to thank you for reading this far. Not only am I excited to have your readership, but look forward to seeing some feedback in the comments.

But like I was saying, I know you women are thinking "but we put our faces on your face and it's itchy/scratchy/krusty etc. You don't put your f-"


Oh really?

Racism: It's Not Black and White

I try really really hard not to be racist. When you come into my store and stick a bottle of whiskey in your pants, I try really hard to believe you when you say you put it back while I was walking from the security camera to the liquor aisle. But when you ask "is it policy to search every black guy who comes in here?" I think "no, it's my policy to stop petty thieving fuckwits while I'm busy earning a living."

Oh, and when you get your two latino goons to come help suckerpunch a store clerk, I'm not judging you by the colour of your skin, but by your complete lack of character.

The whole experience got me thinking, though. Perhaps racism is part of healthy discrimination. On the outside, that looks bad, but it's important to understand what discrimination is. Discrimination is eating sealed candy at Halloween opposed to the free candied apples from the man on the street with the trenchcoat. Discrimination is sticking to the well lit streets than the dark alleys. Discrimination is hanging out with your friends in a crowd. Discrimination is voting one political candidate over another. Discrimination is the very foundation of our way of life. So, when you're punched in the gut for trying to stop a black guy from leaving with the bottle of whiskey stashed in his drawers, the hindsight reads that you should have been a little more discriminatory.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that racism is the only way in which we should discriminate. Far from it. One of my favourite customers is black. I love that guy! But he's an older, more respectable, and all around less suspicious guy. So upon judgement of his clothes, his age, his social standing, being black doesn't even factor into the equation. But when some teenage asshole comes in with pants off his ass and a hoodie two sizes too big, being black factors in. White assholes with big hoods and low pants are just trying to look cool when in truth they are just idiots; not to mention if they are stealing, they give up when you catch them.

I hate having to say that racial stereotypes are true, but they can be when combined with the right circumstances. Just the same, you can tell all the white kids who are bootlegging, drunk, on drugs, and/or trying to pass off fake IDs to some extend by virtue of their whiteness. I assume this because the only drunks, drug users, (obvious) bootleggers and (again, obvious) fake ID users are whiter than a 10 piece McNugget meal.

So, this is the part of the blog where I'd normally try and suggest ways to end racism or steer it in a more positive direction. But until the numbers balance out, I think racism is here to stay. I'm sure I'm discriminated against for the clothes I wear, the people I associate with, the car I drive, the things I pay for, and the blogs I write. But if I had a problem with it I could take actions to change the way people look at me.

My first change to deconstruct racism would be to not steal shit or punch store clerks.

Ego

I was relieved to find out the other day that my self esteem issues are no more. In the past rejection would lead me to believe there was something the matter with me, something that needed to be corrected. But now i can safely say beyond any doubt that I'm pretty awesome. I'm not the greatest guy in the world, but I'm certainly not the worst.

But what I worry is that I've gone from thinking too little of myself to thinking too much of myself; as if I have all of the answers to everything for everyone. Sure, there are some things like forcing the homeless into employment and putting turnstiles at the LRT stations to more strictly enforce payment and generate revenue, but those are large scale problems that have their own endless subset lists of individual problems, which I'm sure I could deal with in a very stern "fuck you if you don't follow the rules" manner.

However, there are people's personal problems that I seem to think I have the answers to as well. Some people agree with my solutions and some people reject them very strongly. My buddy got a second job as a clerk the other day. Well done. You gotta push through this recession. You can't afford to be picky. In the words of Meat Loaf "You don't have a lot, but it's all that you've got, and you can turn it into more than it seems." It confuses me that some people don't accept this philosophy.

I don't know, there's a time to be picky and there's a time where you need to accept things as they come. For example, 5 years ago you could reject a job because your heart wasn't in it or the money wasn't there. Now, take the fucking job! 2 years ago you could shop around for the right location to live, the right price, the right people. Now, you will live in shit-central with a meth dealer because it's better than being on the street. Six months ago you could go anywhere, see anything, be anyone. You could afford all of that. The world was nothing but possibilities. Now all we have is each other.

But that's just me. I figured it was just normal. Automatic. I understand how people can put their careers ahead of other people. A career can be what defines a person in their eyes. But when the kitchen is out of steak you don't sit there and starve! At least I wouldn't. I suppose some people really like steak...

Evolution

Humanity is the pinnacle of evolution because under its restraints we can get no higher.

We're paying for WHAT?!

Apparently we've been paying for sex-change operations for years! Now, I need to come right out and say this now: I am not opposed to people having these operations. You want to be a girl? Be a girl. You want to be a boy? Be a boy. Gender isn't as restrictive as it used to be and we should be free to take advantage of that without prejudice. That being said, why the fuck are we paying for it?! I'm no mathematician, but 18-70G per operation times roughly 20 people a year is anywhere from $360 000 to $1.4 million dollars every year. Forget programs to reintegrate the homeless into society. Fuck updating highschool textbooks from the 60s. Hell, let's ignore hiring more police or funding hospitals' emergency care. Marc wants to become Marcy and we need to pay for him/her to do it.

I understand that nowadays that isn't exactly a backbreaking amount of money for the government, but there are plenty of other things we could be spending that money on! Not to mention, why do I have to pay for other people to change the way they are because they're not satisfied with their body? I don't pay people to go to the gym. I don't pay people to eat properly. I don't pay for people to shop. The bottom line is that I don't pay for other people's vanity (unless we're going out...). So why is it so important that we "reassign" people their genders?

If you want to do it, go ahead and do it. But don't be looking for a handout. Especially not now.

Life's Too Long or Do Venetians Dream Of Idaho?

A lot of people claim that life is too short to not do things. Ten Places You Have To See Before You Die. Fifteen Things You Have To Do Before You Die. Thirty-Seven Flavours To Taste Before You Die. Eight Types Of Yoga To Eternal Peace (That You Have To Do Before You Die).
Okay, I understand that the modern world has a lot to offer. But what I don't understand is why you have to do it all. Is your life worth less by not doing all these things? Were 18th century Europeans at a loss for never seeing the tremendous flatness of Saskatchewan? Were 15th century Chinese not living life to their maximum potential by not visiting Tokyo? Were 20th century citizens of the world not living their lives to the maximum potential because they had not circumnavigated the globe? Will people of the 21st century be scoffed at while telling their tales of not going to the moon? Where does it end? Why can't we live where we live and be happy with that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for exploring, but why do you need to see the things that you think you need to see because people tell you that you need to see the things that they've seen? That's not exploring. That's following orders. That's being obligated to "not waste you short life." It's bullshit.

What doubles this bullshit is the idea that a family will restrict your ability to experience this "exploration" which people claim is synonymous to life. Since when did watching the transformation of the cultures and topographies through the window of a tour bus become a greater marvel than nurturing a child of your own blood from infant to self reliant human being? Since when did studying the details in the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel become more spectacular than watching your own child laugh and live and learn and love. Since when is seeing the Colosseum from a different perspective than the postcards more spectacular than seeing a child's development from the perspective of a mother or father?

My traditional argument is that not having children is selfish. You were a child once. Your parents spent uncountable hours and sums of money raising you. They poured themselves, their hearts and their minds, their very souls into you, and you refuse to pay it forward? How can you refuse to love a child the way that you were loved as a child? But that's not what I'm arguing here.

What I'm arguing is that having children is self-fulfilling and people don't seem to get that. People seem to think that when they're 50, they can still be the spirit of the twenty-something they used to be. They believe that the adventures can never die as long as you don't move beyond your "ideal" age. This Peter Pan notion that we can exist in one state forever is absurd. We change. That is a fact that has been proved by the dozens of photo albums of your past. Go ahead and look. Remember how you used to do your hair? Remember what you used to think was fashionable? Remember your ex? Remember how that seemed like such a good idea?

Yeah, but I'm older now. It's different.

It's not fucking different. You will grow older. You will change. You will never ever be the same. This is the rule of growth. You grow up, you grow old, you grow out. And life is simply too long to have your game plan be "stay 27 forever." You will see the world and you will perform Dhalsimian yoga. You will have a million stories that fall upon deaf ears because your middle aged friends are more concerned about their child's first end-of-year dance and your middle aged friends that pretend they'll be 27 forever are off experiencing the unique flavours of Turkmenistan. Maybe that's the life for you. I'll never understand how someone could be so excited about seeing new things, but never venture into experiencing a crucial aspect of life that is entirely foreign until you commit to it. I think people that feel they need to see the world are as much afraid to take the step from life to death as they are to take the step from child to parent.

It's time to come to terms with life.

The Big Bang Theory

Okay, so I've heard varying opinions on this show and I figured it was high time I gave it a try.


I hate jumping into the middle of things, so I started at the beginning with the pilot which my best mate absolutely hated. And I concur. It was entirely too convoluted. Much of the science (which seems to be the big selling point to what I assume are non-scientists that want to look smart when they laugh at the "jokes") is taken way too far. Sheldon, the tall, skinny, socially inept "nerd," tends to spend most of his time expressing the logic inadequacy of human social interaction. In other words, he's a twat. I understand that his role is to hamper the honest main character, Leonard, but the secondary characters Howard (a self professed intellectual/loverboy) and Raj (who can't talk to girls).

Howard and Raj, the secondary characters, although extreme representations of actual personality types, are acceptable as over-the-top backup characters. Sheldon, however, appears to be entirely asexual, meaning that his interactions with Penny (the fulcrum of the story, God help us) are distant and standoffish. Furthermore, his interactions with his roommate begs the question why these two are even friends. I understand that Leonard needs friends. Howard is a total loser, but he brings a popular order of fun to the table (World of Warcraft, DDR, etc.). Raj is a down-to-earth friend to Leonard who, like many nerds, feels (and in this case physically is to make a point) unable to talk to girls (however, this fact is belaboured by reiteration). Leonard needs these friends. Sheldon, on the other hand, irritates Leonard and is the root of activities which Leonard is ashamed to admit that he participates in (if this was gay sex it would explain everything, not to mention make this show worth watching).

I may come back to Sheldon. He really bothers me.

Leonard seems to be trapped between a realistic portrayal of science fiction oriented intellectual and the description of "nerd" as presented by a wannabe frat boy that never made it into science or sports who just happened to open that science textbook under his can of Bud Light. He draws constant scientific analogies making sure to clearly state the discoverer of a particular theorem, he uses a lightsaber as a weapon and a flashlight, he plays Klingon Boggle, and is shy around the word "sex" but not the concept of copulation. This could easily be rectified if he showed the audience that he understood that his discourse with Penny, when scientifically charged and irrelevant, was inappropriate; just little asides from time to time: "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? Really?!" After all, he is supposed to have slightly better social skills than Sheldon.

The quick fix to Leonard and Sheldon is that they have to make science jokes for each other, not for the audience (who I promise don't get it... because there is nothing to get. Seriously, it's like,

"Rutherford's gold foil experiment?! I remember that shit from high school, dude! Ha ha! Funny funny shit, man..."
"He was talking about laundry."
"Yeah, but Rutherford... it's, heh, funny. Right?"

No, it's not fucking funny!). People that are actually scientifically inclined will make jokes that other people won't get. And here's the kicker: the characters have to laugh, not the laugh track. Science is rarely situationally funny; it is implicitly funny.

But back to the characters. Penny! What's her deal? "Ha ha, just ignore the big words... Keep smiling and wear low cut shirts and everyone will like me!" Seriously, girl. You don't need to have a Ph.D. but show a little bit of intelligence. What she needs to overlook is that Leonard and Sheldon don't understand how to carry out a normal conversation with a girl, not overlook their intelligence. When they get talking science, she doesn't need to pretend it's not happening, she needs to bring the boys back to normal conversation... exactly like that: "Boys! *hand lowers from eye level to chin level* Let's bring it back down to here, okay?" And then Leonard can smarten the fuck up and talk to her like a normal person.

I've blended the first episode into the second, so I'll make my distinction here. Episode 2 was less bad. I still didn't like it, but it wasn't near the total car crash that was the pilot (who produced that shit?!). It looks like maybe it will pick up a bit, but I have two major problems so far (besides the premise, characters, inapproprite gender representation and stereotypes, and the tasteless use of stereotypes of intellectuals... I don't have a list, but I should):

1. The intro. Jesus Christ is it bad. The flashy images don't even come close to matching the tempo of the music and is that Ed from BNL singing? Steven Page went to jail for possession of cocaine, but Ed truly sullied the name of the Barenaked Ladies if that's him.
2. The absolute crap commercial break CG atom thing. What the fuck is that? And what the fuck is this, the 1980s Lite? If you're going to tell me when a commercial is coming, at least have a member of the cast introduce the sponsors. Or, you know, fade to black like every normal fucking person! It's the little things.
3. I'm taking it one more subconcious level. Music. Where is it? It's distractingly absent. Listen to a show like Friends one time. When there is a scene change, there is a little music clip that automaticaly sets the mood. In fact, most every memorable TV series has some sort of music that is integrated into the show. Obviously the theme song is the bread in an awesome sandwich, but when you eat it (and thus actually enjoy it and digest it) the bread mixes with the meat of the sandwich and all the other necessary components. The Big Bang Theory is like a fiberglass sandwich and the music is the drywall that keeps it together. I suppose it keeps the network comfortable, but it does not feed the audience. I, for one, am hungry for entertainment.

(I know, it looks like 3 points, but my problems were really music and post-processing. Two problems, three examples.)

Creeping

It is so much harder to do when your intent is honest.

And to think that once I found out a girl's name, address, probable vehicle colour all from a phone number I found on the ground once. Now all I have is a name and I can't seem to find her. All I want to do is talk to her; maybe find out why she's been gone.

But I guess in today's society we just can't take the chance that good people are out there.