Look, I am not a hockey fan. To me, the hockey season just started because the playoffs are the only thing that matter in an 82+ game season. I think Friday night was the first time I realized it was a penalty to clear the puck from your goal in hopes to run down the clock (icing, which seems like an idiotic penalty). But if there's one thing I know about hockey, it is this: I don't want to be a Penguins fan, or more appropriately: I don't want to be a Penguins fan if there's an option to be a Flyers fan. This really comes down to one reason: toughness.
Hockey is a contact sport. In fact, hockey is probably the contact sport. Hockey is more fast-paced than (American) football and has harder contact than basketball and soccer/football. Baseball has no real contact (one slide into home plate every 43 games doesn't count), and no other sport is popular enough to warrant mention. Hockey is also the only sport that allows fighting. Sure, you may get penalized for engaging in the timeless art of fisticuffs, but there's a good chance you're not getting ejected and suspended for a quarter of the season (and if you're an NFL player, you'd probably have to go to a six-week seminar on concussion education and if your name is James Harrison you'd get fined $400,000 (OK, now I'm just complaining)). It's for those reasons I mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph that I'm going to root for one of the (if not, the) toughest team(s) in the league (Hey, it works for the NFL, why shouldn't it work for a tougher sport?)
Now, I'll make a concession here. I can't continue to be a Steelers fan (and maintain my belief that they've become the greatest franchise in the NFL) and tell you that the Flyers are a better franchise than the Penguins. It cannot be true because the Penguins have more Stanley Cup victories than the Flyers (and all of them more recently than the Flyers' last one). So the Penguins franchise may be a better franchise now than the Flyers (and it's been true for a number of years), but they certainly are less respectable as a franchise.
Why do they deserve less respect? It's because of toughness. No one questions the toughness of the Philadelphia Flyers. Everyone is free to do so with the Penguins. Sure, a single Penguin (by the way, that's a fantastically fruity mascot if you ask me (although, to be honest, paper advertisements (Flyers) aren't too scary either)) player may accidentally be tough once (I mean, look at Malkin, he's an ugly Russian, I'll give them that), but the team is far from tough. Watching the playoff game now, I can see the Penguins with their playoff "beards"; they each look like they can grow a beard as well as I can (that's an insult to them, or it should be). The face of the franchise, Mr. Sidney Crosby (no surprise that he has a unisex name...), would probably lose a fight to a Care Bear. I think the only battle that co-owner and previous face of the franchise, Mario Lemieux, won was the battle to open his container of hair gel this morning. On the other hand, when you look at the Flyers, you get a group of guys with shovels as faces. I think the entire team combined has fewer teeth than I do. Bobby Clarke's image makes toddlers (and even some of the weaker adolescents) cry.
So Penguins fans, when you call us "Philthy", we take it as a compliment. Also, please stop pointing out small exceptions to the rule: just because a Penguin has a single tough moment, doesn't mean your franchise is tough. No one questions the toughness of the Broad Street Bullies. Well, no one has and lived to tell about it.
15 April 2012
08 April 2012
Complaint #029: Politics
I hold this truth to be self-evident: that all men (and women) were created equally. When we force an imbalance upon this, I think people don't know how to appropriately cope. Yet, we, as a society, feel the need to impose a hierarchy upon ourselves. Why we feel we need this, I'll never know, but we do. As if we needed confirmation on this, I'm going to give it to you: besides the fact that every major society in the world (that I know of) has some sort of governmental structure, let's look at the Israelites. Despite having a perfect leader (God) and a series of judges, after having been redeemed from an oppressive leadership, the Israelites demanded a king (if this notion is unfounded to you, try First Samuel 8).
The problem that arises when we elevate people into positions over us, is that we expect them to be better than us and forget that all men (and women) are created equal and none of us is perfect. Take a look at the American government: we put a singular man (ok, this time I don't have to say "or woman" yet) in a specific elevated position, demand him to solve unsolvable problems, and when he doesn't live up to our astronomical expectations and despite the 400-some-odd other men we elected in Washington, we kill him (not literally, of course, although some people who take politics wwwaaayyy too seriously, sadly, I'm sure would like to).
The problem with human leaders is that the people most qualified to lead are the same people smart enough to avoid being leaders. If you don't believe me, take in the following wise words:
So let me get to the main reason that I hate politics (because mainly I don't give a crap and just ignore it/them (I'm not quite sure if "politics" is plural)). Here's politics in a nutshell: people argue about problems that can't be solved, and the best we can do falls into two categories and personal preferences/priorities define which option is better and then people just continue to try to push their preferences and priorities on others and they don't have the authority to do so (basically, politics is subjective and we treat it as objective).
People may find me stupid or inconsiderate, but that's the way I feel about it. So I find politics not only annoying, but mainly immaterial (or, at least, of lesser importance than I need to worry about). I don't inform myself and I'm pretty sure I'm giving it up all together (it's probably better for the uninformed to not vote anyway).
Let the boys play their games, I'll work on bettering my own world and focusing on the true leader of my life.
The problem that arises when we elevate people into positions over us, is that we expect them to be better than us and forget that all men (and women) are created equal and none of us is perfect. Take a look at the American government: we put a singular man (ok, this time I don't have to say "or woman" yet) in a specific elevated position, demand him to solve unsolvable problems, and when he doesn't live up to our astronomical expectations and despite the 400-some-odd other men we elected in Washington, we kill him (not literally, of course, although some people who take politics wwwaaayyy too seriously, sadly, I'm sure would like to).
The problem with human leaders is that the people most qualified to lead are the same people smart enough to avoid being leaders. If you don't believe me, take in the following wise words:
The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
– Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
One day the trees went out to anoint a king for themselves. They said to the olive tree, "Be our king." But the olive tree answered, "Should I give up my oil, by which both gods and humans are honored, to hold sway over the trees?" Next, the trees said to the fig tree, "Come and be our king." But the fig tree replied, "Should I give up my fruit, so good and sweet, to hold sway over the trees?" Then the trees said to the vine, "Come and be our king." But the vine answered, "Should I give up my wine, which cheers both gods and humans, to hold sway over the trees?"
Finally all the trees said to the thornbush, "Come and be our king."
– Judges 9:8-14
So let me get to the main reason that I hate politics (because mainly I don't give a crap and just ignore it/them (I'm not quite sure if "politics" is plural)). Here's politics in a nutshell: people argue about problems that can't be solved, and the best we can do falls into two categories and personal preferences/priorities define which option is better and then people just continue to try to push their preferences and priorities on others and they don't have the authority to do so (basically, politics is subjective and we treat it as objective).
People may find me stupid or inconsiderate, but that's the way I feel about it. So I find politics not only annoying, but mainly immaterial (or, at least, of lesser importance than I need to worry about). I don't inform myself and I'm pretty sure I'm giving it up all together (it's probably better for the uninformed to not vote anyway).
Let the boys play their games, I'll work on bettering my own world and focusing on the true leader of my life.
25 March 2012
Complaint #028: Buses
Let me be honest with you for a little bit: I started this blog and consequently, the "Your Complaints" page, with the full intention of taking your complaints as inspirations for posts of mine. However, I haven't really gotten a suggestion about which I felt inspired enough to write an entire post (although I have touched on some of them). But Refining by Fire Hall of Fame reader and commenter Chelsea Gillus deserves to have at least one of her topics written about on here. So I'm going to write about one of her suggestions and it'll snowball into this full topic on buses.
Chelsea, at one point, said I should write about the other people on public buses. Now as a bus rider, by definition, I am one of those other people of the public bus, but I'd like to think I follow bus etiquette quite well. I imagine she (along with myself) is not fond of people who don't heed the following rules:
Now I'll be even more honest with you guys and tell you that I feel insecure about how people perceive my transportation situation (the fact that I don't drive) and even though I shouldn't care what mere humans think of me (the only judgment I need be concerned with is that from above), I feel the need to prove that I am self-sufficient even without a driver's license (never mind the fact that ten months ago I moved a thousand miles away from any place I'd ever lived before which required the use of my parents' ability to drive). Because of this, I am reticent to complaint about buses at all, but I also feel the need to be honest, open, and realistic to everyone (in an overall and general sense, not just in the blogosphere), so here goes:
There is an inherent unfairness to the fact that if a person is late (or even sometimes on time) to a bus stop, he/she must wait for the next bus, but buses are free to be as late as they want. Or, in the rare case, they are early and screw over people who were just on time.
One thing I miss about the Pittsburgh bus system is that you could essentially get a bus from anywhere to anywhere whereas out here in Madison you often need to transfer once or twice to get where you need to go. Example: From the point I moved until this past Friday (I'll talk more about that later) I was taking three buses each way to and from work. One bus to the transfer point near my apartment, another to the transfer point across town (because the bus to work only took off from there), and then the last bus to work (and the reverse on the way home).
This stacked up to a whopping 75 minute trip each way which I will admit, is a bit ridiculous. Now, I feel the need to justify this "wasted time", so I will say that it was a great time to do some reading. Reading is one of those things I love to do, but only when it doesn't take away from my normal life activities. If I have the opportunity to watch a movie or waste time complaining on the internet to the fifteen people who will read it, those are the things I'm going to do rather than read. However, over the past ten months I've read probably more than my entire life up until that point (31 books since I moved, according to my count) which I think is great.
Fast forward to tomorrow: Madison Metro and my great employer, Epic, have heard the cries of their people (mainly Epic has heard the cries of losers like me that the bus is overcrowded, although I don't think I ever explicitly said anything) and have started a new bus route. It just so happens to go right near my apartment complex and looks like it'll save me about an hour a day in the morning, so I'm curious to see how well I spend the time I've "saved".
Chelsea, at one point, said I should write about the other people on public buses. Now as a bus rider, by definition, I am one of those other people of the public bus, but I'd like to think I follow bus etiquette quite well. I imagine she (along with myself) is not fond of people who don't heed the following rules:
- If anyone (besides the person that you are talking to) can hear you, be quieter
- If anyone (besides yourself) can hear your iPod, make it quieter
- Have your bus fare ready prior to boarding the bus
- Bags/Purses/etc. are free to have a seat until critical mass is hit. Critical mass is defined as the point at which each person has a free seat next to them.
- Be at the bus stop prior to the scheduled bus arrival time
- Don't wave down the bus at a place that isn't a bus stop
- If you requested to get off the bus and if possible, make attempts at being at the door prior to the bus stopping
Now I'll be even more honest with you guys and tell you that I feel insecure about how people perceive my transportation situation (the fact that I don't drive) and even though I shouldn't care what mere humans think of me (the only judgment I need be concerned with is that from above), I feel the need to prove that I am self-sufficient even without a driver's license (never mind the fact that ten months ago I moved a thousand miles away from any place I'd ever lived before which required the use of my parents' ability to drive). Because of this, I am reticent to complaint about buses at all, but I also feel the need to be honest, open, and realistic to everyone (in an overall and general sense, not just in the blogosphere), so here goes:
There is an inherent unfairness to the fact that if a person is late (or even sometimes on time) to a bus stop, he/she must wait for the next bus, but buses are free to be as late as they want. Or, in the rare case, they are early and screw over people who were just on time.
One thing I miss about the Pittsburgh bus system is that you could essentially get a bus from anywhere to anywhere whereas out here in Madison you often need to transfer once or twice to get where you need to go. Example: From the point I moved until this past Friday (I'll talk more about that later) I was taking three buses each way to and from work. One bus to the transfer point near my apartment, another to the transfer point across town (because the bus to work only took off from there), and then the last bus to work (and the reverse on the way home).
This stacked up to a whopping 75 minute trip each way which I will admit, is a bit ridiculous. Now, I feel the need to justify this "wasted time", so I will say that it was a great time to do some reading. Reading is one of those things I love to do, but only when it doesn't take away from my normal life activities. If I have the opportunity to watch a movie or waste time complaining on the internet to the fifteen people who will read it, those are the things I'm going to do rather than read. However, over the past ten months I've read probably more than my entire life up until that point (31 books since I moved, according to my count) which I think is great.
Fast forward to tomorrow: Madison Metro and my great employer, Epic, have heard the cries of their people (mainly Epic has heard the cries of losers like me that the bus is overcrowded, although I don't think I ever explicitly said anything) and have started a new bus route. It just so happens to go right near my apartment complex and looks like it'll save me about an hour a day in the morning, so I'm curious to see how well I spend the time I've "saved".
18 March 2012
Complaint #027: Ice
Look, I enjoy a nice cold drink as much as the next guy, but only to a certain cost. That cost is something less than putting ice cubes in my drink. It just isn't worth all the toil and unpleasantness. However, there are some solutions that lessen the pain.
Problem number one: this isn't a huge issue, but when you place ice into a drink, you violate the integrity of the drink by watering it down. I wanted to drink lemonade, not 95% lemonade with water in it. This is probably the reason people don't put ice in their milk or orange juice. Wake up people, it's no different from throwing ice into Coke or the poorly named "iced tea" (which, obviously, I prefer without ice).
Problem number two: creating ice. Again, not a big deal, but a minor annoyance if you don't own one of those fancy dancy refrigerators that makes its own ice. Having to fill up ice cube trays every twelfth cube, balance the tray perfectly back to the fridge from the sink, and set it on a perfectly level surface in your freezer is a bit toilsome.
The big problem: ice floats. This causes enormous issues: the first of which is that the cubes bang against your lip and front teeth every time you try to take a sip of that delicious beverage. This is painful to those of us with sensitive teeth (I think, I don't really know, it's been so long since I've actually had a drink like this). Not only that, but the cubes get in the way of you gulping down that liquid delight and you end up sucking in about four milliliters after trying to drink for the past 85 seconds.
Simple solutions: I don't mind getting ice in my drink while I'm at a restaurant because they give you the magical ice-problem destroyer: the straw. It won't solve problem one, and problem two is on the restaurant management, but it definitely eradicates the big ice problem.
Also, I love iced coffee. This is probably because I have managed to burn myself on every hot cup of coffee from which I've ever had the displeasure of drinking. Also, most iced coffee comes with that fantastic invention mentioned above.
Final point: we need a good way to invent cold, non-floating ice capsules that do not water down drinks. C'mon scientists, you owe us this one.
Problem number one: this isn't a huge issue, but when you place ice into a drink, you violate the integrity of the drink by watering it down. I wanted to drink lemonade, not 95% lemonade with water in it. This is probably the reason people don't put ice in their milk or orange juice. Wake up people, it's no different from throwing ice into Coke or the poorly named "iced tea" (which, obviously, I prefer without ice).
Problem number two: creating ice. Again, not a big deal, but a minor annoyance if you don't own one of those fancy dancy refrigerators that makes its own ice. Having to fill up ice cube trays every twelfth cube, balance the tray perfectly back to the fridge from the sink, and set it on a perfectly level surface in your freezer is a bit toilsome.
The big problem: ice floats. This causes enormous issues: the first of which is that the cubes bang against your lip and front teeth every time you try to take a sip of that delicious beverage. This is painful to those of us with sensitive teeth (I think, I don't really know, it's been so long since I've actually had a drink like this). Not only that, but the cubes get in the way of you gulping down that liquid delight and you end up sucking in about four milliliters after trying to drink for the past 85 seconds.
Simple solutions: I don't mind getting ice in my drink while I'm at a restaurant because they give you the magical ice-problem destroyer: the straw. It won't solve problem one, and problem two is on the restaurant management, but it definitely eradicates the big ice problem.
Also, I love iced coffee. This is probably because I have managed to burn myself on every hot cup of coffee from which I've ever had the displeasure of drinking. Also, most iced coffee comes with that fantastic invention mentioned above.
Final point: we need a good way to invent cold, non-floating ice capsules that do not water down drinks. C'mon scientists, you owe us this one.
11 March 2012
Complaint #026: Kony 2012
If you have not seen this video yet, I'd rather you spend your time doing so than reading my little rant (although reading my post is a nice afterthought).
That being said, I do not want Joseph Kony brought to justice. You read that right, I do NOT want Joseph Kony brought to justice. Do I want his crimes to come to an end? Yes. But do I want him brought to justice? No. Before you get out your pitchforks and torches, let me explain why.
I'll first define what bringing him to justice means. I'm thinking it; you're thinking it; we're all thinking it, and even if someone weren't, I'll prove, to the best of my ability, that to bring justice upon him is to kill him. He deserves it right? I mean, he's killed and raped large numbers people, abducted tens of thousands of children and forced them to act as soldiers, and he has displaced millions from their homes. The only thing worth doing to him is ending his life, correct? The wages of sin is death therefore he deserves to die. The problem is that we all deserve to die. We have all chosen a path that leads to death: me, you, Joseph Kony, and yes, even Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson. We have all chosen to sin and deserve death for that. We are all sinners to be stoned, and none of us is worthy to throw the first stone.
Take a look at your Bible. It's written by a bunch of murderers. Moses, who wrote the entire Torah, killed an Egyptian. David, a man after God's own heart, had an affair with a woman and had her husband killed to hide the resultant pregnancy (you could probably categorize his sexual intercourse with her as rape, as well). Paul, writer of much of the New Testament, was the leader of a group that hunted down and slaughtered Christians. Would you have brought these people to justice for their crimes? I'm pretty sure I would have, but it's not the mentality I should have.
No man is beyond redemption. This is why we should love the sinner (hate the sin? yes, but more importantly, love the sinner). This is why we are not worthy to cast the first stone. This is why an eye for an eye leads to the whole world going blind. This is why Atomic Opera, in their song "Justice", sung "I pray that I will never ask for justice". Yes, this does mean that Joseph Kony, Osama Bin Laden, Muammar Gaddafi, Joseph Stalin, and Adolph Hitler do not deserve justice served to them from fellow humans. Just because each treated others without regard to their humanity does not give us the excuse to act that way towards him. Justice comes from the King on High and He has already sent someone that redeemed all of us from our crimes.
So don't get me wrong, the video is fantastic. The plans it lays out are good, but let us focus on stopping these crimes for the sake of saving those being terrorized and not on bringing Joseph Kony to justice.
That being said, I do not want Joseph Kony brought to justice. You read that right, I do NOT want Joseph Kony brought to justice. Do I want his crimes to come to an end? Yes. But do I want him brought to justice? No. Before you get out your pitchforks and torches, let me explain why.
I'll first define what bringing him to justice means. I'm thinking it; you're thinking it; we're all thinking it, and even if someone weren't, I'll prove, to the best of my ability, that to bring justice upon him is to kill him. He deserves it right? I mean, he's killed and raped large numbers people, abducted tens of thousands of children and forced them to act as soldiers, and he has displaced millions from their homes. The only thing worth doing to him is ending his life, correct? The wages of sin is death therefore he deserves to die. The problem is that we all deserve to die. We have all chosen a path that leads to death: me, you, Joseph Kony, and yes, even Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson. We have all chosen to sin and deserve death for that. We are all sinners to be stoned, and none of us is worthy to throw the first stone.
Take a look at your Bible. It's written by a bunch of murderers. Moses, who wrote the entire Torah, killed an Egyptian. David, a man after God's own heart, had an affair with a woman and had her husband killed to hide the resultant pregnancy (you could probably categorize his sexual intercourse with her as rape, as well). Paul, writer of much of the New Testament, was the leader of a group that hunted down and slaughtered Christians. Would you have brought these people to justice for their crimes? I'm pretty sure I would have, but it's not the mentality I should have.
No man is beyond redemption. This is why we should love the sinner (hate the sin? yes, but more importantly, love the sinner). This is why we are not worthy to cast the first stone. This is why an eye for an eye leads to the whole world going blind. This is why Atomic Opera, in their song "Justice", sung "I pray that I will never ask for justice". Yes, this does mean that Joseph Kony, Osama Bin Laden, Muammar Gaddafi, Joseph Stalin, and Adolph Hitler do not deserve justice served to them from fellow humans. Just because each treated others without regard to their humanity does not give us the excuse to act that way towards him. Justice comes from the King on High and He has already sent someone that redeemed all of us from our crimes.
So don't get me wrong, the video is fantastic. The plans it lays out are good, but let us focus on stopping these crimes for the sake of saving those being terrorized and not on bringing Joseph Kony to justice.
04 March 2012
Complaint #025: Being Wrong
Being wrong publicly (and, by that, I mean saying something that is incorrect to someone) is probably the worst thing ever. Of all things that exist and of all states of being for all those things, the worst is myself when I'm wrong. At least, I think so. Perhaps you feel the same way about yourself when you are wrong (assuming this occurs).
There are a number of layers to this. The first of which is the fact that I was wrong. No one likes to be wrong, and I'm pretty sure I'm the person who dislikes it the most. Being wrong means that there was something that was in my mind that wasn't what it was supposed to be. I stored information in my brain and it was worthless, in fact worse than worthless, incorrect. Not only that, but I've made this incorrect information public and I've made my fallacy in front of others. I try to not care what people think about me, but this care seeps through all the time (what can I say, I'm human).
The next step is what my brain does to react: it immediately denies having said the wrong thing. This is, of course, the absolute worst thought to have, because it is inherently incorrect (and given enough time anyone can realize that this is a recursive function and I don't know what the maximum stack level for my brain is and what happens if I reach that (hehe computer science humor)). If we stay on the first level of the stack, I'll sometimes react to this initial feeling by denying what I said or trying to explain that I meant something different by what I said.
Hopefully, I spend more than 0.0002 seconds thinking about what I said before reacting to the fact that I said something incorrect because, luckily, my brain eventually copes with the fact that it is fallacious. However, it then spends its energy trying to remember why it had the original incorrect thought and tries to pour blame on that object. Whether it be Wikipedia, an old college roommate, or a misinformed author of an article I read, I blame it for making me give false information. This is, again, the wrong action to take. I must remember both parts of the famous, Ronald Reagan favored phrase: "Trust, but verify". I am the one ultimately responsible for what spews forth from my word hole.
So being wrong every once in a while becomes a good thing: it teaches me, first of all, to be humble, but it also reminds me that I am responsible for all that I do and say. However, if I could avoid the process of being wrong and dealing with that (but still learn these lessons), that would be great because I really do hate being wrong.
There are a number of layers to this. The first of which is the fact that I was wrong. No one likes to be wrong, and I'm pretty sure I'm the person who dislikes it the most. Being wrong means that there was something that was in my mind that wasn't what it was supposed to be. I stored information in my brain and it was worthless, in fact worse than worthless, incorrect. Not only that, but I've made this incorrect information public and I've made my fallacy in front of others. I try to not care what people think about me, but this care seeps through all the time (what can I say, I'm human).
The next step is what my brain does to react: it immediately denies having said the wrong thing. This is, of course, the absolute worst thought to have, because it is inherently incorrect (and given enough time anyone can realize that this is a recursive function and I don't know what the maximum stack level for my brain is and what happens if I reach that (hehe computer science humor)). If we stay on the first level of the stack, I'll sometimes react to this initial feeling by denying what I said or trying to explain that I meant something different by what I said.
Hopefully, I spend more than 0.0002 seconds thinking about what I said before reacting to the fact that I said something incorrect because, luckily, my brain eventually copes with the fact that it is fallacious. However, it then spends its energy trying to remember why it had the original incorrect thought and tries to pour blame on that object. Whether it be Wikipedia, an old college roommate, or a misinformed author of an article I read, I blame it for making me give false information. This is, again, the wrong action to take. I must remember both parts of the famous, Ronald Reagan favored phrase: "Trust, but verify". I am the one ultimately responsible for what spews forth from my word hole.
So being wrong every once in a while becomes a good thing: it teaches me, first of all, to be humble, but it also reminds me that I am responsible for all that I do and say. However, if I could avoid the process of being wrong and dealing with that (but still learn these lessons), that would be great because I really do hate being wrong.
19 February 2012
Complaint #024: Telephones
This is likely just a post to satisfy my own hatred for telephones, but maybe you as well have these issues and can assure me that I'm not a complete oddity.
I enjoy talking with people. I wouldn't characterize myself as a social person, but I wouldn't say I'm anti-social either. I enjoy discussing the things I am interested in with others, and, just in general, I enjoy keeping in touch with people's lives (for the few people who care to share it with me). This is true until I pick up the phone to talk to someone, and I'd like to logically explain why.
Written forms of communication are the best ways to communicate with others. When you are forced into an audible conversation with someone, the chances to mess up grow exponentially. When you write, you are given time to think through every response and you have the ability to delete anything that may not have the effect you intended (as long as you do so before you send it). I cannot count the times (and the number may be uncountable (haha, set theory joke)) that I have typed something and deleted it because I realized it would be the dumbest phrase ever uttered by a human. Of course, there is one caveat: You cannot relay tone in a written conversation.
Not every conversation can be carried out through text or email (unfortunately) so we are forced to audibly interact. I realize that, and, in fact, occasionally prefer it. A robot like me, you would suspect, always prefers to calculate the correct response in every conversation prior to responding, but personal conversations are much more appropriately handled in a personal manner (who'd have thought?). I recall several conversations I have had that I shook my head at the fact that they were being held over Facebook chat or text rather than in person. But I digress.
My main point I mean to make about face-to-face conversation is that it is one thousand times better than phone conversation. My main struggle is the fact that I am deaf. Not literally deaf as in cannot hear, but my ability to hear seems to be far below normal human levels (I can't absolutely know, because I can only hear as well as myself (also, I don't have one of those sweet elementary school hearing test machines or a person to test against myself)). This deafness is less of an issue in normal conversation for a few reasons: the person's voice is not being shoved into a wire and transmitted into outer space before reaching me, and I'm able to look at the lips of someone talking to me (look up the McGurk effect to see how much sight affects hearing (this video is pretty sweet too)). In this way I reduce the amount I ask "What?" from half of the time to one third of the time (another reason written communication is better: if you know how to read it is much more difficult to misunderstand what someone is saying).
Let me also point out that my brain is allergic to phones. I have recently learned this at my job as I've noticed a substantial drop in IQ whenever I pick up a phone. This is a personal problem, and likely doesn't relate to anyone else in the universe, but I felt the need to mention it. It may be linked to the fact that I am far from being spontaneous and talking on the phone requires an instant response to the caller's speech. However, if this were the case, I should be just as idiotic while speaking to someone in person. Other people can feel free to refute the following claim (they're likely more correct), but I don't think I'm much dumber in face-to-face conversation as compared to written communication.
There is, however, one person I must address before I conclude this topic, in the chance that she may be offended. Let me address her personally: Mother, I do look forward to my call to you every week. In a perfect world, I wouldn't be forced to use that hideous device to converse with you, but alas, it must be so. I hope you have a great week, and I look forward to speaking again next Sunday :)
I enjoy talking with people. I wouldn't characterize myself as a social person, but I wouldn't say I'm anti-social either. I enjoy discussing the things I am interested in with others, and, just in general, I enjoy keeping in touch with people's lives (for the few people who care to share it with me). This is true until I pick up the phone to talk to someone, and I'd like to logically explain why.
Written forms of communication are the best ways to communicate with others. When you are forced into an audible conversation with someone, the chances to mess up grow exponentially. When you write, you are given time to think through every response and you have the ability to delete anything that may not have the effect you intended (as long as you do so before you send it). I cannot count the times (and the number may be uncountable (haha, set theory joke)) that I have typed something and deleted it because I realized it would be the dumbest phrase ever uttered by a human. Of course, there is one caveat: You cannot relay tone in a written conversation.
Not every conversation can be carried out through text or email (unfortunately) so we are forced to audibly interact. I realize that, and, in fact, occasionally prefer it. A robot like me, you would suspect, always prefers to calculate the correct response in every conversation prior to responding, but personal conversations are much more appropriately handled in a personal manner (who'd have thought?). I recall several conversations I have had that I shook my head at the fact that they were being held over Facebook chat or text rather than in person. But I digress.
My main point I mean to make about face-to-face conversation is that it is one thousand times better than phone conversation. My main struggle is the fact that I am deaf. Not literally deaf as in cannot hear, but my ability to hear seems to be far below normal human levels (I can't absolutely know, because I can only hear as well as myself (also, I don't have one of those sweet elementary school hearing test machines or a person to test against myself)). This deafness is less of an issue in normal conversation for a few reasons: the person's voice is not being shoved into a wire and transmitted into outer space before reaching me, and I'm able to look at the lips of someone talking to me (look up the McGurk effect to see how much sight affects hearing (this video is pretty sweet too)). In this way I reduce the amount I ask "What?" from half of the time to one third of the time (another reason written communication is better: if you know how to read it is much more difficult to misunderstand what someone is saying).
Let me also point out that my brain is allergic to phones. I have recently learned this at my job as I've noticed a substantial drop in IQ whenever I pick up a phone. This is a personal problem, and likely doesn't relate to anyone else in the universe, but I felt the need to mention it. It may be linked to the fact that I am far from being spontaneous and talking on the phone requires an instant response to the caller's speech. However, if this were the case, I should be just as idiotic while speaking to someone in person. Other people can feel free to refute the following claim (they're likely more correct), but I don't think I'm much dumber in face-to-face conversation as compared to written communication.
There is, however, one person I must address before I conclude this topic, in the chance that she may be offended. Let me address her personally: Mother, I do look forward to my call to you every week. In a perfect world, I wouldn't be forced to use that hideous device to converse with you, but alas, it must be so. I hope you have a great week, and I look forward to speaking again next Sunday :)
12 February 2012
Complaint #023: Romance
Single men should not listen to love songs. Occasionally, between the time that I'm watching football, drinking beer, stroking my enormous beard, hunting and slaughtering various animals (with my bare hands), and eating their roasted carcasses, I get the time to listen to music. Approximately 99.997% of music is about romantic love. So, when I was listening to some Beatles this past week, I realized single men should not listen to love songs.
Let me explain how my brain works (I don't know how others' brains work, so I'm putting this in my terms, feel free to reply below to tell me how crazy I am). I feel two levels of my brain working at a time: the higher level, logical brain function and the lower level, emotional brain function. I try to pride myself on being fairly dominated by the logical level of my brain. This level of my brain knows I should be content even in my singleness, and even though having a companion is desired, it is not necessary. My lower level brain function is dumber than a lemming. It continually craves companionship and cannot stop thinking about my previous romantic relationship opportunities and tries to figure out how to fix them. Just writing that makes me feel like a creeper, but I am unable to shut off this function of my brain. What makes this worse is that my higher brain level realizes anything that is forced, in the realm of romance, ruins the beauty of romance so it is content to just wait until love befalls me. The lower level brain function will have nothing to do with this and wants to create love out of anything.
I've scientifically determined that the time at which I have the highest probability of finding true romantic love is the instant I can convince my entire mind that I don't need it. This time, however, is likely off in the distant future. eBay (which I barely even use anymore) and Amazon feel the need to email me every day to remind me that I need to buy stuff for Valentine's Day. What am I going to buy and for whom? There isn't an "I'm a pathetic single, stop emailing me about Valentine's Day" button; I've checked. Valentine's Day is only a few days off, so that'll pass. Then I've got music. I can't not listen to music. No matter how hard I try, I can't avoid music that has a love theme. But let's say that I can, I still won't be able to avoid happy people. Happy couples are everywhere! Let me say something to all the happily-in-love people in my audience: your happiness fills us single people with the urge to drown puppies. You people should be instantly transported to a separate universe where people are happy and in love so all the single people can go through life being content with their single lives instead of being continually reminded of how pathetically single they are. The last thing I'll point out (and a submission for my candidacy as president of the tautology club) is that beautiful women are beautiful. Women shouldn't be so attractive so that I don't realize they're not dating me.
So what is my advice? How should I and others cope with this? Name the animals. I know, it isn't the advice you were expecting, but it's Biblical: Adam, before he ate some fruit and destroyed humanity, before sin had even entered the world, during the time where he could hang out with God any time he wanted, felt incomplete without a physical companion. When he brought this to God, what did God do? Did God create Eve? Nope. He told Adam to name all the animals. This actually makes sense, though, because he had to work to figure out what his perfect companion would be, and he realized it wasn't a zebra or a gecko. As such, we need to work to find who will be our perfect companion. What does this mean for me? What does it mean for you? I don't know, but when you feel you need a significant other, remind yourself that you first need to name the animals. That, and don't listen to love songs.
*Let me give attribution to Donald Miller for that last paragraph which I essentially stole from him.
Let me explain how my brain works (I don't know how others' brains work, so I'm putting this in my terms, feel free to reply below to tell me how crazy I am). I feel two levels of my brain working at a time: the higher level, logical brain function and the lower level, emotional brain function. I try to pride myself on being fairly dominated by the logical level of my brain. This level of my brain knows I should be content even in my singleness, and even though having a companion is desired, it is not necessary. My lower level brain function is dumber than a lemming. It continually craves companionship and cannot stop thinking about my previous romantic relationship opportunities and tries to figure out how to fix them. Just writing that makes me feel like a creeper, but I am unable to shut off this function of my brain. What makes this worse is that my higher brain level realizes anything that is forced, in the realm of romance, ruins the beauty of romance so it is content to just wait until love befalls me. The lower level brain function will have nothing to do with this and wants to create love out of anything.
I've scientifically determined that the time at which I have the highest probability of finding true romantic love is the instant I can convince my entire mind that I don't need it. This time, however, is likely off in the distant future. eBay (which I barely even use anymore) and Amazon feel the need to email me every day to remind me that I need to buy stuff for Valentine's Day. What am I going to buy and for whom? There isn't an "I'm a pathetic single, stop emailing me about Valentine's Day" button; I've checked. Valentine's Day is only a few days off, so that'll pass. Then I've got music. I can't not listen to music. No matter how hard I try, I can't avoid music that has a love theme. But let's say that I can, I still won't be able to avoid happy people. Happy couples are everywhere! Let me say something to all the happily-in-love people in my audience: your happiness fills us single people with the urge to drown puppies. You people should be instantly transported to a separate universe where people are happy and in love so all the single people can go through life being content with their single lives instead of being continually reminded of how pathetically single they are. The last thing I'll point out (and a submission for my candidacy as president of the tautology club) is that beautiful women are beautiful. Women shouldn't be so attractive so that I don't realize they're not dating me.
So what is my advice? How should I and others cope with this? Name the animals. I know, it isn't the advice you were expecting, but it's Biblical: Adam, before he ate some fruit and destroyed humanity, before sin had even entered the world, during the time where he could hang out with God any time he wanted, felt incomplete without a physical companion. When he brought this to God, what did God do? Did God create Eve? Nope. He told Adam to name all the animals. This actually makes sense, though, because he had to work to figure out what his perfect companion would be, and he realized it wasn't a zebra or a gecko. As such, we need to work to find who will be our perfect companion. What does this mean for me? What does it mean for you? I don't know, but when you feel you need a significant other, remind yourself that you first need to name the animals. That, and don't listen to love songs.
*Let me give attribution to Donald Miller for that last paragraph which I essentially stole from him.
07 February 2012
Complaint #022: Hell
I always hated books. I used to be allergic to reading. It was a more time-consuming way to get information or get entertainment than watching TV or using the internet. I used to cringe at the thought of cracking open a novel. This was largely true until I moved to Madison. As a loser that doesn't drive and takes the bus to and from work (well, really to and from almost anywhere), I get a lot of time that I can't just sit and watch TV or use the internet. As such, I've probably read more in the past eight months than I have the rest of my life.
Last week I read Rob Bell's Love Wins. For those of you that were living in a cave most of last year and aren't familiar with the concept of the book, I'm going to do the book a disservice and distill it down to one sentence (read the entire book before judging solely on this): Bell suggests, crazy as it may be, that God is a loving God and does not eternally damn every person who doesn't meet the five actions the church has defined saves you. It's a bit more complex than this, but Bell essentially denies the existence of Hell as we know it. Before I talk about Hell, let me give some background.
The Bible is a book about God redeeming people. It never mentions man redeeming himself (mainly because we aren't qualified). The death of Jesus atoned for each and every sin I will commit before I have the chance to commit it. Nothing I do can make them "more atoned for"; it has been done. God loves each of us as his children and endured the death of Himself/His son to save each of us. He has also revealed to us that a time is coming when He brings his dwelling (Heaven) to us (if this strikes you as odd, Heaven will be here, on Earth. Read your Bible.) We have some time to prepare and that is what living like Christ is about.
This is where Hell comes in. When the good Christians die and go to Heaven, everyone else is sifted out and thrown into an eternal pit of molten sulfur, experiencing torture for the rest of eternity. This seems like just punishment for a small time of disobedience on Earth. Of course not. What's enraging about this is the fact that, if Bell's book is to be believed (more on that later), this is largely unfounded in scripture. Humans have created Hell. This shouldn't be too surprising, we are human, but to be this evil is disgusting and disturbing, and I'm ashamed to say that I have been a part of it.
So what about all those passages that talk about fire and brimstone? I can't offer any insight on the aspect of eternity in relation to the Hell of the Bible (let Bell do that, read his book), but I will offer an explanation that I'm currently pondering: God's bringing Heaven here to us and He gave us the manual on how Heaven can exist even with humans in it (because, as we're all aware, we'd otherwise mess it up. Remember the Garden of Eden?) God sees each command in His word as a benefit for us to get closer to the people we need to be in Heaven. So what are the fires of Hell all about? Let's consider it a "refining by fire" (hey, that's the name of the blog!) so we become purified to exist in Heaven. So what's the point of being a Christian in our current existence? Well, I'm not sure if you remember what the refining process is, but it would be an incredibly painful process for humans to go through and, in the process, the impurities are removed. If someone didn't live like Christ, they would come out of this painful process and not much of themselves would be left. This is why God commands us to live apart from society, be more like Christ, and we can bring all of that to Heaven with us.
I'm not sure I articulated that in the most clear manner, and in the way I wanted to, but, rest assured it makes a bit of sense in my mind. You need to make your own conclusions about it. This is where I come back to whether I believe Bell's book, and the answer is a definitive, decisive "maybe". I'm currently reading through the scriptures and seeing them with a whole new perspective. If this new perspective lines up, there's no reason to not believe it as a possibility. It only affects the fate of every person who ever lived, so I shant take it lightly and neither should you.
Last week I read Rob Bell's Love Wins. For those of you that were living in a cave most of last year and aren't familiar with the concept of the book, I'm going to do the book a disservice and distill it down to one sentence (read the entire book before judging solely on this): Bell suggests, crazy as it may be, that God is a loving God and does not eternally damn every person who doesn't meet the five actions the church has defined saves you. It's a bit more complex than this, but Bell essentially denies the existence of Hell as we know it. Before I talk about Hell, let me give some background.
The Bible is a book about God redeeming people. It never mentions man redeeming himself (mainly because we aren't qualified). The death of Jesus atoned for each and every sin I will commit before I have the chance to commit it. Nothing I do can make them "more atoned for"; it has been done. God loves each of us as his children and endured the death of Himself/His son to save each of us. He has also revealed to us that a time is coming when He brings his dwelling (Heaven) to us (if this strikes you as odd, Heaven will be here, on Earth. Read your Bible.) We have some time to prepare and that is what living like Christ is about.
This is where Hell comes in. When the good Christians die and go to Heaven, everyone else is sifted out and thrown into an eternal pit of molten sulfur, experiencing torture for the rest of eternity. This seems like just punishment for a small time of disobedience on Earth. Of course not. What's enraging about this is the fact that, if Bell's book is to be believed (more on that later), this is largely unfounded in scripture. Humans have created Hell. This shouldn't be too surprising, we are human, but to be this evil is disgusting and disturbing, and I'm ashamed to say that I have been a part of it.
So what about all those passages that talk about fire and brimstone? I can't offer any insight on the aspect of eternity in relation to the Hell of the Bible (let Bell do that, read his book), but I will offer an explanation that I'm currently pondering: God's bringing Heaven here to us and He gave us the manual on how Heaven can exist even with humans in it (because, as we're all aware, we'd otherwise mess it up. Remember the Garden of Eden?) God sees each command in His word as a benefit for us to get closer to the people we need to be in Heaven. So what are the fires of Hell all about? Let's consider it a "refining by fire" (hey, that's the name of the blog!) so we become purified to exist in Heaven. So what's the point of being a Christian in our current existence? Well, I'm not sure if you remember what the refining process is, but it would be an incredibly painful process for humans to go through and, in the process, the impurities are removed. If someone didn't live like Christ, they would come out of this painful process and not much of themselves would be left. This is why God commands us to live apart from society, be more like Christ, and we can bring all of that to Heaven with us.
I'm not sure I articulated that in the most clear manner, and in the way I wanted to, but, rest assured it makes a bit of sense in my mind. You need to make your own conclusions about it. This is where I come back to whether I believe Bell's book, and the answer is a definitive, decisive "maybe". I'm currently reading through the scriptures and seeing them with a whole new perspective. If this new perspective lines up, there's no reason to not believe it as a possibility. It only affects the fate of every person who ever lived, so I shant take it lightly and neither should you.
29 January 2012
Complaint #021: The Geico Cavemen
Without spending much time thinking about it, I'd say Geico has the most varied television commercials of any company. Case in point: here is a list of YouTube links for dogs chasing cats, a guinea-pig-powered computer, that announcer guy from the movies, a gecko with an English accent, inappropriately timed good news, and a commercial made in 15 minutes. For a company, this is a good thing. They're attacking the human public from many angles and therefore growing their audience. It won't affect losers who don't drive (me), but being varied is, ultimately, beneficial for business.
I did not include the Geico Cavemen commercials in that previous list because I find them absolutely abhorrent. There's a point at which a joke becomes tired; the Geico Cavemen joke, at this point, has not only become tired, but it has died of exhaustion and is decomposing before our very eyes. The newest atrocity is the series of commercials starring Washington Redskins' All-Pro linebacker Brian Orakpo (if you're a football fan, you've seen these commercials approximately 4,294,967,295 times). No one actually knows who Brian Orakpo is (or, at least, no one recognizes the man) because Geico feels the need to mention his name twelve times in each commercial in which he stars.
It is because of all of this that I've taken the liberty of scripting (hopefully the last) Geico Caveman commercial with Brian Orakpo (and, again hopefully, the last caveman commercial):
Setting: A room painted burgundy with the words "Brian Orakpo" painted in gold on it. A blinking neon sign with the words "Brian Orakpo" and an arrow pointing at Brian Orakpo is present. Standing next to Mr. Orakpo (obviously in his "Orakpo" shirt) is the Geico Caveman (in a shirt that says "I'm with Brian Orakpo ->" (à la "I'm with Stupid ->") with the arrow point at Mr. Orakpo).
Caveman: Brian Orakpo?
Brian: Yes, I'm Brian Orakpo.
Caveman: The Brian Orakpo?
Brian: Yes, The Brian Orakpo.
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Announcer: Brian Orakpo, I mean Geico: Fifteen minutes could save you up to 15% on Brian Orakpo. I mean car insurance Orakpo.
I did not include the Geico Cavemen commercials in that previous list because I find them absolutely abhorrent. There's a point at which a joke becomes tired; the Geico Cavemen joke, at this point, has not only become tired, but it has died of exhaustion and is decomposing before our very eyes. The newest atrocity is the series of commercials starring Washington Redskins' All-Pro linebacker Brian Orakpo (if you're a football fan, you've seen these commercials approximately 4,294,967,295 times). No one actually knows who Brian Orakpo is (or, at least, no one recognizes the man) because Geico feels the need to mention his name twelve times in each commercial in which he stars.
It is because of all of this that I've taken the liberty of scripting (hopefully the last) Geico Caveman commercial with Brian Orakpo (and, again hopefully, the last caveman commercial):
Setting: A room painted burgundy with the words "Brian Orakpo" painted in gold on it. A blinking neon sign with the words "Brian Orakpo" and an arrow pointing at Brian Orakpo is present. Standing next to Mr. Orakpo (obviously in his "Orakpo" shirt) is the Geico Caveman (in a shirt that says "I'm with Brian Orakpo ->" (à la "I'm with Stupid ->") with the arrow point at Mr. Orakpo).
Caveman: Brian Orakpo?
Brian: Yes, I'm Brian Orakpo.
Caveman: The Brian Orakpo?
Brian: Yes, The Brian Orakpo.
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Announcer: Brian Orakpo, I mean Geico: Fifteen minutes could save you up to 15% on Brian Orakpo. I mean car insurance Orakpo.
22 January 2012
Complaint #020: Fascination with Celebrities
[We're going to pretend that missing last week was my version of a SOPA/PIPA blackout, but I won't be complaining about SOPA/PIPA here.]
This post is likely going to be incredibly hypocritical because even I find myself fascinated with the lives of people who are more famous than I (read: pretty much anyone). I find people's fascination with celebrities fascinating....and depressing.
We, as humans, are given one life on this Earth (as a fleshy meatbag; we're going to have something a lot bigger on which to focus when we return as souls). The fact that we would spend any time entranced by someone else's is almost laughable. Let me first qualify by saying that our lives should be spent focused on others. This is not a contradiction: we need to be spending our lives making others' lives better, not sitting around looking at others.
Let me make a distinction as to what I mean: celebrities are people we don't know (to a large extent; some people actually know celebrities, but my focus is on people who are fascinated by people they've never met). I don't think anything positive can come out of focusing our time and energies on lives we cannot affect. We should be using those resources on positively affecting someone's life (or, secondly, our own). Kim Kardashian is not going to have a positive turn in her life because you watched the television show detailing her life. Spending that time to feed someone, fellowship (that's a nice word for "hang out") with someone, do work, worship, pray, etc. will definitely have a positive effect. It's no wonder that celebrities are often called "idols" because they certainly are idols in our lives.
What's worse is that contemporary celebrities are often famous because they simply exist. At one point in time, I'd like to think famous people were men and women of valor, courage, and determinism (by that I mean they are determined (focused on a goal), not that they enjoy probabilities of 1). When we look at people like the aforementioned Ms. Kardashian (whether she's "Miss" or "Mrs." is non-deterministic), we see a person who is famous simply because she exists (or because she had a sex tape, but do we not realize how many people have sex? (and sadly, how much of it is available to view?)).
We are living out our fantasies through these people. We subscribe to their twitter or facebook feeds (or Google+ if celebrities are on there and subscribable, I'm actually not sure). So I say, live out your own life and focus on making that as good as it can be; anything preventing you from doing this is not worth it. I think this is what we're scared of: that our life isn't what we want it to be.
Now please don't feel like this is a personal attack on you or even a specific group of people. It is a problem with all humankind. The person writing this blog watches Jersey Shore (funniest show on television) and spent a lot of his time, back in the day, playing The Sims (which is living out your fantasies in a digital life, even more pathetic). This is something we all need to work on.
This post is likely going to be incredibly hypocritical because even I find myself fascinated with the lives of people who are more famous than I (read: pretty much anyone). I find people's fascination with celebrities fascinating....and depressing.
We, as humans, are given one life on this Earth (as a fleshy meatbag; we're going to have something a lot bigger on which to focus when we return as souls). The fact that we would spend any time entranced by someone else's is almost laughable. Let me first qualify by saying that our lives should be spent focused on others. This is not a contradiction: we need to be spending our lives making others' lives better, not sitting around looking at others.
Let me make a distinction as to what I mean: celebrities are people we don't know (to a large extent; some people actually know celebrities, but my focus is on people who are fascinated by people they've never met). I don't think anything positive can come out of focusing our time and energies on lives we cannot affect. We should be using those resources on positively affecting someone's life (or, secondly, our own). Kim Kardashian is not going to have a positive turn in her life because you watched the television show detailing her life. Spending that time to feed someone, fellowship (that's a nice word for "hang out") with someone, do work, worship, pray, etc. will definitely have a positive effect. It's no wonder that celebrities are often called "idols" because they certainly are idols in our lives.
What's worse is that contemporary celebrities are often famous because they simply exist. At one point in time, I'd like to think famous people were men and women of valor, courage, and determinism (by that I mean they are determined (focused on a goal), not that they enjoy probabilities of 1). When we look at people like the aforementioned Ms. Kardashian (whether she's "Miss" or "Mrs." is non-deterministic), we see a person who is famous simply because she exists (or because she had a sex tape, but do we not realize how many people have sex? (and sadly, how much of it is available to view?)).
We are living out our fantasies through these people. We subscribe to their twitter or facebook feeds (or Google+ if celebrities are on there and subscribable, I'm actually not sure). So I say, live out your own life and focus on making that as good as it can be; anything preventing you from doing this is not worth it. I think this is what we're scared of: that our life isn't what we want it to be.
Now please don't feel like this is a personal attack on you or even a specific group of people. It is a problem with all humankind. The person writing this blog watches Jersey Shore (funniest show on television) and spent a lot of his time, back in the day, playing The Sims (which is living out your fantasies in a digital life, even more pathetic). This is something we all need to work on.
07 January 2012
Complaint #019: The English Language and Other Related Topics, Part II: "I Could Care Less"
This is meant to be more of an informative post, rather than a complaint (although I will complain because it is warranted). For those of you who fall victim to its grasp, consider this a friendly, informative post (or reminder) because I myself, yes I, was once in the same place as you and freeing myself has made my life exponentially better (OK, that was a bit overdramatic).
I, of course, am talking about the phrase "I could care less". Without exception, whenever someone says this phrase they actually mean "I couldn't care less" (you know, the exact opposite). I don't know who started the trend of dropping the "n't", but the phrase makes very little sense without it. If you haven't figured out why by this point, let me explain: when someone says they "could care less", they mean "I don't care at all". However, if they can care less, they have some amount of care (because there is some amount that can be subtracted from there care (could care less)). When people say the opposite of what they mean (and aren't being sarcastic), words start to have no meaning. This is why pancake unequivocal box fetter yesterday leader.
Alright, now it's time to complain: over the last week or two, I've heard this phrase several (hundred) times. The solution is not always as easy as informing the speaker of their mistake. Remember those podcasts I told you about two weeks ago when I complained about Tim Tebow (the headline)? You remember that I listen to three sports podcasts a day? The people on these podcasts are theoretically professional radio personalities. They most likely have a degree in Communications. These are the people that should have a better grasp on the English language than me. However, they seem to have some sort of infatuation with the phrase. I find this egregious.
So, yes, I could care less if you read this post and comment...because I do care (even if it's just a bit).
I, of course, am talking about the phrase "I could care less". Without exception, whenever someone says this phrase they actually mean "I couldn't care less" (you know, the exact opposite). I don't know who started the trend of dropping the "n't", but the phrase makes very little sense without it. If you haven't figured out why by this point, let me explain: when someone says they "could care less", they mean "I don't care at all". However, if they can care less, they have some amount of care (because there is some amount that can be subtracted from there care (could care less)). When people say the opposite of what they mean (and aren't being sarcastic), words start to have no meaning. This is why pancake unequivocal box fetter yesterday leader.
Alright, now it's time to complain: over the last week or two, I've heard this phrase several (hundred) times. The solution is not always as easy as informing the speaker of their mistake. Remember those podcasts I told you about two weeks ago when I complained about Tim Tebow (the headline)? You remember that I listen to three sports podcasts a day? The people on these podcasts are theoretically professional radio personalities. They most likely have a degree in Communications. These are the people that should have a better grasp on the English language than me. However, they seem to have some sort of infatuation with the phrase. I find this egregious.
So, yes, I could care less if you read this post and comment...because I do care (even if it's just a bit).
01 January 2012
Complaint #018: Celebrating a New Year
The time surrounding the start of a new year is one filled with hope and enthusiasm for great things to come in the oncoming year. Hope and enthusiasm are great things. Celebrating a new year, however, is fairly irrational. I'm all for the looking ahead to a brighter future, but what does January 1st have to do with this?
Let us first look at the date itself. January 1st, so far as I know and having done absolutely no research, has no significance whatsoever. Sure, it begins a new month, and this particular month has been deemed the first of our Gregorian calendar. Save for that latter fact, I find January 1st no different from March 1st or July 1st or December 1st (and any of the other months I left out). So the only thing that makes this day special from eleven others is that some guys, thousands of years ago, said January was the first moth of the year. Also, the thing that sets these twelve apart from the other 353 days that appear in every other year seems to be the same: some dudes a long time ago wanted to divide up a solar year to twelve approximately equal parts (for easier tracking of days, I assume). I don't know about you, but I try not to listen to anyone older than fifty years old, so why should I listen to something people said thousands of years ago? I kid, of course, but it all seems incredibly random.
Now, I'm not one to complain and not offer solutions/alternatives (except for all those times I do). In this case, I will: if we are going to base our system of dates on how our planet travels around our sun, why not start the year on a day with significance in respect to that? What I am, of course, referring to are the equinoxes and solstices. Why does our year start twelve days after the winter solstice? Why can't the winter solstice be the first day of the year? It seems logical. Also, the length of sunlight each day would increase until the middle of the year and then would decrease as the year comes to an end (Unless you live in that magical upside-down world known as the "Southern Hemisphere"). (Somewhat related tangent: We should also throw the leap day at the end of the year (or the beginning) because there is no reason to randomly insert it into the middle of the year.)
The one good thing that New Year's Day has going for it is the way people respond to it. People feel a sense of hope for a brighter future in the coming year. They see it as a chance to better themselves. I love that people look forward to a better future and I love that people want to better themselves (and sometimes they actually do it), but why do we need an excuse to do this? Why do we need a special day to tell us to do this? We should have this attitude daily. There is a brighter future ahead; you should better yourself every day (I should, too). If we absolutely need a day in the year to remind us of this, we already have the perfect day: Easter. Easter is the celebration of new beginnings and a new creation (also, bunnies and hidden, brightly-colored eggs). This is the perfect representation of the things we try to attribute to that random day that starts our calendar year.
If you've also read my entry on birthdays, you may be sensing a bit of a theme. I don't like celebrations. This is true........for random, fairly meaningless events. And do you know why? We should be celebrating every day of our lives. Every day we get an opportunity at a brand new day to make our lives better than they were yesterday. When we accomplish this, we should find joy and happiness in that, not when we turn a page on a calendar.
Additional side note: New Year's celebrations also suck for single people who are fairly happy with their lives, but are taught to be miserable because they didn't kiss someone after some lighted sphere descended on a pole in New York City (I will not use the phrase "ball drop" so as to squelch any immature testicle jokes).
Let us first look at the date itself. January 1st, so far as I know and having done absolutely no research, has no significance whatsoever. Sure, it begins a new month, and this particular month has been deemed the first of our Gregorian calendar. Save for that latter fact, I find January 1st no different from March 1st or July 1st or December 1st (and any of the other months I left out). So the only thing that makes this day special from eleven others is that some guys, thousands of years ago, said January was the first moth of the year. Also, the thing that sets these twelve apart from the other 353 days that appear in every other year seems to be the same: some dudes a long time ago wanted to divide up a solar year to twelve approximately equal parts (for easier tracking of days, I assume). I don't know about you, but I try not to listen to anyone older than fifty years old, so why should I listen to something people said thousands of years ago? I kid, of course, but it all seems incredibly random.
Now, I'm not one to complain and not offer solutions/alternatives (except for all those times I do). In this case, I will: if we are going to base our system of dates on how our planet travels around our sun, why not start the year on a day with significance in respect to that? What I am, of course, referring to are the equinoxes and solstices. Why does our year start twelve days after the winter solstice? Why can't the winter solstice be the first day of the year? It seems logical. Also, the length of sunlight each day would increase until the middle of the year and then would decrease as the year comes to an end (Unless you live in that magical upside-down world known as the "Southern Hemisphere"). (Somewhat related tangent: We should also throw the leap day at the end of the year (or the beginning) because there is no reason to randomly insert it into the middle of the year.)
The one good thing that New Year's Day has going for it is the way people respond to it. People feel a sense of hope for a brighter future in the coming year. They see it as a chance to better themselves. I love that people look forward to a better future and I love that people want to better themselves (and sometimes they actually do it), but why do we need an excuse to do this? Why do we need a special day to tell us to do this? We should have this attitude daily. There is a brighter future ahead; you should better yourself every day (I should, too). If we absolutely need a day in the year to remind us of this, we already have the perfect day: Easter. Easter is the celebration of new beginnings and a new creation (also, bunnies and hidden, brightly-colored eggs). This is the perfect representation of the things we try to attribute to that random day that starts our calendar year.
If you've also read my entry on birthdays, you may be sensing a bit of a theme. I don't like celebrations. This is true........for random, fairly meaningless events. And do you know why? We should be celebrating every day of our lives. Every day we get an opportunity at a brand new day to make our lives better than they were yesterday. When we accomplish this, we should find joy and happiness in that, not when we turn a page on a calendar.
Additional side note: New Year's celebrations also suck for single people who are fairly happy with their lives, but are taught to be miserable because they didn't kiss someone after some lighted sphere descended on a pole in New York City (I will not use the phrase "ball drop" so as to squelch any immature testicle jokes).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)