no posts till Thursday

I'll be in Santa Clara till Thursday night, no posts till then.

Utah is Purgatory on Earth

So I have this friend Alan. Alan is currently working for the summer at the University of Utah in their math department. A pretty sweet gig on paper, he does make money from it. Anyway, Alan keeps a blog, you should maybe visit it sometime at http://www.livejournal.com/users/mrpants41/. If you do, I challenge you to count the number of times he has used the words "bored" or "boring" in the spance of his dialogues over the past weeks since he's been there. I believe you will be staggered. I have yet to do this myself, and I doubt I will, but I would venture that that number is astronomical. So, yeah, it sounds like Utah is really the place to be these days, just the most exciting place on Earth. Well, you're earning your money, Alan, that's all I can say (and we'll have those beverages ready for you when you get back, don't worry:).

So the election results are in and it looks like a Liberal minority government. The only Canadian politics that I can remember are the Chretien years. I liked Chretien, he was a non-offensive, intelligent guy who wasn't afraid to pop you one in the nose if you got in his space. Did he accomplish a lot in his time in office? I'd venture more No than Yes on that account, but he was an upstanding politician at least (while in office, anyway, I really have no idea about all this sponsorship stuff). I've always liked Canadian politics for the personability of it all. In America, the title of "President" has been lifted so high that it leaves no room for the people involved with government to laugh at themselves. I long for the days when I could watch Royal Canadian Air Farce or This Hour Has 22 Minutes and actually have a good chance to see a high ranking Canadian politician on the show making fun of themselves. You wouldn't see that down here. You get people pretending to be them, sure, but that's always so far removed from the person themself that whoever they're making fun of would never appear on the same show. Things are just so much more laid back back home, seems like. Or maybe it's just a "grass is greener" thing. I mean, I was never very political back home, college has made me that way, so maybe if I was back home I'd be finding just as many things to bitch about. I dunno, could be.

Canada votes: I'm lazy

Canadian elections are today for the next federal government. Unfortunately for me, I only went so far as to download and print the form to send in and get a ballot, I never actually sent it out and by the time I realized it it was already 3 days to election day. Sorry to Paul and any others who were hoping I would help to keep the Conservative babykillers (Paul's words) out of office. I had no idea that the race was so close. It's too bad that it's come down to a two-party race, it'd be nice if the NDP could have had a say but, as it is this way, I'm afraid an NDP vote may be a wasted one. Wouldn't it be interesting and cool to see an NDP government though? I wouldn't mind that at all and I would vote for them in a second if they had a chance. Yeah, this sounds like a flip-flop from my post a few weeks ago where I was condemning people for not understanding that keeping the bastards out of office was the goal, but I've been thinking it over a little and have come to realize that I can't let my preoccupation with American politics sully my view of Canadian politics. Canada is not supposed to be a two-party system. Even with the first-past-the-post form, Canada is still a country where multiple parties have a say and where more than 2 parties should be able to have good chances at being elected. It's a sad day when Canadian politics degrade into American politics and this election sounds like just such a sad occasion. The American system really is bullshit for the most part, to the point where it's degraded to an incredibly Rightist and evil party and a Rightist and slightly less evil party and a ridiculous offshoot of a party that doesn't seem to want to shut up and realize that they don't mean anything (damn Nader, he's such a moron). "Democracy" in America has become nothing more than another corporate catch phrase and tool of propoganda. People don't have a choice anymore and so we're left with people we "would rather have" in office rather than people we WANT in office ("we" being a very encompassingly general term, I don't plan on calling myself American anytime soon). Anyway, sorry again for my laziness on this account, especially since my vote would have been an Albertan one, where I would venture Harper has a strong following. I just hope that the young people of Alberta go out and vote their hearts and at least give him a good fight.

Disclaimer

This is just a disclaimer to all my avid readers out there.

Now, I'm not about to censor anyone who reads and comments on my blog. You can write whatever the hell you want about my posts. At the same time, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not writing under the auspice of entertaining anyone. This is a journal of my thoughts and opinions and I write them as they come up and I give little to no thought as to whether or not people are going to find them entertaining. So, while you're free to critisize the topics I choose to post about, I don't see what goal you have by doing so. Not only will it do nothing to change how I post, but I don't even know what you find interesting anyway, I'm not psychic, so I couldn't post those things you would definitely find interesting if I wanted to. Not to mention the fact that what you find interesting or boring could very well differ greatly from what others find interesting or boring. Please don't assume that you're the be-all, end-all authority on what is and is not an interesting topic to talk about. In this space, that authority is me. If you come here expecting to find something interesting everytime and you're angered at the author when you don't, then I think you have the wrong impression of what blogging is all about. Nor should you expect to see perfect grammar and spelling in each post. I'm not writing school essays here, I'm throwing out ideas off the top of my head for the most part, it's not like I write drafts for every post. Hell, you'd be lucky if I even looked over my posts more than once. Ideally, I'd like people to comment about the actual CONTENT of the post rather than about whether or not they think the topic sucks or not. You can go ahead and do that if you want, just keep in mind that you're screaming in outer space when you do. The most you'll ever accomplish is to get a disclaimer post like this one. But, like I said, far be it for me to censor anyone, I find censorship to be one of the most unreasonable actions anyone can take. Oh, by that same token, I'm not going to censor my language here either. If you're uncomfortable with a little vulgarity, I suggest you lighten up a little and enter the real world. Shit, if I'm not going to censor you, God knows I'm not going to censor myself. Anyway, you can keep this in mind or not, it doesn't matter, I just thought I should clarify what blogging is about for those of you who may have been confused.

My calves hurt

Well, they do. That calf machine is the Devil. I don't mean that metaphorically, it's actually the physical manifestation of Satan in the form of gym equipment, it's quite scary.

So, with all this gym-going, I've been on a constant search for appropriate workout music. So far I've been cycling the same two CDs and it's getting pretty old after 3 weeks. One of them is a party mix that I made over Christmas when I threw that party back in Edmonton and the other is an old Rap mix I made a few years back. The problem is, mixes are the only way I've ever really managed to get appropriately upbeat and 'rocking' music. All of the 'normal' cds I have are either too slow or don't have the right beats. The closest cd I have is Greenday's "Nimrod" and that's not all that great, I've tried it out before. I've found a few that are okay for slow-rhythm exercises like brisk walking on the treadmill or whatever, but I don't have anything that fits the fast-paced or powerweight stuff. My stuff is mostly composed of soft-rock or ballady stuff - BNL, Sarah Harmer, etc... Nelly Furtado's "Folklore" has some great selections, but it inevitably comes to a slow song that just doesn't work. But I've ripped the cd, so if I do put together a workout mix, at least some of the songs will be on it. I also tried my "Avenue Q" soundtrack and it really didn't work. I guess you're not meant to work out to showtunes. I've found rap to be the best music overall which I guess makes sense given the harsh, rhythmic beats. I actually have the perfect song on MP3 to put on a workout disk, but I need other songs to go with it. The song is "Thug Love" by Tupac and Bones, Thugs 'N Harmony. Its rhythm is kept with a SHOTGUN. A SHOTGUN for God's sake! Now that's something I can work out to! Problem is with all this, I don't like downloading music from Kazaa anymore. Those damn fake files mean that I have to download everything 2 or 3 times before I get a real copy, plus I have to listen to each one and hope I don't get that damn scratching noise on the fake ones. But there's no way I'm going out to buy a bunch of rap that I don't actually like. I guess if I'm going to do it I'll just have to bite the bullet and download it, but that'll take a while. I'm guessing my overwhelming laziness will mean that I'll be using the same two cds for the rest of the summer. It'd be nicer if I had company more often when I went so I wouldn't have to rely on music, but that's becoming less and less frequent.

What's your name again?

Yeah, so I got caught up in a video game last night was way too tired to post once I decided to go to bed. Anyway, here I am now with a new post for all of you who were just aching for my opinion.

So here's a topic that I've discussed with people for the past year or so. I started thinking sometime last year about how often people use the excuse of "I'm so bad with names" when they don't remember you or when they're being introduced to you. I concluded that I never liked the expression not just because it's incredibly overused but, really, I just don't buy the argument at all. I can't accept that people have some sort of selective memory when it comes to names. Now, I should make it clear that I don't think it's a crime to not remember someone's name, I just don't think a person should find it necessary to create this false pretense of an excuse in order to protect themselves from the ire of the person they forgot. You could not remember a person's name for a number of reasons - perhaps it was only a fleeting encounter at some party, perhaps you just never really paid that much attention to them - but it's not because your brain has some sort of internal malfunction whereby names are simply thrown out. You don't remember a name for the same reason that you don't remember anything else, it's nothing special. By the same token, I don't believe that anyone should be offended in any way if someone forgets their name. I don't care if you spent a lot of time with them and if, during that time, they heard your name mentioned constantly, you shouldn't expect them to automatically remember it. There are a plethora of reason why they might not remember your name and not one of them merits taking offense from. Do you really think that by fogetting your name they're trying to spite you? If someone really had such an agenda to get you, something tells me they'd know your name VERY well and that they'd be able to find someway to spite you better than pretending to forget your name, that's a pretty lame diss. So, if you forget someone's name, don't use such a tired and unrealistic excuse as "Oh, I'm just so bad with names". Just tell the truth - "I don't happen to remember your name because in whatever context we previously met, I apparently didn't see it as prudent to memorize it." You might not want to be as long-winded as that, but it's better than coming off as some shallow rat who needs to find any excuse possible to avoid a shortcoming. When you use that phrase it sounds like you're seeking pity or something - "Oh, look at me, my mind is so fragile that it can't hold onto these complicated words associated with people". That's bullshit.

People also tend to combine the "I'm bad with names" excuse with some sort of redeeming statement like "Oh, but I never forget a face". What the hell is that supposed to mean and how in the world does it serve to redeem you? So you'll remember a face but you won't remember a name, well you're just pretty much useless, aren't you? It's like the person is trying to convince you that all that name-remembering energy has just been transferred to the face-remembering part of their brain. That, too, is bullshit. You remember a face better because it's easier to recall an image than it is a name, particularly a unique image like a face (this is all conjecture, mind you, I haven't studied psychology or anything, but I'm wagering that it's true). This doesn't make you special nor does it "redeem" for the fact that you don't remember the name. Ultimately, what we have to learn is that you don't need redeeming just because you don't remember someone's name, nor do you need to make up excuses for it. And then there's those people who actually announce their terrible mental condition when you introduce yourself. "Oh, nice to meet you Mr. Forgettable, but I'm just going to forget your name later, I'm so terrible with names". I mean, they're not even TRYING when they do that. Next time someone tries to do that, maybe try screaming your name in their ear a few dozen times, I bet they'll remember it after that.

Ok, a few closing comments (although I've already had a few in the course of this rant). I forget a lot of things, names being one of them. If I get introduced to you, unless we have some sort of meaningful conversation I'll probably forget your name. But that isn't a special case. If you mention that you feed your cat three times a day, I'll probably forget that too for the same reason that I might forget your name. Sure, I might recognize your face if I see you again and have a "That person looks familiar" moment, but that doesn't mean that I'm some guru of face-recognition. It means that I make closer associations to images than I do to sounds. People just have to lighten up about it and realize that the fact that someone forgot your name isn't some sort of cruel insult and thus you should not take offense nor find it necessary to use bullshit excuses to try and come off as a better person.

too tired

Real post later today. Too tired right now...

Do I just attract rude people?

So John and I are doing sets on the crunch machine and there's this middle-aged lady at the machine next to it. John starts his last set (he went first) and she finishes on that machine. So, immediately, she stands and waits for the crunch machine we're on. Now, I don't know if she knew that I still had a set left, probably not, but the minute John finishes and I move towards the machine she butts in and says "It's my turn". She wasn't asking to work in with us, she just said "It's my turn" and that ended our work on that machine. I guess a more forthright person (ie, not a pussy) would have stood up for himself and asserted that, indeed, it was NOT her turn because I still had a set left, but, alas, I'm not that kind of person. So I sheepishly allowed her on the machine and we moved on. Believe you me though, the minute she was out of earshot, she got some MAD bad-mouthing. Oh yeah, she got it good. What bugs me too is that we weren't even one set into our next exercise when we saw her walk by and leave the gym. She couldn't have done more than 1 or 2 sets, and for that she acts like a bitch and interrupts my workout. Well, I calculate that there's a very good chance that she reads my blog (it's a very complicated calculation, you wouldn't understand), so, to you, lady, I say, don't be a bitch at the gym or, better yet, don't be a bitch at all, that'd work out even more. I mean, the workout was fine after that, and it was actually one of the better leg/ab workouts we've had to date, but, still, that left a bad taste in my mouth. I mean, when did being considerate of others become such a waste of time for some people? They should realize that, no matter how good it makes them feel, they've alienated someone, and that just doesn't seem like a good idea. Who knows who that person is or what impact they may have upon them. Sure, chances are they won't, but why go out of their way to alienate them when they could befriend them? Anyway, I guess it's just a bunch of moralizing. It just comes down to "Don't be a dickhead to others."

So it looks like the housing situation may be finally coming to a conclusion this week. The cheques will all be in by tomorrow and so after that all that is left is to move in and for Timmy and I to get paid back for the money we fronted for those people who were unavailable to pay their share when it was due. We've even designated the rooms. Looks like I might be getting a single next year. It's interesting. I was open about my ambivalence about whether I shared a room or not and somehow I ended up with a single. Maybe people just don't like to room with me. Do I smell? Yeah, I probably do, but no more than anyone else around here. Maybe it's that dead goat I insist be kept in the closet. Nah, that can't be it, I mean, who doesn't want a dead goat with their underwear? Nobody, that's who. So , yeah, we move in in early July when everyone should be back in town. Hopefully that all goes smoothly.

You know, they say...

Ok here's a topic that I've thought about before, it came up today and started me thinking about it again, so I decided to post about it. It's the good old "They say..." statements. If you claim you don't use them, well, you know they say that people in denial get warts on their genitals. Of course, the immediate question that comes up is "Who are THEY?" Truth be told, "they" could be anyone. It could be the person's doctor, their friends, something they heard ON Friends, their husband and/or wife, a coworker, an article in a magazine, something their cousin heard from their friend who heard it from their uncle who heard it while eavesdropping on his son who likes to make shit up in hopes that someone will overhear and spread it around. It could be ANYONE. People may argue that they only say it if they know that their source of information is reputable but I believe this isn't the case, at least not the primary part of it. I've seen this behavior A LOT, believe me. From myself and from others. You live on a college campus where probably 80% of the people think that they're more informed than you are, and you'll hear it. And that's just it, the people think that they know more than you and they want to show it. THAT'S the motivating factor behind making these statements, to show that you have something to contribute to the topic to give the impression to others that you know your shit. Here's the order of things:

1)Someone makes a statement within earshot of you.
2)Your brain, saturated with information, begins to root through all the crap you've heard for something related to this topic in order to woo the person who made the statement.
3)Your brain comes across that article you read on that webpage you can't remember the name of but that suggested something related to the topic.
4)You immediately state this fuzzily remembered information as FACT in the form of a "They say..." statement.
5)You feel proud of yourself.
6)The person immediately begins to question your source for this information and they begin to root for any fuzzily remembered information of their own to refute your statement.
7)The conversation ends with both of you thinking of each other as confrontational snobs and wannabe know-it-alls.

Now, I can live with this for the most part. As long as people make their statements in a "They say..." or perhaps "I hear..." format, they're acknowledging the fact that this information came from some source that the listener is free to scrutinize. Better yet, and this is what I try to do whenever I catch myself using one, they could follow up the statement with a "But, you know, that's just THEY saying stuff, who knows if it's true, it's just what I hear..." type of statement. This actually increases my respect for the person, because it allows for me to feel endeared that they are offering information in order to help me out in some form, while acknowledging that the information may be false and that their source might be untrustworthy. That's really quite considerate of them. On the other hand, and this is what happened today, they could also leave out the "They say" altogether and simply assert the information as absolute, unquestionable fact. I really can't stand that. Unless you're making some math statement or something that may be immediately confirmed by the other person, you can NEVER make statements that you expect to be accepted as fact, you must always leave room for the possibility that the information may be incorrect and this must be factored into the way you structure your statement. John and I were at the gym today and we ran into Robert, one of the guys from the dorms last year. Robert's a cool guy, he's been in most of my Rhetoric classes and he's an eloquent and professional orator and writer. But he's also exceedingly assertive with his statements, to the point where he falls into this trap all the time (and I think knowingly). He started giving us work-out tips, telling us how long we should do this, how many sets we should do of that etc... At one point, John mentioned something he had heard that was somewhat contradictory and Robert simply responded "Well, I know I'm right." When you make statements like that, you're not going to convince me. I don't care how sure you are of your information, the fact is that you got that information from somewhere. Maybe it was from a really well-built friend of yours who works out all the time, maybe it was from some work-out handbook or website. Really, I don't care, what matters is that the statement has no right to be made as fact because it isn't. Now, it may well be true that making statements in the form of facts is more convincing and that, as a Rhetoric major, I should be rooting for this kind of dialogue as I am studying the art of argumentation. Well, in a situation where you're required to convince someone of something, then fine, go ahead and lie. If you're a lawyer in a court room I'd venture to guess that you wouldn't win many cases if you went around following up your statements with "But, you know, I could be talking out of my ass right now". But I'm talking about casual conversation where you have no impetus to try and manipulate the other people. In such circumstances you have the responsibility to be considerate of them and to be aware of your own possible shortcomings when it comes to the information you give. I don't care if you think it's inefficient or less effective, the "FACT" is that , for me, it's more effective, and it increases my trust for the speaker much more than a blind assertion because it suggests that this person is careful with their information and doesn't just accept it the minute they read or hear it. You see, right there, that last sentence, that's the only kind of 'fact' one can give to this kind of information, 'fact' that relates to one's own personal experience. Don't go forcing your personal experiences on others, just because it affects you a certain way doesn't mean that it'll affect them in the same way. If you think it will, stay away from me, 'cause I won't hesitate to punch you in the face if I hear you throwing around "facts" to everyone around you. Now, what the hell can we do about this? Well, you know, they say...um, I'll just shut up now, I think.

Screw quality, just give me a bucket-full!

So I got up at the ungodly hour of 8AM today in order that I could be driven to a much flaunted sushi buffet at UC Davis. Now do keep in mind that 8AM is a good 5 hours earlier than my standard wake-up time the past few weeks, so that was a great amount of effort exerted on my part. I've been to only one real sushi buffet and that's Todai, around my mom's place. I love that restaurant. This place was touted as better quality and cheaper. I'll definitely agree on the latter point, it was a good 9 bucks cheaper than Todai, and, for all I know, its quality may well have been higher. But this experience has made me think that I may not have very discerning taste buds when it comes to sushi. Obviously if the rice they use is crap or the fish they use is old, I'll know the difference, but I couldn't tell the difference between the sushi at this place and the sushi at Todai. Overall, insofar as Todai also has other kinds of food in addition to the sushi, as well as dessert options, I kind of prefer it to this new place. But I get the impression that this place is much more for a lunch and Todai is much more for a dinner, so, for what they are (and this place WAS a good deal cheaper, again suggesting that it's a lunch place) they're both quite good. I guess getting up so early is good for me since I'm quite tired now and it's only 11 at night. I need to start working my schedule back into something reasonable with my 10AM class looming in a few weeks.

I feel I might have to apologize for that joke posting. It sounded so much funnier when I first put it up. But I'm sticking by it and leaving it up, maybe someone'll find it funny.

So I've been really trying to cut back on any credit card usage in the past few weeks. The last week or so of class was a definite period of high to outrageous spending and so I want my balance to be nice and low before I start using it on a consistent basis again. So far I think the only thing I've used it for was to buy some groceries and to pay for my ticket to Harry Potter. So, so far, so good.

Oh, speaking of movies, I saw The Terminal on Friday. Not bad, I don't think it was worth the nine bucks I paid to see it, but, still, a pretty nice light-hearted affair, if somewhat inconsistent. A great performance by Catherine Zeta-Jones and a brave, detailed portrayal from Tom Hanks. Although I found it difficult to get past his efforts at protraying his foreign status and see the true depth of the character. I'm sure the depth was there, but I was just too distracted to see it. The next theatre movies on my list are Farenheit 9/11 and Spider-Man 2. Hopefully that will satisfy me over the summer and I won't have to spend money on any others. At least I can't think of any others that I'm all that excited to see.

Joke

There was once a great piano player who would always play his concerts while balancing on the front two legs of his piano bench. After one such concert, the player gave a media interview and a reporter raised his hand and stood up.

"Have you always played while balancing on the front two legs of your bench?"

To which the player responded,

"Why, yes, ever since I was a small child I've been musically inclined."

Sigh, another one bites the dust

Okay, here we go with another political post. This one's really just a posting at how disappointed I am with Senator John McCain of Arizona.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5240396/

I really thought this guy had it going on. I saw him as a great beacon of hope at the idea of tearing away all the party-line bullshit and getting to the truth of the matter and the injustice of this administration's behavior. But this endorsement of Bush disheartens me. It may be another situation in which I was too influenced by how he was protrayed in the media. True, whenever he was on TV, it was in the middle of giving a well-delivered and logical speech on the failings of this administration. But, no doubt, there was another side to him. When all is said and done, he is still a Republican even if the media chooses to protray him as something else, and from this endorsement we see that he's just as susceptible to partisan bullying as anyone else. The reality of politics is a reality of money and influence over the elite few. I had hoped that McCain was a man who was trying to, if not change, at least act in a way so that this wasn't true for him. But, in endorsing Bush, he sends the message that this is exactly how he sees politics, it's just that he goes about it differently, he masks it behind a calm and non-partisan demeanor, thus deceiving us all. I'm not going to flat-out say that this is true of him, I'm just saying that this is the message he conveys by doing this. I still hold out hope that the McCain I saw on TV is the true McCain, but I'm becoming more and more disillusioned with the whole thing. It feels so weird, being so caught up in American politics when my own country is having a critical election in just a few weeks and I have yet to send off my ballot to vote in it. I guess it depends where you are and how much exposure you get to whichever politics are prelevent in that area. My being in the US means that I hear nothing about Canadian politics unless I actively seek it out while American politics are simply thrust into my lap and I'm forced to react.

The search for maturation

So I'm hopefully going to be in this play next year. A production of "Proof", I've probably mentioned this before. Anyway, so I've been thinking about how I'm going to play the character. Our director told us not to think of these things during the summer 'cause he wants us all to be working on it from scratch next semester, but I can't help it having now read the script. So this character's an older guy, like sixties or so, which is going to be a challenge. I've played older characters before, but it feels like I'm really going to have to try and bring out the age in him while at the same time not making it a caricature. The other times I've played an older character it was either A)not really necessary to bring it out since it wasn't something that was extremely pertinent to the story as the other charcters were all around the same age too or B)in a high school production where it wasn't expected of me even if it was called for in the script. "Company" last semester is a good example of the "A" situation there. My character was definitely older than me, probably 30s if not 40s. But within the context of the script it wasn't all that necessary to make that clear since all the other characters were around that age and the story was more about the experiences they had together. Since there was a more or less uniform age, the age became less of a factor. It's an important aspect of any character, of course, but it wasn't a big focus in this particular play. "Homework for Men" in high school is the example I'm thinking of for the "B" situation. Here's a play (a one-act, and a good one) where age is important since it tells the story of two generations of father-son relationships. But this was a high school production. We did a good job for a high school level production, one of the best one-acts in a while, I'd say, but not a lot of depth of characterization was expected of us. So while age was important, I wasn't expected to really focus on portraying it, which I didn't. "Proof" is another animal though. The age is important since I play a father again and since all the other characters are younger than I am, and this time it will definitely be expected that I show it. When I go out I'm trying to observe others as much as I can without being creepy, but it's tough. I'm hopeful that our director will have some guidance, but I get the feeling that a lot of this is going to have to be done on my own. The thing is with these things, you want to THINK of general states of behavior and action which LEAD to specific actions, not the other way around. But you can't be mired in thought either, you need those specific actions, you just need them to be inspired by an overall state of mind. That's a difficult thing I find in acting. You want specifics, but you don't want to be thinking of them while acting, because then they become overt and forced and unconvincing. So, yeah, I guess I'll keep working on it, I have a lot of time, maybe some trickle of inspiration will peek its head sometime in the next few months. We can only hope.

A forgotten movie and downloading

So I forgot to include a movie that I saw in that last post. I didn't see it during the weekend so I guess it didn't really fit with the theme of the post, but it is new, so I thought I'd include it here. The movie? The Chronicles of Riddick.

A few disclaimers about how I came to see this movie. First, I was not interested in seeing it at all, I'm not the biggest Vin Diesel fan considering I haven't seen any of his other movies. But my roommates wanted to see it (not the greatest taste in movies sometimes, these guys) and one of them had some gift certificates to the theatre so he offered to pay for it. So I saw this movie for free and that is a big incentive to make me see any movie. For example, I have seen the following movies: Not Another Teen Movie, Dude Where's My Car, and Sixth Day. Why did I see these undeniably bad movies? My sister was working at the theatre and so I got into see them all for free. So, yeah, while I did see the movie by my own choice, it was because I didn't have to pay for it.

So, what of the movie itself? "Meh" is the most appropriate word I can find for it. It wasn't that bad, but by no means was it good either. There were some time discontinuities, some lacklustre fight scenes between the, for the most part, good-quality ones, and some odd casting choices, but it was better than I expected insofar as I expected VERY little. Diesel was good, I have to say. The role didn't call for good acting, which will always work for the guy. It called for a guy who looks good kicking the crap out of other people, and he does it well. I'm sure it doesn't hurt that this was the second time he's played the character so in those moments where he did actually have to act a little, he seemed to be very comfortable with the character. Colm Feore's your typical evil villain guy. I don't know why, but he seems to play a lot of villains (except for Trudeau, of course), but he was the bad guy in Sum of All Fears and in this Stephen King made for TV thing I saw recently called The Storm of the Century. He's pretty good at it, but I'd rather see him in another Trudeau-like role. I gotta say that Judi Dench sticks out a little in the movie though. I mean, we have this big action movie where you don't expect to recognize the actors except for the lead and then you have Judi Dench just kind of there. Her character really isn't all that important and just seems to float in and out (pardon the pun for anyone who has seen the movie). So, yeah, it's kind of a situation where the movie might actually have benefitted from having a lower key actress in that role, as it would have kept more of the attention on Diesel, where the attention should be. Production value was high for the most part and, as mentioned, the majority of the fight scenes were quite entertaining. It's always fun to see that "bad-ass" character done well, and Diesel does it well. Story was forgettable and not told all that logically, but it provided a decent enough background to all the action. In the end, the movie did kind of make me want to see Pitch Black, its predecessor and it feels like that's a good enough sign that it succeeded in rousing some interest.

Okay, that's enough with the movies for the week. Here's another topic that I've been thinking about. Remember maybe last year when the whole MP3/industry fight was going on? Well, I haven't heard too much about it recently. But it got me thinking about how little I actually download music anymore. I'll get a song every once in a while but it seems like a combination of those fake files the industry puts up (which makes me download a song at least 3 times before I get a real one) and a maturing of myself seems to have made me much less likely to download a cd as much as buy a CD. I can't say exactly where, but I find that I'd rather buy a CD nowadays, especially for those artists that I'd like to support. I suspect that it's greatly because I'm not such a bitch to pop music anymore like I was in my high school days. I remember some of the popcrap that was on my hard drive in high school and I cringe. I would seriously download every song that came out with a video. These were in the days of easy downloading with a cable connection, so it was all gravy. But, seriously, Britney Spears, boy bands, they were all there, and yet I really didn't like their music. I suppose it had a lot to do with the novelty of the technology at the time and some indirect peer pressure. I mean, no one knew whether you downloaded music or not, so it's not like they could directly judge you, but you would get the impression that everyone else was doing it, so you'd do it too. Most of my music in the past two years, though, has come from Amazon or maybe ripping other people's CDs. I had a short binge at the used CD places in Berkeley, which are really cheap, but that didn't last and probably won't happen again until more Canadian friends come down and find it as heavenly as Shima did. But I wonder if it's an age thing too, whether my sensibilities regarding music downloading have matured. I'm definitely not for giving the industry more money, they don't need it and they don't give nearly enough of it to their young artists who toil it out for no money and oppressive contracts while those few top acts get all the benefits. I simply can't stand the corporate aspect of the industry, so my current lack of downloading has nothing to do with wanting to give more money to RCA or whatever. But, if that's not it, then I really don't know what it is. Maybe it really does just boil down to the fact that it's harder to do it, I dunno.

movies, Movies, MOVIES!!!!

Well, this weekend turned out a bit differently than I thought it would. The only plan that I had was to see Harry Potter 3 and, in the end, I ended up seeing 2 other movies as well and going to see the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. Let's start with the movies.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban may just be the most liked installment of the series if the people I know are any indication. My sister loves it, my friend Tina in Dallas loves it, as well as others. Personally, I prefer the 4th one but the third definitely holds either the 2nd or 3rd spot on the 'favorite Potter' chart for me. The movie itself is certainly the best of the three to this point in my books. The look was more mature, darker, but sharper, more clean and engaging. Above all, the acting was leaps and bounds above the other movies in terms of the three main characters Harry, Hermione and Ron. I feel that Daniel Radcliffe has been performing admirably as Harry throughout each of the movies but in this one, due in no small part to the fact that he's gone through the unavoidable processes of puberty, we're almost introduced to a new Harry, one that we don't have to see as a kid anymore, one that is greatly more identifiable with an older audience. Rupert Grint as Ron was okay in the first two movies, but I found that he had maybe one or two states at any one time, either shocked/scared (most of the time) or peeved at someone (some of the time). Thus the performances were stale and two-dimentional. I can't say that this movie provided a lot of instances where this mold was broken out of, but it did provide a few. His interaction with Hermione and her constant appearance/disappearance provides an example where he was forced to add depth to his performance and, for the most part, he did. Finally, there's Hermione. I have to say that I was not impressed with Emma Watson's performance in either of the first two movies. It just felt exactly like it was - that she hadn't had any training as an actor and didn't have the inborn chops to cut it without the training as she was being forced to do. I don't know whether it's her own maturing or whether she has been learning from the previous two movies and perhaps acting classes in between, but her performance here was much more rounded, convincing, and natural, and that was a blast to see. It's obvious that she has the potential to make it but, up until this movie, I had been convinced that she didn't have the acting talent to take it to that level even with this great opportunity she had been given to get her foot in the door (I mean, Christ, they freaking launched her THROUGH the door with this role). It's great to see that she's really fallen into the role at last and is shaping it to her own faculties. Okay, moving past the acting now, the visual effects were well done. They added the darkness mentioned before and the Dementors were particularly frightful (although I have issues with the idea that they can fly, which they can't in the book). Still though, well done all around. In terms of the story content itself, it was solid and held together. Some reviewers have remarked that the climax in the Shrieking Shack seemed too abrupt, but if you read the book, that really is how it happens. Perhaps it's a case of the transition to film losing something from the book, but since I was expecting it, it really didn't jar me all that much. They did leave out some points of exposition that I felt could have been added quite easily and seem rather important. My sister mentioned in her blog that they didn't explain the names on the Marauder's Map. I noticed this too and they definitely make a big deal out of it in the book, so it's odd that they didn't include it in the movie especially since it has to do with characters that will be around for many movies to come. The omission that I noticed the most, though, was that they included Professor Trelawny's vision but they didn't include the part where Harry talks about this vision with Dumbledore. This not only leaves out one of my favorite moments in the book (when Dumbledore says that it's the second prediction she's gotten right so he should offer her a raise), but what if Rowling decides to bring in Trelawny again? They didn't give us an impetus to pay any attention to her. If they had included this point of exposition, it would have forced us to remember her and think about it if ever another prediction was made. Overall though, a great, fun movie to see and quite a decent adaptation of the book.

Okay, wow, lots to say about that one. This one'll be shorter as I really just have less to say about it. Right after Harry Potter I came back to find that my roommates had rented The Last Samurai and were waiting for me to get back to watch it. We had all already seen the movie, but not in a while, so we watched it again. Like I said, I really don't have all that much to say about it. It's a fun romp for what it's worth and Cruise does a good job, particularly when he's asked to relive the horrible moments of his character's life. I was truly convinced that his character had found peace with the samurai. Ken Watanabe really steals the show as the samurai leader Katsumoto both in terms of screen presence and dialogue. However, I found a lot of hokey dialogue throughout the movie, as was to be expected to a certain extent. Maybe it's just that when characters go on diatribes about honor and death in battle I'm too reminded of bad Klingon speeches from Star Trek. Nevertheless, the glorification of the samurai code of honor just seemed a big forced. Production value on the movie was great though. The battle sequences were intense and potent and they provided a lot of likeable characters who you really did feel bad to see die. Anyway, a good movie overall if not a great one.

Okay last one which I just finished watching about an hour ago. I can't say how many people have been shocked when I've announced this startling truth to them before: "No, I've never seen Fight Club." So, my roommate (well, building-mate really, but he's joining us in the house next year) decided to do something about it and rented it. Now, given my experience with others, I was afraid that my expectations were a bit too high. Seriously, everyone I've met who has seen this movie have listed it as one of their favortie movies of all time. Now, after watching it I have to say that, although I might have to think it over a little, it may be one of mine as well. I gotta say that it's an excellent movie, a great psychological analysis and just a damn good time to boot. I've respected Brad Pitt as an actor for quite some time. At first I thought of him as just a pretty boy getting rich off his face and body, but after seeing more of his work (particularly Se7en and Twelve Monkeys), I became convinced that this is a great actor who just happens to have a great face and body. Fight Club reinforced this belief greatly. The charisma that he exudes is enthralling and to see him work off of Edward Norton (who also delivers a stellar performance, I could literally TASTE the feelings he had) was a thing to marvel. I can almost relate Fight Club to the first two movies I've been talking about. Insofar as it's a movie that just has a great dark feel and crispness, it's not unlike Harry Potter 3 and so far as one of its main charcters is a good looking yet also very talented actor, it's similar to Last Samurai (Cruise is great as well, I guess that's why these guys have risen to the top of the pile of pretty-boys in Hollywood). I just had a great time with this movie and yet I was intellectually stimulated as well. The characters were all likeable in their own despicatble ways and I found that to be engrossing.

Phew, so there ya go, some movie reviews from Arthur if you're at all interested.

Other than that, as I mentioned, I went to see the SF Symphony Orchestra. I gotta say that the most fun I got out of it was that I felt really classy being there. I was all like "Oh, yeah, look at me, I'm watching a symphony, I'm all cultured and shit." The music was quite nice, but I don't think I have the ears to enjoy it as others do. I want a story with my performances or else it just seems like it isn't really going anywhere. But it was worth going, particularly since the ticket was free (a friend had an extra one and invited me at the last minute). So, yeah, if there's anything you need to know about me, it's that I'm all cultured and shit.

The glory of giving up

So, remember me talking about reading for that "Novel to Film" class I signed up for? Well, as of about 20 minutes ago, I've dropped the class, so I no longer have reason to read. Kind of funny, actually. I got an email from my director for this play we're planning on putting up next year (the play is "Proof", it was on Broadway, won a few Tonys, I think, like anyone cares). Anyway, he emailed to ask the cast to send him their schedules so he could plot out rehearsal times. So, in responding to him, I was forced to, for the first time, look at what my schedule would look like next semester if I signed up for the classes I was planning to take. And it was scary. Not that I'm taking a lot of classes, the overall hours for the week were fine, it's just that 90% of those hours were on Tuesdays and Thursdays which meant that on those days I would be in class from 8 in the morning till 3:30 STRAIGHT, no breaks whatsoever AND THEN I'd still have the "novel to film" screenings from 5-7. So that'd be class from 8AM-7PM with a one and a half hour break between. That's completely unmanageable, especially twice a week. So I dropped the Novel to Film and signed up for "Rhetoric of Drama" which I hear is also good and it being on Mon, Wed, Fri made it a no-brainer. So my schedule definitely looks more manageable now. The majority of the hours are still on Tuesday and Thursday, but taking out that one class helped a lot. But, yeah, that means I don't have to read these books anymore, I wonder if I still should. I'd rather read something I'm more interested in. When's the next Harry Potter coming out?

So this is yet another weekend where I thought I might be going back to my mom's place, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. At this rate the next time I see her my hair will have grown enough that she'll still be nagging me to get it cut.

I've been keeping up with the gym quite well. I think I've gone everyday for the past 4 or 5 days, which I hope to keep up as much as I can while I'm still in Berkeley. My class shouldn't get in the way. It should actually help in that it'll ensure that I'm always in town, and at least in walking distance from the gym, although when we move into our house we'll be substantially further away compared to the apartment we're in now. I think I may have lost a pound or two so far, but the scale I'm using is hella old, so who knows. I don't see any visible difference and that's all I'm really concerned about to this point so I'll keep at it until I do.

Elections galore!

So, it's kind of funny. I'm here in Berkeley, one of the most politically active campuses in the country and, as a result, I've been entrenched in American politics for the past two years. It's been all about Bush, war, Bush sucks (because he does), now Reagan (who also apparently sucked) dead, etc... I tell people who ask what politics are like in Canada that they're less dramatic and heated than in the states. In my direct experience, this is what I have found, but looking at a lot of the articles over this upcoming election, it seems like Canadian politics is heating up just a much as its American counterpart. I suspect the fact that Canada is so tied to the States which are embroiled in the war has something to do with it. Our country has some big decisions to make concerning in what direction to go. On the one hand, the US has been acting so arrogantly and, frankly, immorally, that Canada simply cannot go along with US policy with a clear conscience. On the other hand, the US keeps Canada afloat as a trading partner, so it's a tough spot to be in and thus it makes sense that the politics back home are getting so serious. So Paul is adament that I find a way to vote. I don't know if I'll really help your cause. If I were to vote (which I am trying to do), chances are it'll be for the Liberals who, from what I've read, have been promising a lot of money they don't have. Voting NDP feels like voting for Nader down here, it's not going to help to keep the Right at bay. The goal is to keep the Conservatives out (which Harper seems to be doing a good job of on his own), and so I'll vote down the middle as always, even if the Liberals are moving to the right a little. When are the elections anyway?

Really though, my focus, even though I cannot participate directly, has been on American politics which are quite a bit more pressing on a global scale. I still hear about people who plan to vote Nader and it makes me furious. They don't understand that the goal is to get that power-hungry megalomaniac out of the White House. Arianna Huffington, a political pundit and former Republican put it well when she said that when a house is on fire, your goal should be to put out the fire, not remodel the house. We need to get a Democrat in there just to get the Republicans out. Then we can start on reshaping things when we don't have a complete maniac and idiot at the head of things. All those Nader voters need to get on board or they threaten to throw away the chance to save this country.

Strange summer sleep

So I went to the gym with one of my roommates today. He says that we should go in the morning so that it won't be so crowded. Sounds like a good idea, it's like I did last year. Problem is, I went to bed at 4AM last night and got up somewhere around 1PM today. That means that my sleeping schedule's gonna need to undergo a big overhaul if I'm to be in the gym and ready by 10AM as is being proposed. I'll give it a try, maybe try and get to bed sometime soon, I just hope I don't end up lying there not doing anything, I hate it when that happens.

I confirmed some bad news last night too as I searched the web for Techtv news. See, one of the reasons I wanted to come to Berkeley and, in particular, to pursue broadcasting was that I thought I might one day work, or at least intern, at Techtv, my favorite channel from the summers I'd come down and visit mom during break. Well, I've been following the financial woes of Techtv for some time, they've been in trouble for at least 2 or 3 years. But, somehow, they managed to stay afloat and by the time I got into Berkeley, they were still there, still based in San Francisco, so I thought my chances were still good. Well, recently, Techtv merged with the LA based video game channel G4 to form G4Techtv. My hope was that they would just work together and that both bases of operation would remain in their respective cities. Unfortunately, that was not to be. I sent in an application for an internship to the station; the hiring manager emailed back that there weren't any positions available in San Francisco. When Techtv was alone, there definitely were internship positions, so I emailed back and asked if these positions still existed and whether they might open up in the fall or something. She emailed back saying that, since the merger, none of these positions would be available or they would be moved to LA. I thought that this just meant that they eliminated internships from San Francisco, but after searching last night I found that ALL operations in SF were terminated, quite a few production people lost their jobs, it's really pretty sad. Any of the shows that they're keeping are moving to LA. Yeah, so this sucks now, 'cause I really don't have a "goal" job, I have to just try and find something in the local broadcasting schtick. Sigh, definitely not cool.

So with all this gym-going recently, it got me thinking about how, in today's modern world with all of its conveniences, if one were only to expend that amount of energy required for survival, they would be incredibly unhealthy and fat. Thus, in order to maintain health, we actually have to waste a lot of energy. Going to the gym is just a giant session where you waste as much energy as you can. You lift things for no purpose, you jog in the same place, you might even row something that isn't even in water! I really don't know how I feel about that. My first instinct is that it seems so silly to spend energy for no productive benefit. But, then again, the benefit is health, of course, but the idea that you're running NOWHERE. And even if you run outside (like all those 'non-gym' snobs claim they enjoy so much more), the fact is that you're still running for the sake of running. You're not hunting, you're not running from some attacker, you're just running to someplace and running back, it's just as much a waste as running on a treadmill in a gym. It's one of the prices of modernity and it definitely leaves more time for thought and other work, I guess. I mean, I'd imagine that if we had to go out and hunt down our meals we'd have less time to do our taxes. But is it an unfortunate fact that basic survival today means that you'll end up overweight and unhealthy? I dunno. Convenience is an odd thing that way, we all want it and yet all that energy we save up from having it we just use uselessly in exercise if we want to stay healthy.

A Bitterly Torn Sports Post

Ok, I'm really not sure how I've felt about the NHL finals overall. I wanted a Canadian team to win, that was my priority. But when the only chance for that became Calgary, I was really torn. Is it treason to say that I was rooting for them? I dunno. Isn't Iginla from Edmonton anyway? But, yeah, I gotta say that I forced myself to look past local rivalries in exchange for the chance that the Cup could return to Canada. But, I guess that wasn't to be. Calgary had their chance in game 6, they really could have won it, but they dropped the ball. I didn't watch game 7, I really can't stand to have that much tension in a hockey game. The feeling if they lose is just so painful. The feeling when they win is awesome, of course, but I can get some of that feeling even if I read about it later. I don't get nearly as much pain when I read about a loss than actually watching it. I think the only game with that much tension that I sat through was Canada vs. USA in the Olympics in 2002. I was ecstatic with joy when we pounded their asses into the ground, but I know that I would have been heartbroken for a good week if we had lost. This game definitely didn't hold that much tension comparatively, but it would still have been nerve-wracking to have watched it and then painful to watch them lose. This kind of reminds me of the 1998 Winter Olympics when Canada screwed up in the qualifier for the gold medal game and then just fell apart and didn't even win the Bronze. Game 6 was like that game for the Flames and then they just didn't have the heart left in them to play Game 7. So, overall, I'm not too forlorn about this. Next year is going to overshadow everything that happened this season anyway. With the lockout looming heavily, people aren't really going to remember that Tampa Bay won the Cup this year, so maybe that's some solice. Still though, it would have been nice to have seen the Cup in the hands of a Canadian team. When are the Ontario teams going to step it up in the playoffs, eh? They are the most funded teams in the country, at least Toronto is, and Ottawa plays so well in the season, why can't they get the drive to make it in the post-season? I WANT THE CUP BACK IN CANADA GOD-DAMMIT, GET OUT THERE AND MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow, Reagan really was a prick

I'm being pushed further and further to judge this guy without living under his presidency the more I read about him. Biased views aside, facts are facts, and if these are the facts, then he's one of the biggest pricks I've heard of to date.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/jorit/39474.html

Edmonton return and stuff

So I've spent today doing a lot of nothing and a bit of something. The something consists mainly of planning a return visit to Edmonton sometime in August between when Session D ends (I'm planning on taking "International Media") and the semester begins. Right now that looks like the 15th through the 22nd. Hopefully that'll all work out and my friends up there won't be too busy to spend some quality time with the guy they miss O so much, because I know they do, I'm the heart of the city, really, and how long can a city survive without its heart?

Yeah, so I've officially given up on finding an internship. I'm going to try and apply myself to it more vehemently next year. Then again, that's what I said at the beginning of this year...but...well...you know...shut up. This means that I've decided to take summer school. I really hope the class doesn't suck. The summer class last year was really cool, but that was lower div mass comm and with a really cool prof who doesn't teach here anymore, so I really don't know what to expect from this. Apparently the final project is a research paper, that's rarely fun.

So the time before the beginning of the class is going to be spent doing very little. I'm trying to make it to the gym as often as possible. It feels kind of good to go on a consistent basis, like last summer. It's gonna be harder once we move into the house since it's pretty far away from the RSF, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it, I guess. Right now my plan is just to stay on course with what I've been doing and hopefully it will yield some positive results come the end of summer.

OO, I'm going to wear my "Republicans for Voldemort" t-shirt to the gym today. Hope I dont' get beat up. Maybe I'll attract some favorable attention.

Okay, I might update later tonight but my brain I think is still laying on the couch right now, I gotta go wake it up.

So Reagan's dead...uh...that's kinda cool, I guess

K, I didn't know what it was like under his presidency, I wasn't even born for most of it. But from what I've learned in my Poli Sci classes (granted I AM at Berkeley), he set the nation back a few decades in terms of foreign policy and the economy. My Mass Comm 10 professor, in his blog, has a picture of Reagan with the title "Good Riddance" and the body text of "Rot in hell, you worthless prick". I don't think he liked him, I get that impression.

For me, I doubt very much that I would have liked him since he was more right than Bush and I hate Bush so much it actually hurts my hair. So, yeah, one less Rightist jackass is okay with me...oh, and my condolences to his family and friends blah, blah, blah...

Housing stress and nudity

Well, the housing thing is still boiling and boiling. We went in for the lease signing and everything went more or less according to plan. We sent out the leases to everyone who needed to sign, but not everyone's sheets have been received back, and they need to be in by tomorrow. That's just a little nerve-wracking. But I must think happy thoughts...happy thoughts...

Other than that, there hasn't been a whole lot going on. I got a haircut at Panache, the salon on Telegraph that charges 25 bucks per cut. Definitely the priciest haircut I've ever gotten. It came recommended and, in terms of service and quality, I can't complain. But I don't think that I'll go back. I mean, they charge extra to shampoo your hair for God's sake! The hairdressers all seemed nice and you could tell that they were all quite professional and knew what they were doing, but, ultimately, it's just not worth that price. I'm sure I could find an equally classy place near my mom's house that would charge at least 5 bucks less. That's the way it goes though, I mean they're probably the best place around and they might as well be ON campus, they're so close. So I guess they can charge what they feel, but I'm afraid it has driven me away. Alas, Panache, I hardly knew ye.

Okay, here's a thing that was brought up today as I was reading a friend of mine's (Meera) travel-blog. She's going through Europe and is now in Barcelona. Anyway, she was talking about being on the beaches and all the naked people there which got me thinking about the absolutely crazy difference between America and Europe regarding sex vs. violence. In America, violence is a part of everyday entertainment. It's in every other movie to some degree, it's on 99% of the tv channels and it's just an overall given in mainstream American media. Sex, on the other hand, while definitely a PART of the media, is held to much higher scrutiny than violence. You take one step out of bounds on sex and BOOM, you have the fuckin' Superbowl backlash. Europe, from what limited experience I've had and from what I read from friends who have been there, is looser on sexual content in the media but more restrictive on violence. Now, to me, that just seems to make a lot more sense in terms of social well-being. The argument against sex seems to be one steeped in Christian undertones of sin and bullshit moralism. There is a practical aspect, sure. We don't want children having sex, that's obvious, and, indeed, we probably don't want them exposed to graphic sexuality either. But when it comes down to it, what is the more destructive message to send to a child, that sex exists and occurs out in the world or that one person can, if they really try, kill hundreds of people with cool guns and grenades? It comes down to responsible broadcasting and psychology to a certain degree. Personally, I don't believe that a child below the age of, say, 12 or 13, will really understand any sexual images they're exposed to. Violence, on the other hand, I believe will be seen, if framed as it is in American media, as 'cool' by children at a very young age, perhaps beginning at 5 or 6. I'm not saying that the child will immediately be so affected by the images so that their life will be steeped in violence, but I think the latter message is more easily understood by them due to its spectacle and lack of subtlety. I have a very loose belief in censorship and American censorship I feel is frankly outrageous concerning sex and almost irresponsible concerning violence. But what you do think? Is it more dangerous for a child to see Bruce Willis mowing down person after person with a machine gun or to see three seconds of Janet Jackson's breast? The former can be seen probably multiple times a month whenever a Die Hard movie is shown on tv whereas the latter caused the FCC to lockdown every live ceremony from then on.

Post Numero Deux

Okay, it is indeed late and I shall be going to bed shortly. But, I know that I have at least two people who have seen the site and may even visit again. One of them even left a comment! Isn't that exciting? So here I am writing another post for my obivously expanding rabid fan-base.

So the past two days have been full of scrambling to get a lease signed on a house we found for next year. Not a perfect place, but what is? Insofar as we were looking for a place that could fit 7 people, I think it's the best we could do. I would have liked it to have been a bit newer, I would have liked it to have been a bit closer to campus, but you take what you can get in circumstances like these. Problem now is that we have one roommate in Brazil who is completely unreachable, one in Utah who is very difficult to reach (though we have reached his parents, which is good), and one who has been in and out of the apartment and thus has been unable to come up to date with what the hell has been going on. So, yeah, not the greatest of situations to be in, but we have a lease signing meeting tomorrow which will be attended by at least two of us, if not three. Yeah, doesn't sound great when you consider that we have 7 people all together, but they say that it's enough. All the realtor people really care about is having money in on time anyway, they couldn't care less where it came from. So I'm thinking of making a deal with the mob to pay my rent in exchange for us allowing the house to be a center for their racketeering and prostituation operations. Seems like a fair trade, no?

So, given Tina's comment on the last post, I'm now thinking that I should read this summer. I had already planned to try and read at least some of the books that will be in my "Novel to Film" rhetoric class next semester, maybe I'll pick them up at the library tomorrow.

I'm also resolved to get a haircut tomorrow. A few more weeks and I'll be dangerously close to a mullet.

So that's it for now, no philosophical musings tonight, maybe some other time when my mind is not so dead from disuse.