Worry
One of the mottos I've always tried to live by is "Don't worry about things you can't control". To me, it's a motto that makes a lot of sense, one that I really like and believe in. And whenever people talk to me about their problems, I tend to tell them the same thing because I think it applies to a lot of situations for just about everybody.
I think my motto drives some people nuts at times, especially females, who seem to like to "talk" about everything. It might be hard for readers of my blog to believe, but I don't think of myself as a person who likes to talk about stuff a lot. More specifically, I hate discussing things like my feelings and emotions, purely for the sake of discussion. Rehashing the same thoughts over and over just seems like such a waste of time, and unless talking about something will bring about some actual change or progress, I'd rather avoid it entirely.
But lately I've been thinking more about my precious motto, and I'm starting to realize that it has its limitations and drawbacks. First of all, even for someone like me who is so adamant about not letting things out of my control affect me, I still can't deny that I base a lot of my moods and emotions on these kinds of things. The weather is one thing that I have absolutely no say in, yet I get gloomy when it's cold and snowy, upbeat when it's sunny and warm. Or in watching a lot of sports, that sets me up for a lot of disappointment or joy based on outcomes that, no matter what I try to tell myself as a fan, happen independent of my rooting or watching loyalty.
The other thing is, I think living this way has somewhat made me into the more passive personality that I am. I haven't really figured out if this is a good thing or bad thing. But since the definition of "things you can't control" is left up to the individual, I guess it's been easy for me to blow a lot of things off by simply saying to myself that it's out of my control.
For example, all throughout my life, I have never actively pursued a girl, even if I really liked her. My reasoning to myself was, I can't really control whether or not she likes me, and if it's meant to happen, it will just magically happen eventually. Looking back, it's kind of amazing to me that I somehow ended up with a girlfriend anyways, with that logic.
Or, when I was interviewing for jobs at the end of college and right after graduation, I tended to not be the aggressive job-seeker that people always say you should be. I just figured I'd already done all I could through my years of school, so all that's left to do was to make a good resume, give it out to some people, and let nature take its course. Never made any follow up calls, wrote any cover letters, etc. Again, looking back, I'm kind of amazed that I ended up with this job, considering how little I did back then.
Anyways, even though things worked out for me, I think in those cases (and probably a lot of other cases too), I used my "don't worry about things you can't control" motto as a crutch, as an excuse to avoid thinking about certain things. Which of course is a bad thing. If I were to be honest with myself, I would have to acknowledge that when it came to girls, the real reason I didn't talk to them was because I was afraid to, and not so much because I felt it wasn't worth worrying about. And the real reason I never did the extra stuff in my job hunt was because deep down I hated interviewing, I distrusted all recruiters, and I thought people who wrote cover letters and made follow up calls were annoying, fake, and suck-ups. I guess I'm not saying that I should have done all that stuff (maybe I should have, I don't know), but at least I should have at least been honest with myself instead of just covering it up and saying "it's out of my control, so don't worry about it".
When you think about it, we as humans were born with a natural instinct to worry. And I tend to believe that every instinct we were born with has a reason and purpose that has in some way helped us survive throughout years of evolution. Some instincts have more obvious function than others, such as our hunger for food or the desire to "mate". But even something like the ability to laugh can be important. I always wondered why humans would need to have a sense of humor, but the other day I heard a quote that I thought was a good explanation: "A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs - jolted by every pebble in the road" (credited to Henry Ward Beecher, American clergyman). In other words, if you can't laugh about certain things, you're not gonna be able to absorb the many bumps that life hits you with and thus you probably won't get very far before breaking down entirely.
Anyways, even though I've tried to condition myself to not be affected as much by my natural instinct to worry, there's gotta still be times when worrying about something could be important, otherwise we wouldn't be born with that instinct. Now, while I continue to hold my belief that it's pointless to worry about things that you can't control, I think where I need to change my attitude is in my interpretation of "things I can't control".
Up to this point in my life, I think I've had a very loose definition of this. From little things to big things, it's always been tempting to push aside responsibility and "let nature take its course". But I think by doing that, I put limits on myself and what I can have an effect on.
Like as a driver on the road, you can just obey all traffic laws and if someone hits you, it would be their fault. After all, you did nothing wrong, so you can truthfully say that you took full responsibility on your own part. But you could also go the extra step and drive defensively in addition to simply obeying all traffic laws (as if I should really be talking about defensive driving), and this would probably save you from some of those accidents.
Or (again with the poker philosophy), when you approach a poker table, you could just say that it's a game of chance and you win or lose based purely on the cards you get. But then you could also take the effort to learn the intricacies of the game and in that way put yourself in a better position to win. I'm getting off topic here, but my point of discussing these examples is that in a lot of cases, you can really blind yourself to some things by not critically thinking about what you actually can and can't control.
So maybe a better motto for me would be the active voice, "worry about the things you can control". I still like the way it sounds the other way though. Nevertheless, I think in the future I will really have to try to expand the self-imposed limits in my life. Hopefully, in the process I'll be able to take a more active role in controlling the things in my life.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Monday, March 29, 2004
Focus
The biggest problem in my life right now, I've decided, is a lack of focus. This is not something that I'm used to, I think one thing I've always been blessed with is the luxury of maintaining a simple life and keeping my mind from becoming too cluttered that I can't think straight. But for whatever reason, I feel like in the past few weeks my whole head has become clouded and I'm lost in a maze or something.
I'm convinced that part of it is the weather. Yeah, it's nice that it's getting warmer, but all the changing temperatures and humidity and barometric pressures or whatever are really messing with my body. I'm having random bouts with headaches and colds for no reason - nothing major, just stupid little things that nag at you and distracts you from everything else you do throughout the day.
The other problem I can think of is that my "Things to Do" list has grown exponentially in the past month or so. I know that's an exaggeration, but I used to be able to keep track of everything I had to do in my mind. Now, I've actually found myself having to keep a literal "Things to Do" list, in the "Tasks" section of my Outlook Express. Maybe part of it is because my brain isn't as sharp as before, but I'm sure it's also because my life is getting so full of things to do that it's simply overwhelming me in some cases.
My situation at work has also left me feeling pretty scattered. I've had to shift from one project to another such that almost every day I'm working on something different, with a different manager. Now, the good thing about my job is that no matter how busy I am, I pretty much never have to bring any of it into the rest of my life. Even if I wanted to, they probably wouldn't let me take out any of the proprietary or classified documents to work on anyways (Ross: FINE BY ME!!). But still, I do find that it's draining to have to split my attention between a bunch of projects, more so than working on one or two things full time.
Whatever it is that's robbing me of my focus, it's not good. Like I said in the beginning, focus is something that I'm used to and without it, I can't seem to function the same. For example, throughout almost 2 years of writing in this blog, I've rarely had any problem just sitting down and typing out an entry at a random whim. But in the past few weeks, every time I try to write something, I either can't put my thoughts together to start, or I can't continue and complete my thoughts to the point of having something good (or that makes sense) enough to post. It's not like I don't have anything to write about - in fact, there's a lot of stuff I've been excited about (baseball opening day on Tuesday, Britney Spears concert July 17th, Illini in the Sweet 16). I just can't seem to clear my head long enough to write about it.
Another area where I can feel myself suffering is my poker game. It sounds dumb, but when you're not focused, it really does manifest itself in how you play cards. So many times I'll know what I should do in a situation, but I just don't do it. Sometimes I'll still win, but when I lose, I end up blaming it on bad luck or bad cards. I never used to blame the cards no matter how bad they were, but now even when I know deep down I wasn't playing well, I choose to blow it off on luck. That's so stupid because I know for a fact that I can get better, if only I'd just challenge myself to do so (instead of being satisfied with blaming things that I can't control).
Anyways, I wish I knew how I could clear my head and regain the ability to think straight. I hate feeling like I don't have control of my own brain, but that's exactly how it feels right now. Maybe I need to spend more quiet time alone. Or maybe I need to work out more. Or maybe I should sleep more (I like that idea). Or maybe it's just a phase I'm going through.
I guess I should be glad that it's not really stress I'm worried about here. And it's not really like I'm overly busy either, just a little disorganized and confused in general. So I don't think it's that big of a deal at this point. I just hope that I can pull it all together soon and start feeling a sense of being normal again.
The biggest problem in my life right now, I've decided, is a lack of focus. This is not something that I'm used to, I think one thing I've always been blessed with is the luxury of maintaining a simple life and keeping my mind from becoming too cluttered that I can't think straight. But for whatever reason, I feel like in the past few weeks my whole head has become clouded and I'm lost in a maze or something.
I'm convinced that part of it is the weather. Yeah, it's nice that it's getting warmer, but all the changing temperatures and humidity and barometric pressures or whatever are really messing with my body. I'm having random bouts with headaches and colds for no reason - nothing major, just stupid little things that nag at you and distracts you from everything else you do throughout the day.
The other problem I can think of is that my "Things to Do" list has grown exponentially in the past month or so. I know that's an exaggeration, but I used to be able to keep track of everything I had to do in my mind. Now, I've actually found myself having to keep a literal "Things to Do" list, in the "Tasks" section of my Outlook Express. Maybe part of it is because my brain isn't as sharp as before, but I'm sure it's also because my life is getting so full of things to do that it's simply overwhelming me in some cases.
My situation at work has also left me feeling pretty scattered. I've had to shift from one project to another such that almost every day I'm working on something different, with a different manager. Now, the good thing about my job is that no matter how busy I am, I pretty much never have to bring any of it into the rest of my life. Even if I wanted to, they probably wouldn't let me take out any of the proprietary or classified documents to work on anyways (Ross: FINE BY ME!!). But still, I do find that it's draining to have to split my attention between a bunch of projects, more so than working on one or two things full time.
Whatever it is that's robbing me of my focus, it's not good. Like I said in the beginning, focus is something that I'm used to and without it, I can't seem to function the same. For example, throughout almost 2 years of writing in this blog, I've rarely had any problem just sitting down and typing out an entry at a random whim. But in the past few weeks, every time I try to write something, I either can't put my thoughts together to start, or I can't continue and complete my thoughts to the point of having something good (or that makes sense) enough to post. It's not like I don't have anything to write about - in fact, there's a lot of stuff I've been excited about (baseball opening day on Tuesday, Britney Spears concert July 17th, Illini in the Sweet 16). I just can't seem to clear my head long enough to write about it.
Another area where I can feel myself suffering is my poker game. It sounds dumb, but when you're not focused, it really does manifest itself in how you play cards. So many times I'll know what I should do in a situation, but I just don't do it. Sometimes I'll still win, but when I lose, I end up blaming it on bad luck or bad cards. I never used to blame the cards no matter how bad they were, but now even when I know deep down I wasn't playing well, I choose to blow it off on luck. That's so stupid because I know for a fact that I can get better, if only I'd just challenge myself to do so (instead of being satisfied with blaming things that I can't control).
Anyways, I wish I knew how I could clear my head and regain the ability to think straight. I hate feeling like I don't have control of my own brain, but that's exactly how it feels right now. Maybe I need to spend more quiet time alone. Or maybe I need to work out more. Or maybe I should sleep more (I like that idea). Or maybe it's just a phase I'm going through.
I guess I should be glad that it's not really stress I'm worried about here. And it's not really like I'm overly busy either, just a little disorganized and confused in general. So I don't think it's that big of a deal at this point. I just hope that I can pull it all together soon and start feeling a sense of being normal again.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
- I keep hearing the voice in my head: "I'm rich, BIATCH!!" from the end of every episode of Chappelle's Show.
- Last week on 106 & Park, the Old School Joint of the Day was Busta Rhymes f. Janet Jackson - "What's It Gonna Be?". When I saw that, I felt very old. I remember that video coming out back in college, during the heyday of Hype Williams, now it's already the Old School Joint.
- Other songs that make me feel old when I hear them: Sublime - What I Got, K-Ci & Jojo - All My Life, Puff Daddy f. Faith Evans & 112 - I'll Be Missing You, Marcy Playground - Sex and Candy
- Last week on 106 & Park, the Old School Joint of the Day was Busta Rhymes f. Janet Jackson - "What's It Gonna Be?". When I saw that, I felt very old. I remember that video coming out back in college, during the heyday of Hype Williams, now it's already the Old School Joint.
- Other songs that make me feel old when I hear them: Sublime - What I Got, K-Ci & Jojo - All My Life, Puff Daddy f. Faith Evans & 112 - I'll Be Missing You, Marcy Playground - Sex and Candy
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
John Kerry/George W. Bush Challenge - The Inferno
John Kerry recently claimed that certain leaders of other countries told him privately that they really want him to beat President Bush in the upcoming election. This has been in the news in the past couple days, because he hasn't backed up his claims with any proof or provided any specific examples of who exactly has been telling him these things.
Ok, so, I don't really care whether John Kerry's telling the truth on this or not - maybe he is and maybe he isn't. My question is, why is he bragging about it, as if it would be a reason why Americans should vote for him? The way John Kerry's talking, he's saying that since these leaders of other countries want him to be President, then so should we as the American people.
Well, if that's the case, then why not just let the other countries have a vote and tell us who should lead our country? After all, they must know better than the American citizens about what's best for our nation, so who are we to make that decision?
Think about MTV's Real World/Road Rules Challenge - The Inferno for a second. If you've followed this season so far, you know that the opposing teams get to pick who they want to send to the Inferno. And the RW team has been doing everything it can to make sure Katie stays with the RR team, by not sending her to the Inferno. Why? Not because Katie's awesome, but because she sucks and holds back the RR team. Hmm.... strangely enough, it seems that the RW team doesn't have the RW team's best interests in mind. Imagine that.
Now I know, this analogy isn't completely applicable, because the United States isn't necessarily "competing" directly against France, Germany, Haiti, Iran, Russia, or whatever countries John Kerry is talking about. At least not in the same overt way that we see the RW/RR teams compete on MTV.
But still, one would be incredibly naive to think that any of these other countries' leaders have our best interests in mind. I don't care if a country is our close ally, or part of the "Axis of Evil", nobody is gonna care more about the American people than they would care about themselves and their own country's interests.
If anything, I think we should take John Kerry's claims as a negative, not a positive. When someone from a foreign country specifically wants a certain guy to be your President, that to me is what we call a "warning sign". It's a sign saying to me that the other countries view this guy as being less likely to stand tough and fight for the US of A and its people. That he's more likely to cave into their demands, so they can continue manipulating and milking us for money and help, while preventing our country from ever moving forward ourselves.
Kerry might as well tell American voters: "If you make me President, I'll probably send more of your jobs to Mexico, let North Korea continue researching nukes, and always ask France for permission to do anything. But don't worry, at least everyone will like us!". Or he could just put up campaign posters that say "Vote for me: You know Saddam would".
Am I the only one who sees anything wrong with this picture? Right now, Bush's campaigners seem to be too caught up in trying to dispute Kerry's claims and making him prove it, but in my opinion, it wasn't anything to brag about to begin with. So they shouldn't really give a flying crap about whether he can prove it or not.
In all honesty, I haven't yet decided whether I want to vote for Kerry or Bush (or maybe even Nader - by the way, did anyone else know that he's Arab-American?). I guess until I learn more about their policies and see how the next few months unfold, I'll try to be open-minded about the whole thing. But so far, I must say that I'm not too impressed with Kerry.
John Kerry recently claimed that certain leaders of other countries told him privately that they really want him to beat President Bush in the upcoming election. This has been in the news in the past couple days, because he hasn't backed up his claims with any proof or provided any specific examples of who exactly has been telling him these things.
Ok, so, I don't really care whether John Kerry's telling the truth on this or not - maybe he is and maybe he isn't. My question is, why is he bragging about it, as if it would be a reason why Americans should vote for him? The way John Kerry's talking, he's saying that since these leaders of other countries want him to be President, then so should we as the American people.
Well, if that's the case, then why not just let the other countries have a vote and tell us who should lead our country? After all, they must know better than the American citizens about what's best for our nation, so who are we to make that decision?
Think about MTV's Real World/Road Rules Challenge - The Inferno for a second. If you've followed this season so far, you know that the opposing teams get to pick who they want to send to the Inferno. And the RW team has been doing everything it can to make sure Katie stays with the RR team, by not sending her to the Inferno. Why? Not because Katie's awesome, but because she sucks and holds back the RR team. Hmm.... strangely enough, it seems that the RW team doesn't have the RW team's best interests in mind. Imagine that.
Now I know, this analogy isn't completely applicable, because the United States isn't necessarily "competing" directly against France, Germany, Haiti, Iran, Russia, or whatever countries John Kerry is talking about. At least not in the same overt way that we see the RW/RR teams compete on MTV.
But still, one would be incredibly naive to think that any of these other countries' leaders have our best interests in mind. I don't care if a country is our close ally, or part of the "Axis of Evil", nobody is gonna care more about the American people than they would care about themselves and their own country's interests.
If anything, I think we should take John Kerry's claims as a negative, not a positive. When someone from a foreign country specifically wants a certain guy to be your President, that to me is what we call a "warning sign". It's a sign saying to me that the other countries view this guy as being less likely to stand tough and fight for the US of A and its people. That he's more likely to cave into their demands, so they can continue manipulating and milking us for money and help, while preventing our country from ever moving forward ourselves.
Kerry might as well tell American voters: "If you make me President, I'll probably send more of your jobs to Mexico, let North Korea continue researching nukes, and always ask France for permission to do anything. But don't worry, at least everyone will like us!". Or he could just put up campaign posters that say "Vote for me: You know Saddam would".
Am I the only one who sees anything wrong with this picture? Right now, Bush's campaigners seem to be too caught up in trying to dispute Kerry's claims and making him prove it, but in my opinion, it wasn't anything to brag about to begin with. So they shouldn't really give a flying crap about whether he can prove it or not.
In all honesty, I haven't yet decided whether I want to vote for Kerry or Bush (or maybe even Nader - by the way, did anyone else know that he's Arab-American?). I guess until I learn more about their policies and see how the next few months unfold, I'll try to be open-minded about the whole thing. But so far, I must say that I'm not too impressed with Kerry.
Monday, March 15, 2004
Notes
- I was reading through the comments from my last blog, and bchang's question on urinal selection reminded me that I wrote something more in depth about bathroom etiquette in general a while back. So I used the handy search function on Blogger and it pointed me to 11/26/02's entry. Then I realized that more than a year ago, almost the exact same thing happened as the scene triggering last week's blog. And I even wrote about it, but forgot in the time since that it happened. I guess I actually have seen someone reading at the urinal, except this time it was a book, not a magazine. Man.... I've been writing so long that I'm starting to repeat myself without even knowing it. Maybe I should start selling my archives to be posted in syndication somewhere.
- As for the questions/concerns in those comments, refer to the old blog for my urinal selection policy. To clarify, I'd say that picking the short urinal for no reason is kind of stupid, but it's not a big deal if you have to. The "one urinal buffer" rule definitely takes precedence, and all these rules generally apply whether dividers are present or not.
The comment by Anonymous highlights some important concerns about my "lightsaber" terminology, which I should probably address here while I have the chance. To clarify, let me just say firstly that it's just a model, and not one that's necessarily built to scale. You're right, even if you are very above average, it most likely doesn't stack up to a lightsaber. Also, it sounds like you might be misunderstanding the model itself. Like the concept of a lightsaber, you start with just the handle, but the rest is the beam of "energy" that extends and flows from the handle. If you are still confused, email me and I can draw a picture for you with captions and everything - it takes a little bit of thought and imagination to understand, but honestly, it wasn't supposed to be a major thinker. In any case, I'll consider changing my terminology on that one to "the Schwartz" for future reference.
- There aren't too many negatives that I can associate with March Madness, but this morning I did have one such experience. Browsing ESPN.com for tournament coverage, I clicked on one of the links to a story on the "NCAA tournament". Then I wasted a good amount of my precious time reading this article before realizing that it was about the Women's NCAA tournament. Stupid web designers at ESPN.com failed to make that distinction a clear one. Since the story was talking a lot about UConn and Duke and stuff, I didn't even notice that I got shysted until they started talking about Penn State as a top seed. I was like "wait a minute... Penn State... what the fork??" and then angrily hit the "Back" button with a vengeance.
- The Illini looked so lifeless in that Wisconsin game, it was pathetic. Maybe the Badgers really are that good, but I guess we'll see how they do in the tournament. Either way, putting Illinois as a 5th seed is a joke. Wisconsin at 6 is arguably even more retarded, but at least they get to play in Milwaukee. The real tragedy is that 4 teams from this state made the tournament, and not a single one is playing remotely close to home. And assuming that Illinois beats Murray State, a pretty good team, we gotta play Cincinnati, a really good team, in Ohio. Who comes up with these brackets anyways?
- Lately it seems like more and more people have been giving me crap again about being a Britney Spears fan. I was starting to get somewhat angry and irritatated with all the haters around me, but over the past few days I realized that there are also more fellow fans out there than I thought. It's always nice to talk to someone who also appreciates and admires the amazing star power of Britney. So for now, I am still happy and I won't have to write another long essay to answer the haters.
- Some random guy started talking to me at Cherry Red on Saturday. He claimed that he wasn't gay, but him and his friends kept looking at me weird throughout the night, and he also pinched my cheek. I didn't know what to do, except hide behind Olivia and Vira and ask them to protect me. Then on a dare from Anuj, Dennis went up to the guy and told him I thought he was cute too. Also on an unrelated note, I drove around for about 40 minutes looking for parking before finally caving and giving my car to the valet. The moral of the story is, I'm never going back to Cherry Red.
- I was reading through the comments from my last blog, and bchang's question on urinal selection reminded me that I wrote something more in depth about bathroom etiquette in general a while back. So I used the handy search function on Blogger and it pointed me to 11/26/02's entry. Then I realized that more than a year ago, almost the exact same thing happened as the scene triggering last week's blog. And I even wrote about it, but forgot in the time since that it happened. I guess I actually have seen someone reading at the urinal, except this time it was a book, not a magazine. Man.... I've been writing so long that I'm starting to repeat myself without even knowing it. Maybe I should start selling my archives to be posted in syndication somewhere.
- As for the questions/concerns in those comments, refer to the old blog for my urinal selection policy. To clarify, I'd say that picking the short urinal for no reason is kind of stupid, but it's not a big deal if you have to. The "one urinal buffer" rule definitely takes precedence, and all these rules generally apply whether dividers are present or not.
The comment by Anonymous highlights some important concerns about my "lightsaber" terminology, which I should probably address here while I have the chance. To clarify, let me just say firstly that it's just a model, and not one that's necessarily built to scale. You're right, even if you are very above average, it most likely doesn't stack up to a lightsaber. Also, it sounds like you might be misunderstanding the model itself. Like the concept of a lightsaber, you start with just the handle, but the rest is the beam of "energy" that extends and flows from the handle. If you are still confused, email me and I can draw a picture for you with captions and everything - it takes a little bit of thought and imagination to understand, but honestly, it wasn't supposed to be a major thinker. In any case, I'll consider changing my terminology on that one to "the Schwartz" for future reference.
- There aren't too many negatives that I can associate with March Madness, but this morning I did have one such experience. Browsing ESPN.com for tournament coverage, I clicked on one of the links to a story on the "NCAA tournament". Then I wasted a good amount of my precious time reading this article before realizing that it was about the Women's NCAA tournament. Stupid web designers at ESPN.com failed to make that distinction a clear one. Since the story was talking a lot about UConn and Duke and stuff, I didn't even notice that I got shysted until they started talking about Penn State as a top seed. I was like "wait a minute... Penn State... what the fork??" and then angrily hit the "Back" button with a vengeance.
- The Illini looked so lifeless in that Wisconsin game, it was pathetic. Maybe the Badgers really are that good, but I guess we'll see how they do in the tournament. Either way, putting Illinois as a 5th seed is a joke. Wisconsin at 6 is arguably even more retarded, but at least they get to play in Milwaukee. The real tragedy is that 4 teams from this state made the tournament, and not a single one is playing remotely close to home. And assuming that Illinois beats Murray State, a pretty good team, we gotta play Cincinnati, a really good team, in Ohio. Who comes up with these brackets anyways?
- Lately it seems like more and more people have been giving me crap again about being a Britney Spears fan. I was starting to get somewhat angry and irritatated with all the haters around me, but over the past few days I realized that there are also more fellow fans out there than I thought. It's always nice to talk to someone who also appreciates and admires the amazing star power of Britney. So for now, I am still happy and I won't have to write another long essay to answer the haters.
- Some random guy started talking to me at Cherry Red on Saturday. He claimed that he wasn't gay, but him and his friends kept looking at me weird throughout the night, and he also pinched my cheek. I didn't know what to do, except hide behind Olivia and Vira and ask them to protect me. Then on a dare from Anuj, Dennis went up to the guy and told him I thought he was cute too. Also on an unrelated note, I drove around for about 40 minutes looking for parking before finally caving and giving my car to the valet. The moral of the story is, I'm never going back to Cherry Red.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Daily Illini
For any of the fellow Illinois alumni like me, I recommend that you add http://www.dailyillini.com to your list of bookmarks, if you didn't know about it already. I didn't know this site existed until a few days ago (or maybe I did know at one time, and forgot about it), but I'm glad I found it.
One of the things I miss most about college is grabbing a DI on the way to class and using it to pass the time during a boring lecture. Or picking up someone's leftover DI at the Union during lunch, and reading it while enjoying some Rice Garden Teriyaki Chicken.
Reading through the all the DI stories through the web almost makes me feel like I'm back at school. The student editorials are an especially refreshing reminder of what life was like back then, and the local stories on campus news seem so familiar to me. I really miss those days.
Maybe it's just my imagination, but it seems like the world around us got a lot uglier and meaner since we left college. Back in the bubble of Champaign-Urbana, it seemed like the biggest things people worried about were getting rid of the Chief, construction on Green St., and curbing underage drinking. Now, all we ever hear about is wars, terrorism, and scandals.
I know, 9/11 happened while we were at school, but it seemed like an isolated incident at the time, not the norm. Today, it's almost like we expect to hear about people dying in Iraq every day, trains blowing up, snipers, anthrax and ricin, SARS, mad cow disease, just one thing after another. Even Martha Stewart, of all people, is getting convicted and being sentenced to jail. Then in the sports world, it's no longer all about the games, the scores, and the fans. It's about shady recruiting for college football, steroids, Kobe Bryant's rape trial, and contract disputes.
Didn't mean to get on the soapbox, but I guess what I'm saying is, the nice thing about visiting dailyillini.com is that it kind of takes me back to those "good old days". Maybe the world really was this mean and ugly all along, except that I was just ignorant until I left college. I honestly don't know.
*****
Urinal Stance Discussion
It's been discussed before, but the subject of urinal stances in the men's room continues to fascinate me. (By the way, girls should probably skip this section). Throughout my years of using public bathrooms, I've gotten to see pretty much all the various styles that people use. Books could probably be written on the different ones out there, the advantages/disadvantages of each one, variations and nuances, etc. But for brevity's sake, I'll just briefly mention the major ones here with a quick description.
For starters, you got the standard two-hand position, which offers maximum control and happens to be my personal choice. I call it the "Luke Skywalker", since you're kind of holding it like a lightsaber. Then there's what I call the "Alanis Morissette", where you have one hand in your pocket and the other one is playing the piano, flashing the peace sign, and hailing a taxicab. Another stance is the "Titanic", where you put one hand on the wall, reminiscent of the scene when Leo made love to Rose and all you see is her one hand against the steamy window.
The ones I don't understand are the "look Ma, no hands" stances. I've seen people put both hands against the wall (the "Prison Rape" stance), or both hands on the waist (the "Connaughton", a name which will only make sense to a couple people I went to high school with), and these positions make me cringe to think about how sloppy things can get. You need a steadying force in there somewhere, you know?
Well, just when you think you've seen everything, that's when something new comes along and forces you to open your mind to more possibilities. And sure enough, earlier today I saw a new one. I walked into the bathroom and saw a guy reading a book with his left hand while doing his business. Now, I know a lot of people read when they've got #2 to take care of, but that's when you're in there for more than a couple minutes. It just seems funny that the guy couldn't put down his book for like 45 seconds to concentrate on his work.
Now, even for #2's, I don't like to bring any reading material, but I definitely can't see myself ever being so into my reading that I would take it with me to the urinal. First of all, like I said before, I like the two-handed technique because it affords the best overall control and also lets me pretend like I'm a Jedi. But perhaps more importantly, I strongly believe in keeping your eyes on the target to make sure things don't get crazy. Ok fine, I'll admit it, I like to spell out my name on the urinal wall too. Don't tell anybody.
Anyways, I'm not sure what else is out there, as far as new positions or improvements go. But I think one thing I've learned by now is that nothing should surprise me anymore. The ingenuity of man never ceases to amaze, and apparently the spirit of innovation is alive and well in the wild and wacky world of urinal stances.
For any of the fellow Illinois alumni like me, I recommend that you add http://www.dailyillini.com to your list of bookmarks, if you didn't know about it already. I didn't know this site existed until a few days ago (or maybe I did know at one time, and forgot about it), but I'm glad I found it.
One of the things I miss most about college is grabbing a DI on the way to class and using it to pass the time during a boring lecture. Or picking up someone's leftover DI at the Union during lunch, and reading it while enjoying some Rice Garden Teriyaki Chicken.
Reading through the all the DI stories through the web almost makes me feel like I'm back at school. The student editorials are an especially refreshing reminder of what life was like back then, and the local stories on campus news seem so familiar to me. I really miss those days.
Maybe it's just my imagination, but it seems like the world around us got a lot uglier and meaner since we left college. Back in the bubble of Champaign-Urbana, it seemed like the biggest things people worried about were getting rid of the Chief, construction on Green St., and curbing underage drinking. Now, all we ever hear about is wars, terrorism, and scandals.
I know, 9/11 happened while we were at school, but it seemed like an isolated incident at the time, not the norm. Today, it's almost like we expect to hear about people dying in Iraq every day, trains blowing up, snipers, anthrax and ricin, SARS, mad cow disease, just one thing after another. Even Martha Stewart, of all people, is getting convicted and being sentenced to jail. Then in the sports world, it's no longer all about the games, the scores, and the fans. It's about shady recruiting for college football, steroids, Kobe Bryant's rape trial, and contract disputes.
Didn't mean to get on the soapbox, but I guess what I'm saying is, the nice thing about visiting dailyillini.com is that it kind of takes me back to those "good old days". Maybe the world really was this mean and ugly all along, except that I was just ignorant until I left college. I honestly don't know.
*****
Urinal Stance Discussion
It's been discussed before, but the subject of urinal stances in the men's room continues to fascinate me. (By the way, girls should probably skip this section). Throughout my years of using public bathrooms, I've gotten to see pretty much all the various styles that people use. Books could probably be written on the different ones out there, the advantages/disadvantages of each one, variations and nuances, etc. But for brevity's sake, I'll just briefly mention the major ones here with a quick description.
For starters, you got the standard two-hand position, which offers maximum control and happens to be my personal choice. I call it the "Luke Skywalker", since you're kind of holding it like a lightsaber. Then there's what I call the "Alanis Morissette", where you have one hand in your pocket and the other one is playing the piano, flashing the peace sign, and hailing a taxicab. Another stance is the "Titanic", where you put one hand on the wall, reminiscent of the scene when Leo made love to Rose and all you see is her one hand against the steamy window.
The ones I don't understand are the "look Ma, no hands" stances. I've seen people put both hands against the wall (the "Prison Rape" stance), or both hands on the waist (the "Connaughton", a name which will only make sense to a couple people I went to high school with), and these positions make me cringe to think about how sloppy things can get. You need a steadying force in there somewhere, you know?
Well, just when you think you've seen everything, that's when something new comes along and forces you to open your mind to more possibilities. And sure enough, earlier today I saw a new one. I walked into the bathroom and saw a guy reading a book with his left hand while doing his business. Now, I know a lot of people read when they've got #2 to take care of, but that's when you're in there for more than a couple minutes. It just seems funny that the guy couldn't put down his book for like 45 seconds to concentrate on his work.
Now, even for #2's, I don't like to bring any reading material, but I definitely can't see myself ever being so into my reading that I would take it with me to the urinal. First of all, like I said before, I like the two-handed technique because it affords the best overall control and also lets me pretend like I'm a Jedi. But perhaps more importantly, I strongly believe in keeping your eyes on the target to make sure things don't get crazy. Ok fine, I'll admit it, I like to spell out my name on the urinal wall too. Don't tell anybody.
Anyways, I'm not sure what else is out there, as far as new positions or improvements go. But I think one thing I've learned by now is that nothing should surprise me anymore. The ingenuity of man never ceases to amaze, and apparently the spirit of innovation is alive and well in the wild and wacky world of urinal stances.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
The Passion
When I first heard that Mel Gibson was making a movie about Jesus, I thought to myself, "nobody's gonna go see this thing". I mean, being a Christian and all, I thought it was a cool thing for him to do, and fund with his own money. But looking at our culture and generation, Christian-themed media doesn't tend to do very well in a primarily non-believing population. For example, I really doubt that any non-Christians ever watch the Christian channels on TV, nor do they spend much time in Christian bookstores, or listen to Christian music. A lot of Christians don't even do that stuff. So I figured that a Christian movie, even one associated with a big name like Mel Gibson, would inevitably be ignored too.
Then came all the controversy with the movie's portrayal of Jews, and the whole thing started generating so much attention and hype to the point that everyone in this country, not just Christians, wanted to see this movie. Whether it was out of pure curiosity or what, I don't know, but by the time the movie came out, it seemed that everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike, was interested in going to see this movie. And right now, the Passion has already made more than $200 million in two weeks time, so obviously I was wrong about the movie being ignored.
Meanwhile, I found that for some reason, I was feeling less excited about seeing the movie than everyone around me, including my non-Christian friends. Something about the whole situation kind of bothered me, and I still don't really know exactly what it is.
I think part of it was that I felt like God was being commercialized or trivialized, that all my beliefs were being reduced to a 2 hour movie. I don't know if this is a reasonable way of looking at the situation, but I guess I feel like throughout the years, I've watched so many meaningless movies, and maybe if I saw the Passion in the same way I've gotten used to seeing every other movie, it would just become like all those other movies in my mind. It's like my Christian faith has been brought down to the same level as Starsky & Hutch, Hidalgo, and Eurotrip. Again, maybe I'm just overthinking, but a part of me wants to keep anything to do with God on a higher level than everything else in my life.
Also, everything I was hearing about the movie was that it was very graphic and powerful. And while seeing the bloody crucifixion of Jesus laid out on a movie screen might move someone to tears or maybe even bring a non-believer to Christ, I don't know that it would be a good thing. In my opinion, you shouldn't ever "guilt" someone into believing in God, is what I'm saying.
Or for someone like myself, I don't want to "guilt" myself into becoming a better or more passionate Christian. Having been a churchgoer my entire life, I've experienced my share of retreats and revivals, with plenty of those moments when I felt so incredibly moved by a speaker to be more passionate about God. But with all those high moments came the inevitable "post-retreat letdowns", when I discovered that you can't run purely on emotion in this world. As invincible as those revivals and those speakers made me feel at the time, the reality of life and the world around me eventually set in each and every time, and in the end I found myself feeling even lower than before. It became confusing as to whether or not I was really being touched by God, or merely being touched by guilt from the speaker's message. At some point, I decided that if I continued to put myself through the emotional spin cycle every summer, spring, or winter break, I would someday stop caring entirely and become a cold, hard-hearted old man. And that's definitely not something I want to happen.
So when it comes to the emotional impact of watching a movie like the Passion, I couldn't help but hesitate to subject myself to it. I'm not really afraid to see bloody scenes, but I do feel like with every violent movie or TV show I watch, I get more desensitized and start to lose my capacity to care about stuff as a human being. If you see people getting killed or limbs being blown off all the time, it doesn't make those things any less horrible, but in your mind, you can't help but to start losing perspective. In my Christian belief, the crucifixion of Jesus was the most horrible thing in the history of man, and my personal worry is that the magnitude of his sacrifice would gradually lose its meaning in my mind if I see it played out repeatedly on a movie screen.
All these concerns aside, I still ended up watching this movie anyways on Saturday afternoon, with my mom and sister. And you know what, after watching it, I still don't know how I feel about the whole thing.
As far as the movie itself goes, I thought it was pretty well done. It stayed true to the Bible for the most part, and it did effectively show just how brutal the Roman act of crucifixion really was. Also, despite the controversy, I didn't see the film as being anti-Semitic at all. You can't skirt the fact that it was the Jewish leaders who wanted to get rid of Jesus, just like if you made a movie about Pearl Harbor, you couldn't simply ignore the fact that it was the Japanese who made the surprise attack.
However, if one were to focus on the fact that Jesus's execution was engineered by Jews, it would be missing the larger point. Maybe the film doesn't convey it perfectly, but in the end, it's not really the Jews or the Romans who were responsible for his death. Christianity is not about hating Jews for killing Jesus, it's about recognizing who Jesus was and why he came to this world. The point is, the blood of Christ is on everyone's hands, and not one specific group -- in the big picture, it is because of the sinful nature of all men that he laid down his life.
The one thing about the movie that bothered me was the portrayal of the devil. I don't think it added anything meaningful, and instead made the film feel kind of silly, actually. Do we really need some androgenous-looking "scary" character playing the devil? I don't think so. It tends to make the movie seem less credible and more like a cartoon.
As for my personal reaction, the movie definitely had a strong impact on me. Even as I went into the theater expecting very graphic scenes, it was still extremely powerful and moving to see the extent of brutality and the depth of Jesus's sacrifice on that screen. However, I still don't know what the eventual effect of the movie will be on my life. In the long term, will there be a positive result of me seeing this movie? I have no idea. Also, would I recommend watching this movie to someone else? I don't know what to say to that either.
I will say this: whether you are a believer or not, remember that the Passion is definitely not like any other movie. So if you do go watch it, don't approach it like any other movie. You don't go in there with a bag of popcorn and nachos, nor do you cheer with the crowd when Jesus is resurrected at the end. It's not a chick flick or a date movie, it's not a thriller or a comedy.
But on the other hand, in the end this is still just a movie. If you're not a Christian, I really don't think you can expect to spend 2 hours in the theater watching this movie and all of a sudden become "born-again". Other than some scattered flashback scenes, the Passion is about the last hours of Jesus's life, and while this is a critical part of the Christian faith, there is definitely more to it. At most, I think seeing the movie may inspire some to start seeking to learn more about Christianity, which isn't bad for a 2 hour film.
Anyways, if anyone else sees the movie and wants to discuss it with me, I'd definitely be eager to talk. Other than that, I don't know what else to say at this point.
When I first heard that Mel Gibson was making a movie about Jesus, I thought to myself, "nobody's gonna go see this thing". I mean, being a Christian and all, I thought it was a cool thing for him to do, and fund with his own money. But looking at our culture and generation, Christian-themed media doesn't tend to do very well in a primarily non-believing population. For example, I really doubt that any non-Christians ever watch the Christian channels on TV, nor do they spend much time in Christian bookstores, or listen to Christian music. A lot of Christians don't even do that stuff. So I figured that a Christian movie, even one associated with a big name like Mel Gibson, would inevitably be ignored too.
Then came all the controversy with the movie's portrayal of Jews, and the whole thing started generating so much attention and hype to the point that everyone in this country, not just Christians, wanted to see this movie. Whether it was out of pure curiosity or what, I don't know, but by the time the movie came out, it seemed that everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike, was interested in going to see this movie. And right now, the Passion has already made more than $200 million in two weeks time, so obviously I was wrong about the movie being ignored.
Meanwhile, I found that for some reason, I was feeling less excited about seeing the movie than everyone around me, including my non-Christian friends. Something about the whole situation kind of bothered me, and I still don't really know exactly what it is.
I think part of it was that I felt like God was being commercialized or trivialized, that all my beliefs were being reduced to a 2 hour movie. I don't know if this is a reasonable way of looking at the situation, but I guess I feel like throughout the years, I've watched so many meaningless movies, and maybe if I saw the Passion in the same way I've gotten used to seeing every other movie, it would just become like all those other movies in my mind. It's like my Christian faith has been brought down to the same level as Starsky & Hutch, Hidalgo, and Eurotrip. Again, maybe I'm just overthinking, but a part of me wants to keep anything to do with God on a higher level than everything else in my life.
Also, everything I was hearing about the movie was that it was very graphic and powerful. And while seeing the bloody crucifixion of Jesus laid out on a movie screen might move someone to tears or maybe even bring a non-believer to Christ, I don't know that it would be a good thing. In my opinion, you shouldn't ever "guilt" someone into believing in God, is what I'm saying.
Or for someone like myself, I don't want to "guilt" myself into becoming a better or more passionate Christian. Having been a churchgoer my entire life, I've experienced my share of retreats and revivals, with plenty of those moments when I felt so incredibly moved by a speaker to be more passionate about God. But with all those high moments came the inevitable "post-retreat letdowns", when I discovered that you can't run purely on emotion in this world. As invincible as those revivals and those speakers made me feel at the time, the reality of life and the world around me eventually set in each and every time, and in the end I found myself feeling even lower than before. It became confusing as to whether or not I was really being touched by God, or merely being touched by guilt from the speaker's message. At some point, I decided that if I continued to put myself through the emotional spin cycle every summer, spring, or winter break, I would someday stop caring entirely and become a cold, hard-hearted old man. And that's definitely not something I want to happen.
So when it comes to the emotional impact of watching a movie like the Passion, I couldn't help but hesitate to subject myself to it. I'm not really afraid to see bloody scenes, but I do feel like with every violent movie or TV show I watch, I get more desensitized and start to lose my capacity to care about stuff as a human being. If you see people getting killed or limbs being blown off all the time, it doesn't make those things any less horrible, but in your mind, you can't help but to start losing perspective. In my Christian belief, the crucifixion of Jesus was the most horrible thing in the history of man, and my personal worry is that the magnitude of his sacrifice would gradually lose its meaning in my mind if I see it played out repeatedly on a movie screen.
All these concerns aside, I still ended up watching this movie anyways on Saturday afternoon, with my mom and sister. And you know what, after watching it, I still don't know how I feel about the whole thing.
As far as the movie itself goes, I thought it was pretty well done. It stayed true to the Bible for the most part, and it did effectively show just how brutal the Roman act of crucifixion really was. Also, despite the controversy, I didn't see the film as being anti-Semitic at all. You can't skirt the fact that it was the Jewish leaders who wanted to get rid of Jesus, just like if you made a movie about Pearl Harbor, you couldn't simply ignore the fact that it was the Japanese who made the surprise attack.
However, if one were to focus on the fact that Jesus's execution was engineered by Jews, it would be missing the larger point. Maybe the film doesn't convey it perfectly, but in the end, it's not really the Jews or the Romans who were responsible for his death. Christianity is not about hating Jews for killing Jesus, it's about recognizing who Jesus was and why he came to this world. The point is, the blood of Christ is on everyone's hands, and not one specific group -- in the big picture, it is because of the sinful nature of all men that he laid down his life.
The one thing about the movie that bothered me was the portrayal of the devil. I don't think it added anything meaningful, and instead made the film feel kind of silly, actually. Do we really need some androgenous-looking "scary" character playing the devil? I don't think so. It tends to make the movie seem less credible and more like a cartoon.
As for my personal reaction, the movie definitely had a strong impact on me. Even as I went into the theater expecting very graphic scenes, it was still extremely powerful and moving to see the extent of brutality and the depth of Jesus's sacrifice on that screen. However, I still don't know what the eventual effect of the movie will be on my life. In the long term, will there be a positive result of me seeing this movie? I have no idea. Also, would I recommend watching this movie to someone else? I don't know what to say to that either.
I will say this: whether you are a believer or not, remember that the Passion is definitely not like any other movie. So if you do go watch it, don't approach it like any other movie. You don't go in there with a bag of popcorn and nachos, nor do you cheer with the crowd when Jesus is resurrected at the end. It's not a chick flick or a date movie, it's not a thriller or a comedy.
But on the other hand, in the end this is still just a movie. If you're not a Christian, I really don't think you can expect to spend 2 hours in the theater watching this movie and all of a sudden become "born-again". Other than some scattered flashback scenes, the Passion is about the last hours of Jesus's life, and while this is a critical part of the Christian faith, there is definitely more to it. At most, I think seeing the movie may inspire some to start seeking to learn more about Christianity, which isn't bad for a 2 hour film.
Anyways, if anyone else sees the movie and wants to discuss it with me, I'd definitely be eager to talk. Other than that, I don't know what else to say at this point.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Orange Krush
Watched one of the best basketball games I have seen in a long time last night. Illini jump out to an early lead at Purdue, Boilermakers battle back to tie it and then go ahead, both teams go back and forth the whole game and eventually take it to overtime. More battling in OT, Purdue hits a tough 3 to tie it with 10 seconds left. Finally, Luther Head takes it up to half court and finds Roger underneath the basket, who misses the shot, but then Luther races down there to follow it up with the winning basket. Final result: Illinois wins its 9th straight game and clinches at least a share of of the Big Ten title. Life is good for Illini fans.
Some thoughts:
- I don't know if it's just because Purdue doesn't matchup well, but man... Augustine was all over the place last night on the offensive glass. If he can play like that come tournament time, this team is gonna be awesome.
- It sucks when we lose the big name recruits like Villenueva or Livingston, but the good part about it is that we get guys who stay for more than a year or two and the fans can watch them develop into quality players. Already looking ahead to next season, we could be bringing back the entire starting lineup: Luther Head and Roger Powell as seniors, and Augustine, Dee Brown, and Deron Williams as juniors.
- I have no idea how Deron got so much better this year, but no complaints here. Dee, on the other hand... needs to stop hanging out in the Union taking pictures with random people and start practicing some more free throws.
- I was just thinking the other day about how throughout this winning streak, we haven't had much experience with really close games going down to the wire, and that could hurt us in the tournaments. Then we see them fight out a tough overtime game and come away with a win at Purdue. Of course I'd still rather see them win every game by a comfortable margin, but at least they showed that they can take the close ones too.
- Not sure if I like Bruce Weber's offense yet. It's fine to pass the ball around for 25 seconds every possession if you're in the lead, but what happens if you fall behind? Seems like we wouldn't do that well in games when we have to play catchup.
- Austin Parkinson looks like Ben Stiller. Not just in his features, but facial expressions and movements too.
- What happened to McBride33? He used to come in and hit a bunch of threes earlier in the season, but now you barely hear his name or even notice when he's in the game.
- Let's play some Illini Starcraft...
- If Nick Smith couldn't hit free throws and open jumpers, he'd be the most worthless 7'2" player ever.
*****
I watched some of American Idol's episode a few days ago when they brought back the losers. Of course, they had William Hung do "She Bangs" again. The surprising thing is, when you put a couple background dancers around him, and play the music really loud, he's not nearly as horrible. Still pretty bad, but give him some real dance moves and he'd probably at least be a better entertainer (and less irritating) than some of the crap that's out there, say, Enfreakay Iglesias for example.
Watched one of the best basketball games I have seen in a long time last night. Illini jump out to an early lead at Purdue, Boilermakers battle back to tie it and then go ahead, both teams go back and forth the whole game and eventually take it to overtime. More battling in OT, Purdue hits a tough 3 to tie it with 10 seconds left. Finally, Luther Head takes it up to half court and finds Roger underneath the basket, who misses the shot, but then Luther races down there to follow it up with the winning basket. Final result: Illinois wins its 9th straight game and clinches at least a share of of the Big Ten title. Life is good for Illini fans.
Some thoughts:
- I don't know if it's just because Purdue doesn't matchup well, but man... Augustine was all over the place last night on the offensive glass. If he can play like that come tournament time, this team is gonna be awesome.
- It sucks when we lose the big name recruits like Villenueva or Livingston, but the good part about it is that we get guys who stay for more than a year or two and the fans can watch them develop into quality players. Already looking ahead to next season, we could be bringing back the entire starting lineup: Luther Head and Roger Powell as seniors, and Augustine, Dee Brown, and Deron Williams as juniors.
- I have no idea how Deron got so much better this year, but no complaints here. Dee, on the other hand... needs to stop hanging out in the Union taking pictures with random people and start practicing some more free throws.
- I was just thinking the other day about how throughout this winning streak, we haven't had much experience with really close games going down to the wire, and that could hurt us in the tournaments. Then we see them fight out a tough overtime game and come away with a win at Purdue. Of course I'd still rather see them win every game by a comfortable margin, but at least they showed that they can take the close ones too.
- Not sure if I like Bruce Weber's offense yet. It's fine to pass the ball around for 25 seconds every possession if you're in the lead, but what happens if you fall behind? Seems like we wouldn't do that well in games when we have to play catchup.
- Austin Parkinson looks like Ben Stiller. Not just in his features, but facial expressions and movements too.
- What happened to McBride33? He used to come in and hit a bunch of threes earlier in the season, but now you barely hear his name or even notice when he's in the game.
- Let's play some Illini Starcraft...
- If Nick Smith couldn't hit free throws and open jumpers, he'd be the most worthless 7'2" player ever.
*****
I watched some of American Idol's episode a few days ago when they brought back the losers. Of course, they had William Hung do "She Bangs" again. The surprising thing is, when you put a couple background dancers around him, and play the music really loud, he's not nearly as horrible. Still pretty bad, but give him some real dance moves and he'd probably at least be a better entertainer (and less irritating) than some of the crap that's out there, say, Enfreakay Iglesias for example.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Average Joe 2
A few months ago, after watching a so unsyateesfying finale to a miserable season of Average Joe, I promised myself to avoid the next installment, Average Joe 2. For the most part, I kept this promise, but I guess in the last week I got suckered by the hype about the Average Joe 2 finale. Something about the girl revealing some "shocking secret", combined with idle curiosity to see whether this girl would actually choose the Average Joe over the stud, compelled me to watch last night's final episode.
Well, I guess I got what I deserved, because this time the show was even more retarded than the last. First of all, they spend like half the show playing up the relationship between the girl and the Average guy. For like 20 minutes straight, they show her getting emotional with him, gushing over how sweet he is and what a gentleman he is, and how she's never met anyone like him. Then you get to the moment of truth, and in the exact same way the last chick did, this girl fakes everyone out by acting somber to the Stud guy at first, and then choosing him anyways.
I seriously thought that this time, the girl would be smart enough to pick the Average guy. Okay, so there was basically zero attraction between her and him, and at times it was seriously painful to watch them hanging out together. It was almost like she was doing community service or charity work, like someone helping retarded kids learn how to read or something. But couldn't she at least do it for the sake of the viewers? Was that Stud guy really that great and exceptional that she couldn't pass on him just this once? I didn't watch most of the season, but he seemed like a tool to me from what I did see. Instead, she provided further evidence supporting the rule of hot girls in America: The hotter the girl, the worse her decision making is in choosing guys.
Oh, but the retardosity of it all didn't end there this time. It turned out that she had a shocking secret: her ex-boyfriend was Fabio. After all the buildup, the commercials, the "I have something about my past that you should know" in a grave tone, her big shocker was that she once dated Fabio. When I heard that, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. It was definitely funny though. Something about a girl dating Fabio, and then having to live in shame for the rest of her life as if she was some sort of leper, is so funny.
Almost equally as funny is how the guy reacted after getting the news. He was so pissed that he broke up with her, saying something like "any guy would know how it feels in this position". You know, I honestly have no idea how I would react if that situation. First of all, I would think that she had to be joking because that just sounds so ridiculous. "Honey, don't get mad, but I think honesty is the most important thing in a relationship, so I have to tell you that my ex-boyfriend was Fabio." I mean, Fabio?? Of all people in this world, Fabio??? You gotta be kidding right? Just picturing a girl dating Fabio is almost as hard as imagining Arnold Schwarzenegger being a governor. It's like something so weird that it must be made up. I guess truth really is stranger than fiction.
In the end, I think my conclusion is this: don't watch any more Average Joes (or similar shows). Too bad I think I'm gonna end up tuning into the next series, when they have Adam from the last show picking the ladies. Also, don't pay attention to NBC's commercials promising "shocking" things on their reality shows. They keep telling me that there will be "shocking betrayals" on the Apprentice too, but it always ends up being so dumb. The Apprentice is at least a halfway decent show though, so I don't mind as much.
*****
Yesterday I gave the Double Filet 'O Fish a try. I've always been a big fan of the original F'oF at McDonald's, so I figured while they have this special going on, why not double my pleasure.
Well, I'd have to say that the double is definitely not as good as the single. Even though it's more filling, it's just less enjoyable. The whole sandwich seems more dry and less tasty.
Now that I think about it, I bet the bigwigs at McDonalds just made up this idea because they had too much fish and had to find some way to get rid of it. So they concocted this promotion and made it seem like it was some awesome special that everyone should rush out and get for a limited time only. Those guys are some geniuses.
A few months ago, after watching a so unsyateesfying finale to a miserable season of Average Joe, I promised myself to avoid the next installment, Average Joe 2. For the most part, I kept this promise, but I guess in the last week I got suckered by the hype about the Average Joe 2 finale. Something about the girl revealing some "shocking secret", combined with idle curiosity to see whether this girl would actually choose the Average Joe over the stud, compelled me to watch last night's final episode.
Well, I guess I got what I deserved, because this time the show was even more retarded than the last. First of all, they spend like half the show playing up the relationship between the girl and the Average guy. For like 20 minutes straight, they show her getting emotional with him, gushing over how sweet he is and what a gentleman he is, and how she's never met anyone like him. Then you get to the moment of truth, and in the exact same way the last chick did, this girl fakes everyone out by acting somber to the Stud guy at first, and then choosing him anyways.
I seriously thought that this time, the girl would be smart enough to pick the Average guy. Okay, so there was basically zero attraction between her and him, and at times it was seriously painful to watch them hanging out together. It was almost like she was doing community service or charity work, like someone helping retarded kids learn how to read or something. But couldn't she at least do it for the sake of the viewers? Was that Stud guy really that great and exceptional that she couldn't pass on him just this once? I didn't watch most of the season, but he seemed like a tool to me from what I did see. Instead, she provided further evidence supporting the rule of hot girls in America: The hotter the girl, the worse her decision making is in choosing guys.
Oh, but the retardosity of it all didn't end there this time. It turned out that she had a shocking secret: her ex-boyfriend was Fabio. After all the buildup, the commercials, the "I have something about my past that you should know" in a grave tone, her big shocker was that she once dated Fabio. When I heard that, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. It was definitely funny though. Something about a girl dating Fabio, and then having to live in shame for the rest of her life as if she was some sort of leper, is so funny.
Almost equally as funny is how the guy reacted after getting the news. He was so pissed that he broke up with her, saying something like "any guy would know how it feels in this position". You know, I honestly have no idea how I would react if that situation. First of all, I would think that she had to be joking because that just sounds so ridiculous. "Honey, don't get mad, but I think honesty is the most important thing in a relationship, so I have to tell you that my ex-boyfriend was Fabio." I mean, Fabio?? Of all people in this world, Fabio??? You gotta be kidding right? Just picturing a girl dating Fabio is almost as hard as imagining Arnold Schwarzenegger being a governor. It's like something so weird that it must be made up. I guess truth really is stranger than fiction.
In the end, I think my conclusion is this: don't watch any more Average Joes (or similar shows). Too bad I think I'm gonna end up tuning into the next series, when they have Adam from the last show picking the ladies. Also, don't pay attention to NBC's commercials promising "shocking" things on their reality shows. They keep telling me that there will be "shocking betrayals" on the Apprentice too, but it always ends up being so dumb. The Apprentice is at least a halfway decent show though, so I don't mind as much.
*****
Yesterday I gave the Double Filet 'O Fish a try. I've always been a big fan of the original F'oF at McDonald's, so I figured while they have this special going on, why not double my pleasure.
Well, I'd have to say that the double is definitely not as good as the single. Even though it's more filling, it's just less enjoyable. The whole sandwich seems more dry and less tasty.
Now that I think about it, I bet the bigwigs at McDonalds just made up this idea because they had too much fish and had to find some way to get rid of it. So they concocted this promotion and made it seem like it was some awesome special that everyone should rush out and get for a limited time only. Those guys are some geniuses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)