Thursday, March 31, 2011

Yet again

Dear men, boys, and all those dudes who think they're men but aren't yet,

I hate playing sports with you. I continuously try to give second and third chances. The benefit of a doubt. The opportunity to not be complete morons. Alas, I remain disappointed. Yet again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

You get the idea. (I hope).

In case you're too dumb to figure out why, allow me to make a list:

  • You pass the ball to hopeless guys before you'll ever pass to a girl, no matter how good they are.
  • You are completely blind to openings. Showing off is boring to everyone else. And trying to take the ball all the way down the court/field on your own is showing off.
  • Guy is good but covered. Girl is only ok, but COMPLETELY FREAKING OPEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COURT WAVING WILDLY AND CALLING FOR THE BALL. And who does it get passed to? The guy, duh. Where it proceeds to get intercepted.
  • Stopping the game in the middle in order to throw sticks at each other is a sign of low intelligence.
There are other things too. But this list is just some of the stuff that happened today.

You may not believe me. You may think I'm being overly harsh. That not all guys are like that, and I'm making it sound way worse than it really is. That you wouldn't do it if you were there.

Then would you care to explain to me how the exact same things happen every single time, no matter what sport it is, or who the guys are?

There are a lot of things about guys that I think get over done. They deserve a lot of flack in certain subjects. But this is not one of them. In 8 years of singles ward FHE's and ward activities, I have not one single time played with guys where at least one of these things did not happen. Usually more than one.

People don't guard me. Whether it be because I'm invisible, or because I'm good at getting away, or even because they just all think I suck, people just don't guard me. Today, for example, I was in the middle of a patch of ice. No one was with within 5 feet on any side of me. 3 times. 3 times! Did I ever once touch the ball without diving into the midst of a rumble and fighting for it? Nope.

I'm just tired of it. The end.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011


Funny how watching endless hours of cartoons can result in learning valuable life lessons.

So, you know those things that you know, but you don't really *know* them until they hit you one day? And even after you *know* them you just go back to regular knowing them for a while until they hit you again...

Yeah, that happened. Brought on by a show with ridiculous pre-teen drama, no less. Go figure.

What was the thing, you ask?

Oh, same old. The not fitting in and hating it but having to deal with it because change is so NOT going to happen thing.

I was watching "All grown up." The Rugrats offshoot. Dil is such a freakazoid. I keep not being able to get over how... weird he is. The kid talks to aliens, wears a beanie with dentures on the tassel, and walks backwards through the school hallways, and those are the normal things.

On the way home from 7-11 I got this ridiculous kick out of stepping onto the road at the exact moment that the light changed to walk. And I thought about how I'm a weirdo too. Not to the same extent, maybe. But I am SUCH a dork.

I realized, on that deeper extent as opposed to just regular, that whole thing about having to rely on what's inside.

Meaning, even if I wanted to be stylish, I'd always suck at fashion, looking good, and caring about normal things. Therefore, whoever I end up with, and all of my friends are going to have to depend on what's inside me, and accept my eccentricities, whether I like it or not. And if I'm so awful at it, no matter what, why bother?

That's all.

Commence Judging Me.... Now.

Yesterday I was talking to some people at work. I was bemoaning my fate in continuously getting roommates who just don't appreciate my eccentricities. Ever since our awesome group from heritage 44 broke up and went different ways, I've had the good fortune to get a wide variety of... interesting roommates.

And by interesting I mean ones that, no matter their slew of different personalities, all manage to agree that I am, to put it euphemistically, really weird. I get *the* look often.

As I was describing this, I used lightsabers as my example. There aren't many people who will just play lightsabers with you. This is a sad thing. Just as usual, the people at work agreed with me that it was sad that people don't appreciate me, but just as usual, I don't think they really believed me that I actually wanted people to play lightsabers with me.

I offer here conclusive evidence that not only do I really own lightsabers, but I used to really play with them with my roommates.

Plastic doesn't bruise like that by just sitting on the shelf.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

What Agatha Christie taught me about myself

There are a few things about which I am, to put it succinctly, a drama queen. I am overly exuberant, animated, and ridiculous. Things like that include Harry Potter, Halloween, lightsabers... basically anything in which I can express my true 5 year old self.

But in everything else, I find myself to be a remarkably subtle person. If I were an evil super-villain, I'd be a lot more like Saruman (Though, hopefully I wouldn't suddenly be faced with a wizard that took over my power and kicked me out of my strongholds) than, say, the Joker. I wouldn't go out and just start shooting people and robbing banks. I'd get in with both sides, set up my pieces, and you'd never know it was me until it was too late. At which point I would deploy my super-planet-busting-weapon. I can't deny the taste for dramatic flair. But I'd have set everything up so that by the time I needed to use my weapon, there'd be no way I could lose. I even play backgammon this way.

When I am sad, I don't just say "I feel crappy today." I make a sad face and go on with whatever I was doing. Sure, I often hope that someone will notice and say "aw, are you okay?" It would make me feel better. But I find that this is nearly always far too low-key for those of normal observation power to detect.

I don't know why, but I just can't bring myself to say "I'm sad. Make me feel better." There's some sort of psychological block. As though, if I point out a misfortune or an event I'm super excited about, I am being remarkably self centered. I can't really explain it.

The same is true for saying "I love you." For any that I have offended because of not saying those three words, I am honestly sorry. I don't do it to withhold love, or because I secretly hate you. I just have this subtlety thing going on. I can't just say it. I'm more of a giving-you-presents, remembering-your-birthday, talking-to-you-when-you-need-it type. You know, things that actually take effort.

Anybody can say "I love you." You can say it and be lying. You can say it as a placatory filler. You can say it without actually thinking of what it stands for. People do it all the time, and it's really lost its meaning for me. To me, showing that you care about someone is about doing something that takes a little forethought. Proving that you're thinking about them more often than just while they're present in the room.

But again, I find that this sort of thing is too subtle for most people. They don't even notice, half the time.

This is one of the original strand magazine illustrations of Holmes and Watson. Just like the creators of the recent movie, I feel like we lost that essence of who they were under a stereotype of a fat old man and a boringly serious middle aged guy. This picture shows that it wasn't always like that. It's much more accurate to my idea of how they ought to be. However, unlike the movie makers, I did not feel like Robert Downey Jr.'s version was really accurate either. Sure he was interesting, and not horrible by any means, but, to me at least, far too convivial and goofy. Holmes was too intellectual to ever be goofy. But I like that he was much more active. At least in terms of running around in disguises. =>

It's sort of sad, sometimes. I occasionally wish that people understood me better. That I wasn't so overlooked. But not enough to try to draw attention to myself. Like I said, I'm rather a subtle type.

By this point you're certainly wondering what Agatha Christie has to do with any of this. Well, I'll tell you.

I was reading "And Then There Were None". It's pretty awesome. She does a spectacular job of telling you exactly the right things about each person to make all of them look completely innocent, and totally guilty at the same time. So far, I don't know anyone who figured out whodunit the first time through.

I was almost there. Right after person 5 died, there was a part in the chapter with a quote from everyone left. It didn't tell you who said what. You only knew that 4 were innocent and 1 was the culprit. I'd been trying to narrow it from the beginning. That's the whole point of a mystery for me. To see if you can piece the clues together before the reveal. From this section, I was able to narrow my list down to two. I was absolutely certain that it was one or the other.

I ended up decided that it was the one guy, and the other would be the next victim. Well, I was almost right. So so sooo close. The one guy was the next victim. But he was also the culprit. A very, very clever culprit. So the whole rest of the book I'm thinking that I totally called it and got the right guy, and I was gonna be all big and bad about it on my facebook status.

But I was wrong. At least I got it down to two, right? That's farther than a lot of people get. I knew it was one or the other, and just picked wrong. But still... I didn't quite make it. And that was very disappointing.

After all this, I happened to remember an old discussion with a friend in which she explained to me how she never, ever sees things coming. Big plot twists are invariably a surprise to her. But she kind of likes it that way. She likes to just wait and be surprised. I don't. I mean, I love it when I am surprised, but only when it's a surprise that's been so cleverly disguised that I don't see it coming even after having been working methodically through all the clues. Needless to say, that doesn't happen nearly as often to me as to my friend.

And I love being right. I love figuring out the pieces and discovering what's about to happen, and then finding out that I'm totally on the ball. Especially in Sherlock Holmes, where you don't always get all the clues. Watson is kind of an idiot sometimes. In the Scarlet Pimpernel I felt smart for weeks afterward because I figured out which person was the Pimpernel in disguise at the end. My mom didn't even do that. She knew he was Percy Blakney, and that he was around somewhere, but not which guy he was. I totally called it. It was a great moment in my life.

Anyway, the point of all that was to say that I've finally recognized this love for subtlety. It's the reason I like watching Bones. Because I want to figure out who did it. It's the reason I love Sherlock Holmes, and have an overwhelming desire to create an unsolvable mystery just like Agatha Christie did.

Ps. Jude Law makes a fantastic Watson. Exactly how I imagine he should be. Proper doctor but military, carries a gun, and doesn't look creepy in the mustache.=>

I like putting together the clues that surprise most other people. It makes me feel very smart, and feeling that smart is like a sugar high. But it annoys me greatly when the clues are slapping you in the face, and the characters STILL can't figure it out.

Case in point, "Vampirates". It's a book series about pirate vampires. I only read the first one. And this is mostly why. There's a girl who gets lost at sea, and finds herself on a ship. These are the facts:

-Her father used to sing an old sea shanty about vampire pirates
-The sailors only come out at night
-She's locked in her room for her protection
-Once a week they have a "special feast"
-Some of the sailors have special mind powers
-All of the mirrors on board are smashed
-She glimpses one sailor with blood all over his face
-Her host accidentally stays too long once, and can't leave until dark because the sun seers his skin
-She accidentally stabs her finger with a pen point, and the host immediately notices the blood splatter when he enters the room.

And, after all of this, it took her 100 PAGES to figure out that she was on a vampirate ship. 100 Pages!! I almost put it down right then, because she was being so very obtuse. I was literally dying inside.

But that was an unnecessary tangent. The point was basically that, after reading Agatha Christie, and remembering that conversation with my friend, I realized just how much I rely on subtlety in my life. How fun it is to figure it out, and how I really don't like drawing blatant attention to myself. Subtle is how I like it.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

"At least kids are reading" is the lamest excuse for a "graphic novel"

I often bash comic books. Not the kind that are treasuries of sunday comics like the far side or garfield. Not even the kind that are written that way, like marvel and dc superhero comics (although I don't ever read them). But the kind that take a perfectly good, self respecting novel and destroy it by simplifying the entire story to fit inside speech bubbles.

I especially hate it when they manga-ize something that has nothing to do with Japan, Asia, or anything even remotely anime. They've done it to several books that I really like. The Bartimeaus trilogy. Artemis Fowl. Sherlock Holmes. The Scarlet Pimpernel. Everything by Jules Verne. Shakespeare. Shakespeare for crying out loud! Manga Shakespeare. It's an abomination.

I admit I'd never really read any of them, though. And lots of people excuse them by saying that their main redeeming quality is that "at least they get kids to read". So I decided to explore it a little, and see whether or not this so-called redeeming quality is actually a good excuse for ruining a perfectly good story.

Problem #1

I find the picture to word ratio really distracting. I'm having a very difficult time in examining all the pictures and thinking about what the words are saying at the same time. There's too much to look at and still remember the one or two sentences that I read. And I'm not someone who has trouble in reading or in multi-tasking. It seems to me like pictures are meant to enhance and not distract. People tell me that comics are good for helping kids understand the words because there are so many pictures. But I say, not if they split the attention of the kid instead of working together to produce a coherent whole.

Problem #2

Most of the novel to comic adaptations I've looked at have really crappy pictures anyway.

Problem #3

Reading comic book style is a whole different process than the book version. In a novel you have complete sentences, trains of though, lots of adjectives and descriptions, formatting, and (in good ones) samples of how other people really think and feel and see the world. These, to me, are part of the whole point of reading. To expand your world view, understand other people, learn things, think coherently, organize thought, and become better at communication.

Comics don't do that. There are little speech bubbles, and none of the words are things that people would actually say in real life. "Oh! No! It's looks like captain Evil is about to unleash his shrink ray on the innocent townsfolk!" It takes the (almost) same story and turns it simplistic and shallow. There's no possibility for critical thinking. For predicting, deciphering clues, or even suspense. The pictures give it all away before you can wonder what's gonna happen.

Admittedly, though, some things deserve comic book-dom. This twilight page perfectly illustrates how Bella and Edward's entire relationship is based on smelling each other.

There are probably other things too. But I don't feel like thinking about it any more.

Thus we see that teaching a child to read with a comic book basically defeats the point of reading in the first place. You don't have to use your imagination. You don't have to predict or wonder what's going to happen. You don't have to read sentences that are more than 5 words long. You don't have to become part of a realistic character.

Yeah, some comics might be fine. Maybe they have cool pictures that are fun to look at. Or maybe the original book was so bad that it doesn't matter. Or maybe it does occasionally make a kid want to go and read the real thing (although in my experience the chances of this are slim. Once they know the story, who needs to read it for real?)

But the excuse that "at least the kids are reading" is really pathetic. Because this is NOT real reading at all.

Friday, March 18, 2011

Regarding "Why We Don't Eat Animals"

This book has been stalking me at the library. The cover makes it look like it's one of those learning-how-to-not-be-judgmental-of-others kind of books. There are a lot of those in the kid section of the library. But I kept getting this ominous impression from it. Like it was watching me and just waiting to bash my meat-love.

So I checked it out. And, sure enough, it was exactly what I thought. Now, I have nothing against vegetarians or vegans. I have nothing against all the different reasons to be that way. But what I do oppose is taking facts and exaggerating them or twisting them to try to convince someone else to be guilty. Manipulation is dirty.

Sorry this pic is so big. It was the only way to make it readable. Some of these pictures you can click on, and some you can't. I don't know why.

This is the first page. There's not anything outrageously bad with it, but I find it really ironic and slightly hypocritical that the very first thing it says is that a flower is an earthling too, and has the need to grow, and yet it's still okay to eat veggies but not animals.

Animals are 'earthlings'. "People throughout history have chosen not to eat this fellow earthlings." But they also say that plants are earthlings. "Every earthling has the right to live and grow". But it's okay to eat plant earthlings and not animal earthlings? *shrug*

I didn't put every page on here. Copyright stuff. But I put a couple on just to illustrate my point. This one is about pigs. It shows the free and happy pigs in a lovely pile of mud and the pigs that are raised for eating locked up in a pen where its face is smushed out the side. I know that there are probably some farms where pigs aren't as well treated as others, but really people? I have never, ever seen a pig pen that was so small that the pig's head was sticking out between the wire. Example one of exaggerating the facts for their own agenda.

Basically the same example as the pigs. The free cows (see pic below) are happy and roaming free, but the farm cows are stuck in these stalls that are only just big enough to shut the door on the animal. Now I may not know much about farming, but I've driven past literally countless cattle farms and they all look a lot like the second picture, not the first. Wide open fields with baby cows walking next to mamma cows with lovely green grass and sunshine. Also, I don't understand how cattle farms "waste valuable water".

Funny how their happy cow picture still has a fence around it. Go figure. Besides, can cows live wild? I'm not actually sure if they can. I don't know.

Example 3: Chickens. It is completely true that some chickens live in a cage that's small. Sometimes it's not nearly as good as free range or whatever. But six in the same 1 chicken cage? Bull. Crap. I feel like my intelligence is being insulted by that.

Like I said before, sometimes there are facts that would prove a point. And I have no problem with people avoiding chickens as a form of protest against conditions. But printing a book for children who don't know better and telling them that there are chickens all crammed into the same cage like that => is not okay.

I just thought this picture was funny. Partly because they were talking about destroying the Amazon, and neither elephants or gorillas live in south america. And also just because it was so very dramatic and kind of cute.

Also, this mouse was cute. That was something I did like about the book. I liked the art. Or the way the art looked, anyway, as opposed to the misleading information from said art.

Anyway, I know I didn't talk about a lot from the book. But I think I got my point across. The reason I really didn't like it is because instead of just being informative, it is an opinion book that is trying to make us feel guilty for not believing the same thing.

I'm not saying that there aren't people who do bad stuff to animals, or whatever. Take a look at that dog fighter guy from a while ago. But people like this try to make it look like the rule, not the exception, and that's what I don't like.

Oddly enough, I've noticed that it is usually the extreme environmentalists, far liberal politicians, and other such super extreme far out people that do this exaggeration and guiltifying. Moderation in all things, people.


Dear everyone. I'm sorry that my response to Mr. Jed was so long. It's basically another post. I could have typed and published it separately and just included a link, but I know how people are. They never click on stuff like that. And I wanted people to know my reply.

I hope it's clear and not more wordy than was absolutely necessary. Thanks for reading. 

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

On Stories That Should Have Never Been A Big Deal

There are three stories that I was thinking about/came across at the library today. All three of them went through a super big hype, and all three of them did not deserve it.

#1 Twilight

Sure a teen story about falling in love is fine. Vampires are fine. A series where misfits find comfort in belonging with each other is great. Twilight had some fantastic potential. I'll even admit that the end part was pretty exciting, when they were running from James and being hunted and stuff.

But it took 300 pages to get there. 300 pages in which an emo girl falls for an emo guy vampire and their relationship is entirely based on smelling each other. Entirely. Don't believe me? Read the meadow scene. Seriously, Edward is always "enjoying the bouquet" because Bella is so very tasty. And Bella is obsessed with two things: His intoxicating aroma, and his crooked smile.

The two of them never do anything besides sitting together and rubbing their faces on each other. They don't have any mutual hobbies or see any movies, and their conversations sometimes even cover suicide.

Bottom line: It's a darn good thing for both of them that they end up as immortals because if two regularly aging people had a relationship that shallow, they'd be divorced as soon as the physical appeal started to wear off. Not to mention the very prominent "you can't control who you love" theme, which is such a crock.

#2 Brokeback Mountain

The entire reason for the hype on this movie is the look-at-us-being-all-risque-and-making-a-blatently-gay-movie factor. The plot itself is nothing that hasn't been done about a billion times before.

For those of you who don't know the story, basically there are two guys who get hired by a sheep rancher to herd sheep for the summer. They get super drunk one night, get all over each other, and spend the rest of the summer being extra friendly.

The summer ends, they go their separate ways, and both get married. One to this girl he's been engaged to for forever (meaning that his gay fling was totally cheating on her), and one to a girl he meets after the summer. They spend the next 20 years meeting on and off basically being together during their fishing trips, but being too afraid to be upfront about it all, and pretending that they still love their wives. One gets divorced because of it, and doesn't even get to see his kids anymore because his wife saw the two guys making out. The other one dies.

Now, let's say that this had happened over a girl. The guy cheats on his fiance with a cowgirl, but still marries the fiance and spends 20 years having an affair with the cowgirl who he loved all along. Then she dies and he spends the rest of his life pining over her. Would anyone watch that? Probably not. It's not even interesting. There's absolutely nothing exceptional about it.

Bottom line: It doesn't matter what beliefs you have about being gay, cheating on your wife is still wrong and movies still need good plots.

# 3 The Time Traveler's Wife

Admittedly not the worst story ever, but I was sincerely disappointed with it. The entire plot is that there is a guy with a genetic defect that makes him randomly time travel for indefinite spurts of time. So his wife knows him before he knows her, because his older self travels back to see her as a kid and stuff. In the end, his travels cause him to die young.

Like I said, it could have been worse, but that's all there was to it, and I was bored. Maybe the book was better. I don't know. I didn't like the story line enough to waste my life reading the book version of it. But I do admit that some of the things I hated about it were probably a result of bad filming.

The thing that annoyed me the most was the dying part. And not because I was sad about it. It was because of complete lack of point. Killing of characters to produce emotion can be very effective, but not if it's totally avoidable and serves no purpose. THE only reason he died was to try to make people cry when the wife was left alone.

And anyway, when he dies at the end, he accidentally shows up in the woods where his dad and dad-in-law are hunting. They see a deer near him, shoot, and hit him instead of the deer just as he travels back. Hopefully it's not so bad in the book, but in the movie he just stares from the deer to the hunters like 60 times for what felt like 5 whole minutes. If I had enough time to figure out what was happening and shout at the tv 12 times to drop to the ground, he sure had enough time to figure it out even if he was a complete moron. But no. He just stood there staring like an idiot.

Okay, I'm done. I could keep going on why I didn't like the story. There are other reasons. But I won't. Needless to say, it got really, really hyped up for me, and so I was way disappointed when I saw it.

I've decided that some girls like lovey dovey stories with weak plots just for the mush in the exact same way that some guys like action movies with no plot just for the explosions. Some things between genders aren't so different after all.

Monday, March 14, 2011

There once was some stupid drama

In the year 2011 of the modern age, here follows the account of SRA.

Knowing me now, as the few of you who even read this do, you might be surprised to know that as a child I actually spent my time fairly evenly divided between being a bookworm hermit, and playing outside.

When I was little, I was an outdoors kid a lot of the time, being very in to bike riding, seek and destroy in the woods, and various highly imaginative games that usually involved lots of running around. Not only that, but I harbored a secret desire to be a baseball player some day. (Not softball). In high school I did 5 years of cross country, 2 1/2 of soccer, 4 of indoor track and 2 1/2 of outdoor track. I tried out for softball but discovered that I was really bad at it.

So what happened? Why am I suddenly the epitome of anti-sports? Why does football season annoy me so very much? Why am I so supremely un-attracted to guys who watch sports all day long? Why do jocks make the number 1 spot on the top of my annoying people list?

This story may answer these questions.

For any of you in Utah, you probably know who Jimmer is. For any of you not here, you probably wonder why I'm talking about a car repair tool or a kind of dance.

90% of the pics had him making all these weird faces. This was the best I could do.

For those people, no, Jimmer is neither of those things. Jimmer is an actual name of an actual person. I'm still just hoping it's a bad nickname, and not the one his parents actually gave him. But I'm new to this whole story, so I don't know details yet.


Aside from the fact that he looks exactly like every other jock I've ever met, I have nothing against Jimmer. I'm sure he's a perfectly normal sports fanatic. I have nothing at all to say about his character, because I don't know him. But here's a story that happened about him which completely personifies my intense dislike for the sporting world.

Not so long ago the byu campus newspaper printed some sort of article extolling the virtues of Jimmer. And some girl wrote back to the editorial column about how this Jimmer obsession has become a form of unhealthy idol worship and threw in some sort of scripture reference to back up her analogy.

I didn't read any of this. I've just been told the skeletal details.

Granted, if even I, as a non-student, non-sports fan, and non-socialite has had Jimmer's name crop up FREAKING EVERYWHERE, obviously people are getting a little carried away. But that's beside the point. The point is what happened to this girl.

After this little editorial blurb, she was inundated with hate mail. Return editorials. Facebook stalking. You name it, it happened. The newspaper didn't print anything at all in her defense. Just slam after slam after slam.

I would like to take a moment here to point out that I am not saying that she was right. Neither am I saying that the slammers were right. In fact, I think they were both wrong and both stupid. Now to continue.

And this is why I despise sports so much. The fans. This girl posted an opinion in the newspaper. Maybe it was arrogant. Maybe it was pretentious. Maybe it was just an opinion, people. Even when people have stupid opinions, we, as the other side, have no right whatsoever to stalk them on facebook for the sole purpose of sending anonymous hate mail. We have no right, in a newspaper, to not continue to print both sides of a story. We have no right to be utterly cruel to someone, even if they are retarded and may even deserve it.

But sports do this to people all the time. In my 7 1/2 years since I've come to BYU, none of the sports figures have been famous enough for me to actually know their names. This is a first, and that's the only reason I looked into the story in the first place. Because if even I am inundated with some dude with a bad name, obviously he's got to be really, really, really, really, bordering-on-royalty popular.

Turns out he is.

But yeah, this hasn't happened before. So, like I said, maybe people are getting carried away. I don't know the details. I just know that Jimmer's name is even plastered on the wall of the wilk bowling alley right now. Which is weird and annoying to me.

But heaven forbid anyone disagree with this hero worship! *DRAMATIC COLLAPSE TO THE FLOOR*

Some girl felt that this was a bad thing. Right or wrong, it was her opinion. And right or wrong, we should respect other people and treat them properly, even if we are also trying to convince them to change their mind. But no! People jumped on her like a herd of sharks in a blood frenzy. People were rude and cruel and purposefully seeking out ways to hurt her for what she said. You don't just accidentally find some stranger on facebook and type out a hurtful message. Things like that are not something that you can just "not mean to do".

Query: How does this make them any better than she was?

Answer: It doesn't.

Here's another example. A lady at work got to let her sons go to a BYU game recently. They were really excited because that didn't get to happen much. I think, if I am correct, that the youngest one had never been before. So it was all sorts of a big deal.

Whilst at the game, something started to go badly. They lost, I think. And when this happened, all of these people that were previously congenial, friendly, and normal in every way somehow transformed into hideous monsters. Cussing, shouting, screaming, furious fits of anger. One of the guys there with the boys had to turn around to the people behind them and be like "dude, there are kids in front of you. Censor yourself a little, please."

The oldest son later said something to the effect of that he would have really enjoyed the game if it hadn't been for all the horrible fans.

Amen brother.

And THAT is why I hate sports. Not because I have anything against the idea of playing football or basketball or soccer. Not because I hate or am jealous of mr. Jimmer. Not because I dislike athletic activity. Not even because I don't understand them. I hate sports because of the fans. Because of what the competitive hysteria does to people. Because of the cruel, angry, obsessive monsters that people turn into over a game. Because of the arrogance and self righteousness and annoying self centeredness that people get when they win a game.

Will Armageddon happen tomorrow if someone doesn't give a crap about who Jimmer is? NO. Will the world self destruct if someone writes an opinion in the newspaper that most people don't agree with? NO. Will we be struck down with lightning from above if we lose a game? NO. But people act like all of this stuff is set in stone or something.


Friday, March 11, 2011

Thinking is against my principles

I wonder about really random things sometimes. And by random I mean when I ask said questions to other people, they give me that look. You know the one.

There wasn't really a point to this. I was just typing.

One of the random things I thought about once was what would my knight coat of arms look like if I was in a medieval tournament. It would have to be cool but really simple at the same time. Also, as much as I really like bright colors, I like metallics better. Especially when they're set off with black. I'd definitely need black.

The other day in church I drew this. Or rather, I drew one just like it and made this in paint when I got home. In my book the gray is actually silver.

It actually turned out kind of awesome. So even though I'm super indecisive, and would have a horribly hard time picking out something that would be as permanent as a crest or a banner for my family name, I'd be pretty okay with this.

I've been watching Rugrats episodes. I miss it when cartoons were actually good. Or at least cheesy. Most of the ones that are on now are just stupid.

Also, Fraggle Rock. It's ridiculous, but I still really enjoy it.

I learned something interesting about myself by watching this. I realized that my favorite character in each was kind of the same. Boober and Chuckie. (And Wembley a little bit too, but Boober more.) Both awkward. Both doom-sayers. Both scared of just about everything ever.

The problem is that I still haven't been able to figure out whether I like them most because they're so ridiculous, or whether it's because I inherently connect with them on some kind of inner level. As much as I hope it's the first, I have a sneaking suspicion that it may be the second. Either that or it's the fact that I tend to get annoyed with mainstream, good at everything, slightly arrogant main characters. Like Gobo. Or Harry Potter. Or even Robin Hood on occasion. (But not as often.)

Maybe it's a little bit of all three. *shrug*

Once upon a time there was a point to all this.

Wait... that's a lie. There wasn't. Oh well.


Outfit a day #2: For formal occasions

There are occasions when a person just needs to dress up. Whether it be for a hot date or just because we feel like it, we all need some fancying up from time to time. And if anyone knows about looking classy, it's me.

But there are some rules. Dressing up can be amazing, or a complete disaster. It's a fine line to walk. And I shall guide you down that line.

Rule #1: Outerwear

Your cold weather gear can make or break an outfit. Many people don't take this into consideration, and the mistake can be fatal. Just think about it. What if I had worn a black plastic mack with this? Or a track jacket? I don't think any of us can picture how much of a disaster that would have been. But a tried and true tip is this: A cloak never goes wrong.

Rule #2: Accessories

Necklaces? Cliche. Earrings? Overdone. Bracelets? Don't even think about it. Bow and arrow? Two words. THE. FUTURE.

Rule #3: Footwear

Fashions come and go. Some things come back around two or three times before they die out. But there are certain things that never go out of style. One such thing: Pirate boots. There's nothing more to say.

Rule #4: Flannel

Yes and yes. Hats (especially pointy ones). Hooded cloaks. The possibilities are endless.

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

An Outfit a Day: #1

I've seen a lot of people do some variation of this outfit a day thing. One girl went for an entire month where she created her daily outfits from a list of items she picked out on the first day. I think it was 10 or 15 different things. Other people just created an interesting ensemble every day to look awesome, and posted the results on their blogs.

As you all know, I dress really classy. Not to toot my own horn, but I am a fashion leader. I always know what's in and what's out. So I decided to do a few of these just for amusement. Well, and to help those who might be a little less fashionably adept. Anyone can use a few tips.

I had the idea only a few minutes ago, and I decided to start with what I'm wearing right at this very moment.

You can see that the theme for this ensemble is a sort of professional casual. You wouldn't wear it to a job interview, but it would be perfect for a lunch with coworkers.

The top is an 80's DI purchase. There is absolutely nothing classier than DI or T-shirts. And apes in 3D glasses never go out of style.

We can see that the pant is in a blue overlarge basketball short style. The black stripes down the side are absolutely essential. Blue shorts without them are simply a no.

The shoes are yet another high fashion statement. Or lack of statement rather. Barefoot is so In that it's not even In yet. No-shoe is the future of footwear.

Now we come to the accessories. The hat is purple to go with the stripes surrounding the neon green arrows on the top.

The glasses are the crux of the whole ensemble. What can I say? Cest Chic.

Most importantly, though, is the jewelry. Business casual is never complete without a ring of power. Narya, Vilya, or Nenya are all sufficient, but if you want to give the best impression, always go for the one.

The One Ring is better than any power suit or power tie. And there is nothing that goes better with a 3D bespectacled ape with a boombox.

Never has there been an outfit that is more guaranteed to bring the right kind of attention. Never have you been more dressed for success.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

What you never thought was possible

Robin Hood. Three seasons of BBC goodness that have not left me unscathed. If you haven't watched them, I'm sorry. I can't really explain to you why I am dying inside without giving away extremely crucial things. Suffice it to say that I am.

Perhaps this will help explain, though. The last time I cried this much over a character/story was when I read Where the Red Fern Grows for the first time. In 3rd grade. The part where the dogs died at the end. Seriously, I had to read that book like 5 times before I could make it without completely breaking down at the end.

I'm not really a crier. Only the most poignant of things make me shed real tears when it comes to books or movies.

I get over the top excited, anxious, or 'shocked stupor' really easily. I overdo it to the point of throwing things, slamming books, pounding pillows, and hiding my face. But with emotional stuff, I don't have the same reaction. I can get super sad. Watery eyed. Almost crying. But I very rarely make it to the actual tears. Not in books or movies. And even more rarely do I have them streaming down my face. And by that I mean it's probably been twice in my life.

Things that have made me shed actual tears:
-Where the Red Fern Grows
-Moulin Rouge
-P.S. I Love You
-Toy Story 3
-Bridge to Terabithia
-The end of LOTR
-Dobby's death
-Snape crying over Lily's picture
-I think one point in Percy Jackson 5 but I'm not sure
-The wedding episode in Glee (Go ahead. Judge me. Note that this is the only happy romantic tear session.)
-Also, the Glee one where Kurt sang I want to hold your hand. Wow.

Yeah, those are all I can think of. For a life of nearly 26 years, during which I have read a LOT of books and watched a LOT of movies, this is a little pitiful. Like I said, I really don't cry much.

The series finale of Robin Hood, though, added all of those together in one 10 minute ending. Gushing. Tears. Streaming down my face. Almost got to the hiccup-y crying, but fortunately avoided it. I will literally be dead inside for an unspecified amount of time.

Why am I telling you this? Well, probably because it's 3:30 am and I'm just sitting here dying. No one else to tell. And I only know one person who's even seen the episode I'm talking about. If I kept it all inside, I would probably just be laying on my bed, staring at the ceiling, and crying some more. And I don't want that. Though it may happen anyway.

So yeah. Take this as you want. An admission that it is possible to make me break down into sobs. An in depth exploration of feelings, since I never really do that either. A look at the sorts of things that get to me. (Robin Hood but not romantic chick flicks. Go figure.) Take whatever you want. I just needed to type it out.

The killing of my soul will re-commence in five seconds.