We are the disillusioned

A Change of Seasons III: "When in doubt, move." / "Regret nothing..."

2011-02-01T23:09:00.000-08:00

"When in doubt, move.":
My life had become quite stagnant.

I'd fallen in to the same routine pretty much day in and day out, and it was starting to bother me. I felt like I was missing out while other people were getting out there and living life.

I don't know what exactly sparked it but suddenly, I wanted to be one of those people who got out there and experienced life. I realized that there were so many experiences I wasn't having because instead I was worrying about getting the next best piece of armor in WoW.

So what did I do?

I moved.

I don't mean move as in moved house, or got up and flailed my arms about, but instead I changed what I was doing. I began to make it a point to get out there and experience life. To socialize, and meet new people. To try and advance myself as a person.

Honestly, it's one of the best decisions I've made.

It's probably been about a year or so since I decided to make this change and I am so absolutely happy with my life right now. I've taken risks and failed, but that's just given me more opportunities to learn and mature. On that note...

"Regret nothing, because at one point it was exactly what you wanted.":

That quote. I can't remember when or where I read it but when I did, something resonated with me. I didn't just read and process it, I felt it. It's like it spoke with me on a whole new level altogether.

I've since adopted this as one of my personal policies, if you will. I try to make it a point not to regret anything. Not only because at one point it is what I wanted, but also because there is always good to come out of any given situation, however unfortunate the circumstances.

Take for instance, Sara's accident. October 24th, 2007. A massively life-changing event, not only for Sara but for myself, our whole family, and indeed many friends. Sara's accident placed her in hospitals for well in to a year and a half, put immense emotional, mental, and financial strain on our family, and the resulting aftermath has been the cause of a lot of turbulence in our lives.

As hugely unfortunate as this event was, there's no changing the fact that this is how all of our lives' are now; and something else, it's helped me mature immensely, which is something I needed in my life. These past three and a half years have been extremely trying, but hard times help define who you truly are. In the words of Antonio Ramos...

"...Knowing who we are, who we can be, and who we want to be all pretty much fall in line... right behind who we have to be."

Forgive me for interpreting other's words here, but for me at least it feels as if he's saying that we shine truest to our actual colors in our darkest hour. In all the times I've spent reflecting on who I am, where I've been and what I've done, I can't help but feel that all my trials and tribulations have helped shape who I am today and the morals I live my life by. All the decisions I have made in my life, regardless of outcome, have helped me better myself in some way, which is why I try to make it a point not to regret anything.

"No-oh-oh-oh-ohhh regrets, I know, this is the way it had to go..."

I met a homeless man tonight.

2010-12-26T01:46:00.000-08:00

Pretty straightforward title, should be no questions or interpretations there.

I have to say, I had never met anybody who was homeless before. I've heard people talk about it, being homeless that is, or I've read people's first and third person accounts, but I had never actually had the chance to interact with somebody who actually is homeless until tonight.

He was sitting outside of Tama-Rama's, the little shop in downtown Cotati that my friends and I usually hang out at. He asked us if anyone had a cigarette, and Eric obliged him. Eric went over and sat near him first, so I decided to follow suit.

I sat next to him and we made some smalltalk. I didn't want to ask about the obvious as I figured that would be rude, but then he mentioned that he had been homeless for five months or so and so I asked him how it happened, etc. He gave his story, cut and dry, no "pity me" act or anything. Everybody else was largely ignoring him.

I wanted to know more, but out of courtesy I decided not to pry. If he had wanted to divulge that information I'm sure he would have. Eric and Josh had left at some point while I was conversing with Clyde (the homeless man). After a few minutes of simply listening to the rain and reflecting a little bit on the whole situation, Ian suggested that we head back to his house.

I agreed, stood up and pulled the $9 I had in my wallet out, handed it to Clyde and wished him a merry Christmas. He looked grateful. I told him I wish I could have helped him more but times are tight for me as well and patted him on the shoulder before I left.

The look in his face made my year. The gratitude, even unspoken, was undeniable. No further words were spoken, and I turned my back on the man and left.

I truly do wish I could help him out more though. The man is 50 years old and sleeping on the streets. I wish I had some way that I could take him in, give him a safe, warm place to sleep and a new chance at life. I wish I had the means. Unfortunately I don't.

Hopefully he tries to find more help. I know it's out there. My faith in human generosity was more than restored after my sister's accident when people came out of the woodwork, people I had never even met, to help us pool together money or support or whatever. I hope our society lets this man back in and gives him a new start.

More than anything though, this has helped give me a new perspective on everything. Even with all the turbulence going on in my life right now, this experience, however unfortunate the means, has helped me realize just how much I have to be thankful for. I don't have to worry about my next meal. I don't have to worry about having a safe, warm place to sleep.

Hopefully my writing will help you realize how fortunate you are too. Hopefully if you ever have an experience like this, you help out in any way you can. Hopefully you make these people realize that there are still people in the world who care, and make them feel human again. I'm sure they encounter a lot of people who would rather just ignore the fact that they exist.

Who knows, maybe your random act of generosity could be just the morale boost that they need to start getting their life really turned around.

Persistent Identity and The Benefits of Anonymity.

2010-08-15T02:16:00.001-07:00

I've had this idea for a blog post for a while now, though I've never really bothered to get around to it. But the more and more I spend time on the internet, the more and more I notice it...

I am talking, of course, about this sort of constant identification that we see here on the internet. Everything needs an account. You need to have an identity. You need a nickname, a real name, a picture, something or some way for other people to identify you.

This has become especially noticeable in recent months with so many websites now linking together with digg, facebook, reddit, etc... There are a number of websites out there even that let your account be based off of your facebook account to save you having to register a new account with them.

But why? What good does this do us? I can see some desire out there to have an identity and that's fine. I'm guilty of this too -- I have a facebook account, a blog, AIM/MSN/ICQ/Y! accounts, and so forth. There are instances where I want people to know who I am and likewise, I want to know who they are; but not all the time.

The problem here, I fear, is the fact that people know that the words they say, be it blog posts, status updates, etc. come back to them. People are wary of speaking their true opinions when their identity is tied to it. I am no exception to this rule; I am often fairly reserved in my words and actions when I am posting online or when I am around people I know.

All is not lost however. There are still a few places on the internet (though even less in real life, especially legally) where anonymity is king. The effects of this are profound. Knowing there will be no repercussions, people post their truest opinions, the wildest stories and the hardest truths. With no reputation to defend, people will literally say anything.

Unfortunately, the signal to noise ratio is thrown off. With true anonymity, people often fill the space with static "noise", that is, nonsense or meaningless banter, so at first, and possibly second, glance, such places may appear to offer little in the way of honest, truthful, constructive speech.

There are rare occasions, however, where a civil discussion is had and it can be truly astonishing -- simply watching the exchange of ideas, uninhibited by this artificial existence we've created for ourselves, can be a pretty enlightening experience. Because people are completely uninhibited, there is good potential for people to be discussing ideologies and solutions to problems that wouldn't conventionally cross somebody's mind.

Think of it as the writing on bathroom walls -- often it's meaning is shallow and vulgar, but occasionally you will come along a piece that truly incites thought, be it something unconventional or simply an unfiltered, raw truth. Unfortunately graffiti, being a crime and all, is often painted over, regardless if it's vulgar and meaningless, or deep and insightful.

So I urge you, whoever and wherever you are, to explore means to discuss ideas and scenarios in a truly anonymous fashion. Exhibit your ideas publicly with fliers or graffiti, at your own risk of course, or even here on this great internet, either on a truly anonymous website or using a pseudonym.

You might surprise yourself with what you learn, not only about the nature of humankind or the broad variety of ideas that people have, but about your own nature and your own ideas, ones you had inhibited for fear of punishment. So go, go and learn, more about yourself than anything or anyone else. I promise, you won't be any worse for the wear.

The Feeble and Uneducated.

2010-01-13T01:24:00.000-08:00

I am upset. Nay; more than upset, I am downright infuriated.

Anybody who's spent more than ten or fifteen minutes discussing politics with me likely knows a few things -- I consider myself to be a Libertarian (I am, after all, legally registered as a member of the party), and as such; I believe in small government with the utmost liberty, but more importantly, responsibility, in the hands of the individual. That is what I believe, and I, for the most part, stick to it.

I understand that others' political and social views and opinions may and frequently do differ from mine, and that's something I can accept. Arguing and debating my beliefs with others who think differently is almost a sport. Largely fruitless (as people are extremely hard to sway with mere words on a page; especially when said words are in contest with personal experiences), but still a sport none the less, and one I engage in very, very frequently.

I enjoy it, however, and I also admire the adamancy of people's beliefs. The fact that people often make statements and their actions and subsequent statements is not only reassuring, but a necessity for a decent debate.

What I am building up to here is a general expression of hatred and frustration towards those who claim one thing, then almost instantaneously contradict themselves.

Case in point: Joel Stein.

Joel Stein is a writer for TIME Magazine. Joel Stein is also now known as, as far as I am concerned, the Feeble and Uneducated.

Let's work backwards. Obviously I've just called out somebody, I guess it's time to show my reasoning.

The "Uneducated" label comes from the first five words of his October 12th, 2009 column. They read as follows: "I'm all for Liberty, but[...]". Joel proceedes to prove why he is feeble, which is directly in contradiction with that statement.

Joel then goes on to write about how what America needs is a Dictator; and how Obama has practically been handed that position should he choose to take it. Though there is no denying that Obama's public and political influence is ridiculous (Joel is completely correct in mentioning that Obama could get TV Air time practically whenever he so desired; and that Democratic majority in both the Senate and House mean it would be almost criminally easy to get things pushed through if he so desired), my issue is with Joel saying that we need to essentially adopt Obama as a Dictator.

Not only does the suggestion that America adopt a Dictator enrage and infuriate me, but it's also a tremendous display of character. He's uneducated because he claims to be "all for" liberty then immediately contradicting himself (therefore using the term incorrectly), and he's feeble because he's admitted being willing to sacrifice his liberties so that a dictator could tell him and all of us what we can and can not do.

I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice my liberty so I can have the illusion of safety, nor am I willing to sacrifice my liberties so I can have a more homogenized society with more "polite" and "proper" standards.

So Joel, if you are reading this, I honestly hope that your obviously limp-wristed, hypo-allergenic, "let's let the government decide for us" nonsense hasn't sparked any other bullshit factories in to believing that a paternal authoritative leader is the best thing for America. I also hope that you soon get to experience the fact that what makes America such a wonderful place is our great liberties; preferably by way of a holiday in Cambodia.

To suggest that America adopt a system fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the ideals that we were founded on, that millions have gave their life to defend and that we rely on every day, is insane, preposterous, and downright insulting. Especially for somebody who claims so adamantly to be a believer in the very same liberties that you suggest our Government take away.

For now, however, I will leave you all with something that expresses, far more eloquently that I could, just some of what I believe, and most of what I've been ranting about here. It's a clip that is sure to be thought-provoking and hopefully touching to all but the most politically incapable (who are probably too busy smoking pot or driving their Priuses of whatever it is they do).

-Mike

Remembering Sport Compact Car.

2009-12-06T23:50:00.000-08:00

I am a geek. I openly admit this fact. Most people see me or know me as a computer geek, but I've always had a passion for something else -- cars.

I've always loved cars. My mom always tells me stories about how I would be saying car manufacturer's names since I could see out the window of our car (which was a '94 Honda Accord) on the highway. Something about them has always intrigued me.

It wasn't until around the time I was eleven or twelve that it really hit me, though. Granted, I had a fair interest in cars before that, but something happened around that time. Something that sparked a realization of my passion and hasn't stopped since.

I picked up my first volume of Sport Compact Car.

As fate would have it, I was hooked. I still have and remember the exact issue, too. "The Ultimate Lap Dance" was the main article in the issue. It was about a Time Attack event that the SCC crew had put on in southern California. I also remember the next issue, "Evo Orgy", for a few reasons. Firstly, the Evo is/was the ultimate sport compact performance car, and secondly, the fact that two issues in a row had sexual references in the main article's title. Go figure.

While I was reading about Mugen's carbon-fiber clad S2000 and people doing JDM SR20 engine swaps in to Nissan 240SXs, my peers were looking at the riced out filth they called "cars" in competitor's magazines such as Super Street (which seemed to feature more scantily-clad women than any useful information, or, for that matter, cars).

I recieved subscriptions of SCC up until the time that Primedia (the bastards) axed the magazine a year or two ago -- but the cancellation of SCC's publication hasn't done anything to stop my interest. If anything, now that I'm older and have a much better understanding of cars, I'm going back and reading through all the tech articles, admiring Dave Coleman's seemingly endless automotive knowledge and learning further, occasionally reading through articles about somebody's built-up go-fast toy and experiencing the same slack-jawed awe at some of the work that's been put in to these cars.

Now, though, my appreciation for the information within SCC's pages has only grown. I've dug through the past six years worth of magazines to hunt down ones that had especially memorable articles -- ones about things like the Targa Newfoundland, Dave Coleman's five-part suspension tuning series, and SCC's multitude of project cars. Reading through tech articles now is far more gratifying than it ever was before, considering the knowledge of cars that I have now, and how I am actually able to retain the information in a relevant way, unlike ever before.

So I guess it would be safe to say that while not responsible for my passion to begin with, Sport Compact Car is definitely responsible for how geeky I am, and, my taste in cars. I will never forget just how SCC has helped define me as a car guy over the past seven years.

Autocross.

2009-07-19T17:49:00.000-07:00

Autocross is an all-forward motion form of motorsports, often put on at publically available locations (such as airports or parking lots), and run by grassroots motorsports or car enthusiast groups.

Autocross is AWESOME.

Aside from the fact that I'm just a huge car fanatic to begin with, though, I have, what I like to believe, is a good argument as to why average Joes like you and I, should participate in autocross events. Because once you eliminate the factors of "fun", "cheap", and "exciting", there's still a very good reason to do it.

Vehicle control.

Anybody who has a license in the states knows how painfully easy it is to get one. Because of just how easy it is to get one, automobile accidents happen far too frequently, and I'm willing to bet that a lot of them could be prevented if the drivers involved had a better understanding of their vehicle's limits and how to control them.

Autocross is one such way to learn. Since it's put on by independent groups, it doesn't cost any of our taxpayer money, and it's not compulsory, either. It shouldn't be compulsory either, just highly recommended. You can't force people to do something, but I think if more people knew the benefits of Autocross, more people would partake.

The reason for writing all this is that I went Autocrossing on the 18th. Autocross is, let's face it, racing. Yes, I am saying that racing will make you a better driver.

Here's why. Knowing how hard I can push my car before it'll spin out or lock the tires means that out on the street, if there's an accident or something happening in front of me, I know better now how hard I can react and still maintain control. If I need to get somebody to the hospital or police station, I know how fast I can get there without losing control. Having better control over your vehicle makes you a better driver.

And for $30, why not? You can run anything except SUVs, Vans, and trucks (though unless you live on top of a mountain or work as a delivery driver, you shouldn't be driving one anyways), and at some events, you can even get racing instructors who can help you better find the limits of your car. Considering what good it does, it's worth the price! To be able to avoid accidents that I may have not previously been able to, $30 is a small price to pay.

So go, race your cars, become better drivers, and enjoy life!

(also, autocrossing is lots of fun)

General Motors: Hurting. Hard.

2009-05-14T09:14:00.000-07:00

With the recent economic downturn, it's not hard to see that companies are hurting. General Motors, the American carmaker, is no exception.

In fact, GM is hurting so badly that they're talking about shutting down 42% of their dealerships, down to 3,600 dealers by next year.

GM's ten year stock trends only show themselves to re-enforce tales of GM's demise -- their ten-year trend is hugely downhill. GM's stock price peaked in early 2000 at a price of $93.62, however they've dropped a whopping 98.69% since then, for a current stock price, at the time of writing this, just under $1.175.

While GM fanboys tend to blame this on the financial crisis we're in, there's evidence to the contrary... Ford's stock trends.

Up until about March this year, Ford's and GM's stock trends were very similar. But then something peculiar happened. GM tanked and Ford began to rise.

From November 17th, 2008 until today, May 14th, 2009, Ford's stocks are up 194.87% and GM's are down 61.13%.

What does all this mean? It's simple. GM is failing and Ford is not. This echoes past just stock prices, too. GM has already axed it's Pontiac, Hummer, Saab and Saturn. Ford hasn't had to cut any brands.

The evidence is there and I will continue to say it: GM is going to crash and burn.

Why Carry or Own a Gun?

2009-04-11T18:40:00.001-07:00

Why Own A Gun? A Whole Policeman is Too Heavy.:
Lets say somebody has broken into your house and is threatening your physical well-being or the physical well-being of one of your family members or other occupants of the house. Which one is more effective:

1. Pulling out a rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc
2. Calling the police and waiting for them to arrive.

I am going to wager my money on #1, every time. I do not want to have to wait for the police to come and handle the situation (in the 5-10 minutes minimum drive time it would take from the PD to my house, even going balls out, assuming no traffic), in which time myself or my family/friends could get injured/killed. I would much rather pull a gun and either repel them (call the PD afterwords), or, if need be, kill them. If somebody holds any of my family members at gunpoint and refuses to drop their weapon when told to, I will shoot them, and, while a shot to injure and not kill would be preferable, I will shoot to kill if need be. No questions asked. I can and will not let myself sit by while people endanger those close to me, and I would not want the baddie ever getting the opportunity to commit crimes again, especially when putting others lives at stake. I couldn't sleep at night afterwords if I sat by and watched or let somebody kill or injure somebody close to me. No individual or group of individuals should have control over whether somebody can live or die -- and I'm no exception to that -- but I'd much rather live with the blood on my hands than to know somebody else got away with something I could have prevented.

"Who do you call when the Police or government break the law?":
The entire reason for the second amendment is pretty simple: Allow people to defend themselves against the government. You can not rely on the government to protect you and your best interests in every situation. Government has it's flaws. Citizens need to have the power to stand up against the government when the government is wronging them. I, in no way advocate resisting police officers, but if I see police doing something blatantly inappropriate and illegal (like raping somebody, or lesser extremes), again, I am going to stand up and do something about it. Again, this idea of standing up for the greater good. I'll be less keen on the idea of harming a police officer, but it's the same thing as above. If I don't stand up for what I believe is right, I don't think I could live with myself.

"I would rather have something and not need it..."
"...than need it and not have it."

I pray that I will never have to take aim at somebody holding a family member at gunpoint. I pray that I will never have to intervene and stand up for myself or anybody else being wronged by the government or police. But as much as I don't want these things to happen, they could, and I'll be damned if I'm not prepared and I don't take action. Simple as that.

So that's why, I at least, believe in owning a gun.

A Quick Update

2009-04-07T20:07:00.001-07:00

Mostly just dropping in and saying hello. I'm currently in the process of writing up a new post, it should be up in a few days. It's regarding the second amendment, defending yourself against criminals and the government, and why you should exercise your rights.

-Mike

Obama: Not so bad after all?

2009-01-27T22:18:00.000-08:00

It's a week after the inauguration. One week. Lets keep this in mind.

I don't agree with Obama's political stance on a lot of things. He's pretty left-wing, and as a Libertarian, I disagree with a lot of it. It's my nature. The man seems as if he has good intentions, but running a country isn't about intentions, it's about actions.

I wasn't fond of him winning the election. That's not to say I wanted McCain to win -- In honesty, I would have voted for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate (guess why).

He spoke well, I have to admit. During his campaign he delivered speeches with power and emotion. He swayed the opposition with good communication skills and really drove his point home -- Change. If there is one word that people associate with President Obama, I can damn near guarantee you it'll be "Change" or some synonym.

Citibank. We're in an economic downturn. Hell, we're going to be entering a depression soon if we haven't already. The government wants to work to help keep companies afloat so that the entire economy doesn't collapse and leave us all (and I'm using this term rather than another, more crude term) screwed. Well, Citibank recieved a 45 Billion Dollar bailout.

$50 Million of that is going to a new corporate jet.

Where does President Obama tie into Citibank, then?

Well, President Obama (and/or his officials. According to the article I read, it was his officials) caught wind of this. They were pretty miffed. In fact, they even told Citibank not to. Some may cry "Government interference with businesses!", as would I (usually), but there's one little detail.

That $50 million price tag? That'd come out of the $45 Billion in bailout money. That bailout money came/is coming from taxpayers. In essence, Citibank is spending $50 Million of taxpayer dollars so they can buy a new corporate jet.

Now, it's understandable why a company would have a jet. Getting execs around on public air transit isn't really "professional". But the problem is that Citibank already has TWO corporate jets -- ones that run just fine. They're still private corporate jets, they're still (I'd imagine, being valued at $27 million each) quite nice, but Citibank still wants to buy the new $50mil jet.

Part of Citibank's defense (aside from their Aircraft broker and their execs refusing to comment) is that they had the plans to purchase this aircraft two years ago -- when they were loaded to the brim with cash. I'm calling shens. Any reasonable buyer (lets down-size this a bit) wouldn't plan on doing something when they have the money, then actually execute it years down the road when they need to be given money from other people. If I had money and was going to buy a car, I wouldn't wait until I spent that money and had to get a loan. I'd do it then. Same thing applies to Citibank in this case.

Well, Obama (or his officials, whoever, but for the sake of simplicity, lets just say Obama) succeeded. He told Citibank to fix it. Plans to purchase the jet were dumped.

Citibank - 0
Obama - 1

I may not agree with him on everything, but ensuring that taxpayer money isn't spent fueling corporate greed is a cause I can get behind. Good job, Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/27/obama-officials-tells-cit_n_161202.html

Walk Forth on the Winds of Tomorrow

2009-01-05T22:32:00.000-08:00

I don't know exactly why, but something's really been bothering me lately. I can't help but feel like I've been in Rohnert Park or this area too long. I can't really put my finger on why, but I really feel like I need to get out of here, go somewhere away from here, and every time I think about it, Northward comes to mind.

It feels almost as if my homeland is calling me to it, even. I can't go straight there (even after I have the funds and I turn 18), the temperature difference would probably wreak havoc on me as it stands (9+ years in California's climate does not play well on trying to adjust to extreme cold), but I've sworn to myself that in the next few years, I need to go back. I know having been here where I am hasn't been bad for me, but at the end of the day, this house, this town, this county and state, they don't feel like home. They feel more like a rest stop or middle-of-nowhere town that I've been in for too long.

This isn't a recent development, either. It's probably just amplified with my soon-found freedoms (I turn 18 in March, and I plan on at least moving out of this house as soon after the school year is over as I can) and increased stresses in my life -- I've always been sort of an escapist and I've always sort of felt misplaced here. It's hard to find solace, too, when under almost everything I can't forget the fact that I'm still here. Everything I do to try and make myself forget about it or trying not to care doesn't work. When all's said and done, I'm still here, far off from where I can only assume would make me truly happy.

"So I'm coming home, Back to a world left long ago, Now I know, I'm coming home, I'll find my way back, I'm coming home"

Find the Real.

2008-12-16T09:46:00.000-08:00

1. What is Postmodernism?

Postmodernism is literally "After the Modern [era]", an "intellectual and cultural phenomenon", a change in thoughts, culture, architecture, and the arts since the 1920s (arguably anywhere from 1900 to 1960 depending on the region in question)

The thoughts and philosophies that compose "postmodern thought" contrast those of "modern" thought, in so far as "modern" thought (as shown by "modern" architecture) focuses on the idea of a single great truth, a predefined "perfect" and "pure", one goal that all individuals and things must achieve. "Postmodern" thought, on the other hand, believes in the self's truth, that is, truth to the individual and not the whole. There is no set "perfect" or "pure" in postmodernism, it is for the individual to decide.

In this regard, Modernism was aggressive towards anything that didn't fit predefined ideals of what things should be, whereas Postmodernism is almost universally accepting.

2. Where do we see the Postmodern?

I can't speak for others, but I can definitely see it in my thought processes and mine and others actions, especially in politics and as previously mentioned, architecture. Architecture of Postmodernism highly contrasts Modernist architecture in so far as Modernist works are function dictated with little detail or garnish, whereas Postmodern works are allowing of garnish and arguably "useless" components that only exist for aesthetic means.

In essence, I see the Postmodern mostly in people, however there is some architecture here on SSU's campus that expresses Postmodernism.

3. Do you agree that we are in the postmodern age?

Yes. Again, I see Postmodernism in people and buildings, I agree with Nietzsche when he says "God is Dead", and other Postmodernist quotes and such feel like they apply to my world.

Wired, The Tale of Modern American Society.

2008-12-03T21:59:00.000-08:00

We are a digital society. Cellphones, Netbooks, Wifi hotspots in every coffee shop and even digital "books". There's no use trying to deny it -- Technology is everywhere, and the very fabrics of our lifestyles are woven with it's presence.

Some people live thier lives without acknowledging the inventions that so drastically dictate their actions, while others (such as myself) are very aware of just how widespread this technology is and just how much it's affected us.

For instance, I am sitting here right now at my computer, with my iPod in my pocket and my cellphone -- well actually that's 60 miles away, but usually it's in my other pocket -- while my desk is littered with CDs that contain everything from music to operating systems as well as several pairs of headphones and a digital camera.

All of the items I have serve some purpose... my iPod delivers my media wherever I am, my cellphone allows me to call people in the middle of a field if I want, my computer lets me communicate with the entire world (in fact, as I am writing this, I am talking with people on the eastern seaboard and abroad that I will never meet in person), and my camera lets me share what I see with others easily.

All of these modern inventions have lead to an interesting evolution in humans, as well. We are able to get more done, be it work or play, in any given time than before. Petabytes of information are available at our fingertips, accessed with naught more than a few keystrokes. Information that once took several minutes (at least) to a lifetime (at most) to find out is now mere milliseconds away. Milliseconds.

There's a lot of potential here.

And a lot of it goes to waste.

I feel that there's a staggering majority of people who aren't aware of what's out there -- all that information, for practically free, just waiting to be discovered. I've learned more from randomly searching wikipedia that I've remembered and has been useful than my entire public school career, perhaps with the exception of a few well delivered ideas by a very small cache of teachers.

So the real question is... Are you wired? Can you go a week without relying on computers, cellphones, TV and so forth? Have we reached the point of no return?

Paradigm Shift.

2008-12-01T22:44:00.000-08:00

Since Sara came home, a lot of stuff has changed. In "A Change of Seasons", I touched on this to the degree of how it affected my ability to play my music loudly -- something I used to take for granted -- but it's affected more than just that.

Take "home". It's largely uneventful, relaxing even, a place where people can unwind, act as they so desire and have not a care in the world.

Take a hospital. It's hugely eventful, stressful, it's a place where people get so wound up that they will snap like twigs, they have to follow strict regulations, and everything's important.

Usually the two are a world apart, and with good reason. They are almost completely polar opposites, one black to the other's white. Occassionally the two worlds collide (in the sense of the home can be hectic and the hospital can be calm, not in terms of medicine), but for the most part, they stay seperated.

Well, take those two opposites, grab your giant MetaphorBlender™, toss 'em in, and set it for "liquefy". What you get at the end is, of course, this wonderful shade of Grey that takes up no more and no less than the sum of it's parts, that is, a new shade of grey that introduces aspects of "home" and "hospital" together.

It should be noted, too, that the grey isn't one shade and all-encompassing, there is a sort of gradient to the whole thing, but in the long run, there is no clear distinction between the seperate paradigms we had before.

I guess what I am getting at is that I really wish it didn't have to be this way. Obviously I wish none of this had happened at all -- though in the long run I've benefitted some, that is, I've been tempered in the fires of fear and pain and mental anguish, something that's made me stronger -- but I am more referring to the fact that I wish those two paradigms had not combined to make the new one.

Life is so vastly different, I'm called upon more to aid in almost anything, there's people coming in and out of our house at any and all hours of the day, and there's a lingering weight, an ever-present stress associated with having somebody medically dependent in the same house, knowing that in any split second, the peace that you may have finally attained could be shattered with a hammer no smaller than Mjöllnir itself, casting every relaxed breath and movement asunder into another realm as this one falls into disarray and panic.

It's hard for me to bring myself to try and adjust myself to this new paradigm, but I've no other option right now. I spend most of my downtime escaping to World of Warcraft (bite me if you don't like it, I didn't ask you), but I'm still here, vulnerable.

Not being able to drive sucks.

For How Far We've Come, We Haven't Come Far.

2008-11-17T08:37:00.000-08:00

People are celebrating Barack Obama's presidential election win as a victory for equality in America.

They're celebrating too early, I say.

California's Proposition 8 is a wonderful example. It's clear-cut, modern and reflective of the society we live in.

For those who don't know, CA Prop 8 was the proposition that, if passed, would change the California constitution to only recognize marriage (marriage, not civil union, though the two are similar, and civil union is recognized by the state of California with almost all of the same privelidges as marriage) as a union between a man and a woman.

Well, it passed. 52.47% yes vote. In arguably the most progressive, forward-thinking and liberal state in the USA.

The battle for equal rights for all is far from over. In fact, I will say it's only just begun -- and yes, I am taking the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's in to account. Hence the title, "For How Far We've Come, We Haven't Come Far."

I wrote a blog post about a group of neo-Nazis planning to assassinate (at the time) Senator and Presidential Candidate Obama. CA Prop 8 passed and similar measures in other states have also passed.

It's obvious that discrimination still exists in America. Anybody who says otherwise is blind or nearsighted.

There's a simple solution to prop 8, which should be (in my eyes, anyways) a good step in the right direction for social egalitarianism and a smaller government (both of which I like). Don't make marriage legal, in the sense of "in the eyes of the law". For somebody to be accepted legally as "married", they should get a civil union certificate, one that anybody, gay, straight, midget, etc. can get. Civil union under the eyes of the law. If you want to get "married" under the eyes of god (or whoever your deity(s) are/is, in my case Freyja, the goddess of love, beauty and fertility), go to your church.

This way, the religious fanatics can be happy that "marriage" is protected, and the gay community can't whine about discrimination. It's a win-win (especially for those who aren't either, so we don't have to listen to either side anymore).

I wonder why libertarians are the only sensible political party?

The Golden Age of Piracy II: The Copyright Battlefield.

2008-11-12T22:36:00.000-08:00

Obviously, Piracy is good for those who do it. What's not to love... free, high quality movies, music and so forth, all right there for your consumption.

Obviously, Piracy is bad for those who "suffer" from it. I put "suffer" in quotes, because from MPAA profit statistics for the years 2002-07, they reached a five-year high in '07, profiting $9.63 Billion and had a 5.4% profit gain from 2006.

What does this mean, then? Does it mean that non-profit internet piracy is killing the movie industry like the MPAA likes to say it is? Well, no. In fact, the only thing really happening here is like what happened when VHS tapes became readily available... people are recording things and sharing them.

Humans are social creatures. We like to and feel more secure traveling in packs, we make friends and so forth, and we like to share. Well, most people like to share; and it's this natural wanting to share that brought upon this information age.

Lets discuss some legal information sharing. Wikipedia is probably the largest, with other "wiki" style websites or general "encyclopedia" type websites making available for free what used to cost tons of money. Go to Wikipedia, right now. Hit the "Random Article"(note: link will open in THIS window) button. I just did. I never knew that Yakakent is a town in Turkey with 4,707 people. I just did it again. I never knew that Ken Kesey (Author of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest") had parties where people would do LSD so they could "observe the effects" of it.

It goes on and on legally like this, people sharing information they found somewhere in a library or such, because they thought other people might want to know, until we arrive at today's topic, illegal sharing of media.

Sharing media is good for culture. Easily accessable films and music can expose them to a broader spectrum of cultures, sometimes (and this is definately the case with me) helping them find out who they are and what they like. I can't tell you how much I've learned about myself from listening to music or watching movies.

So here we are, guns in our holsters, holsters on our hips, and hands on the handles. It's a showdown. On one side, we have the pirating public, "guilty" of sharing culture, media and information with others, convicted of "copyright violation" because they wanted to share something, and on the other side, the MPAA, RIAA and so forth, standing to "defend" their "right" to "copy" the media.

The real difficult part is deciding where to stand on this.

I believe both sides are right, to a degree. First off, the MPAA and RIAA hold the copyrights (or rather, the companies making up the MPAA and RIAA) to their respective material, meaning that they can copy, redistribute, sell and do whatever with their material that they so desire. But then we have the consumers, acting on what is essentially human instinct, sharing and exposing other people to things that they want to share.

There's something I will condemn, however, and that's the distributing of copyrighted materials for personal monetary gain (for those philistines out there, that is "selling something you didn't pay for or get permission to sell", essentially thievery). I believe that if you truly desire to share media, you wouldn't charge for it, and all those who do charge for it are commiting theivery from the corporations of sales that they would otherwise potentially get.

So here we have the two sides brought up again. One side screaming for lawsuits against every man, woman and child who has ever visited a pirating site (this may be an exaggeration, but you get the idea. Don't be fooled, though, they can be pretty crazy), and the other side that believes in the complete abolishment of the copyright system.

I think both sides are crazy, and the only real useful way to do this is with a compromise.

As Gary Fung, the owner of isoHunt.com, a popular piracy website, says, "I've said a number of times that I'm not against copyright, but copyright does need significant reform in the internet age. If all this rampant copying on BitTorrent and the internet has not made a d ent in Hollywood's record earnings, why can't we all just get along without rabid lawsuits? Why can't they see that sharing and remixing is a human urge for culture, and when we share and remixes art, it's not a liability but an endorsement for the artist or author or producer?"

This is exactly where I stand on this issue.

If we completely abolish the copyright system, the entire industry will fall flat on it's face from the rampant and completely legal distribution of works, people that currently fear legal action would no longer have anything to fear, and in the eyes of the law, no individual or group of individuals would have the right moreso than anybody else to reproduce the material.

Whereas if we take extreme legal action against all those who have pirated, not only will you fill the jails, but you will fill them with people who have also legitimately purchased far more than they've pirated, people who always bought legal copies afterwords (I know a few people, who will remain anonymous, who do this. They download something and if they like it, they go out and buy it, whereas if they don't like it, they delete it), or people trying to spread culture.

I am obviously biased in this argument, as a musician, as somebody who believes strongly in the use of filesharing, and as somebody who would not be nearly as cultured as he is without this wonderful system we have running. There's a lot of things I wouldn't have discovered without all this information readily available, as well as some very interesting things.

Take, for example, Danger Mouse's "The Grey Album". Take the White Album by the Beatles and mix it with the Black Album by Jay-Z, and you get The Grey Album. Instruments from the Beatles remixed into a rap-esque beat with Jay-Z rapping over it. Strange as it sounds (and in theory it seems like heresy to me), it's actually enjoyable. That's right. Bastardized Beatles songs with Jay-Z rapping over it is enjoyable. But that's not the point. I would have never even heard of Danger Mouse if it weren't for filesharing networks.

I guess what I am really trying to get at here is the refinement of the copyright system, as Gary Fung advocates. Times are changing and information is flowing now more than ever. My opinion is that people who distribute copyrighted materials for personal monetary gain should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, however those of us who want to remix and share media should be allowed to do so without fear of retribution.

Comment please. I would love to hear what other people have to say.

Articles cited:
isoHunt: "Join the Copyfight!"
The Wall Street Journal: "In Defense of Piracy"
ars technica: "What piracy crisis?"

Also, as Gary Fung did with his article on "Join the Copyfight!", I will share all posts under a CC BY-SA License. Just for you. ;)

Why do I always...

2008-11-10T20:24:00.000-08:00

seem to mess things up?

My personal life is always jumbled up and tossed around -- home life, school, hanging out with friends and most notably, relationships, are all whacked.

Especially relationships.

It's like no matter how hard I try, how fast or slow I go with a relationship, I always seem to mess something up. One time, I don't go quick enough. Another, waaaay too fast, and you'd think with how much I think about and plan things, I'd be able to nail it, but no. I can't. I can name, off the top of my head, five relationships I've attempted to create over the past three years, and they've all failed; and here I am, seventeen and I've been single my whole life; and I know, seventeen years isn't a hell of a long time, but I am lonely.

I am lonely.

Here I am, in my world, surrounded by amazing young women that I like, want to be around, care for and want to mean something special to, but I'm stuck here, at the end of the day, alone, with nobody who I can call my own, nobody that is special to me in a way nobody else could be, all because I'm a blithering idiot when it comes to relationships and the like. All becuase I can't figure out what I'm missing, no matter how hard I try.

The worst part is that part of me wants to give up, part of me wants to realize that I'll never be "dating material", at least not at high school, and move on to worry about other, more important things. Part of me wishes I could just be rid of my desires and worry about other things.

Then there's the other part that's telling me to dawn that armor just one... more... time... and go back out on the field of battle, where I know I will lose, but I live for the sheer hope, that one sliver of chance that I could emerge victorious.

What pisses me off, too, isn't so much that I try and fall flat on my face, but that others that I know, deep down, can not even come close to what I would try, and yet they somehow get the girl. I am talking to the person who I have particular affinity towards right now, and she's falling for some other guy, one who I know she'll end up regretting sooner or later, and I know no matter how hard I try to show her that I would give her the world, she's going to inevitably end up with him.

Oh well, there's no use to continue ranting. It's not like it'll change anything.

Random Musings, Part I

2008-11-07T22:53:00.001-08:00

Whenever I hear an old Porsche or Volkswagen's engine, I get a nostalgic flashback and wish for a time where life was simpler.

I'm a hopeless romantic.

It destroys me when a plan doesn't come through like I intended.

I don't understand women or liberals.

I started a band not only for the music, but because it gives me a "legitimate" excuse to excommunicate the rest of my world, if only for two or three hours a week.

I like to ride my bike until my body won't let me any more.

I care about a lot of things, even if I deny it or don't let on about it.

More to come later.

The GT-R and 370z, Nissan's Performance Legacy

2008-11-06T08:10:00.000-08:00

Nissan has always made good cars, since before the days of the "Nissan" moniker, but now, they've really outdone themselves with the feat of engineering that they call the GT-R and the Pacific Muscle Car they call the 370z.

The GT-R is Nissan's global continuation of the Skyline series of cars, though without the Skyline name anymore. The GT-R is also a pinnacle of automotive engineering, which may not be apparent under normal everday driving, however it quickly becomes obvious under harder driving. The transmission is mounted in the back of the car so it has better weight distribution. The tires are filled with Nitrogen instead of air so they heat up faster. The car's onboard nav system, in Japan anyways, limits the car's top speeds and acceleration when off of racetracks, and unlocks them when it's on the track.

The GT-R's 3.8 litre twin turbo V6 makes a beastly 460-510hp or more (Power varies from car to car, as each transmission is built specifically for a single car), a feat that the base model Dogde Viper achieves with a 7.4 litre V8... Two more cylinders and 3.6 litres, almost twice as much displacement as the GT-R.

The GT-R also boasts an astonishing lap time on the Nurburgring Nordschliefe, a 7 minute 29 second run, in a completely stock car. At 7:29 and $100,000, the GT-R beats out Porsche 911s, the Koenigsegg CCX and CCR, the Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, the Ford GT, and the Mercedes-McLaren SLR, as well as many other cars that cost well over two or three times the price of the GT-R.

Then enter the 370z, which is Nissan's successor to the 350z and the latest in a long line of Nissan's Z-cars.

The Z-cars follow a pretty simple philosophy... Long hoods, big, beefy powerful engines, gently sloping backs, wide fenders and power. Lots of power. Oh god, so much power.

The 370z shows to be no exception to the rule, replacing the 350z's 3.5 litre V6 with a 3.7 litre V6, however it's even more special in so far as the fact that it's the VQ37VHR, which is a special variant of the standard VQ37 engine, as it features a higher compression ratio which helps the engine make more power.

The 370z should be priced between $30,000 and $50,000 as previous Z's have been for the different trim levels and options.

So if you want to get somewhere faster for cheaper, Nissan's performance cars are a fine choice for anybody with the money.

Freedom of Speech For Me, But Not For Thee

2008-11-05T20:21:00.000-08:00

Hold the god damn phone.

"Voting Yes on Prop 8 is a Hate Crime"

Another one of our tech high bloggers has made a post saying that those who vote Yes on Prop 8 (I know, I know, it's post-election now, hear me out) are committing a hate crime. That isn't so much the issue here as the rest of the post, but I think it's a good intro to what I'm about to say and it's a good reflection of her views.

She goes on to say, and I quote directly from her blog, in her words:

"I'd pull over on the side of the road and grimly pluck the signs out of the ground, tear them up, and throw them away."

This is where my real issue begins, and hence the name of the post. She's infringing on other's freedom of speech and destroying their property. I don't care what your excuse is, censoring another because you disagree is WRONG. There is no circumstance where I would ever find it acceptable to censor somebody because you disagree.

This is the United States of America, a country founded on freedoms. Most importantly to me and certainly first on the Constitution of the United States includes the freedom of speech.

The best, and probably most ironic part about the post is this:

"This country was founded on the ideals of freedom..."

Yes, but apparently Liberals don't have to allow others their freedoms. Sounds more like oppression than freedom to me.

"...and that includes freedom from discrimination, freedom from homophobia."

No it doesn't, because homophobia and discrimination are choices that the PEOPLE make. There's no laws in the US Constitution saying that states can not initiate measures to ban gay marriage.

Another wonderful excerpt:

"Stop listening to your church pastor and start paying attention to people's rights."

Guess what? Can't get it? Technically nobody has the RIGHT to marry in the US, though we often seem to take the privelidge for granted and people consider it a right. If people so choose to decide based on their religion or other personal beliefs, let them.

"Times are changing, and the age of oppression is over."

Apparently not, as we can see from your oppressing people's freedom of speech.

"I will continue ripping down these signs whenever I see them. As far as I see it, I'm just cleaning up some rather atrocious litter. The signs for this Prop are offensive, and I see it as my duty to tear them down. I would feel the same if my neighbor posted a yard sign that said "The South Will Rise Again", or "Long Live Nazi Germany". I don't see these as being any different."

I am ashamed to go to the same high school as you, I am ashamed to live in the same county, the same state, the same country. You are a disgrace to fundamental American righs and freedoms, and I can not and never will forgive you for the act of treason you have commited agasint my fellow American citizens.

In the infamous words of Voltaire;

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Anybody who infringes another's right to the freedom of expression is treasonous, unpatriotic in every sense of the word, and deserves the highest punishement for the crimes they have committed against the individual and society.

A Change of Seasons II / Race in America II: The Presidential Elect, Barack Obama.

2008-11-04T22:06:00.001-08:00

It's official. Barack Obama has claimed a staggering victory in the electoral race for president against John McCain, 338 (Obama) to 156 (McCain) to be precise.

I don't know how to feel.

I'm a right-winger, so naturally I am disappointed and even a little fired up that we now have a Democratic president, however, I am a Libertarian (socially left through being extremely federally right, almost to the point of anarchy, look it up) that understands the role of race in America, so I am a bit enthused for the fact that we no longer have a white male president.

Mostly, though, I am upset. John McCain as a person and his policies, to me, made more sense and more closely aligned with my own, despite the "centrist" approach that Barack Obama put forth. Whether or not Barack Obama actually upholds his statements made during the race is yet to be determined. The man hasn't even been sworn in yet, so.

Then we come to the house and the senate. The Democrats took both, but Republicans can celebrate one little victory in the fact that Democrats do not hold the supermajority in the house OR senate.

Well, the best I can do is hope that Obama lives up to the centrist policies he spewed during the race and only stays in for four years. Of course, it's predicted that so long he doesn't turn into the second Carter, he'll run and win again for a second term, and judging by his overwhelming popularity in both popular and electoral polls, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd win that too.

Libertatian Revolution '16, go! Lets bring about REAL change in America, not this canned catchphrase that Obama's been using.

I hope Barr runs in '16. He seems like a good guy. Either Barr or Ron Paul.

Not a whole lot we can do right now, though. Oh well.

Stay classy, San Diego.

A Change Of Seasons

2008-11-02T21:32:00.000-08:00

Ahh, Autumn. I know it's been Autumn for about two months now, but it's really starting to act like it now. Leaves on the ground, rain from the sky, night comes much sooner, too. Up here in NorCal, it seems like seasons are dictated less by three-month blocks and more like the weather. It'll be Winter soon, too.

It's also been a change of seasons in my life.

For the past three or four years, the dynamic in my house was pretty simple. Mom was the alpha and me and Sara were the pack (animals notwithstanding). Me and Sara were teenagers, though, so Mom's influence was minimal at times. My favorite part, though, was that Mom worked in a building somewhere else and Sara had a job.

That meant when I got home, there was nobody there for a good two hours at least, and I'd spend that time doing whatever the hell I felt like, which especially included playing my music so loud that I could stand in front of my house and air guitar without missing a note.

Well, Sara got in her accident and Mom was gone a lot because of that. There were times when I wouldn't see her for nearly a week at a time and I would end up calling her asking her what we had in the house that I could cook for dinner or ending up just raiding the fridge.

The loud music and other malarkey was still there, though, and now even more so, since Mom wasn't home as often. Aside from the whole food situation (Home cooked meals were few and far apart), life was still alright for me. Not a whole lot changed. Obviously, my sister was in the hospital (and that sucked) and that changed things, but not too drastically.

Well, enter September 15th, 2008. The day Sara came home. I knew everything that meant. It meant there would always be people here. It meant that Sara was our responsibility now. It meant that at any moment something could go wrong and hell would break loose in what is supposed to be a sanctuary.

I accepted all that, however. But I never stopped to think what it meant for my life, how I spend my time relaxing and unwinding from a stressful day at school or the weekend at Tracy's.

I didn't stop to think that music, which I hold in high regard as one of the most important things in my life (with family, friends, and my dog, in reverse order, being the other ones), would be affected.

I don't know why, but I really like to listen to my music loud. No, you don't get it. LOUD. Like, I live in a two-story house and I will turn it up so I can hear it clearly in the garage with the door closed loud. Like, I've had neighbors come over and complain directly to me loud. Yeah. That kinda loud.

Something about loud music is just better to me. It's easier for me to tell the rest of the world to go screw itself and get caught in the moment, it's easier for me to just get up, sing, dance, yell, headbang or do whatever, and it's easier for me to enjoy when it's loud.

In the six weeks that sara's been home, I've had an hour and a half of loud music. That's it. That's when Mom and Don took Sara for a drive one day.

I miss my loud music. I miss my cumulative hearing damage. I miss my temporary sanctuary. I miss my music.

Yes, I could just put on headphones, but it's not the same. It just isn't.

Oh well, there's no use complaining.

Goodbye, horses.

The Golden Age of Piracy (aka The Indirect Suicide of the Media Industry)

2008-11-01T01:36:00.001-07:00

Admit it. You've probably pirated something off of the internet. Movies, music, games, it doesn't matter. It's so easy to just load up your favorite pirating website, kick off a torrent and go to bed while your computer chugs away, downloading the newest season of "Dancing with the Stars" or the new AC/DC album.

It's hard to resist, though, right? So much information (isohunt.com logs 1.1 Petabytes of information, wherein a petabyte is one thousand terabytes, and a terabyte is one thousand gigabytes (for the sake of conversation, anyways, even though formatted size is actually 1024 and not 1000)), available with a few keystrokes and a few clicks of the mouse. For no extra charge. It's tempting, and the possible legal ramifications are easy to ignore when you're drunk off of the marvels of the internet.

Even when there is the chance to acquire content legally through iTunes or any other major internet source, it's hard not to turn to pirating.

Well, this is obviously an issue for the MPAA and RIAA, among others, who make their money from selling movies and music respectively. Because of this wonderful internet of ours, sales, both physical and digital, have declined heavily since the advent of torrent-based widespread downloading, which is, as stated before, an issue for the MPAA and RIAA.

So, their way of "fixing" this? No, it's not lowering prices to make the legal alternative more appealing (though admittedly, at an average market price of 99 cents a song and not much more for a movie, that IS pretty appealing, if you ignore DRM and the laws regarding it under DMCA 1201), their solution is raising prices to generate more revenue from the sales they DO have currently. But lets face it, if they raise prices, more people will jump from the legal, profitiable bandwagon in favor of their eyepatches and hook hands (well, metaphorically anyways).

I think it's an unwise decision by the MPAA and RIAA to raise prices and profit margins to bring bottom line figures up again, because doing that shows that they haven't put much (any? christ, I'm a high school student and I can think in the long-term) thought in to the fact that by raising prices, they can lose customers.

Then we have the Copyright Royalty Board, who plans to raise prices on the royalty from 9 cents/song to 15 cents/song. This is only salt in the wound, because even though it is a 6 cent increase (99 cents to $1.05) per song, it adds up, especially for heavy buyers of online media, who will probably begin to turn to less favorable methods.

And then, we have Pirate Radio, too.

Royalties don't only apply to purchasing songs, but playing them "publically", which in this case means for open "broadcast" over the internet. Anybody with a capable media player and the URL can access the feed and listen in on internet radio. Sounds cool, right? Not as bad because you don't actually have a physical copy of the song, right? Well, yeah, kinda, because you, as in the listener, isn't usually persecuted.But the guys who run them are still targets. Why? Because they're "Broadcasting" the material illegally.

The real salt in the wound here, though, is that most of the Pirate Radio stations often feature material you can't legally play ever, songs that you can not get the right to broadcast at all, which often includes a hell of a lot of good material. So your choices are either listen in to illegal pirate radio, which is ad-free and features usually better matieral, or listen to legal internet radio with advertisements and only endorsed songs. Hmm. Guess what most people will choose.

So there you have it. A decent explaination as to why the golden age of piracy is upon us. It won't last long. Enjoy it while it does.

Barack Obama's "Don't Vote Alone" commercial.

2008-10-30T21:14:00.001-07:00

I just pulled up an article on this here internet about an advertisement for Barack Obama, encouraging people to bring friends/family/a warm body with them to vote for, presumably, Obama, however the ad doesn't state.

While it should be mentioned that in all but two or three states, the popular vote does not have to correlate with the electoral college vote, it's still an interesting, albiet meaningless, advertisement. Or I should say idea. The idea is solid, but the execution (Commercial) was lackluster, and I'm not saying that just because of my political affiliation.

The commercial employs interesting rhetoric, however, in so far as the colors in the commercial are very neutral (kind of surpising, knowing the heavy red/white/blue theme that you see a lot in presidential elections) and the music is simple and repetitive (but then again, a 39 second block doesn't leave a lot of room for musical masterpieces).

The advertisement is here:

Comment this blog post with your opinion on the idea of "Don't Vote Alone" and the commercial's rhetoric and execution. I want to hear what you all have to say.

Race(ism) in America (aka. The Planned Assasination of Senator Obama)

2008-10-27T22:39:00.001-07:00

When I talk about my ideals, race often comes up. For the sole purpose of my belief that categorizing people by race, whether harmful or not, is racist and unnecessary. Now, I live in California, the "tolerant" state (I might even be willing to go so far as to say we're the "encouraging" or "accepting" state) for just about anybody... Illegal immigrants, homosexuals, you name it, chances are Californians don't hate you. I've been in California for a good 11 years or so now, so I've kind of grown my political and social ideals off of both my father's ideals and what I see in California. This spits me out with a view of both right wing and left wing politics, and I think it gives me a fair bit of both (though admittedly I identify more with the right on a large majority of issues).

Well, It's a shame that not everybody is as tolerant or moderate as I or my state are.

The government recently busted two Neo-Nazis in Tennessee who had planned to kill 103 people, one of which is Senator and Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama. Their plans included shooting 88 black students, as well as decapitating 14 non-white students. They stated that after going on their killing spree of 102, their final target would be Barack Obama.

After the ATF (The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms) picked up the two suspects, they siezed a small cache of weapons, consisting of a rifle, a sawed-off shotgun, and three pistols. Plans drawn up by the two also outlined robbing a federally licensed gun dealer.

The two men are charged on posession of an unregistered firearm, conspiring to rob a federally liscensed firearms dealer and threats to kill presidential candidate Obama.

What do I think about all this? Well, I'm pissed. I'm pissed that the institution of racism has prevailed so long in American society. I'm pissed that such extremist and violent groups still exist for causes that aren't logically justifiable. The fact that people's heavily skewed views of the world have continued to be passed mindlessly down from generation to generation is upsetting. The fact that nobody took the time to look at the world around them and draw their own conclusions is actually what disturbs me the most.

Regardless, it's a humbling reminder that despite how far we've come, we've not come far at all. People give themselves far too much credit for a job poorly done or a job not done at all, all while they float on cloud nine under the illusion that everything will be fine while the world around them goes to hell in a handbasket.

THC helps prevent cancer? What?

2008-10-27T22:20:00.000-07:00

According to a recent scientific study, heavy cigarette smokers (two packs a day+) are at a much greater risk, almost twenty-fold, for cancer compared to heavy marijuana smokers. It is worth mentioning, too, that marijuana smoke contains more carcinogens than cigarette smoke, however the risk of cancer for heavy marijuana smokers is equal to if not barely more than casual marijuana smokers or non-smokers.

It is often accepted and proven that people who start smoking in their childhood or teenage years are at a much greater risk for cancer, however the fact still stands that people who smoke marijuana are at a lesser risk than those who smoke tobacco. The study showed that the more tobacco you smoke, the higher of a risk you’re at for lung cancer, however the elevation of risk for heavy marijuana smokers was little or none to non-smokers.

So why is this? Why does marijuana present such a lower cancer risk than tobacco, even though it contains more carcinogens? The answer is the entire reason why people smoke it — THC. THC is the short name for the chemcial Tetrahydrocannabinol, a drug that effects the canniboid receptors in the brain leading to an array of effects and experiences (erowid is blocked at school, so I can’t pull up anything definitive).

Doctors think that THC promotes the death of cancerous or damaged cells, allowing new, healthy cells to grow in their place, whereas nicotine, the main drug in cigarettes or tobacco, is known to inhibit the death of cancerous cells.

So there you have it. The nicotine in tobacco keeps cancer alive, and the THC in marijuana kills the cancerous cells. The study did show, however, that when people smoke both tobacco and marijuana, the anti-cancer effects of the THC in the marijuana has no effect on killing the cancerous cells that are being kept alive by the nicotine.

The Rain.

2008-10-21T20:47:00.000-07:00

I want it to be cold out. I want it to be cold, raining, dreary and miserable. Because when it's raining, I'm happy.

I want to run around in the streets in a roaring downpour singing love songs about the Beatles in nothing but my jeans and a t-shirt. I want to come back inside soaked to the bone, wringing out bucketfuls of water from my clothes and hair.

Then I want to bundle up close to somebody that means something to me and whisper sweet nothings in their ear until we both fall gently asleep.

(yes, I'm a hopeless romantic. get over it)

Race In America.

2008-10-19T20:27:00.000-07:00

Face it. Whether or not you act upon the thoughts or impulses, chances are you still categorize people by their race. As much as I am an advocate of truly abolishing racism, I have to admit that I still have thoughts that are race-oriented.

Well, today, those got smashed to bits.

I'll admit it, usually when I see a group of latinos dressed in black t-shirts, black shorts with soccer socks and hair nets I assume the worst (in this case I would assume that they're less than favorable people and they enjoy listening to rap and playing sports, mostly soccer). Well, today, I saw a group of latinos dressed like above mentioned, at La Fiesta. They were all crowded around a small boombox. My headphones were in so I couldn't hear what was going on.

I noticed that they were ballroom dancing. And they looked happy. I pulled off my headphones and listened to their music and it was the kind of music you'd expect to hear for ballroom dancing. Here's a group of people I prematurely labeled doing something I would have never expected. And you know what? I realized that even if we think in racist terms, we need to realize that there are still people out there who wouldn't fall under your presumptions.

I didn't say anything to them, didn't stand and watch, I just kept going, but it absoloutely blew my mind not only that they were ballroom dancing but more importantly, I had let myself categorize people I didn't know prior and may never know again. All because of their race and outfits. And I was completely wrong.

Let this hopefully be a lesson about yourself and hopefully people in general. But more importantly, hopefully this will help you make your own realizations that we still live in a very racist society, whether it's spoken or not, and maybe you too can try to change this.

The End of the CD?

2008-09-26T08:14:00.000-07:00

Anybody who is familiar with tech cycles understands that things come and go. 8-track tapes, vinyl record, and casette tapes are all now defunct technologies for listening to music. And the CD may soon be.

With flash-based media getting cheaper and cheaper, one company, Sandisk, thinks they can change the face of purchaseable music. By offering music for purchase on micro-SD cards (called "SM" cars for "Slot Music") rather than SD, they can offer the consumer not only the music and album art they want, but also a reusable storage device that they could later use for storing other information and data, something you can't do with a store-bought CD.

Something else that Sandisk is proposing is offering the music with a lack of copy protection (or DRM, digital rights management), meaning that whoever purchases the content can change it's format, put it on any mp3 player, burn it to CDs, or anything else they want, so long as that isn't illegally distributing it.

And for those wondering about the technology...

Micro-SD card slots have been popping up in various MP3 players and many cell-phones, as well as a lot of new computers. But you don't need a new computer to use it, as Sandisk plans to sell the albums with a USB device that you can use to read the data and copy it to your computer.

The SM format has already been supported by four major labels, Universal, Sony, Warner and EMI, and two major retailers, Best Buy and Wal-Mart have agreed to carry the format. At it's launch, there are 29 albums scheduled for release on this new format.