I'm Right. You're Wrong.

The Link

2006-10-02T20:40:00.000-07:00

http://crimsonking1.livejournal.com/

There aren't any posts as of yet, but I'm pretty sure there will be one tomorrow (Oct. 3). And I'm still fiddling with the settings and stuff, so my blog still looks very basic. Thanks again to everyone who reads this.

Important Announcement

2006-09-30T14:32:00.000-07:00

I've officially decided to move this blog to Live Journal. Live Journal seems to be set up better than this site, especially with the networking aspect. Also, this blog has slowly become more and more about me rather than my views on issues; it's become more like a journal anyway. I think all or most of my readers have an account there, so it shouldn't be a problem. Thanks to everyone who has read this, and I hope you'll follow it to the new site.

Important Announcement

2006-09-30T14:21:00.000-07:00

Read the post above.

This Is Where A Title Would Go If I Could Think Of One Right Now

2006-09-21T20:17:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted anything in a while, but it's beacuse I've been completely bombarded with homework from my various classes (especially Calc). I'm not in the mood for a long position piece or essay thing, so I guess I'll just do a few quick (or not so quick) things about my life.

First, you already know I dislike my English teacher. I immediately knew I wasn't going to like her from the first day, but there have been a few things recently that have made me even more annoyed. Annoyance #1 is the first book we were assigned to read, "My Antonia", which is about prarie life in the 1880's (a real page-turner). This is one of the worst books I've ever read, and definitely the worst I've ever read for school. The characters are completely flat and lifeless, and there are no distinguishing characteristics. I frequently let my mind wander when reading the book, which is a terrible sign, and the characters are so forgettable that I can't even keep track of who's who. To boot, there's also no plot. The beginning of the book is exactly what I hate about some novels: a collection of random scenes with no real connection or direction that don't mean anything. Especially when it's about the Nebraska praries in the 1880's, which I cannot connect to on even a hypothetical level. The novelist never puts me there, despite her extreme and unnecessary wordiness. It's not even the good kind which can be construed as majestic or passionate, it's just a bunch of words on a page that I look at while my mind thinks about submitting an extremely sarcastic review to my teacher and how she might react. It doesn't help knowing about the author's pretentious and hypocritical past. When we were taking notes on her today, I just wrote a slanderous half-page paragraph about why I hate her. I wish I could have something in that class to not complain about, but no luck so far.

Speaking of things to complain about, she also is having the entire class present a poem of their choosing, with one student per Monday (I'm second-to-last and won't be going until April), and I'm not looking forward to listening to what other people choose as their poems. About 97% of poetry is absolutely atrocious and I'll honestly be surprised if anyone picks one of those 3% poems. (I'm thinking of doing one of T.S. Eliot's, maybe the first part of The Waste Lands, because I only have 15 minutes to read & discuss.) And she's also having the class write a poem of their own about a reality that they want changed. My reality that I want changed is that so much poetry sucks. So I'm basically writing a poem about how I don't like poetry, which would normally seem like an incredibly hypocritcal thing to do. I wish things like this could actually get people to change their minds, but I know nobody will because they're too close-minded (and I guess I am too for not enjoying their poor tastes. You'd think the least I could do would be to respect their opinions. Yeah, well, I only do that when I agree with people. I'm a hypocrite).

Changing topics, I'm working on my college search. So far, my top three colleges (all tied at #1 currently) are:

University of Wisconsin-Madison
New York University
St. John's College (the one with a campus in New Mexico and in Maryland)

I'm also considering University of Chicago and University of Michigan in Ann Arbor right now.

UW-Madison is in my hometown and is a public university, so I'd only have to pay like 1/5 or less of what I'd be paying for one of those other colleges. So, it's a highly ranked academic university very close to home with cheap tuition in a city I like a lot, and I can earn AP credit from classes I take in high school. Also, I can actually take university-level classes at UW-Madison next semester or next year through the Youth Options Program. My slate's pretty full this year, but next year I can free up some spots and probably do that.

New York is an extremely, extremely pretigious school with an incredible creative writing program, and I'd love to go to and live in New York (though I'm not exactly sure how much I'd like living there in the long run). However, it's very expensive and only like 25% to 28% of applicants get accepted each year because it's so competitive. Plus I have to compete with more students: 70% of their student body is from outside the tri-state area (including foreign countries). But I would still love to go there.

St. John's College is intriguing. It's much more unorthodox than other colleges in that it doesn't use textbooks to teach and doesn't really have professors. The curriculum is reading a ton of what they call "the Great Books", which basically means you're learning concepts from primary source documents like Einstein's works, etc., and you also get to read a bunch of good fiction books. Personally, I would rather read and learn a concept by reading mostly and working a little, because once I understand a concept, I don't have to have it drilled in to me repeatedly through tons of homework problems (see: Calculus class). Last year in Precalculus, you were not required to do any homework and the teacher didn't collect any, but you were responsible for the material on tests. Half of your grade was based on quizzes, the other half on tests, and I succeeded greatly in that class because I could grasp the concept and make sure I had it right and be ready to go with the test. Also, the teachers at St. John's don't really teach, but they lead discussions. So, St. John's teaching style fits me well, but it's a little expensive, and they do not accept AP credit you've earned in high school because everyone has the same curriculum, which promotes discussion among students in the same year. And there's no application fee. Also, I would prefer the New Mexico campus because the weather and scenery are terrific. Their status was boosted a little today because their admissions assistant came and visited my high school today (I was one of three people there, and the other two were seniors). And St. John's is so unique.

So now you see my predicament. Somehow, I have to make a decision about these colleges, and I'm reasonably confident I can be accepted into all of them. Each of the three is my dream college in its own way, and I have to choose only one of them. I'm going to have a really hard time making my decision. I've found Wikipedia to be even more helpful than the colleges' websites themselves, but none of the colleges are absolute locks for me if I get accepted. If you want to put in your two cents, feel free.

English Class

2006-09-09T19:44:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm not exactly happy with my new English teacher. She seems nice and friendly and helpful, but it's more of her English philosophy that I disagree with. The very first class period, she told us that there were different values attributed to certain words (penny, nickel, dime, quarter, etc.) and that we should use these "more valuable" words instead of the "less valuable" ones. For example, "bludgeon" is apparently a much better word than "hit". I can almost see where she's coming from, if she thinks that in some situations you may want to use words with different connotative definitions to have that added "punch", or should I say "bludgeon". My problem is that the way she teaches it makes it seem like you should always have your thesaurus in your holster when you write. In my opinion, you should have a thesaurus in your ear because then you can write what comes naturally and know what will sound good in the context of your writing. The thesaurus is officially the worst invention in the history of the English language because it encourages people to substitute in words where simpler, more forceful and effective words and phrases would fit better. This is what it seems like my English teacher is preaching to the class. I think she thinks that the beauty of the writing lies all in the words you use, but it doesn't: the beauty of writing comes from the sounds your words make on paper and the pictures and emotions they call up. The right word can help that quite a lot, but a word being "good" individually means nothing; any word is as good as any other by itself. You have to find the best word when the criteria is about what you are writing, not some arbitrary scale of how "good" a word is.

Also, it seems like my English teacher deals more in adjectives and adverbs than in nouns and verbs. I think this also stems from her view of valuing words by themselves, but they mean nothing by themselves. This repeated theory irks me a little, and I know she's going to turn 95% of the class (everyone but me) into bad writers by doing this. People are going to think that writing is all about the words and not the pictures, which is what it really is. Language is like a fax machine: you take an image or scene in your head, translate and condense it into the written word, and send it to someone else. They read the condensed version of the visual or scene on the paper and try to reproduce it in their own mind. So using fancy, complicated words means nothing if it doesn't make the reader see something. Unnecessary, useless, and pretentious words don't belong in real writing; that's what poetry is for. ;)

Update

2006-09-04T19:15:00.000-07:00

Sorry I haven't posted in a while. I've been really busy lately. Anyway, I thought I'd do a quick update so you all don't abandon this thing. I'm going to try really hard to not make this like last year where I stopped writing for it during the school year, then had to revive it earlier this summer. So here's what's been happening recently:

- I've been working on my Calculus I summer packet to try to finish it before Wednesday, when I go back to school. We start with a 3-day week because Monday is Labor Day (today), Tuesday is Freshman orientation, then Wednesday is the first day. A little weird, but at least it's easing us into school a little this year.

- The Emmys went pretty well for the shows I was rooting for. The Daily Show won two and the Colbert Report lost to BARRY MANILOW! Colbert should have won that Best Performance in a Variety Show. Also, The Office won Best Comedy, but Steve Carell should have won Best Comedic Actor. And 24 won a few, like they always do.

- I just had my Fantasy Football League's draft on Sunday with a bunch of friends. I'm pretty sure most of my audience doesn't care an iota about football, but I'm somewhat...oh, what's the word?...completely obsessed with sports. I watch NFL football, NCAA college football, men's college basketball, the occasional NBA game, some soccer matches (especially the World Cup), and some others. Usually, I'm reading or doing homework or something during the commercials of the games, though, so my time isn't completely wasted.

- I really wish I had AP Politics & Government 1st semester so we could talk about midterms, but 2nd semester is two months after the fact.

- I really need to write more. I've been so busy recently with everything that I haven't had much time to write, or read for that matter. Well, anyway, keep checking for updates on here because I will try to maintain it through the year.

Beating the Block

2006-08-23T17:59:00.000-07:00

Well, I finally made it through my case of writers' block, one of the worst I've ever had. It lasted several weeks and I started several completely different short projects many times to see if I could get the ball rolling. No luck, really. The narrative sounded lame and the dialogue sounded phony when I could actually think of something to write. I couldn't get any short stories started up and I got to a road block on my chapter story (I hope it will eventually be novel-length). But I think I've finally beaten it and I can get back in the writing "zone".

This is what I did to solve my case of writers' block; you might want to try some similar things if you happen to come down with it. First and foremost, I just kept working. Even though I could barely scrounge up any creative juices, I tried to use what little I had and work it into something. I pushed forward even when the writing sounded bad because sometimes you can make a breakthrough and beat the Block (and you can always go back a rewrite the bad parts later). Also, I read. If you can't get any writing done, you should at least read. You can sometimes find the inspiration in books to start writing well again or to get some ideas for what to write in the first place. In this particular case, I read Gary Shteyngart's Russian Debutante's Handbook, Ernest Hemingway's Farewell To Arms, and reread The Elements of Style for what must have been the twentieth time. I also read a little of Thomas Wolfe's Look Homeward, Angel while trying to beat the Block.

I spent a lot of my time thinking about plots and possible story ideas as well, even though nothing was easily forthcoming. I've found that if you actively think about a problem that your mind will continue to subconsciously work on it and eventually find a solution. In other words, those "Eureka!" moments are not just a flash of insight, but are built on the foundation of a lot of time spent thinking and problem-solving.

The only problem is that I still can't really write actual fiction. I can write essays and stuff for my blog like this as well as humor and satire, but I can't write an actual, serious story right now. I'm pretty sure it has to do with the weather. In winter I can write depressing, emotional stuff as well as cynical and sarcastic humor (my usual style). In fall and spring and to some extent into early summer, I can write the same things. However, when summer rolls around, it seems like I just can't pour out whatever I'm feeling. It's like the guy in A Brave New World who says he always writes better in bad weather. Nine months of the year I express myself and the other three months I make fun of people who do the same thing. It's a little weird that way. It may be hard to believe that it actually gets warm up here in Wisconsin, but it definitely does and that always seems to make my "real" writing take a turn for the worse.

Not that humor and satire are bad. I enjoy very much making fun of other people and saying funny things. It's just that I wish I could write stories like my Desert of the Mind in summer. I think that my handicap in writing stuff like that when the weather's nice has caused me to basically rule out going to college in the Southwest. Originally I was considering St. John's in Santa Fe, New Mexico, as one of my possible schools, but if I do wind up going there it might be on the campus in Maryland. Oh, speaking of that, please let me know if you know any universities with good English programs.

Update

2006-08-17T18:19:00.000-07:00

Sorry I haven't posted anything for a while. I know how all three of my readers hang on my every word. Anyway, I'm leaving for a while, so I thought I'd give you some fun things to do while you anxiously await my next post:

- Go to Colbert Nation (link is in my sidebar under Other Sites That Don't Suck). Under What's Hot, follow the link to the place where you can vote to name a new bridge in Hungary over the Danube the Stephen Colbert bridge. When you get to the site, scroll down to the S section and click Stephen Colbert Hid (Hungarian for Stephen Colbert Bridge?). Incredibly, Stephen has 3% of the vote currently, with over 400,000 votes (leader has 1.5 million more). Also, while you're there you can watch the Tek Jansen animated short, which is hilarious. Oddly, it appeared only a few days after I published my own sci-fi parody on WW.

- Play Nation States. It's an online game for anyone who finds international politics funny. You can make your own country, make policy decisions, join regions, join the UN and vote on resolutions, and a bunch of other stuff. It's really fun. There's also a link to this in my sidebar.

- Read through my archived posts and realize how stupid I was last year compared to this one.

- Suggest a new name for my blog. I've been thinking of changing the name for a while because I've decided that the current name doesn't really fit my style any more. I'm much more reasonable now that I don't listen to liberal talk radio anymore.

- Go see Snakes on a Plane. It comes out this Friday. While I'm sure it can't live up to the hype it's gotten, I still think it will be a great movie, and may be more of a comedy than a drama, really. It's the pinnacle of young people's obsession with irony as humor. I have a link and a banner in my sidebar.

Free Time

2006-08-07T18:55:00.000-07:00

[I realize this post is quite long, so don't be afraid to print it out or read some and come back to it later.]

What the hell is so wrong with having free time? I can't count the number of articles I've read about children these days having their schedules crammed up with activities, children who spend their nights multitasking and not getting enough sleep and just doing so many things. It seems like everyone in my school plays at least one sport, takes drivers' education when school's in session, is in several clubs, volunteers regularly, and/or has a job. Then of course, I hear them complain all day about how tired they are from their exhausting night.

Why do people have to schedule so many things? I feel like my nights are busy when I have music lessons right after school and don't get home until 5:30 PM. Then I hear about all these people who are at school before six in the morning for swimming practice or something, then don't get home until nine in the evening because they had an away game in some various sport or had to work late. How can kids do this? (Actually, I suspect that it's their parents pushing them to do this.)

But what's the reason for doing all this extra-curricular stuff? I'm not in a sport, even though I could be a possible starter for something, since I'm fairly athletic; I'm not in clubs, mostly because none tickle my fancy; I haven't yet taken drivers' education, even though my sixteenth birthday is rapidly approaching; and I don't have a job. Of course, my mother has set up a volunteer thing this September for me and is vehemently pressuring me to get a job and wants me to work during the school year. However, I digress: my point is that I don't do as much as many other kids, but I succeed in school. I have a perfect 4.0 grade point average and good scores on the national tests.

I bring this up because these kids do all of their extra-curricular activities to enhance their college transcript. They're convinced that colleges look more at extra-curriculars than your actual body of work. And maybe they do. But if they do, they are completely and utterly retarded. If someone crams their schedules full of random volunteering or sports or if they wash dishes for minimum wage, that doesn't say anything about them except that they are overstressed, crabby people who will fall asleep in your classes.

Here's my plan for getting into college: I do my homework each night because I have the time to do it. That gets me very good grades. Also, I get enough sleep each night so I can concentrate in class, which means I know what I'm doing on tests and get good grades. I can succeed in high-level classes like calculus (which I'm taking this year, my junior one), which colleges look at. Also, during the nights I have time to read and write very often, and I love to do that. Also, writing and reading skills are possibly the most important skills to have when you're talking about college. And I would say that this element of my plan has succeeded: I scored a perfect 80 out of 80 on the PSAT Critical Reading section (100th percentile), and on the pre-ACT English section I scored in the 99th and 100th percentiles in the two subcategories for a total of a 99th percentile score. Again, I'm only bragging a little about my scores, but more presenting them to make a point: that someone can succeed without spreading themselves extremely thin and doing so many extra-curriculars.

Also, I might add that it's been proven that the number of things you do is inversely proportional to how well you do each one. If you play a sport in fall and spring, are in two different clubs, have a job, and still have to concentrate on school, you aren't going to do any of them as well as you would if you had just concentrated on one thing and hadn't had your schedule completely filled up. If you were up late because you didn't get home until very late because of a sports game, then had to do your homework and other stuff, you won't be able to concentrate as well in school and your other various activities.

Oh, and with my free schedule, that means that I still have time to do my hobbies, reading and writing. It's just an added convenience that my hobbies are actually preparing me for college, my future, and all that good stuff. I may also eventually be able to make some money off of it in the future. Unlike volunteers. Unlike most people who play high school sports. Unlike cheerleaders (unless you're willing to pay for the plastic surgery and are also willing to give up food for your adult life) or other clubs.

People say that extra-curriculars make you a "well-rounded" person. I hate that term, "well-rounded". Oh, you can run around kind of fast? Come to our college. An Asian in the Asian club? Magnificent. You pal around with some annoying, senile people occasionally? Wow, you'll get along great with our professors. You're so Well-Rounded. They say that it shows you have interests. Well, I have interests, but the only problem is that they don't involve picking up trash or playing chess. It just so happens that neither reading nor writing count as extra-curricular activities in people's eyes, even though they should because I'm educating myself while other people are doing mindless physical labor either so they can earn money or "give back to the community". You can't write down the number of hours you've spent reading or writing, but you can write down that you were in the stupid club that decorates the gym for the dances.

Colleges say extra-curriculars show that people are motivated. I say that they show that people are motivated to make it seem like they're motivated to colleges looking for people who are trying to make it seem like they're motivated. I would argue that I'm just as motivated as anyone who needlessly crams their schedule. I've read 45 books both of the last two years (not the stupid 200 page teen dramas that the dumb people read; real stuff like Leo Tolstoy and Thomas Wolfe), and I have a very large library of my writing from recently. My weekly vocabulary "paragraphs" last year (you had to use 10-20 words in the course of a paragraph) ranged from 3 to 12 pages. But I can't write those things on my college transcript, even though I know writing and reading skills are so important in college, and I'm actually learning things outside of school. But you can write that you played tennis a few Saturdays every year, and that those skills are somehow going to translate into college. You picking up trash is somehow "giving back to the community" and it's really important in college because those skills translate into keeping your dorm room clean or something. That's crap. Spending hours regularly updating this blog in my free time somehow doesn't count, but people joining math club and solving a couple problems once in a while does.

And why is it considered a drawback if you do have some free time? You know, just some time to think about things. I do this all the time, because I give myself enough time to do it and I realize its importance. You know why we don't have any great philosophers or great authors in the modern era? Because everyone's caught up doing something else: working so they can earn that all-important Money, doing community events and whatnot, or just plain watching television. I know that just winding down and contemplating things is valuable, and I usually do it at some quiet time just before I go to bed or something. I find that it relaxes me and makes me able to solve problems more easily because I can actually think about them, rather than having my brain multitasking on a hundred things and not being able to effectively concentrate on just one. This time is really undervalued in our society and now nobody has it. I think having this time actually helps me in basically everything I do, relieves a lot of stress, and, yes, makes me smarter.

I think colleges should find out more about how much of a stupid, bludering idiot someone is (or, in the rare case, how smart and well-prepared a person is) rather than looking at how much someone can schedule without dying.

P.S.: I'm turning 16 in three days, on August 10. ^_^

Education: Because Your Children Choose Your Nursing Home

2006-08-03T19:35:00.000-07:00

Education these days sucks, mostly because I'm not in charge. I can't count the number of times I've said that I hate school, and I'm sure none of you can either. It's not that I don't like learning; honestly, I'm one of the ones who enjoys it. Most of it is the manner in which I learn (or don't, in some cases).

Such an emphasis has been placed on working in small groups recently that it makes me sick. Presumably we work in small groups to learn abilities like "working together" and "leadership" (by the way, leadership is crap, but that's for another day). However, I really could do without working in small groups. The teachers always pair up the slackers and stupid people with me, the smart person who actually does all the work. Then the dumb, lazy kids get to share the credit. That's not right. The teachers might be trying to teach me about life, but all I'm learning to do is do things by myself when I'm assigned to a group (except in the future, I plan to take all the credit if I do all the work). It's teaching me to not have slacker friends when I grow up, which I guess is useful.

Also, in group work, nothing ever gets done in the first place. If you're with someone you know, you just talk the whole time, then have to throw some sloppy, half-assed thing together at the last second and get a worse grade on it than you would have if you had just worked on it yourself. Lumping a bunch of kids together just doesn't work.

Speaking of which, there was a politician running for the School Board here in my hometown who supported eliminating hierarchy for classes in schools. The way things are currently set up is the following: there is a "normal" version of each history, science, and English class. For English, there is also an Advanced English class. Finally, for all three categories, there is a TAG (Talented and Gifted) version. The TAG version is for the really motivated and interested kids and is supposed to give them a challenge and the ability to learn more than they would normally about something that they like.

(As an aside, I hate how so many kids just take all three TAG classes not because they are interested in the subject matter, but because they want those three letters to be on their college applications and transcripts. People poke fun at people who aren't in all of the TAG classes because they "aren't as smart" or for some other unjustified unfounded reason. Personally, I'm not in TAG History because I frankly don't enjoy history class. Oh, and the only difference between normal history and TAG is extra busywork from what I can tell (and see). And every kid I've talked to in TAG History hates the class. Someone doesn't have to be in all TAG classes to be smart: I tied for the highest score in my school of 2,500 people or so on the pre-ACT exam and would have qualified for a National Merit Scholarship as a sophomore, but you have to be a junior to qualify (and score over 200 out of 240 on the PSAT--my score was 214). I don't say this to brag (well, kind of), but to demonstrate my point that these TAG classes should only be taken if you're genuinely interested in the subject, like me and English.)

Back to the politician: he wanted to integrate all of the TAG classes in with the normal classes, supposedly in the name of providing each student the same opportunity or some other cheesy line of bull. If I may say, this is possibly the most retarded stance I've ever seen anyone running for the School Board take. It's retarded because it's completely backward and actually literally retards student progress. Plus, it's really stupid. Integrating every class together means that the teacher has to teach down to the lowest common denominator instead of providing a place where students can go beyond and learn about what they really want to. In fact, the exact opposite of this man's plan would be the best situation: have one teacher per student so the teacher had no lowest common denominator to teach to. Each student could reach their full potential without having to be dragged down by other students (or pulled up, in some cases). Teacher-supervised independent study (with non-work-related socialising) is really my ideal vision of school, but I realize that this magnificently capitalistic dream won't ever be realized for these reasons: 1) Public schools are essentially a socialistic system to begin with, 2) People aren't willing to pay tax money for schools, even though they will get indirect dividends from that money, and 3) Who would want to teach the dumb kids?

Oh, and needless to say, the politician lost.

Some Recommended Reading

2006-08-01T15:44:00.000-07:00

Of the approximately 119 books I've read since January 2004 (including some rereads), I didn't like very many of them. Fortunately, when I wrote this, the number of books that I had enjoyed in the last two-and-a-half years was exactly 50, a nice round number. Just so you know, these are almost all American novels, but I think you'll still be able to get your hands on some if you don't live here. All of these are worth reading, so actually read the list somewhat carefully. The ones with asterisks are the ones I would really, really recommend. Also, a couple of years ago I was really into Stephen King, so take that into account for the first part. Here are 50 books I've read recently that I liked enough to suggest them to other people:

1. The Dark Tower series (7 total books) by Stephen King
(1) The Gunslinger
(2) The Drawing of the Three*
(3) The Waste Lands*
(4) Wizard and Glass
(5) Wolves of the Calla*
(6) Song of Susannah
(7) The Dark Tower*
8. The Eye of the World by Robert Jordan
9. The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck*
10. The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene*
11. The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene
12. Bag of Bones by Stephen King
13. Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss*
14. Eyes of the Dragon by Stephen King*
15. Misery by Stephen King*
16. To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
17. The Sword of Shannara by Terry Brooks*
18. Animal Farm by George Orwell
19. Inherit the Wind by Robert Lee
20. Desperation by Stephen King
21. The Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind
(1) Wizard's First Rule*
(2) Stone of Tears*
(3) Blood of the Fold
(4) Temple of the Winds
(5) Soul of the Fire
(6) Faith of the Fallen*
[Books 7 and 8, Pillars of Creation and Naked Empire weren't very impressive, actually]
(9) Chainfire*
30. American Gods by Neil Gaiman
31. A Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin*
32. Odd Thomas by Dean Koontz
33. When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops? by George Carlin*
34. My Life (hardcover is one volume; paperback is two) by Bill Clinton*
35. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
36. War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy
37. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger*
38. Dude, Where's My Country? by Michael Moore
39. The Truth (with Jokes) by Al Franken
40. Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken
41. Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare
42. Lord of the Flies by William Golding
43. The Island of Dr Moreau by H. G. Wells
44. Harold and Maude by Colin Higgins
45. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
46. The Dark Half by Stephen King*
47. You Can't Go Home Again by Thomas Wolfe*
48. America (the Book) by Jon Stewart/The Daily Show*
49. Catch-22 by Joseph Heller*
50. Absurdistan by Gary Shteyngart

Wasting My Vacation

2006-07-24T18:34:00.000-07:00

It's summer break currently (in the Northern Hemisphere anyway), and I have a full ten- or twelve-week vacation which I'm right in the middle of. So far, I have honestly not done much with my summer: I've read five books in a month, which is pretty good; I've written a short story that I'm proud of (Spring), written the first few parts of a chapter story made mostly of dialogue (A Conversation Piece) and I am working on other projects as well as adding to my current chapter story (see Writers' Window on the sidebar links and my writing is posted under the name Crimson King); I've been maintaining this blog recently with some opinion pieces and reviews (I recently published an overly long review of Tool's [i]10,000 Days[/i] as well); have worked on both instruments I play, which are the viola and drums; I've also gotten quite a bit of exercise so far and worked on many projects my parents have given me (cash compensation); and I've submitted applications to several places in hopes of getting a job. Those are the good things.

However, I've also done not-so-productive things with my time: I watched way too much of the World Cup in June (most of the 64 two-hour matches); have watched way too much television in general (Daily Show, Colbert Report, and Around the Horn every day, Chappelle's Show and Mind Of Mencia on Sundays, Last Comic Standing on Tuesdays, and various others); I have definitely been watching too much now that I get NFL Network and am very anxious for American football to be under way (Green Bay's first preseason game is August 12 and I will be attending several practices near the end of the month); I have played quite a bit of NFL Head Coach and FIFA 2006, but I've genreally been able to restrain myself; and, sadly, through the course of the summer so far, I have watched the entire Season 5 of [i] Seinfeld[/i] on DVD.

Even though I have done so many positive things with my summer, I still feel as if I'm wasting a large portion of it. I've gotten better recently, but I was definitely wasting most of my time in June. I was wondering (since most of my audience is probably still in some sort of school) if you feel the same way about summer (or winter in the Southern Hemisphere) vacation, and have any tips on how I can summon up the willpower to not waste my summer.

A Politician That I Actually Like

2006-07-21T19:23:00.000-07:00

Let me start by saying I am a fan of The Colbert Report on Comedy Central, a show that you have definitely heard of if you live in the U.S. and are under 40 (if you haven't seen it, watch some clips online at http://www.comedycentral.com (I think that's the site).

Last night (Thursday, July 20th), Stephen Colbert interviewed Congressman Wexler from Florida's 19th Congressional District as a part of his 434 part series Better Know A District. Needless to say when you're talking about The Colbert, the interview was very funny, but there was something about it that I found interesting.

During the interview, Colbert mentioned that Congressman Wexler was running uncontested in November 2008 for re-election to Congress (I oppose this, but that's a matter for another time). Since Wexler had no competitors, Colbert dared him to complete this sentence: "I like to do cocaine because...". This was just Stephen Colbert trying to have a little fun obviously, but Wexler actually completed the sentence! He said "I like to do cocaine because it's a fun thing to do." (Later, he also said "I enjoy the company of prostitutes because it's a fun thing to do.") Most of his constituents might be alarmed, even though it was clearly done in a joking manner, and was Wexler's attempt to have fun along with The Colbert.

Of course, I was a little surprised that a politician would actually do something like this, but after I got over the shock, I laughed my butt off. Instantaneously, Congressman Wexler jumped from unknown by me to among the top ranks of my favorite Congressmen. That a politician would have the courage and sense of humor to say these things is extraordinary and shows that he's a real person like his constituents, not a robot. Everyone knows the Colbert Report is a satire show, so I'm sure the statements won't be taken out of context. Even if they are and the Colbert Report is sited as a source, no one will take them seriously. I hope.

Anyway, I thought it was an entertaining moment and representative of what politicians should really be like, instead of stiff, stuffy old men who won't say anything unscripted and not quadruple-checked by every sensitivity group they know. It shows real character, and I would vote for Wexler if a) I lived in Florida's 19th District, b) I was an eligible voter, or c) Wexler was actually in danger of losing his election.

Taxes may not be as retarded as you think

2006-07-17T17:18:00.000-07:00

I'm pretty sure conservatives believe that it is a sin to tax people, but I think differently. Maybe I'm some far-left bomb-thrower radical socialist, but I think that a little bit of income redistribution is a good thing. It's like trickle-down economics, only it works. Giving rich people a ton of money, crossing your fingers, and hoping they pass it on down to consumers and the poor is a profoundly retarded idea. If I were rich, I would keep my money from trickling down at all costs and keep as much of it for myself as possible, so why should I expect anything else from others?

On the other hand, you could have a "mandatory donation" of sorts to the government (taxes), which would keep the greed inherent in humans in check and give people who don't have the same opporutnities as the rich because of their financial situation at least a small chance.

I don't understand why people would vote down a proposal to help schools out a lot, while only costing taxpayers a very small amount of money as individuals (as happened recently in my hometown). This may be because of my biased view as a student, but those kids you're helping could grow up to be politicians who lower your taxes. You never know.

Of course, governments in general (and especially the one here in America) are in need of reform in order to spend more effectively and use taxpayers' money more effectively, I don't think you're going to have a significantly different life if you don't get an extra $100 in your pocket once every couple of years. On the other hand, millions of people can have significantly improved lives if you shut your trap and quit whining.

Oh, and don't say the "tax-and-spend" Democrats are stealing all your money: Clinton had a budget surplus of over $200 million and would have been in a position to give people a huge tax cut without having to go into deficit spending and you Republicans messed it all up for yourselves. So quit whining: it's your fault the government wants to take your money.

Women: Unwilling to be equal or incapable of being equal?

2006-07-10T18:47:00.000-07:00

The women are at it again, guys. They want more money.

Recently, there has been a debate going on in tennis that women should be paid the same amount of prize money as men, because otherwise they apparently wouldn't be treated as equals. Venus Williams, one of the most famous and successful women's tennis players says that the matter is a social issue in which women still aren't treated the same as men. Well, here's what I say: you want to be treated like women, but you wanted to be paid like equals.

Here's a little background in case you don't follow tennis: women's matches are the best of three sets (there are individual games in each set). However, men's games are best of five sets. This means that the longest possible women's game, three sets, is the shortest possible men's game. And women want the same amount of prize money for doing much less work than the men.

So, women wanted to be paid the same amount as men for doing less work. This is not a matter of equality. If women were to be paid the same amount of prize money as men, they would proportionally be getting paid much more than men are. In fact, they would be getting almost twice as much money per set as men. I would argue that getting paid an equal amount for doing less work is the exact same thing as paying someone more for doing the same amount of work. So, really, these women are seeking inequality in the workplace, where they have an unfair advantage over men. If people would use their brains instead of having no idea what they were talking about, they would realize that women are being paid proportionally as much as men or more. Quit whining: you're already equal. The only way I see you winning the same amount of prize money is if you actually do as much work as the men do. If you don't want to do that, then shut your mouths and quit trying to guilt, mislead, and otherwise manipulate people into giving you more money.

Ann Coulter Is My Favorite Conservative

2006-06-30T20:06:00.000-07:00

The title is only a little sarcastic. I really do like Ann Coulter, even though I usually have positions that are opposite hers. I do consider myself to be socially liberal and fiscally non-retarded (I still don't understand why people aren't willing to pay a couple bucks a year in order to help schools out. Hey, anti-tax people: I thought you hated those whippersnappers running all over your lawn...well, maybe if they could get a good education, they could get a job and would stop leaving flaming bags of dog crap on your steps. Oh, but I guess that's Big Government). Anyway, even though I am generally liberal, I still like Ann Coulter, and that's not an oxymoron.

The reason all of the liberals hate Ann Coulter is because they're close-minded. For all the claims that they make that say Ann Coulter is close-minded (she is), they are being complete hypocrites. Yes, the people who want to legalize gay marriage are close-minded. However, they're not close-minded because of their positions (like Republicans), but because of the way they have a rigor mortis grip on their opinions and refuse to change them (like Republicans). If they would actually open up their ears and hear what she has to say, they might think twice before writing her off as some right-wing kook. Ah, who am I kidding?

They also hate her because she's becoming famous by making fun of them. Nobody would like to have the high school bully become famous and rich because they wrote books that were dedicated to calling you names. No one roots for the bully. Except for me, in this case.

In the famous words of the American poet Marshall Mathers, "Everybody just follow me/'cause we all need a little controversy/and it feels so empty without me". Indeed it does, Marshall. Anyway, on to my point: I admire Ann Coulter for stirring up controversy. I think it's hilarious how so many people are up in arms about what she's saying, but nobody is acutally considering or listening to what she's saying. Well, nobody listened to Copernicus, Galileo, or the crazy, cat-collecting, cross-eyed old lady who shouted at people walking past her house from her front porch. Two of those three (I won't say which) turned out to be geniuses and were immortalized by history forever.

Now, the most recent controversy surrounding Ann Coulter has been about a line from her new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Isn't a godless church an oxymoron? Are they worshipping their generally atheistic stance? Does that even make sense? Does Chubakka make sense?)

The controversy is over the fact that Ann Coulter calls the liberals out for having people who it's a taboo to attack come out and make their points for them (she's 100% right, but conservatives do it too). In this case, people hate Ann Coulter because she's not afraid to attack victims of a national tragedy. This may seem cruel to you, but that's exactly the reason both political parties use this strategy: it works. She is attacking the wives of 9/11 victims, which, while far from a noble cause, does make a point. The wives, while they are victims, they are manipulating people and because of their status, they cannot be refuted. Except by Ann Coulter. She has enough balls (3 to be exact) to call these people at their game, but no one listens. Part of that could be because she obscures her point in harsh language, calling the women "broads". Now everyone's focusing on the language rather than the actual point she makes. Which is at least half her fault, but she has to sell books so she has enough money to buy all that food that she throws up. But still, you'd think the media could actually discuss the points she makes in her book, right? Wrong: the media doesn't ask important questions or get to the truth of things, and you shouldn't expect that of them. It's really hard, okay? So back off.

Radiohead: OK Computer

2006-06-18T20:03:00.000-07:00

When I hear about a new band, I usually want to start at the beginning--that is, I want to buy their earlier stuff before their newer stuff. It helps me see where they came from and their musical evolution. Wow, that sounds really pretentious. Well, that's what I did with Radiohead. I heard about them, saw that their albums got good reviews, and thought that I would like them, so I went ahead and got OK Computer. I realize that this isn't their first album, but The Bends had way too many holds on it at the library for me to get it within a reasonable amount of time. (I don't illegally download music on the Internet, but I think getting it free from the library is fair. Go figure.)

Anyway, on to the album. After my walk home from my local library, I popped this album into my CD player (yes, I still own one, and my MP3 player isn't iPod quality, so I actually find myself using it quite a bit). I didn't quite know what to expect, having never heard them before, despite their apparent international renown, and I was greeted with the mashing beat of Airbag, the first song on the CD. Though not the best song on the CD, it's a good intro, and sets the tone for most of the album. It begins with heavy guitars, but quickly backs off into a more space-y tone with weird noises in the background. Later in the day I had the chorus stuck in my head, which brings me to a puzzling quality about OK Computer: despite the lack of hooks and repeated 1-bar instrumental parts (I particularly enjoyed this aspect) almost every song at one point or another got stuck in my head.

Next on the playlist was Paranoid Android, one of my personal favorite songs on the CD. It starts with a nice intro, but has a weird opening line: "Please could you stop the noise, I'm tryin-a get some rest/from all the unborn chicken voices in my head". The lyrics of this song are mostly nonsense, but the instrumental performances are what makes this song, and this includes the vocals of Thom Yorke, which are consistently strong throughout the entire CD. The guitar makes its first big appearance of the album, and it's quite enjoyable. However, I do wish that the guitar was featured more on this CD: there are bursts here and there, but for the most part it has a background part. For that matter, all the instruments take a backseat to the singing, which is sometimes good, but I would really like to hear more from the other members. This specific song can't really seem to find its place: it's alternatingly loud and fast, then slow and calm, and changes constatnly, which has its upsides and downsides.

The album rounds out its one-two-three punch (radioactivity caused this album to grow a third arm with which it could punch) with Subterranean Homesick Alien, the first song with interesting and good lyrics. One that really stuck out to me was this one: "...All these weird little creatures who lock up their spirits, drill holes in themselves and live for their secrets." This song gives way to a weird (and again spacey) song called Exit Music (For A Film), which I don't particularly enjoy.

The next song, Let Down, I can imagine being used in some of those primetime soap-operas like The O.C. and Smallville. You know, the ones where the guys are all named Mike or Jake and the girls are all Melissa or Rachel and an average of one person per episode gets slapped. It has just the right/wrong amount of cheesiness and clichédness (though, really, any amount is the wrong amount) about it, and is, of course, about being let down in a relationship. Real original.

Song #6 isn't worth mentioning (but I just did...?) Generic Rock Beat #1 on the drums, soft piano part, boring song, and the same repeated line for the last 2:30 or so of the song.

#7, however, is very intriguing. Fitter, Happier is "sung" entirely by that weird Macintosh robot voice that always sounds awkward. You know the one I mean. Even though the robot doesn't give a very strong vocal performance, the song is interesting because of its lyrics and how the band made the robot sound like it's actually reading poetry. They must have edited the sound somehow, but they make it sound...human. Creepy. I'm pretty sure that the song is "sung" by a robot to be symbolic as well, considering its lyrics about being a sheep to society and other unimportant, miniscule issues.

Following the most intriguing song on the CD is the overall best. Electioneering is the most like pop music on the CD, but it actually has a nice moving beat, a catchy refrain, and the most definite structure of any of the songs. Though I appreciate their efforts to think outside the box, it's nice to have a simple, reliable, solid, strong song to just kind of turn your brain off and listen to. However, there are actually meaningful lyrics in this song as well. "When I go forwards/you go backwards/and somewhere we will meet" is the refrain and, speaks to how politicians are never in it for the people--in order to advance their own agenda, the people must suffer, which is really a paradox--politicians are supposed to be serving people.

Climbing Up The Walls is the last song worth mentioning on the CD, because it's the last interesting one. It reminds me of the limited exposure I've had to the later Beatles' work and it's a little on the weird side, which isn't nexessarily a bad thing. I still have had it stuck in my head (that's the really frustrating/enjoyable thing about this entire album) and the synthesized voice is intriguing.

Overall, I did enjoy this CD, but I really would have liked to hear more instrumentals. Thom Yorke's voice is haunting and very strong in all of the songs, but there's a reason you have a guitar, bass, and drums. There were bursts of promise, and I look forward to scouring more of the band's work to see if they do more of what I like. There was a lot of material that I enjoyed on the CD, but a problem I had with it was that at times they sounded a lot like a not-as-retarded version of Coldplay. Or, I should say that Coldplay sounds like a watered-down Radiohead at times. Anyway, I don't really like that type of sound in the music I listen to, and I would like to look into their other work to see if there's more of the stuff that I like and less of the stuff that I don't.

Final Grade: B

Hurricane Katrina: A Study In Disaster Mismanagement

2005-09-09T18:00:00.000-07:00

Come on, people. I've been hearing the reports and whatnot for over a week, and I still can't believe this. Sure, maybe one of the big things, but not every single one that's been going on this week! My outrage is almost too much to put into a post. First of all, I'm obliged to talk about FEMA (Failiure to Effectively Manage Anything), because everyone else is. However, you can't really blame FEMA for this because 5 of the top officials, including the leader (Mike Brown) have NO disaster management expertise or background or anything! Come on. Before this, Brown was thrown out of the International Arabian Horse Association for some kind of fraud or whatever, even though he was just a judge supervisor. And, get this, he was the roommate of the former FEMA director, who almost had charges filed against him, then quit to become a lobbyist for, of all people, HALLIBURTON! Even a mentally challenged dingbat would realize that there's something fishy about that. Hmm. My God, why don't people pay more attention to what's going on around them?

And once again, the Republicans demonstrated great leadership by having FEMA turn away Wal-Mart trucks full of water(I'm sure that people were using sound logic, probably saying "there's enough water here already". Morons), some oil, even the RED CROSS! Who turns away the Red Cross in a disaster? Nobody with a sound mental state, that's for sure. And Bush. Oh. My. God. Where can I even start. He cuts his 5 WEEK vacation 2 days short to come "help", by which he means flying over in his private jet, looking out the window for twenty seconds and saying "Gee, duhduh, that's dun looks bad." When he finally made his way to New Orleans, he made a terrible speach that alienated more people than it encouraged. He said that Trent Lott (the controversial guy who said "If Strom Thrumond were elected, maybe we wouldn't have all these problems." Some moronic, very literal people stretched that to the extreme and said he hated black people because Thurmond had run as a segregationist years and years ago. Idiots. He was just trying to give a guy a compliment on his 100th birthday to make him feel good. Then he was forced to apologize dozens of times all over TV for a fake implied meaning. Like I said above, come on) had lost his house and that they were going to rebuild it and Bush was looking forward to sitting on the porch. What a callous thing to say when there are hundreds of people stranded and dying so close to you. People don't want to know what you plan to do when hanging out with Trent Lott, idiot, they want to know if you have a PLAN! My God!

Obviously, Bush has no plan and the conservatives get what they deserve. Anyone who is in favor of small government and largely state-run stuff, this is what happens. When you have a small governement with inadequate abilities to help during disasters like this, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS! Do you conservatives out there realize that?

I'm also a little skeptical on the whole issue of how race played into this. Kanye West said at a relief thingy that "Bush doesn't care about black people," but I don't know how much I agree with him. Of course I agree that Bush doesn't care about black people, but I really don't think that this is one of the reasons for the slow response. I think my opinion on this is because I can't really imagine people actually being racist at all. I just can't imagine why anyone in this modern era can automatically hate a person because of how they look and because of their ancestry and, furthermore, why the entire federal government would abandon a very important city because most of the population was black. However, I think classism may play a role in this. New Orleans, despite it being the port where 25% of our imports come in and the sole thing the U.S. was going to buy from the French in the Louisiana purchase (they got the huge chunk of land at a cheap price because Napoleon wanted to have some green to fund his wars over in France, so the U.S. just bought the rest of that chunk), is a very poor city. Like good ol' Barbara Bush said (I hate her so much), "These people were underprivileged anyway, and it's working out well for them." I wanted to punch her after this statement and I'm sure most of the Republicans did too because it gave ammo to the people who were accusing the administration of classism.

The worst thing about this, of course, is that the tragedy could have been prevented by a competent management system. Combined between FEMA and the federal government, this thing was a total disaster. The Times-Picayune in New Orleans was predicting that the levees would break and so did a computer simulation, yet nothing was done. Funding was cut to finish the levees, which caused countless deaths. I've been listening to Mike Malloy and Randi Rhodes all week and I'm just too frustrated to continue. I might add to this later, when more shocking examples of corruption and incompetence surface (like FEMA having Pat Robertson's charity Operation Blessing as #2 on their donation list).

This Is Gonna Be A Very Long Year

2005-08-31T18:55:00.000-07:00

This is going to be a very, very long year. I start school September 2nd (the geniuses decided to start on a Friday) and I'm already looking ahead to my junior and senior years of high school. I've already narrowed it down to like 15 electives for ten spots in my next two years. Of course, as a freshman and a sophomore, I get 1 SEMESTER of electives combined for two years! Technically, it's because I'm taking orchestra and Spanish, but so are tons of others, and they don't get the freedom to choose a couple of their classes. God, I hate that. So, I'm looking forward to getting to choose what I do in the next few years.

However, I still have to wade through the muck that is going to be this school year. My only actual elective is American Politics & Government, which I'm really looking forward to. I hear the teacher is phenomenal (I checked http://www.ratemyteachers.com and asked my friends) and finally I get to express my political opinion in school. I have a little feeling that it's going to be a bunch of kids who don't know what they're talking about blasting the war because they don't pay attention to any other issues, but I think it'll be fun. I don't mind them blasting the war, as I'm quite liberal and oppose it myself, but it's just that they'll be tossing out unsupported rumors and exaggerating stuff so it's inaccurate because they're only speaking with their heart instead of their head, too. I hope we'll cover some other issues and, like I said, I'm looking forward to it.

Unfortunately, it's not until second semester. In its slot in first semester, I have gym. I like the class, but I'm kind of against it, because school is supposed to be a place of learning, and I'm pretty sure no learning whatsoever goes on during gym class. Most of the kids don't even participate, anyway. It's only the kids who are already in shape that get any exercise in that class. Also, I signed up for normal history class versus TAG (Talented and Gifted) History because I really don't like history...at least, not the way school teaches it. It's just a collection of battles, their dates, their outcomes, with a president or civil rights leader occasionally thrown in for variety. Anyway, I was in normal History last year and hated it because the teachers and students were extremely stupid. Everything they handed out had tons of typos, plus they didn't teach us anything and had stupid activities that should have been over by third grade or so. That'll be an annoying class, especially since I have it 1st period, my first class of the day. Boy, am I going to enjoy getting up.

My other classes will load me down with homework for sure. I know this because I got a huge Pre-Calculus packet and had to read the Odyssey with accompanying 114 question packet for TAG English over the summer. Here's a hint to teachers who don't want to be hated eternally: DON'T GIVE HOMEWORK OVER THE SUMMER!!! You already know 95% of the kids are going to be like me and wait until the very last week of the summer, rushing to get it done on time. I guess it saves a little more time that could be devoted to teaching, but, come on. Not during the summer.

With no elections, not even midterm ones this November, I don't know what I'm going to do. Probably spend my days bored out of my skull at school and spend my nights doing homework, practicing my two instruments, reading, writing, and listening to 92.1, my "progressive" (read as: liberal) radio network. Well, on the bright side, I'll get to make fun of the morons at school and maybe talk about some of their crazy ventures here.

Here's to winter break.

Buffet Tips

2005-08-27T18:48:00.000-07:00

I know I've been gone for a while, but it's because I've got a new computer that doesn't have a floppy drive, so I have no means to copy my files from my other one. Also, we have no rewritable CDs, so I can't transfer stuff from that computer to the one I use to go online. Anyway, since I've been gone a while, I thought I'd do something quick to tide whoever's reading (probably nobody) over. I just wrote this while I was online. I'll try to figure out some way to post on here more often.

BUFFET TIPS (These are dead serious)

1) Chew thoroughly. It helps with your digestion. If you chew well from the beginning of your meal, there will be more room near the end, kind of like catching a second wind.

2) Sit up straight. I watched a documentary on competitive eating and all of the contestants stand up when they eat because there's a muscle thingy above your stomach that holds food for a short amount of time before it lets it in. When you're sitting hunched over, it can be 6 to 10 valuable seconds that could be spent digesting the food you're eating. When standing, it's like 2 seconds, so I expect it's like 4 seconds if you're sitting up straight. Also, it reduces pressure on your stomach and makes it easier for it to expand.

3) Don't be afraid to drink beverages. This help the digestive process and softens the food so you can get it to your belly faster. Plus, soda tastes good and is nutritious*.

4) Pace yourself. Don't heap everything into your mouth at once. It's easier to chew thoroughly and digest better when you pace yourself.

5) Eat grapes and drink water beforehand. If you just don't eat anything for the entire day before going to a dinner buffet, your stomach contracts and you can't jam as much food down your gullet. Instead, drink water and eat grapes, which expand your stomach, help digestion and improve your metabolism, plus get out of your system quickly.

6) Unbutton the top button of your pants. Sure, it's a stereotype, and you're afraid to do it in public, but it really helps, and if you can pull it off discreetly, no one will know, and it's not like your pants are going to fall down, not with that much food in your stomach.

I hope that together, we can run the buffets out of business.
*May be untrue

Tips For Rock Bands

2005-08-08T19:35:00.000-07:00

I had some fun doing the popularity guide, so I'd thought I'd do kind of the same thing, but for rock bands. It's a little different this time around, and some of the tips are kind of silly. It's a little bit like The Onion's occasional feature, where they give you tips on certain things. I expect that this might become a regular feature on this site.

1) When looking for a "bass player," dismiss any auditioners with fish.

2) Listen to a rock radio station to get an idea of the genre's sound. Then make your band sound exactly like everyone else's.

3) Do some research on the subject: look up "angst" in the dictionary.

4) Drummers: Remember that the drumsticks we're talking about here are made of wood, not chicken.

5) There are some important career preparation steps you should consider. For example, many colleges offer the course "How to Do Nothing All Year, Then Complain About How Tired You Are When You Go On Tour."

6) Sometimes people miss the title of your song when it's introduced on the radio, so make sure to repeat it no fewer than 20 times during each song.

7) "Rock band" is not caveman for illegalizing rocks, stupid.

8) Feel free to add in chaotic sounds and screaming whenever you want to--don't worry, nobody thinks you're a musician anyway.

9) If nothing else, at least people will say "Whoa, dude! You're in a rock band! That's so cool!" Wait a minute...no they won't.

10) There are so many one-hit wonders out there--avoid this by having no hits at all.

11) Cut out that racket down there, Rodney!

12) Maybe you could write some bad poetry and accompany it with simplistic music that no one hears because the lead "singer" is incoherently screaming the lyrics.

13) People really like it when your band name is an inside joke.

14) Don't feel constricted by genre boundaries, feel constricted by the thick rope preventing your escape from the safe you're locked in.

15) A sure way to reach the top of the charts is to make your own.

16) Here's a helpful rule of thumb: radio stations pick the worst songs they can find and play them over and over again, while avoiding good music like the plague.

17) Get a real job, you bum.

A Popularity Guide

2005-08-04T18:39:00.000-07:00

1)Buy a Good Charlotte CD.

2)Buy a Black Eyed Peas CD.

3)Buy an Avril Lavigne CD.

4)Buy your shirts from Abercrombie & Fitch, American Eagle, Aeropostale, or Hollister.

5)Wear lip gloss.

6)Dye your hair.

7)Say stupid things like "Oh my wow" and say "nice" after anyone does anything ever.

8)Use chatspeak frequently online, especially "lol" and "omg."

9)Actually say "LOL" and "OMG"

10)Use 1s occasionally instead of exclamation points!!1!

11)Use popular typos to make yourself sound cooler. Examples: pwned (instead of owned), kewl, teh, etc.

12)Add 0rz to normal words that don’t need it. Ex: I have the maximum amount of [thing]=teh [thing] is TOTALLT MAX0RZED!!!1!

13)Wear perfume (females) or Axe spray-on deodorant (males).

14)Act like you don’t know anything (oh, right…you don’t).

15)Wear baggy pants with a belt, but make sure the belt isn’t doing anything to hold your pants up.

16)Recycle cheesy jokes that have long since been past their prime, like "yo mama" and "hooray for competence."

17)Stick a fork in your eyeball. Seriously, people will really think you’re cool then.

Chatspeak, the Bane of the English Language

2005-08-04T18:35:00.000-07:00

Omg/omfg: Oh, my God/Oh, my @#$*ing God. This is used overly much in the online world, considering that it signals any level of concern (omg, r u ok??), amazement (omg, that is soooooo kool), outrage (Lomg, that sux!!), excitement (omgomgomg I cant wate!!!), agreement (omg i no), surprise (omg!!1 whut hapind?/??) and other things. It is pretty much an unnecessary precursor to any type of emotion at all and SHOULD NOT BE USED. If you’re looking to save time, why tack on an extra three letters when you don’t need them?

Lol: Laugh out loud (what other kind of laughing is there?) Here’s a suggestion: instead of writing lol, why don’t you just laugh, you morons. The person you’re talking to knows that they have made a joke, and they probably assume that you’re laughing (unless he also uses "lol", in which case there is no such thing as underestimating his intelligence). You don’t have to write down that you’re laughing. Duh. Maybe this would be more effective if people hadn’t beat it to death, but now it’s used for things that don’t require laughing. Exs: 1)I took mi dog 2 teh vet lst week and ti braked at the prson their (note that I’m using the wrong "there" on purpose because this is how these people type. Expect me to keep using the wrong homonyms on words like these.) Reply: LOL!! 2) omg, i just got shot! Reply: LOL ha, your ded. Especially in the last example, these responses are unnecessary, and, more importantly, ANNOYING.

Rotfl: Rolling on the floor, laughing. Even worse than lol, though less widely used. Rarely is the person who says this a) rolling, b)on the floor, or c)laughing. Plus it takes up almost twice the space as "lol". Here’s a time saver, if you’re a die-hard who really wants to let people know how jolly you feel about their comment: write ‘ha’. 2 letters and it doesn’t raise my blood pressure nearly as much. Or, if you’re the adventurous type, "ha ha". It even sounds like laughing, see? And that way you don’t sound like an illiterate eight year old just mashing the keyboard with your face.

Woot/w00t: "We own other team", usually used in a first-person-shooter game. This is the only chatspeak word that I find acceptable, just because it sounds so funny and hardly anyone who uses it knows what it means. I didn’t for a long time. Also acceptable are: vvoot, w()()t, w00+, \/\/00t, \/\/()()-- and other variations.
Owned/pwned: Owned means beaten badly, usually in a first-person-shooter video game, and pwned is a common typo that has somehow become popular. A typo becoming popular? That about sums up the attitude of the people who use this "language".

U/y/o/oic/yru/etc…: Letters using their sounds not in word context to make it "easier" for people to type. Because it’s so hard to reach and get those other two letters in the word. Sure, you may be saving valuable milliseconds of your life (whether they are worth saving or not is up for debate), but at the cost of looking like you have a fork stuck in the English part of your brain.

Gtg/g2g: Got to go. This upsets me. And it’s not even the abbreviation this time. Why can’t you morons at least be correct in what it stands for? Oh, that’s right. You’re stupid. Silly me. Please, people. Got to go? How about "Have to go"? Come on, it’s not that hard, is it?

Cya: See ya (you). This statement is read: "I am a moron that doesn’t care enough for my firend that I can’t take the time to reach two other keys and the space bar (one of the keys you hit twice in a row, so it doesn’t really count) and avoid sounding developmentally disabled. You could also write "bye" (NOT ‘by’ or ‘bi’), the same number of letters and zero of the stupidity.

Emoticons: A hybrid of two words: Emotion and Icon. It’s primarily used for the people who can’t guess the tone or mood of your writing by its contents, so you have to spell it out for them with a frown-face or smiling-face (I will not degrade myself by saying "smiley-face"). Who would use this except for a preteen girl who wanted to express her emotions and opinions ineffectively with a simple happy- or sad-face? Oh wait, you are one. Never mind. Another thing about emoticons: why do they exist for things that aren’t emotions? "I’m feeling pretty ninja today. How about you?" I hate morons.

Random Paint Sketches

2005-07-28T18:49:00.000-07:00

I didn't feel like writing anything today, so I decided I'd just put up some of my Paint "artwork". By the way, I'm leaving for Green Bay on Sunday, July 31st and won't be back until Tuesday, August 2nd. Some of these, like the one below, are just puns, and most probably won't be funny. Oh, well.

Global Warming: A Theory For Lazy, Gullible Fools

2005-07-27T19:34:00.000-07:00

Global warming. Another situation of people taking whatever other people say and interpreting it practically as gospel, instead of actually doing research and coming up with an opinion for themselves. From what I’ve heard reported on the TV news, radio and other media, "Leading scientists concur that global warming is a serious problem that we will have to confront soon to improve the world for our children," or some other phrase bogged down in cheesy catchphrases and keywords. First of all, what do you mean, "leading scientists?" How can a scientist lead? Are they doing the most work on global warming, are they receiving the most grant money for research on it, or are they just appointed representatives of the general field, speaking for everyone involved in science? Second, not all scientists say that global warming definitely exists and will have an adverse affect in the future. I’m sure that most agree that it needs more research to be done to come to an educated conclusion, backed up by evidence, but not that it exists for sure.

Many who have actually studied the issue believe that it is a natural warming trend or cycle, which is not far-fetched at all. If people would look at some logic, it might make sense, and they may realize that not everything you hear is true. Let’s look at this:

If you take the average temperature from a city over six days, you might notice that there is a warming trend of five to ten degrees or so, which is much more than the couple of degrees that scientists are worried about. "BUT CRIMOSN THAT’S TOO SMALL OF A TIME TO LOOK AT!!!1" you say. Okay, let’s widen our focus. Take the average temperature over a period of six months from the same spot, say from January to July. You’ll see a warming trend of about 40 to 60 to even 80 degrees, at least here in Wisconsin. Again, you may say that's not a big enough scope, because I'm only comparing parts of a cycle, basically. Well, is it so crazy to think that maybe the earth is going through a cycle right now? If you look at the average temperature now and 10,000 years ago, there is a huge difference because it was during one of the many ice ages. Maybe this is a natural warming trend and it has nothing to do with chemicals at all.

Also, going back to my example above, it all depends on what timeframe you look at. Looking at a period of a week is not reasonable to see if there's a warming trend--that's just a blip compared to the period of time scientists say that global warming has been occurring (roughly around the Industrial Revolution). However, to take the time from the Industrial Revolution to the present is unreasonable as well. 100 or even 150 years is just a blip on the Earth's 4,500,000,000 year history. That time frame is 1/45 millionth of the history of the Earth. So, obviously, it is quite possible that global warming is not the urgent problem everyone thinks it is, but could rather be a natural trend that humans have no effect on. Obviously, it does need a lot more research done on it, and in the meantime, conservation and pollution prevention aren't bad ideas.

Before going spouting to whoever you know about the iminent dangers of global warming, do some research of your own. I recommed Michael Crichton's recent book "State of Fear."

Grand Theft Auto = Pure Evil

2005-07-26T14:35:00.000-07:00

I don't like to write about video games twice in a row, but I felt I must, considering all of the hullaballoo surrounding Grand Theft Auto right now, not to mention an article in Time and Readers' Digest. Of course, you all know (probably) that Grand Theft Auto's rating has been upgraded from Mature to Adults Only. This means that only 18+ people can buy it, instead of only 17+. Brilliant. Great job, ESRB. However, Best Buy and Wal-Mart have stopped selling it...not that it'll slow down the sales much. The reason GTA's rating was upgraded is because there was a "hidden" code circulating around online that showed your girlfriend nude. Like the late-night comics and everyone else says, "I was shocked that a game that let you kill policemen, solicit prostitutes and carjack people had hidden sex in it. Oh my God!"

Recently, Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman have been trying to kill Grand Theft Auto, because it has a bad influence on children. Hmm...I wonder if that's the reason it was rated MATURE? I wonder why it was NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PEOPLE UNDER 17! Maybe it's because people under 17 aren't supposed to play it. Could that be it? Clinton and Lieberman don't think so. Maybe if parents would pay attention to what they're buying for their kids, there wouldn't be such a big problem with the game in the first place. If you wouldn't take your 12 year old to see a movie like House of 1000 Corpses or Hannibal, why would you let them play a game like Grand Theft Auto? And wouldn't the name GRAND THEFT AUTO send off a little flare in your brain that, hmm, maybe this game isn't for children?

There are plenty of movies that involve killing police officers and other people, yet senators aren't trying to ban them. And, by the way, GTA doesn't "promote" cop-killing. In fact, you get in huge trouble if you kill a police officer and you usually get arrested or killed. People blame the video game after they go on some shooting spree, saying that it inspired them or some other nonsense, when, really, the game is only as bad as the person playing it. There is so much choice in the game that you don't have to do anything illegal, but the option is there. If you try to cross the street outside of a crosswalk, your character will actually jaywalk. Since it is a real-life simulation, you can do whatever, including breaking the laws. But guess who's controlling the little guy on the screen. I guarantee you that it's not Rockstar, or some evil force that makes your kid commit virtual crimes.

In the paraphrased words of the president of the ESA, "The free-speech clause in the First Amendment was not to protect forms of speech that were generally acceptable, but to protect forms of speech that many would object to." Exactly. Maybe if people didn't walk around like bumbling idiots and gobbling up whatever mainstream media tells them and actually formed an opinion of their own, based on evidence, this whole thing could have been avoided. It just is one more example of the majority of America's stupidity. And, oddly enough, this time it's mainly Democrats.

EA Sports = Pure Evil

2005-07-25T13:30:00.000-07:00

Electronic Arts, how I hate thee. Yet love thee. You dominate the sports area of video games by snapping up the licenses for the NFL, NBA and college sports. You have so much money that you can afford it no sweat. Yet, by doing this, you prevent other developers and gamemakers from making sports games that use players from the actual leagues. I suppose this is your plan, to suffocate the competition, but it shouldn't be this way.

Every year, they release a new version of a game, yet the only thing that has changed is the last number in the year. NCAA Football 2004 is virtually the same game as NCAA Football 2005, just that the '05 edition has slightly updated graphics, updated rosters and home field advantage. Then, of course, NCAA Football 2006 is coming out soon and will be basically the same game, just with updated rosters, graphics and a Race For the Heisman mode. Is this slight upgrading worth forking out $50 each year? No. Yet, people are still suckered into buying these games because they have the new players and you include the minimum number of new things possible to make people think that it's worth the $50. Not to mention everyone's obsession with getting the newest thing to be cool.

Where are the monopoly laws? We need to break EA up a little in the sports department because they're stifling creativity and ingenuity in the sports genre by gobbling up licenses and preventing the competition from, well, competing. ESPN NFL 2K5 was a great football game, but they won't be able to put out 2K6 because EA has exclusive rights. I realize it isn't entirely EA's fault that they have the exclusivity--any comopany would want that--but the leagues that sell them the licenses should be more responsible and NOT SELL EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS! Are these people brain-dead? They would get so much more money if they would allow many gamemakers to use the players and league stuff, not to mention EA wouldn't have a monopoly and just keep pumping out barely changing Madden's every year until that stupid announcer croaks.

Yet, for some reason, I play EA games frequently. It's like you can't avoid them. I own NBA Street Volumes 2 and 3. I play NCAA Football 2005, and played '04 last year. I play Madden 2005, and played '04 last year. I even play their college basketball game. Even though I dislike them, their formulaic games are still of fairly good quality. However, I might just think that because there is nothing else on the market to compare it to. I wish I could boycott their games, but it's just like Microsoft having a monopoly on operating systems. Unless you have a Mac, you pretty much have to have Windows because games won't run otherwise.

EA, I hate you. Don't suck the life out of the game industry, and don't buy exclusive licenses, or I'll be forced to play and enjoy your games.

Traitorgate/Treasongate: Get a NON-stupid Name, Will You?

2005-07-24T16:00:00.000-07:00

I made the size bigger and plan to keep it like this so it's easier to read. See how compassionate I am? I hate squinting to read online stuff. I also have white writing on black background so it's easier for you. Anyway, here's the meat:

On 92.1, many of the hosts have been referring to the Karl Rove scandal as "traitorgate" or "treasongate." These are the stupidest nicknames I have ever heard for a scandal. People realize that you don't have to add the suffix "-gate" to signify that it's a scandal, right? Just because the Nixon scandal involved bugging Watergate doesn't mean that the name has to be applied to everything.

The scandal involved Rove leaking the identity of a CIA agent to Robert Novak, a reporter for Time Magazine, I believe. And, sure enough, while listening to some talk radio show today, there was some idiot who actually called it "Rovakgate." I feel that I have to stress that I'm not making this up. It is possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard uttered. I nearly had my brain atrophy down to nothing after I heard that.

Of course, I believe Rove should be fired. I'm pretty sure all non-Republicans do, whether or not he's convicted of anything, simply because he's Karl Rove. He's the mastermind of Bush's campaign, and I'd want him gone even if he was squeaky clean, so he couldn't work for Republicans anymore. Democrats/liberals/others probably won't admit this, but I bet they're all thinking it. That's why they want to keep the focus on this scandal, even though, they claim, Bush is trying to distract them by appointing a Supreme Court nominee. Well, isn't that what Bush is supposed to be doing (for once)? I'm not a Bush supporter, but it's not like he's just going to leave the place vacant.

I'll probably talk about the nominee (John G. Roberts) when his hearings come around. But, for now, I pose to you a question: Why did Fox cancel "Greg the Bunny"?

What?! I can't use my name?!

2005-07-21T20:18:00.000-07:00

Why couldn't I use my name? Usually I'm Crimson King on everything else, but noooo, not on here. I don't even remember what I put. And why can't you put a space in your name? Just another way to restrict my freedom of expression, I suppose. However, I do like the title of "I'm Right, You're Wrong." It really accurately explains the truth.

By the way, I hate bloggers, but I felt the need to make one. It's the only place where I can post short opinions without bringing up a topic for discussion on a forum or posting a full, well-thought-out essay. I wonder if anyone will read this, or if I'll keep up with it.

Well, let's see...I hate talk radio. That should be the first thing on here. I don't care if it's conservative or liberal, I hate it. Yet, I listen to it. Why? All of the hosts say pretty much the same thing about each topic, and spend a lot of time simply repeating their opinions, especially on the live ones. I listen to 92.1 The Mic in Madison, which has a lot of syndicated talk shows on, like the Al Franken and Randi Rhodes shows. As you can tell, it's "progressive". Can you make some progress in not having a year's worth of commercials, then ten minutes of show? It's outrageous. Anyway, I'll probably keep listening to it, because occasionally the hosts will spout a good point, and I don't listen to the news during the summer (my main sources for news are the late-night shows on NBC).