Absolute Knowledge

Here we go again.  Another oft used term that I feel is poorly understood by the community as a whole, and certainly by those who have a tendency to use it.

Believe it or not, in my experience, people's issues with the concepts surrounding this term stem less from the word knowledge (though there are issues there), and more from the word absolute.  (I know, absolutely shocking!)

Really though, it couldn't be simpler.  While the effects of absolute knowledge may be complicated and intricate, the definition is not.  If you have absolute knowledge, you know everything.

EVERYTHING.  This, I think, is where people start to struggle.  Everything is a fuckin' lot of things.  It's not tons of things, or most of things; it is all of the things.

When I say all, I seriously mean all.  All is bigger than the universe.  All is bigger than a googol (not to be confused Google, though they're close) which is a number that is roughly twenty orders of magnitude larger than the number of atoms in the universe.  All is bigger than infinity.

All includes everything physical.  It includes everything not physical.  It encompasses the universe, and whatever lies outside of it.  It counts other universes.  It includes alternate dimensions.  All counts time in its entirety, both past and future.  Even moments of time that didn't actually happen!  All means every possible outcome for every possible situation that every possible thing has encountered in ever.  All means every impossible outcome for every impossible situation that every impossible thing has encountered in never.

Get the picture?

Alright, so now what?  Well, for starters, fuck school, amiright?  Sure.  But while you're at it, you might as well forget everything else.  Absolute knowledge ruins everything you do.

If you knew everything, then you'd already know how this post ends, so you wouldn't need to keep reading.  (Seriously though, you don't know everything so keep reading, you arrogant bastard.)

 

Everything you would do would be a repetition.  Just like how you remember things you've done in the past, you would have knowledge, or "memory," of things you will do in the future.  When time catches up to that moment (supposing time still holds any meaning for you at this point) you will know everything that will happen, in the order it will happen, exactly perfectly.

At best this means that the entire rest of your existence (potentially eternity) will be spent doing things you've effectively already done.  Your life is now dictated by fate, so to speak, like a familiar and well-rehearsed play. Do this at this time, then this at this time, with you unable to make any changes.  Any "changes" you wanted to have made would already be known well ahead of time, and part of the play from the beginning.

At worst?  You basically cease to exist.  A kiddie ride car on rails can hardly be considered a real car.  Sure you're moving toward a destination, and yes, you did make the choice to travel to that destination, but you don't have to do anything to make that happen.  It just sort of happens to you.  You don't get to do anything that hasn't been plotted out along this pre-determined path.

Absolute knowledge is not a good thing.  It's an impassable brick wall.  It is a force that destroys your, and anyone else's, ability to find anything new, to learn, to progress.

Imperfect knowledge is what should be embraced.  It means we still have the potential for discovery, the potential to forge on into new worlds of possibility.  We still have the ability to create things never before seen, never before known. 

 And without that, what do we really have?

Perfection

I think perfection is a grossly misunderstood concept.  It is something people strive for, something to achieve.  It is an ideal that is lauded as worthy of pursuit.  But boy howdy are people wrong.

First of all, perfection is an ill defined term.  We have the colloquial use of the term, such as, "Man, that cheesecake was perfect!"  Yeah, what you mean was the cheesecake was awesome, and you're being hyperbolic.

Okay, well, there's also the version of perfect that is used to describe the ultimate version of something.  So, let's talk about the ultimate cheesecake.  There are a lot of different ways to make cheesecake.  Who gets to be the authority on which is the best?  Everyone has different tastes.  So what metric would we even use to determine that?  Perhaps the objectively perfect cheesecake is only actually enjoyed by a few individuals?

What about people that don't like cheesecake?  What if their version of the perfect cheesecake doesn't even taste like cheesecake?  Is it even really cheesecake at that point?  We can't really start redefining things like that because then apples are steak and your car is a safety deposit box, and now everything is all fucked up.

And what about things even less objective than foods?  What about music?  What is the perfect way to play Bach's Brandenburg concertos?  Is it hitting every note with the right meter and length, or does it require a certain level of passion and flair?

Does time matter?  Is it possible for one to become perfect at something?  Consider the term defined as "without flaw and fully correct in every detail."  If that is the case, wouldn't past imperfections at a given activity apply?  Is "you weren't always perfect" somehow less of an issue than "you won't always be perfect?"  If making mistakes in the future would be grounds to invalidate your claims of perfection, why wouldn't past mistakes matter?
 
Okay, we're starting to walk down a path to a much larger existentialist discussion there, so lets take a step back and explore a bit more simplified version of the idea.  Let's take a simple activity like shooting free-throws in a basketball game, and say perfection is making everyone.  Let's not even worry about whether or not you'd still make a free-throw outside during a hurricane, or if you'd still make it if an MMA fighter was punching you in the bicep mid shot, though those are valid concerns.  Let's just talk about you in normal situations, making every free-throw you shoot.

Now what?  Well, if you are the only one aware of the fact that you're perfect at this, then things are pretty awesome.  You'll make every free-throw and be known as the clutch guy that can really deliver in those pressure moments.  People start saying cool shit like, "you've got ice water in your veins."  You're the hero.  Sweet.

But let's assume that everyone knows you're perfect at shooting free-throws.  Now things get way different.  Supposing anyone was stupid enough or unlucky enough to actually foul you, why would you even shoot the damn free-throws.  Everyone knows you're going to make them.  Do you stand at the foul line and make everyone watch while you go through the motions, or do we just chalk up two point on the board and move on with the game?  You're damn right it's the second one.

Your perfection at shooting free-throws has essentially made that skill wholly unnecessary.  You no longer have need to shoot a single free-throw ever again.  There's no real need to shoot them during a game, and you certainly don't have to practice.  Wait, remind me what your consecutive free-throw record was again?  Oh, it's all?  ALL!  Well done.  Good luck beating that record.

Your perfection at free-throws doesn't just annihilate the skill for you; it cheapens it for everyone else.  The best anyone else could hope for is an attempt at reaching perfection as well, which would do no better than to put them on equal terms.  So now, for all eternity, people in the future will either be equivalent, or worse, but no better.

Which brings me to my point: perfection equals mediocrity.  With perfection on the board, we have "this" and we have "shittier than this."  That's it.  If you look up the word mediocre, you'll find things like, neither good nor bad, undistinguished, commonplace, ordinary.  You want to know what dictionary.com lists as antonyms?  Extraordinary, superior, uncommon, and my personal favorite, incomparable.

My fear surrounding perfection has always been about that wall.  That point that you hit where you're done, and you can't go any further.  Without progression, I don't see the point in continuing to do things.  Not progressing means the things you are doing are mediocre, and being mediocre is lame and not worth wasting your time on. 

Let's not strive to be perfect; let's strive to be better.

Role Models are Important

Role models are important.

(Yes, I said it twice.  For emphasis.)

We are born into this world, nowing nothing, and needing help from everyone around us for survival.  As time goes on, not much changes.  Sure, we have our own experiences, and discover things for ourselves, but the vast majority of our nowledge comes from other people.

We learn values from our parents.  We are taught things in school, ranging from the simplest of language rudimentaries to complex mathamatical and scientific principles.  We go to church and learn the concepts of morality and ethics to help us interact with others.  College teaches us even more complicated principles, focesed around the specific subjects we are interested in.

But I think there is a valuable teacher in society that we have a tendency to overlook, and even undervalue.  And that is the the Role Model.

I'm not talking about the weird guy down the street that volunteers at the food bank.  I'm not talking about the nerdy professor at your high school that stays after class and helps kids.  I'm not talking about the young naive politition who things he can actually make a difference if he can only win office.  I'm talking about real role models.

Sports stars, successful rappers, Hollywood actors.  These are the role models we need to be encouraging our children to admire.  Bear with me here.  Compare the people I mentioned above to the people mentioned in this paragraph.  There is one glaring stark differense I think everyone can see.  One group is successfull, the other group is not.

We live in a practical society.  These aren't barbarien times where we have to catch our own food and build our own houses out of sticks and stuff and sleep outside and not have TV.  This is the real world.  We're a global socity now and there are two things, and two things alone, that are important now.  Success, and money.

You can't get anything on your own anymore.  You need money.  All of the important necessities cost money.  Shelter, heat, smart phones, cars, clothes, food, and shelter all cost money.  And without all of those things, you die.  Without these basic amenities, we simpley cannot survive in today's world, and well die.

These successful Role Models can go along way towards teaching our children the virtues of, and dare I say, path too, success and riches.  Sports stars show us how important it can be to be exceptionally and rediculously good at games.  Rappers show how successful it can be to surround yourself with 'bitches' and say "uh, yeah, what?" a lot.  And movie stars, more than anything, have shown how beneficial it can be to simply not be yourself.

If any of this sounds rediculous to you, take a moment and look at your life, versus there lives.  What happens if something breaks in your house?  You might have to take out a loan to fix it, they can buy a completely new house.  What if someone in your family gets sick?  You'll have to file bankruptcy to pay for it, the doctors probably won't even make them pay for it.  What happens if you make a mistake with drugs or firearms?  You're going to go to jail forever, but Role Models will likely just get even bigger in the public eye and maybe even get more work.

If you think any of the first situations are better than the after situations, then you are an idiot.  Clearly, having more money is better.  Instead of worying about education (which never really helped anyone, BORING!) we should expose our children to these real Role Models so they can gain some real skills.  Just ahve your kids practice acting cool, saying "mo' money, mo' money, mo' money" (repetition is key) and playing with balls, and you'll now that your children will be fine, and your retirement is taken care of.

Random Thoughts II

• I just heard of a great new place where you can go tanning for free. It's called outside.

• Remember when you used to be able to go outside at night and see the stars? I hope they're still out there. 

• It seems to me that often the people who want to teach abstinence only are also the people who believe that Jesus was immaculately conceived.  Not quite 100% effective, is it?

• Why is it fun to pet kitties, but it's work to give people massages?

• Is the neighborhood ice cream truck EXACTLY the same as the creepy van full of candy we warn children about?

• You will totally get in trouble for looking up a girls dress, unless she's dancing. Then it's practically encouraged. 

• Don't make vocal noises while in a public restroom.  It's unnecessary.  The only noises should be coming from your pelvis.

• Hey Guy with Big Truck.  Places that aren't parking spots aren't parking spots.

• Use the bannister.  Dick.

• Hey ladies, every man you've ever encountered has looked, is looking, or will soon be looking at your boobs.  Sorry, that's just the way it is.

• Smokey the Bear needs to stop pressuring me.  Bitch, I have a job, and I don't really like to travel.  Are you telling me that out of seven billion people on the planet, you can't find ONE other person to prevent forest fires?  What am I supposed to do?!  Run around the forest slapping matches and lighters out of people's hands!?  That's assault, dude!  I will get ARRESTED for that shit.  Besides, there's a lot of acres of forest out there, and I don't see how I'm supposed to cover all of it on foot.  I'd need an ATV of some kind, and I'm telling you right now, I'm not paying for that out of pocket.  That's something YOU are going to need to provide.  And I'm going to need some kind of gasoline allowance, especially with prices these days.  Oh yeah, and I'm not liable for fires started by lightning.  That's bullshit.  Lightning does what it wants, and I'm telling you right now, I'm not jumping in front of a lightning bolt just to protect the forest.  Not that I don't like the forest and all, but you've seen how uppity and belligerent lightning gets, and it seriously gets like that ALL THE TIME.  I have sensitive skin, and I'm not looking to get it all dried out by third degree burns.  So why don't you and your little bear friends take your One Man Forest Fire Fighting plan to someone else, because I'm not down with your crazy.  I haven't the time, the energy, or the legal immunity necessary to complete the task as you've laid it out to me in our many correspondences.  Get off my ass already, because seriously, dude, it's not happening.  .....anyway, stay safe out there campers.

You Have to Have Gay Sex...

....if you're going to be gay.

Okay, maybe I jumped the gun a little.  Sorry, it's my first time, and I'm nervous.  Seriously, this never happens to me.

So, I've been thinking.  We as people identify ourselves as many things.  Race, religion, political beliefs, and even hobbies.  (I'm a gamer, and I pretend to be a basketball player, mountain biker, and writer.)  But it seems one of the things we identify most with is our sexuality.  It's very core to who we are as people, not only whether we identify with the feminine or the masculine, but also which group we find ourselves sexually attracted to.

I am a heterosexual.  (It's not a choice, I was born this way.)  I find myself attracted to women, and I've mentioned at least once on this blog that boobs are the greatest thing ever.  Couldn't explain it to you though.  It's just the way I am, deep down into the core of my being.  I love women.

However, it was a long time before I had my first full out sexual encounter with a woman.  (No, I'm not going to tell you how long.  No, I'm not going to tell you who it was.)  Up until that point, I had still considered myself a heterosexual.  But should I have?

As children, we are pretty much asexual.  We don't really understand the concept, and we haven't really begun to develop those kinds of feelings for the opposite (or same) sex.  As I progressed through puberty, into Junior High and High School, I started noticing girls, and having those desirous and sexual feelings about them.  But how could I possibly consider myself as heterosexual without actually having had sex with any of them?

Consider this: I've often thought about being a stunt driver.  I like cars, I like stunts, and I like to think I might have a bit of a knack for it.  However, I have never done stunts in a car.  No one would ever refer to me as a stunt driver.  Why?  Well, because I'm not.  Thinking about something does not that thing make.

I've thought about being in the Olympics.  But it would be ludicrous to call me an Olympian.  (Especially considering how fat I am.)  I've thought about being a filmmaker.  But I don't have any films that I've created.  (Yeah, not even that one from college.  I lost it.)  I've thought about being a superhero.  Yeah, I don't think I need to continue.  (I am a superhero though, so fuck you guys.)

I bring this up because of a religious idea I heard recently: "It alright for you to be gay, as long as you don't act upon your impulses."  Basically, be as gay as you want, just don't do any gay things, namely having man on man sex.  (Or woman on woman.  Hot.)

How exactly does one be something, without doing the things inherent to what that is?  You can go ahead and be a painter, you just can't use a brush to place paint on a canvas in the way you want.  Got it.  Oh wait.

I have some serious issues with this.  One is the idea that you can tell someone they can be something, but in the same breath tell them they can't do the activities associated with that something.  "You can be a boxer if you want Timmy, you just can't train, or fight anyone."  "Sure Reginald, you can be an astronaut, as long as you don't go to space."  It's disingenuous at best and downright emotional abuse at worst.  Fuck that shit.

Another is the concept of defining who we are by our thoughts alone.  I don't want to be arrested for assault just because I thought about punching some guy in the face for being a dick.  That's some serious 1984 shit there, and I am having none of that.

But my ultimate question here is why are we allowed to identify our sexuality based purely on our thoughts and feelings, not on our actions like is done with everyone else?  Is there anything else like this?  Or is this just a random exception to the rule?  Because unless we have good reason for feeling this way, maybe we should take a deeper look at it.

Anyway, doin' it and homos and whatnot.    ....yeah.

Hey! It's Not Your Story

So, we had the Academy Awards just recently.  It's something I only pay attention to whimsically as a footnote of pop culture.  I don't really put a lot of stock into the awards.  After all, every year, my wife and I craft our own little statuettes out of modelling clay and give them to the movies we like, so those bastards can go to hell.

Okay, not really.

These awards have no influence on my opinion of the movies.  It's really just a self-congratulatory pat on the back from the movie industry.  As far as I'm concerned, it exists as an interesting spectacle, and makes for some fun trivia for movie buffs, nothing more.

I am, however, curious as to what criteria are exactly taken into account when doling out these awards.  The Best Picture award in particular stymies me.  Most of the time, it ends up being a film I've not seen, and almost the entirety of the rest of the time, I disagree with the decision.

My personal opinions of the films themselves aside, there is one thing in particular that bothers me in regards to these, and similar, awards.  Hell, it doesn't even have to be an award.  I just don't like the idea of people receiving credit for the work of someone else.

Let me explain.  This year, Argo won Best Picture.  I've not seen the movie myself, but by all accounts it's a quality film.  Here's my problem: it's not their story.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm sure everyone involved with the movie worked very hard.  And clearly, they did a good job, based on the box office earnings, and, oh yeah, that award thing.  But again, it's simply not their story.

The story of Argo was already done once before in the form of a television movie back in 1981.  The story was also told in 2000 in a book.  I have also not read the book or seen the television movie, so I'm not in a position to argue their merits, but I have a feeling that the 2012 Argo is probably the best one.  You know, because of the awards and the money, again.

So, why shouldn't it have won, you might ask?  If it was the best version of that story, and it was best film of the year, then it seems to have earned that award, right?  Maybe.  But what is to stop anyone from doing that again?

In 2002, Chicago won Best Picture.  But Chicago was a play from 1926.  They made it a film in 1927.  The first musical Broadway production was in 1975, and then a bunch of times after that.  It's clearly a well established and well liked story.  So some people come along in 2002, make a "better" version, and win the Academy Award.

So, all someone has to do is take that same story, do it a little better, and they too, can win Best Picture.  I mean, if you can re-do a story that has won Best Picture, and make it better, there is no WAY it can lose.  Well, unless it's up against a bunch of other movies that are remakes of previous Best Picture winners.

Les Miserables is an even worse example.  It was first published in 1862.  In the 1900's alone it was a movie (1935), a radio adaptation (1937), another film (1958), a musical (1980), yet another film (1998), a TV miniseries (2000), and then even another film just recently in 2012, the one that was nominated for Best Picture.  With that much background, that much material to draw from, and with a story so beloved by such a large group of people, you'd damn well better be able to create a successful movie.

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe these people have earned these accolades, these awards, this popularity, even if it is gained by standing on the shoulders of those who came before them.  After all, there's an awful lot of work put into making these movies, and I don't want to take anything away from them.

But something feels wrong about lauding these people for redoing something that someone else already did.  I think people have an under appreciation for original work.  I think that both creators and readers/watchers have gotten lazier and lazier in their approach to new things.  The people creating don't want to take the time, or the risk, of creating something original.  And the people that are watching, don't want to have to think.  They just want to be force fed something easy and familiar.

Perhaps we should take some more risks, start thinking a little bit more, and stop giving awards for repetition and mediocrity.

The Irony of Selfishness

Everybody is selfish.

It's natural.  We're supposed to be selfish.  A wholly unselfish person would give away all their food and clothing and eventually starve to death in the snow.  It's not a great model for success.

But we also do a lot of selfish things that don't directly contribute to our survival, and most of the time, it's fine.  When I'm playing Rock Band, a lot of times I pick songs that I like, not necessarily songs that the other players would like.  (Sorry Mom, Nickelback isn't good.)  I've eaten the last brownie before.  (Yeah, it was me.)  However, I've started noticing a disturbing trend where people are selfish to the point of causing themselves actual detriment.

It's odd really, since the concept of being selfish is supposed to give you the benefits while causing others detriment.  I think that these extreme self-destructive examples of selfishness are accompanied by a certain level of arrogance.  (I can't think of a personal example here because I'm such a great person.)  I have to believe that these people truly think they are the only person around, or that they're invincible, or some other such delusion.  Or, perhaps more accurately, there is a distinct lack of thinking involved.

There are a million other examples of this behavior.  Like idiot drivers turning left in front of people.  Maybe they're just in a hurry, maybe they're trying to get on the tail end of a turn arrow.  Doesn't matter.  If there is an accident, I'm going to slam directly into your body.  Not the front of your car, not the back.  There are only a few inches of plastic protecting you from the smashy force of my vehicle.  I'm going to be upset that I have to deal with the insurance company, and you're going to be upset that your organs are now full of bones.

Or what about people that decide to chat in a group right next to the door.  I'm telling you now, I clock one of those dipshits in the face with the door, and I'm not going to feel bad.  Or just about everyone who goes out on Black Friday.  (Sorry Jon.)  Or those people who don't clean all the snow off their car.  If someone behind you gets blinded by the blizzard you've created, wrecks their car, and sues the shit out of you, don't come crying to me.  I don't even care how cold it was that morning, or how late to work you were.  Doesn't seem worth it.

Here's my favorite.  At the building where I used to work, there was a public restroom that was an individual use bathroom.  One toilet, one sink, you lock the door behind you, blah blah blah.  Etiquette dictates that you attempt to turn the knob, and upon finding it secured, you move on, because clearly the bathroom is occupied.  I, in my endless neuroses, would go so far as to press on the handle ever so gently until the lock engaged, so as not to disturb anyone inside.

However, there are an alarming number of people who approach the restroom and then immediately ASSAULT THE DOOR WITH MONSTER TRUCK FORCE!!!!  I swear that some of these people put their fucking shoulder into it like a member of a S.W.A.T. team.

I don't know if these people are in an emergency waste removal situation, or if they're just not thinking, or if they don't understand the concept of barriers, but it doesn't matter.  I'm in there, asshole.  Whatever it is that you need to take care of isn't going to happen, because I'm sitting in there taking a dump.  Supposing you were able to break down the door with your sledgehammer attack, all that is going to happen is you're going to see my dick, or shit coming out of my ass, or something else equally disturbing.  Trust me, if that happens, no one is going to be happy.

Seriously, anyone who thinks they can break down a bathroom door, throw the occupant to the ground, and take a shit themselves, is fucking insane.  I'm not in law enforcement, but that sounds like a felony.

Look, we live in a society, which means there are a LOT of people around.  And we all know that I, maybe more than anyone, wishes that wasn't the case.  But it is.  So, if you're going to be selfish, that's fine.  But it might be a good idea for you to think about someone else every once in a while.  Because if you don't, you're going to end up getting hurt, or see something really unpleasant.

Like my dick.

George Watsky is a fucking genius.

George Watsky just kicked my ass.

For those of you who know anything about me, I've pretty much had a constant boner for George Watsky ever since I first discovered him.  (Thank you, Shayne.  For introducing me to Watsky, not for the boner.)  The kid is pretty much my hero, despite my being about five years older than him.  I appreciate how clever he is with his language, how he stays true to what he feels and believes, and how he is able to really get a point across with his poetry and rap.  There's just something about his art that really speaks to me, in ways I've never experienced before.

One of the other reasons I admire him so greatly is because of his drive and determination.  Let's face it, pretty much no one knows who George Watsky is.  But that hasn't slowed the kid down at all.  He's still out there, making his videos, writing his poetry and music, and putting it out there.  There's no way this kid isn't going to be big.  He's going to make it happen, no matter what.

He's bold and charismatic, and has amazing presentation.  Things which I am not, or do not possess.  Well, perhaps in some small way, I am those things.  I know how to entertain people with a story.  But I'm definitely not the "get up on a stage and tell that story to a million people" guy.

See, I have severe chronic depression.  This isn't the article where I'll really get into the nitty gritty of the situation, but I'll give you the basics.  Depression is a crushing condition.  There are days where I just can't do things.  As in, I completely feel as though I lack the ability to do simple things, like order a pizza over the phone.  There are moments where literally everything feels gray, and hopeless, and mundane, and nothing seems fun or worthwhile.  Actually, there are a lot of those moments.  An awful lot of those moments.

I do my best not to use my depression as a crutch, or an excuse.  And to be honest, I can't really tell the difference between hiding behind my depression, and it legitimately crushing me under it's weight.  Either way, I don't want to let it hold me back, but that is a difficult proposition.  It's like an enemy that you can only escape by running away, and it has broken your legs.

But, I have used it as an excuse.  Looking at Watsky putting his writing out there in the ways that I have not, depression has been the thing I've identified as separating us.  I think "I would totally write more, and find more venues to express myself through my material, just like Watsky, but unfortunately, I'm depressed, and that's what's holding me back."

Yes, I'm kind of a bitch.  We all know.

Then, today, I listened to Watsky's new song "Hey, Asshole."  Check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aXTxoPFmL0k   (While you're there, watch every other video he's ever done, because the guy is great.)

Maybe I'm reading too much into it.  Maybe I'm not.  But this song is fucking SPOT ON in regards to how I feel about my depression.  SPOT.  ON.  Most people that I've had depression discussions with simply don't understand the concept.  So, this brings me to an eerie conclusion.  Either Watsky is incredibly close to someone who has depresssion, or, DUN DUN DUNNN.....he has depression himself.

Yeah, you watch some videos, and sure, he doesn't look like he has anything even remotely related to depression.  Well, we get pretty good at faking it in situations that require us to.  I function pretty well at work, even on my bad days.

So if he does have depression, then I really have no fucking excuse.  While this is a very very very scary proposition, it also could be somewhat freeing.  If someone else, someone that I can relate to, and wants to do the same thing I do (writing, in a very general sense) and has the same issues that I do, and can succeed, then dammit, I can too.

So, it's been an inspirational couple of weeks for me.  Lot of changes recently (I moved, though not of my own volition) and maybe it's time for me to get strong.  Maybe it's time to get moving, get working on my shit, and make some things happen.  Of course, I've said this a thousand times before, and failed.  Oh well, I suppose this is as good a moment as any to get back up and start running again, even if falling down a little further down the trail is inevitable.  Perhaps it's only really a failure if you never get back up again.

Anyway, thanks George.

No More Holding Back?

I'm back bitches.  Of course, that statement hardly holds any weight.  If you don't believe me, read my first post, and then check the dates of my last few posted articles.  Yeah, fail.

Anyway, here I am again, writing, so I suppose that is some measure of success, no matter how small.  Several wasted years is nothing in the grand scheme of things, right?  Well, unless I get hit by a bus or something tomorrow, in which case I'm fucked, and I totally lose.

First of all, know that this isn't really an article in and of itself.  This is simply some musings of mine on the state of my writing, and where I'd like it to go in the future.  If you were excited about some actual content, you can just move on to my next post.  Otherwise, enjoy what is both a peek into the inner workings of my mind at this moment in time, and what also might be considered a bit of a disclaimer of things to come.

I'm pretty sure I've been censoring myself through the course of this blog.  Subtly, perhaps, but it's been there.  I've been loathe to utilize the swears in certain places, and I may have held back on saying some messed up shit, as I'm wont to do in everyday life.  The reason for this, heretofore, has been to shelter some of the people I know.  I know there are people in my life who read this blog that won't appreciate some of my material.  Some of these people likely are reading this simply due to the fact that they know me, and not necessarily because they're interested in the content so much, but they are still experiencing it anyway.

I don't think I'm going to hold back on my content anymore though.  There is a strong possibility that these people I've mentioned will stop reading my blog.  There's even a strong possibility that my unfiltered opinions, and the delivery of those opinions, will compromise my friendships with these people.  And not to sound particualarly callous or unfeeling, but fuck 'em.

Not that I don't care about these people (my wife is among them, but she doesn't read my blog anyway unless I force her, so this is really a non-issue.)  Obviously I care about these people a great deal, as up to this point, I've really done my best to reign in some of my basal urges in an effort to "protect" them in some way.  But I'm coming to the conclusion that this holding back is, well, holding me back.

My writing is, in a very real sense, an extention of myself.  It's the manifestation of my inner most thought, feelings, imaginings, fantasies, emotions, and what I consider truths.  And really, anything I do to temper those things hurts me as a person, and hurts my writing.  If I want my writing to reach it's highest potential, I've really got to open the throttle and go full bore.

Ironically, while thinking about this idea, I was looking at xkcd.com (amazing, check it out). I hit the Random button and came across this comic: http://xkcd.com/137/.  (Don't worry, it was the third time I clicked it, so it wasn't like it was some divine message from the universe.)  Anyway, this genius comic pretty eloquently sums up my position on things.  This is my dream, and I really need to fucking go for it.

So, if you feel the need to unsubscribe to this blog, do it.  I won't be offended.  Trust me, I'll understand completely.  Because I'm going to start saying "fuck" a lot.  I'm going to talk about how if you don't brush the snow off your car completely, you're a selfish asshole.  I'll mention that homosexuality is okay, that hookers should be able to get paid for sex, and that God, if he exists, isn't as powerful or as awesome as you think he is.

Join me or don't.  Either way, it's on.

Guns, Swearing, and Boobs

I know! All of those things are awesome! I too am unable to fathom just how awesome this article is going to be.

Who doesn't love these things? This is fuckin' America people! (see what I did there?) But which one is the best? The answer may be harder to determine than you'd think. Let's explore.

GUNS
Guns are freakin' sweet. I mean, who doesn't love to go camping, set pop cans up on a rock, and then use a dangerously high powered projectile weapon to push those cans off the rock? Hell yeah!

Have you ever played a video game without guns in it? Of course not. They don't exist. Same with movies. Go watch The Notebook again. There's gotta be a gun in there somewhere.

Seriously though, most popular entertainment features guns. They're everywhere. Guns, whose primary function is to kill (or best case scenario, violently incapacitate) are likely featured more than anything else, save for people. And who loves them? EVERYBODY! Men, women, old people, young people, Republicans, (and to a lesser degree) Democrats. The NRA positively LOVES guns. Everyone loves them. Young children, albeit with the consent of a parent or sufficiently adult guardian (I don't think I qualify) are more than welcome to watch movies and play video games where tons of people get shot in the face. Awesome.

SWEARING
Swearing is even better than guns! You don't need a permit, it doesn't cost anything, and it's easy to take with you everywhere you go. And, even though I've done absolutely no research on this, I feel pretty confident in saying that swearing has never directly killed a person, on purpose or accidentally.

However, despite it's lack of lethality (or maybe because of it) swearing is not nearly as popular in mainstream entertainment. You can't say "fuck" more than once in a movie without gaining an R rating, but you can kill a fuckload of people with guns and still be PG-13 (this sentence is rated R for language.) Parents seem much less likely to take their kids to a raunchy comedy full of language than to an action movie full of killing. Odd, seeing as how I'd much rather have someone tell me to "eat shit" than shoot me in the chest. But then again, I'm an eccentric, so go figure.

BOOBS
Ah, boobs are the best. Everything about them is wonderful and amazing. They are number one of the list of Awesome Stuff, followed closely by a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere, water, and the sun. (The sun would likely be higher on the list if it wasn't so in your face about everything.)

Honestly, without boobs, the human race would not exist. They create and deliver the life-giving nutrients that nourish us through our early formative periods. (Shut up Formula, nobody likes you.) All of those people that invented and created many of the technological advances that you take for granted owe their success to boobs. Via the Transitive Property, breasts are directly responsible for every advancement of the human race. Remember the space shuttle? Thanks boobs.

And yet, for some reason, boobs are the smelly kid of the entertainment world. Nobody likes them. Sure, maybe you actually like the smelly kid, and hang out with him in private, but there's no way you'd actually admit that to people.

If a woman takes her shirt off in a movie, even if her back is to the camera, people FREAK OUT! "Oh my God! I'm fairly certain there are fleshy protrusions on her chest! What if my children were to see that!? The moral fiber of America is collapsing! Oh noes!"

How dare they! Everyone knows that the less of the human body that is visible in general, the more successful the global economy is. DUH!

RECAP
Alright, let's go over this again really quick.

Guns: bringers of death, pain and suffering - widely accepted and even embraced. Check.

Swearing: offensive at times, but ultimately harmless (sticks and stones, and all that) - accepted, but less so, and only under a specific set of rules. Check.

Boobs: soft, innocuous, givers of life - BANNED AND TREATED WITH A LEVEL OF ANTAGONISM THAT EVEN ILLICIT CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES DON'T SUFFER. Che...wait. What the hell?

So, movies like Hostel, which I understand to be a movie where people are tortured ad nauseum (I haven't actually seen it) are pretty widely accepted, but any film where a woman is topless (no matter the brevity of the scene) is dripping with controversy and protest.

The further something is from a horrible and painful death, the less accepted it is. But the higher the body count, the better. (Hardly anyone died in Mission: Impossible and a lot of people struggled with that movie. Sad, really.) Our culture has a much easier time dealing with mass murder than with natural elements of the human physiology. Way to have your priorities in order, America.

Contrary to popular belief, Harry Potter isn't good.

As anyone who knows me is very aware, I'm not Harry Potter's biggest fan. There are a number of reasons why this is. I don't understand why so many adults find what is a clearly an adolescent series so fascinating. I don't know why people treat it as a sacred and reverent text devoid of all flaw and issue. (I can recognize many issues in even my favorite novels.) But really, ultimately, it's because the writing is crap.

"Ugh, but it gets better later on!" Screw that. I'm not walking through miles of barbed wire and landmines just to get to a piece of cake at the end. Even if it is really awesome cake. Not worth it. Likewise, I'm not going to trudge through several crappy books to get to the "good stuff" when there are plenty of good books I can enjoy right now.

So, due to overwhelming popular demand....or one person who was particularly obnoxious about me re-posting this (you know who you are), here is my original blog about Harry Potter (with a few minor fixes.) Enjoy!

P.S. I almost killed a kid with this piece, so consider yourself warned. (Hi Shayne!)


J.K. Rowling can’t write for shit.

As my title may lead you to believe, I am fully under the impression that J.K. Rowling is a shitty writer. "But Zeb!" some of you may cry, "she's made millions off those books. They HAVE to be good." To that, I say, "Nay." Three examples of no talent ass-clowns who have millions of dollars: Paris Hilton, David Hasselhoff, and the entire cast of Jersey Shore. Enough said.

The writing is atrocious at best, even when taking into account that these books were written for adolescents. One person told me that the writing wasn't the appeal of these books, but the story. It has a fantastic, compelling story that takes you on a wondrous magic carpet ride of imagination. (NOTE: Not a direct quote.) Having a great story is fine, but if you can't use the language to portray it in an intelligent and interesting way, you're still a crappy writer. (Crime and Punishment is another book with a great story, but boring as hell writer. I couldn't go five minutes in that book without falling asleep, and stopped trying halfway through. What do people see in Dostoevsky anyway? But I digress...) Allow me to give you an example. Here is a great story from Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, as interpreted and written by J.K. Rowling.* The story itself will be presented in a larger, easier to read font, because it's obviously written for child...I mean, adults.



Once upon a time there were two brothers at a bar, drinking heavily (of wine and beer.) One was named Bimblyboo, and the other, Craggle-da. They were strange looking brothers. Even though Craggle-da had an overly large forehead, he had slender fingers. Bimblyboo had hands the size of rocks and feet as long as string. Drunk as they were (and they were quite drunk), they decided to kill Death. An old man at the bar told them they could find Death under the lone tree out on Gooblyrock Ridge. So they left.

They reached the lone tree out on Gooblyrock Ridge just before dark. But Death wasn't there. There was only a pile of amazing jewels.

"These are fabulous jewels!" Craggle-da said fabulously.

Each jewel was the size of a nine day old duckling and a small jar of marmalade combined, and each of the brothers looked upon them and thought how much they wanted them for themselves.

"It's almost dark," said Bimblyboo darkly. "We should carry these home in the day. I will go to town and bring back food and drink for tonight."

"And I will guard the jewels," said Craggle-da guardedly.

As soon as Bimblyboo left, Craggle-da began to formulate a plan to kill his brother so he may have all the jewels to himself. He pulled his Person-Stabber out of his belt and hid it in his sleeve.

"When Bimblyboo come back, I will stab him dead with my Person-Stabber," he laughed evily.

Meanwhile in town, Bimblyboo had bought the food and drinks, and was now making his own plan to kill his brother. So he went to the Poisony Poisons and Potions to buy poison to put in his brothers drink.

"I need strong poison to kill some rats at my house," he lied to the storekeeper.

The storekeeper knew that he was lying, but for some reason didn't think he was telling the truth.

"Okay," he said.

Bimblyboo got so excited that he accidentally spilled one of the drinks on the counter.

"Oh no!"

"Don't worry," said the shopkeeper. "I can clean it up."

He pulled a repaired Get-Wetter out of his sleeve. It looked kind of like a squirt gun. He pulled the trigger on it once, and all the water on the counter dried up instantly.

"Here is your poison," said the shopkeeper, handing him the poison.

Bimblyboo paid quickly, and ran out the door. Before anyone could see, he dumped all the poison in the only drink left.

When Bimblyboo got back to the lone tree on Gooblyrock Ridge, his brother was waiting there for him.

"Hello brother. I am not going to stab you with my Person-Stabber."

"How many?" said Bimblyboo stupidly.

Craggle-da slipped the Person-Stabber from his sleeve and stabbed Bimblyboo in the chest.
"Oh no, you've killed me." Bimblyboo said deadly, as he fell to the ground.

"Now, to enjoy the food and drink before I take the jewels, which are all mine."

The drink was his favorite one (it was full of dancing jiggleberries) and he gulped it down like a seahorse.

"Oh no, poison!" he said, surprisedly, before he fell over and died.



Holy crap that sucked. My deepest apologies for creating that worthless text for you to read. Now, the scary thing is, all of the elements I used in this story, are techniques that J.K. Rowling actually uses in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Furthermore, they're all in the first couple of chapters of the book! Allow me to demonstrate.

"Even though Craggle-da had an overly large forehead, he had slender fingers." - Chapter 1. This is on the first page. Rowling's sentence reads, "He was a big, beefy man with hardly any neck, although he did have a very large mustache." Although? As if in some way, his large mustache compensates for his lack of neck? How are those two things related?

"Bimblyboo had hands the size of rocks and feet as long as string." - In Chapter 1, while describing Hagrid, she states, "...and his feet in their leather boots were like baby dolphins." WHAT? How are baby dolphins like feet in any way? Is she trying to say that his feet are wet and smooth? Are they swimming in there? Is she trying to indicate size? Let's suppose for a moment that using the word 'baby' when describing something large isn't counter-productive, who can readily bring to mind how large a baby dolphin is? Holy crap.

"Drunk as they were (and they were quite drunk)" - This one is everywhere. I don't know why she insists on using parentheses at all, let alone where they're unnecessary.

"Craggle-da said fabulously.", "said Bimblyboo darkly.", etc. etc. etc. - Another one that is near constant. My favorite one, which I can't find incidentally, says someone said something "importantly." If you can't express the character's emotion through good writing, AT LEAST ONCE!, maybe you should take a class rather than force-feed us how they're feeling with adverbs. Oh wait, this is a book for kids.

"Person-Stabber," and the "Get-Wetter," that dries up the puddle are from Chapter 1. Dumbledore, the inspiration for the names of my characters, uses an item called a Put-Outer, to put out the lights in the street. Okay, I can accept that. But when he uses the Put-Outer to turn the lights back ON, I did the equivalent of a reading double take. Seriously, using the Put-Outer to turn lights on is like trying to put out a fire with a box of matches.

"The storekeeper knew that he was lying, but for some reason didn't think he was telling the truth." - In Chapter 5, Harry is still having trouble accepting that he is a wizard, and wonders if the Dursely's have played a trick on him. "If Harry hadn't known that the Dursely's had no sense of humor, he might have thought so; yet somehow, even though everything Hagrid had told him so far was unbelievable, Harry couldn't help trusting him." So, he's saying, I know it can't be a trick, and yet I believe that this guy isn't tricking me. Hmmm. Good one.

"How many?" asked Bimblyboo stupidly." - In Chapter 4, someone knocks on the door. "'Where's the cannon?' he (Dudley) said stupidly." I think this is an attempt at humor, but I don't really get it. Maybe 'cause I'm not eleven. Go figure.

"He pulled a repaired Get-Wetter out of his sleeve." In Chapter 3, she writes, "The repaired alarm clock rang at six o'clock the next morning." Why did she tell us it was repaired? She never told us it was broken. There was no discussion about it getting fixed. That sentence is the only reference to it being broken. Like, at all.

There's more I could go on about, but I'm already upset I spent this much time on this crap book so I'm going to end it here. My main point is that this is a book for children and adolescents, and I'm sick and tired of ADULTS heralding this book as great and amazing.

*J.K. Rowling didn't write this story, I did. Normally I wouldn't have to say this, but the people who have confused Rowling's writing style with good writing might be confused about satire.

Is it just me? Probably.

More and more as of late, I've become painfully aware that I think very differently than most people. I say most, because there are a few like minded individuals that I've encountered out there, but those people seem to be few and far between. Whether that be because people with my mindset are rare, or due to my limited exposure to the world is certainly up for debate, but really, either answer is of little consequence to my day-to-day experiences.

Please keep in mind, this is by no mean a "poor me" lamenting rant. I like to think that I have always been one to embrace my differences, even when they have been wont to cause me grief. Growing up as a non-religious, left-handed, chubby kid in Utah County, of all places, you really need to learn quickly to roll with the punches.

However, it does present it's own unique set of problems. Twenty-twenty hindsight and all that, but it certainly would explain the vast majority of troubles and issues I encountered in my childhood. Whether this is a cause or a result of my battle with depression is, much like my musings above, mostly inconsequential to my current and future situation.

As a child, adolescent, teenager, one goes through life in a relatively 'stumble and bump' manner. You're either too young to grasp the complexities of social interaction, or you're too much in flux with your awkward stages to know which way is up, let alone the impact of your philosophical dogma.

As an adult though, you start to notice confused, and dare I say distressed looks. You become aware of comments that receive scorn and ridicule. And eventually, if you pay attention long enough, patterns begin to emerge. For a while there, I thought it had a lot to do with where I live. Having secular and left wing view points don't exactly place you in the "in crowd" here in Utah, believe it or not.

But, it seems that over the years, I've encountered an awful lot of people (comparatively speaking) who are originally from other states. And the same patterns seem to emerge. I would even say that the majority of issues arrive during non-political and non-religious conversations. This has led me to believe that it is not a geographical concern.

No, I am not going to give you a list of examples. Mostly because I'm not great at coming up with a case history under pressure. (STOP PRESSURING ME!) However, I'm sure if you glance at the first paragraphs of most of my posts here, both past and future, you'll likely get a feel for things.

Thank God for the internet, huh? Most of the time, I have to temper this stuff. My musings are not for the meek and the timid. Man, if I had a nickel for how many times I've been told I think too much. Of course, to that my retort has always been that most people don't think enough. Oh snap. I bet there aren't a whole lot of people out there who are interested in arguing with that assertion.

But sometimes it's difficult, in everyday life, to go with the flow. I've more or less become resigned to the fact that in order to function in society, there are things you do, and things you don't do. You DO make idle small talk, and go through the paces assuming everything is the way it is for a reason, and keep your questions to yourself. You DO NOT discuss the morality of prostitution, or the dwindling state of fossil fuels, or the concept of light based vision and temporal dilation. You DO NOT point out that obsession with celebrity and Harry Potter might not be as important as being politically aware.

Anyway, this has certainly slipped into a rambling tirade, but honestly, what did you expect from me at 12:30 in the morning on my first post back after a fourteen month hiatus? Temper your expectations people.

Eh, it's good enough.

NO! No it's not! I'm not sure I can fully express how disappointed and saddened I am by this attitude, but I'm going to try.

Alright, I understand that humans are fallible by nature and thusly aren't really capable of perfection. Which is difficult for me, considering I'm a perfectionist.

You know, I don't really like that term. Since perfection is one of my biggest fears, I like to think of myself as a "comfortablist." A "comfortablist" doesn't have to do and re-do things ad nauseum until they're perfect, they just have to do and re-do them until they're comfortable with them. My problem is that I'm not comfortable with things until they're damn near perfect.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting that everyone be like me. The level of neurosis that I experience on a daily basis is not an amount that most people can handle comfortably. I am, however, suggesting that it probably wouldn't hurt if people raised their standards just a little bit. This "it's good enough" attitude is like poking an angry dog in the face with a stick. The second you turn around, it's going to bite you in the ass.

One of the great ironies in life is how people seemingly have no problem letting things slide on their own, but freak out completely when they discover someone else has done so. How often have you heard someone cry about a "piece of crap" they just purchased breaking due to shoddy work? Guess what? Someone on that end lowered their standards a bit, and made a crappier product so they could save some money on production costs.

I hate to get all cliche, but seriously, if something is worth doing, it's worth doing well. When I go play basketball, I play my guts out. (I'm fat and I need the exercise, but that's another article entirely.) Why should I even step on the court if I'm not going to bring my all? The same thing applies to everything: school, work, relationships, manufacturing, etc.

Ultimately, I feel that if you don't think a particular activity or event is worth you doing it to the best of your ability, then it's not worth doing at all. The term "half-assed" has a negative connotation for a reason. The only kind of ass that people like is a whole ass.

And you can quote me on that.

Random Thoughts

• I think black licorice is a joke on the part of candy companies, because it tastes less like candy, and more like nasty crap.


• Don't talk to me in the restroom. My list of "People I Talk to While My Pants Aren't On" is short, and you are not on it.


• Fake sugar would be a better idea if it tasted anything like real sugar.


• The best place to stand and chat in a large group is the narrowest part of the hallway. Oh wait.


• I don't hate haircuts, I just hate small talk. And people.


• Are all Scientologists celebrities?

• Put your Confederate flag away. The Confederacy stood for crappy things like slavery and secession. Plus you lost.

• Contrary to popular belief, I am not a complete idiot. But I'm close. I'll keep working on it.

• Two is not always better than one. (i.e. broken kneecaps)

• I am terribly afraid of being chased up the stairs, but not down them.

• Don't walk in the road. If I hit you with my car, I'm not the one who's going to have a broken pelvis.
  

Homosexuals haven't killed me yet.

Right now, somewhere in the world, some homosexuals are having homosexual sex. Now here's the kicker: I'm still not dead.

Yeah, I know. Weird. Gay sex is happening right now, and it hasn't killed me. What gives?

Honestly, if you really listened to some of these uptight conservatives, you'd think that gay marriage and gay sex were the number one causes of death and famine in the world. Turns out they're wrong.

I can't believe that something that doesn't really affect anyone has become such a massive point of contention. Countless millions of dollars have been spent on the political scene trying to pass, or avoid passing, bills, propositions, and constitutional amendments.

Seriously?!?! A constitutional amendment? Again, I must reiterate, homosexual sex is occurring right now, and aside from giving me leverage in this particular argument, it isn't affecting me at all. Or you for that matter.

I'm so curious as to what people think will happen if we "allow" gay marriage. "Oh, we can't have that, because it will change the definition of marriage, as a union between a man and a woman." Bullshit. First of all, if an institution that you consider sacred and important is somehow sullied because people you don't like can do it too, mayhaps you should re-evaluate your convictions.

For example, I know that the LDS Church and the Catholic Church don't exactly see eye-to-eye on things. However, both of them take a sacrament of sorts. Sure, they have different names for them, but it's pretty much the same thing. I don't think that people from either religion would view their ritual as less important simply because the other religion does something similar.

Secondly, just because heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage are a little bit different, doesn't mean that the definition of marriage is going to get all thrown out of whack. Peanut butter cookies are different from chocolate chip cookies, but they're both cookies. We haven't created a new name and definition for each cookie variation. Sure, each one is a little bit different, but they all taste delicious when you put them in your mouth. (Insert your favorite dirty joke here.)

I have actually heard the argument that allowing gay marriage would eventually lead to Churches being forced into performing homosexual ceremonies, although I can't imagine why. One of America's founding prinicples was religious freedom. If your religion's clubhouse has a "No Gay's Allowed" sign out in front, that's their right as an American institution, and no one can convince me otherwise.

I'm also confused about people who are concerned that the existence (and acceptance) of homosexual behavior is going to somehow corrupt society. If you are so concerned about being persuaded by other people's behavior, maybe you should think about trying to be less of a dumbass. If you're concerned that your children are going to be persuaded by other people's behavior, maybe you should think about being a better parent.

What people do in the privacy of their own home is their business. Consenting adults have the right to do what makes them happy. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of getting it on, even if it's with a person of the same sex. (Go America.)

Don't knock on my door.

I won't answer it. Seriously. Knock all you want, I will not get up and open the door.

Will I let you freeze to death on my doorstep if you call out my name and tell me who it is? Probably not. But I will be annoyed that you tried to freeze to death on my doorstep.

This is not to say that I'm an unsociable or unfriendly person, although that argument has been made with varying degrees of success. If a friend called me up because their car broke down, I'd be more than happy to drive out to where they were and pick them up.

But really, don't come and bother me when I'm at home. Some people enjoy the pop-in. There are those who are excited and happy to see that friends and loved ones have taken the time to swing by and say "Hi." I am not one of those people.

I consider it rude. Showing up at someone's house is presumptuous and arrogant. When you pop-in, by definition you are assuming that you are more important than whatever it is your host is doing at the time.

When I am at home, I consider that "me time." I do what I want, when I want, until at which time as I have an engagement to attend to. Whether it's settling down to watch a movie with my wife or enjoying a bubble bath and some sparkling conversation with my rubber ducky (don't judge me), this is my time to relax as I see fit.

Had I wanted to spend my leisure time with you, oh intrepid visitor, you would have been invited. I'm not averse to socializing, nor even entertaining from time to time. I simply do not like being forced to be a host unannounced, and when I'm not prepared.

Political correctness...

...is bullshit.

Seriously, everyone needs to relax. Sugar coating the truth does not make it any less impactful. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's probably a duck. So just call it that.

You are not height challenged, you're short. It's not "the Holidays," it's Christmas. And I don't have depression, I'm crazy.

People are so damned afraid of offending someone, that we've watered down everything that we do in some vain attempt to make everything in the world hunky dory. Lemme let you in on a little secret. It's not.

Honestly, what do the vast majority of these PC terms hope to accomplish? If I call a person "height challenged" instead of a "midget," chances are they still know that they're shorter than I am. The term midget in and of itself shouldn't be offensive. If I called that person a "stupid dirty midget," then I could understand them having an issue with me.

I'm curious as to what people think is going to happen if we simply call things as they are. I mentioned earlier that I have depression. If a person comes up to me and says "You're crazy." I suppose my response would be something along the lines of, "Yeah, I know. That's why I take medication." What reason do I have to be offended if a person is merely stating the truth?

Our attempt to state the truth in a different, "less offensive" way has reached ludicrous levels. I once read an article about how ridiculous the term "African American" is. (thebestpageintheuniverse.com) The term is both arrogant and ignorant at the same time. It has become an overarching expression to describe people with dark skin. But it assumes that person is American, and of African descent. Almost as if there are no black people living in any other countries around the world, or that all dark skinned people are from Africa. I think most people would agree that referring to all white people as "German American" would not only be silly, it would be blatantly incorrect.

I submit that these terms: black, stewardess, Christmas, are simply descriptive terms, and are not inherently offensive. Whilst I am not religious myself, I consider someone wishing me a Happy Hanukkah or a Merry Christmas to be a nice and pleasant gesture. Just because my reasons for celebrating Christmas have more to do with the spirit of good-natured giving than with celebrating the birth of a deity doesn't give me the right to feel offended.

Everyone is different. And it's my opinion that this is a good thing. It forces you to look a things in a different light and helps you grow as a person. This is something we should embrace. Rather than sugar-coating our differences, and trying to make everyone sound the same, maybe we should just call things as they are, and get over ourselves.

Freak Dang Shoot

The only difference between fake swearing and real swearing, is that fake swearing makes you sound like a little bitch.

Seriously, if you don't like swearing, fine. Don't swear. Totally cool. Swearing isn't for everyone. I'm all too aware that people don't like swearing, and I check myself in inappropriate places, like at work, or around children.

But if you're opposed to swearing in general, why would you use substitute terms which mean the exact same thing?

I suppose you can ask yourself what your opposition to swearing is, but ultimately it doesn't matter. If your problem is the vulgarity of the terms, (which I think it should be) then what would compel you to reproduce the vulgar meaning with a different sound? You should avoid the terminology all together.

For example, I find racial slurs to be abhorrent. I think any term that is used to describe an entire group of people in a negative way, on the basis of nothing more than that they are different, is a despicable thing. So I don't use the terms. I also don't use "alternate" terms that are "less offensive." Changing a couple of letters doesn't make it suddenly okay. I can proudly say that I've never referred to a black person as a "niffer."

If your problem is because you don't like the sound of the word, but aren't actually opposed to the meaning, then I am at a loss. The sound you hear is quite inconsequential. Language, after all, is arbitrary. We have made up these guttural sounds and attributed meanings to them. A person with no knowledge of English would not be offended by English swear words because they have no meanings associated with those sounds. The offense from a word should be due to the negative meanings you associate with it, not the sound you hear.

Am I guilty of using these fake swear words? Well, yes. But not because I'm concerned about actual swear words. When I'm with close friends or family, I let loose and swear to my hearts content. But when I'm in the presence of people who I know will be offended by "real" swear words, I'll tone it down.

Why? Well, just because I think that a "fake" swear word is as powerful as a "real" one, doesn't mean I'm right. It's simply my opinion. Likewise, it is the opinion of some of these people that "fake" swear words are perfectly acceptable, pretty much anywhere. When in Rome.

That being said, knock it off. If you don't like swearing, don't do it. Otherwise, if you're gonna say fuck, just make it happen.

The Absolutes of Evil

We as a people, are obsessed with evil. We find the dark and the macabre much more interesting than the bright and sunny. Crime dramas are among the most popular television shows, and often involve grisly and twisted murders. I know people who love mystery novels, which almost exclusively involve someone being killed, but I don't know too many people who love books where the characters only give money to charity and volunteer at a school.

When I think about this subject, it reminds me of a joke I heard once on Saturday Night Live. "If you paint one painting, you're not a painter. You bake one cake, and you're not a baker. But you blow up one embassy and suddenly you're a terrorist."

The problem here is, this isn't a joke. It's true. At least, true in the eyes of society at large. This is how we as a people feel about things. And to make matters worse, I agree with it. Well, at least as much as one can agree with something they don't fully understand.

Why is it that bad things are considered absolute, but good things are regarded as fleeting at best?

Consider, a person who is the epitome of human greatness. An intelligent, caring person. A doctor, someone who volunteers at a homeless shelter. A person who donates to cancer research and the food bank. Someone who stops their car when they see someone broken down at the side of the road.

And this person has been doing this for, oh, say fifty years. Well regarded in the community, goes to church on Sunday, etc. And suddenly, one day when he's seventy, he intentionally murders a four year old girl.

This dude is going straight to jail. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Done. And rightly so. You don't kill people. It's one of the most terrible things you can do. Keep in mind, I fully agree that murderers deserve the maximum amount of punishment our laws allow.

I do, however, find it interesting that this one act, terrible though it may be, can erase all the good this person has done over the course of their life. This man will forever be known as a murderer. Nevermind that he was a loving husband and father. No matter that he saved hundreds of lives. So what if he was a devout religious man? His act of taking a life negates all the good he has done in his life.

But it doesn't work the other way. A person who lives a life of stealing, cheating, raping and murdering cannot be vindicated by a single act of good, regardless as to how powerful. Nor even by a lifetime of good, as seen in the previous example.

It's interesting how absolute and lasting evil is. An evil act will always trump any number of good deeds. An incident where someone wrongs you will stay with you longer than an incident where someone was kind.

Something to think about.

Can we be selfless?

There is no such thing as a purely selfless act.

Okay, I take that back. That's a pretty audacious statement, even for me. There are much better people out there than me, both in general, and in the fields of charity and philanthropy. Perhaps they understand this concept better than I.

I, however, lack the luxury of that understanding. This is a concept that I struggle with on a daily basis, and one that only increases in perplexity at times when I'm involved in some type of charitable act.

My curiosity about this regards both motivation and reward. Does it count as volunteer work if you're getting paid while you do it? Can you make a charitable donation if you're deeply agitated when giving away your money? Does it even matter? Does selflessness depend upon a persons motivations in order for it to count? Or is it a more machiavellian situation, where the end justifies the means, and that's all that matters.

I suppose that any type of benefaction is beneficial and welcomed by those in need of assistance. I highly doubt that those in need would turn away money simply because the conveyor was upset about parting with it. But is that enough? It is enough for us as human beings to know that we helped someone, even if it pains us to do it?

The thing that truly disturbs me, in my own personal experience, is the good feeling I get from doing works of charity. This may sound somewhat contradictory, but I assure you it's not. I like to think that I'm donating because I want to help people. Were that the case, I would say it was a noble act. However, upon doing so, I feel good about myself, and am happy that I'm a good person. My fear is, do I only contribute to charity to make myself feel good? If so, it would make my act quite selfish.

Selfishness is not necessarily a negative thing. We are all programmed to be selfish. We have a distinct, inherent desire to do what is best for ourselves. This seems to be something built-in to all life as a mechanism to ensure survival.

But my concern is motivation and reward. If one is motivated to make a donation simply because they want to feel good about themselves, and are thusly rewarded by said good feeling, then I submit that they are performing a selfish act. Sure, the act is still beneficial. Perhaps a poor family is able to have a hot dinner due to that contribution, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would argue against that, regardless of the motivation. But that's not going to score you any positive points on the cosmic good/bad scale, supposing such a thing exists.

Perhaps these issues are inconsequential. A good act is a good act is a good act, as they say. But perhaps they're not. Perhaps our motivations and reasons for the things we do are of the utmost consequence.

And this is what concerns me.