I'm at a particular crossroads right now. Continue being an average shmuck with a 9-5 job, or sacrifice that so I can focus on what I really want to do (writing), and hopefully be successful at it.
Did you just vomit when I said I want to be a writer? Don't blame you. It's the ultimate cliché. I'm completely ashamed whenever my wife brings it up randomly in a conversation. She'll mention a script I just finished, and the ensuing dialogue will go something like this:
Them: "Oh, so you're a writer?"
Me: "Uh, yeah."
Them "So how's that going? Anything published?"
Me: "Nope, still a loser."
So then here's the obvious question: if you haven't gotten anything published yet, why give up your day job?
Because I'm a moron.
You hear all the time about "starving artists". These are people who have decided to abandon the normal life of waking up to go to work, clocking out for lunch, then clocking back in and stare at the clock waiting to get your fifteen minute break, two hours from now.
This isn't always the case, though. Some "starving artists" are people who could get a dream job, but are more in love with their dream. Mark Zuckerberg is one such person; instead of getting a seriously awesome job with his Harvard education, he took the risky route and started an internet business.
DISCLAIMER: To be honest, I only have that Facebook movie to go by; I don't really know what I'm talking about.
But if the movie's at all accurate, we know that Mark dedicated all his time and effort into starting Facebook, and succeeded wildly. But how many other people have done the same exact thing, only to come up with nothing? How many young people have seen "The Social Network", and were inspired to do the same thing, only to have jack squat to show for it, after losing a lot of time and money?
Hollywood success stories are evil beyond belief. You hear the actor talk about the crappy one-bedroom apartment he/she lived in, while living off the McDonald's Dollar Menu; until that one lucky day that he/she got his/her big break, and look at him/her now sitting on stacks of money. These stories are dangerous, because they trick other people with dreams into thinking they can channel that actor's experience and succeed just like they did; they don't realize just how unglamorous this lifestyle reallly is. How many aging actors are there, who are still holding on to their dreams? How many thirty-year keep reminding themselves of Sylvester Stallone, who didn't reach success until he himself was thirty?
But then, this brings up an interesting question: at what point do you quit chasing your dream, and hang yourself with a 9-5? Eminem famously was about to quit rap several times, including just before he got discovered, and was going to hang up his mic for good; and Eminem had every reason to. A grown man with a daughter who's trying to be a rapper, while struggling and barely making ends meet, would be considered a giant loser by anyone who knows him. Add to the fact that Eminem was a white guy trying to succeed in a black man's art, then you can imagine how people must've shook their heads at dreamer who obviously won't amount to anything. Flashfoward, he's one of the most successful musicians of all time, regardless of genre.
So what have I decided? Basically, that I'd rather die then work a 9-5 the rest of my life. Thankfully, I don't have kids yet, so I don't have to factor them into my decision. But I am married; and I do have judgemental in-laws. And I am the Man in this relationship. But for me personally, I just can't continue on living without doing what I love. I seriously just may bite a bullet if I have to answer to clock in to a shitty job every day. Okay, I won't actually bite a bullet, but that bullet will be extremely appetizing for the rest of my life.
And I don't want to live like that.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Supreme Court Rules On Video Games
Two days ago, the Supreme Court struck down California's ban on the sale of violent video games to minors. A lot of people are complaining about this ruling, that we're not "protecting" children. Please.
I was about ten years old when the original Mortal Kombat game was in arcades, and being debated in congress. It made national news because people were getting their heads ripped off, and getting burned alive. I loved this game. I am currently a very well-adjusted married man, with not a violent bone in my body. Every kid I knew played Mortal Kombat, and spent hours on it. None of them have ever tried to decapitate me.
People who complain about this seriously undermine the intelligence of children. Roger Ebert, for example, was quoted a saying "Supreme Court says anything goes in violent video games sold to children." I find this amazing, since Roger Ebert has often complained about Hollywood's lack of apreciation for the intelligence of children, often using terms like "audience insulting" (like his famous review of the movie "North"). How then can he insult the intelligence of the average child, by assuming they are so unintelligent as to robotically emulate what they see, without the common sense to differentiate between fantasy and reality?
Don't get me wrong; I understand the need for limitations. I had an uncle who lived in the same house as me for a while; and at nine years of age, I often indulged in my uncles porn mags and videos when he was away at work. Though I ended up with (what I think was) a normal sexual appetite for a teenage a boy, I completely understand why there are laws against minors viewing it. However, I wouldn't take the leap and claim that a little boy's morals are corrupted by viewing what is essentially a natural act; I say "essentially", because porn is very often a completely unaccurate portrayal of what sex is really like.
This brings up another point in the video game debate in Congress; sexuality.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said, "What kind of First Amendment would permit the governement to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman - bound, gagged, tortured, and killed - is also topless?"
While that makes sense, Justice Antonin Scalia had said this: "Our cases make clear that obscenity covers only depictions of sexual conduct, and we have previously rejected attempts to shoehorn violence into that category."
Justice Scalia's point reiterates something true about American culture: violence has never been seen as obscene, while even the hint of sexuality in media can cause controversy. We can go back to silent films where cowboys killed scores of badguys, and never has there been any protest that these films incite violence in movie-goers. In fact, toy guns and even BB guns (which actually can be dangerous) were hot items for young children. Which is worse: having a child act out shooting someone with a gun (a realistic possibility) or have a child play a game simulating decapitation (a crime so rare, it is unrealistic a child will ever do this)? On the other hand, premarital sex is quite a realistic thing that most parents don't want their kids coming anywhere near; thus, sex in media is so much more widely demonized.
So where is the line drawn, then?
I don't know. What I do know, is that you can't draw the line based on insulting beliefs about the intelligence of the average child. Honestly, the amount of non-videogame violence in media is astounding; thinking that playing a game--with what is essentially the same level of violence you'd find in an R-rated horror flick--will "harm" or "corrupt" the average child, is just loudacris.
I'm one of just untold millions of chldren who've played ultra-violent games, who grew up to continue playing games with even more graphic and more realistic violence, while living a completely normal and well-adjusted life. Keep this in mind the next time you think a child is too dumb to tell the difference between fantasy and real life.
I was about ten years old when the original Mortal Kombat game was in arcades, and being debated in congress. It made national news because people were getting their heads ripped off, and getting burned alive. I loved this game. I am currently a very well-adjusted married man, with not a violent bone in my body. Every kid I knew played Mortal Kombat, and spent hours on it. None of them have ever tried to decapitate me.
People who complain about this seriously undermine the intelligence of children. Roger Ebert, for example, was quoted a saying "Supreme Court says anything goes in violent video games sold to children." I find this amazing, since Roger Ebert has often complained about Hollywood's lack of apreciation for the intelligence of children, often using terms like "audience insulting" (like his famous review of the movie "North"). How then can he insult the intelligence of the average child, by assuming they are so unintelligent as to robotically emulate what they see, without the common sense to differentiate between fantasy and reality?
Don't get me wrong; I understand the need for limitations. I had an uncle who lived in the same house as me for a while; and at nine years of age, I often indulged in my uncles porn mags and videos when he was away at work. Though I ended up with (what I think was) a normal sexual appetite for a teenage a boy, I completely understand why there are laws against minors viewing it. However, I wouldn't take the leap and claim that a little boy's morals are corrupted by viewing what is essentially a natural act; I say "essentially", because porn is very often a completely unaccurate portrayal of what sex is really like.
This brings up another point in the video game debate in Congress; sexuality.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said, "What kind of First Amendment would permit the governement to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman - bound, gagged, tortured, and killed - is also topless?"
While that makes sense, Justice Antonin Scalia had said this: "Our cases make clear that obscenity covers only depictions of sexual conduct, and we have previously rejected attempts to shoehorn violence into that category."
Justice Scalia's point reiterates something true about American culture: violence has never been seen as obscene, while even the hint of sexuality in media can cause controversy. We can go back to silent films where cowboys killed scores of badguys, and never has there been any protest that these films incite violence in movie-goers. In fact, toy guns and even BB guns (which actually can be dangerous) were hot items for young children. Which is worse: having a child act out shooting someone with a gun (a realistic possibility) or have a child play a game simulating decapitation (a crime so rare, it is unrealistic a child will ever do this)? On the other hand, premarital sex is quite a realistic thing that most parents don't want their kids coming anywhere near; thus, sex in media is so much more widely demonized.
So where is the line drawn, then?
I don't know. What I do know, is that you can't draw the line based on insulting beliefs about the intelligence of the average child. Honestly, the amount of non-videogame violence in media is astounding; thinking that playing a game--with what is essentially the same level of violence you'd find in an R-rated horror flick--will "harm" or "corrupt" the average child, is just loudacris.
I'm one of just untold millions of chldren who've played ultra-violent games, who grew up to continue playing games with even more graphic and more realistic violence, while living a completely normal and well-adjusted life. Keep this in mind the next time you think a child is too dumb to tell the difference between fantasy and real life.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Religion
I was once a hardcore fundamentalist Christian. I thought that homosexuality was wrong, women should submit to their husbands...all of that. Naturally, I wasn't one of those nutcases who picket outside of abortion clinics shouting that they were all going to hell. I just believed every word of the Bible. But then, it stopped.
It started out with my church; I saw lots of hpyocrisy, and people who just didn't care what the Bible said, when it got down to what they wanted. After that, I started looking at other churches, and pretty much saw the same thing. It was long before I started looking at Christianity as a whole; the final stop was when I looked at the Bible itself...I mean really looked at it.
What you have to first realize, is that the decision to become a Christian isn't the least bit an intellectual decision. People criticize Christians for believing in something so absurd, like deserving death for sin from the moment you're born. But the decision isn't made after a process of weighing pros and cons, then looking at the evidence and logical backing for Christianity; the decision is made through a combination of guilt, emotional plowing, and fear. For me, the "fear" came as kid, mostly in the form of my parents forcing me to wake up insanely early to be bored for two hours, then blasting Christian radio as loud as they could, instead of letting me watch cartoons.
Whenever I attended an evangelistic event that my held, the services always followed the same pattern:
1) A song and dance intro, much like a the beginning of a normal church service.
2) Testimonials from former sinners
3) A highly emotional song, skit, play or video presentation, mournfully urging the sinners in the audience to turn from their ways.
4) Just as the song, video or whatever ends, the pastor walks out with a somber face, and gives a gripping sermon on Jesus dying for us.
5) The event ends with a call to the alter from the pastor, with some appropriately emotional music softly playing as he speaks.
None of these evangelistic meetings ever include any logical discussion as to why Christianity was they way. Of course, logic wouldn't work. However, in the last few years, there's been an attempt to incorporate "logic" into evangelism, like though creationism and ID. For reasons most people already know, the "logic" in them fails miserably. But there's been another kind of "logical" aproach to evangelism, being made popular by these guys:
Ray Comfort (left) and Kirk Cameron. Their form of logic usually include a series of questions asked to sinner, which are supposed to lead to the conclusion that they need to become Christians. For example:
Kirk Cameron: Are you a bad person?
Sinner: No, I think I'm pretty decent.
Kirk: Have you ever stolen something?
Sinner: Yes, as a kid.
Kirk: So what does that make you?
Sinner: Human?
Kirk: And what are humans who steal called?
Sinner: I guess in your eyes, a thief.
Kirk: Well in the cop's eyes, you'd be thief.
And I'm sure you can see the point; a series of well-framed questions, to which turning to Jesus Christ is supposed to be the only logical answer. Kirk Cameron (Or Ray Comfort) usually rap up their questions with this gem:
Kirk: So yes or no, have you ever stolen something?
Sinner: Yes.
Kirk: Have you ever lied?
Sinner: Yes.
Kirk: Ever had lustful thoughts?
Sinner: Yes.
Kirk: Jesus said lusting in your heart is adultery. Ever used God's name in vain?
Sinner: Yes.
Kirk: So by your own admission...you're a lying, adulterous, blasphemous thief.
It's at this point that we usually see the sinner blown away by Kirk's magnificent logic. Of course, we have to assume God is real for this line of logic to work, which is why this line of "logic" fails from the get-go. Admittedly, I was once caught up in Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort's "Way Of The Master" series, which features this method of evangelism. But a little honesty (painful as it was at the time for me) let me see Christianity and all religions for what they are: shams to control masses of people.
Even as I type this blog, there are still twinges of guilt deep-down somewhere. Christains reading this might call it the piercing of the Holy Spirit on my conscience; however, it's more likely due to the years of unrelenting fear and indoctrination, drilled into me since I was a small child. All I can say is, I'm glad finally free and saved and loosed from my religious shackles.
It started out with my church; I saw lots of hpyocrisy, and people who just didn't care what the Bible said, when it got down to what they wanted. After that, I started looking at other churches, and pretty much saw the same thing. It was long before I started looking at Christianity as a whole; the final stop was when I looked at the Bible itself...I mean really looked at it.
What you have to first realize, is that the decision to become a Christian isn't the least bit an intellectual decision. People criticize Christians for believing in something so absurd, like deserving death for sin from the moment you're born. But the decision isn't made after a process of weighing pros and cons, then looking at the evidence and logical backing for Christianity; the decision is made through a combination of guilt, emotional plowing, and fear. For me, the "fear" came as kid, mostly in the form of my parents forcing me to wake up insanely early to be bored for two hours, then blasting Christian radio as loud as they could, instead of letting me watch cartoons.
Whenever I attended an evangelistic event that my held, the services always followed the same pattern:
1) A song and dance intro, much like a the beginning of a normal church service.
2) Testimonials from former sinners
3) A highly emotional song, skit, play or video presentation, mournfully urging the sinners in the audience to turn from their ways.
4) Just as the song, video or whatever ends, the pastor walks out with a somber face, and gives a gripping sermon on Jesus dying for us.
5) The event ends with a call to the alter from the pastor, with some appropriately emotional music softly playing as he speaks.
None of these evangelistic meetings ever include any logical discussion as to why Christianity was they way. Of course, logic wouldn't work. However, in the last few years, there's been an attempt to incorporate "logic" into evangelism, like though creationism and ID. For reasons most people already know, the "logic" in them fails miserably. But there's been another kind of "logical" aproach to evangelism, being made popular by these guys:
Ray Comfort (left) and Kirk Cameron. Their form of logic usually include a series of questions asked to sinner, which are supposed to lead to the conclusion that they need to become Christians. For example:
Kirk Cameron: Are you a bad person?
Sinner: No, I think I'm pretty decent.
Kirk: Have you ever stolen something?
Sinner: Yes, as a kid.
Kirk: So what does that make you?
Sinner: Human?
Kirk: And what are humans who steal called?
Sinner: I guess in your eyes, a thief.
Kirk: Well in the cop's eyes, you'd be thief.
And I'm sure you can see the point; a series of well-framed questions, to which turning to Jesus Christ is supposed to be the only logical answer. Kirk Cameron (Or Ray Comfort) usually rap up their questions with this gem:
Kirk: So yes or no, have you ever stolen something?
Sinner: Yes.
Kirk: Have you ever lied?
Sinner: Yes.
Kirk: Ever had lustful thoughts?
Sinner: Yes.
Kirk: Jesus said lusting in your heart is adultery. Ever used God's name in vain?
Sinner: Yes.
Kirk: So by your own admission...you're a lying, adulterous, blasphemous thief.
It's at this point that we usually see the sinner blown away by Kirk's magnificent logic. Of course, we have to assume God is real for this line of logic to work, which is why this line of "logic" fails from the get-go. Admittedly, I was once caught up in Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort's "Way Of The Master" series, which features this method of evangelism. But a little honesty (painful as it was at the time for me) let me see Christianity and all religions for what they are: shams to control masses of people.
Even as I type this blog, there are still twinges of guilt deep-down somewhere. Christains reading this might call it the piercing of the Holy Spirit on my conscience; however, it's more likely due to the years of unrelenting fear and indoctrination, drilled into me since I was a small child. All I can say is, I'm glad finally free and saved and loosed from my religious shackles.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Every Last One Of Us Are Sexist
Culture plays a large part in our being sexist; but sexism is also deeply entrenched in every last one of us. The reason? Millions of years of evolution. And what drives evolution? Sex. The drive to have sex is what fuels natural seletion. Every single solitary sexist thing in us comes from this fact.
Q) Why is it cool for men to sleep around, but women are "whores" if they do the same?
A) Evolution.
While males in our species have a past of trying to impregnate as many females as possible so that his genes will live on for as long as possible, it's almost the opposite for the females in our ancestry. Females have a history of being much more selective, choosing the best possible males available to them.
Q) Why aren't there more male daycare workers?
A) Evolution.
While the males were out hunting, competing with each other, fighting in wars, building cities, etc., females had to watch the offspring out of necessity. The evolved female biology also played a major role in females being the primary care-takers of offspring; breasts were the only source of nutrition for offspring, and the mothers had to be with their young at all time to feed them, if they got hungry. So logically, the job of raising young became theirs.
Q) Why wouldn't most people ever hire a male nanny or babysitter?
A) Evolution.
The male drive for sex is so high, it has lead many males do unpeakable things with chilren. Couple that with the testosterone males have evolved (which makes them more agressive), and the potential for physical harm is even higher. No matter how much feminists chant they should be allowed to do anything men can't, everyone, no matter how feminist, is unappologetically sexist in this area.
Male babysitters: don't dare apply.
Q) Why does almost everyone prefer a female masseuse?
A) Evolution.
Being the main care-takers of children, females have evolved a natural ability to be better at healing, and better at taking care of the sick. The generally lower sex drive (compared to the average male) also makes females less creepy when they touch you. Both men and women generally agree, they would NOT want a male masseuse.
Every single sexist thing about us stems from a long, deep-routed evolutionary history. Why is not such a big deal if a woman slaps a man as it would be the other way around? Evolution. Why do women a slap on the wrist for sex with a minor, compared to men? Evolution. Why are women expected to look beautiful at all times (often going to extremely uncomfortable or dangerous lenghts do so), while men can be much sloppier? Evolution. Why is okay for women to shriek at spiders and mice, and okay for them to cry and sob in public, but men must be hardcore at all times? Evolution.
Men are bigger, stronger, scarier creatures with sometimes dangerously high sex-drives. Males have a history where they were forced to fight to become the alpha male in order to ensure their genes would pass on. Women are smaller, weaker, cry more, and are more beautiful. As such, there are double-standards for each, some having pros and cons.
Conclusion? Sexism in of its self isn't bad; in fact, in can be beneficial. Too much "open-mindedness" or "equality" can lead to disaster in some cases (like male babysitters). The line comes when there's absolutely no justification for the sexism (like paying women lower wages for the same job, or not letting them hold public office).
I'm sexist. If I ever have kids, she won't get to stay out as late as my son. Sorry. But honestly, it's so much safer, and so much better that way.
Q) Why is it cool for men to sleep around, but women are "whores" if they do the same?
A) Evolution.
While males in our species have a past of trying to impregnate as many females as possible so that his genes will live on for as long as possible, it's almost the opposite for the females in our ancestry. Females have a history of being much more selective, choosing the best possible males available to them.
Q) Why aren't there more male daycare workers?
A) Evolution.
While the males were out hunting, competing with each other, fighting in wars, building cities, etc., females had to watch the offspring out of necessity. The evolved female biology also played a major role in females being the primary care-takers of offspring; breasts were the only source of nutrition for offspring, and the mothers had to be with their young at all time to feed them, if they got hungry. So logically, the job of raising young became theirs.
Q) Why wouldn't most people ever hire a male nanny or babysitter?
A) Evolution.
The male drive for sex is so high, it has lead many males do unpeakable things with chilren. Couple that with the testosterone males have evolved (which makes them more agressive), and the potential for physical harm is even higher. No matter how much feminists chant they should be allowed to do anything men can't, everyone, no matter how feminist, is unappologetically sexist in this area.
Male babysitters: don't dare apply.
Q) Why does almost everyone prefer a female masseuse?
A) Evolution.
Being the main care-takers of children, females have evolved a natural ability to be better at healing, and better at taking care of the sick. The generally lower sex drive (compared to the average male) also makes females less creepy when they touch you. Both men and women generally agree, they would NOT want a male masseuse.
Every single sexist thing about us stems from a long, deep-routed evolutionary history. Why is not such a big deal if a woman slaps a man as it would be the other way around? Evolution. Why do women a slap on the wrist for sex with a minor, compared to men? Evolution. Why are women expected to look beautiful at all times (often going to extremely uncomfortable or dangerous lenghts do so), while men can be much sloppier? Evolution. Why is okay for women to shriek at spiders and mice, and okay for them to cry and sob in public, but men must be hardcore at all times? Evolution.
Men are bigger, stronger, scarier creatures with sometimes dangerously high sex-drives. Males have a history where they were forced to fight to become the alpha male in order to ensure their genes would pass on. Women are smaller, weaker, cry more, and are more beautiful. As such, there are double-standards for each, some having pros and cons.
Conclusion? Sexism in of its self isn't bad; in fact, in can be beneficial. Too much "open-mindedness" or "equality" can lead to disaster in some cases (like male babysitters). The line comes when there's absolutely no justification for the sexism (like paying women lower wages for the same job, or not letting them hold public office).
I'm sexist. If I ever have kids, she won't get to stay out as late as my son. Sorry. But honestly, it's so much safer, and so much better that way.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Breast Milk
So I'm reading a book called "Five Perfectly Good Reasons To Punch A Dolphin In The Mouth". Hysterical. But there's one part of the book that bothered me: the part where it refered to selling (human) breast milk as "disgusting".
Are you kidding me? What two things are better? A nice full boob and mouthful of nutritious milk.
It boggles my mind that there are people who think the idea of selling human breast milk is disgusting. Frankly, I'm shocked that people haven't jumped on this idea ages ago. Why on earth aren't there chain stores offering a nice plump boob to thirsty patrons? I mean, aside from the health risks if the woman is a smoker, druggie, or carrier of syphilus.
First, let's get the obvious out of the way: One comes from a huge disgusting bovine, and one comes from a woman. In short, do you want your milk coming from:
a)
Or
b)
To me, option "A" is the clear choice. Also, since we've become a health-crazed society, why wouldn't you want breast milk sold in grocery stores everywhere? Breast milk has antibodies, as well as much more easily digested protein than cows milk. Furthermore, you can be sure that humans aren't being pumped full of growth hormones and raised in unghastly and highly unsanitary factories like cows are. Not yet, anyway.
The sooner we get breast milk and All-You-Can-Suckle buffets available everywhere, the healthier and happier society will be.
Are you kidding me? What two things are better? A nice full boob and mouthful of nutritious milk.
It boggles my mind that there are people who think the idea of selling human breast milk is disgusting. Frankly, I'm shocked that people haven't jumped on this idea ages ago. Why on earth aren't there chain stores offering a nice plump boob to thirsty patrons? I mean, aside from the health risks if the woman is a smoker, druggie, or carrier of syphilus.
First, let's get the obvious out of the way: One comes from a huge disgusting bovine, and one comes from a woman. In short, do you want your milk coming from:
a)
Or
b)
To me, option "A" is the clear choice. Also, since we've become a health-crazed society, why wouldn't you want breast milk sold in grocery stores everywhere? Breast milk has antibodies, as well as much more easily digested protein than cows milk. Furthermore, you can be sure that humans aren't being pumped full of growth hormones and raised in unghastly and highly unsanitary factories like cows are. Not yet, anyway.
The sooner we get breast milk and All-You-Can-Suckle buffets available everywhere, the healthier and happier society will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)