It's become the bane of my existence, and it's just going to get worse as I get closer to graduation. Every, and I mean every, social event I go to, I get asked the same set of questions. "Where are you going to college? What are you going to major in?"
I have one answer I want to give to all of those questions: I DON'T KNOW. I understand that I'm in my junior year of high school. But still. It's the first trimester. I don't have to have this stuff figured out yet. I'll get it figured out in good time.
I get that it's just a conversation starter. But it's simply annoying. Ask me how school's going or how work is going. I can answer questions about the past. However, as a teenager, I simply do not think about the future. I can do that tomorrow, right?
Colleges don't seem to get this either. Starting in my sophomore year of high school, I began receiving letters and emails from colleges, proclaiming the wonderful programs that their facilities have to offer. Do you know how many of those I've opened and read? None of them. I'll probably just end up using the letters as kindling for fires or something. How many of these letters or emails actually affect peoples' decisions on what college to go to? Thanks University of *insert state name here,* I appreciate you putting my name into your system for your computers to print on those shiny postcards with the prettiest pictures of your campus on them. It really means a lot to me. But I most likely will not end up going to your college. Anyway, at this point in my life, I already have my choices narrowed down to a select few.
Now, I'm being told I need to start looking into the ACT and college visits. Wait, what? I'm a junior. A sixteen year old. I can hardly decide what I want to eat for breakfast. Now you want me deciding what I'm going to do with my future? Holy cow. It just kind of hits you in the face. Man, the rest of my life is coming, eh? It's kind of scary.
But at least for a little while longer, I can ignore it. I'll let those college letters pile up, pretending I'm just really popular or something. I'll store those college emails away in a folder, pretending the number isn't quickly approaching the five hundreds. I'll still be a little girl, plenty of time left in high school to enjoy whatever she has left of her childhood. Summers can still be about having fun, and the school year is just a brief interruption of that. I'll have time to worry about the future once it gets a little closer. After all, procrastination is what I'm best at.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Who let the dawgs out
Dogs are a man's best friend. Right? Right.
I have a dog, named Zeke. He is one of those fancy designer dogs, half pug, half beagle, cleverly dubbed a puggle. He's got the cute curled pug tail, the pug coloring, and the sleeping habits of the pug. From the beagle, he got his wonderfully ear-piercing bark, the floppy ears, and hyperactive personality. Zeke has a mix of the pug's smushed, "I just ran into a glass window" snout and the beagle's normal snout.
As cute and adorable as he is now, he was even more adorable as a puppy. And a lot less annoying. When he weighed only five pounds and was only a foot tall, he could do a lot less destruction. Now, he is a little punk. He gets into the trash can, eating whatever will fit in his mouth. He'll roll all over beds, shedding everywhere. He'll destroy clothing that actually gets left lying around.
Recently, my grandmother's dog has been staying with us. She's a teenager in human years, meaning she's an old, old lady in dog years. An adorable little shih tzu dog, with a big fluffy white coat and short little dumpling legs. Compared to my brat of a dog, she's an angel. She's half blind and deaf as a rock. But she's the sweetest thing ever. She lies around, looks the happiest ever when her "mommy" shows up, and never eats any type of trash.
It's weird to think, but this is just an example of how even dogs have personalities. My dog, the stupid punk, is like a toddler, never growing up, never learning from his mistakes. My grandmother's dog is like a wise little old grandmother, observing all that goes on, but never involving herself. It sometimes seems strange that our dogs are their own little "people" too, with different habits and mannerisms. But they are, and that's why we love them.
Despite my little Zeke's childishness, I still love him; that moment when he snuggles up to me before going to sleep, his overly excited tail wagging whenever I walk through the front door, even after just taking out the trash. We can all learn from dogs. We learn what exactly unconditional love is and we in turn, learn how to love unconditionally. Even after that SoB peed on the carpet and threw up, after cleaning it up, that punk will run up to you all happy-like, without a care in the world, and you'll just give up. That pooch is just too adorable, and you'll love it no matter if it even killed the Muppets.
I have a dog, named Zeke. He is one of those fancy designer dogs, half pug, half beagle, cleverly dubbed a puggle. He's got the cute curled pug tail, the pug coloring, and the sleeping habits of the pug. From the beagle, he got his wonderfully ear-piercing bark, the floppy ears, and hyperactive personality. Zeke has a mix of the pug's smushed, "I just ran into a glass window" snout and the beagle's normal snout.
As cute and adorable as he is now, he was even more adorable as a puppy. And a lot less annoying. When he weighed only five pounds and was only a foot tall, he could do a lot less destruction. Now, he is a little punk. He gets into the trash can, eating whatever will fit in his mouth. He'll roll all over beds, shedding everywhere. He'll destroy clothing that actually gets left lying around.
Recently, my grandmother's dog has been staying with us. She's a teenager in human years, meaning she's an old, old lady in dog years. An adorable little shih tzu dog, with a big fluffy white coat and short little dumpling legs. Compared to my brat of a dog, she's an angel. She's half blind and deaf as a rock. But she's the sweetest thing ever. She lies around, looks the happiest ever when her "mommy" shows up, and never eats any type of trash.
It's weird to think, but this is just an example of how even dogs have personalities. My dog, the stupid punk, is like a toddler, never growing up, never learning from his mistakes. My grandmother's dog is like a wise little old grandmother, observing all that goes on, but never involving herself. It sometimes seems strange that our dogs are their own little "people" too, with different habits and mannerisms. But they are, and that's why we love them.
Despite my little Zeke's childishness, I still love him; that moment when he snuggles up to me before going to sleep, his overly excited tail wagging whenever I walk through the front door, even after just taking out the trash. We can all learn from dogs. We learn what exactly unconditional love is and we in turn, learn how to love unconditionally. Even after that SoB peed on the carpet and threw up, after cleaning it up, that punk will run up to you all happy-like, without a care in the world, and you'll just give up. That pooch is just too adorable, and you'll love it no matter if it even killed the Muppets.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
What are you afraid of?
Just the other day, I participated in a common Halloween ritual. The "haunted house."
I've been to very few haunted houses/mazes/otherthingsthatgethaunted in my life. But they have pretty much all been the same. Obviously the actual style of the haunted locations were different, with different paths and different looking monsters, but the techniques used were the same.
The way most haunted places are "scary" isn't through actual scary things. Sure, the monsters and clowns and creepy nurses and old people and murderers look pretty gross and icky, but they aren't actually that scary. They just kind of stand around or walk by or near you.
The real way that haunted houses are scary is through two main ways. The first is suspense. They play scary music while you're waiting, already riling your nerves. Then as you're walking through, you're just waiting and waiting and waiting for someone to pop out. Or you'll see someone, standing motionless and immediately start worrying when they're going to move and lunge toward you.
The second way haunted houses are scary by the noises they use. They play loud, scary music while you're waiting to enter. Then once inside, they'll assault you with noises and silence. You'll enter and it'll be quiet. But then the sound effects begin. Actors will bang on anything and everything to startle you. They'll play sound tracks of creepy voices and noises. You'll hear other people scream and that alone will scare you, once again adding suspense with you wondering why they're screaming.
These aspects that make us feel fear then amplify our other lesser fears. Before entering the haunted house, the man manning the entrance asked me, "Are you afraid of the dark? Are you claustrophobic? Are you afraid of clowns?" I answered no to all of those. I mean, I'm a sixteen-year-old. Who is afraid of the dark at that age? And small spaces and clowns have never bothered me. But with the suspense and the noise, I found myself fearing those exact things.
So we wonder, why do we even do this to ourselves? It's a weird Halloween event. Why would we purposely try to scare ourselves? I suppose it's entertaining. It's like why we slow down to look at accidents. We all have a little bit of morbid curiosity. We also like the elevated heart rate and rush of adrenaline we get from the anticipation and the scare.
Despite whatever other meanings Halloween has for others, be it the scary experiences or the horror aspect, it'll always only have one main meaning for me. The candy.
I've been to very few haunted houses/mazes/otherthingsthatgethaunted in my life. But they have pretty much all been the same. Obviously the actual style of the haunted locations were different, with different paths and different looking monsters, but the techniques used were the same.
The way most haunted places are "scary" isn't through actual scary things. Sure, the monsters and clowns and creepy nurses and old people and murderers look pretty gross and icky, but they aren't actually that scary. They just kind of stand around or walk by or near you.
The real way that haunted houses are scary is through two main ways. The first is suspense. They play scary music while you're waiting, already riling your nerves. Then as you're walking through, you're just waiting and waiting and waiting for someone to pop out. Or you'll see someone, standing motionless and immediately start worrying when they're going to move and lunge toward you.
The second way haunted houses are scary by the noises they use. They play loud, scary music while you're waiting to enter. Then once inside, they'll assault you with noises and silence. You'll enter and it'll be quiet. But then the sound effects begin. Actors will bang on anything and everything to startle you. They'll play sound tracks of creepy voices and noises. You'll hear other people scream and that alone will scare you, once again adding suspense with you wondering why they're screaming.
These aspects that make us feel fear then amplify our other lesser fears. Before entering the haunted house, the man manning the entrance asked me, "Are you afraid of the dark? Are you claustrophobic? Are you afraid of clowns?" I answered no to all of those. I mean, I'm a sixteen-year-old. Who is afraid of the dark at that age? And small spaces and clowns have never bothered me. But with the suspense and the noise, I found myself fearing those exact things.
So we wonder, why do we even do this to ourselves? It's a weird Halloween event. Why would we purposely try to scare ourselves? I suppose it's entertaining. It's like why we slow down to look at accidents. We all have a little bit of morbid curiosity. We also like the elevated heart rate and rush of adrenaline we get from the anticipation and the scare.
Despite whatever other meanings Halloween has for others, be it the scary experiences or the horror aspect, it'll always only have one main meaning for me. The candy.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Seven places I want to go/live before I die
We all have places where we wish we could go or live.
Where to go
1. Wales- As in the part of Great Britain. Right next to England. I'm not quite sure why, but I'd really like to visit there. It might be their amazing castles or sloping pastures. I think the first time I heard about Wales was in a book I read, titled Saffy's Angel. I don't hardly remember what the book was about but at some point in the storyline, the characters went to Wales. Since then, I've wanted to go to there.
2. Sweden- Despite never being able to spell it right (Sweeden?) I want to go there before I die. I don't know much about the country besides that they have delicious fish, but I feel as if it would be an enriching experience.
3. India- One of my good friends recently visited India. Seeing her pictures of the people, the culture, and the places, I decided India was a country I wanted to travel to. There would be so many new adventures, smells, tastes, and people to meet. Unlike the previous places mentioned, India would be a different experience, as Europe tends to be closer culturally to the United States. I feel this foreign land would be exciting to visit.
4. Russia- Despite the cold weather and the raging alcohol/drug problems (though I understand that is a wide generalization) in Russia, I still feel it would be a beneficial place to visit. With its amazing architecture and culture, I believe there would be new experiences around every corner.
Places to live
1. Canada- Not just anywhere in Canada though. It would have to be northern Canada, where not many people live and where the woods would be all around me. The goal to moving there would be for isolation, a time of solitude. To have a small cabin in the woods with a fireplace and plenty of books to read would just be perfect.
2. Netherlands- Let's be honest. Who wouldn't want to live in such a beautiful country? With their long history of growing tulips, there is sure to be a scenic view within a few minutes' drive. And the windmills. Those are amazing. The whole experience would be wonderful.
3. Australia- Another beautiful place to live would be Australia. This country has pretty much everything. Wildlife, coral reefs, expanse deserts, all on one convenient land mass, just for your enjoyment! Living here would allow me to expose myself to so many opportunities. The only thing I would not enjoy would be the fact that pretty much every animal living there can kill you. Especially the spiders. I hate spiders.
Where to go
2. Sweden- Despite never being able to spell it right (Sweeden?) I want to go there before I die. I don't know much about the country besides that they have delicious fish, but I feel as if it would be an enriching experience.
3. India- One of my good friends recently visited India. Seeing her pictures of the people, the culture, and the places, I decided India was a country I wanted to travel to. There would be so many new adventures, smells, tastes, and people to meet. Unlike the previous places mentioned, India would be a different experience, as Europe tends to be closer culturally to the United States. I feel this foreign land would be exciting to visit.
Places to live
Saturday, October 20, 2012
An apple a day...
will either keep the doctor away or send you right to the dentist, depending on what you do with that apple.
This afternoon, my good friend and I decided it would be the perfect day to go apple picking. The "U-Pick" type, where the orchard releases you upon their trees and you just pull as many as you want (or can afford) off of their trees. However, upon arriving at said orchard, a half an hour later, we find out that it's too late in the season. They had already pulled all of their apples off the trees and the only apples we could get were in baskets in their store. Awkward. So being the mature adults we are, my friend and I decided to never go back there again.
This evening, we decided to make caramel apples instead. Why not? We wanted our daily dosage of apples, some way, somehow. So out to the grocery store we go. We buy caramels and head to my house, where a good sized stock of apples lay waiting for us. It went brilliantly. And by brilliantly I mean awful. I can now give you a long list of reasons of how not to make caramel apples and why you should just go to the grocery store and buy pre-made ones.
This afternoon, my good friend and I decided it would be the perfect day to go apple picking. The "U-Pick" type, where the orchard releases you upon their trees and you just pull as many as you want (or can afford) off of their trees. However, upon arriving at said orchard, a half an hour later, we find out that it's too late in the season. They had already pulled all of their apples off the trees and the only apples we could get were in baskets in their store. Awkward. So being the mature adults we are, my friend and I decided to never go back there again.
This evening, we decided to make caramel apples instead. Why not? We wanted our daily dosage of apples, some way, somehow. So out to the grocery store we go. We buy caramels and head to my house, where a good sized stock of apples lay waiting for us. It went brilliantly. And by brilliantly I mean awful. I can now give you a long list of reasons of how not to make caramel apples and why you should just go to the grocery store and buy pre-made ones.
- Don't assume you won't need that much caramel. You will. Just dump the entire bag in. If you don't you'll run out and your apples will suck. Seriously. If you have some leftover in the pan after, no loss. You could just try covering random things in caramel, like pretzels or crackers or carrots or something.
- Butter your wax paper. If you didn't already know this, you should put your drying caramel apples on wax paper, to help keep them from sticking to anything. But actually, this won't be enough. Unless you enjoy wax paper in your caramel, remember to butter that baby up.
- Just use one batch of caramel. Something weird happens to it if you try to add more to a meager amount of already melted caramel. I seriously peeled the caramel off my apple and just ate it plain. That was the stuff you build houses from, not caramel.
- Just don't do it. You probably won't succeed in creating these wonderful creations, no matter how skilled you are in the culinary arts. I'm pretty sure only Emeril has been able to achieve the delicious sugar-coated fruits without help from a machine. And let's face it: you're no Emeril.
- It's cheaper. Most caramel apples will cost less than five dollars in most grocery stores. However, the average chipped tooth repair can run you anywhere from $150-$1000 USD. Which would you rather pay?
Jack of all trades, ace of none
I've always admired aces. It's those people you know who excel in one particular subject or activity. We all know someone (if not more than one person,) like that. They dedicate themselves whole-heartedly to their "trade" and are downright fantastic at it. It could be a sport that they excel at, a school subject they master, or their talent in performing arts, be it drama or musical.
I feel my admiration of these people comes from my tendency to not be like them. I am more like the title of this blog. A jack of all trades and an ace of none. I bounce around from activities, never fully committing myself to one. I fade in and out of interest of the school subjects I take, going from religiously completing homework one week to apathetically filling out worksheets the next. While I'm not ever particularly bad at any of these subjects or activities, I never particularly excel at them. I think this is why I admire the aces so much. Due to my bipolar-like interest level in things, I wish I could wholly devote myself to all these things that fascinate me.
But alas, I cannot. As a human, I have a limited attention span, if not less than others'. My attention is being pulled in different directions all the time and I'm not the best at focusing it.
Who knows which is better though? Being fairly well rounded, a "Renaissance man," might be more beneficial for some. For example, someone could have a moderate knowledge of mechanical, medical, and culinary subjects. They would be able to perform a limited number tasks in a singular field, but would be useful in that their home knowledge could save a lot of trouble. In school years, that person would be able to take a wide variety of courses in high school and broaden their overall knowledge.
So overall, it simply depends on what your plans are. Having
a wide knowledge would be both beneficial and interesting, but would it
outweigh the benefits of being skilled in one specific topic? Each has its pros
and cons, but it’s up for you to decide whether to be a jack or an ace.
I feel my admiration of these people comes from my tendency to not be like them. I am more like the title of this blog. A jack of all trades and an ace of none. I bounce around from activities, never fully committing myself to one. I fade in and out of interest of the school subjects I take, going from religiously completing homework one week to apathetically filling out worksheets the next. While I'm not ever particularly bad at any of these subjects or activities, I never particularly excel at them. I think this is why I admire the aces so much. Due to my bipolar-like interest level in things, I wish I could wholly devote myself to all these things that fascinate me.
But alas, I cannot. As a human, I have a limited attention span, if not less than others'. My attention is being pulled in different directions all the time and I'm not the best at focusing it.
Who knows which is better though? Being fairly well rounded, a "Renaissance man," might be more beneficial for some. For example, someone could have a moderate knowledge of mechanical, medical, and culinary subjects. They would be able to perform a limited number tasks in a singular field, but would be useful in that their home knowledge could save a lot of trouble. In school years, that person would be able to take a wide variety of courses in high school and broaden their overall knowledge.
On the other hand, to be an ace of a trade would be more favorable
when entering the real world. A person who is specifically skilled in medical practices
would be more likely to excel in a job centered around medicine. This
person could more quickly rise in position than one who only has a shallow
knowledge of the same subject.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Everyone knows you never go full retard
This past Saturday, I was sitting at home, perusing the internet, and I saw some sort of reference to a movie called "Tropic Thunder." In the reference, it stated that Robert Downey Jr., who is best known for his role in the Ironman movies, starred in the film as a black man. That caught my attention, as weird things tend to do for most people. So I looked it up and decided it might be worth the watch.
Starting out, it was weird. Right from the get go. It starts out by introducing the characters, who play actors in the movie. Except it introduces them through extremely odd fake trailers and advertisements. Despite appearing to be a serious movie, they let you know right from the start that this is going to be anything but that.
As the movie went on, I found out the plot of the story involves five actors who are staring in a movie called "Tropic Thunder" about a Vietnam War veteran's experience. However, the actors don't get along and filming goes completely horribly and money is lost. The producer is angry, the director is angry and in trouble, and the actors are angry, in trouble, and huge prima donnas. So what else to do but send the actors into the middle of the Vietnamese jungle to fend for themselves while recreating the scenes. They are given directions on what they are to do and where to go, and then things start to go wrong. The rest of the movie is their adventures trekking through the jungle and portraying the soldiers they were cast to play.
Despite the obvious illogicalities (including but not limited to thoughts like "Where did they get food from?" and "How are they not getting shot? Are the bad guys that bad of shots?" and "That truck just flipped like five times, how did that kid not die?") and obvious coincidences (like a prop explosive going off just where it would be beneficial for the antagonists), it was a good movie. It held true to the high ratings I found online. It was a humorous spin on both a war movie and poked fun at stereotypical movie production.
However, this movie is not for everyone. The widespread, near constant cursing and repetitive use of the word, form of the word "retard," and crude humor is apt to offend a good amount of people. To truly enjoy the movie, you need to have an open mind and a slightly twisted sense of humor.
So while this would not be a good movie for "family movie night," I believe that Tropic Thunder is a fairly decent way to spend one's Saturday night.
Starting out, it was weird. Right from the get go. It starts out by introducing the characters, who play actors in the movie. Except it introduces them through extremely odd fake trailers and advertisements. Despite appearing to be a serious movie, they let you know right from the start that this is going to be anything but that.
As the movie went on, I found out the plot of the story involves five actors who are staring in a movie called "Tropic Thunder" about a Vietnam War veteran's experience. However, the actors don't get along and filming goes completely horribly and money is lost. The producer is angry, the director is angry and in trouble, and the actors are angry, in trouble, and huge prima donnas. So what else to do but send the actors into the middle of the Vietnamese jungle to fend for themselves while recreating the scenes. They are given directions on what they are to do and where to go, and then things start to go wrong. The rest of the movie is their adventures trekking through the jungle and portraying the soldiers they were cast to play.
Despite the obvious illogicalities (including but not limited to thoughts like "Where did they get food from?" and "How are they not getting shot? Are the bad guys that bad of shots?" and "That truck just flipped like five times, how did that kid not die?") and obvious coincidences (like a prop explosive going off just where it would be beneficial for the antagonists), it was a good movie. It held true to the high ratings I found online. It was a humorous spin on both a war movie and poked fun at stereotypical movie production.
However, this movie is not for everyone. The widespread, near constant cursing and repetitive use of the word, form of the word "retard," and crude humor is apt to offend a good amount of people. To truly enjoy the movie, you need to have an open mind and a slightly twisted sense of humor.
So while this would not be a good movie for "family movie night," I believe that Tropic Thunder is a fairly decent way to spend one's Saturday night.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Rain, rain, go away, please don't come another day
Do you ever feel sad on rainy or cloudy days? Do you feel more tired? Do problems seem bigger than they did the day before? That's because the weather outside has a surprisingly large impact on what our mood is.
It makes sense in a way. When it's warmer out, we tend to be more comfortable, and thus in a better mood. But studies even say spending at least a half hour in warm, sunny weather can improve one's mood. Being out in the open, in open air helps make people feel better, not as contained.
Of course, the weather affects everyone differently. Everyone has different preferences, and thus weather affects them differently. If someone enjoyed wintertime activities, they might not mind the cold quite as much as those who prefer summertime activities. People with psychiatric disorders are more easily affected as well.
The affects are easily seen in those who inhabit Antarctica, especially in the colder winter months. It has been observed that as the long, isolated winter months go on, those who live and work in Antarctica become more isolated and irritable. Christian Otto served as an emergency doctor in Antarctica for about a year, and while working there, he witnessed people becoming more depressed, anxious, and insomniatic. This is partially due to the well known connection between darkness and depression. Research has also shown that in order to keep body temperature up, the body produces more hormones to regulate body temp and less of other hormones, including the ones that keep you happy.
Overall, though temperature may have some affect on our mood, it has an awful lot to do with sunlight. Matthew C. Keller found that the optimal dose of sunlight is around thirty minutes. But he also found that it may only really be effective in the spring, when people are "sunlight-deprived" and haven't seen bright sunlight in months. So especially in the spring, sunlight can help raise one's mood.
So the next time you feel uncharacteristically sad, look outside. Your mood just might be because of the weather. If it's cloudy and dreary out, you have your explanation. On the other hand, if it's bright and sunny, step outside. It's likely your day will get at least a little bit better and a whole lot brighter.
Sources: Hunt, P. (2010). WEATHER or NOT. Current Health 1, 33(7), 17.
Anthes, E. (2010). WELCOME TO OUTER (HEAD) SPACE. Psychology Today, 43(2), 72.
It makes sense in a way. When it's warmer out, we tend to be more comfortable, and thus in a better mood. But studies even say spending at least a half hour in warm, sunny weather can improve one's mood. Being out in the open, in open air helps make people feel better, not as contained.
Of course, the weather affects everyone differently. Everyone has different preferences, and thus weather affects them differently. If someone enjoyed wintertime activities, they might not mind the cold quite as much as those who prefer summertime activities. People with psychiatric disorders are more easily affected as well.
The affects are easily seen in those who inhabit Antarctica, especially in the colder winter months. It has been observed that as the long, isolated winter months go on, those who live and work in Antarctica become more isolated and irritable. Christian Otto served as an emergency doctor in Antarctica for about a year, and while working there, he witnessed people becoming more depressed, anxious, and insomniatic. This is partially due to the well known connection between darkness and depression. Research has also shown that in order to keep body temperature up, the body produces more hormones to regulate body temp and less of other hormones, including the ones that keep you happy.
Overall, though temperature may have some affect on our mood, it has an awful lot to do with sunlight. Matthew C. Keller found that the optimal dose of sunlight is around thirty minutes. But he also found that it may only really be effective in the spring, when people are "sunlight-deprived" and haven't seen bright sunlight in months. So especially in the spring, sunlight can help raise one's mood.
So the next time you feel uncharacteristically sad, look outside. Your mood just might be because of the weather. If it's cloudy and dreary out, you have your explanation. On the other hand, if it's bright and sunny, step outside. It's likely your day will get at least a little bit better and a whole lot brighter.
Sources: Hunt, P. (2010). WEATHER or NOT. Current Health 1, 33(7), 17.
Anthes, E. (2010). WELCOME TO OUTER (HEAD) SPACE. Psychology Today, 43(2), 72.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
'MURICA
While I don't agree with that mindset, some aspects of American culture baffles me. It's one I've known about for a while too. It's the whole "state insignia" stuff.
I remember the first time I heard about it was probably in first grade, when I first attended public school. Each morning, we would sing some America-y song. One talked about the state tree, flower, bird, etc. And as a first grader, I thought it was kinda cool.
But now, it's a little strange. Sure it's great to have a sense of nationalism. However, if we have to stretch to create bonds between people living in a state together, I'm not sure if we're really doing the right thing.
Now don't get me wrong. I love my state and country as much as the next person. I just think the state insignia stuff has gotten a bit out of hand. The things states "claim" as their own is getting a little ridiculous.
- State Amphibians: Seriously? Amphibians? I don't think we have that many different kinds of amphibians in America. Maybe that's why only eighteen states have a state amphibian. And Puerto Rico. Go commonwealths.
- State Bats: Okay, now you're just being absurd. Only three states have a state bat. And two are the same. Oklahoma and Texas both have a Mexican free-tailed bat as their state bat. Isn't it a little strange that it's called the MEXICAN free-tailed bat? Come on guys, it's really not necessary.
- State Beverages: This actually could've been cool. Except for the fact that 20.5/29 states chose milk. Milk. There are so many other beverages out there, but the majority of states pick milk? What are they trying to prove?
- State Firearms: Here's one that fits the American stereotype. YEAH! GUNS AND BEER! (By the way, beer was not a single state's state beverage. Whiskey was though. Woo Alabama!) But only two states have an official state firearm. Pennsylvania attempted to adopt a bill to make the long rifle the state firearm, but the Penns decided against it. I don't see why.
- State Instrument: This would also be a cool insignia to have, if only states were more creative. Can you imagine if a state's musical instrument was the thumb piano? That would make them at least 10% cooler in my opinion. Unfortunately, few states actually have a state instrument, and the ones that do are pretty boring.
- State Tartan: This one is awful. Really, a state tartan? If you don't know what a tartan is, it's basically a plaid pattern on cloth. And it's ridiculous. Does a state really need to have a plaid pattern of it's own? It really confuses me on how/why more states would have a state tartan compared to a state firearm. THIS IS AMERICA.
So the next time you feel a bout of nationalism coming on, look up some of your state's insignia. Be prepared to be either really disappointed or proud. I can assure you though, there is no middle ground. Go land of the North American Bullfrog.
(For a large list of state insignias and where I got most of my data from, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_United_States_state_insignia)
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Happily ever after maybe possibly sometimes I guess not
We've all seen (or at least heard about) the Disney cartoon versions of fairy tales. But Disney decided that their fairy tales would be child friendly and then took some liberties with the endings of them. The very movies we grew up with are quite different from the good ol' Grimm Brothers stories and Hans Christian Anderson tales that they were inspired by.
- First we have the Little Mermaid. This one is probably the one most people know about in terms of its "real" or original ending. Whereas the Disney version had "Ariel" (she was called "the Little Mermaid" in the fairy tale) marry Eric ("the prince") and ride off into the sunset, the actual fairy tale had a much sadder ending. The Little Mermaid was given human legs, like in the Disney movie, but things don't go quite as swimmingly for the Little Mermaid as they did for Ariel. In the classic fairy tale, it turns out that the prince is in love with a girl he mistakenly though rescued him. (It was actually the Little Mermaid who did and the other girl just found him after he had been saved.) Then he gets married to that girl, who happens to be the princess of a neighboring country. The Little Mermaid, however, only had until that morning to find true love or she would die and turn to sea foam. Her kindhearted sisters traded their hair for a knife that would turn her back to a mermaid if she killed the prince with it. But instead, she chooses to not kill the prince and throws herself into the sea and turns to foam. However, it doesn't end there as most think. This tale turns into a lesson to the little children, saying that since the Little Mermaid did a good deed, she gets to earn her way to heaven by finding good children. If she finds 300 good children she gets to go to heaven, but for each bad child she finds, another day is added. For some reason, Disney decided this wouldn't be a good lesson for kids.
- Another well known fairy tale is Snow White. The beginning of both the Disney movie and the Grimm Brother's tale is the same: Snow White was born and surpassed her stepmother as the fairest in the land. Her stepmother then orders a huntsman to take Snow White to the woods and kill her. In the fairy tale, there is where the differences start. The queen wants proof that Snow White is dead, and in the story asks for her lungs and liver, which she goes on to eat (not knowing that they are actually from a boar.) Then, after finding out that Snow White is still alive and more fair, she tries three times to kill Snow White off, whereas in the movie, she only tries once. Each time she disguises herself and uses a different method. The first is to offer Snow White beautiful laces for her corset and then tie them too tight. The dwarves return and save Snow White, thus thwarting the queen for the first time. Her second attempt is with a poison comb. I know, weird. But Snow White again falls for it and faints, only to be revived (again) by the dwarves. What would she do without them? Lastly, the queen gives Snow White a poison apple. She "dies," and the dwarves build a glass coffin for her, same as the movie. A prince shows up, sees her, and convinces the dwarves to let him have her. Remember, they think she's dead. A little weird on his part. Anyway, when they're moving her coffin, they almost drop it and the piece of poison apple dislodges and she awakens to find her prince charming and they get married. At their wedding then, the queen shows up (knowing that this "new queen" is more fair than her, but not knowing that it is Snow White.) They then force the queen to dance in heated iron shoes until she dies. That escalated quickly, didn't it? Not quite a kid friendly ending especially.
- One last fairy tale that I'll mention is Rapunzel. It has recently been made into a movie called Tangled by Disney. But not really. They're so drastically different in the plot that the only real similarity is that the main character's name is Rapunzel and she has a lot of hair. I won't go into the Disney version, as I haven't seen the movie and stuff. But the fairy tale, Rapunzel was born and named after the plant her mother craved during her pregnancy. Her father stole the plant from their neighbor and was eventually caught. Their neighbor, an enchantress named Dame Gothel, lets Rapunzel's father off as long as he gives her Rapunzel once she's born. Rapunzel is then locked in a tower with the only entrance being up her long flowing hair, rope climbing style. A wandering prince overhears Rapunzel singing, falls in love (obviously) and figures out how to get up the tower. They agree to marry and work on a plan of escape, consisting of Rapunzel building a ladder. However Rapunzel accidentally gives them away, originally by stating that her dress was getting tight around the waist (OMGPREGNANCY), but in later versions, she just comments that it's harder to bring up the (presumably) fatter Dame Gothel. Dame Gothel then cuts off Rapunzel's hair and sends her to the wilderness to survive on her own. She tricks the prince and brings him up using Rapunzel's hair. Some versions say the prince jumps and others say he is pushed from the balcony and thus loses his sight after falling into thorns. The prince wanders then for a while until he hears Rapunzel singing with the twins she gave birth to. There's a happy reunion and magically, Rapunzel's tears heal the prince's eyes. So while the real fairy tale did have a happy ending, it's easy to see why Disney decided not to go with that version.
Mitt Romney, please stop calling my house.
There are three things I've never really understood about presidential elections, or elections in general. Just kidding. That's a huge lie. There's a lot I don't understand, but there are three aspects I don't get.
The first is all of those political ads. It seems like wasted energy. It seems like to get someone to vote for your candidate, you should be talking about your candidate, not bashing the other candidate. You don't want the voter to think, "Well, Person A has all these bad points, so I guess I'll just vote for Person B." That's not the right point of view at all. You want the voter to think, "Wow! Look at what Person B is going to do once they win the election! I definitely want them having a role of authority in my government!" Pointing out opponent's bad points (whether they are legitimate or if they're just biased interpretations) seems like an extremely childish thing to do. I understand that this has been happening since 1800, when Thomas Jefferson ran against John Adams, but I would've hoped that we would have matured as a country, rather than staying the same. And let's be honest. Has a political ad ever changed someone's mind on who they're going to vote for?
The second thing I don't really get about the presidential election is the debates. I haven't actually ever watched a full debate, but who actually does? Anyway, I've never understood how debates help. I get that they're supposed to help inform the viewers of what the candidates' positions are, but as of late, they seem to be doing less and less of that. Moderators get ignored, candidates don't answer questions, and the candidates' positions seem to change each time. How does no one see a problem with this? Do we want someone running our country who is just really good at avoiding answering questions? I didn't think so. I would want someone for president who knows what they're going to do, when they're going to do it, and how they're going to do it; none of this moseying around the topic stuff.
The last part I don't really understand about election season, is all of those phone calls. Does that really affect anyone? I do understand that parties are trying to reach independents and those who are undecided. But I don't really think that receiving seven phone calls a day from various political parties is going to be effective. Try one every couple of weeks, unless you're told that the person(s) in that household know who they're voting for. Then cross them off the list and don't call back. Just like how no one likes a clingy friend, no one likes an overly obsessive political party.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is this: I can't wait for election season to be over.
The first is all of those political ads. It seems like wasted energy. It seems like to get someone to vote for your candidate, you should be talking about your candidate, not bashing the other candidate. You don't want the voter to think, "Well, Person A has all these bad points, so I guess I'll just vote for Person B." That's not the right point of view at all. You want the voter to think, "Wow! Look at what Person B is going to do once they win the election! I definitely want them having a role of authority in my government!" Pointing out opponent's bad points (whether they are legitimate or if they're just biased interpretations) seems like an extremely childish thing to do. I understand that this has been happening since 1800, when Thomas Jefferson ran against John Adams, but I would've hoped that we would have matured as a country, rather than staying the same. And let's be honest. Has a political ad ever changed someone's mind on who they're going to vote for?
The second thing I don't really get about the presidential election is the debates. I haven't actually ever watched a full debate, but who actually does? Anyway, I've never understood how debates help. I get that they're supposed to help inform the viewers of what the candidates' positions are, but as of late, they seem to be doing less and less of that. Moderators get ignored, candidates don't answer questions, and the candidates' positions seem to change each time. How does no one see a problem with this? Do we want someone running our country who is just really good at avoiding answering questions? I didn't think so. I would want someone for president who knows what they're going to do, when they're going to do it, and how they're going to do it; none of this moseying around the topic stuff.
The last part I don't really understand about election season, is all of those phone calls. Does that really affect anyone? I do understand that parties are trying to reach independents and those who are undecided. But I don't really think that receiving seven phone calls a day from various political parties is going to be effective. Try one every couple of weeks, unless you're told that the person(s) in that household know who they're voting for. Then cross them off the list and don't call back. Just like how no one likes a clingy friend, no one likes an overly obsessive political party.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is this: I can't wait for election season to be over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)