Get the word out- I'm gonna nerd out.

I may be a little drunk, just follow with me.

2011-03-17T23:18:00.000-04:00

I'm only 24, fresh out of college, but my friends have already become two types of people: those who have settled, and those who have not.

The ones who have settled have accepted their lot. They didn't really aspire that much to begin with, finding value in relationships, wanting children and families more than adventure and travel.

The ones who haven't settled just are not happy yet. They still haven't seen every corner of the world, tried every possible career opportunity available to them, tried writing and reading and learning and teaching at every level. I am one who hasn't settled; I can see the excitement that the unsettled values, can feel it in my bones. God, of anything in my life, I want to see everything.

I think I'll quit ESL.

2011-03-11T14:57:00.000-05:00

I decided, as part of my effort to become a better human being and move forward towards my goal of eventually joining the Peace Corps, that I wanted to start teaching ESL. Teaching ESL looks good on a resume to the Peace Corps (probably has something to do with them wanting you to, like, teach English abroad or something) and volunteering is good for the soul or something stupid like that. Anyway, I found an opportunity and started assisting a teacher at a local community center.

At first the experience was awesome. I've volunteered before, once at a local hospice administrative office (it made me feel like death) and a few times for a campaign (which varied from alright to crappy, depending on the company I kept). This was different; the teacher and the students were engaging and it wasn't too exhausting nor time-consuming. It's two nights awake, two hours a class. In the beginning, I was to assist some of the weaker students with just keeping up in class. The county had apparently run out of room in the "beginners" classes, and just started sticking students in the lower intermediate courses, where English just went over their head. One student in particular, Hakeem, grew so frustrated that when I tried to help him with the computer, he snapped "I no speak English!" which is pretty self-defeating. But I engaged him, forcing him to read aloud during class and dialoguing with him. Within just a couple of weeks, he was more comfortable speaking English and was able to practice on his own.

But now that some of the weaker students are more caught up, Kathy, the instructor, pretty much has nothing for me to do. I sit with one student who's more shy than behind and watch Kathy teach for most of the class. It could be interesting, learning English grammar and why, exactly, we phrase sentences the way we do; but it's not what I'm there for. I am there to help her teach. I am not a student teacher.

Additionally sometimes she flat out teaches the wrong thing. Just the other day she was teaching them about adjectives ("the green book," "the big chair") and started teaching them adverbs instead ("he jumped quickly," "she spoke shyly") which, if it was confusing for me, had to be impossible for most of the students.

"Kathy," I called, "aren't these adverbs?"
She snapped, "I'm just trying not to confuse them!"

That was Tuesday. Thursday, she pulled me aside before class and informed me that she didn't appreciate me scolding her in front of the class like that. I apologized and said that I was confused, and that I wasn't trying to make her look bad in front of her students, that I was looking for clarification more than anything else. But she was still annoyed. And later on, when she was teaching them about sounds and disobeying one of the rules that she had written, I gently pulled her aside during a short break and whispered the rule to her.

Again, "I'm just trying not to confuse them!" I have to tell you here that she's apparently one of the best teachers in the county.

So I decided to quit. I obviously have no further value there, and it's a waste of my nights. I'll tell her Tuesday.

A Day Without a Facebook: Day One

2011-03-10T09:14:00.000-05:00

I gave up Facebook and Twitter for Lent. There, I said it out loud. And so desperately, in a hopeless attempt to communicate with the outside world, I am blogging. Is this cheating? God I hope so.

I chose to give up Facebook and Twitter for Lent for a few reasons. Number one: I am not actually religious. ("What?" you might say. "Lent is a religious thing!" Is it? I don't care.) So I'm not too concerned with giving up, say, the Seven Deadly Sins, mostly because I am way too awesome to even think about that stuff. (Was that pride? Who cares!) Reason number two: I always look for something that's difficult but not necessary. Like the year I gave up soda, back when I was chugging three bottles a day of that stuff. (My teeth were yellow.) Or the year I gave up red meat, back when I'd have a hamburger every other day. Giving up Facebook and Twitter is going to be difficult for me, but it's not like I need it to function. (Right? R...right?)

So I use Lent as a time to test myself, to try new things, new lifestyles and ideologies, like I'm trying on new clothes in a clothing store. It's safe, because there is a distinct end point- Easter- and hey, everyone else is doing it. When I fail, there's tons of people there to point at me and laugh, which I'll pretend is supposed to be encouraging. Everyone else is going through the same thing that I am going through.

So yesterday was my first day without Facebook and Twitter, without social networking. I prepared for it- I took the Facebook and Twitter app off of my phone and un-bookmarked it on my browser. But within a few minutes I started to twitch. I'd think of a funny comment ("Fat Tuesday and Women's Day are on the same day? Who's brilliant idea was THAT?") and want to post it. Or I'd be reading a really good news article (like anything by Joan Walsh) and by GOD, who was I supposed to share it with? It's not enough that I spend my days aimlessly clicking through profiles of people I never speak to anymore, judging them on their baby daddys, but what about when I have something to say? Now that I'm not forced to limit my wit to 140-characters, how will I express anything at all? (She says, typing away at 96-words a minute on Blogger.)

EoG: Chapter 6 - From Polytheism to Monolatry

2010-09-12T20:58:00.000-04:00

Highlighting this chapter is the law of religious tolerance- colloquially speaking (the best kind) people will only respect other religions when they think they can get something out of it. I find it a little coincidental that I'm typing an article about religious tolerance, or lack their of, in the midst of the rise of Islamophobia, and maybe that is something I will try to highlight. In fact, reading this chapter, I continuously found myself referencing modern day happenings, such as the takeover of America from the Native Americans to the modern day fight with Muslims. So if anything, we will learn that time does not change human nature.

First off, the definition of monolatry- it is the step between polytheism and monotheism, where the society believes not the a pantheon of multiple gods, but rather in one god for their culture; however, they do not believe in one universal god. Other cultures have their own gods as well.

Essentially, around the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, prophets began to teach xenophobic practices. This coincided with Israel being taken over by Assyria and other major power sources. Wright defines two possible reasons for the rise of monolatry- foreign policy and domestic power. As Israel's power shrank with Assyria's takeover, kings and their citizens got angry. They got nationalistic. They believed in the power of Israel. This nationalistic pride would reasonably be reflected in their unifying national religion of the time; claiming allegiance to Israel and Jerusalem is a way of showing national pride, and what better way than to claim allegiance to Jerusalem's god, Yahweh?

Similarly, this was reflected in domestic policies. As Israeli nationalism took root, worshipping foreign gods became totally passe. It was only the rich people that enjoyed being abroad and who had foreign objects because they were the only ones who could afford such nice things; thus, they were cosmopolitan and elitist. So it was a class system that was also xenophobic. Again, we can draw parallels between then and now. Today there is an overwhelming sense of patriotism that may have been present before 9/11, but now can be seen as a reaction to terrorism. Some areas of the country are proud to be 100% American and reject so-called "foreign" influences, such as Islam. Similarly, Israelis hated non-Israeli influences. Other gods in the traditional Israeli pantheon were eliminated for their "foreign" influence, leaving the capital city's god Yahweh as the one true god.

EoG: Chapter 5- Polytheism, the Religion of Ancient Israel

2010-08-26T17:24:00.000-04:00

This chapter is set up as Ba'al versus Yahweh; the ancient king god of the primitive Pagans versus the new, more powerful monotheistic god of the Israelites. It helps that the Bible includes many stories about the battles between Ba'al and Yahweh, which can be taken metaphorically for larger cultural issues. But this era of Western human history has more to do with the evolution than modern monotheism emerging fully-fledged from the minds of the Israelites.

Robert Wright claims that rather than God emerging fully fleshed, announcing himself to the Israelites as their lord and savior, it is far more complicated than that, just like the culture of the time. As implied by modern interpretation of the Bible, the Israelites destroyed and overtook the disgusting pagan Canaanites and replaced themselves and their religion as the dominating force of the land. However, it is more likely that the Israelites and Canaanites peacefully coexisted, trading culture and goods, until the gradual peaceful takeover of the Canaanites.

Wright's reasonings for this:

There is no archaeological evidence for a war between the Israelites and the Canaanites. As evidenced here and also in Wright's book, most of the digs revealed cities without walls or weapons. Walls and weapons are indicators of cities at war; without those, it is far more likely that the two cultures coexisted peacefully, and considering the Israelites used to be a nomadic tribe, they more than likely traded.
There is evidence in the Bible that the omnipotent God we know today wasn't always that way. Many passages of the Bible allude to a pantheon of gods of which God was only a minor member; Psalm 82:1 says "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement." Most, if not all of the original wording, was probably edited out by the original authors, intent on maintaining Yahweh's divinity in a changing world.
Many of the mythical narratives proclaiming Yahweh's divinity bear a striking resemblance to the tales of Ba'al and El.
- El is the god of the Canaanites, the original king of the Canaanite gods. The name "Israel" is likely derived from this name; ancient cultures had a habit of naming important things like cities after their gods, and Israel ends in El. The Hebrew word for God is "El," possibly derived from Canaan tradition. There is a school of thought that the El worshippers lived to the north of Judah, and the Yahweh worshippers, to the south, and both are mentioned interchangeably in the Bible, almost seamlessly. In fact, there is one passage, Exodus 6:2-3, that specifically says "I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them." God himself explains that he started out with a different name. Should the Canaanites and Israelites trade culture and goods (such as explained in the text above) then, like previous Pagan cultures, it would make sense to merge pantheons to create a peaceful cultural connection. The question is how a minor god such as Yahweh ended up absorbing the more powerful god El.
- Ba'al is the enemy of Yahweh. Ultimately, Ba'al came to embody the evil pagan religions and everything that was wrong with them; Yahweh stood for the morally upright monotheistic religion. This epic battle culminated in 1 Kings 18:16-46, in which God burns a sacrificial bull and Ba'al does not. Elijah seizes the followers of Ba'al and slaughters them all. Considering how much Ba'al and Yahweh did not get along, it is a surprise that many stories about Yahweh seem to be rewritten Ba'al stories. This isn't so surprising when you realize that competitors often steal each other's ideas in order to outdo each other; Apple products are getting copied left and right, to get a piece of the action. Ba'al was a storm god, worshipped as a bringer of rain, very important and popular for agricultural communities. It is no wonder that Yahweh, to compete, began developing aspects of a rain god: his voice as thunder, his spear as lightning, a rider of the clouds.

Ultimately we can see where the origins of Yahweh, of the Judeo-Christian God, the original monotheistic god, lie in polytheism. What effect does this have on our interpretation of religion?

I can see that by recognizing the changes of the origin of God, a lot of the mystery and myth is taken away, and with it, a lot of mysticism. God is no longer infallible. He is susceptible to time and the philosophy of the times, just like the rest of us. Personally this appeals to me, a god that I can relate to, but the power of a Christian god lies in his beauty and omnipotence. We (his worshippers) are not worthy to worship him, but with this knowledge, he might not be worthy of us.

Church

2010-08-22T07:59:00.000-04:00

So for some reason I am up abominably early this morning, which leaves me with a dilemma. For the past week, I've been debating whether or not I am going to church today. Earlier this week I was torn between "Well, it's not like I ever go to church, I don't want to start a church-going trend for myself" and my dad basically hounding me to go to church. "Go to the 9:15," my dad said, "I think you like that one better. You don't have to go to the same one as your mom and I."

So the reasons I don't want to go to church are as follows: one, I've never really enjoyed or believed in church and the worship service. Robert Wright's Evolution of God brings up the whole theory that worship was used in the ancient times basically to appease your god so that s/he doesn't explode you with fire. Also the Christians believe that service is used to show your devotion and love of God, and to say that you are not worthy to be loved by God. Also probably so they don't explode in fire either (the Apocalypse). I have not accepted God, either "into my life" or even as a fully fledged concept yet, so whenever I do visit church, I felt like I was visiting a cult and feel really uncomfortable. And two, church is really early on a Sunday, when I just want to be sleeping. I also don't really know anyone at church, except for the one girl that keeps smiling at me and saying "Hi" even though I don't know who she is. So essentially, I'd show up and just sit there by myself, really uncomfortable, while everyone is clapping and singing, until the thing was over, and then my parents would show up for the the later service and I'd have to awkwardly explain myself to Jair about how I am still not a Jesus freak.

Contrarily, I do feel like going to church today. Number one, I am awake at 7AM for some stupid reason, which gives me time to not only update this blog, but also to actually get to church on time. Really, what else am I going to do this morning? (Porn?) Number two, as stated above, my dad has been bugging me to go. Although if I give him the satisfaction this week, I will not hear the end of it, ever. Thirdly, ever since the mission's trip to Haiti, I've sort of felt obligated to go, as if I would be taking advantage of the church if I just used them for Haiti and then left them in the dust, laughing, which would be like the worst six-night stand ever. Especially because I didn't use them, I worked hard, and other people that went on the trip don't go to St. Matthew's (or St. Matt's, which is what the cool kids call it, which you and I are not). So finally I have also felt like I should go. One of the missionaries I met in Haiti, a team leader named Hannah, talked all the time (nonstop) about how she always "felt called" to God and to follow his wills, and she always had to look for his will. All of the times God "called her" sounded like huge coincidences to me, like when God called her to India and and she could tell because for some reason everyone she talked to for like a week kept talking about India. So I guess maybe there is some non-cynical part of me that feels like going to church and seeing if God is calling me to church.

I asked Twitter what to do and my good friend Carlo just replied: "Just go." Fine. But I get to look super cute doing it. I mean, what else am I going to do today?

Love & Haiti

2010-08-20T13:10:00.000-04:00

While I'm going to get more in-depth on my trip to Haiti (I plan on trying to sell an article about it, I think) I just want to highlight one really, really stupid part of my trip.

While the fine ladies and gents over at Praying Pelican did a wonderful job of keeping my fellow missionaries and I safe from hostile locals and illness-inducing food (sort of) they failed to warn us ladies about handing out our actual contact information to the local construction workers we would be working with. I know, I know; whenever I hear warnings about "Don't give your actual number out to strangers," I always think "Who does that? Who is that stupid?" Apparently, I am.

My main mission in Haiti was to help rebuild schools and houses, buildings that people would actually need. Three out of the five days that we were there we actually did that; Monday through Wednesday we spent sifting rocks out of sand, mixing cement, shoveling pieces of cinderblock out of rooms, bailing water from the nightly rainstorms, and throwing cement on the walls. We worked with a local Haitian construction crew of about a dozen young men, between the ages of about twelve to 35. (I don't actually know about the 12-year-old part, Fiddler Cherie may or may not have actually been a hired member, maybe he was just doing it for fun.) It was exhausting, strenuous work, made harder by the boiling hot sun. Our first night there Praying Pelican also encouraged us to "build relationships" with the local people. So in addition to building infrastructure, our second mission was to develop God in their lives, by talking to them, or something, I don't know. I talk to people anyway, I figured I wouldn't have a problem with that, language barrier or no.

The local construction crew absolutely loved my friend Deanne and I. We're both cute girls, in our mid-20's, friendly and chatty. We threw ourselves into the dirty work and actively engaged the construction workers in conversation, fulfilling both missions pretty well.

One thing that they (the proverbial "they") tell you is that Haiti is a poverty-stricken, destitute place, where infrastructure is non-existent, people bathe in standing water in the streets, children run around naked for lack of a better option, and trash stands in heaps for months until they burn it, because there is literally no other option. It is a dirty, smelly country that needs help. People will do almost anything to get out of there. (Unless you're Wyclef Jean, apparently.) Almost anything, including marrying an American to get to America and a better life.

You see where I'm going with this? Three men in particular loved chatting with Deanne and I. There was John, Lucien and Pierre Louis. John was the biggest offender- on the same day, he wrote "love letters" to both Deanne and I, declaring a passionate romantic love for Deanne and saying something "wet" to me, which I refuse to try to understand. He tried to write these letters in English, but his grasp of English is challenged, to say the least. Both of us got marriage proposals throughout the week. They would call us over to where they were working, saying "You my frien?" After we nodded- yes, I your frien- they would tell us, in broken English, using French, Haitian-Creole, and hand gestures, that they wanted to visit us in America, asking us where did we live, could we buy them laptops? After struggling to understand them for about ten minutes, either we would nod and say "Yes, ok my friend!" and walk away, or the big boss would walk by and they would scatter. He spent the better part of Tuesday and Wednesday chasing them back to their posts. And then they would come back, asking us to please, give us our numbers, our addresses, our emails, so they they can contact us after the trip.

It sounds harmless, it does. And I thought it did at the time, so I wrote down my email and phone number one time, giving it to John. I wasn't too sure if I should- I'd seen the Digicel guys walking around the main streets of Haiti with their red aprons, so I knew they had cell phones, and I'd spied a few Internet cafes. But Deanne assured me that they couldn't contact us anyway, so I thought of no reason why I shouldn't. One other woman on the group, Vicki, said we should've given the church number, but it was after the fact, and I didn't know the number anyway.

Hindsight! Perfect 20-20 vision, right? Last night I received 20 calls within ten minutes of each other from John. The first night I got back I received dozens of calls from the same number. I added the number under my contact list as "Do Not Answer." Deanne actually picked up the phone when John was calling her to try to talk to him. We don't have the benefit of being actually in the same room with him anymore, so he can't use hand gestures, limiting him to his measly broken English-Creole combination. The only words she got out of him were "I love you" and "You my frien." When I contacted Verizon, they, in their brilliant wisdom, do not make it easy to block a number via cell phone. In order to block a number, you have to go onto their website, go to "Safeguards," and then enter the number, as long as it is a 10-digit American number. Because no one has ever been harassed by a foreigner, ever. It was recommended to me that I write a letter to Verizon, which would be addressed within 24 hours.

So the saga continues. Lesson learned- learn a fake number to give to these people, and fast. I'll keep you all posted.

I'm going to Haiti!

2010-08-05T19:55:00.000-04:00

Haiti is coming up soon. Very soon. Apparently I haven't told anyone that I'm going, because every time I mention "Oh, I'm going to be out of town that week," or "Man, my arm feels like a friggen' pincushion," someone gives me a weird look. Then I have to explain that I'm going to Haiti on a mission's trip with my family's church, etc, etc.

A few warnings that I have been given:

After I told my mom that yes, I wanted to go to Haiti, my father called me to talk to me about the trip. He told me (and I heard this so many other times after this) that this wasn't a vacation. The country, already one of the most poverty-stricken, economically weak nations in the world, had been devastated by the earthquake. Even months later (the earthquake hit January 12, 2010) they're still finding dead bodies in the rubble. Children wandered the streets, recently orphaned. Crime and disease were constants. This was going to be one of the most eye-opening, life-changing experiences of my life. Was I sure I wanted to go?
At Buffalo Wild Wings, I was talking about the devastating poverty I was likely to go up against, and my friend (I guess he's a friend? My friend's boyfriend, at least) went over the three easiest ways to protect myself.
- The area at the base of the throat is the weakest point in the body. Jab at it with your knuckles or, if you've got them, your keys, and you've at least knocked out his breath, if not collapsed his pipes.
- When being raped, grab and twist. I will leave you to fill in the blanks. HINT: IT HURTS
- Less effective, but I would feel like such a badass doing it: Jab or punch his nose. If done right, like if you've broken his nose, blood will pour out and you will go blind. If not, then you've just pissed off the shark, and now he's hungry for blood.
At the meeting at the church I went to on Wednesday, we asked why the women would need to bring a bathing suit, specifically a one-piece. The guy in charge of the trip paused for a second, then said delicately, "There's going to be communal showers." Which is hilarious! Showering together. Guess who has to worry about athlete's foot, too. One woman stood up and said, when asked to express her anxieties, "I know this isn't a vacation, but I guess I thought I would have time to relax. I thought we were going to the beach, that's why I thought the bathing suit was on there!" Oh, I did too.

But another thing that they talked to us about was to write down everything that we felt and thought during the entire experience. When we got back, he said, we would be absorbed back into our everyday lives, with its everyday concerns- jobs, houses, school, etc. But if we wrote down everything, when we opened the journal to read it again, it would be like being back there, and everything that we learned and saw would never be forgotten. Because while we get to take a plane out of Haiti after a week, the people there will spend their entire lives downtrodden by poverty.

So, uh, yes! Haiti. I'll fly in on Saturday, probably have church or prayer or something that night, then Sunday I'll have church again, and probably hang out with the orphans or something. Monday through Thursday I'm going to be working on building a school or community center during the day, then having a meeting with Praying Pelican Ministries (the people who are organizing and running the trip), then another prayer/bible study session with my own church group. This isn't no vacation, I'll tell you that much.

EoG Chapter 4: Gods of the Ancient States

2010-07-10T15:12:00.000-04:00

As Western society began transitioning from chiefdoms to ancient city-states, religion began to have elements of modern religion, namely:

Monotheism
Ethical Core
Universalism

Let's begin by looking at monotheism. To explain why gods were so cranky and finicky, gods in pre-literate ancient chiefdoms were anthropomorphic, with human flaws and desires. As such, the courts of gods reflected ancient courts of kings. As such, there was often a "king" god who controlled all of the other gods. Gradually the "king" god (such as Marduk in Mesopotamia or later Aten in Egypt, early home of the Hebrews) began to replace the other gods either by absorbing them or usurping them altogether. As ancient cultures began to study science, the need for a bunch of finicky gods who held nature and humanity at their whim receded as ancient scientists discovered that they could be predicted and/or prevented. In addition, ancient societies previously relied upon polytheistic gods to create cultural and economic bridges, or syncretism. Whereas before including or absorbing another society's gods was good diplomacy, gradually creating a single powerful god became a way to show dominance over another culture.

Another element of modern religion whose roots can be found in ancient times is an ethical core. Religion was originally used to explain why the world worked the way that it did, and later to manipulate it for desired results. As society became more complicated, kings and other community leaders began to use religion to control the general populace. Whether knowing that they were taking advantage of the established belief system or as an extension of the belief system is an argument I leave up to the Marxists and fundamentalists. Nevertheless, ancient gods began to send out demonic beings to punish their followers- beings such as "Fever" or "Jaundice" to punish people who acted amorally, such as urinating in the river or similar acts that violated social decency. This played to ancient people's self interests. The difference between modern and ancient religions is that our religions have the concept of the afterlife to put us in line- ancient people were punished pretty quickly if they stepped out of line. Philosophers also compare the modern law system to this ancient practice.

The final element of modern religion is universalism, or that religion applies to everyone and not just the followers of the religion, ie, that Marduk created all people, not just the Babylonians. Before technology allowed them to, people lived in isolated city-states that allowed them to develop an us-vs.-them mentality. Gods were used by kings to incorporate nearby villages and cities into their religion to display dominance economically and diplomatically. As technology and the economy progressed to the point that large city states (and thus their religions) began trading and inter-marrying, the concept of a dominant god began to take hold. While Hammurabi began the idea with his Code of Law, touting Marduk as the one god, it was Amenhotep IV in Egypt that began to tout his god Aten as the god of all people (not coincidentally, this was also the original home of the Hebrews). There was a global need for cosmopolitanism and cultural acceptance that came with economic and technological advancements; having one god over all people united the world (as they knew it) under one philosophy. This paved the way for monotheistic faiths, which we address in the next chapter.

EoG Chapter 3: Religion in the Age of Chiefdoms

2010-06-29T19:53:00.000-04:00

So far in this book, we have had the question of Marxism versus fundamentalists; rephrased, we have been discussing if religion is good for the people or for those in power. In the last chapter, it was a question of whether shamans created mystical gods to control and victimize the people around them or if they genuinely believed that they had control over the supernatural world and used that power to help those around them. In this chapter, we have reached the next step in human cultural development, the chiefdoms. These groups are larger than the bands of kin that spread throughout the world, and are more complicated and hierarchal, but not as large, complicated or hierarchal as future ancient city-states.

As groups became more complicated, so too did religion. Religion stepped in to reinforce a moral code and social system to keep order. In Evolution of God, Robert Wright uses the example of Polynesian islands whose concept of manu and tapa used to keep control. Manu is good; tapa was bad. Chiefs and priests would invoke tapa to punish those who were exhibiting anti-social behaviors, either morally (such as murder or theft) or not following religious rituals. Similarly, chiefs were considered conduits of the positive religious energy of manu, which protected you from religious wrath and made your life more successful. They rewarded those who lived their lives positively and religiously. Thus began moral dimensions within society- do good, receive good fortune; do bad, be sacrificed to appease the gods.

In many ways, concepts such as manu and tapa served ancient chiefdoms as science. People would find correlations between two variables-such as the appearance of stars in the night sky and weather, or perhaps the behavior of the parents and the health of their child- and surmise an explanation, using their religion. In the first case, they would interpret their gods' wishes to predict the weather; in the second case, they would reason that the parent's tapa made the child ill. While their methodology was crude and their explanations often wrong, our modern science is dated back to ancient times.

The Marxists believe that chiefs and priests selfishly used manu and tapa as a carrot to control those in society and, while they may be correct in some instances, ancient chiefdoms tended to be subject to cultural Darwinism. Chiefs that abused their power or rule poorly tended to fall victim to wars or coups, and their societies tended to be trampled by socially stronger societies. Just as anti-social people tended to be eliminated through sacrifice or by outcasting them, so stronger and more harmonious societies developed and grew, and more selfish chiefs were eliminated in coups. And the most successful societies eventually grew into larger ancient states, such as Babylon, forming the next chain in human development.

EoG Chapter 2: The Shaman

2010-06-21T23:59:00.000-04:00

Between ancient hunter-gatherer superstitions and more organized village chiefdoms, there lay the shaman. The term "shaman" is an umbrella term that covers any person (man or woman, perhaps child) that claims to have some control or insight into a culture's supernatural belief system. Cynics (Marxists) and optimists (functionalists) debate over whether the shaman truly believed that they had control or insight into their gods and goddesses or if they were a sort of primitive scam artist. There is merit for both arguments.

For the Marxists side, there is the idea that shamans didn't do the work that they did to serve the greater good, but rather for personal gain. Services that they provided were paid for rather than given for free or the common good. Using their so-called access to the supernatural world, shamans leveraged political powers for themselves, bringing themselves into further notoriety. The anthropologist Paul Radin explains that the shaman techniques were "designed to do two things: to keep the contact with the supernatural exclusively in the hands of the [shaman], and to manipulate and exploit the sense of fear of the ordinary man." By developing this religion that revolved around service for the shaman, the shamans were servicing themselves at the expense of culture.

The fundamentalists argue that the shamans weren't necessarily in it for themselves. They point to the strenuous hardships that many shamans suffered to get in touch with the spiritual world- many cultures required them to abstain from food or sex for days or months, some even to pierce their penises. If a shaman was found to be a fraud, he was ostracized from the community, probably to certain death. In certain cultures, shamans guaranteed their work- beads or blankets that they received for their services were given back if their incantations failed to heal the sick or prevent storms. According to the fundamentalists, the shamans gave social cohesion and created "social vitality."

Who was right? Were the shamans fundamentally good, creating social unity and serving society? Or as the Marxists believe, did they control society and exploit innocent people? As Robert Wright puts it, why not both? Both viewpoints come into play for cultural evolution. Shamans paved the way for the next step in human development- chiefdoms.

EoG Chapter 1: The Primordial Faith

2010-06-09T22:33:00.000-04:00

Religion started out several millenia ago as a way for early hunter-gatherer societies to explain the world around them. A few questions they wanted answered- what were dreams? What happened when you died? Why do bad things happen to good people? Good things to bad people? What can I do to make good things happen to me?

Religion first began when man developed the concept of a soul, that dreams were your soul wandering the earth while you slept, and death was your soul leaving your body once your earthly form was finished. From there it's an easy leap to putting souls in everything- trees, animals, even inanimate objects like rocks and the wind. (Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?) From there, early societies developed the idea that there were gods that were in charge of all of these different objects- the god of trees, the god of the sun and wind, etc. Religion started as a way of explaining the world around them and grew organically from that.

Hunter-gatherers developed five different types of gods:

Elemental spirits: Objects that we consider inanimate, such as rocks, have intelligence, personality and a soul.
Puppeteers: Parts of nature, such as the wind, were being controlled by gods distinct from themselves.
Organic spirits: Objects that we consider alive, such as animals or trees, have souls themselves and can control elements of nature.
Ancestral spirits: Deceased members of society stuck around, able to help or hinder the living.
The high god: This isn't a god that is in charge of other gods, but rather one that is somehow superior to the other gods for some reason or another.

Robert Wright is careful to explain that early religions weren't religions at all, that they were a way of explaining the world before there was writing or modern technology to understand it all. So then was early "religion" more of an early science, albeit a supernatural one? Modern science uses technology, a scientific method and the rapid exchange of ideas to explain why the world works the way that it does, to explain why the wind blows, storms come and disease strikes.In hunter-gatherer societies, religion didn't serve as a moral compass. People lived in small, transparent groups, so if one did steal or murder, it would not only be seen easily, but backlash against that person- his or her close kin and tribesmen would know that it was that person and prevent a cohesive society from functioning. Then people didn't worry about betraying some higher god, just each other. Ritual was used to appease the ego of a god to create good things.

Finally, a quote: "Religious doctrines can't survive if they don't appeal to the psychology of the people whose brains harbor them," meaning religion will only work if it appeals to the hunter-gatherers. If a religion or religious idea doesn't make sense to a group of people, they will reject it and search for a new explanation of why nature works the way that it does. This raises the idea of cultural evolutionism, or cultural Darwinism- weaker ideas are discarded in favor of stronger, more logical ideas. This can come in the form of rituals, when one ritual doesn't work and must be discarded to find another way, or simple theory.

My thoughts about my personal religion:

If ritual was originally created to make good things happen to good people and prevent bad things, then the rituals that I went through when I was younger- communion, baptism- were there to make good things happen to me?
My original religion- Episcopalianism, or Diet Catholic- doesn't make any sense to me. Does this mean that it doesn't reflect my own ideas about the way the world works? Is this why science is more successful, and why Catholicism and Christianity is losing members?

Evolution of God

2010-06-09T21:21:00.000-04:00

For my Questioning Religion class, I'm writing a thesis paper on the different manifestations of God within western religions, namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It sounded smart to me, anyway, and it was better than debating the existence of evil all summer (or going outside.)

To this end, I'm reading Evolution of God by philosopher Robert Wright, about the development of religion in western society. It's pretty convenient for me that this book exists; it's like my work has been done for me!

To help me figure out this book, I'm going to be summarizing and analyzing the book chapter by chapter. If you guys want, you can read along with me or comment or criticize to help me think of concepts I hadn't thought of yet and help me further my thinking! It'll be fun.

Photoshop

2010-04-30T00:43:00.000-04:00

Body image is a pretty common topic on feminist blogs- consider Broadsheet's recent article on recent cover girl Nancy Pelosi or here which talks about photo retouching and the recent trend against it. Photo-retouching is pretty common practice in magazines, making beautiful women even more impossibly beautiful and giving us some impossibly high standards of beauty to boot.

So I googled some images:

and

And I got to thinking. When I see images in magazines of impossibly beautiful images, like the picture of Britney Spears or Mariah Carey, it does make me feel bad about myself. As the blog Feministe points out, these images create an idea that beauty is something that can be achieved rather than something you're born with naturally, that if you work hard enough and pay enough money than you're beautiful. These magazines create two-fold ideas: 1. that if you're not beautiful, obviously you're not working hard enough and 2. you're never, ever going to be beautiful enough.

Looking at these photos, though, I feel better about myself. Namely, I know that the ethereal beauty are reachable with a few hours on Photoshop and, conversely, that even the most beautiful women are as ugly as me.

Date Night

2010-03-31T01:09:00.000-04:00

So Tina Fey is one of the hottest stars on the planet right now. She has a hit show (you may have heard of it, 30 Rock? You know, the critically acclaimed show and a huge success with audiences?), has written and starred in several popular movies (Mean Girls, Baby Mama) and is considered one of the funniest and most successful women in Hollywood today. Plus she has this new movie coming out, Date Night.

The movie also stars Steve Carell, Mark Wahlberg, James Franco and Mila Kunis, although watching the trailer you'd swear only Carell and Franco are in the movie. All five are established comedic actors on their own: Fey as listed above, Carell's roles in Forty Year Old Virgin and Anchorman established his career, Wahlberg was hilarious as an existential firefighter in I <3 Huckabees, James Franco redefined his career in the stoner-buddy-comedy Pineapple Express, and Mila Kunis has been a comedy darling since her role in That 70's Show. But again, watching the trailer above, you'd think only Carell and Franco were the ones with comedic chops.

I have enough confidence in both Fey and Kunis as comedic actresses, and that they both have the smarts to pick strong roles that give them great, funny, memorable lines. But it's the trailer that doesn't show that- the trailer betrays a lack of confidence in its female stars. Fey is used to ogle the man-candy that is Wahlberg shirtless, and Kunis sets up a joke for Franco. That's it. What- does that mean that Kunis and Fey don't get any good lines in the entire movie? Did Kunis and Fey settle for the stereotypical wife role, playing second banana to Carell and Franco?

I lean more towards the filmmakers and the editor of the trailer not trusting the appeal of Fey (specifically) and Kunis as comedians, or even women. Again, as I said above, Kunis and Fey are hilarious. Everyone knows it. I mean, Carell and Franco are doing extremely well for themselves, but Kunis and Fey are as well! Do they think that funny women are going to scare off their target audience? What target audience would be scared of funny women, twelve year old boys?

Personally, this exclusion turns me off from this movie. The marketing team is underselling its actors and that doesn't bode well for the movie as a whole.

New Scott Pilgrim song revealed via Facebook!

2010-03-02T00:43:00.000-05:00

For those of you who don't read any sort of graphic novels, read movie news or have just never heard of Bryan Lee O'Malley's Scott Pilgrim series, here's a quick summary- Scott Pilgrim is a bass-playing Vancouver-ite in his early twenties who meets the girl of his dreams. Besides all the baggage that comes with starting any sort of relationship, there's one major one: seven evil ex-boyfriends that Scott must battle before he can even start dating her. It's currently one of the most praised graphic novel series currently being released and its sixth and final book is one of the most anticipated book releases this year (by me, anyway.)

In addition, Edgar Wright, director of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz is directing the film adaptation. It stars Michael Cera (the guy Hollywood has weirdly decided represents early-twenty somethings, apparently), Kieran Culkin, and Up in the Air's Anna Kendrick. Wright has been releasing a picture a day from the set for the past year or so on his blog, driving up anticipation for the film.

Another nugget was announced today- Toronto band Metric has been collaborating with Wright to create some of the music for the soundtrack. A significant plot point of "Pilgrim" revolves around competing art-rock band called "Clash at Demonheads." Metric collaborated with Nigel Goodrich, who also produced for U2, Beck, basically tons of great bands, to work on 'Black Sheep,' encapsulating the sound of "Clash at Demonheads." You can hear it here, on Facebook (you have to become a fan to hear the song, oh no) and it's a pretty cool song, origins aside. It helps that they seem like a pretty cool band anyway, and the song originated before the movie, which only makes the song cooler.

The movie is being released August 13, 2010 and the final graphic novel still doesn't have a release date, making Edgar Wright and company still the only people who know how the series ends. Why do they tease me so?

Side note: Anna Kendrick was also in Twilight? For the love of God, no!

Interview with Bill Watterson!

2010-02-02T13:59:00.001-05:00

After fifteen years of being a recluse (reportedly, he just drew pictures in the woods with his father) Bill Watterson granted the world an interview. By email. With his local newspaper. It's here, and it's disatisfying, to be honest.

The reason Bill Watterson's comic Calvin and Hobbes made such an impact is probably that Bill Watterson knew when it was time to quit- he got out of the business before his popularity went downhill and "the people now "grieving" for "Calvin and Hobbes" would be wishing me dead and cursing newspapers for running tedious, ancient strips like mine instead of acquiring fresher, livelier talent." Bravo, Mr. Watterson.

In the interview, Watterson comes across as a soft-spoken yet immovable man. His answers, like his artwork, are quiet and understated. "The only part I understand," he explains, "is what went into the creation of the strip. What readers take away from it is up to them. Once the strip is published, readers bring their own experiences to it, and the work takes on a life of its own. Everyone responds differently to different parts."

So what we, as readers, were looking for was some sort of resolve- an ending to the story or a grand explanation for everything that Bill Watterson ever did or drew. Maybe we were looking for some sort of formula for success that we could copy to become just as beloved as Calvin or Hobbes. Maybe an answer to what Hobbes was- in Calvin's imagination, or did he really come alive? Of course we will never get those answers. And we shouldn't expect to.

Just Singin' in the Rain

2009-11-12T02:01:00.000-05:00

Hey so I'm going to update all the time once this stupid semester is over. I'm a slacker, sorry, but slackers have to get real work done once in a while.

In the meantime, here's the most ridiculous picture I could find-

The Broke College Student's Guide to: Housecleaning

2009-10-29T13:15:00.000-04:00

Housecleaning:

Are you serious? Broke college students don't houseclean. They're way too busy selling weed so they can buy beer. Who housecleans? That's for people with nothing better to do.

Broke college students version of housecleaning is as follows:
1. Kick your crap over to your side of the room so you don't piss off your meticulous roommate, who for some reason picks up after themselves. Imagine an invisible line between your crap- don't cross it, or else it either legally becomes hers or you owe her dinner.
2. Febreeze the crap out of everything. Eventually, crap on the floor acquires a "used smell" that is a combination of old sweat, dirt and a sweet smell of old beer.
3. If all else fails, sell everything.

Housecleaning.

Jaws

2009-09-02T17:07:00.003-04:00

I saw Jaws a couple weekends ago at the Sunshine Theater in the Village. You've probably seen it, but it's the first time I got to see this movie and watch how the summer blockbuster was basically made.

But what stuck out with me the most was how oddly modern the costuming was. Check out one of our heroes, Richard Dreyfuss' Matt Hooper:

Look at him- wouldn't he look totally at home with any other hipster? (I was going to say "Williamsburg" but that might be extreme.) You'd have to see the movie to get a better look, but he walks around in slip on shoes, beaten jeans, a jean jacket and a sweatshirt. And that beard with the glasses! He's Indie Jesus!!!

And then Lorraine Gray playing Ellen Boyd, the wife of the sheriff, walked around the beach wearing this-

It's the slim cardigan from the Gap. I know that the Gap isn't really a signpost for what's particularly fashionable, but I think it's odd that a movie that was done almost thirty years ago is making the same fashion choices as a major corporation today. I wonder if Patrick Robinson was sitting around on a Saturday afternoon watching Jaws and thought, "Man, I bet that'd look good today."

Fast Food Nation

2009-08-24T12:45:00.001-04:00

Chapter 3 of Fast Food Nation, by Eric Schlosser, is entitled “Behind the Counter” and addresses how large fast-food corporations deal with their workers- most of whom are either teenagers, handicapped, or otherwise simply don’t need a job that pays a living wage. Schlosser discusses the interchangeability of each worker and how the corporations work towards a “zero training” program. Millions of dollars are poured into research each year, he claims, that try to figure out how to eliminate the training of a worker. This isn’t done for out of generosity or concern for the worker, or to help them become a better employee, but instead, so they can squeeze as much money out of them as possible. Employers receive “training wages” from the federal government, about $2400, for each new employee that they train. Restaurants work with a skeletal staff that performs mind-numbing tasks for barely minimum wage, and turns around and tells their employees that they enjoy doing it.

All this, of course, got me to thinking, “Why do I think, then, that I am unique to the Gap?” All of the things that I do each day- ringing up customers, helping them pick out clothing, folding jeans and panties- anyone can do it. Any loser that they pick up off the street that is willing to tolerate poor wages and worse hours is perfectly capable of hitting buttons and stacking clothes. Why do I feel like somehow I am special, unique and so necessary to Gap, Inc.?

Gap, of course, probably also pours millions of dollars into research to find out how they can make me feel unique. They probably send general managers in for “personnel training” to teach them how to manage each employee so that Gap actually seems like they care. Each packet that they give us reminds us just how much Gap loves their employees. I remember during training, we got this big newspaper sheet, decorated with pictures and captions, that gave eight scenarios in which Gap employees might need special care and understanding. There was the single mother whose child became sick, the man whose father died suddenly, the kid that joined the National Guard and was called up, and other such instances. And each one, we were assured, were granted special leave because Gap cared about their employees so much. Although they employee thousands of workers across the globe, each employee is so special to the Gap Inc corporation.

A few months ago, we took a “personnel quiz” that checked up to see if our needs as employees were met. Perhaps not surprisingly, the categories that my Gap store suffered the worst were wages, hours and “advancement opportunities.” The results, perhaps, are most poignant- even as hourly workers, we crave challenges and opportunities. Why are we willing to suffer the indignities and poverty associated with part-time wages at a retail store? Is it the awesome discount? Is the possibility of challenges and responsibility dangled in front of us like a carrot, even though we all know that ultimately we’re completely interchangeable with the next monkey that walks in the front door?

RIffTrax's Planet 9 From Outer Space

2009-08-21T02:04:00.003-04:00

Tonight, Jose and I NERDED OUT and saw Plan 9 From Outer Space at Garden State Plaza. For those of you who don't know, RiffTrax is the new project from the stars of Mystery Science Theater 3000, or MST3K as it's colloquially known. Starring Mike Nelson, Kevin Murphy and Bill Corbett, the crew basically continue the mission of MST3K to "riff" on all new and popular TV shows and movies. RiffTrax has a bit of a cult following with previous MST3K fans, or "Misties," and fans of satire alike.

Last night, for one night only, the RiffTrax crew broadcast live from a theater in Nashville, TN and riffed on one of the worst (or possibly, the worst) movie of all time, Plan 9 From Outer Space, directed by Ed Wood and "starring" Bela Lugosi in his last role. The movie features "aliens," "zombies," and some of the most terrible special effects that side of the 20th century, which makes the movie ripe for riffing. Apparently, the RiffTrax crew has already released their RiffTrack for the movie, but this time, they wanted to do it live.

The night was hosted by amiable Veronica Belmont, the so-called "Queen of the Internet" and featured John Coulton, geek musician extraordinaire. He played two perfectly appropriate songs for the event- "The Future Soon" and "Re: Your Brains" (the second of which was a bit of a sing along) (you can purchase his mp3s here). Rich "Lowtax" Kyanta from Something Awful provided "sponsored ads." When Queen Belmont announced the first ad, oh, we boo'd; but as soon as the ad for the THREE DAY MILL EVENT started up, we all started hooting and hollering for the next one. Then came the moment we were all waiting for- the three Rifftrax crew started riffing. The first was a short called "Flying Stewardesses" ("One of the only shorts in the mid-century that wasn't about personal hygenie or communism!"), then Jonathan Coulton and the RiffTrax crew sand and nose-whistled a tune about the other eight plans that came before Plan 9, and then: the movie. As I said before, Ed Wood's masterpiece of terrible special effects and worse acting is ripe for the crew's picking. To rehash the show wouldn't do the crew justice. You can buy the mp3 off of the website.

Before last night, I hadn't realized just how popular the RiffTrax/MST3K crew was in this area. The only way too see a show like that- one with such a cult following- is to see if live, surrounded by your fellow nerds. There was such an uncynical love for the three men that walked on stage. When you felt like clapping and cheering, they wanted to clap and cheer. It's like when I went to see the first of the new Star Wars trilogy and when Yoda pulled out his lightsaber, the entire audience stood up and cheered. You can't get that kind of energy and enthusiasm out of a normal crowd (especially becaus that's pretty much the only good part of the movie. Am I right?!)! It's like seeing a midnight performance of Rocky Horror Picture Show and everyone sings along and dresses up in costume- it's so hard to capture that energy, that positive energy, and when something like that comes along, it's so hard to describe to someone not in the know. That's what the RiffTrax crew, Jonathan Coulton, Veronica Belmont and the guy from Something Awful managed to capture that night- the sheer joy of laughter with your fellow nerds. I can't wait until September 23rd, when The Wizard of Oz comes out in theaters nationwide, and seeing that with fellow movie nerds. Maybe I'll dress up in costume. Who knows? It's just that kind of night.

2009-07-28T17:17:00.001-04:00

The biggest obstacle to becoming an independently wealthy freelance journalist, as it turns out, is myself. Facebook beckons, motherfuckers!!!

Sonia Sotomayor

2009-05-28T12:28:00.000-04:00

The COLBERT

2009-05-06T11:16:00.004-04:00

I don't know if you guys think this is as funny as I do, but:

COLBERT Ready For Some Serious Exercise

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Space Module: Colbert - Sunita Williams

colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Gay Marriage

Stephen Colbert of the "Colbert Report" didn't get his name on the node for the space station, but he certainly got something out of it. Stephen Colbert and NASA were duking it out when Colbert had his audience members write in to name a space station node after him. I guess NASA thought that the name wasn't regal enough or something, because they refused his request and named it Tranquility (Sorry, Firefly fans, who voted Serenity into second place). As the video and NASA article shows, NASA decided to instead name a treadmill in the space station the Combined Operational Load-Bearing External Resistance Treadmill, or COLBERT. Colbert, then, was even more excited that his name would get to do something useful, or to use his phrase, "However far the space station goes, [the] treadmill will always have gone a few miles more." NASA was even more excited, apparently, for this opportunity to attract a new generation's attention. I don't know about that. What could NASA do to make kids more interested in their activities?

Met Gala

2009-05-05T09:42:00.002-04:00

The Metropolitan Museum's Costume Gala is an event in which people are encouraged to wear their more unusual outfits. I'm sure it's great fun, but some people take the costume aspect a little too seriously.

Note Madonna's bizarre costume-

Is that a bird in her hair? Is that thigh-high platform combat boots? (Didn't that go out of style in 1997?) Gloves? I know that Madonna is known for her outlandish outfits, but this seems ridiculous. On the one hand, I want to say "You go girl!" She's taking the woman's privilege of dressing however she wants and taking advantage of it. I think I would forgive her if it wasn't for that ridiculous knot on her head.

Anne Hathaway looked stunning-

I don't know what is up with this gathered-at-the-belly look lately, but I really like it. It's very flattering and curvaceous. Her hair and makeup make her look like Kate Beckinsale, but both women are beautiful, so I am not complaining.

I don't have much to say about this picture except that it's pretty funny.

Jessica Alba is cute-

I love Jessica Alba's sense of style, but note the black leggings. Did Zooey Deschanel start a trend? My favorite part of this outfit is the pink clutch and the earrings. They just pop out at you.

I can't stand Renee Zellweger; she can't act, she's a terrible dresser, and those cheeks are awful. But oh! But oh! Check out that dress! The material, the cut, oh!

Heidi Klum sure knows how to make a photo.

Katy Perry is the new reigning queen of costumes. This outfit is no exception. Her eyes are comically big, she has Wonder Woman-esque bracelets, and what's with the bondage necklace? I love the color of the dress!

Women Are Funny Too!

2009-05-04T13:26:00.002-04:00

One of the most frustrating and outdated sexist sentiments is the idea that women cannot be funny. It's true that when you look at a majority of the most successful comic stars, even today the field seems to be dominated by men. (See-this list of famous comedians through history. Only six out of the 67 comedians listed are women.) But why is that? Are women inherently not funny? When a woman such as Tina Fey or Sarah Silverman is successful as a comedian, why are we still surprised? And when she is funny, do we call her a comedian, or a female comedian?

Women, unfortunately, have gotten the short end of the stick in terms of many, many things. One problem holding back women is that for decades, women have been expected to be the ones who stay at home to take care of the children while her husband was the one who would go out and make the money. To do otherwise was to define the norm, and fighting that stereotype was very difficult. So women who are very funny would be more likely to stay home. Recently, with the second and third wave feminism, we began to see women break out of that mold. Nowadays, women like Lily Tomlin and Margaret Cho are breaking barriers for women in Hollywood. Perhaps with my generation and the generations after it, we can see more of an acceptance. Not only an acceptance, but perhaps, a sense of equality. She will be judged not as a female comedian, but just simply a comedian.

Free Comic Book Day!

2009-05-02T14:42:00.003-04:00

The first Saturday in May (which just so happens to be today) comic book stores around North America give away free comic books! The event, which started in 2002, is cleverly named "Free Comic Book Day" and was created to encourage people to read more comic books and to celebrate each the unique nature of each individual comic store. Stores around the United States and Canada are giving away free comic books (the exact number depends on the store and the availability of free comics), holding signings, etc.

Feel free to go into any comic book store around the nation! The website has a box to search for the closest participating comic book store around the nation, FAQs, and a list of some of the free comics.

Speaking of comics, Emmy Cicierega recently posted an entry about one of the sponsors, Archie Comics, and a hilarious picture ensued:

If that actually happened, the world just might explode from hilarity and joy.

Ugly Dresses

2009-05-01T13:15:00.001-04:00

Ugly Dresses is a hilarious amalgamation of the ugliest dresses found on the Internet. You have to see for yourself the monstrosities that people come up with.

Best Dresses:

The Hello Kitty Wedding Dress:

Actually, the cut of the dress is nice in a traditional sort of way. I think it's the sequins and Hello Kitty designs that do it for me. Oh, yeah, and the bubblegum pink. I wonder if the groom had to wear a matching vest.

The Antlers

I'm seeing a Japanese music video.

The Cream Puff Wedding Dress:

The description on UglyDresses is:
According to the news story I read, a baker in Ukraine baked his bride this cake from only flour, sugar, water, salt and caramel. He is either the world's best baker or the world's cheapest husband. The final dress weighed 20 pounds. Supposedly, the baker had to bring a horse and three pigs into their bedroom to eat the dress off of his new bride. This wasn't very hard because in Ukraine people keep pigs and horses in the living room.

But my favorite by far is the Preggo Prom Dress:

This is just the beginning.

2009-04-22T22:31:00.002-04:00

Depression set in about 7:30. Suddenly all I could think of was the ways I had failed, missed opportunities and connections. The guys I never called back because I was scared. The employers I never contacted because I was sure they wouldn't hire me. I thought of what I did want to do- to write- and thought of how impossible it was to do that. I could blog, but who would read it? I could work for hard news, but breaking into newspapers or TV stations seemed to hard and ultimately, I only had the minutest interest in hard news. I wanted to write about my experiences and interests. I wanted to travel to Spain and have someone pay me to send them writings about my adventures. I wanted to be Jack Kerouac, Hunter S. Thompson and Diablo Cody all in one.

Researching how to have a successful blog told me two things- either advertise on websites or connect with popular bloggers so they would give you a shout out on their blogs, driving readers to you. Starting out in news seemed dreary and boring, writing about subjects you don't care about and local news that nobody cared about. In every single field I was interested in, it looked like every single person in America also wanted to do it. My cause seemed hopeless. Corporate life was inevitable.

But perhaps there was still some hope. Maybe I could get my act together and start blogging or writing. I could contact all the newspapers and magazines and ask if I could freelance for them. I could write down my adventures and sell them anyway. I could finish my short stories and try to sell them. I could write and make shorts to get them sold at movie festivals. I'm safe for another month here at college. I have tons of time. I can do it. I should do it. My depression banished, I began making plans for the future instead.

Eating

2009-03-26T14:03:00.003-04:00

You know what I can't wait to do right now? Eat. I have coffee sitting in my stomach, knocking on the walls and saying "You know what would be really great right now? Eating. Remember how delicious that grease-ball of chicken tenders were at the cafeteria? You totally want that." My mouth is drooling in anticipation, which is slightly embarrassing because drooling when reading a book about superheroes just doesn't look cool. Imagine you're a straight chick, flipping to a page about Wonder Woman and suddenly drool emerges from your mouth with a hungry look in your eye. Just... it doesn't look cool.

Fuck Yeah!

2009-03-23T21:08:00.002-04:00

There is a new phenomenon, and it's name is FUCK YEAH.

FUCK YEAH RYAN GOSLING

FUCK YEAH ANNE HATHAWAY

FUCK YEAH NEIL PATRICK HARRIS

FUCK YEAH JAKE GYLLENHAAL

Reviewed Before I've Seen

2009-03-23T14:45:00.002-04:00

Knowing, starring Nicolas Cage (Matchstick Men), directed by Alex Proyas (I, Robot)

Nicolas Cage is not an actor that impresses. He has been described as a performer rather than an actor; this is probably the best description of him that I can think of. Because of his "breeding" and being birthed into a Hollywood dynasty, he manages to get fantastic roles that should go to a better actor; in roles that are actually necessary to act, he tends to look very confused, as if he stumbled into the wrong set. Do you get it? I can't stand Nic Cage.

That being said, watching Nic Cage in this trailer, I immediately got bad vibes. As soon as he started talking, I knew this was going to be bad. Nic Cage acting like he's thinking is sort of like watching a brick wall act like it's thinking. The plot sounds like it could be an interesting book about numerology, the way The Da Vinci Code is an interesting book about symbolism and art history. Watching the trailer I think about other movies: Mothman Prophecies, for instance. It's the same sort of conspiracy, heart-pumping movie that requires a lot of shocked and thoughtful looks from it's actors that just isn't very good.

Knowing depends entirely on Nic Cage to pull it off, and I have absolutely no faith in him. If you're going to see it, don't.

22.03.09 - Find of the Day

2009-03-22T19:01:00.002-04:00

When I travel, I enjoy having everything I need in one place without having to switch around to various websites. Modern technology has made this easier; instead of picking up the phone and calling various travel agents or airlines to find the cheapest price, instead we can just log onto Hotwire or Orbitz to do the searching ourselves. Sidestep takes it one step further by searching airline sites and all of the discount traveling sites from all over the world for you, bringing the ultimate deal. Plus, when you do purchase your tickets, it takes you to the website of the airline itself rather than requiring you to purchase through their website. A great deal!

Searching is super-easy. When searching for a flight, you have the option of searching one-way, round trip, multi-city and weekend. For adventurous travelers like myself, the two new options of multi-city and weekend trips is a great tool. You can skip around the country with ease. I remember when I traveled to Europe four years ago it was nearly impossible to fly to point A and leave from point D; I had to take a train to get around. With Sidestep's search options I can go anywhere. The Weekend search tool is useful as well; I can find out what weekend is cheapest to go visit some family or maybe take a trip to London for an interview. It searches Friday-Sunday, every weekend, for my deal.

My only problem with this website is now, I want to travel everywhere, all the time now.

Twilight

2008-11-21T10:51:00.003-05:00

Last night was the premiere of Twilight, directed by Catherine Hardwicke. The crowd was thick with giggling 17 year old girls dressed in "Team Edward" or "Team Jacob" t-shirts. I've never read the books so I'm proud to say that I came to the viewing completely neutral on the warring factions and on the film itself. The movie turned out to be, as my friend put it, "porn for teenagers."

The premise of the story is pretty simple. Bella is the new girl at school, pale despite her Phoenix origins, who easily falls in with the right crowd. She attracts the attention of every guy in school, most notably Edward Cullen, one of the "weird" kids. And of course, it turns out that he's a vampire, and despite all that he goes through to keep himself away, he and Bella end up in this lustful romance. It takes Bella on a whirlwind trip away from normalcy and straight into a supernatural adventure with strong sexual themes.

Bella comes face-to-face with with several sexual dynamics. The first is Jacob, the "boy next door" whose skin is oddly tanned for a guy from Washington State. He's from a local Indian tribe and teaches Bella some of the local lore. Then there's Mike and Eric, her two high school friends that ask her out between fits of giggling. There's Edward, of course. And then finally there's James, another vampire, whose sexual prowess so far more mature and frightening than anything little Bella has had to face before.

One thing the movie develops very well is its high school characters. Hardwicke is very careful to takes the movie's high school characters seriously rather than letting them become caricatures. Even though the reason for Bella's integration into a school group feels forced and is explained with a quick "You're like a shiny new toy," it feels more like her making friends was to move the plot along and get the the good part more than anything else. For a movie that attempts to flow naturally and build organic relationships, this was the most awkward part.

The actors playing the high schoolers were spot-on. They weren't given very many lines or very many scenes but had to communicate their characters and relationships with a few subtle looks and a lot of body language. They did an excellent job, particularly Jessica Stanley (Anna Kendrick). It is the fault of far too many high school movies that they let the immaturity of youth become a joke and devalue the story that is being told. Hardwicke made sure that the kids felt like they were part of the joke and that we were laughing at the characters rather than their situation. Mike and Eric's attempts at asking out Bella were just awkward enough to be real and slightly nostalgic.

But of course the real meat of the story is Edward and Bella's relationship. The driving force of the obsession with Twilight is of course Edward's reaction to Bella, which Robert Pattinson pulls off perfectly. If Pattinson had taken the role any less seriously, it would've been campy, but he keeps the role genuine. Kristin Stewart, on the other had, was flat. Hardwicke was apparently going for a neutral take on the character but Stewart just couldn't pull off the role. Any emoting that the character did felt like Hardwicke was posing her rather than feeling as if she had any genuine conviction, and because of Stewart's lack of presence on screen the scenes between Edward and Bella were not magical. Each scene felt as if they should be sexually charged and make all the girls in the audience melt. Pattinson tried to force sexual energy into each scene, each gaze, and each adoring line, but Stewart's constant blank face took away from any chemistry. She's the human and he's the undead- why is she the one that is so cold then?

But that's not to say that she ruined the movie. Stephanie Meyer's book had one more plot twist- the introduction of another clan of vampires, named Victoria, James and Laurent. James is a tracker vampire who now intends to hunt Bella both for the pleasure of the hunt and Edward's rage. His performance creates a sexual force that is more mature and terrifying. Whereas with Edward and Bella's relationship there is a fear of the unknown and a sense of Bella's naivety, James' pure pleasure in the hunt is dripping with overtones of rape and fear.

The entire movie works to be a combination of a forbidden love story and a terrifying initiation into adulthood. Hardwicke shot the movie only when it was foggy outside, both for story reasons and to set the tone of the story. Each scene was tightly packed, and with the exception of a meadow scene, each scene developed the story's plot. Unfortunately, unless you have read the novels, what was going on on-screen sometimes didn't make sense. Hardwicke's insistence on using a hand-held camera for many shots often took away from the scene. The story is so beautifully and artfully developed that the grittiness and reality of using a hand-held took away from that and lowered it. We're not supposed to be in reality.

Overall, the story was interesting. When the DVD comes out I hope that they have an optional "screaming fangirls" over the movie so that non-fans know which parts are important and which aren't. The only people who are really going to be interested in the film are the ones who are already fans of the series. Everyone else is going to be left scratching their heads.

Sam and Fuzzy

2008-11-15T01:23:00.000-05:00

Today's webcomic is Sam Logan's Sam and Fuzzy, a webcomic revolving around the adventures of mild-mannered taxi-driver-turned-ninja-emperor Sam and his best friend/worst nightmare Fuzzy, a living teddy bear. Clever name. It's one of the most popular webcomics around, and with good reason- the characters are charming, the stories are interesting and the artist himself comes off as a nice guy.

The webcomic started off in 2003 as being rather typical. Each update was originally a gag revolving around Sam's mild-manneredness and Fuzzy's violent tendencies. As Logan's skills developed his plots developed with him, growing into longer, more complicated story arcs. A few years into his webcomic Logan took a big leap and started one of the longest, most convoluted story lines that's just now reaching its climax. I'm being purposefully vague here, as I don't want to give away any surprises, but I will tell you that ninjas, flying buildings, clones and Elvis Presley are involved. Each individual comic does still end with a joke, but now it works to build the plot rather than being the exclusive part of the comic. Each twist is based on something that was hinted at earlier in the comic rather than being a deus ex machina; this sophisticated story telling ability is one of Logan's and the comic's greatest qualities.

One thing that hasn't changed a lot is Logan's art. He has stuck to the same stark black-and-white art that he's had since 2003. He's cleaned it up a lot, expanding from the small four-panel format and worked to make his art a lot more clear, but it's still not as easy on the eyes as other comics.

Logan himself is charming. Each comic is accompanied with a newspost/blog where Logan chats about video games, music, his business and community, and life outside of the Internet. He comes off as likeable and easy-going with an excellent taste in music. Why are all the charming people in Canada?

Although Sam and Fuzzy is not my favorite webcomic, it is one of the best ones out there and I highly recommend it.

Quantum of Solace

2008-11-14T03:10:00.000-05:00

SPOILERS.

James Bond's latest film Quantum of Solace has arrived in theaters. Except for a few trailers that were released I hadn't heard much buzz about the film. Whether this was a good sign or a bad one I don't know. When Casino Royale opened everyone was talking about it, about how it was revolutionizing the Bond films (again) and putting a new, completely different take on the character. That theme of revolutionizing the Bond series was continued through Quantum, although not to the effect some people were looking for.

One of the main things that they were looking to change was to make the character far more brooding. By introducing his love Vesper Lynd (a phonetic take of West Berlin, a city with dual personalities and interests) the filmmakers hoped to create more of a backstory on Bond and give his character more depth. Unfortunately, except for his skills at poker and preference of alcohol, we know little else of our beloved James Bond. The filmmakers then are left to focus solely on this development of his character if they want to go for very much emotional depth. It's not much to work with and as a result Quantum suffers for it.

Bond, then, spends the film attempting to replace the intimacy and trust that he lost when he lost Lynd. The film revolves around his relationships with three women, particularly two of them- Strawberry Fields (in the dialogue in the film she refers to herself only as Fields), M and Camille. M is assigned to be his mother figure (even Bond calls her that at one point) and Camille is supposed to be his replacement for Vesper. Fields fills in as the typical Bond girl, although in this modern age she's also given the chance to kick some butt of her own. The most important thing about her death: it pays an homage to an earlier Bond film at the same time that it develops Bond's continuing conflict of intimacy and the consequences of his actions. M spends the movie trying to decide if Bond is loyal to M6 or not, supporting or blocking his actions as the plot calls for it. Her wardrobe is matronly rather than clean-cut and professional as the rest of her crew is, although her demeanor and black-and-white palette is meant to give an icy feel to her scenes. Although she is meant to serve as Bond's conscience she serves more to make up excuses for Bond's behavior.

Camille is the character that has the most interaction with Bond throughout the film. She, like Vesper Lynd, is a strong woman that is "damaged goods." Although there is very little chemistry between the two, I suppose there is a "bond" there. Just like Bond rescues Vesper Lynd during her emotional crisis after killing a man, Bond rescues Camille, only Bond washed Lynd of her sins while he pulls Camille from a fire. She serves as a mirror for Bond- she, too, uses sex to get what she wants, worked for a larger government organization to get where she needed to go and seeks revenge. It works to help absolve Bond of his sins. Her story feels almost forced and more time is spent learning her plotline than any time on Bond's.

All in all, the story felt very short. Because of Bond's emotional vacancy there wasn't much room for much plot development, which made it difficult to build up tension. The fight scenes didn't help at all. The opening scene was juxtaposed with a horse race. There were no contextual clues given to connect the horse race to the interrogation scene, and it wasn't until later on in the scene that we realize the two are even close to each other. There is no reason for a horse race to happen, as it doesn't develop the plot any except to give the film the kind of exotic taste required of any Bond movie. Many plot elements happen the same way- the horse race, M blocking Bond's cards and passports, etc. They are all there to take up time and move the plot. It would be nice if the directors could decide if this was a plot driven story (and drop the Vesper Lynd subplot) or an emotional and character driven story (and stop that Bolivia nonsense.)

I would recommend this film to any Bond or action movie fan. However, if it wasn't a Bond movie, I doubt this movie would be well received or get any kind of box office. It seems the producers are trying to hard to make a Bond movie and not make a solid movie. Let's hope they get it the next time.