I know you all are really “enlightened” and sure maybe your intellectual property laws are setup better than ours. But good Lord, if you’re going to stereotype Americans as gun-spinning cowboys, don’t rape babies. Because it will bite you in the ass.
If it were 1986 and I were 30 and lived in hollywood and did lines and were mentally deficient I would write a sitcom about a combination Handyman/Lawyer. The handyman-ing would be his day job and the lawyer thing he could have quit cause he didn’t like it or got tired of it or whatever.
This Handyman lawyer basically goes around fixing things poorly, but endearing himself to the people for which he performs his duties. I guess his name would be something like Mark John Jeffries Sr., just so when people see the people PC kid in the nineties they’ll say “hey his dad is the guy from that Handyman/Lawyer show!” He carries his tools around in a briefcase and works in a really slick suit but he doesn’t care if he gets stuff all over it. I guess there’d have to be some other main characters like a sidekick of some sort. Maybe he could have hallucintations about Wrenchy, the talking wrench who guides him to make the right decisions. Then there’d be a love interest who’s always calling him over to fix stuff. Anyway here are some catch-phrases for him:
“I’ll sue!”
“Motion denied!”
“Sustained!”
See it would work really well. Also instead of using a hammer for stuff he’d use a gavel. I think it’d also be great if unfrozen cave-man lawyer made a guest appearance. Since its 86 Phil Hartman would still be alive, but unfrozen cave-man lawyer wouldn’t be invented yet, I’d be a pioneer. You’d watch it and love it.
Sunny D!
I have never in my life seen people excited to drink Sunny D. Further still I don’t think anyone buys it, and if they do chances are they’d choose at LEAST OJ over it if not soda. The purple stuff could be any number of things, but I’d still choose it over Sunny D. Sunny D is like having an OJ milkshake. Its so thick and disgusting. I like that now Sunny D also has a Sunny D sport type drink. I can’t imagine anyone coming off the court or sideline at a game somewhere and saying, man I’m so thirsty, where’s the Sunny D? Give me a break. That’d be like saying “Man I could really go for a cold glass of milk” and then drinking motor oil. Sunny D I hate you and all you stand for. May the purple stuff dominate over you for years to come.
I didn’t really give too much thought before typing this but I thought it would be interesting to write about, and I’m bored and putting off reading, a project, and generally killing time.
A question was asked of me recently whether or not love between two people ever existed in the first place if these two people were in a serious relationship and then split.
I think its always important to weigh certain factors in things of this nature – fidelity for one. But lets presume there was no infedelity and two people who had claimed to love each other split.
The hardest part about this question is that love can’t really be defined. Some people say they find their soul mate and being with them is the only thing they can ever picture themself doing – yet this is rare. More typically people define love as a goal between two parties attracted to each other initially by appearance and conversation, or mental attraction if you will.
I feel like love is completely subjective. Everyone probably has their own ideas about it and are expecting it through the course of certain situations. What’s interesting is that poeple say “you just know” when you’re in love a lot. This is an interesting concept because it requires trusting one’s own judgement about their current situation. People can typically convince themselves of anything, I doubt love would be any different.
So say you convince yourself in love, you really “know it” when in fact you aren’t. Obviously in this situation love would not have occurred in the first place…or would it? Humans create things in their minds every day, plans, schemes, plots, music, and these things exist for a certain point in time in an untangible form, floating about in their bits of brain matter. I think its quite possible love can be created – in fact, chances are the person who created this love is not the one who would eventually do the splitting up – it’d be the other person. So here love would exist but not necessarily between both parties.
But what if you constantly doubt yourself? In this particular scenario you’d be doubting ever being in love, not be in the right situation for it or at the right time in your life, and you could entirely be in love but not really realize it until after the tragic split. Here love would have existed in the first place, and it continues to exist most likely for a certain period of time.
Finally there are those people who just fall face down in a puddle of love and never look back. Chances are they won’t split so the question can’t really apply here.
Here are my thoughts on the matter. If you actually do convince yourself you’re in love, then love exists because you’ve created it. Whether the love is shared is another story. If you don’t believe yourself to be in love, then realize it later, obviously the love existed at some point in time. Now in both of these situations it IS possible that both parties do not feel the same way. So a shared love would be non-existent, but love itself may have been fostered by one of the parties and therefore existed, or still exists, to that person.
Instead of being able to sleep an extra two hours this morning as I originally conceived, I got a phone call waking me at 9am. “Andy we need you here” said my advisor. The whole time I’m thinking “if they called me in just to take attendance, I just might kill them.” What happened? I go into the office, get the attendance sheet (which I left out the night before for the advisor to bring to class, use, then return on my desk), go to class, pass it out and then am left incredibly pissed off as one advisor says “I’m going to take my cat to the vet” and the other says “I’m going to get coffee before my next class.”
Awesome. I’m so glad i was “needed” this morning so I could pass out, then collect, an attendance sheet. I’d almost rather not have free school and get to sleep in.
This is a pretty interesting concept that my buddy told me about when we were chatting over drinks the other night. It has to do with the concept of coincidence and spirituality, or rather science vs. spirituality. We talked about it very in-depth but this basic concept I find pretty interesting.
We were talking about how we find it realtively impossible that human life exists in the fine balance on which we teeter because of mere coincidence. That somehow a big explosion could not have been so perfectly random that the earth orbit just far enough from the sun and loop around in perfect elipses – mere centimeters from firing off into space, having the planet be an ice tundra or an inferno not suitable for life. So Dave said the following:
Consider this. We know the universe, or at least our solar system and what we know of the universe, is based on elipses. These elipses are perfect. If they weren’t perfect we would burn, freeze, or be shot off into space.
Now let’s take the atom. We know that electrons circle the atom’s core and they do so in a specific and also perfict orbit. The interesting thing is that when we try and break the atoms, the catastrophic happens – an atomic explosion.
It is interesting that this microcosm of the universe carry similar devastating properties when destroyed, as the earth would be destroyed if we were to somehow alter its place in orbit.
End Dave’s Musing.
It seems a basic pattern is evident. What uses pattern? Pattern in its simplest form is quite simply used to create things. A machine can crank out 100 of the same tupperware containers because someone created a pattern and stuck with it. Sure they varied the shapes and sizes, but the result, AND the underlying pattern is quite similar. Who created the pattern? Man.
The bible says God created Man in his own image. Now if you’re agnostic like myself you come across a lot of things in the bible that were most likely just fables or parables to prove a point or to explain the unexplainable in a time where there weren’t other means. At the same time there are a few basic things that ARE accepted universally in the bible like Jesus’ life and the existence of many biblical characters which means that there are most likely other truths as well. A divine being creating something in his own image doesn’t seem that far fetched. This is a possibility.
It is also possible that a divine being created the huge explosion which set things into motion and paved the way for evolution which would eventually lead the way for a creature coming about which resembles its creator.
It doesn’t really prove anything but its interesting to think about. I certainly believe there ARE coincidences but i also believe that many things happen for a reason. It just seems like the universe and its microcosm the atom, are too much alike for there not to be some serious thought given as to whether or not it and we are some bit of divine tupperware.
Please read Erik’s post about American Airlines to get the whole back story to this posting:
So here are some other factors of the story that make it just a little more outlandish and the situation a lot less tolerable:
1) When I gave the name and address and phone number of the hotel to the technologically inept woman operating the archaic computer at the baggage resolution center I didn’t just tell her. I wrote it down on a piece of paper – “Radisson Huntley Hotel” followed by the address, the phone number, and Erik’s phone number (my phone was dead and the charger? With my luggage).
2) When we called around lunch time the second day, the man on the phone actually told me they’d be there by 7pm that night. I was outraged vocally and he went and double-checked. “Oh wait, my mistake,” he said “that was from last night.” Oh I see, so not only did we not get our bags, but you didn’t bother hammer and chiseling it into the monitor of your 1983 “super computer.” Thanks for keeping things updated.
3) The driver in Erik’s story was actually the OWNER of the delivery company and promised to deliver it HIMSELF within the hour, not just send one of his loser-chronies…guess what? Loser-chronie was the one who showed up with the bags.
4) The owner of the delivery company not knowing it was a hotel we were staying at really didn’t bother me (because I knew that it was probably fairly accurate to conjure that Nails McTypesoslow probably didn’t enter the info in properly). What DID bother me was that THEY STILL HAD THE FREAKIN ADDRESS! They should be able to deliver to a hot dog stand if they’re give the exact street address, no?
Alright, now you can truly be outraged.
I think we can all agree that politics are politics. No one really likes them because let’s face it, you can never be 100 percent happy. In fact you’re probably lucky if you eek out with around 45 percent. Yet everyone likes talking about them and the issues raised are sometimes interesting and always controversial.
So since this is my blog and you jerks don’t write it, here is my theory:
Rather than separating the parties into the typical conservative/republican and liberal/democrat ideologies there should be two parties – Rational and Irrational. The rational parties would include moderates from either party and the irrational would include the extremes from both parties.
This way the populace will have a better chance of choosing a president/senator/governer with which the people as a whole would be more happy. Eventually the idea would be that the labels conservative and liberal would peel off and you’d be left with simply the rational and irrational.
I know it would never happen but I think it would be interesting. People of course would still find things to bitch about but the hope would be that they’d agree with, or at least be okay with, more of the decisions made by the administration chosen.
The only real problem with this system would be, of course, that the irrationals would basically never win, which in my opinion would be just fine. I’d much rather have a rational democrat than an irrational republican and of course vice versa.
I think the imposition of the candidates’ values on society would be less of a factor with rational candidates as well. Now depending on your societal views this could also be a drawback – whether you believe the people should be shoved into a new age of thinking or pushed back into unlightenment. Personally I’d be happy with someone who allowed me to choose what’s best for myself and just took care of the big decisions in a rational manner.
That pretty much sums it up. I hope politics wisens up a bit in the near future rather than continually sending us these tangential goons to hammer their fists on tables and preach values or anti-values (depending on whose side you’re on). It’d be nice if the American people were given a break from lunging at each other’s jugular for a while and could say, at the very least, “I disagree, but its not that big of a deal.”
More interesting ideas to come, but they’ll probably be more oriented towards poopy jokes.