mouse_clicked's Xanga

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Sat, 07 Oct 2006 04:29:53 GMT

Bridges

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I remember on the first day of seventh grade the school hired some dreadlocked, rastafarian-esque inspirational speaker to come and talk to us. I recall thinking it was pretty lame, but sat through it anyway. In the past few years, though, some of what he said has been coming back to me.

The centerpiece of his speech was a metaphor he had concocted likening friendships to bridges. When you become friends with someone, a bridge is jointly created between the two of you to share you experiences. When friendships are broken, the bridges just don't collapse, they have to be torn down. But each party can only tear down their half. The other party can leave their part of the bridge up.

And the point he was trying to make was that even if one of your friends tears down their half of the bridge, leave yours up. Leave open the chance to reconect the bridge. Don't hold a grudge for that. Because why should you? What's the point? How does it benefit you to go out of your way to dislike someone? I always leave that bridge up, because there's no reason to tear mine down, too. Friendships can end for some pretty stupid things, but as long as one person is willing to leave their gate open and rebuild the friendship, they never really go away.

Which goes to an even deeper point: why do some people go out of their way to dislike other people? Honestly, what do you get out of that? I know a lot of people that always complain about certain individuals, and it really gets on my nerves. Why the hatred? Why so eager to be negative? As RI once pointed out:

"my standard is why shouldnt i like a person, not why should i like them."

I can only think of one person I honestly, truly dislike. Then there are a few people I'd just rather not be around, and then there's everyone else. Most people, I've found, are really nice! They're courteous, funny, interesting, and overall good people. You can jump to conclusions about someone you've talked to a few times, but you don't really know them at all, how can you honestly say you dislike them? You'll meet a lot of new people and make a lot of new friends if you're a bit more open.

So don't tear down bridges and don't try to dislike. All it does it hurt your relationships, and that's no fun. Just having a less negative outlook will do wonders for you, and you might even find yourself in a better mood!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whoo!

Friday, September 08, 2006

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:36:05 GMT

How Important is Religion in a Relationship?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll get on those MSPaint things soon, but this idea hit me today, so I decided to not waste any time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How important do you think religion is in a relationship? I don't just mean a girlfriend or boyfriend, I mean any sort of social relationship: friendship, dating, marriage, siblings, kids, etc. To what level does it affect the relationship, and does it make a difference, and if so, how and for what kinds of relationships?

Also, I want to clarify the question in regards to offspring. I'm not asking the question as in do you feel the need to raise your child the same religion as you (although if you want to answer it that way, that's fine). What I mean is, should your child decide to pursue a different religious path than you, how does it affect your personal relationship?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good discussion, maybe?

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Thu, 07 Sep 2006 03:53:23 GMT

MSPaint Time!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm bored because you guys are rather untalkative, although I guess rants aren't terribly conducive to discussion. Don't worry, I'll think of something good soon. Until then, though. I want everyone to give me suggestions on what to make in MSPaint, animated or otherwise. I haven't screwed around with it in a while and felt the need to dive back in, but I've been hindered by my relative uncreativity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suggest!

Saturday, September 02, 2006

Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:57:41 GMT

Voting Age Restrictions

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other day I saw a guy wearing a shirt that said "Not My President" and had a picture of George W. Bush. He claimed the point of the shirt was that he resented the fact that George W. Bush could create policies that affected his life but he had no say in whether or not he was elected. Besides the fact that if he were *happy* with the results, he wouldn't be complaining despite the same injustice being present, I do understand the sentiment.

Here's the problem, though. How would you decide who gets to vote? Should every single living person in the US be able to vote? What about a 5 year old? He can't even understand why he should eat vegetables, much less understand complex political situations. Or what about babies, who physically can't vote, never mind the mental side? Surely there should be some restriction, and putting that restriction at 5 years old or 10 years old or 30 years old is just as arbitrary as putting it at 18 years old.

Okay, so now that we agree *some* restriction is required, maybe something other than age is needed. We all know age doesn't necessarily indicate intelligence or maturity. So maybe we should tailor the restriction to each person, right? I mean, if a 10 year old exhibits the same capacity for voting as a 30 year old, he should be allowed to vote, correct? I would think so.

So how are we going to gauge aptitude? A test is the only remotely plausible solution. But that poses a problem. Two, actually. First off, voting is viewed as a right, not a privilege (hence the 14th, 19th, and 26th amendments). So putting restrictions on whether or not you even *can* vote will be met with some opposition. Secondly is reality. In a perfect world, yes, a test could decide who was and was not fit to vote, and then only the truly informed would be deciding things (I guess everyone who failed the tests would just wear their own "Not My President Shirts"). But who gets to make the tests? Can you honestly trust them? The truth of the matter is, tests can be formatted to achieve any results the creator wants. If we had to take a test to vote, it would realistically do little more than lead our country into a new age of institutionalized racism, a neo-poll tax, if you will. Black people voting against you? Well, make that test so black people can't pass it and gain the "right" to vote.

Yeah, not exactly what we want. If the world weren't such a crappy place maybe we could figure out some way so everyone could vote and would know what they're voting about. But that's not the way things work. In a world of underhanded politics and thinly veiled racism, a seemingly arbitrary age restriction on voting is about the best we're gonna get. Maybe instead of idly complaining, you can go out and campaign for the candidate you *would* have voted for, perhaps convince some people who can vote to change their minds. Then when you're 18, educate yourself on all the issues (local and national) and go to the polls and vote. Make the best of the situation because that's how the world works. Sorry.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ugh

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 02:42:33 GMT

Altruism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was reading Aaron's xanga the other day and noticed a little blurb about altruism in his header and it got me thinking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think about altruism? Altruism is the concept of putting others before yourself, as in respecting their needs and desires before tending to your own.

Is it an innate human belief? Are we born believing in altruism as a method of species preservation? Is altruism really beneficial? To both parties or just one? At what point, if any, does altruism hurt your own progress? Any thoughts?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice little morality debate this week.

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 01:20:35 GMT

Secondary Education

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I expect everyone who frequents my blog to answer this.

Where will you be going to college or where are you currently going to college?
What made you decide on that school?
What degree(s) are you pursuing?
Do you have any idea what you plan on doing with that degree? (Not meant to sound accusatory, most people honestly don't know)
Do you see yourself switching majors? If so, what to, if you have an indication?
Do you plan on going to grad school if it's offered for you degree?

None of this is meant to come off as a grill, I'm just really curious as to what makes people make certain decisions. Gives me some insight into you guys.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

?

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Sat, 24 Jun 2006 21:33:26 GMT

A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, i'm back from Disney World. But more about that later. Now are answers. First, though, I'd like to thank 3 people, Nathan, Bryson, and Joe. I'd like to thank all 3 of them for helping me plan out the trip to the T and execute it flawlessly (even though Joe unfortunately did not get to go with us). It never would have come together without your help.You guys are fucking awesome.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris:

Q: Are people inherently good, or inherently evil?
A: Neither because I think both good and evil are entirely relative. I think people are shaped by their society and the people around them, and that determines whether or not they develop into what we consider good or evil.

Q: What are your views on the government of mankind, in respect to the interaction between individual, state, and company?
A: In theory, I'm all for it. I'm not one of those people who thinks anarchy is actually a better system of control, I don't think people can honestly govern themselves. Some people are leaders and some people need to be led: there's no problem with either group, it's just how people work. In practice, we could use some improvement, but I think it's a good sign that most of the world has adopted a system of government with heavy participation from their citizens.

Q: If faced with the prospect of being sent to a desert island with no possible hope of return or of other sort of rescue, what one item would you bring with you and why?
A: Well, if I still had it, I'd say my blanket from when I was a little kid. I lost that at a hotel in Oklahoma City a loooong time ago, though. Now I'd have to say this stuffed Paddington bear I've had since I was 2.

Q: Are intentions more important than consequences? Why?
A: Important, yes, but not necessarily more important. You can mean well in any situation but still do things that have very devestating consequences that can't be just brushed aside because it's not what you intended. However, intentions are important and hopefully give you a clue that your execution of those intentions needs some work next time if things went awry.

Q: What is your favorite period of history? Why?
A: I've always been fascinated by ancient civilizations of all sorts. I'm not entirely sure why, I think it's because I like seeing how society and civilization and culture have changed over the years.

Q: Your favorite game, also why?
A: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. It's so breathtaking, even today, and has about as epic a storyline as a game can have while still preserving the sense that it's you calling the shots. It's also just so incredibly satisfying: every puzzle you complete, every enemy you kill, every boss you beat makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Only other Zelda games and Ico have given me that same feeling.

Q: Choose an organ or limb to give up.
A: Assuming I was going to die, I've probably give up my liver, just because I think it'd be interesting to see how your body handles without it. It'd be a slow, painful death, but never boring!

Q: What would the coolest combination of two super heroes be?
A: A bit of a bias here, but probably Batman and The Flash (specifically Wally West). I think it'd be great seeing their personalities clash.

Sarah:

Q: What's the greatest thing you've learned throughout your years in high school?
A: Everything you think is so important really isn't. Problem is, you can tell yourself that all you want but it's really hard to actually believe.

Nathan:

Q:What single person had the greatest influence on your life? What did they do? How did it change you?
A: Without question my sister, Sarah. I'm sure most of you who know me already know that, though. It'd be really difficult to delve into exactly how she's influenced me, so you'll just have to be content with this.

Shawn:

Q: If you could live anywhere where would you?
A: Southern California, between Los Angeles and San Diego.

Q: What's your favorite movie?
A: Lord of the Rings, but I'm biased. Without the bias, probably Narc.

Q: MAC or PC?
A: PC for games, Mac for most everything else.

Q: Linux or Unix?
A: Heh, as if I knew anything about either. Uhhh... Unix for servers, but Linux for its flexibility?

Q: Favorite Web Site?
A: Probably IMDB- it's just so damn useful.

Q: Do you think you could ever kill someone?
A: I've thought about it before, and I really don't think I could. Maybe if I were in a matter of life or death and acted on instinct, but otherwise no.

Q: What are your thuoghts on Blu-Ray discs
A: Just a fancy DVD- same for the HD-DVD. I mean, it's cool we can fit more stuff on a disc, but Sony and Toshiba are really just pushing the current technology to the limits. DVDs are a completely different media than VHS, which is why I supported that switched, but this is just more of the same. I'd rather wait until we have some brand new technology before we have another format war (those holograph discs are looking cool).

Q: If you could take back one event in your life, what would it be?
A: Writing you that letter. I don't think anything good came out of it for me, at least not anything that I could've gotten anyway.

Andrew:

Q: What is the meaning of life?
A: To make babies, so you better get crackin'.

Shanny:

Q: Do you think you'll ever decide to pick a religion?
A: Honestly, I don't know. From my perspective now, probably not, but I can't rule out the possibility. It may happen somewhere down the line and surprise everyone, most of all me. If so, it'll be interesting to see which religion I choose...

Nathan:

Q: What would be the single greatest combat between two superheros?
A: That fight between Superman and Captain Marvel in Kingdom Come I think might fit the bill. I can't think of any fight that would be better. I know what you'd say, but I loved the pure test of strength and skill between Superman and Captain Marvel.

Joe:

Q: Are you proud of who you are?
A: Yes, and not because I'm exactly who I want to be, but because I'm always working towards it.

Q: Do you have any regrets? If so, what?
A: Refer to my response to Shawn's last question. Other than that, I don't think I have any major regrets. I might not be thinking hard enough, though.

Q: In college, what do you plan to do differently than in high school?
A: Make real cartoons. No more of this animated GIF stuff, it's driving me nuts. I've got a million ideas floating around my head and no way to express them.

Q: Do you think that moving to Lawrence will truly cure your boredom, or will something other than a change of atmosphere be necessary?
A: A change of attitude can always cure boredom, no matter where you are. But that change is usually one to apathy, and I don't like that. I think Lawrence will be more exciting, but I don't think the move itself will do it, no- I think the people will be the main factor.

Q: Would you ever change yourself for someone else?
A: No.

Q: If you had a sex change operation, would you be into dudes, or would you go lesbo-gay?
A: That's a hard question to answer... I'm into chicks now, so I'd have to go with the latter option, but I can't see myself having a sex change operation unless I was suddenly into dudes.

Zach:

Q: If you could do anything in life, completely neglecting financial restrictions, and assuming you could do anything required (bringing friends with you, etc), what would you do and why?
A: Go into space. I'd like nothing more than to go into space.

Q: Now, considering your financial situation, what would make you happiest?
A: Being with the people I like.

Cassie: I only had a little bit of time and I had to tell Brandon that I found Full Speed Ahead! I would've called him but didn't want it to be a long distance call.

Amy:

Q: What do you think of me? haha.
A: You have the greatest sense of humor of anyone I've ever met. I'll never again encounter someone that is as completely random with their comedy as you, and that makes me kind of sad. I'm really glad you're going to KU, too.

Sarah:

Q: what was the best ride/attraction on your trip??
A: Best Attraction: Fantasmic at Disney-MGM Studios.
Best Ride: Expedition Everest at Animal Kingdom.

And no, I did not get to hug Mickey, unfortunately, all the character lines were incredibly long. =(

OK, I think that about covers everyone. Hope you enjoyed the answers!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Moses

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Thu, 08 Jun 2006 05:14:24 GMT

Q & A

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't feel like starting a new debate before I leave on Tuesday for Orlando, so following some good advice I'll have a fun entry up this time- last time was enjoyable.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have a question you want to ask me? Anything at all? Multiple questions? Go ahead. I'll answer all the questions in the next entry, probably when I get back from my trip.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have fun!

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:26:18 GMT

New Entry Here Soon

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The entry "My Philosophy on Drugs (Mainly Alcohol)" has been protected and I will allow certain people to see and be able to comment on it as I see fit. As of now, only I can.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rampant...

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Tue, 02 May 2006 02:07:15 GMT

John Kricfalusi is an Arrogant Prick

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You may not have ever heard of John Kricfalusi, more commonly known as John K., but I know you're familiar with his work. Well, his only piece of notable work, I guess I should say: Ren and Stimpy. Based on characters he had created decades before, Ren and Stimpy premiered on Nickelodean in 1991 and, despite being *the worst cartoon ever*, raised quite the ruckus. But more importantly it inflated John K.'s ego to massive proportions.

Not too long ago Mr. Kricfalusi got a blog (http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/), and ever since has been subverting the internet to his arrogance and inflated sense of self-worth.

If you peruse back to March or so, Johnathan makes a very bold claim: he says that his production company, Spumco, is responsible for the 3 biggest business innovations in animation in the last 15 years. He hints at taking credit for many creative innovations as well, but we'll focus on the three he actually talks about.

1) First off he claims that Spumco and Ren and Stimpy were responsible for popularizing cable network cartoons. John K. is also retarded. Ren and Stimpy was one of three cartoons Nickelodean launched that same year- the other two were Doug and Rugrats, both of which were far superior to Ren and Stimpy in terms of animation, comedy, writing, directing, as well as everything else, and really came into their own once Nickelodean had fired Kricfalusi. But it wasn't Ren and Stimpy that popularized cartoons- it was only notable because of its complete overuse of nothing but gross-out humor. No, the real credit goes to Nickelodean marketing the right product the right way to the right audience at the right time. There were quality cable network cartoons before Nickelodean unleashed The Big Three, and there have been countless quality cable network cartoons since. No, it was Nickelodean that understood the market and the product and made it work. Some credit also goes to the Simpsons for reviving animation *period* after Hanna-Barbara killed it in the 80s. John K. then makes the empty claim that Ren and Stimpy was the most popular cartoon ever until Spongebob Squarepants, which he has the nerve to call a descendant of Ren and Stimpy (perhaps artistically but creatively is lightyears ahead.) I'm not entirely sure myself, but logic would seem to indicate that Rugrats was *far* more popular.

2) Second, Mr. K. says that he is responsible for bringing back the short cartoon format. He claims it was HE that told Cartoon Network to put into production Cow and Chicken (the third worst cartoon ever), Powerpuff Girls, and Dexter's Lab (the second best cartoon ever)- the latter two he would blast the art styles of in a later blog post, claiming their angular format required no talent and that his "organic" art style was far superior. But back on track, he says he pushed for the format of using storyboards rather than scripts to develop cartoons, going for a more improvised, seat-of-your-pants production as opposed to it being rigidly structured. He likens this back to the days of Looney Tunes (the best cartoon ever), which is an accurate allusion although I'm disgusted he mentions himself in the same sentence as people like Chuck Jones, Tex Avery, and Robert McKimson frequently. Now, the flaw in his argument is two-fold. First off, none of those shows were the first Cartoon Network original- that distinction belongs to Space Ghost Coast to Coast, which aired originally in 1994, predating Dexter's Lab by two years, not to mention was entirely funded by the CN staff and made in their free time. It was almost completely improvised, never had any semblance of a script, and arguably served as the format for the large majority of popular animation on television today. And secondly, the production style of those three cartoons is not significantly different from what Nickelodean had been doing at the time- there was a resurgence in the short cartoon format because quicker, easier stories could be told in such a way, making it not only easier for kids to pay attention but cheaper as well. John K.'s "suggestion" had nothing to do with it. If you want to see Mr. Kricfalusi's attempt at the short cartoon format, look into his updated Yogi Bear cartoons: they're *terrible*.

3) Finally, and this is a big one, John claims it is *he* that is responsible for the huge popularity in Flash animation now. He claims back in 1996 he got fed up with the way cable networks were doing cartoons (probably just mad that he couldn't get work due to the quality of his product), so he started working on Flash animation and supposedly guided Macromedia along in improving Flash to work better for animation before putting a good deal of cartoons on the internet. It doesn't take a genius to realize that John K. is full of shit. Flash animation didn't even get popular until several years ago, and it had nothing to do with John K., it was because A) the majority of internet users had broadband and hence were capable of viewing Flash animation online, whereas in 1996 most people still only had 28.8k or 14.4k dial-up, which meant watching cartoons online was out of the question, and B) Flash programs didn't become cheap and easy enough to use until recently- the vast majority of Flash animators are just regular guys making some cartoons in their free time, not big-time animators with their own production companies. That's the real reason Flash animation is big, because everyone and their mom can join in, and the internet was finally a fast and widespread enough community for the cartoons themselves to spread.

I really can't stand John Kricfalusi. You might have been able to glean that from this entry. I *really* can't stand him. I don't think he's a good artist. His cartoons, save one, have all been flops. His comedy is entirely based on grossing out the audience, which I wouldn't have a problem with it he'd mix it up every once in a while, at least between projects (Rocko's Modern Life used the same style but kept it varied, and with excellent results). He's just not creative in the least. But on top of all that, he thinks he's important to the industry when he's not. If John K. had never existed, I'd be a very happy many right now. I'd rather his worthless, unoriginal dribble had never disgraced television. Period.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can anyone guess what the second worst cartoon ever is?