Blah, blah. I had a much longer post here, but I thought I'd save it for some other forum. Too personal. And it wasn't just about me. So, yeah. Quotes from this week were from Mass Effect 2 (2010- Video Game).
Above quote is from The Illusive Man.
Sunday AM- Legion
Saturday later- Tali'Zorah nar Rayya vas Normandy
Saturday earlier- Jack/Subject Zero
Friday- Garrus Vakarian
Thursday- Harbingere
Tuesday- Urdnot Wrex
Monday- Garrus Vakarian (yes, again)
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
"Every point of view is useful, even those that are wrong - if we can judge why a wrong view was accepted."
Alright, I thought I'd be done writing, but something really has been bugging me tonight. Now, I'm not one to really rage at an institution that has done good in the past and still continues to do good even today, but there is a particular subject that I feel that a certain institution has really failed to address. The certain institution here being the Christian Church (Orthodox Church in American in my case, but I feel that my points may ring true elsewhere) and the topic being sex/sexuality.
Now, since I was young(er), the prevailing view of the church seemed to be pretty much that sex is bad unless you are married. Easy enough concept to explain to a young child, who may or may not be currently throwing spit wads at the opposite gender while said lesson is being taught. I mean, if at that given age, if the child already finds the opposing gender to be annoying anyways, what's the damage? None. Ah, but when that same child gets older, say teens, what do you tell them? Guess, what? The whole abstinence message really doesn't work as well when you are looking at girl X and she's looking really good today (feel free to substitute boy X, depending on gender/preference). I mean, what do you tell teens then? Do you honestly tell them that sex is fun, exciting and all that? Because that would encourage teens to do it more, no? So, then should the church lock up sex along with drugs and rock 'n roll? Maybe not the best option as that seems to have been the game plan for the last while and it doesn't seem to be working.
I mean, seriously...take a look at TV. There are so many TV shows- "Sixteen and Pregnant," "Secret Life of the American Teenager," "Baby Borrowers" (though to a lesser extent) that use this as a plot device. Is this because teenagers are having sex earlier or because they are not using contraceptives or what? And, though I do not follow SaP incredibly well, the majority of the teens who get pregnant seem to be from the South or Bible belt. Seriously? If this is where the abstinence only program is being promoted, it's obviously not working.
Let's examine the evidence here. Sex outside of marriage is not considered to be good. Ok, fine, sure. Obviously the best way to get teens to not have sex is to simply tell them not to do it, right?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ahem. Let's not forget the first or second story in the Bible in Genesis where a similar dialogue takes places.
God: Don't eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Adam/Eve: Why?
God: Bad things will happen.
Adam/Eve: Uh...sure...
And we all know how *that* story ends. Even barring the serpent coming into the picture, Adam and Eve would've eventually eaten the fruit. And thus the whole authority figure telling his/His children to not do a forbidden thing fails.
What would a solution be? Well...I can think of a few. Because I want to keep this blog relatively PG/PG-13 and keep it accessible to all readers, I'll only list the one that would fall in that range. I can think of about five or so other possible options to release sexual energy that would probably be considered sins by numerous churches that may involve a computer or other small electronics. However since these wouldn't create a pregnancy and wouldn't bring a new life into the world to two probably not ready parents, I'm alright with that. But, since that wouldn't be an option due to it probably being considered sinful (though the lesser by far, IMO), possibly a different route is needed.
Since sex is probably inevitable, the best people could honestly do is have an open dialogue with someone- ANYONE- about it. I mean, who is a young adult going to want to talk about sex with? Their parents? HAH! See the aforementioned God/Adam example. Extra minus points if the parent may be self righteous and say "I told you not to do that..." A priest? Hah! See God/Adam example. Also, (and I hate to take this shot) the fact that in some churches the priest is unmarried or celibate doesn't help. It'd be like if your car stopped working and you talked to me of all people about auto repair. Sure, I know of various parts that are there, and I have some vague idea of how they fit together, along with some rudimentary understanding of how the system works. If you are having trouble understanding how your car works, you probably want to talk to someone who has better than a rudimentary understanding of something that is PART OF YOUR EVERY DAY LIFE.
I mean, honestly. I can't even imagine how difficult that would be for women especially...the celibate priest, having no woman in his life would not possibly understand where she is coming from. So, maybe an older brother or sister? Could work in some cases, not in all. If only there was some kind of young adult leader...possibly a late twenties/early thirties young married couple that could educate younger adults on this sort of thing. That way, the duo would be old enough to be respected, but not too old to be boring. See? Could this work? Possibly.
Additionally, I hear bellyaching from my priest that our parish is shrinking. Hmm. Well, it doesn't have anything to do with his slightly detached personal nature, that's for sure! Well, sarcasm and criticism aside (for now), I have heard that parishioners are leaving the churches and not coming back. Why? Well, either divergent beliefs or the fact that there is no one to date. I go to a parish of about 100 or so people. There are no girls in my year of schooling that still regularly attend. The nearest girls in my age range (who do *not* annoy the crap out of me-there are a couple, I may get into that later) that attend church regularly are in early high school. I am twenty-one. Giving that having such a disparity in age is rarely socially acceptable, starting a relationship would probably not be a good idea. So, then what is a lonely Orthodox Christian male to do?
I propose that churches that WANT intrafaith marriages (which, I'll hazard a guess and say all of them), should DO something about it. That's right. DO SOMETHING rather than complain about falling attendance. Possibly have teen/young adult mixers with local other churches of the same set of beliefs as you do and hope that it works and two crazy kids end up with each other. Now, as a stipulation of meeting at thee mixer, have it so that the kids meet with a priest or that young couple duo mentioned a few paragraphs above monthly and review their relationship (think of it like counseling) and hope that the teens don't start having sex. See? Maybe it's a two for one here. I may be onto something. Or it may be nearly two in the morning and I'm delusional. Either way, I'm done writing. Later.
-Reven
Now, since I was young(er), the prevailing view of the church seemed to be pretty much that sex is bad unless you are married. Easy enough concept to explain to a young child, who may or may not be currently throwing spit wads at the opposite gender while said lesson is being taught. I mean, if at that given age, if the child already finds the opposing gender to be annoying anyways, what's the damage? None. Ah, but when that same child gets older, say teens, what do you tell them? Guess, what? The whole abstinence message really doesn't work as well when you are looking at girl X and she's looking really good today (feel free to substitute boy X, depending on gender/preference). I mean, what do you tell teens then? Do you honestly tell them that sex is fun, exciting and all that? Because that would encourage teens to do it more, no? So, then should the church lock up sex along with drugs and rock 'n roll? Maybe not the best option as that seems to have been the game plan for the last while and it doesn't seem to be working.
I mean, seriously...take a look at TV. There are so many TV shows- "Sixteen and Pregnant," "Secret Life of the American Teenager," "Baby Borrowers" (though to a lesser extent) that use this as a plot device. Is this because teenagers are having sex earlier or because they are not using contraceptives or what? And, though I do not follow SaP incredibly well, the majority of the teens who get pregnant seem to be from the South or Bible belt. Seriously? If this is where the abstinence only program is being promoted, it's obviously not working.
Let's examine the evidence here. Sex outside of marriage is not considered to be good. Ok, fine, sure. Obviously the best way to get teens to not have sex is to simply tell them not to do it, right?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ahem. Let's not forget the first or second story in the Bible in Genesis where a similar dialogue takes places.
God: Don't eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Adam/Eve: Why?
God: Bad things will happen.
Adam/Eve: Uh...sure...
And we all know how *that* story ends. Even barring the serpent coming into the picture, Adam and Eve would've eventually eaten the fruit. And thus the whole authority figure telling his/His children to not do a forbidden thing fails.
What would a solution be? Well...I can think of a few. Because I want to keep this blog relatively PG/PG-13 and keep it accessible to all readers, I'll only list the one that would fall in that range. I can think of about five or so other possible options to release sexual energy that would probably be considered sins by numerous churches that may involve a computer or other small electronics. However since these wouldn't create a pregnancy and wouldn't bring a new life into the world to two probably not ready parents, I'm alright with that. But, since that wouldn't be an option due to it probably being considered sinful (though the lesser by far, IMO), possibly a different route is needed.
Since sex is probably inevitable, the best people could honestly do is have an open dialogue with someone- ANYONE- about it. I mean, who is a young adult going to want to talk about sex with? Their parents? HAH! See the aforementioned God/Adam example. Extra minus points if the parent may be self righteous and say "I told you not to do that..." A priest? Hah! See God/Adam example. Also, (and I hate to take this shot) the fact that in some churches the priest is unmarried or celibate doesn't help. It'd be like if your car stopped working and you talked to me of all people about auto repair. Sure, I know of various parts that are there, and I have some vague idea of how they fit together, along with some rudimentary understanding of how the system works. If you are having trouble understanding how your car works, you probably want to talk to someone who has better than a rudimentary understanding of something that is PART OF YOUR EVERY DAY LIFE.
I mean, honestly. I can't even imagine how difficult that would be for women especially...the celibate priest, having no woman in his life would not possibly understand where she is coming from. So, maybe an older brother or sister? Could work in some cases, not in all. If only there was some kind of young adult leader...possibly a late twenties/early thirties young married couple that could educate younger adults on this sort of thing. That way, the duo would be old enough to be respected, but not too old to be boring. See? Could this work? Possibly.
Additionally, I hear bellyaching from my priest that our parish is shrinking. Hmm. Well, it doesn't have anything to do with his slightly detached personal nature, that's for sure! Well, sarcasm and criticism aside (for now), I have heard that parishioners are leaving the churches and not coming back. Why? Well, either divergent beliefs or the fact that there is no one to date. I go to a parish of about 100 or so people. There are no girls in my year of schooling that still regularly attend. The nearest girls in my age range (who do *not* annoy the crap out of me-there are a couple, I may get into that later) that attend church regularly are in early high school. I am twenty-one. Giving that having such a disparity in age is rarely socially acceptable, starting a relationship would probably not be a good idea. So, then what is a lonely Orthodox Christian male to do?
I propose that churches that WANT intrafaith marriages (which, I'll hazard a guess and say all of them), should DO something about it. That's right. DO SOMETHING rather than complain about falling attendance. Possibly have teen/young adult mixers with local other churches of the same set of beliefs as you do and hope that it works and two crazy kids end up with each other. Now, as a stipulation of meeting at thee mixer, have it so that the kids meet with a priest or that young couple duo mentioned a few paragraphs above monthly and review their relationship (think of it like counseling) and hope that the teens don't start having sex. See? Maybe it's a two for one here. I may be onto something. Or it may be nearly two in the morning and I'm delusional. Either way, I'm done writing. Later.
-Reven
"I'm pleased that the imminent destruction of all organic life has improved you career opportunities."
So, it's not the new week because the sun hasn't come up yet. Yes, that's how I distinguish day from day. Which, admittedly makes things difficult in the winter when the sun rarely shines some days. But, that's my shtick and I'm staying with it.
Anyways, I'm excited because I will get to work on a new short story tomorrow/today. I rarely get the opportunity to do that, so I'm pretty pumped up. I have most of it outlined, just need to get it out of my head. The only problem that I have so far is that I'm not sure how to end it. Basically, I have two endings: the optimistic one where most everyone ends up happy and the pessimistic one where everyone is upset. I'm struggling between the two, because while I do not want my characters to end up unhappy, most of my short stories end up with the main character(s) being redeemed in some way shape or form and I'd be afraid of coming across as too samey. But the upset ending doesn't necessarily destroy hope.
I can think of the ending of one movie in particular *HERE THAR BE SPOILERS PLEASE SKIP ALONG IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO KNOW, THIS MEANS YOU KATJA BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO WATCH IT SOON, DARN IT*- The Dark Knight. It was an excellent movie on all fronts, in my opinion. Good characterization and plot. The Joker especially was intriguing. And, without going too much into the incredible movie of The Dark Knight (of which there is much), I'd just like to focus on the ending. Let's face it and agree with Jim Gordon's statement that the Joker won. Dent went rogue and ended up dead, Batman ends up a vigilante with the blood of two cops on him (though why Batman and Gordon couldn't just blame on the Joker, I cannot fathom), Rachel gets caught in the crossfire, Fox almost loses his faith in Bruce and Bruce Wayne himself (just to distinguish him from Batman) pretty much ends up alone. However, it is in that moment where Batman and Gordon both realizes that while the situation is horrible, it is the hope that is generated in Batman realizing that he must become the vigilante in order to keep pretty much Gotham safe that gives me a warm feeling inside (and possibly a tear on my cheek...I had something in my eye, I swear!).
END SPOILERS
So, maybe it's not just the optimistic or pessimistic ending. I mean the aforementioned ending is a pretty big downer. Maybe it's more the execution of it that matters. I'll have to consider this...it'll take much thought.
-Reven
Anyways, I'm excited because I will get to work on a new short story tomorrow/today. I rarely get the opportunity to do that, so I'm pretty pumped up. I have most of it outlined, just need to get it out of my head. The only problem that I have so far is that I'm not sure how to end it. Basically, I have two endings: the optimistic one where most everyone ends up happy and the pessimistic one where everyone is upset. I'm struggling between the two, because while I do not want my characters to end up unhappy, most of my short stories end up with the main character(s) being redeemed in some way shape or form and I'd be afraid of coming across as too samey. But the upset ending doesn't necessarily destroy hope.
I can think of the ending of one movie in particular *HERE THAR BE SPOILERS PLEASE SKIP ALONG IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO KNOW, THIS MEANS YOU KATJA BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO WATCH IT SOON, DARN IT*- The Dark Knight. It was an excellent movie on all fronts, in my opinion. Good characterization and plot. The Joker especially was intriguing. And, without going too much into the incredible movie of The Dark Knight (of which there is much), I'd just like to focus on the ending. Let's face it and agree with Jim Gordon's statement that the Joker won. Dent went rogue and ended up dead, Batman ends up a vigilante with the blood of two cops on him (though why Batman and Gordon couldn't just blame on the Joker, I cannot fathom), Rachel gets caught in the crossfire, Fox almost loses his faith in Bruce and Bruce Wayne himself (just to distinguish him from Batman) pretty much ends up alone. However, it is in that moment where Batman and Gordon both realizes that while the situation is horrible, it is the hope that is generated in Batman realizing that he must become the vigilante in order to keep pretty much Gotham safe that gives me a warm feeling inside (and possibly a tear on my cheek...I had something in my eye, I swear!).
END SPOILERS
So, maybe it's not just the optimistic or pessimistic ending. I mean the aforementioned ending is a pretty big downer. Maybe it's more the execution of it that matters. I'll have to consider this...it'll take much thought.
-Reven
"You let someone get that close, it just means they need a shorter knife."
So, the funny thing about dreams is that they make you think. I mean, really think. I do not dream that often, or I suppose the more accurate term would be that I do no remember my dreams very often. However, I notice a pattern. Generally by Friday of the week, I find myself worn out/depressed/what have you. It is generally at this point that I become cynical of relationships, the concept of love and romance. Yeah, a bit of an over simplificiation, I concede, but I get that way. This Friday was no different, in terms of that. I went to bed slightly depressed and thinking of relationships as wastes of times and a way for people to release any sexual needs that they may have in a socially accetible manner (my thoughts on marriage get close to this often, but that's a topic for another day).
And then I slipped into Dreamworld.
I found myself with (now I guess she'd be considered an aquaintence) a girl I will call Aerith for the time being. To condense the story greatly (though I'm sure it'll eventually be told in full), we had met at the start of the school year and gotten really close by January when I told her how I felt and unfortunatly the feelings were not mutual, though we remained as good of friends as before. However, in March, her personality completely inverted- the kind, empathetic, friendly person I once knew had turned into a cold, apathetic person who only associated herself with two or three people at most. The personality inversion plus a disasterous project that we had worked on (the project itself was a success, but the working on it together was comperable to having ones foot run over by a lawnmower. Repeatedly) and a school sponsored dance turnly showed me how much our relationship had deteriorated and how different she had become. It was painful for me, to say the least, to see Aerith change like that, if not as a romantic interest but as a friend. I did not understand it then, and I still do not now. But, I moved on, replacing my feelings of attachment and caring wtih externally projecting frustration and indifference. Not to her face, but I made these feelings evident to my friends. However, these feelings apparently were only skin deep.
So, to condense the dream as well, Aerith (the former) and I had finally gotten together and we appeared to have gone the distance. We acted just like we had in January when we were together as friends with whispering from friends of possibly something more. This was the something more. It felt incredible. It felt like it had finally clicked. My cynicism had melted away.
And then I awoke with a smile on my face. Quickly, I sighed for multiple reasons: A) I knew it was but a dream, B) the Aerith as I saw in my dream did not exist anymore or if she does, she is hiding really well, C) that I realize that how much I think and say relationships are wastes of time and love may or may not truly exist, my dreams betray my inner yearnings for both. Gah. Dreams can make hypocrits of us all.
Yes, the title is meant to be ironic. It's taken from a video game where you (the player) as a male character can chose to be in a relationship with one of three women. The source of the quote is one of those three women named Jack (yes, you read correctly). She's had something of a rough existance, starting out as a human experiment for heightening telekenetic potential, of which she was supposed to be the strongest. Whoops, scientists! You succeeded!
That being said, Jack had a rough younger age and since then has been used and abused by pretty much everyone and as such isoltes herself from everyone and anyone becoming a fantastic criminal having a laundry list of felonies to boot. Until, you (the player) step in, rescue her from prison and eventually (if you choose Jack as your romance option) you can help rebuild her trust in people and humanity. While I haven't had a rough life like Jack, I can sorta empathize with her distrust of relationships (given that I really haven't had one work out for me yet) and bitterness. I do like the romance scene with her when she approaches the player and admits that it's difficult for her to open up like this...eh, just look it up on youtube. It'll be worth your time. (I'll list the video game on Sunday to go with my theme of quotes) That being said, even though I did not pick Jack the first time through the game, I can't help but pick her each successive time for her personality. She acts tough and mean but really just wants someone to be with her unconditionally. So we all do, Jack. So we all do.
-Reven
And then I slipped into Dreamworld.
I found myself with (now I guess she'd be considered an aquaintence) a girl I will call Aerith for the time being. To condense the story greatly (though I'm sure it'll eventually be told in full), we had met at the start of the school year and gotten really close by January when I told her how I felt and unfortunatly the feelings were not mutual, though we remained as good of friends as before. However, in March, her personality completely inverted- the kind, empathetic, friendly person I once knew had turned into a cold, apathetic person who only associated herself with two or three people at most. The personality inversion plus a disasterous project that we had worked on (the project itself was a success, but the working on it together was comperable to having ones foot run over by a lawnmower. Repeatedly) and a school sponsored dance turnly showed me how much our relationship had deteriorated and how different she had become. It was painful for me, to say the least, to see Aerith change like that, if not as a romantic interest but as a friend. I did not understand it then, and I still do not now. But, I moved on, replacing my feelings of attachment and caring wtih externally projecting frustration and indifference. Not to her face, but I made these feelings evident to my friends. However, these feelings apparently were only skin deep.
So, to condense the dream as well, Aerith (the former) and I had finally gotten together and we appeared to have gone the distance. We acted just like we had in January when we were together as friends with whispering from friends of possibly something more. This was the something more. It felt incredible. It felt like it had finally clicked. My cynicism had melted away.
And then I awoke with a smile on my face. Quickly, I sighed for multiple reasons: A) I knew it was but a dream, B) the Aerith as I saw in my dream did not exist anymore or if she does, she is hiding really well, C) that I realize that how much I think and say relationships are wastes of time and love may or may not truly exist, my dreams betray my inner yearnings for both. Gah. Dreams can make hypocrits of us all.
Yes, the title is meant to be ironic. It's taken from a video game where you (the player) as a male character can chose to be in a relationship with one of three women. The source of the quote is one of those three women named Jack (yes, you read correctly). She's had something of a rough existance, starting out as a human experiment for heightening telekenetic potential, of which she was supposed to be the strongest. Whoops, scientists! You succeeded!
That being said, Jack had a rough younger age and since then has been used and abused by pretty much everyone and as such isoltes herself from everyone and anyone becoming a fantastic criminal having a laundry list of felonies to boot. Until, you (the player) step in, rescue her from prison and eventually (if you choose Jack as your romance option) you can help rebuild her trust in people and humanity. While I haven't had a rough life like Jack, I can sorta empathize with her distrust of relationships (given that I really haven't had one work out for me yet) and bitterness. I do like the romance scene with her when she approaches the player and admits that it's difficult for her to open up like this...eh, just look it up on youtube. It'll be worth your time. (I'll list the video game on Sunday to go with my theme of quotes) That being said, even though I did not pick Jack the first time through the game, I can't help but pick her each successive time for her personality. She acts tough and mean but really just wants someone to be with her unconditionally. So we all do, Jack. So we all do.
-Reven
Friday, May 28, 2010
"Firing a high impact shot!"
So, the reason I really haven't been able to update for the past while is due to my internet situation, or lack thereof. You see, when you have two Facebook/computer addicts (my sister, me) and one computer with operational internet, it can get messy. So, that being said, in my best interests of going to sleep (6 or so hours before going to work), I must forgo blogging.
However, since I now have the new code for my neighbor's wireless internet (Thank you, friendly and amazing neighbors!), I am able to be on the internet at the same time as my sister. Yay!
This being said, she went to sleep two hours ago and the point is moot. Though in the future, I will be relishing this little achievement. Now, onto today's issue: Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).
My understanding on the law itself is shaky, but as well as I understand it, people in the military cannot inquire upon the sexual preference of personnel for fear of any homosexuals being "outed." I guess I can see their point. What I do not understand is why being homosexual would matter.
Apparently, US law has a stipulation in it that prohibits anyone who demonstrates homosexual behavior from serving in the military because if someone was/is homosexual it would create some kind of risk for morale, discipline and unit cohesion. This was news to me. I really hadn't looked into the issue that much myself until people at my college were protesting it being changed. Now, the people at my college hadn't said which side they were on (for or against repealing DADT) but, I'm going to guess they were for DADT.
Anyways, I don't see how having someone who is homosexual in a unit be that big of a problem. If a person can take orders, shoot a gun and be an excellent soldier, I trust them with my national security. Sure, there may be homophobes who would take issue to homosexuals being in the military. But then again, if there is someone who takes that big of offense to a fellow unit member being, could you trust someone that immature with national security? I mean, seriously. Quite frankly, I struggle to imagine what it was like for African Americans in the US military prior to the 1960s when racism was more acceptable (I'm not going to say that racism is dead, as it unfortunately is not, but just that it was much worse in previous years than current). At least one could attempt to hide ones sexual preference. But skin color? You can't hide that.
But I honestly do not see how it would make any difference when serving with someone in the military. Or rather, I do not see that it *should* make any difference. I mean, I would think that fighting together would give a sense of solidarity to a squadron of soldiers, moreso than any petty bickering (ie sexual preference, politics, religion). The enemy of my enemy, and so forth. Wouldn't a common enemy be enough to unite people?
Then again, I can hear people saying "well, what about shower situations?" Oh dear. Yes, I could see how some people would be uncomfortable being naked around someone who they thought was gay. Sure, fine. But, (just a personal opinion here) I'd be uncomfortable being naked around people in general (heterosexual or homosexual). But, hey, it's just showering. If you have time to think about who is around you and who may be looking at you, you clearly have been taking too long. And if it bothers you? Seriously, man up (or *woman up* as the case may be) and deal with it. Showers shouldn't take that long and who wants to be naked in a public shower that long anyways?
Of course, I'm saying this with my own opinion, not having served in the military or roomed with anyone that is homosexual (to the best of my knowledge), but if the latter was true, so what? If my college roommate was gay (not that he is), whatever. Nothing would change. So, then why is the military special? Why would such a bias be enough to merit a law, that if someone was homosexual it would provide a risk to morale? If people are that petty to not be able to get over that (not just military, but Americans in general), what is the problem with our society? Why can we not just tolerate, but accept people that are different? Religion, Sexual preference, political preference, age, race, spirituality (yes, different than religion). Why can't we get over these differences?
Pretty soon, we won't even need an enemy anymore because we'll be too busy fighting ourselves.
However, since I now have the new code for my neighbor's wireless internet (Thank you, friendly and amazing neighbors!), I am able to be on the internet at the same time as my sister. Yay!
This being said, she went to sleep two hours ago and the point is moot. Though in the future, I will be relishing this little achievement. Now, onto today's issue: Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).
My understanding on the law itself is shaky, but as well as I understand it, people in the military cannot inquire upon the sexual preference of personnel for fear of any homosexuals being "outed." I guess I can see their point. What I do not understand is why being homosexual would matter.
Apparently, US law has a stipulation in it that prohibits anyone who demonstrates homosexual behavior from serving in the military because if someone was/is homosexual it would create some kind of risk for morale, discipline and unit cohesion. This was news to me. I really hadn't looked into the issue that much myself until people at my college were protesting it being changed. Now, the people at my college hadn't said which side they were on (for or against repealing DADT) but, I'm going to guess they were for DADT.
Anyways, I don't see how having someone who is homosexual in a unit be that big of a problem. If a person can take orders, shoot a gun and be an excellent soldier, I trust them with my national security. Sure, there may be homophobes who would take issue to homosexuals being in the military. But then again, if there is someone who takes that big of offense to a fellow unit member being, could you trust someone that immature with national security? I mean, seriously. Quite frankly, I struggle to imagine what it was like for African Americans in the US military prior to the 1960s when racism was more acceptable (I'm not going to say that racism is dead, as it unfortunately is not, but just that it was much worse in previous years than current). At least one could attempt to hide ones sexual preference. But skin color? You can't hide that.
But I honestly do not see how it would make any difference when serving with someone in the military. Or rather, I do not see that it *should* make any difference. I mean, I would think that fighting together would give a sense of solidarity to a squadron of soldiers, moreso than any petty bickering (ie sexual preference, politics, religion). The enemy of my enemy, and so forth. Wouldn't a common enemy be enough to unite people?
Then again, I can hear people saying "well, what about shower situations?" Oh dear. Yes, I could see how some people would be uncomfortable being naked around someone who they thought was gay. Sure, fine. But, (just a personal opinion here) I'd be uncomfortable being naked around people in general (heterosexual or homosexual). But, hey, it's just showering. If you have time to think about who is around you and who may be looking at you, you clearly have been taking too long. And if it bothers you? Seriously, man up (or *woman up* as the case may be) and deal with it. Showers shouldn't take that long and who wants to be naked in a public shower that long anyways?
Of course, I'm saying this with my own opinion, not having served in the military or roomed with anyone that is homosexual (to the best of my knowledge), but if the latter was true, so what? If my college roommate was gay (not that he is), whatever. Nothing would change. So, then why is the military special? Why would such a bias be enough to merit a law, that if someone was homosexual it would provide a risk to morale? If people are that petty to not be able to get over that (not just military, but Americans in general), what is the problem with our society? Why can we not just tolerate, but accept people that are different? Religion, Sexual preference, political preference, age, race, spirituality (yes, different than religion). Why can't we get over these differences?
Pretty soon, we won't even need an enemy anymore because we'll be too busy fighting ourselves.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
"Assuming direct control!"
So, let's pretend that this was Wednesday's post, ok? No, bits of wittiness here, just hung out with a friend for waaay too long last night playing card games and board games. I do have an amusing story or two, but they should probably be sent to the Thursday post after work...
-Reven
-Reven
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
"Ah, the benefits of a redundant nervous system!"
"Yeah, humans don't have that." Ahem.
So, yeah, I was aiming to work out this morning, but it didn't happen. I screwed up my ankled a couple of weeks back (two or so) and it hasn't been right since. Now, as you may imagine, there has to be a story behind this. Oh, and is there...
So, one of my friends, Kryos, was over and we were going to watch Star Trek (the recent movie- excellent film). If you haven't seen, you owe it to yourself to watch it and this is coming from someone who had seen possibly two complete episodes of Star Trek ever. Just a solid movie. Anyways, I remembered that I needed popcorn for the movie and being the stupid person I am, I jump over the couch which separated my living room of my apartment from the hallway that doubled as a kitchen. Now, most normal people would probably gracefully spring from the couch over the chair and stick the landing. Ah hah. Much like in Soviet Russia, the landing stuck me. I landed on my ankle with a soft thud. Apparently it was so soft of a landing that my roommate, Ed, who in the next room over didn't even notice I was indisposed.
So, for those of you keeping track at home, the scoreboard is: Reven- o, Room-1. So, naturally, I find myself unable to move and quite frankly unable to get up. Problem. Kryos calmly walks by me and asks, "Want some ice?" To which I responded with a heartfelt "Yeah, sure."
Kryos calmly walks over to my refriderator and looks in the freezer portion, checks it, turns to me and says "You don't have any ice." Ugh. Reven- 0, Room- 2. So, being the resourceful (read: desperate) guy I am, I ask Kryos what exactly is inside the freezer. A mere thirty obscenity filled seconds later, I am seated on the couch, icing my sprained ankle with a bag of frozen Tyson chicken breasts and a packet of Ballpark franks while Kryos fills one of my eight (yes, eight) ice cube trays for later. Yes, they were all empty. Fail. Also, for future reference, frozen Tyson chicken breasts and Ballpark franks are not nearly as good as an ice pack for a sprained ankle. Just a word to the wise.
So, this is a long way of saying I didn't go work out in the morning because my ankle was ticked at me. It apparently needs roughly 15 or so hours between workouts or it gets all upset and won't let me walk. I was hoping to do two-a-day workouts this summer, but this is really a stumbling block (pun unintentional). Anyways, that didn't happen until later this evening. For some reason, evening workouts just feel better (probably because I'm more concious at 8 PM than 8 AM).
In unrelated news, I also got my shots for going to Korea and China which consisted of a tetanus booster (I guess I was due), typhoid (which I always thought sounded like a cool name, almost like a comic book villian) and Hepatitis A. The doctor administering the shots was an alright guy and didn't seem annoyed when I asked him what kind of vaccine typhoid was (having taken an immunology course in the spring, I was familiar with the other two) and how the symptoms would present if someone was infected (ie one of my fellow classmates). Cool guy. Anyways, I was feeling pretty pumped about the trip until I got home and checked my email and noticed that the Director In Charge (make your own acronym, please) had sent the group an email. Sigh. The Director In Charge is a nice lady, but I feel like she leaves us out of the loop a good portion of the time.
In the latest email, she informed us that we (the students going on the exchange) needed to register our visit to Korea and China with the State Department as every year, students from our college do that. Ugh. Then why tell us just now rather back in early March when we set up this whole fellowship? Remember that "out of the loop" thing? This would be one of those times, madam. However, the rest of the email went on to explain that the college and the Director In Charge would keep the rest of us students in the loop about any travel restrictions and that it is not unnatural for tensions to build up between North Korea and South Korea. Sure, sure, good. But then the last sentence mentioned that "we (referring to the colleges) will keep you informed regarding any changes in our positions about attending the summer program." Wait, what?
Now, I may be a bit, y'know thrifty at times. But, I just paid for a plane ticket that cost about as much as a brand new 58 inch plasma TV (according to Panasonic). And seeing as that plane ticket was nonrefundable and my college is not likely to compensate me for it, nor trade me the aforementioned 58 inch plasma TV for it, I am going to Korea. Now, if there was a small war going on that involved several countries and possibly cruise missles, bouncing betties and heavy artillery , this would be a different story. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and just assume that this current incident is just the latest spat between South and North, which have been going on for probably the last fifty to sixty years. I'm not that concerned. This being said, I would look really foolish and arrogant in a month, when I am over there, huddled over a computer, hiding and mortars are flying eight ways to Sunday. But, I doubt that will happen.
I remain firmly in the United States until June 24th when I will hop on the wonderful plane that will take me to Seoul and be one of the most interesting experiences of my life. And I know it will be a good one
-Reven
So, yeah, I was aiming to work out this morning, but it didn't happen. I screwed up my ankled a couple of weeks back (two or so) and it hasn't been right since. Now, as you may imagine, there has to be a story behind this. Oh, and is there...
So, one of my friends, Kryos, was over and we were going to watch Star Trek (the recent movie- excellent film). If you haven't seen, you owe it to yourself to watch it and this is coming from someone who had seen possibly two complete episodes of Star Trek ever. Just a solid movie. Anyways, I remembered that I needed popcorn for the movie and being the stupid person I am, I jump over the couch which separated my living room of my apartment from the hallway that doubled as a kitchen. Now, most normal people would probably gracefully spring from the couch over the chair and stick the landing. Ah hah. Much like in Soviet Russia, the landing stuck me. I landed on my ankle with a soft thud. Apparently it was so soft of a landing that my roommate, Ed, who in the next room over didn't even notice I was indisposed.
So, for those of you keeping track at home, the scoreboard is: Reven- o, Room-1. So, naturally, I find myself unable to move and quite frankly unable to get up. Problem. Kryos calmly walks by me and asks, "Want some ice?" To which I responded with a heartfelt "Yeah, sure."
Kryos calmly walks over to my refriderator and looks in the freezer portion, checks it, turns to me and says "You don't have any ice." Ugh. Reven- 0, Room- 2. So, being the resourceful (read: desperate) guy I am, I ask Kryos what exactly is inside the freezer. A mere thirty obscenity filled seconds later, I am seated on the couch, icing my sprained ankle with a bag of frozen Tyson chicken breasts and a packet of Ballpark franks while Kryos fills one of my eight (yes, eight) ice cube trays for later. Yes, they were all empty. Fail. Also, for future reference, frozen Tyson chicken breasts and Ballpark franks are not nearly as good as an ice pack for a sprained ankle. Just a word to the wise.
So, this is a long way of saying I didn't go work out in the morning because my ankle was ticked at me. It apparently needs roughly 15 or so hours between workouts or it gets all upset and won't let me walk. I was hoping to do two-a-day workouts this summer, but this is really a stumbling block (pun unintentional). Anyways, that didn't happen until later this evening. For some reason, evening workouts just feel better (probably because I'm more concious at 8 PM than 8 AM).
In unrelated news, I also got my shots for going to Korea and China which consisted of a tetanus booster (I guess I was due), typhoid (which I always thought sounded like a cool name, almost like a comic book villian) and Hepatitis A. The doctor administering the shots was an alright guy and didn't seem annoyed when I asked him what kind of vaccine typhoid was (having taken an immunology course in the spring, I was familiar with the other two) and how the symptoms would present if someone was infected (ie one of my fellow classmates). Cool guy. Anyways, I was feeling pretty pumped about the trip until I got home and checked my email and noticed that the Director In Charge (make your own acronym, please) had sent the group an email. Sigh. The Director In Charge is a nice lady, but I feel like she leaves us out of the loop a good portion of the time.
In the latest email, she informed us that we (the students going on the exchange) needed to register our visit to Korea and China with the State Department as every year, students from our college do that. Ugh. Then why tell us just now rather back in early March when we set up this whole fellowship? Remember that "out of the loop" thing? This would be one of those times, madam. However, the rest of the email went on to explain that the college and the Director In Charge would keep the rest of us students in the loop about any travel restrictions and that it is not unnatural for tensions to build up between North Korea and South Korea. Sure, sure, good. But then the last sentence mentioned that "we (referring to the colleges) will keep you informed regarding any changes in our positions about attending the summer program." Wait, what?
Now, I may be a bit, y'know thrifty at times. But, I just paid for a plane ticket that cost about as much as a brand new 58 inch plasma TV (according to Panasonic). And seeing as that plane ticket was nonrefundable and my college is not likely to compensate me for it, nor trade me the aforementioned 58 inch plasma TV for it, I am going to Korea. Now, if there was a small war going on that involved several countries and possibly cruise missles, bouncing betties and heavy artillery , this would be a different story. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and just assume that this current incident is just the latest spat between South and North, which have been going on for probably the last fifty to sixty years. I'm not that concerned. This being said, I would look really foolish and arrogant in a month, when I am over there, huddled over a computer, hiding and mortars are flying eight ways to Sunday. But, I doubt that will happen.
I remain firmly in the United States until June 24th when I will hop on the wonderful plane that will take me to Seoul and be one of the most interesting experiences of my life. And I know it will be a good one
-Reven
Monday, May 24, 2010
"We can disobey suicidal orders? Why wasn't I told?"
So, today was not a bad day. Woke up, worked out, had lunch with one of my friends, Kat. Finally finished a short story that has taken me roughly three months to write since its inception (the normal timetable is usually a week), so life is good.
I want to explain a few ground rules:
1. No real names of people will ever be mentioned (I'll have to keep a list of who is who, but that's ok), just in case.
2. I am not sure yet if I will reveal where I live/where I'm from/etc. But until then, just assume the Midwestern US.
3. As for pictures, yeah, they'll be up eventually as this is going to be my main way of keeping in contact with my family while overseas.
On a humerous note, I find it rather ironic that I am going to South Korea with all of this interesting news from that region of the world. To give everyone the Cliff's notes version: South Korea had a naval ship named the ROKS Cheonan that was sunk in March of 2010, killing around fifty people. The cause of the sinking the ship was recently found to be due to a torpedo from a North Korean submarine. Naturally, South Korea was not happy about this and caused an embargo on trade to and from North Korea. The international community, for the most part, seemed upset as well and demands some kind of action be done.
Ho boy. This should be fun. But I'm not that concerned, to be honest. I mean, it's not like little screwups have caused wars *thinks back to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand*...or maybe they can occasionally. In any event, whether it is due to the supposed invincibility of my youth (he says sarcastically) or the fact that according to my friends from Korea at my college, it's not like this sort of anger between North Korea and South Korea is nothing new, I am not that concerned. Kat told me "Don't die." I smirked. I'm not that concerned.
I think the idea that young adults don't fear death because they think they are invincible is a fallicy. I think the reason why young adults don't fear death is because they do not think that they have anything to lose (ie a house, a spouse, kids, a career). To be quite honest, I'm pretty satisfied with my life (though I am missing a few things that I would've liked to experience before death at this point, though perhaps my bucket list will be another post) and would be alright with shuffling off this mortal coil. I mean, the whole stressing about/fear of death, I do not get- when you die, you die. It's not like one can change it by worrying about it. When it is my time, be it next week or in sixty years, it will be my time. So yeah. That is that.
The title post may have you believe that I'm viewing going to Korea in a dangerous way, which isn't true- I just think it is a humerous quote and wanted to use it for kicks and giggles. So there. And anyone who recongizes the source of the original quote knows that the person saying it is quite an amazing guy (err...turian).
-Reven
I want to explain a few ground rules:
1. No real names of people will ever be mentioned (I'll have to keep a list of who is who, but that's ok), just in case.
2. I am not sure yet if I will reveal where I live/where I'm from/etc. But until then, just assume the Midwestern US.
3. As for pictures, yeah, they'll be up eventually as this is going to be my main way of keeping in contact with my family while overseas.
On a humerous note, I find it rather ironic that I am going to South Korea with all of this interesting news from that region of the world. To give everyone the Cliff's notes version: South Korea had a naval ship named the ROKS Cheonan that was sunk in March of 2010, killing around fifty people. The cause of the sinking the ship was recently found to be due to a torpedo from a North Korean submarine. Naturally, South Korea was not happy about this and caused an embargo on trade to and from North Korea. The international community, for the most part, seemed upset as well and demands some kind of action be done.
Ho boy. This should be fun. But I'm not that concerned, to be honest. I mean, it's not like little screwups have caused wars *thinks back to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand*...or maybe they can occasionally. In any event, whether it is due to the supposed invincibility of my youth (he says sarcastically) or the fact that according to my friends from Korea at my college, it's not like this sort of anger between North Korea and South Korea is nothing new, I am not that concerned. Kat told me "Don't die." I smirked. I'm not that concerned.
I think the idea that young adults don't fear death because they think they are invincible is a fallicy. I think the reason why young adults don't fear death is because they do not think that they have anything to lose (ie a house, a spouse, kids, a career). To be quite honest, I'm pretty satisfied with my life (though I am missing a few things that I would've liked to experience before death at this point, though perhaps my bucket list will be another post) and would be alright with shuffling off this mortal coil. I mean, the whole stressing about/fear of death, I do not get- when you die, you die. It's not like one can change it by worrying about it. When it is my time, be it next week or in sixty years, it will be my time. So yeah. That is that.
The title post may have you believe that I'm viewing going to Korea in a dangerous way, which isn't true- I just think it is a humerous quote and wanted to use it for kicks and giggles. So there. And anyone who recongizes the source of the original quote knows that the person saying it is quite an amazing guy (err...turian).
-Reven
Sunday, May 23, 2010
"The one thing [people] love more than a hero is to see a hero fail."
So, I am going to try to regularly update- hopefully daily posts. I am also thinking of having themes for the titles (usually will be quotes) of my posts. I'll reveal what the source of the quotes every Sunday for the preceding week. Since Sunday is considered by many to be the last day of the week (hence, "week end"), the theme will run from Monday to Sunday of the following week.
Not too much happened today admittedly. I mean, I went to church, same as any other Sunday (well, except for half of this past quarter, but that was due to an increased school load- also a story for another day). I will probably finish out the day with some writing, dinner, running/weight lifting. Yeah, I'm a bit out of shape- my fault. But I'm trying to be proactive and actually do something about it. Which is more than I could say for a number of people who seem to love their problems more than doing something about it. This is not to say I am not a hypocrite- I can be at times, but I like be be honest about my hypocrisy. Irony, much?
So, the one thing that happens to be on my mind is Lindsay Lohan. It is always striking to me, who watched her when I was nine or so years old in the remake of The Parent Trap, to see what has become of her. She has gone from this very sweet innocent girl to a crazed starlet who has to check herself in for drug and alcohol addiction (which I admire her for- not too many people are proactive enough to realize they have a problem *and* do something about it) and go out of the country instead of showing up for her day in court. It's kinda scary and reminds me of Mean Girls in reverse. But not so disturbing is her repeated fall from grace is the fact that the media is focusing on her. Let me pose the question: who cares? Why does the media, and by extension- society, seem to care about watching someone screw up their life?
I mean, is there really nothing else to report on? Are there not wars/economic crises/humanitarians that better deserve attention? Oy. It seems like the media is a bit of a parasite, hopping from host to host, sucking them dry and leaving their dried out carcass when some new hot item comes along. Just to give you a glimpse at all of the past media field days I'll list a few: John and Kate's divorce, Paris and Nicole (for just being Paris and Nicole), MJ holding his kid over a balcony (among other things), Winona Ryder stealing some clothes, Pee-Wee Herman slap-boxing the one eyed snake in a theater. Why do we care? Are our lives that absolutely pathetic that we get some kind of release by watching other people screw their lives up? I'm not excusing what these people did or saying that it is correct (it's not) but why do we care so much? There have to be hundreds of petty thefts in a day or various cases of small crime. Why do we care who does it? What makes a celebrity that much more important than Joe (or Johanna, if you prefer) Criminal that the celebrity has hours of news devoted to him or her?
It seems to be even worse for those who were the child stars with Disney (such as Ms. Spears and Ms. Lohan) which is somewhat ironic as that is supposed to be a family friendly company. And those were more of the Disney stars of *my* generation who watched Even Stevens, Lizzie Maguire and The Famous Jett Jackson (speaking of, what the heck happened to Lee Thompson Young? He showed up on Scrubs a few times, but what's he been up to?). This next generation of Disney stars doesn't seem exempt either. How long ago was it when that High School Musical Star, Vanessa Hudgens had those pictures show up on the Internet or Miley Cyrus had the somewhat edgy performance at the Teen Choice Awards? Also, note well: these are all female stars. Why is this? Are males child stars that much better or what is really going on here?
But then again, if one doesn't cause controversy, are they recognized? When was the last time you heard about Hillary Duff (Lizzie Maguire) or Christy Carlson Romano (Even Stevens)? Exactly.
So, what is the take-home message here? Is our society telling us to screw up our lives or otherwise we are boring? Is our culture that starved for drama that we need to find it somehow somewhere? I don't know, I just am sick of it. If I want drama, I could watch Law and Order: SVU or reread Hamlet or walk anywhere near a sorority house (if I was back at school). I do enjoy a good story and drama is an interesting part of life, but I do not need to be bombarded by it at every turn.
This being said, if you want to take a stand, just turn off the TV or radio when these stories come on. Otherwise you are just encouraging it. Hopefully if enough people stand up, these stories will get pushed down and everyone can mind their own business. That'll be it for me today.
-Reven
Quotes of the week were from "Spider-man" (2004 film)
Not too much happened today admittedly. I mean, I went to church, same as any other Sunday (well, except for half of this past quarter, but that was due to an increased school load- also a story for another day). I will probably finish out the day with some writing, dinner, running/weight lifting. Yeah, I'm a bit out of shape- my fault. But I'm trying to be proactive and actually do something about it. Which is more than I could say for a number of people who seem to love their problems more than doing something about it. This is not to say I am not a hypocrite- I can be at times, but I like be be honest about my hypocrisy. Irony, much?
So, the one thing that happens to be on my mind is Lindsay Lohan. It is always striking to me, who watched her when I was nine or so years old in the remake of The Parent Trap, to see what has become of her. She has gone from this very sweet innocent girl to a crazed starlet who has to check herself in for drug and alcohol addiction (which I admire her for- not too many people are proactive enough to realize they have a problem *and* do something about it) and go out of the country instead of showing up for her day in court. It's kinda scary and reminds me of Mean Girls in reverse. But not so disturbing is her repeated fall from grace is the fact that the media is focusing on her. Let me pose the question: who cares? Why does the media, and by extension- society, seem to care about watching someone screw up their life?
I mean, is there really nothing else to report on? Are there not wars/economic crises/humanitarians that better deserve attention? Oy. It seems like the media is a bit of a parasite, hopping from host to host, sucking them dry and leaving their dried out carcass when some new hot item comes along. Just to give you a glimpse at all of the past media field days I'll list a few: John and Kate's divorce, Paris and Nicole (for just being Paris and Nicole), MJ holding his kid over a balcony (among other things), Winona Ryder stealing some clothes, Pee-Wee Herman slap-boxing the one eyed snake in a theater. Why do we care? Are our lives that absolutely pathetic that we get some kind of release by watching other people screw their lives up? I'm not excusing what these people did or saying that it is correct (it's not) but why do we care so much? There have to be hundreds of petty thefts in a day or various cases of small crime. Why do we care who does it? What makes a celebrity that much more important than Joe (or Johanna, if you prefer) Criminal that the celebrity has hours of news devoted to him or her?
It seems to be even worse for those who were the child stars with Disney (such as Ms. Spears and Ms. Lohan) which is somewhat ironic as that is supposed to be a family friendly company. And those were more of the Disney stars of *my* generation who watched Even Stevens, Lizzie Maguire and The Famous Jett Jackson (speaking of, what the heck happened to Lee Thompson Young? He showed up on Scrubs a few times, but what's he been up to?). This next generation of Disney stars doesn't seem exempt either. How long ago was it when that High School Musical Star, Vanessa Hudgens had those pictures show up on the Internet or Miley Cyrus had the somewhat edgy performance at the Teen Choice Awards? Also, note well: these are all female stars. Why is this? Are males child stars that much better or what is really going on here?
But then again, if one doesn't cause controversy, are they recognized? When was the last time you heard about Hillary Duff (Lizzie Maguire) or Christy Carlson Romano (Even Stevens)? Exactly.
So, what is the take-home message here? Is our society telling us to screw up our lives or otherwise we are boring? Is our culture that starved for drama that we need to find it somehow somewhere? I don't know, I just am sick of it. If I want drama, I could watch Law and Order: SVU or reread Hamlet or walk anywhere near a sorority house (if I was back at school). I do enjoy a good story and drama is an interesting part of life, but I do not need to be bombarded by it at every turn.
This being said, if you want to take a stand, just turn off the TV or radio when these stories come on. Otherwise you are just encouraging it. Hopefully if enough people stand up, these stories will get pushed down and everyone can mind their own business. That'll be it for me today.
-Reven
Quotes of the week were from "Spider-man" (2004 film)
Saturday, May 22, 2010
"Who am I? You sure you want to know?"
So, barring the overtly pretentious dramatic title, I wish I could add something more interesting to my first blog post. This is the first time I've ever attempted blogging. I am not quite sure why you would want to be reading about my life (it's not that interesting, admittedly) but if you want to hang around, be my guest. I am an open person and am willing to talk to anyone about pretty much anything. I am your average white middle class suburban somewhat nerdy twenty-one year old college student living in the Midwestern United States. One of my friends recently compared me to Leonard from the Big Bang Theory and that's pretty accurate, for the most part.
Boring introductions aside, this blog will serve two purposes: A) communication with my family when I am overseas for five weeks over this summer and B) free writing opportinity when I need it. Please feel free to comment, ask questions or anything of that ilk. I'll be around.
Boring introductions aside, this blog will serve two purposes: A) communication with my family when I am overseas for five weeks over this summer and B) free writing opportinity when I need it. Please feel free to comment, ask questions or anything of that ilk. I'll be around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)