:: Captain's Personal Blog ::

Stardate: Wednesday, December 11, 2002

Gross
According to Snapple "The average human eats 8 spiders in his/her lifetime while sleeping."

Gives new meaning to the term "Midnight snack."
:: J 2:21 PM [+] ::
...

Incredulously Surviving Another Day

Well, last night I shelled out over $30 on the entire experience of going to see the new James Bond film, DIE ANOTHER DAY. What did I think?

For one thing, this new entry to the series only reinforces what I have believed since Pierce Brosnan took over the series. James Bond is no longer a human being. He can't be. He's too good at everything, and he's pretty much indestructable.

Before reading onward, dear friends, let me say that there are indeed SPOILERS ahead, so if you plan on seeing the film stop right now and come back after you've see. Otherwise, let's press onward.

To the top of the film. It was nice to see that someone actually figured out who Bond was BEFORE he could foil the plan. Unfortunately for our poor villains, this didn't stop him. Now I think that the idea of having Bond captured and tortured for 14 months was inspired. It is something that hasn't been done before in a Bond film and really speaks to his fallability. Unfortunately, this is as far as we get. After spending the opening credits sequence (a horribly mismatched torture scene and Madonna dance number) which is 14 months worth, getting tortured, Bond is traded back to his own people. He is held prisoner by his own people, suspected of betraying secrets. He must get out. So what does he do? HE STOPS HIS BLOODY HEART (or it least slows it down enough so that the EKG thinks he's going into cardiac arrest.) After that, he swims to freedom and puts himself up in a hotel and then starts his movie-long journey. Kinda resilient for a guy who spent OVER A YEAR being tortured.

Now I skipped over the the opening introduction to Bond (you know, that one death-defying feat that introduces him to the film?) He surfs his way through a Tsunami (or at least, that's how it looks.) So we now know (from Brosnan's films) that Bond can Bungee jump GREAT distances, he can surf better than most, he is great with a power boat, a fighter plane, a motorcycle, skis, tanks and parachuting, to say the least. Now I know he's a Secret Agent and all, and that he must go through intensive training, but this is a bit much, no? I mean what sort of agency is going to tell their spies that they have to be proficient surfers?

Yes, I know James Bond is supposed to be the best around, but can we stay within the confines of believability? I really can't picture Sean Connery surfing his way through glaciers (ala Brosnen in a poor executed CGI effect from this latest installment.)

What's next? How about Brosnen's invulnerability. OK, so James has been getting harder to hurt over time (is he storing solar energy like Superman?) But in this last one, he gets into a fight with the villain of the day. It starts as a fencing match, turns to a sword fight, morphs into katanas, and ends with broad swords. As that this is dirty fighting, the villain pummels our hero with the hilt of his broadsword. I would say I counted at least 3 good shots to Bond, square in the head. To which, the fight continued. Now, unless I am mistaken, those broad swords were VERY heavy. Between that and the solid metal construction, you would think that one good blow could incapacitate an opponent (especially one who doesn't wear any sort of protective headgear.

As to the rest of the film, if I didn't mention it here, it was OK. We could have done without Madonna's cameo in the film, but I suppose that it couldn't be helped (or could it.)

DIE ANOTHER DAY was chock full of in-jokes that would appeal to the hard core Bond fans. Among notable cameos were.....nah, if you didn't see it, I'll leave it to you to figure out.

I liked the film as a whole. But only as much as I liked any of the other more recent films. In the old days, when Connery was Bond, it seemed that 007 was playing chess with his opponent. He wasn't a superman per se. He did do things that most people couldn't, but it was still within the relative realm of possibility. In THUNDERBALL he used a Bell jetpack. At the time, while they weren't in wide use, they were experimental and could be used for short distances, which is exactly how Bond used it! He didn't use it to fly cross country, and he didn't fly to the moon. As we travlled forward in time with Bond, especially after Roger Moore took over, Bond became less and less realistic and more and more Fantasy. MOONRAKER pretty much capped it off for Bond. I almost think (and hate to do so) that the REAL reason why Timothy Dalton was not widely accepted as Bond was because he brought a sense of realism back to the character (while still retaining the daring do.) Of course, this is more of a credit to the writers than to Dalton himself, but it is indicative of the quality of the films. I enjoyed Dalton's outings in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENSE TO KILL. I was probably one of a handful. I enjoyed them for good stories, high drama and gadgets without being superman.

I guess that's what it boils down to. James Bond films have gone from being adventure thrillers to being fantasy adventures.
:: J 8:51 AM [+] ::
...

Excite Quote of the Day:
"We are fallible. We certainly haven't attained perfection. But we can strive for it, and the virtue is in the striving."
- Carlos P. Romulo
:: J 3:15 PM [+] ::
...

Disappointment....Even WITH low expectations

Last night my father and I watched AUSTIN POWERS IN GOLDMEMBER on DVD. I found it tremendously hilarious. It was one of the funniest things I've seen in a comedy in a long time. For the first 3 and a half minutes. After that, I spent the rest of the film in abject disappointment.

Getting over the final tally of two musical numbers, two in-film flashbacks, two "new" flashbacks and a bunch of recycled jokes, there was very little original content in the film that lent itself to the movie.

To better illustrate this point, let's go back to the success of the original film. AUSTIN POWERS: INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY worked because it was a spoof of the spy genre, especially the JAMES BOND films. Austin was an amalgam of all of the original actors to play Bond with a few others thrown in for good measure. Dr. Evil was an amalgam of all the actors to portray the character of Blofeld in the Bond films, with a few others thrown in. From there, the satire stemmed from the fishes out of water story and their strict adherence to genre film guidelines.

AUSTIN POWERS: THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME, fell short of the original mark because it strayed from that formula. Look at all film series of that nature. SCARY MOVIE for example. The first one, while not comedic genius, was funny because it spoofed the whole teen horror genre. SCARY MOVIE 2, was filled with inconsistencies and became more of a pop culture spoof than anything else. It was not as funny as the first by a long shot.

In TSWGM, Austin's Mojo was removed (a defining characteristic if ever I heard one), Dr Evil became too hip (rapping -- a new concept -- with Mini Me, showing up on the Jerry Springer Show, etc.), Scott lost some of his edge, everything just started to feel old.

In GOLDMEMBER, the lines between Austin's character and Dr. Evil are almost erased, as evidenced by their very similar reaction to THE MOLE. Dr. Evil started to become Canadian (if he said "ey" one more time I would have expected to see him wearing the Canadian flag), Scott lost the rest of his edge, Dr. Evil became even MORE hip, and that's just the recurring stuff. Add to that the fact that WARNING!!! THERE BE SPOILERS HERE!!!! Dr. Evil and Austin wind up being brothers, so Dr. Evil becomes good?! Scott takes over the family business solo?! Mini-Me defects?! Fat Bastard turns over a new leaf?! And what about the '70's? Foxxy Cleopatra was a good start, but they should have spent more time there. It would have been funnier. And what was the deal with Goldmember. His character was just uncomfortable. He was not funny and he was not menacing. He just made me uncomfortable. And what about Michael Caine? His character's potential was just terribly unrealized. Yes he had a good moment or two, but past that he just seemed like really expensive window dressing. Nice, but totally kept in the background.

After all of that, the recycled and rehashed jokes just made this feel totally old. I think that this film should be the last of the series. Let it respectfully die while there's some dignity left in it.
:: J 10:24 AM [+] ::
...

The obligatory (and yet late) THANKSGIVING posting:

Well, how do I explain the many horrible things that happened this Thanksgiving? Well, I should start off by saying that on the whole, it wasn't too bad on it's own, it was just populated by bad people.

Let's start with the nucleus. My uncle. A man who, when I was younger, was a pretty cool guy. Took me to amusement parks, gave me peanut butter taste tests as well as ones for root beer and ice cream. He had these two cool dogs and had great electronics all over the place. As we got older, he started to drift from sanity and is now your average domineering personality that you just can't stand to be around. Always wants to be the center of everything (attention included upon request) and has to be in control of everything, whether he should be or not.

Add to that the re-appearance of his now former ex-girlfriend who was originally his ex-girlfriend because she was such a horrible person to begin with. Luckily she didn't become any worse a human being but getting past our past just wasn't in the cards.

Add to that the fact that their arrival in our home put everyone on full alert and full aggravation mode. Gee, I'm not sure if I can put into proper words the emotions felt that evening, other than to say that when my father told me I should go to bed at 9:30 (for the first time in almost 20 years) I didn't even flinch.

Anyhoo, past that the weekend went well. Came to work on Friday, spent the rest of the weekend just relaxing and staying in out of the cold. Actually, that's not 100% correct. Too my car in to be detailed Saturday morning, now she looks almost like new!!!!

That's all for now. Have to actually get some work done.

TTFN
:: J 11:24 AM [+] ::
...

Another open rant about Birds of Prey

Well, yesterday both Daily Variety and The Hollywood Reporter announced the cancellation of Birds of Prey, the new DC Comics show from the producers of Smallville.

A few weeks ago, I praised the show, based on it's pilot and my early reactions. Now that the show has been cancelled, I feel it is time to emote yet again......

First and foremost:
The following people are completely absolved of blame for the demise of this program -- Ashley Scott, Rachel Skarsten, Dina Meyer, Mia Sara, Shemar Moore and Ian Abercrombie.

A long standing belief that I hold is that not all actors can be held responsible for perceived bad acting. Why? Because some material can be so bad that even the best of actors would be left unable to pull off the material with a semblance of believability. Did this happen on BIRDS OF PREY? From time to time. But believe me when I tell you that this was the least of this program's problems.

From the get-go, let me just say that I am a supporter of this show and enjoy it. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think it could be better. And so I am now going to explain what I felt was wrong with this well-intentioned series.

1) Characterization - The actors and actresses in this series are not to blame for problems in this area. I blame this solely on the writers. Oracle is the biggest character to suffer in this department. She spends most episodes just sitting around spouting platitudes with occasional interruptions where she gives information. Past that, she seems to have no useful purpose. With the lack of characterization for her on the show, it seems unlikely that she could have tamed a young, wild, Huntress. Granted, Huntress isn't tamed, but it seems that Oracle does wield some authority over her, which as of now, is less believable than the fact that Clark hasn't considered tossing his father through a wall on Smallville (a point to be made in another rant.)

Huntress has actually been suffering from bad characterization the least. She has come a long way from her solo image in the pilot. The change is gradual, but there nonetheless which is good. Although last night's episode was a bit of a step backwards at first (what with the whole man-hating thing,) but again, I will get to last night's episode later.

Dinah has had little character development this season. This I can't explain seeing as how, as a friend of mine pointed out, in the pilot it almost seemed as though she was supposed to be the lead character. Instead we've been getting mostly Huntress episodes. Even with the Black Canary (Dinah's mother) in town, we spent almost as much time with Huntress than we did with everyone else. What gives? Time to make her an equal part of the team (although at this point it's a bit late.)

I'm OK with Reese. He's the Comissioner Gordon of this show, and that's fine. I don't expect much from him, and therefore am not particularly disappointed.

Alfred is probably the biggest disappointment to me. Other than the narration at the beginning of each episode, is he REALLY necessary here? He is transparent as a plot device intended to rope in Batman fans. Either give him a role or get him out. Alfred's presence is unnecessary and just another thing that will upset Batman fans due to the fact that he should either be REALLY old or dead by this point in time.

Harley is coming along very slowly and I think that is upsetting viewers a lot also. No character can be the secret villain throughout a show's run. It becomes stagnate and the viewers get bored. It's like too much foreplay. Last night was the biggest hint of what is to come, but having waited this long, it was probably missed by the people who needed to see it most. Those who already left.

2) Metahumans and Genetics - The term "Metahuman" is relatively new in the world of Comic Books. The concept is an old one, but the term is new. It is an example of how the genre (Sci-Fi/Fantasy) has gotten so steeped in technobabble that it tends to alienate the public at large. The term itself is grating on the ears when used in a comic book sense by laymen. If scientists on the show used the term "Metahuman" that would be one thing. But cops on the street wouldn't use it. Metahumans themselves wouldn't use it. It's not necessary. DITCH IT NOW.

Next, when was it decided that a person was a mix of their parent's mentalities on a genetic level? In relation to Huntress' psyche, I am tired of hearing people say that she is "Half Batman" or "Half Catwoman." From the point of view of the show, she never knew her father, and she never knew the side of her mother that was Catwoman. To that end, neither of those facts should have an imperative influence on her. She doesn't act bad because she is "Half Catwoman."

And on that subject, what's with Catwoman being "metahuman" in the first place? I mean I get it, and I'm more or less OK with it, but again this leads to the definition of where these metahumans come from. For the most part, in comics, they come from the results of lab accidents, experiments, alien births and other fantastic occurrences. Marvel Comics will concede that some of these mutations are natural evolution. However, I don't believe that the proliferation of metas on BIRDS OF PREY should be attributable only to simple evolutionary mutation. It's too much to take on faith. Even SMALLVILLE will use Kryptonite as a catalyst (which as we all know has worn kinda thin anyway.)

3) Villains - Do all villains have to die? Can't some of them come back? Would it be a crime to see some villains who model themselves after Batman's foes (as seen in BATMAN BEYOND)? If we spent a little less time exploring NEW villains, maybe we could get into some story.

4) Story - And speaking of which, last night capped it completely. I had the whole thing figured out 10 minutes into the program. The worst part is that I refused to believe that I was right because I didn't want to think that it was THAT easy. But it was. Earlier experiments in exposing canon to the show opened up possibilities for future stories. Oracle once mentioned JASON TODD, DICK GRAYSON and TIM DRAKE. They were all Robins. Would it have been so bad it Darkstrike was Tim Drake, grown up? We all know (at least those into comics) that Dick Grayson grows up to be the vigilante NIGHTWING. So Tim becoming Darkstrike would have been a nice footnote to that. Batman is an established mythos that most people know SOMETHING about and the producers/writers are not taking advantage of it at all. I find that upsetting. They should just stay away from all the genre plot cliches that we all know by heart.

Also, let me put forth my formal protest over the death of Black Canary. I feel that it was a mistake that was meant solely to evoke tears in both Dinah and the audience. Instead it came off as the old cliche that you should make your peace before it's too late.

5) Visuals - They should have quit the zooming through the city. It was a bit of overkill and a bit of a "Ooh look what we can do." Unfortunately, it looked more like a video game than a snazzy special effect and therefore detracted from the show.

I'm about out of ammo for now. I'm exhausted from writing this much, and you are probably exhausted from the read. Again, I like this show. It has tremendous potential. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that if it is realized, it will just be too late. After all, the WB is dumping BIRDS OF PREY and picking up GROUNDED FOR LIFE. To me that is a sorry state of affairs.


:: J 10:52 AM [+] ::
...

This is the second such link I have posted on this site:
But it is one that I think is worth it. In my opinion, this show hasn't gotten a fair shake yet.

Start a Revolution - Save the Birds of Prey Petition
:: J 12:28 PM [+] ::
...

Excite Quote of the day:
"The United States is like a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate."
-- Edward Grey (1862-1933), British statesman

I find it mildly ironic that this particular quote was featured in last week's SMALLVILLE, used by none other than LEX LUTHOR himself. That, by the way, was my introduction to this quote.

Huh.
:: J 10:41 AM [+] ::
...

It's not that easy being green........

	You are Kermit! Though you're technically the star, you're pretty mellow and don't mind letting others share the spotlight. You are also something of a dreamer.
Take the What Muppet Are You? Quiz!

:: J 12:17 PM [+] ::
...

Should I be concerned?

You're Lt. Malcolm Reed. Your philosophy is that it's better to be safe than sorry. You love your job and are a bit of a perfectionist. When it comes to the opposite sex (or the same sex, depending) you become shy. You get cranky if you don't have something to blow up every once and a while. Take the Enterprise Quiz! Brought to you by redanubis.

:: J 11:32 AM [+] ::
...

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!!

This is my favorite holiday (when I get a chance to do something about it which, alas, this year I do not.)

That being said, I would like to take this opportunity to go on a rant about something I thought about on the train ride this morning. I call it:

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE STAR TREK PEOPLE

I started wondering, this morning, why STAR TREK was so bloody unpopular nowadays. STAR TREK is by NO means dead, but it does seem to be slowly headed in that direction. To that end, I blame this on the one man who always takes blame for this sort of thing: RICK BERMAN.

Now I wish no ill will towards Mr. Berman. To be quite frank, for what he has been doing, it has been a good job. I just don't agree with what he's doing. STAR TREK has become a niche franchise. It does what no other franchise used to do, but more and more are now doing, and that's cater to it's own audience.

I'm sure that last sentence sounded stupid, but hear me out for just a moment. The original STAR TREK was not aimed at any real audience in particular (sensibility-wise) It was put out there as a source of entertainment, and hopefully, enlightenment. The writers told mini-morality tales, cautionary tales, and sometime just pure adventure or love stories. The characters were not selected out of a desire not to piss off anyone who might have felt left out, but because it was felt that these characters needed to be there. The alien was there to point a magnifying glass on ourselves. Any minorities were there in an effort to show that we progressed as a society and that anyone could do anything they wanted to. The science technobabble was thrown in when necessary to advance the plot and was not there to kill time.

Now on to STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION. This sequel series was roughly the same. You can tell because in the grand scheme of things, the ORIGINAL STAR TREK (TOS) was probably mentioned no more than 10 times over the course of a seven season run (now, you know you are a hardcore Trekker if you are actually checking the aforementioned statistic -- shame on you.) To make everyone happy, let me amend that figure to no more than 15 times.

While the technobabble increased exponentially (by each season) the core of the show was still to appeal to the broadest audience possible. (Or at least it seemed that way.)

By the time STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE came on the scene, things started to get a little bumpy. The show was so steeped in canon that it was hard for someone to jump on board. Yes, we met few new species, but Trekkers themselves had helped to contribute, with their fanaticism, to the overall notion that STAR TREK was for TREKKERS. It got to be complex enough between backstory and taking for granted that the audience knew what everyone was talking about that people were turned off. ESPECIALLY considering that they could get a canonless version over on BABYLON 5.

STAR TREK: VOYAGER, with it's "we're all alone out here" plotline tried, ever so slightly, to amend that. Unfortunately, this series was hurt by the fact that the fledgling UPN network was not available everywhere and that the technobabble had reached it's apex. In the book THE MAKING OF STAR TREK, Gene Roddenberry and a scientific advisor discuss, via memos, the fact that when Spock is scanning something, he should be using the ships "sensors." It is not necessary to say what kind of sensing device, because the more technical you get the easier it is to lose the audience. Now will someone please tell me how an "Inverse Tachyon Pulse" fits that description? (It was in "All Good Things...." - TNG.....Look it up)

At this point, it was flat out public opinion that STAR TREK was for TREKKERS only because they were the only ones who could understand it.

Now, ENTERPRISE comes along, with the promise of giving STAR TREK back to the people. Unfortunately if fails miserably in that respect. Moving past the stygma of being a STAR TREK series, I ask you: Who would be interested in a prequel if they weren't interested in what is already out there? For the most part, no one. How do you cure that? Add a sexy alien in a skin tight outfit. A clever ploy, but fleeting at best.

Don't get me wrong. As a standalone show, ENTERPRISE is pretty good. For a STAR TREK show, it's marginal.

Final point: What revitalized that STAR TREK franchise the most? STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME. And how did it do that? It brought STAR TREK back to the people. Back to the general audience of anyone out there who liked a good story. It was a film for everyone. Of course, that budding audience was killed by the abomination that was STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER (which at least a few people I know liked,) but who's counting?

I don't know if there is a simple solution to this problem anymore. If there is, I don't know if it can be done on television. Maybe in the theatres. At any rate, STAR TREK has, to me, become TOS and it's films. Anything else I can't bear to watch. It's like watching a beloved relative slowly dying of a disease. At first there's hope because things are looking up. Then, slowly, things start to get worse and worse, and you don't know if there is any hope left.

Fatalistic? Maybe. Ah well. It's just a TV show.......
:: J 8:50 AM [+] ::
...

Updated my DVD collection with my new purchases, and fixed the version of THE EVIL DEAD included in my collection. Again, you can see it My DVD Collection, here. Also added the link to my websites of note section.
:: J 11:37 AM [+] ::
...

GOD I HATE SURGERY!!!!!

Well, I had my miniature surgery this morning, and it went off without a hitch. Well, sort of. First I had to have two needles in the toe to make it numb. That hurt a bit. Then, for some embarassing reason, I started to feel nauseous. After getting a cold compress on my head, sitting in a reclined position and breathing deeply, I felt better enough to have the surgery continue.

Then the doctor went in (with curtain mercifully drawn around my foot) and snipped away at the nail and moving around the surrounding skin.

According to the sheet she gave me (The doctor) I have to keep my foot up for the rest of today. Tomorrow morning I have to remove the bandages and soak the foot in a solution of Betadyne and Water. Afterwards I can go to work. I'm currently wearing my very first surgical shoe. I'll probably wear it tomorrow and even the next day, if it still hurts. I just pray it doesn't rain.

Anyhoo, time for me to take some time to rest. I'm home, so I had better take advantage of it. Ciao, for now.
:: J 11:00 AM [+] ::
...

I HATE KNIVES!!!!!

Well, tomorrow I am going under the knife. Supposedly. And it's a very small knife, so don't think this is going to be life threatening or anything. Essentially, due to my stubbornness, I have had an ingrown toenail for about a month and have tried to take care of it on my own.

For the first time in my quarter-century life, I failed to cure the problem.

And so, tomorrow morning I have a doctor's appointment to have the nail taken care of. On the plus side, I can finally have this toe taken care of and can take a day off of work. On the minus side.......I HATE GETTING NEEDLES IN MY FOOT, and I feel that this is inevitable. Having had plantors worts removed in the past from the heel of my foot, I do know what foot surgery is like and I HATE IT WITH THE FIERY PASSION OF A THOUSAND SUNS!!!!

Ah well. Maybe I can blog in pain tomorrow. There's something to look forward to.
:: J 11:43 AM [+] ::
...

BTW, fixed Privacy settings on my DVD Collection, you can use the link below to view it now. Although, since I bought a few more DVDs yesterday, that are yet to be added to the list, it is mildly outdated.
:: J 11:03 AM [+] ::
...

Announcing a new link to the Websites area: Jossolalia

What is this wonderful new site and how does it affect you? Well, that's a good qustion (or was that two) and here's the answer. Jossolalia is a blog devoted to the shows and other wonderful creations of the very-popular and uber-prolific Joss Whedon. Our friend Joss created the shows Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Angel and Firefly. He's also got an animated Buffy and another Buffy Spinoff (Ripper) set for future releases. And the best part is that not only is he prolific, but he's damned good too. I mean not only is he making all kinds of shows, but they're high quality ones too.

Anyway, enough about that here, you can read much more about it at Jossolalia.
:: J 9:02 AM [+] ::
...

And for those of you who have a modicum of curiosity (or just want to see pop culture at it's collective worst) you can check out My DVD Collection, here.
:: J 10:34 PM [+] ::
...

And for my last negative thought of the day (and hopefully the week):

One last thing I can't stand, are people who will harp on the same jokes over and over and over and over, every day, ad nauseum, thinking that it is absolutely hysterical, but being totally obnoxious.

Let's be honest. Catch phrases in sitcoms work because you only have to hear them once a week. I think that it is safe to say that if you heard it thirty times a day, every day for 22 weeks, you would get pretty annoyed. And that would just be for a television season. Imagine having to do it year round.

My problem is that for a good portion of the day I am surrounded by people who spout things that aren't inherently funny unto themselves, over and over again, and laugh at the sheer stupidity of it. I got the joke (or at least pretended to) the first thousand times. After the seventeen thousandth, you tend to get a little annoyed.

I personally have my own personality quirks, but I don't necessarily intend for them to be funny per se, I just like them. For example, I occasionally speak in accents. Maybe it emphasizes things for comedic effect, but for the most part I don't lapse into it to be funny, and if someone is getting annoyed, I will stop.

But these meaningless catchphrases and wacky musical stings (which are even less funny when produced by a person's voice than they are by musical instrument) are slowly starting to get to me. I am so glad that I am not a violent person, and that I have my nice music to keep me (for the most part) blissfully out of it.)
:: J 2:56 PM [+] ::
...

Consideration in the workplace becomes entirely subjective

Doesn't it? Or is it just mine? I mean, let's be real. When you sit in a communal "pod" (as it is called) when one person talks to another, is it perfectly OK for someone else to chime in?

Let's look at this from another angle, shall we? Let us say that I ask someone a legitimate, work-related question. Does that give someone else in the workplace the right to attempt to make me feel like I have no business asking? I know, this is a bit of a generalization, but the simple point which I am trying to make here is, when you speak to someone, at what point is that conversation a two person one, and at which point is it open to the public.

If you say "Bob, what is the square root of 144?" does that mean that Sara can come over and say "Why don't you just use a calculator?" or should she just mind her own business and let Bob say "144." Either response is constructive, but you are only looking for one. The other seems a bit less appreciated because yes you could use a calculator, but for the purposes of this conversation, and the fact that you know that Bob is good at math, it would simply be easier to just ask Bob.

Now, did the scenario above happen to me? Yes and no. I've changed the particulars and the names, but the essential event did indeed take place.

In an earlier rant from weeks ago, I stated that I find my work environment occasionally frustrating since I can ask questions and talk, and no one hears me (or they are ignoring me.) It is with this in mind that I want to know how it was that someone was able to not only hear my innocent question, but felt that they had to take the time to try to make me feel stupid for asking. What was the bloody point?

One day I shall figure it out, or I will just tell this person to return to the hellgrounds from which they were spawned. Either way, I think I just want this week to end. I think it has gone on long enough.


:: J 2:30 PM [+] ::
...

Updates:

New Links Section Added to profile below. This will just showcase areas of interest to me, and should be updated semi-regularly.
:: J 10:50 AM [+] ::
...

Excite Quote of the Day:
The first virtue of all really great men is that they are sincere. They eradicate hypocrisy from their hearts.
- -- Anotole France

Yay Eradication of Hypocrisy!!!!

Anyhoo, heard from my ex-girlfriend yesterday. It appears that she is hell-bent on paying me pack bit by bit over time. I suppose that I'm OK with that, seeing as how she is paying me back and all, but the fact that she is paying me back in increments leads me to believe that she may not be financially ready to pay me back. Oh well, I should just be glad to be getting some of the money back. Unlike last time. Last time I lent her a sum of money, it took so long for her to pay it back that I just decided to let her have it as a wedding present. That was over 2 and a half years.

Now here's some proof of why celebrities are celebrities. A little over a week ago, we were being inundated on the news with pictures of the court sketches of Sam Waksal, ImClone CEO. Now the man is not a particularly attractive fellow to begin with, but his court sketches were just hideous. Just now, watching Good Day New York, I just saw some of the court sketches of Winona Ryder. They were positively beautiful. I don't mean that she was (although she is attractive) but the sketches were down right flattering. My luck, I would look like Milhouse Van Houten (no small feat since I don't even wear glasses.)


:: J 8:41 AM [+] ::
...

Found this little gem courtesy of Brian




take free enneagram test

:: J 8:23 AM [+] ::
...

Birds of Prey and other Picture Postcards

And so the time has come for me to write a review of the television show, BIRDS OF PREY. Well, let me just say, I like it enough to continue watching.

First off, let me state that I have nothing against the female leads of this series. Dina Meyer, Ashley Scott and Rachel Skarsten to FANTASTIC jobs bringing life to the characters.

Dina Meyer has done a lot to overcome the handicap of having to act in a wheelchair. The pilot showed a certain green-ness in the chair, but this was eliminated by the second episode. One can hardly fault her for having any problems when considering that she had to concentrate on more than just her feelings, being in the moment. Also, and let's be honest, the one overriding thing that prevents me from giving the series four gold stars hindered the pilot as well as the second episode. And that would be the writing. The stories, don't get me wrong, are great. It's the dialogue that is having problems. Harley in particular, but the characters in general.

The writing leans heavily towards melodrama. People are saying things that human beings just don't say. Since no particular piece of dialogue stands out enough to make this point, I'll just have to settle for saying that the series dialogue lapses occasionally into the parlance of 1950s comic books. How can this be a condemnation for a series that has it's roots in comic books? Good question. Here is the answer. The dress and feel of the series would seem to lend itself to a more mature audience than those 50s comics (well before BIRDS OF PREY was ever published) would be associated with.

Back to Dina Meyer. It is this sort of melodramatic writing, which I felt hurt Dina in the Pilot. Not her acting. She did an excellent job with what she was given, and for all intents and purposes, she IS BATGIRL/Barbara Gordon. The second episode featured a little less of this melodrama for Oracle, and so her performance benefitted greatly.

Harley, is another matter. Mia Sara does a great job as Harleen Quinzel, but is a bit hindered when it comes to playing Harley Quinn. The writers/producers have to make a decision as to how Harley should be portrayed. It is a tremendous burden to put on any actress to have to speak in Harley's Urban Tones (even more so for one who does not sport that particular accent.) Certain phrases that Harley uses work better when used in that tone/accent. "Mister J," "pudding" (actually, it would appear that her nicknames for people work best with the accent.) To give the character of Harley the names and not the accent seems a bit of a bad fit. As an acting choice, it would work greatly to have Harleen not have the accent, but Harley to have it. Make a distinction to show the mania of the character.

Now, I can't say that I know anything better than Ms. Sara, and I would not presume to tell her how to do the job. The fact may be that hearing that voice in a cartoon works, while live action just looks silly, and I would not wish that on anyone. This is the largest problem with me for the series, and that says a lot seeing as how it's pretty small.

Ashley Scott's Huntress suffers from the melodrama a little bit, but I think that her character needs to grow a bit and that will take care of it. In fact, I think tomorrow night's episode will do that nicely.

Rachel Skarsten has done a marvelous job, thus far, and I look forward to a larger role from her in the next few episodes.

Ian Abercrombie is excellent and Alfred. Shemar Moore is good as Reese, and like Huntress, his character just needs to grow a little past his hook (or, in layman's terms - why he has to be a character.)

It's good to see that the canon people are working overtime on this series, making references to all kinds of DCU characters and events. It's a wonderful nod to the audience, and also opens the possibility (in our hearts) for these people to show up - especially during sweeps. And you know which characters I am referring to (and if you don't, watch the show, because they may have been throwaway lines, but they were cool.)

Also, I am looking forward to a flashback episode. It would be great to see an episode that shows more of Batgirl/Batman, but told from Batgirls point of view (to keep her in the limelight.) Dina Meyer exuded confidence and power and Batgirl, and the audience sure wouldn't mind seeing some more of that. She pulled off what Alicia Silverstone could have done, if she had been in a better film than Batman & Robin.

As a whole, I give this show *** (three out of four stars) and look forward to seeing this show grow into the powerhouse that it could be.
:: J 11:11 AM [+] ::
...

I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS!!!!!
Now this is just plain stupid. Since January of this year (as evidenced by the archives to the left) I have maintained this little piece of the internet, known affectionately as "CAPTAIN'S PERSONAL BLOG." Now, after doing an inocuous web search, I have found this:

Dr. Mark A. Foster's Editorials at SocioSphere

He's got the stupid name TRADEMARKED!!!! Now, I have to think of another name for this place. *sigh*
:: J 9:25 AM [+] ::
...

Thoughts of the day:
Courtesy of Me

First off, by "Me" I don't mean someone with the Alias of "Me" but actually me, myself. You know who.

Now, onto my little rant of the day. I can't stand playing social games. I don't necessarily mean dating (although it does rank up there) but I mean the little social interractions that go something like "That person made me angry, but instead of telling them, I'm just going to make them angry instead."

My dad and I were actually discussing this the other night, about how people just can't come out and say that they are angry at you. Instead they make all sorts of bravado in an effort to either try and make you feel miserable, or just piss you off instead.

I suppose, that in this instance (yes, someone is doing it to me) it worked because I am pissed off enough to write this little rant. On the other hand, how well could it have worked if I am not pissed off enough, that I noticed in the first place. What I did to upset this person in the first place (and whether or not it is my fault) is of little to no importance. I am not going to argue whether I did it or not, because odds are, I did it. The simple truth is that I did not intend for it to upset, nor did I believe it was that big a deal to begin with. The infuriating part is that instead of discussing this like two intelligent adults, we are going to just sit back, relax, and let the storm blow through.

The fun part about this is that no one, and I do mean NO ONE, can wait like I can. I, for one, have boundless patience for someone who thinks that they can toy with me. I have no desire to play these games so I can sit back, relax, and enjoy myself.

Ooops. I have to go make a call. More on this later, I think.

OK, I am back now. The fact of the matter is that I just can not abide people who think that they are the center of all things and that anyone who does not fit in to their plan is inconsequential. This is the type of person who should not be as intolerant of interruptions as they are. I personally feel that there are very few people in the world who should be as intolerant as this person is. Usually those people are getting paid upwards of six figures a year and have the futures of thousands hanging on what decision they make next. Believe me, dear readers, when I say that this person does not fit that qualification. I am not saying that my time is more important than anyone else's, but whenever someone wants my time, I immediately give it to them, unless there is a prior EMERGENCY that I am needed on. I can't tell you how many times I am ignored by this person or am greeted by a waving finger (which says that I must wait.)

I can't sit here forever, explaining myself. That would be more for your benefit than mine. The point of all this is that I just can't stand people who like to play manipulative games with their associates, rather than just coming out and saying it like it is.

And to the best of my knowledge, I practice what I preach.
:: J 1:16 PM [+] ::
...

Excite Fortune for the day:


Money is the root of all evil. And man needs roots.


:: J 12:24 PM [+] ::
...

The World's Funniest Joke -- Official
Thu Oct 3,10:34 AM ET
By Corey Ullman

LONDON (Reuters) - After a year of painstaking scientific research, the world's funniest joke was revealed on Thursday.



In a project described as the largest-ever scientific study into humor, the British Association for the Advancement of Science ( news - web sites) asked Internet users around the world to submit their favorite jokes and rate the funniness of other people's offerings.

More than 40,000 jokes from 70 countries and two million critiques later, this is it:

"Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other man pulls out his phone and calls emergency services.

He gasps to the operator: "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator in a calm, soothing voice replies: "Take it easy. I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead."

There is a silence, then a shot is heard.

Back on the phone, the hunter says, "Ok, now what?"

Researchers found significant differences between nations in the types of jokes they found funny.

People from the UK, the Republic of Ireland, Australia and New Zealand preferred gags involving word play, such as:

PATIENT: "Doctor, I've got a strawberry stuck up my bum."

DOCTOR: "I've got some cream for that."

Americans and Canadians favored jokes where people were made to look stupid.

TEXAN: "Where are you from?"

HARVARD GRAD: "I come from a place where we do not end our sentences with prepositions."

TEXAN: "OK -- where are you from, jackass?"

Meanwhile, many Europeans liked gags that were surreal or made light of serious subjects such as illness, death and marriage:

A patient says, "Doctor, last night I made a Freudian slip, I was having dinner with my mother-in-law and wanted to say: 'Could you please pass the butter?'

"But instead I said: 'You silly cow, you have completely ruined my life.'"

Marriage-mocking also featured in the top American joke:

"A man and a friend are playing golf one day. One of the guys is about to chip onto the green when he sees a long funeral procession on the road next to the course.

"He stops in mid-swing, takes off his golf cap, closes his eyes, and bows down in prayer. His friend says: 'Wow that is the most thoughtful and touching thing I have ever seen. You are truly a kind man.'

"The man then replies: 'Yeah, well, we were married 35 years.'"

Death earned big laughs in Scotland:

"I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like his passengers."

And animals figured prominently. Take the number one joke in England:

"Two weasels are sitting on a bar stool. One starts to insult the other one. He screams, 'I slept with your mother!'

"The bar gets quiet as everyone listens to see what the other weasel will do.

"The first again yells, 'I SLEPT WITH YOUR MOTHER!'

"The other says: 'Go home dad, you're drunk.'"

The survey revealed other fun facts:

-- Of the countries rating the highest number of jokes, Germans, perhaps surprisingly, laughed the most. Canadians laughed least.

-- If you want to tell a funny animal joke, make it a duck.

-- The most frequently submitted joke, at 300 times, was: "What's brown and sticky? A stick."

Researchers said no one ever found it funny.

The findings can be read at www.laughlab.co.uk

:: J 11:25 AM [+] ::
...

R-E-S-P-E-C-T ---- A post I wrote to Ain't-It-Cool-News.com. It's about the new Superman Film.

You know what? I'm a pretty strange guy. I'm a Superman fan. I can take certain changes in the character, others I am not too fond of.

I am a BIG fan of John Byrne's revamped history of Superman. So much so, that in the recent RETURN TO KRYPTON II storyline, when that history was threatened, I was a bit upset.

My feelings on the "Pre-Crisis" Superman are this: It was a great springboard for the new stuff. Look at it as a whole. It was (at best) a convoluted mess that eventually created a character with outrageous villains, because they were the only ones good enough to beat him. How do you stop a guy who shugs off a nuclear blast and can juggle planets? Plus, if a man can move so fast as to break the time barrier, why can't he be everywhere at once? These are just some of the smaller examples of why Superman, circa 1985, was in a bad way.

Aside from making Superman weaker (a welcome change) Byrne emphasized the fact that Superman is, in essence, a living solar battery (thank goodness we no longer had to deal with "red sun guns.") Also, if he couldn't store the energy, how could he really travel the universe?

Past that, Byrne erased the one question that always plagued me. When did Superman decide to tell the world that he even had a secret identity? The glasses-as-a-disguise bit works much better when you consider that no one is trying to find him.

Finally, there was the all-important change of realizing that Superman was not disguised as Clark Kent, but that Clark Kent was disguised as Superman. Clark did not have to be a bumbling boob, he just had to be an ordinary guy, because that's who he really was and had always been. It was also these stories (which sometimes included the no-longer-dead Ma and Pa Kent) which truly set the new stories above the stories of old.

With little exception I also like Smallville. DESPITE THE FACT that Metropolis now appears to be in Kansas, right next to Smallville. This is probably THE BIGGEST sticking point with me. I have come to accept the fact that Lex and Clark were friends as teens. To me this could lay the groundwork for the most realistic representation of their adult relationship and why Superman really wants to get Luthor. Maybe it is also about a sense of betrayal.

What's the point of all of this? Simple. What the honchos at Warners and what any writer REALLY needs to do is pay the respect which is due to the character. This was something the Richard Donner did, and Richard Lester did not. VERSIMILITUDE was key. Why? Not because the audience wants to see the dark, nitty gritty world. It's because the fantasy and allure of characters like Superman is to wonder what if they existed in OUR WORLD. Not some imaginary world with multi-colored characters walking around. Superman in the real world is what the audience wants.

In a way, I think that is what makes the Businessman Lex Luthor so appealing. As a Mad Genius, Supervillain, there wasn't much to the character. Is losing one's hair really a reason to want to kill someone? No. A thirst and a quest for power are much heartier. I once took an acting class and was taught the term "Por Las Buenas." It's the sense that when you play a character you must realize that no one BELIEVES that they are bad. They are doing something to achieve some good, even if it is only for them. Any villain who says "I am Evil!! Evil will be supreme" is unrealistic or insane. And what's more frightening? A person who hurts and kills because he is insane, or one who does so despite his "sanity?"

The people at Warners need to make a good movie. Donner got it right because he knew this (although I'm still not OVERLY thrilled with Gene Hackman's Luthor because he fits the older mold -- No offense to Hackman who did a marvelous job.) Keep Superman who he is. The Last Son of Krypton, who is raised by Human parents with Human values, who merely strives to do the best he can.
:: J 9:55 AM [+] ::
...

My impression, wrong as it may be:

From REUTERS: President Saddam Hussein said Wednesday Iraqis did not want a war with the United States but vowed his nation would defeat any U.S. military action to oust his government if it had to.
"Your brothers in Iraq wish that God would spare them evil and avoid fighting," Saddam told a group of Arab parliamentarians in Baghdad to show their opposition to a possible U.S. military strike.

Let me be clear on this one point. GOD does not want anything you bloody git! All he wants is for us to be nice to eachother. Now, granted the US is not in a position to do that either, but GOD is not going to step in and change things, or force people to do anything.

It's up to us, not Americans but Humans, to make these decisions for a better world. Anyone who does not live by this philosophy will be punished no more than they can be by the inevitable extermination of the entire race by zealots who feel that violence will solve everything.

Easy for me to say, since I'm not involved directly. But the fact of the matter is that that goes for everyone. Not just us. Everyone.
:: J 12:54 PM [+] ::
...

After a whole month of not blogging, do I come back to blog out of some sense of commitment or obligation? Who knows? I am here, nonethless, so it's time to make the best of it.

Life has been a series of interesting curve balls. This is not to say that anything too terribly interesting has happened, just that life has been an interesting place to live lately, at least for a hermit.

Two weeks ago, I got together with my best girl friend, Lauren, who took me out to brunch at the Plaza. It was wonderful. They have excellent food there and it was great to see her again. She has a new beau and seems to be very happy with him. She actually taught me something about myself. Something that my friend Brian was telling me months ago. The reason why I don't have a significant other is because I don't do anything outside of work, in a social environment, that is an activity. Sure, I do things outside of work, but they are not communal things.

And therein lies the problem. Brian recommended that I feed my inner geek and attend some convention or somesuch occasion to find someone like myself. The problem with that (although it is probably my best bet) is the fact that I am not sure I would be able to find someone there who was close enough to be a lunatic without actually being one, for my tastes. I absolutely don't want an all out lunatic (someone TOO comitted to the genres, or someone who is just crazy -- done the latter before) and I don't want someone who isn't commited enough, who would look down at me or fail to appreciate the things that I do. My likes and interests are diverse and strange enough, though, that I do believe that the only place I would be able to find someone would be in one of these places. Either that, or pay for someone, which I not only couldn't afford, but wouldn't want anyway.

Amazing how that tangent just sort of came out of nowhere, huh?

On to other news. For those of you who are unaware, and I'm sure there are a few of you, a nice confection company has released EVERY FLAVORED JELLY BEANS, as in Harry Potter. In addition to wonderful mainstays like Blueberry and Cotton Candy, there are also Sardines, Dirt, Earwax, Grass, Booger and Vomit. The worst part is that they truly taste as advertised. How do I know? I had some. Accidentally, I partook of the Vomit flavor and couldn't take anymore. However, I plan on buying some more and unleashing them on an unsuspecting public. (insert evil laugh here)

Past that, not a great deal going on. At least that I can think of now. I have a feeling that I will be back later with more. Especially about my ex-girlfriend. *sigh*
:: J 9:22 AM [+] ::
...

Excerpted from dictionary.com

e·vil
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

I bring this up because Saddam Hussein has referred to Britain and the U.S. as Evil Forces.

Incidently, after the September 11th attacks, George W. Bush called Usama bin Laden an "evil-doer."

bin Laden referred to the U.S. as being evil.

Many people would say that Lex Luthor is evil.

He is.

As for the rest..........yes they are as well. And why? I cite number 2 definition above. "Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful" By that definition, anyone save pacifists can be evil. Whether these people perceive themselves as justified or not doesn't play into it. It's all down to what they do. As in cause harm to others.

I don't agree with bin Laden. Again (and in the paranoid age we live in I feel constantly compelled to spell this out) I AM NOT A TERRORIST, nor do I wish ANY harm to come to anyone. I am not an activist, and am too lazy to even consider doing anything about it. All I am saying is that this concept of "evil" is too tricky a thing to be thrown around as casually as it has been. And since it is being thrown around casually, let's just ignore it. I mean who exactly is qualified to judge such a thing?

This word -- "evil" is being used as a buzz word which is supposed to prove that they are wrong and we are right; whoever "they" and "we" may be. Let's quit it and just get back to the basics. If people would stop fighting over petty land rights and just agree that this world is OURS (collectively) and that we should just share it, maybe we could just move on. Let's face it. If we turn the mirror on ourselves (humanity) we will find that we are all mostly evil in some way or another. I am not preaching religion, but we have to fight for our inherent goodness. We have come back from the depths of depravity that we have allowed ourselves to sink to.

Can't we all just get along?
:: J 12:19 PM [+] ::
...

Update time: After getting the confirmation of her identity, the prospect of contacting her may be removed from me. After informing my parents of my good fortune, my mother has decided that she would like to make contact. She hasn't decided for sure that that is what she is going to do, but it is still a possibility. In a way, I hope she doesn't. I would like to be th one to make contact, but then again, maybe she just doesn't want to be contacted. I found her through a paper trail. It's not like she has put herself out there for the world to find.

Since she is smarter than I, it is reasonable to assume that since I know how to have some sort of presence on the internet, she would know how to as well.

It sort of makes you think.......More to come later.
:: J 9:54 AM [+] ::
...

It's her. I got confirmation via certain personal details this morning. It IS her. I'm not quite sure what to do next. Contact her?..........
:: J 8:35 AM [+] ::
...

Wow. What a quandry. After spending the evening on Friday brooding over someone who I desperately wanted to know about, I finally did something about it today, and was hit with some very interesting news. There is this girl....probably the closest person that I could possibly have a link with, someone who knows all the embarassing secrets of youth, and we lost touch many years ago. Once, in college, she was a voice on the phone, a person who responded to my occasional e-mail. Then she disappered for what seemed like "for-good."

Finally, I spent the earlier part of today trying to track her down. First I tracked her to Boise, Idaho. Then to Austin, Texas, which seemed like such a perfect choice to me. Finally, to South Korea (which sort of hit me out of the blue.) Aside from the fact that they're 12 hours ahead, which would make verbal contact difficult, I am not entirely convinced that I have the right to ask to reinsert myself into her life. This would be the second time that I have used the vast resources of the internet to track this person down. And what if she doesn't want to be found. I have no right to force myself on anyone. Even if it's REALLY NOT forcing. I could very well represent a part of her life that would rather be left in the dark.

All this is assuming that I have found the right person. The only picture I was able to find was low quality enough to make me unsure. All I do know is that I miss her from time to time. Even though we spent the last few years together with her maturing infinitely faster than I.....I don't know. She seemed not to like me in our twilight years. I was a bit immature at the time.

She was, however, the unapproachable standard for which I looked at all girls. She was smart, funny and beautiful. She treated people well. She came to my camp for a few summers. She eventually stopped coming. I suppose I was upset by that because it was like severing another link with her. She wanted so little to do with me at that point, although I took solace in the fact that I would get a chance to see her. Just to see her made my days better. And this was back before I even REALLY KNEW what a girlfriend would be, or that I even wanted one.

We never really went out, which I suppose is just as well. I was never her type. She was the smart one, which might have been upsetting since I got such high marks from her dad. She was also able to temper her vast intelligence (did I mention she skipped a grade) with her ability to actually be cool. She was everything that I wasn't. She was skilled, social, musical, cool, attractive (I know that some of those are synonymous, but so what?)

I still keep a picture of her in my room (albeit an old one - those are the only ones I have anymore) because she still signifies a large part of my early life. She's the only representative of that part of my life that I didn't give up. The only one that I didn't WANT to lose. The rest of them didn't matter. And that's the real trouble, isn't it.

By all accounts, we drifted apart. And because she left me behind maturity wise, she had no more use for me. (not that she ever had any use.) She certainly wanted to hang out MUCH less than I did. Other friends of mine would lecture me and treat me badly, and I just ultimately wanted to be left alone. She treated me "badly" (in quotes because it wasn't malicious, just growing apart) and yet I still want her in my life.

Let me qualify here. I don't want her as a girlfriend/prospective wife. I certainly don't know her well enough for that, let alone she doesn't know me anymore (actually that isn't REALLY true. I really haven't changed that much.) I just still feel a connection to her. I just want to know what kind of person she is and what she's been up to. If she's really been travelling to all these places, she must have all kinds of experiences to share. I would love to sit for hours and hear them. What are her interests? I think I would do just about anything to know. Anything, that is, except for take a chance and trying to e-mail her........

So much for maturity.
:: J 2:12 PM [+] ::
...

Men In Black II

Well, I saw MiB2 last night. It did not beat my expectations. It merely met them. As a film which had tremendous potential, it did not fail to go exactly no further than I expected. Yes, it had laughs, yes it had it's moments. However, it went exactly where I thought it would.

I know I keep saying that so allow me to clarify.

Going into the film, having seen the trailers, I believed that Barry Sonnenfeld and company had simply watched what was popular about the cartoon show (based on the film) and incorporated THOSE elements into the film. THIS WAS THE CASE. Is this wrong? Not necessarily. However, it would be better if instead of watching what made the cartoon successful, they had watched what made the FIRST FILM so successful. Where as the WORMS and FRANK THE PUG were minor players in the first film, they were major players in the Animated Series. As a result, they stole the film and were all over the place. The only pleasant surprise in this arena was that the Worms were not Coffee junkies as they were on the show. But Kay referring to Jay as "Slick" was right out of the show. LET ME CLARIFY HERE. There is a scene in the first film where Kay calls Jay "Slick." I am not picking knits and I am aware of that. However, in the sequel it seemed almost hackneyed. It was unnecessary. There was no reason for it. Continuing is the returning presence of Mr. Jack Jeebs. Why did Kay shoot Jeebs' head off in the first film? Partly as a bad-cop gesture, but more importantly to prove a point to Jay. When the show came on the air, Jeebs showed up even more often (despite Kay's warning in the film that he had better leave Earth,) and each time he appeared had his head blown off. As a result.....Jeebs had his head blown off in the film what seemed like a minimum of 3 times in a 5 minute timespan.

In addition to this, since the writers were so focused on the show, the film was written with the same depth. Much more attention was put to the comedy of the situation than the drama. The resolution to the film was indeed an emotional scene, and was played well by Tommy Lee Jones, Will Smith and Rosario Dawson. However, the more emotion heavy scenes earlier in the film with Tommy Lee Jones did not come close to holding the impact of the underplayed emotionalism displayed by his character in the first film for all of about 4 minutes cumulatively.

Continuing, with the comedy, at no point do you feel that these characters are in danger. Specifically because you don't believe that THEY believe that they are in danger. In the first film, Jay is constantly worried that the world is going to end (due mostly to his inexperience.) What really brings this to a head is that it seems towards the climax that both Kay and Zed are ALSO starting to believe it. There is a mounting tension in the film which appears to be lacking in it's sequel. Quite unfortunately so. This lack of tension leads to a lack of involvement which then leads the film to seem even shorter than the paltry 88 minutes of running time presented for our approval.

It would seem to me that roughly one million dollars for every four minutes of screentime for the two leads was excessive. While their performances were certainly up to the standards of the script, it would have been wiser for the producers to spend the money on better effects and a more involving story.

Finally, there is the epilogue of the story. I won't give it away here, lest anyone read this who has not yet seen the film. However, let me just say that it seems like a last minute add-on. It was not very well thought out and seemed like it was thrown together as a minor nod to the end of the first film. The end of the first film (and I mean the VERY VERY VERY end) was infinitely more clever and made much more sense. (While one would say that that last statement disqualifies me from being a Man in Black, I say maybe I just have standards.)

Sorry, this is the real finally. If it was the desire of the producers to make the film for a younger audience, I would say they may have succeeded. However, I think that everything has a place and the franchise should not be mired in the adolescent or even pre-pubescent. The greatness of the first film, as with any TRUE blockbuster, is that the story is good enough to rope in the Adults, it has the sensibilities to hit the adolescents (along with some nifty promotional tie-ins and merchandising) and it has enough eye candy (which can conveniently be turned into toys, coloring books, cartoons, and underwear) to keep the kiddies happy. This film had everything but the adult-gripping story. Ah well. I give it a B-.

:: J 8:36 AM [+] ::
...

Excite Quote of the Day:

"The sign of intelligent people is their ability to control emotions by the application of reason."
- Marya Mannes

:: J 8:17 AM [+] ::
...

"I pledge allegiance to the flag..."

Well, actually, I generally don't. I like being a citizen of this country, but I do not profess my love or allegiance on a daily basis. I don't see the need. I don't know many other people that do either. This doesn't make us bad people. Just not overly patriotic. AGAIN, let me say that I have ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION of EVER committing any acts against this country.

Back to the point. "One Nation, Under God...." What is the point there? Clearly when the US was formed, there was a serious division made between church and state. Never the two shall meet. The fact of the matter is that this (like many other things that are screwed up in the world) is just a silly mistake that was made by some narrowminded individuals. What is more offensive, saying it or not saying it? In my mind, saying it is, because it speaks for the millions of people who may not feel that way. Whereas not saying it says nothing at all.

Does saying that we are a nation under God give us some Divine power? Does it mean that if we screw up, that means that God will be behind us? Hell no. Wrong is wrong and that's all there is to it. This is yet another symptom of what is wrong with society. We aren't a nation under God. We are a WORLD under God. Why can't these knuckleheads see that. Aside from putting forth the statement that God indeed exists and that we are a nation under Him, we are also saying that we are just a NATION under him. To Hell with everyone else. What kind of message is that?

Now here's the kicker. Let's say you disagree with that last statement. Let's say that you don't think that what we are implying is that we are important to God and no one else is. Why would you say that? Is it because it isn't implicitly said in the Pledge? Funny. If you remove the "under God" part, what's the difference? How does it's removal mean that we are denying His existence, or even showing disrespect?

Most importantly, since it was never a part of the Pledge originally (added in 1954) what's the big deal? Rather than deem it illegal to say the pledge, why not excise those two words? What's the harm?

And would someone please tell me what is wrong with seeing the Human Race as being a whole? If you want to divide everyone up based on where the live or the color of their skin for classification purposes or historical preservation, fine. But for the benefit of our very existence we are ONE PEOPLE. Under God, Under Vishnu, Under Jesus, Under Allah, Under Buddah, Under the Sun, Under whatever. A difference in Religious beliefs does not change that fact.
:: J 10:57 AM [+] ::
...

Wow! I guess when it rains, it pours......
:: J 10:11 AM [+] ::
...

Today's Excite Fortune:
"Those voices you hear make sense."

Heaven help me if that's true........

Just kidding. They're nice voices.
:: J 10:08 AM [+] ::
...

What the heck happened yesterday?

OK, so I got off on a bit of a rant or two yesterday. That was very unlike me. Actually, I generally don't have very strong feelings about religion or God. Maybe just the whole terrorist, dirty bomb thing just kinda got to me. It drives me nuts to see people acting stupidly.

I like to believe that in the distant future, the human race will still thrive, and not in that Eloi/Morlock kinda way, or even in a Battlefield Earth (blecch) kind of way. I want to believe that we will prosper in the future. I guess I just get frustrated when, as a society, we don't live up to our potential. We can be a great people, if we wished to be.
:: J 8:47 AM [+] ::
...

A note about prophecies:

It must have been prophetic for me to find this website,
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Photo Gallery (Sunrise over Manhattan), because it fits right in with my remarks earlier regarding religion. I admit that the photograph is quite awesome. However, whether or not it is a sign from God is another matter entirely.

Back to Rule #1, if God (who of course, as a proponent of Free Will, would not interfere) were to give a sign that something big was going to happen to the towers, wouldn't he have picked something a bit less dependent on chance? This is not to say that divine interventions are subject to random chance, but let's look at this from a rational point of view. If YOU wanted to tell someone something, indirectly, wouldn't you at least want to make sure that they saw it? Imagine God wants you to know about the towers collapsing. What would the thought process be there? "Hmmm. I know! Let me get the sun to shine through the towers (like it does every day) except today I shall turn down the sharpness on the sun and raise the brightness levels a bit. NOW they'll see this bright, shiney sun through the towers and will immediately think that the towers may one day get knocked down by a bunch of terrorists in jumbo jet-liners!"

Let's give God a little more credit than that, hm? If it were me, and I saw that? I would probably have just marveled at the beauty that God had set before me and not that he was trying to tell me something. By that line of thinking, the next time you see a really beautiful sunset, just think it's a sign from God that the sky is about to fall.

Sheesh.

By the way, none of this is meant to offend. If it makes you feel better, remind yourself that I really am not a religious nor a pious person. I am not a religious scholar. I am just a resident of this planet. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that something is wrong with the place. Personally, I think that all of this misunderstanding on the subject of religion is a major part of the problem. If we could all just live our lives and leave God out of it, we could probably be happier. God does not want the responsibility of keeping is in line. Otherwise he would not have given us Free Will. All we have to remember is that there may be a reckoning one day. The rest is garbage.

Religious rules are around to just keep us civil. The underlying rule is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. "Thou shalt not kill." Why? Because I wouldn't want someone to kill me, so I'd better make killing against the law. "Thou shalt not steal." Same deal. Let's face it. Of course these things are wrong to do. We all know that. Some people, regardless of whether something is right or wrong, will do what they want to do anyway. Religious laws and the laws of man are put in place to disuade people. That's all.

I am not saying that society is bad, or that ANY country in the world should be in any way harmed. I'm not one of those manifesto-y fanatics who secretly plans to overthrow the government. I'm just one guy who wants to express his opinion. Not by hurting anyone, not by damaging anything, just by speaking. Hell, I'm not even saying I'm right. I just think the whole thing makes more sense from this perspective.
:: J 1:24 PM [+] ::
...

The World We Live In:

Let it finally be said, "I don't understand religion!" Well, I think I DO understand it, but if I do, then I don't think anyone else does. Let me make a few more sweeping statements:

1) There is no such thing as a true Atheist, only people who do not think they believe in God. I believe that when push comes to shove, and when faced with death, this person WILL believe in God. Just not subscribe to any particular faith.

2) I do not subscribe to any particular faith (AH-HA!!) Nor do I pray. I don't read the Bible and I don't attend religious observances. I was born Jewish, and I did have a Bar Mitzvah.

3) Near as I can tell, There is no one TRUE religion

4) Religions are not bad, they are only screwed up by the people who follow them.

So, with that in mind, it is time for me to climb my soapbox and discuss this delicate matter. I really hope not to offend anyone, because I believe that in it's own way, my message can be even more beautiful than those that already exist.

God is omnipotent. Most religions seem to believe this. I believe this is the only absolute and constant.

Now, if we agree on this, everything else falls into place.

Every man, woman and child on this planet (from here on in shortened to Man) inherently knows right from wrong. It's instinctual. That, and as free well, are God's two greatest gifts to us. From there on in, we are all captains of our own destinies. Man did not create religions to show people what is right and what is wrong. Man created religions to put their own spin on popular perspective. Notice how religious stances on more recent popular debate topics have shifted in recent centuries, encompassing the topics of homosexuality, science and even modern conveniences like electricity. Religions change with the times.

Let me add to that: Remember rule #1 - God is omnipotent. Bearing this in mind, why would God create this entire planet, fill it with miracles and wonders to astound, and yet choose a very small section of dirt and call it HOLY LAND. I don't believe that any land on this planet is more holy than any other. It can all be perceived as a miracle, and should be by those who inhabit it.

Going back to Rule #1 again, There is no need for physical pennance or prayer. God knows your thoughts. God knows what is in your heart. If you truly feel regret for a sin or a crime, God will know it. Fooling human courts and even convincing yourself of that for the rest of your life will not help you if it isn't true. God will know that. Praising God and thanking him for the marvel which is life is just as effective, if not more so, in your heart than it is out loud in a congregation. What makes a land holy? God's will. I like to think that the Earth is a Holy Land, as much as the rest of creation.

Under what circumstances would a God who says "Thou Shalt Not Kill" say "Not only can you kill yourself, but you can only do it if you kill those around you"? Why would God condone slaughter in his name, if he says that it is not allowed?

As many great men have said, time is short. We are but a footnote in the annals of history. Would a God, who chooses that we spend such a short time here, want us to spend the whole time fighting? Killing? We don't all have to agree with eachother. That's what Free Will is all about. The right to choose. It's an inalienable human right.

We all instinctually know that there is a higher being at work. We will just choose to believe whatever gets us through the night. If knowing the right religion were truly that important, God would come down and prove it Himself. The fact is that getting it right is not important. Living the underlying message is. Be good to eachother. Live as one people -- Not Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or any other. Live as human beings. Live as creatures of God. Whether you believe in him or not, you at least know that you are the same as the person sitting next to you. As the other 6 billion people on this planet. Live that way.

I may not be the most educated person in the world, especially when it comes to religions. In the long run, I doubt that it's all that important, so long as I live my life believing in my fellow man.

(gets down off his soapbox)
:: J 11:17 AM [+] ::
...

A Word About Human Emotionalism:

You know, right now I am in a bit of a familial pickle at home. The big "D" word has been mentioned. That's right. It was thrown down like a gauntlet. Divorce.

The funny thing is that in the long run, I really don't mind one way or the other. My parents really haven't been having what would be called the ideal homelife in ages. Lately, I think that our financial situation as well as certain broader familial obligations have led to our decline as a family. The fact of the matter is that I really just want everyone to be happy. The separation of my parents really can't affect me in the long run because I am at the age where I should be moving out soon. When that eventually happens, whether I visit or call, it would be akin to whoever not being home at the time.

With all of that in mind, the question is "Why am I in a pickle then, if this does not really affect me?" The answer is that it really doesn't affect me directly, it affects me peripherally.

Follow:

My father may get even more depressed by this turn of events, which brings his mood (understandably so) down. As he is fond of pointing out, that sort of environment can rub off on all around, i.e. me. My mother feels as though everyone is out to get her, and therefore comes to me for advice, which I can not provide. This really isn't something that I can give good advice about. There is probably so much information that I don't know, and it would hard to sound objective. Whoever I would think was wrong would think that I was just taking sides. Believe me, my family (or certain members thereof) can be THAT paranoid.

To wit; Friday night my mother had to pick me up at the train station as that my car was temporarily out of commission. She picks me up and for the most part we have an amicable ride. Six blocks from our house, she goes into hysterics, crying about all that is happening. As I have grown accustomed to remaining neutral, I stay quiet and listen. I don't comment, because that would serve no useful purpose.

Anyway, we get to the house where she continues to cry and tell me how proud she is of me. A tearful moment and heartfelt to be sure. Only something very strange happens. All of a sudden, she stops crying and everything is normal, as we are about to enter the house. I mean EVERYTHING! I don't know anyone who can downshift that quickly from being in hysterics.

I know that when I am crying (legitimately) it is almost impossible to just stop. I can slow it down and calm myself down, but it is NEVER like a lightswitch. I don't know anyone who can do it unless they really weren't crying in the first place. Everyone knows that when someone is crying, it does no good to just say "Stop Crying" because it doesn't work that way. There are two ways to stop someone from crying. 1) Make them feel better, or 2) Let it die out. This was neither. If I didn't know any better, I would have thought that upon realizing that the tears were not making me cry or sympathize, she just stopped. I don't want to think that way, but believe me when I say that my CON-o-meter was in full swing.

I have tried all of my life to be practical about the emotional points in my life. For the most part, it works. Girlfriends, friendships, family, all of it. Granted, from the perspective of those who share my life, it isn't all that great, but I can't let that get to me. I can't possibly stand the thought of letting all of my decisions be made without forethought. Life is too short to risk screwing it up because I didn't bother to think things through. Hell, if I was truly impulsive, I would probably have married my first girlfriend (we dated for 2.5 years) and would probably be miserable. LET ME STRESS: the miserable part would not have been her fault, it would have been mine. The thing that would have made me the most miserable would have been getting married before I was ready. If I was married right now, I would have no money and I would probably (knowing my luck) have kids. Of course I think I want to have kids SOME DAY, but the point would be that I would not have been ready.

I suppose I wasted the impulsive part of my life by being practical even in my adolesence. Do I regret that? No. I can't regret something that I don't know. And THAT is what I regret. Not knowing.

Confusing? Welcome to my psyche. Try this on for size: I act like a kid. I never want to grow up. And yet.....I refuse to be fully impulsive, and sometimes I am the oldest person I know. Go figure.......

OK. So that was more than just a word, and I strayed a bit from the subject of HUMAN emotionalism. As a friend of mine once pointed out, titling these things can be a bit difficult.
:: J 8:50 AM [+] ::
...

Excite Quote of the Day:
"Life is an opportunity, benefit from it. Life is a beauty, admire it. Life is a dream, realize it. Life is a challenge, meet it. Life is a duty, complete it. Life is a game, play it. Life is a promise, fulfill it. Life is sorrow, overcome it. Life is a song, sing it. Life is a struggle, accept it. Life is a tragedy, confront it. Life is an adventure, dare it. Life is luck, make it. Life is life, fight for it!"
- Mother Teresa

:: J 8:22 AM [+] ::
...

You know, I have to say I am definitely lucky for the friends I have though. They understand me to the extent where they don't terrorize me or hate me for not keeping a super-steady correspondence.

I just explained a theory of mine to a co-worker, in an effort to possibly explain why one of her friends was "slighting" her. The theory is as follows:

Relationship Backlash
"Essentially, it's where someone's life has a fundamental problem, usually somewhere in the social area. They need to deal with it somehow. First they talk about it, but afterwards they need to sort it out themselves. Specifically when someone lives at home, they really aren't given the opportunity to do that properly. The backlash comes when a person is surrounded by so many people who care (friends and family,) but not enough time by themselves to think it through and move on. Essentially, if someone does not feel solitude, they can't crave companionship."

While I do not hold it against her, the response was that she felt she was being treated unfairly. This is a standard response that I would expect from almost anyone. The fact of the matter is that many people feel that part of being a friend is being in constant contact with someone.

You are left the demoralizing rule, however, that you can not blow off a friend simply because you don't feel like doing anything, for fear of offending or even jeopardizing the relationship. So you wind up employing what is classically known as "The Runaround." This, when identified, helps even less. You're essentially stuck between a rock and a hard place. Unless, that is, you have a friend who is understanding of when you just don't want to hear from anyone. This is what separates the Fair Weather Friends from the Foul Weather Friends. The cool thing about the ideal Foul Weather Friend is that he/she knows when to back down and just let things go. The cool thing about the ideal FRIEND is that he/she will let their friend have solitude for as long as it takes, and will still be there when the person comes back.

Of course, you can't let someone walk all over you and call them friend, but just remember that everyone has times where they just want to be alone. It can be as brief as a moment, or as long as weeks (compounded terribly, if you live at home.)

Thus endeth today's diatribe.......I think

:: J 11:51 AM [+] ::
...

I wonder what it means when I haven't felt like blogging in awhile. I think it's probably an offshoot of what I have been feeling for a while now. I like blogging. I like the idea of having a journal of my own thoughts for no one other than for myself. A constant reminder of who I was, who I am and who I hope to be.

Lately, I have been so caught up in living my life, though, that I haven't had much time to document it. The sad fact of the matter is that living my life isn't so interesting that documenting it is strictly necessary. And therein lies the problem. I know that for now my life isn't much to speak about. Big whoop. The fact is that I still live at home and for as long as this is the case, my life can't be that interesting since I am not living it solely for myself. As long as I am home, I am constrained to live within the boundaries set by my parents. In addition, without having solitude, one can not crave companionship. And therein lies my other problem. Between work and home, I am constantly surrounded by people. Not a conducive environment to try to grow a social life.

I keep hoping that things will get better in that arena, but I realize that that is a dead end until I move out. I know that people who make less and have less that I have already chosen to do so. I have not. I don't regret that decision as much as I just want to get to the point where I am financially secure enough to leave this shelter behind. I have a feeling that once that happens, there is no turning back. Especially in this economic climate.

I'll play it safe for now. If only for a while longer. It's a sobering thought that I am as old as my parents were when they married (little feat considering they married at 24 & 25.) I am CERTAINLY not ready for that, but getting a "bachelor pad" would really be nice. Then again, to afford things, I am really in the wrong business. I know people working temp jobs who make more than I do.

I just have to keep my fingers crossed and hope that my payoff will come soon. I am trying everything I can to make it happen, but given this business, a little luck couldn't hurt either.

At least the weather is nice. Sun can make it all better.
:: J 11:11 AM [+] ::
...

Today's Excite Quote of the Day:

"One day in retrospect the years of struggle will strike you as the most beautiful."
- Sigmund Freud
:: J 2:35 PM [+] ::
...

Today's Excite Fortune:
"You're smarter than you think."
:: J 11:36 AM [+] ::
...

How far have I come?

You know, it's been more than four weeks since my ex-girlfriend pulled her little April Fool's Joke. I have not spoken to her (for any length of time) since. Is this wise?

Man, can I hold a grudge. Am I justified? Am I doing the right thing? Not really, I suppose. I mean my reaction is one of pure emotion rather than rational thinking. Although, I did rationalize that this would be the time to do it. The fact of the matter is that I am not sure whether or not she sees this for what it really is. She may actually already know why I am behaving the way I am. She may not even believe that anything is wrong. That would probably burn me up more than anything because it means that nothing will have been learned by the end of this, unless I get into a screaming match with her. I've done that before. I guess I'm up for one more.

I have to fight for this. It's a necessity. My friend Andy says that I should just let this go and let her go as well. I can't. She means a lot to me. She holds a rather significant part of me and I can't just let it go. There is still a strong possibility that I won't find anyone else who can understand me like she can. Most of the people that I have come to know have been pretty successful at not judging me or looking too far down at me.

I just don't know if that's enough. The fact of the matter is that I am never going to get back together with her. We were a close fit, but not quite right. If I am going to elect to spend the rest of my life with someone it had better be as close to perfect as is possible. What does that mean?

1) Someone who doesn't have to spend every moment of every day doing something with me.
2) Someone who understands and accepts who I am and what I like to do.
3) Someone who is willing to go along with me for the ride.
4) Someone who is secure enough in who they are.
5) Someone who likes things that I like (it doesn't have to be all of it, but if not there should at least be an acceptance)
6) Someone who I can talk to.
7) Someone who cares.
8) Someone who won't try to change me.
9) Someone who trusts me and who I can trust.
10) Someone who does not NEED to be physical in order to prove their devotion (and who will not ask the same)
11) Someone honest.

That's a pretty long and almost unrealistic list. I suppose I set my sights up too high, but this is my heart that we are talking about here. I can't just give it to just any one. I can't spend the rest of my life being unhappy because I can't get my heart back. It's important. My ex-girlfriend and I broke up because a few of the things on that list weren't met. She was not secure in who she was (although, she was when I met her,) she wasn't honest (not in a BIG way, but enough that it mattered,) she needed physicality in order for me to prove that I loved her, and therefore she didn't trust me.

Maybe I should set my sights on something more realistic. Like winning the lottery.
:: J 11:33 AM [+] ::
...

I taste like Bread. I am a staple in almost everyone's diet. Friends like me are a complement to any other friends I get on with almost everyone, remaining mostly in the background, but providing substance when it would otherwise be lacking. So says this website here.

*sigh* Why is it that I saw this one coming. Besides, it also says that if I weren't bread, I would be vanilla. I HATE VANILLA. This does sound rather complimentary, though....So I guess it's okay. *sigh*
:: J 8:23 AM [+] ::
...

Images of my phone from HANDSPRING website
:: J 9:37 AM [+] ::
...

:: J 9:33 AM [+] ::
...

Catching up and other such nonsense:

Well, it's been awhile and I feel like I've been neglecting a good friend, so here is the update on what's been happening in my little slice of world....

Melanie (my ex-girlfriend) still hasn't gotten a response from me concerning her April Fool's Gag. I have a great sense of humor, and take gags in stride, always, but this is just something that needs to be worked through at some point.

I got a new phone. I don't know if I mentioned this, but if I didn't, I got the new HANDSPRING TREO 180 COMMUNICATOR and it is absolutely fantastic! I love it dearly with it's PDA, Phone, internet/e-mail skills, chatting and messages and other such nonsense. The only thing is that I've had it for almost a month and the stylus already broke! I mean geez. All I did was drop it and the end snapped off. That's what I call shoddy worksmanship. Then again, if it's the only thing that goes wrong, I will be quite pleased.

I got a new CD burner for my laptop, after my old one got Alzheimer's. I mean that. My USB CD burner forgot what it was, and was listed only as UNKNOWN USB DEVICE. As that all my other USB stuff worked, I knew it was a problem with the CD Burner. So, I bought one direct from DELL (makers of my laptop) which is swappable in my media bay with my DVD ROM. It's a helluvan inconvenience, but what else can I do? Actually, I have an answer to that. I'll just eventually buy a PCMCIA USB 2.0 upgrade for my computer and get a speedy external one. YAY! (At least YAY for when that happens.)

Past that, the weeks have been quite fulfilling at work. I had a stellar review, which was nice. I love that. I just have a very positive outlook right now (helped even more so by the lovely weather we are having right now.) I can't wait for the summer. I love the warmth......*sigh*
:: J 9:24 AM [+] ::
...

Would you believe that after all that happened yesterday, it was an April Fool's Gag? My Ex-Girlfriend said everything she did as a gag. Heh heh heh................................... I'm sorry, but that's not right. If you're going to do a gag that involves the core of your friendship, you do NOT do it over e-mail where there is no such thing as sarcasm. In my own defense, it all came about in a volley of e-mails.

In my first e-mail response, I laughed a lot (typed "Ha ha ha" a lot.) The response I got was a very serious one, which I shrugged off by saying "Fair Enough." Her response seemed an angry one which demanded that I defend myself. At this point, I was reluctant to go on with the game, so I opened both barrells and let her have it. As if the whole thing were real. I figured if I was wrong and it WAS real, so much the better. If not, lesson learned.

Unfortunately for her, she does not realize that I knew the truth. After I unleashed, I got a response which read "Do you know what day it is?"

My response was "I certainly do." She didn't get that I knew it. So she thought I fell for it. Now she gets the silent treatment. A lesson not to try to mess with emotions like that. It's the sort of prank which is allowed, but only in person. You need to be able to read someone for something like that. If not, don't steep your prank in such an emotionally charged subject.

Cruel? Maybe. But I think that turnabout IS fairplay.
:: J 10:06 AM [+] ::
...

Today's Excite Quote of the Day:
"Some day, in years to come, you will be wrestling with the great temptation, or trembling under the great sorrow of your life. But the real struggle is here, now, in these quiet weeks. Now it is being decided whether, in the day of your supreme sorrow or temptation, you shall miserably fail or gloriously conquer. Character cannot be made except by a steady, long continued process."
- Phillips Brooks
:: J 8:09 AM [+] ::
...

Men, according to my ex-girlfriend:
"You all like to fight for what you don't have to obtain it, then like a child with an old toy, put the object aside until needed or wanted, just to have as conveniently. Only when someone else plays with your toy does it hold importance to you again."

Sheesh. As an avid toy player, I actually have to say that the fact of the matter is that I back away from the toys that I like so as to NOT get sick of them.

Also, I keep thinking of the song "A Secretary Is Not A Toy" from How to Succeed In Business Without Really Trying. Not that I think of girlfriends as secretaries. Far from it. However, the basic precept is that women are not toys. They are living, thinking beings. They deserve respect. As they should not be downplayed, however, men should not be put on pedestals. The corollary is this: Men expect way too little of their women, and women expect way too much of their men. Men expect women to be around only when they want them to be and women expect men to be around always.

Remember, however, that there are exceptions to every situation, including this one. My personal feeling about a girlfriend (which I have been very public about) is that they have to give me space. When I say something, I mean it. Always. I therefore see no need to constantly have to prove myself. If I say "I love you," I mean it. It's not a phrase to be used capriciously.

Same things with physicality. Being human, I occasionally have urges. However, I do not wish to compromise the integrity of any female that I know. Therefore I will try to stay away from serious physical relations unless I know exactly where we stand. I would hate to find myself either waking up the next day and finding myself in an unwanted relationship as equally as I would hate to wake up and find myself a one night stand. These things are important to me. As important as finding the right person.

And while I put a great deal of stock in finding the right person, I am in no rush. Maybe it's because I still live at home. I haven't had that personal privacy that makes someone search out someone else. That's probably why I want my solitude so much and why I enjoy it. I guess with that in mind, it's a miracle I have any friends at all.

To come full circle, she knew all of that about me from the beginning. Like I said, I am an open book. You have but to read. AND TO ASK. I spew enough information on my own. Just because I stop doesn't mean there isn't more. I'm just tired of doing all the talking. People may find this hard to believe, but I don't spend much time talking about myself. Even when I talk to my friends, I am telling them about the other people I know.

I don't know why I don't talk about myself. Then again, there is my blog......
:: J 9:57 AM [+] ::
...