The End

Last night, I finished watching the series finale of Entourage. No, you are reading a new post- as incredulous as it might sound- not the post Let Go (or Let it Go, I can never remember). It was still good, by all accounts, but it didn't inspire the same fervor that it did the first time around. I mean, a lot of the issues had to do with the season being cut short midway through production. Plotlines were raised and dropped in the final episode. As much as I like Sophia, it took her six episodes to decide to get married. Six. And she ardently disliked him for four. But Sloan! Oh Sloan. But let's get back to Let it Go. I got a lot of acclaim for that one, at least the most acclaim I've ever got for a blog post. People liked it, and I think I can see why. It's broad, I don't actually say anything, and it's got a nice message. The problem is that it sucks. If you like it, don't let me convince you that it sucks. Think what you think, despite what I think. It's not my job to tell you how to feel. But I just can't like it. I've gone through a lot since I wrote that post. And I don't think people matter as much as I thought. People are as much of a mixed bag as you can get. There are a few people who I genuinely believe should be revered, people I know who are so awesome that it baffles me that the school is not renamed in their honor. And there are people who I think the world would be better off without. I mean, I'm not going to go kill them because I've got the muscle composition of a crippled infant, but also because who says I'm in a good position to judge? The point is that all people don't matter. You might not matter to me. I might not matter to you. Earn that privilege, dammit. I guess this is a good time to end my blog. It's been a good run, I guess. 7000 roundabout views is nice, I guess, but other sites get that daily, instead of almost two years. I haven't been very good about updating daily. I'm not exactly going out on top. I've written some good posts, some bad. I think the writing experience genuinely helped me, and so did some of the feedback. I did really enjoy what I had here. I wish you all the best and nothing less, -Joshua Zeb Valett. I've got Dishonored to play.

How To Teach English (As Brutally Ignored by My New Teacher)

Much like Batman, I can claim that no one knows who I am. To my thousands and thousands of adoring fans, I'm no more than a shadow in the night who dispenses truth and punches. Unlike Batman, I'm not quite that naive. For one thing, Batman can't have never slipped up. He's told enough people that it doesn't even matter. It'd leak, it'd leak.

But anyway, I'm like Batman. But that doesn't mean that people don't know who this paragon of truth is, and that people don't know who my teachers are.

Now, I'm not a fan of my English teacher. It's got something to do with her personality, sure, actually quite a bit to do with her personality, but it's deeper than that. I'm not going to criticize her personality, because she's not the worst teacher I've ever had in that regard. Plus, it's petty to do that. Almost as petty as she is.

ANYWAY.

English has always been a favorite subject of mine. Part of it was that I really enjoy creatively writing, short stories and whatnot, but English classes have rarely catered to that. I can't really fault her for that.

She explained, on the first day, the type of writing she wanted. In her defense, she's teaching towards the AP exam. A lot of the problems I have with her teaching style are shared with the AP test.

One of the things that recent years of English have tried to eliminate is clutter. Clutter is the use of any words, no matter how well they fit, that do not explicitly add to the purpose of the piece. Or, to put it in clutter-free terms, "Clutter is extra words."

Now, clutter is never something that I thought much about. It didn't matter to me if it didn't directly add to the purpose of the piece if it was stylish, if it was unique, if it worked. Adding words for the sake of adding words is something I don't like. But to remove any superfluous words seems excessive.

To me, the English language, and language and general, thrives without rules. No author ever struck it rich by rigidly following guidelines. Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, Shakespeare, and Joanne Rowling- all had wildly different styles, based on what they wanted to write like, and all found extreme success doing so.

Language is almost an organic process. It's evolving, it's not rigid, it grows and it changes and it morphs and that's what makes it beautiful. Ask hundreds of people what their favorite part of English is- and count how many people say analytical essays.

Not to say that the preference has much to do with the "correct" way to teach English. I'd prefer to do no work at all, and just read- but that's not the best way to do that.

In the real world, most of your literary encounters are not reading and analyzing essays. It's reading books, writing books, writing and reading summaries, not reading a passage and responding. There is no job where you will have twenty five minutes to read a passage and respond. It's that simple.

As an AP class, I'm sure they're teaching to a subset of a subset. They don't need to have a broad-reaching appeal, but they should cover the bases. No History class worth its salt would only focus on reading primary documents. No math class would only use addition, at least not past third grade. Why have an English class with only one type of writing?

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J.Valett

Killing Blow

Okay, just gonna steam right past the "Sorrys" and the "I'll do betters" and the "Here's a cake for all your troubles" to get straight to the discussion. If anyone is really that offended, write your local congressman.

Recently, in the great state o' Texas, a man (heretofore referred to as Jim) was hosting a barbecue. He had invited a bunch of his neighbors, some that he knew better than others. Sometime into the party, Jim hears someone screaming inside his house- his four year old girl (heretofore Jane). Why is Jane screaming? A neighbor (heretofore Adam) is sexually molesting her.

Jim then went and started to punch Adam in the face. He punched a lot. A helluva lot. And Adam died. Jim will probably not receive jail time for this.

And you know what? I'm okay with that.

Was it potentially excessive, beating Adam to death? Perhaps. I'm no father, but I can't imagine myself stop punching some dirtbag like Adam for molesting my daughter into his face was flat.

I don't know if I mentioned this on my blog before, but there are two crimes that I think are worse than any others, rape and torture. Murder? Oh, its bad. But much like the death penalty, murder is at least an escape from your assaulter.

Rape you can't get away from. Torture you can't get away from. And you have to live the rest of your life thinking about what happened to you, likely through no fault of your own.

This brings up a good opportunity to talk about the death penalty, and my feelings about it. A year ago, I would've said that all human life is sacred and that you shouldn't have the right to take it away. Now I am not so sure.

If this Adam was arrested, he definitely would not have received the death penalty. For some terrible and incomprehensible reason, the sexual assault on a minor doesn't usually guarantee life in jail or a possible death sentence.

Do all humans deserve to live? That's the basic question of the death penalty, and I say that all humans don't deserve to live. Someone who tries to take away the fundamental rights of someone else, someone that has no regards for life or someone else's wishes, they don't deserve to live.

Now it's time for some juicy qualifiers. No, not every thief deserves to die. The death penalty, while not strictly a deterrent for crime, should be used to curb the population of those members of it that can not function within it.

Serial killers? Honestly, I'd feel safer knowing that they were dead. Charles Albright, the serial killer who carved the eyes out of his victims, is still alive. He's in a jail cell somewhere, rotting, and drawing eyeballs all over his cell.

Rapists? Life sentence at the least, in my opinion. Rape is such a base, low, evil crime, and it outweighs murder in my eyes in terms of brutality needed to execute. Any schmuck can pull a trigger in the heat of the moment. To keep at what they are doing, rapists are a special kind of terrible person.

A year ago, I debated this, on the side of preserving life. Now, I'm seeing things differently. No, not every human has the potential to be something greater. No, not everyone deserves to be loved. No, not even every deserves the right to life.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J. Valett

Objectivism, the First

You know the drill, everyone. This is my first post in over a month, and I'm going to spend the first paragraph here explaining to you all why I'm terribly sorry about it, and that I'll do better next time, but you know, I won't. I do enjoy writing for this blog, or the attention at least, and I'm gonna keep it going for that, and for the two or three people who consistently read it.

See kids, that's called self-deprecation. Don't respond to it, because the person is probably just fishing for compliments. And so I was. Bad Josh.

In other news, this will be my fiftieth post, excluding the introduction I made but including the midpoint thing I made after one of my posts startlingly became popular, for some reason. What better way to celebrate the occasion that to break open the wine and start partying? Probably writing the post, that's what.

I don't remember how I was first introduced to Ayn Rand and her philosophy and style of life, Objectivism, but I started reading her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged a couple months back, and recently finished it. I found Objectivism to be a really interesting philosophy, and one that I would personally employ if not for some points I'll bring up later.

The broad points of Objectivism can be summed up in one phrase; "Live for yourself". A staunch anti-Communist, Rand believed that no person should be forced to live for another person, or that anyone besides you has any right to dictate what you do.

Your profits from your work are yours, your creations are yours, your house is yours, and you don't have to pay taxes on any of it, because you've earned it.

The principle tenant of Mrs. Rand's philosophy was that the standard of morality relied upon hard work. In the conventional, for lack of a better term, system of morality, kindness is its standard. If you deny your friends a dollar at lunch, you are mean, and if you lend them that dollar, you are nice. You are mean if you chase them to pay you back, a saint if you let it go.

Objectivism isn't like that. You are judged as good or evil based on whether you work for what you own or whether you mooch off of someone else for it. The worst criminal in both the conventional and Objectivist viewpoint is the thief, the person who takes from someone else unjustly.

Don't believe me? Murder is theft of someone's life. Rape is theft of someone's sexuality and free will. Stealing is, well thievery, and I hope I don't have to explain that one to you.

On that broad level, I like Objectivism. And there is another thing I like about Objectivism, one belief that I think should be adhered to much more often in our culture; the thought that you are not perfect.

I see these posts on Facebook of all different types of people, and a caption "Like if you Think that Everyone Is Beautiful <3". It may be accompanied by a picture of a young child with cancer (the one I'm thinking of is clearly photo-shopped), a girl whom most would consider unattractive, or someone with a debilitating injury.

Want to know a secret? I don't think everyone is beautiful. I think it is really, incredibly stupid to entertain that notion. I also don't think that a great personality can make someone beautiful. The moment we give in and call everyone beautiful is the moment the word ceases to mean anything. I've called maybe two girls I know beautiful ( I'll admit I'm a bit lax when I say it about celebrities, but Keira Knightley... wow.), even if it wasn't to their faces. That makes it MEAN something.

Also, it doesn't entertain the notion that intelligent people should be shackled down by their less intelligent (Editor's note: Spelled Intelligent wrong twice there) peers. This one our society has fewer problems with, as colleges and honors classes and A.P. classes have no problem saying that people aren't good enough to take them.

But Rand didn't stop at morality, she also had a lot to say of romance and politics. I'll come back to politics in a little bit, but I'd like to talk about her ideas on romance for a little.

There's a great quote somewhere, and I'll see if I can dig it up (Ed. note: nope!) where she said that the person you love, like, marry, are interested in, etc, is a reflection of who you are. The person who loves a goddess is the greatest (or god, whatever), because they strive to improve themselves and to better themselves. They aim high. The people who settle for promiscuous folk, those who hang around with sluts and harlots, those are the ones who don't deserve to be loved because they love those who aren't worthy of it.

Rand also didn't believe that the mind and body were things to be treated as separate entities, as much of the world does today. Who you found attractive is a reflection of what you loved, ergo what you are.

Now, the more astute of my readers may be wondering how Rand can allow anyone to be in a relationship. "If you can only do things for yourself, then relationships can't work out! They are about compromise, and pixie dust, and all the other ingredients for the Power Puff Girls!"

Here's an old How I Met Your Mother quote, from when the show was good. "It's hard. Making sacrifices, living with someone else, it's...hard. But if it's the right person, it shouldn't matter, because when it's the sacrifices or they leave, it's the easiest choice in the world." Slightly paraphrased.

Be with someone because they make you happy, not to make them happy. Do things for other people to make you happy, not for them. I have a little idea on this; I'll make me happy, and you make you happy. That way, you don't have to worry about me, and I don't have to worry about you.

If you do love someone, you'll want to do things to make them happy. That's fine, that's great in fact. Do it for you! But if you are in a relationship with someone who makes you unhappy, leave. Don't fidget around. Your happiness is your responsibility, take control of it.

 'Everyone deserves love', one person once said to me. No. That simply isn't true. If everyone deserved love, then why would anyone work for it? Why would people work to become funnier, prettier, or smarter? They wouldn't and the world would stagnate.

If no one you know deserves your love, wait for someone who does.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J. Valett

Humanity, and Where It Ends

Hey everyone! A couple of things before I go on.

The secret project has pretty much halted, except for some content I'm getting around to making. I've got a couple of ideas boiling over.


I added a new column to the left of some media I'm media-ing. It's not really all that important or anything, just something new I thought I'd add. On to the topic then.

SPARSE AND SUBTLE MASS EFFECT 3 SPOILERS AHEAD, Y'ALL

My Bio teacher started out the school year with a story. The story was of a most unfortunate man, named Joey, and all of the terrible things that happened to him. Piece by piece, limb by limb, Joey's body was replaced with technology. At the end of the story, everything was replaced, and Joey was declared an android.

Our job, as the students, was to decide when Joey stopped being human and became an android. Was it when his heart was replaced with an advanced pacemaker? Once his kidneys were gone, replaced with mechanical ones? Most of the class decided that once Joey's brain was replaced with a computer, then Joey ceased to be, and Joey* took over.

I finished Mass Effect 3 recently, and Christ was the ending bad. Like, I'm not sure how professional writers and directors could have created such a terrible ending. If a nuke exploded, destroying everyone and everything, it would have been infinitely better. It was really bad.

But that was just the ending. A lot of the lead-up to the ending was really fantastic. Some of the deaths of my favorite characters struck really hard, especially- well I'm not going to say it for you, but if you know what the Shroud is, then know I was close to bawling.

One of the subplots dealt with the Quarians and the Geth. Imagine iRobot, where all the robots go feral and kick the humans off of Earth. You are sent to either mediate between the organics (Quarians) and the robots (Geth), or to choose one side over the other. Going into this, the same thought probably ran through most gamers minds: Biological creatures are inherently more sacred than machines, so if need be I'll wipe out the machines. After all, you'd rather unplug your toaster than kill your parents.

But then we get into the specifics of it all. I won't spoil anything, but I'll say that it really becomes a difficult choice (spoiled somewhat by a YOU WIN EVERYTHING choice, but whatever). One of the Geth asked a question that really got me thinking.

The question was, "Does this Unit Have a Soul?"

After much deliberation, I've decided that anything that can ask questions like that is sentient. Any creature that can recognize itself as a being is worthy of the term sentient. To rephrase, being self-aware is what I think defines an intelligent lifeform from an unintelligent one.

Problem is, it's kinda hard to identify whether or not something is self-aware. It's not like your dog can tell you that. Maybe it's been trying to.

Before I go any further, it means that you know you exist. While that seems like an easy thing to us, having been collectively self-aware for quite a while, you've got to think about how hard it must have been for the first person to ask themselves that. I mean, how do you phrase that?

Anyway, I've also recently started Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I know, I game a lot. This game discusses augmenting humanity quite a bit. A gap has appeared, not unlike the one we have today between rich and poor, between augmented folk and normal ones.

The augmented people are naturally better at things. Chips let them think faster, move faster, be more precise, heal quicker, and tons of other great things. Why wouldn't any one want that?

The problem isn't that people don't want it. The problem is that people can't all get it. The rich are able to augment children from an early age to be smarter, better, faster than the other children, whom, even those who would've been geniuses, are held back by biology.

This gap isn't that different from the one in our society today. The people who can afford the newest and fanciest-schmanciest tech have it much better. But let's take it on more of a base level.

Imagine a child who grew to age 18 in northern Africa came to America, and began searching for a job. The education system in those countries is nowhere near what we have in the United States, so finding a job would be difficult. Well, more difficult than it is for everyone else amirite?

Is it fair that he cannot get a job because he lacks the education he never had a chance to get? No. Should he be given the job over a similar individual who does have that education and would be able to perform the job better?  No.

So what happens to the African child (http://tinyurl.com/2dgp5a5)Well, as of now, he doesn't get a job.

That's why I believe education is one of the greatest tools out there. But we're not here to preach about education, at least not in this post.

I was planning on discussing things like Google and what they are doing to our brains, and Facebook and all that, but maybe next time.

An Adventure in Omegle

As I sit in my living room, mouth stuffed with leftovers, I realize that it has been a little over a week since I posted my last blog entry. It doesn't feel like that long though, but it never does. Not that it's a chore writing for you folk, but it's pretty taxing. Yeah, those kids in Africa have it easy- isn't it great to pity yourself before feeling guilty and pitying others? Pretty much my life.

So, I ponder what I should write about. I was planning on either tackling Abortion or Religion in Politics. Either way, I'd have to mention Rick Santorum, and that kind of bums me out. So I decide to do something a little different.

I'm going to document my traversal through the vast wasteland known as Omegle. It is a website to talk to strangers anonymously, and should ideally be a place to broadcast views and bounce ideas off strangers, without any bias.

Unfortunately, anonymity has given people a shield against restraint and common curtesy. More often than not, you'll get vague sexual innuendos, before receiving very overt sexual innuendos. Though there is a chance of finding a real person there, and so I dive in.

Before I click the button to initiate social interaction with human beings, I've got to consider my opening. "Hi"? "How are you?"? "Would you like to talk about anything?"? I eventually decide to open with "Hi" and see how long it takes to devolve into something ridiculous. I'm timing it, go.

It's a bad start. Stranger initializes with "where ar eu from?",  which doesn't seem to be very promising. We spend the entire time going back and forth as I correct their grammar and they make more grammar mistakes and I correct them. Eventually, I decide to get out of there, since I'm in an angry mood as it is a commercial break for That's 70s show. Since they mentioned that they were a student, I leave with " I'm sorry. You should probably ask for a refund from your English department. I can't understand you. Have a good day!"


Is there a hope for true, deep social interaction on Omegle? Sure, I've had real talks on there. It's not something that comes common, no that's euphemisms for penis, but it's a possibility. I dive in again, this time with a "Hey!"Things don't go well, as after I ask how they are, they don't respond. I disconnect after a minute or two of radio silence.

You know, I once read a story about someone who decided not to commit suicide after having an inspiring conversation on Omegle. It inspired me, and I spent a night on Omegle talking to people, opening with "If you need to talk about anything, I can help". I pretended to be an amateur psychology major, and people never doubted it. I think I helped six people in total.

Not everyone was kind about it though. I actually had an enlightening chat about whether or not what I was doing was actually helping anyone.

And I wasn't so great at first, either. I distinctly remember a conversation I had, I'll paraphrase.

Stranger: I think my wife's cheating on me.

Me: Why do you think that?

Stranger: Because I saw her fucking my best friend! YOu [sic] suck!

Stranger has disconnected.

It didn't really affect me much. But why did I tell you about this? Probably to make myself feel better. I suck, don't I? Such an egotist.

I decide to open my next one by saying, "If you need to talk about anything, I can help" Let's see how it goes.

First person I said that to disconnected. Welp. Maybe the next one.

Next person asked me what gender I was. I got angry, so I responded with, "Doctors have had a hard time classifying my gender. Usually on forms, I just fill in both the male and female bubbles". No surprise, they disconnect.

Usually, whenever I'm asked "asl?" (Age/sex/location), I simply ask "does it matter?". I just want to talk to people, get other views on things, but people always bring it back to sex on these websites. I guess most people don't visit sites like this if they don't want that. Here I am, the outlier.

Two more strangers disconnect, before a seventeen year old man in Europe asking for a 35+ female accepts my offer. He tells me of issues with his prom date, and his friend's girlfriend whom he's in love with.

I think I genuinely helped him.

And then he insults me and leaves because I told him not to sleep with his best friend's girl. I guess there isn't much goodness left on Omegle.

Maybe next time something will come up. Be sure to tell me if you liked this post, maybe I'll do something like this again.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J. Valett

Don't Take It Personally, Babe, It Just Ain't Your Story

Don't Take It Personally, Babe, It Just Ain't Your Story is a visual novel/ video game developed by indie developer Christine Love. It follows the lives of six teenagers going to a high school, and their trials and tribulations. It was actually really good, aside from some nonsensical stuff at the end. Don't take my word for it, though; it's free download for Mac, PC, and Linux, at this link (http://scoutshonour.com/donttakeitpersonallybabeitjustaintyourstory/)

It only takes three hours or so to beat, so play it. I promise you, it's worth your time. But you know, some sexual situations. No nudity or anything, but some pretty... intense sexual talks. But it doesn't feel forced in there- it feels like something teenagers might say. Not all the lines do, but they seem to fit.

Okay, so you didn't play it. Wow, thanks a lot. Kinda stings. Anyway, I'll continue, mostly spoiler free.

I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss video games as a medium, just a little, and this game is certainly one that helps illustrates my main point; that at some time in the future, whether it be 200 or 2000 years from now, most media will be some form of video game.

Right now, I've gotta say, video games are pretty awesome. The tech behind some of them is amazing- apparently, Assassin's Creed III can have up to 2000 people on screen at once. That's fantastic!

But I know a lot of my readers don't really care for video games. Like a lot of mediums at the start, not everybody enjoys them. Some people claim not to be good at them, others claim motion sickness, and yet others just say they don't like them.

But video games are invading people's lives. Angry Birds appears to have surpassed the Bible in sales, and Draw Something is a newcomer that's already made a helluva lot of money, especially for a title that has a complete free version. These games have introduced gaming to hundreds of millions of people- through their cell phone, nonetheless.

Don't Take It Personally is only sort of a video game. You don't get to control where your character moves, all of what they say, where they go, who they talk to, or anything like that. You do occasionally make choices during the game, but sometimes- annoyingly- your character just makes them for you. But hey, this isn't my story. Babe.

The exciting part is that I don't know whether to call it a book or a video game. It's interactive, which most books are not. But you spend most of your time reading, not characteristic of video games. This merging of two mediums is what I see coming together in the future.

Books and movies can't really meld well. You won't see a movie that's entirely or mostly text, or a novel with moving pictures. The closest you'll get is an adaptation from one medium to another, but you wouldn't call the Hunger Games movie a book- it's still a movie.

You can, however, blend movies and video games. See Heavy Rain. Although it was controlled (mostly) like other games, it was definitely a movie-vibing game. Cinematic is definitely one of the biggest words to describe it.

I'd like a future where there are fuzzy lines between mediums. This won't ever get rid of any medium entirely; No one's going to play an interactive version of Great Expectations. But this does open the door for a lot of new possibilities, for games, movies, TV shows, music, and yes, even books.

I'd love to see where it takes us.

Thanks for reading and considering,
- J. Valett

On Honesty

I've been reading Atlas Shrugged a helluva lot recently, so that explains a slighty-longer-than-a-week wait for this post. Hopefully I haven't been keeping anyone from doing anything productive. Like reading opinionated blogs run by egocentric teenagers. Don't wanna mess that up.

I might have an objectivist-themed memo up sometime in two weeks. My birthday's this Sunday, so I'm pretty pumped. Oh, if you see me or talk to me through the electronodes, don't wish me a Happy Birthday on Sunday. Do it Saturday, or don't do it at all. Because if you wish me a happy birthday on Sunday, I might not have had enough time to make it happy. I might not be prepared for a happy birthday. Just do it Saturday, so I can be like, "Okay, Jane Shepard wants me to have a happy birthday tomorrow, will do."

Also, I like seeing the chain reaction from idiots who don't bother to check its my birthday before wishing me a happy one. Well, that's not fair. I do it too. Actually, it is fair, I'm just calling myself an idiot as well.

TOO MUCH TIME HAS BEEN SPENT ON PRE-TOPIC STUFF.

Anyway, honesty. Honesty was one of those pillars of childhood which taught us never, ever to lie in order to be a good person. Unsurprisingly, like most of the topics which ended up as the "Character Counts" trait of the month, we haven't one a very good job listening.

I read somewhere, and I may be making this up, that the average person lies like six times per day.

Now you see, I'm gonna be a hypocrite this week. I don't like lying very much, as an ideal, but I do it exceedingly often. Occasionally, I'll just lie to see if I can get away with it. Maybe that makes me a sociopath.

Whatever.

Truth is a very valuable currency. In the Mass Effect game series, which I have been playing often in order to pump myself up for the third installment, there is a character known as the Shadow Broker. The Shadow Broker's job is to gather up as much information as possible, and he (later she; long story) sells it to the highest bidder. I'm not sure why I told about that, other than its a cool idea.

Truth is the only means we have to communicate with one another.

You ever think about History class? If your history teacher just made up a new war, would you question it? Let's say that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated while robbing a bank, and all the historians decided to hush it up, would you know about it? No.

For a culture that lies as often as it does, we take the truth for granted. We trust almost every word out of the mouths of our parents, of our teachers, of our idols, and take it as truth. Why?

Because what's the alternative? A world in which we know nothing for certain, nothing that can't be seen with our eyes, or heard with our ears?

Maybe that's why I have such a problem with religion. It requires you going off of what other people are just saying- there is no definitive proof, no stone that says, "GOD WUZ HERE", nothing so definitive. But why do I take the history textbook as truth, and not a book much older?

I don't know. Probably because the Bible has a lot more, for lack of a better word, magic than history tends to. Probably why I don't buy the Long Island Medium either.

I think a world where people were more honest might be an improvement. Sure, there would be fewer couples (can't lie about flaws or opinions), more unemployed (can't lie about feelings about boss or inactivity at work) and less friends, but there would also be fewer corrupt politicians, much more criminals in jail, and things like that. People would be a lot more callous and take criticism better. People wouldn't have to worry about Ponzi schemes, dupes, cons, bamboozles, evil plans, none of it.

Not worth discussing this though. It's like conceiving a world with less dependance on technology; sure, it's fine to think, but barring some catastrophic attack, won't come to fruition. An even greater attack would be needed to get people to stop lying.

But of course, I must practice what I preach, and that's where I fall short. I lie often. I don't want people to get offended, so I lie. I don't want to freak people out, so I lie. I don't want people to feel sad, so I lie. I don't want to admit that I'm human, so I lie.

And I'm not gonna stop, or tone it down, at least til the end of high school. Once I cut bonds with all of the dead weight here (not saying everyone is dead weight, calmate) I can just keep the good ones around. But do me a favor, and don't ask me if you are a good one or not. You may not want to hear it, and I might not want to say it.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J. Valett

Rachel's Inspiration: A Dissection and Discussion

Whenever I think about the speech I'll give after being elected the first Jewish President, after being a successful writer/actor/director for a decade or so, it always ends like this: "Nation, if you vote for me because I am Jewish, than I have failed you. If you vote for me because you liked me in a movie I made, than I have failed you. If you vote for me for any other reason than you honestly feel, in your heart of hearts, that I would be the best person for the job, than I'm afraid that I have failed you."

Well, Idealists, I have failed you. I made a promise, a solemn vow, if you will, to have my surprise ready for March 15th. I have failed you. It'll still come, hopefully, but for now, all I can offer you is an extra long post in compensation.

Anyway, today at school, there was an assembly, a presentation given by a student who attended Columbine High School in 1999, when the school shooting took place. He talked a little about the actual event, as the main focus of the meeting was Rachel Scott.

If you were at the assembly, I hope you won't mind if I give a little recap of some of the backstory. Rachel Scott was a kind, optimistic, and a forgiving-to-the-fault eighteen year old, who became the first victim of the Columbine shootings. The purpose of the assembly was to get us to accept a challenge made by Rachel in an English essay, a message to start a chain-reaction of kindness, choose positive role models, and things of that nature.

I totally respect the message being broadcast here, I really do. The world could greatly improve with a little more kindness here and there. The problem with Rachel's Challenge was how it was presented, and a couple of the ideas mentioned.

The first of which deals with judging others. Rachel insisted that one should not judge others by what they have done, as you don't know what they are going through. Only after getting to know a person can you judge them.

I disagree wholeheartedly here. What can we judge people on, if not their actions? May we not condemn Osama bin Laden until we have learned if he was bullied in school? Should we forgive Stalin until we can prove that his mother did in fact love him?

Of course, caveats and caveats must be accounted for. It is true that people have off days, and a first impression formed on one of these days would be negative. Then it is up to the person who had the bad day, who presented a bad face, to rectify the action. If they cursed you off for trying to help you, it should be them who apologizes.

You have to earn respect from me. If you are rude to me, should you be given respect automatically? No, you shouldn't.

Another thing I disagree with, one that may finally allow me to be diagnosed as a pessimist, is the notion that there is good in everyone. I guess that comes with a sense of religion, a belief in a higher power that would not make people unless they were good, which I lack. I don't believe that everyone has inherent value, because that makes things too easy.

I want you to really think tonight if you are a good person. "Of course I am!" you say, "Or at least I'm definitely not a bad one." No one wants to believe that they are a bad person, because, well, you are you. It's much easier to say you are a good person, at least because you have good intentions. And some of you are good people, and some of you aren't. At least from where I'm standing.

What is it that's said about good intentions? "A small act of kindness is infinitely better than the best of intentions." Hmm. Either get working on being a good person or accept the fact that you aren't.

The presentation also focused a lot on the mystical elements, a facet I found irrelevant and distracting. Why is it necessary to tell us about a businessman's dream in Ohio in order for us to be kinder? It isn't.

The problem with this kind of assembly is that it's quite polarizing. There is Group A, who love it partly because it's sad, and Group B, who would have despised it if it had been perfect and given them free candy. Neither is in the right, and I can't decide which group I fall into. Probably B, since I'm typing up a critical response.

Despite having a lot of problems, there's a lot to like. It was in fact very sad, which brings with it contemplation for a lot of us. Getting high schoolers to think, really think, is a difficult task, but it was accomplished with videos and accounts of a tragedy in a school much like most others.

To be honest, this post was not as long as it should have been, or to be even more frank, as good as it should have been, but I owe yall something. The surprise is coming, I promise.

Thanks for reading and considering and waiting that much longer,
-J. Valett

Why Equality is Bad (As Told by A White Male)

Hey folks. Before I dive straight into the thick of things, I'd like to say that Yowza, March 15th seems awful close right now. Probably shouldn't have set it so close, but we'll see if I can still get it out of the gate by then. Anyway, onto the topic.

Equality is something that people have always been fighting for, and is something that people will likely fight for in the future. The United States of America was based in equality, among other things, or at least equality between rich white men.

Now the playing field has leveled quite a bit, in terms of all sorts of equality. Sexism, Racism, Religionism, Ageism, and Anhedonism have been reduced quite a bit. Women can now run for President, black people can now run for President, Buddhist people can run for President, and 12-year-olds, well they can watcht he news to see Buddhist women running for President.

Equality has come a long way, and I believe that it will continue to go a long way, but that we should be very careful about equality. As Ayn Rand demonstrates in Atlas Shrugged, we should not want to push equality too far.

An example I heard in English class was that of women firefighters. Some women who were rejected from the firefighting squads were done so because they couldn't lift a ladder of a certain weight. These women argued that the rules of lifting this ladder were sexist, as smaller-framed women couldn't lift the weight.

Makes sense, but in a flawed way. Because, as for most equality as I am,  I'd rather have a squad of all men
who can lift the goddamn ladder to save my life than a Team Equality of people sitting around as I burn.

Another example of which I heard in class (Math this time around) was about a Caucasian actor playing the role of an Asian man in the movie 21. I had no problem with this, while my math teacher took offense.

The way I see it, this was no different from the casting of a black actor in a white role in the movie Thor. While both caused uproar, the reaction to a white man taking over an Asian role is seen more negatively, because of the lack of many Asian protagonists in Hollywood.

I think, plain and simple, that the best person for the job should be chosen. Should race be considered? Sure. I wouldn't want a white slave in Django Unchained, but if the race is malleable, don't make it the defining feature. If you find the best actor for the role, choose them. Not the okay person who happens to be the same race as the person you are basing them off of.

Something else that pisses me off is the stupid thing that colleges can take minority students over mainstream (I couldn't think of another word here) ethnicity students to bolster minority percentages. Same reasons as above.

Equality should be about making the requirements for something equal, not making sure a minority gets the position. That's true equality, not the fancy schmancy inequality we get today.

Choosing a black person to go to X college because of their race over a white person? Exactly as racist as choosing a white person over a black person because of their race.

Femenism is equally as sexist as chauvinism.

Unfortunately, all of my claims apply to an ideal world. Not one where females were demeaned for centuries, where non-whites were demeaned for centuries, or one where non-Christians were demeaned for centuries. Unfortunately, we hit the triple whammy.

I try not to take these things into account. But there are little pieces of inequality that each of us carries, and that's okay.

I only find myself attracted to females. Sexism. Most of the characters I author-surrogate into my stories are white Jews. Racism and Religionism. When I think of a hero, I think of a male. Sexism. When I think of a president, male. Sexism.

And that's okay. Inequality is okay for some things. Just don't make a habit out of it.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J. Valett

Friends with No Beneficial Strings Attached

There is a very big difference between emotional intimacy- let's call it romance- and physical intimacy- lust, for lack of a better term. Sorry folks, I know I don't usually come BANG out of the gate like that, but stick with me here.

People tend to loop the two together into a single idea, a relationship as common terminology insists. Actually, we have come a far way to separate the two into two different, albeit related concepts.

Because they are inherently related. Movies like Friends with Benefits and No Strings Attached (Which came out within a couple months of one another, what a nightmare) assure us viewers that physical relations can't stay JUST physical- that eventually, emotions kick in.

But is that true?

I don't know. Listen guys, cards on the table here, never been in either kind of relationship. BUT I'm pretty good at making things up and pretending to be an expert at them, so let's see how I think I would feel about it.

People raised in this day and age think that it is wrong to only like someone for their body. Why? Well, they might respond, because someone is so much MORE than their body. I agree with that, but that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't like someone exclusively for their body. If you liked someone exclusively for their personality, and found them repulsive physically, why is that okay, and even considered a good thing?

You can like someone exclusively for their body. It's okay. Lust is a natural thing that affects pubescents and post-pubescents, and it's no use trying to fight it. Does that mean walk around naked and proposition everyone? No! Really, don't do that. That would make people uncomfortable.

That means that it is okay to be interested in people for their body. It's okay to experiment, kiddo.

Full disclosure, I don't experiment. But it's totally cool if you want to.

And now is the point when you know what this is talking about, for some of you. But don't get mad, just let me finish.

Romance is very different. Romance is the "d'awww" stuff that makes teenage girls [supposedly] swoon, and usually ends with two people holding hands and walking into the sunset. This type of intimacy is glorified. Why? Because it isn't sexual.

Sometime way back when, people had a falling out with sexuality. Maybe they were having a rock-paper-scissor battle, and sexuality lost to WWE  as a socially acceptable and morally acceptable topic.

Eh, but I spend too much time trying to fight the battle for humans to be comfortable with their sexuality. Most of the people reading this won't go past saying "Crap entry is crap". Which may be true. I've made some real stinkers. Whatever, read it and weep. I'm hoping to have another entry up before next Friday, but don't rely on me.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J. Valett

Dear Miss Symanski

You probably don't remember me. If you remember me at all, my face and personality have likely blended with the faces and personalities of the other fourth and fifth graders you taught. To you, I was likely just a face in the crowd.

It wasn't reciprocated, however. This is natural, because while a teacher may have upwards of 150 students, students rarely had more than 3 teachers per year in elementary school. So, I remember you.

It was my third grade when I knew you. You taught art at my elementary school. Never being particularly interested in the subject, your class wasn't one I looked forward to immensely. And that's okay.

I'm writing this- whatever you'd call it- because you recently committed suicide. After living since 2005 with paralysis from shoulders downward, you decided to end your life. No one would give you leave to do it, however, so you starved yourself. Two months it took you, but on December 1st, 2011, you left this world.

Why is this coming so late? I only heard about your death yesterday morning. It shocked me to my core that this happened, and that it had happened to you.

I'm going to be totally honest with you and say I don't remember much about your personality. I was in third grade, so I could be spared a little blame. I do remember liking you, for whatever reason.

As you know, in June 2005, you were paralyzed in a diving accident. There wasn't much direct impact on my life from this, except that you were replaced as Art teacher by a variety of substitutes. I can't remember if the principal addressed it all, but I remember hearing about it.

"Miss Symanski had an accident," was probably what I heard. "She accidentally dived into a three-foot pool. Now, she's going to be okay, but she's going to have to be in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. This shows how careful you have to be, okay?"

I probably said okay.

That was when you left my life. You didn't re-enter until what must have been 2008.

My mother had been searching the Internet when she came across an article about you, about how you still painted despite being injured. The picture included (One that has stuck in my mind, for whatever reason: A woman in a wedding dress, with clocks all around her, and you painting it with a brush in your mouth) shocked me, and showed me that you, even after a horrifying accident, could continue to do what you loved.

I drafted you a letter that I wanted to write you, explaining how much you inspired me.

As you and I both know, I never sent it.

Which brings me to the day of February 14th, 2012. Valentine's Day. My mother read aloud to my sister, while I was there, about your demise. I was shocked and horrified.

You are the first person I knew who committed suicide. Not that a judge you for it, but it certainly puts a human element on it.

You came to be a symbol in my mind. Someone who could do what they wanted, no matter the situation, no matter the trouble. Some might think that you committing suicide would take that away. It did not.

Starving yourself to death? I don't know if the other options were unavailable, but that was a painful way to go. Such dedication to a cause is admirable.

After I heard about your death, I started thinking of all the things I could have done. A million different ways to have kept you alive, none of which were feasible. I wanted to save you from the pain, I wanted to help you.

It turns out you didn't need my help. You saved yourself.

So I wrote this letter, which I'm going to post on the Internet. I wish I had had the courage to send it to you myself.

Christina Symanski, where ever you are now, rest in peace.

From,
A former student who now goes by Joshua Valett.

You know, that one day after Desperation Day

Yesterday, on Facebook, the ever-growing tumor on humanity's face (I have one! <3), I saw a lot of posts about Valentine's Day. Like a lot. Most of them were the traditional ones this time of year: "It's a holiday created by the greeting card companies, MAN" and "Forever Alone!!!!", not to mention the annual list of cards featuring either disturbingly gushy or depressing subject material.

But the one that stood out to me the most was this one. I'm going to pretty up the grammar and cut out here and there, but here's what it said, "And when your boyfriend dislikes you because all of the food he gave you made you fat, then maybe you'll realize that you should treat your girlfriend great every day, not just on a Hallmark created, show them you love them daily."


I understand some of the problems that people have with the day, like the aforementioned, "treat them with love every day!" thing. It's a great idea, in theory. But that also means that we should get rid of Mother's Day, Father's Day, Labor Day, President's Day, MLK Jr. Day, birthdays and all of those other holidays that celebrate  individuals or ideas. Should we get rid of veteran's day because we should appreciate them everyday, not just one day?

No! Of course not! While I don't disagree about treating your partner with respect and affection daily, it's nice to go out of your way once and a while and do something special. Valentine's Day is a great day to remind people how great couples can be.

Now, I speak directly to a certain type of person: the person that directly insults Valentine's Day. Not the ones who make jokes like the one in this title, no, those people are just unfunny. I'm talking about people who bash on those who celebrate it, saying things like, "You know you are celebrating a massacre, right?"

Let these people have their fun. Just because you aren't with somebody on that holiday, doesn't make it crappy. And even if you are with someone, and don't believe in it, don't make everyone else suffer because of it (just your partner). I see it akin to, on someone's birthday, reminding them of the time they spent in the womb and that you are celebrating, "the first time you touched your mom's vagina" (I swear to God I've heard someone say this before)

I've never been in a relationship, certainly not on Valentine's Day. But that doesn't mean I can't let others enjoy it.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J. Valett

Ecstasy (or Bliss, though I like the drug better than the chocolate. Hypothetically, of course)

So, long story short, I wrote something not entirely compulsory for my English class. I'm not going to go deep into backstory territory here, but I feel like I owe ya'll something. Only rudimentary knowledge of Fahrenheit 451 is helpful, not required.  I did some editing and will have a short afterword, but here it goes:

On Friday, the Do Now on your board consisted of three parts, but the part that stood out to everyone in the class [I admit, I presume; for me at least] was the first. “What is happiness”, you asked us, a class of fifteen and sixteen year olds. After much debate over which characters were happy and which ones were not, that part of the question got a little bit overshadowed.

I spent a lot of time thinking about that question this weekend. The definition I wrote on my paper, one that I now consider incorrect, is “an intense feeling of satisfaction”. Satisfaction isn’t happiness; satisfaction leads to contentedness. So, as I sat on the bus on my ride home, I pondered,  “What is happiness?”

Before I came to a definite conclusion about happiness, I realized that the questions you had asked us wasn’t one that couldn’t be answered. Maybe you never intended an actual answer when you asked them, but it seems unfair that there should be questions like that in an English class,and not in Philosophy. I believe that I should clarify that the unanswerable question was whether or not the characters were happy.

Happiness is not a permanent state. I believe that is where your question and I split off the most; your question implied that happiness was a binary state, that one could either be happy or unhappy, with no middle ground. Clarisse IS happy, the class decided; but what did that mean?

I think of happiness as more of a short-term status effect, almost like a “high”. In fact, “high” would be the perfect word to describe the phenomenon. Instead of a constant state one could be in, happiness is a flash, a short time of ecstasy to be countered, almost immediately, with pain and displeasure.

The assumption that Clarisse was happy seemed and seems silly to me. In a society like the one they live in, no one can be happy. Happiness is defined by its contrast. Something can’t be fast unless there is something slow to which a comparison could be made. Similarly, in a society where sadness is obsolete and non-existent, how could anyone be happy?

Speaking of the prospect of someone being happy, fake happiness is another thing that was brought up during the class discussion. People seemed unanimous in their decision that Mildred was fake happy; she believed herself to be happy, but she wasn’t. According to my above description of happiness, these people would be right; she has no contrast, so she can’t be more than normal at any time.

This upset me, because I don’t believe in fake happiness. If one believes themselves to be happy, they are. Not the kind of “believe-I’m-happy” that Guy indulges, because he has doubts about himself and his happiness. Mildred honestly believes, with all of her heart and soul, that she is happy; so why can’t she be?

Much like the characters in the Matrix, everyone in their society believes what they are wanted to believe. Guy’s civilization is taught that they are happy all the time, so they are. Neo’s civilization is taught that the Matrix is the real world, so it is. If you asked someone in the Matrix whether the world they lived in was real, everyone single one would have said yes. Does that mean that the Matrix isn’t real, that nothing that goes on there is real? Morpheus asked Neo what was real, and no true answer was given.

As I round the first page and run, with no sign of stopping onto another, my classmates are undoubtedly wondering why I spent so much time of my life on this, and whether or not I really had anything better to do this weekend.  To that I say.................

I’m hoping someone in this room will take something away from this. Look at what a book like Fahrenheit 451 can do to a poor kid like me. I’m hoping one of you, at least one of you, will think the next time a seemingly easy question like that is asked.

Think like Guy Montag. Think different.

Quite the doozy (sp?), huh? Yeah, I composed the letter because I felt like I needed to write it. Normally, I'd let it ooze murkily out of your computer screen, rather than broadcast it to my English class, but change is nice sometimes.

This one definitely reads better out loud, so maybe I should record it with my silky smooth voice. Nah, that takes some of the mystery out of this site. Even though 98.765% of my readers know who I am.

'Til Death (or Love's Side Effect)

Kim Kardashian. This girl hasn't exactly been dealt Aces in the great card game of Life. Father had passed away, her mother got married to a man with step-children, became a big time celebrity because a video of her fornicating got leaked, now permanently resting at B-level celebrity status. More recently, however, the gal got married to a total asshole, and got divorced 72 days later.

Whenever people harp on this girl for a lot of her flaws, I really can't say much. The sex tape? Yeah, 100% her fault, though she made the best out of a bad situation. Her reality shows? Yugh. But I don't have to watch them.

But when people are like, "There are things that have been in my fridge longer than Kim Kardashian's marriage lasted.", I get really pissed off. SHE MADE A GODDAMN MISTAKE. This is probably one of the worst things that has happened to her. How would you like it if on the day your father died someone you hardly knew came up to you and said, "At least now the rest of us get to eat at Thanksgiving, AMIRITE?". Now image that from millions of people you don't know.

Cut the jokes, cut her some slack. For this at least.

Now I'm not going to say that it was this incident that engendered my thoughts on marriage, but it's convenient that I get a good opener like that.

I'm not sure how to feel about marriage.

Now, chances are, you know someone who has, at one point, been married. Whether it be a parent, guardian, brother, sister, cousin, grandparent, friend, or teacher, you have known someone of that persuasion. If you ask ninety-eight percent of married couples why they got married, they will say it was because they loved one another. Unless you are my dad, in which case you would say, "We have a lot in common. For example, we both believe our Soulmates are out there somewhere."

Why does love automatically lead to marriage? As sitcoms have made me VERY aware, once you have dated someone for over a year or so, people ask you, "So when are you going to tie the knot?" Why is automatically assumed that people want to get married?

I've heard marriage defined as a permission slip from the Church to have sex. A little crass, but that's certainly how it began. If you weren't married, you could not copulate. (I wonder how many different words I can use to describe intercourse in this post?) That wasn't WHY people got married of course: they got married to be able to have kids and be supported.

Nowadays, marriage seems to be more of a tradition than anything real, other than tax changes. Brad Pitt (Very respectable actor) and Angelina Jolie (Very wide-mouthed actress) haven't been married, but their day to day interactions wouldn't be much different from your average married couple. Besides all of the African child rescuing, and all that money, and stuff.

That being said, would I be opposed to getting married if my lady-friend insisted on it? No, I would not. (I would, however, be opposed to changing my religion. If being Jewish [culturally] doesn't jive with you, I'm sorry, we are done here.)

I think marriage doesn't do much good. For some reason, people stop being all lovey-dovey once they get married, probably because things become routine. I don't want that to happen to me. I want to be happy with my partner, maybe not every second of every day, but just... happy. Not bored.

Also, marriage shackles people in. I'm not Barney Stinson (though I wish I had his face. I don't like my face as much as I like his) so don't get me wrong, but it just adds this layer of 'YOU AIN'T GOING NOWHERE, PUNK' that just would feel wrong. That's what its there for, I guess, to make sure that small squabbles don't permanently mess up a relationship, but it also makes people feel restrained.

People grow apart, and some people get divorced. It sucks, but it happens. The divorce process can be so long and drawn out and contemptuous that the two individuals, who used to be so in love, can barely tolerate the other! When I split up with a girl, I don't want it to be like that.

It's also not  monogamy that makes marriage weird for me. When you enter a relationship, it should be monogamous, at least in my eyes. Extra-relationship affairs aren't something that I'd consider, not that people tend to consider these things much before doing them.

Now, I'm not married. Actually, technically I am. In fourth grade, I married my best male friend Jonah, and last year I was forced into a polygamous marriage with a Becky and an Emma.

Point is, I've never actually experienced any of these things that I'm preaching. But that's true for a lot of what I talk about. So am I wrong?

Probably. But that's how I feel now. What was that quote I heard once? "It is better to speak your mind and change it tomorrow than to have a consistent outlook but keep it silent"? No, but something of that persuasion.

Unfortunately, people seem to equate long-term relationships with marriage. It looks like I may be forced to go through with the "I do". But the above is how I feel about it. Unless of course my future wife is reading, in which case,

JOKE POST! Lololololol, the entire thing was a joke!

Whatever.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J. Valett.

Post Script
I've got a little surprise cooking, that I'd like to reveal to the public March 15th. So be there!

A More Personal Introspective

Some of you reading this (if I in fact decided to publish it) may be wondering why I'm doing another post more centrally about me rather than a topic for me to clumsily debate for you like I've been doing. One might say that it is because my past few posts garnered less than positive responses. It's certainly possible, and I actually came to my computer intending to write a far more different piece, by C'est la vie.

I feel myself descending into another one of my routine cycles, one that I'm not too fond of. I wouldn't call it depression, because it's not depression, but it is more of apathy. Every once in a while I'll just take a few minutes off to think about how very routine it all is: we are all doing the same play, day after day, with a few extras swapped out here and there and some dialogue mixed up. It makes me very introspective as to why we do any of it, almost approaching the pinnacle of all self-aware questions: Why are we here?

I've been less than shy about my atheism on this site, but not that kind of why. The kind where I wonder what is it that compels us to do the same thing day in, day out, with very little change for months on end. Surprise, I don't find an answer and just continue on my path of apathy until something comes along and brings me out.

What caused it this time? Can't say I know. Was it the less than stellar reviews I've heard about my previous blog posts? Is it the extreme self-deprication with which I've been approaching midterms which leaves me woefully unprepared? Is it my peculiar predicament which I've recently become aware is quite thoroughly ordinary in all lights?

I don't know.

Maybe it's just the comparison to last year that makes me so sultry. I feel like I've lost most of my friends to the slow death march of time. The only problem is that I can't tell if I've abandoned them or if they've abandoned me. Probably some mix of the two.

I'll sometimes pass someone in the hallway or in the cafeteria that I knew damn well yesteryear or the one before that. Today in the cafeteria I saw one such girl and the only thought that went through my head was 'I remember you.'

I wasn't mad that we had been separated and that neither of us wanted to get back to our previous state. I wasn't wondering whether she remembered me, though I don't think I recognized anything in her eyes. I just looked at her sadly and thought, 'I remember you.'

Is it a problem that we grow and we change and we leave those we once considered brothers or best friends? Maybe. I'm just in an in-between time right now, and that really sucks.

Not sucks in a way that would mean anything to anyone actually suffering out there. Just in a way that sucks for me.

I want to apologize, publicly but in this non-identificateable way for the few of you I've used as a crutch these past few days. You know who you are, and maybe it makes me less of a coward owning up to it here, but I was looking for reassurances about myself that you were providing. It was weak of me. I'm sorry.

Why am I putting this out of the Internet? I don't know, which seems to be a common trend here. I guess I just needed to let off some steam. Maybe I won't post it, and no one will know that this is how I feel. Just don't judge me for it, and please don't pity me for it.  Maybe I'll post it. Maybe.

Thanks for possibly reading and possibly considering,
-J. Valett

Joshua Valett's Junk Drawer

Taking a hand from Movie Bob over at the Escapist, I've decided to do a sort of Junk Drawer episode, where I address a couple of things that wouldn't have made it into full posts. You'll be able to see where one topic ends and another begins by the presence of the ~



~

The Word African-American.

Let's stop using it, shall we? Before I get all SCREEEEE-YOU-ARE-NOT-POLITICALLY-CORRECT screaming, stop and think about this word for a second. African-American.

Are you researching this person's past before calling them this? Assuming that just because someone's skin is darker that they come from Africa is more racist than calling them black in the first place. Would you call someone Swedish-American just because they were white?

I'm not black (Ah! Personal Information!) so I don't have a great view on this, but that makes a lot of sense to me.


~

Grammar (No 'e' in there, folks)

I'm not saying that you have to spell-check and grammar-check every single thing you write on the Internet. I get it, this is your free time and you don't want to spend it like it is English class. Folks, I understand all of this; enough is enough though.

Use full words. Don't use 2 for to or too. Use correct form of their, there, and they're. It just makes everything easier. You saving twenty milliseconds will take a reader a hell of a lot longer to decipher. But no one is going to listen to me on this, so I'll just keep correcting your text messages and facebook posts.

Also, stop using the phrase 'Grammar Nazi'. It's just crass.


~


Movies

This is the only one of these that I considered fleshing out into a full post, but I'm not sure how long or good it would be.

Why is it that movies are considered the dominant form of media? You might not think much about it, but our culture says that movies are the most prestigious.

You ever see a book turned into a video game before a movie? (Witcher series was made into a movie, in case you were going to say that.) How many of you can't wait to see the TV series adaption of your favorite novel (Game of Thrones and a couple others aside, more common nowadays than in the past)? Video game novels? Please, those are only for the diehard fans of the series. TV video games? Lame knock off tie-ins for the quick buck.

Whenever a book/video game is finished, you'll often see things on sites that say, "WHO WE WANT TO PLAY X PART IN Y MOVIE". Why? I don't like the fact that movies are taken for granted as the best form of media.

When something works as a game or as a book, it doesn't mean it will work as a movie. Take the Hunger Games series, por exemple. I really enjoyed the series (well, mostly the first book) for its sense of isolation and one-person-against-the-world survival story. I'm not saying that this couldn't be portrayed well in a movie, but I'm doubtful (Though the producers aren't: they've already commissioned the second book to be made into a movie)

Let's remember the importance of specialization, folks: not every great book or game needs to be a movie. I understand that movies are generally easy for everyone to watch and pay attention to for two hours, but that doesn't mean that EVERY book has to be one. I would never want to see a The Road movie, for example.

~

The Military Scandal

There was recently a scandal in the media over a photo of some US soldiers appearing to pee on the corpses of some slain soldiers in a US-occupied country. There have been mixed responses to it; some people say that you can't curb this kind of thing when you are trying to convince soldiers to do this kind of thing you must dehumanize the enemy.

But think about this: What would happen if it was the other way around? If some Afghanistan soldiers took a picture like this?

The country would ERUPT. Think about it. This behavior is ridiculous and terrible, and I want these soldiers on administrative leave at the best.

~

The Hobbit Rises

I can't find it in myself to muster any excitement at all for The Dark Knight Rises. I really like the Nolan brothers, especially Jonathan as a writer. It's just... Tom Hardy as Bane and Anne Hathaway as Selena Kyle don't blow me away like The Joker and Scarecrow did in the first two films.

I haven't seen it though, and I will see it and give it a chance, but... meh.

Also, I could not understand a word Bane said in that trailer.

The Hobbit movie, on the other hand, looks like its doing great. Shine on, Peter Jackson, shine on.


~


SOPA

Not gonna spend much time on this, as most people already know about it. It was shelved recently, and I don't see it coming back any time soon.

Woo!

But MegaUpload sites were recently shut down due to a crapton of copyrighted content on those sites. MegaVideo in particular had a lot of free movies to watch. If YouTube doesn't keep up its rigid protection of this kinda stuff, it could definitely get the banhammer.

My favorite part of this story was that there was a website apparently called MegaPorn under that label. I find that really funny.


~


I guess that's it for my first Junk Drawer. I might update this later with a couple more, but probably not. Comment and tell me if you like it, folks! I'm out of here.


Thanks for reading and considering,
-J. Valett

Moral-less or (That's One of the Best Puns I've Ever Made)

Okay, remember back to my third or fourth post? Of course you don't, but I hosted a poll asking what you wanted to hear me talk about. The winner was morals, but I completely ignored you.

Well, I've decided to come back to it, after being informed in psychology class of much of the history. It really is fascinating stuff, which is why I'm going to be starting out this post by giving you a brief summary of it. If you don't want to read any of it, or you already know it, just skip the part in between the lines.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some time ago (the scientific term, obviously), some guy asked some other guy to decide what constituted a moral choice and what made something immoral. This second guy, named Kohlberg, decided that the reasons behind the choices made the difference, rather than your decision itself. Here's a chart of what he decided was moral:

Stage One   {Punishment- It only matters to you if you get punished for it. If you do not, you'll do it
                   {Reward- It only matters to you if you get something for it.
Stage Two  {Opinion of Others- What others think of what you do, and what others do matters most
                    {Rules/Laws (Blind)- Follow the rules, even if you don't understand
Stage Three {Rules/Law(Understand)- Follow the rules/laws because you understand the logic behind it
                    {Personal Philosophies- You follow what you believe is right and your ideals

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, I know exactly what you are thinking; Mr. Valett, did you just shove that in there to pad out your post?

NO I DID NOT.

More importantly, you may be thinking, 'There are so many flaws there I don't know where to start'. And you'd be right. Mr. Kohlberg's research pool consisted of a bunch of small white rich boys, not exactly a wide and varied one.

Hey, you've heard of Hitler, right? The current world demonizes the man, and for good reason. He eradicated over 11 million people from the face of the world, and that's only civilians murdered by his orders. He also incited a World War that killed many more millions.

Hey, you've heard of Jesus, right? The current world idolizes the man, and for good reason. He stood for peace and love, and died for other people's sins, if Christianity is to be believed.

According to Kohlberg, they would both be in the same level of the moral spectrum. According to him, Hitler would be as moral as they come.

And when you think about it, there is a lot of solid reasoning behind it. Hitler didn't look at the Jewish people and recognize that they were like any other group; he saw a group of people who he felt were responsible for the downfall of his nation, and all he wanted was to restore his nation to greatness. And amass power for himself. That too.

I'm reminded of a quote that really resonated with me from Neil Gaiman's American Gods. It is, I quote, (and don't worry, it may be from midway through the book, but it has no plot relevance.)

"Look- here is a good man, good by his own lights and the lights of his friends; he is faithful and true to his wife, he adores and lavishes attention on his little children, he cares about his country, he does his job punctiliously, as best he can. So, efficiently, and good-naturedly, he exterminates Jews... and if there is anything he feels bad about, it is that he still allows the gassing of vermin to affect him. Were he a truly good man, he knows, he would feel nothing but joy, as the earth is cleansed of its pests."

And no, I'm still not just padding. So, can morals be defined by the reasons behind them? Maybe. The moral differences between societies certainly support that, because no two societies are exactly the same in what they think is moral.

So, I started thinking, it can't be the actions that are moral, and it might not be the reasons that are moral, so what is?

Then I realized that it didn't matter.

Morals are just a way for people to reassure them of their decisions. But in the end, the decisions are made. We have to live with the consequences, whether or not the choice was made in good faith.

Recently there was a charity collection at my school. I decided to donate quite a sum of my own money, and didn't think much of it. But then I thought about it. Was I doing it for the people, or for what others would think of my decision? I still haven't completely decided, but that money was donated regardless.

Even if the devil cured all diseases to torture the one baby orphan who still had them, the world would be a much better place for it. So do morals matter at all? If I donated that money to make myself feel like a better person, does that make me a bad person?

Does it?

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J.Valett

Cap'n Hook! Cap'n Hook! ( or ARRGH)

On a pre-topic note, PUSHING 3000 VIEWS!

I'm a little frustrated today, for lack of a better word, so let me take this opportunity to talk to people who frustrate the hell outta me. Hello, Pirates.

No, not you pirates in Somalia, though we should probably have a talk sometime too. No, I'm talking about people who illegally download video games, movies, music, and the like.

A lot of people played CD Projekt RED's the Witcher 2. In fact, I'd say that besides doing well commercially, it was also an unbelievably pretty game with interesting branching dialogue. How well did it do commercially? 6 million units are out there, right now, being played. Pretty good, right?

Well it would be, but sadly only 1 million of those units was purchased. That is right, according to CD Projekt RED's counts, for every legitimate copy of the game sold, there were five that were stolen online.

That is completely ridiculous.

Don't forget about CD Projekt RED, because we'll come back to them in a little bit, but let's {I'll} try to break down some of the most common arguments used by pirates. Here we go!

It's Not Like I'm Stealing From Anyone: Okay, hands tied, it is true that when you illegally download copies of things, you aren't preventing other people from getting their hands on them legally, like stealing a physical copy would. But it is still stealing; the producers of that media spent a helluva lot of money getting that particular media built, and you should be paying for it.

It's Not Worth Paying For: This one is really stupid. If it isn't worth paying for, it isn't worth playing/watching/listening to. If the media is good enough for you to want to experience it, you should pay for it.

I Can't Afford To Buy These Things:  This one is harder to address, because of extenuating circumstances. I'll take it medium by medium. Video games are simple in this regard. If you can afford a $300 console or decent gaming PC, I see no reason you can't pay $20 for a good game from a couple years back every couple months. Music- Go listen to youtube, or any other site like that. And don't complain about ads on VEVO and the like. You are getting a free gift, and you complain that you have to take off the wrapping. The simplest way I can put this one is that I can't afford a blimp. Does that mean I'm entitled to steal one? No, it just means I shouldn't buy a blimp.

It's Only One Copy: Gotta say, this one is my favorite. And I'm sure every single one of the Witcher 2 illegal downloaders thought the exact same thing.

Now, CD Projekt RED looked at their sales numbers, and were a little bit bummed. Understandably so. So what did they do? They used their magical technology (which they have not yet revealed to the public) to identify, track down, and confront people who downloaded their game illegally. And once they find them, they offer an ultimatum: Give us a huge sum of cash or watch us sue you in court.

Not surprisingly, all of the people confronted so far payed up.

Some people don't like the idea of going after pirates like this and making them pay insane sums. Why not just charge them full retail for the game?

That's simple. If Jonny Appleseed has a choice to illegally download The Witcher 2 for free, with only a small chance of having to pay $60, or be forced to pay $60 at the start, what would he choose?

Charging these pirates sums of upwards of thousands of dollars is how you get them to stop. You hit the pirates in their weak spot: Their wallet.

Piracy is one of the few issues I see as black and white. Would you steal in real life? Probably not. You feel as though the anonymity of the Internet protects you, and it does. But if your only judge of whether or not something should be done is whether or not you get punished for it, then you have some serious moral issues.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J.Valett

Wolf Whistle (or The Times, They Are A'Changin')

As I sit here, eyeing my growing pile of homework, trying to stare it down, I decide to get some work done: I've decided to write a second blog post in two days! Yeah, hold your applause. I know I'm a hard worker.

SO! Remember the story I used to open yesterday's post? If not, just do the little scrolleys to find it. Well, during that long conversation, my discussion partner inquired about why the main female in the new Mission Impossible flick was displaying so much cleavage, complaining that it drew too much attention and wasn't good for someone trying to blend in. I replied that in today's world, NOT displaying ample cleavage was the more conspicuous choice.

I've been meaning to write a post about this for a while; in fact, during the Dark Days (the period when I didn't post for a couple months, as they shall be known as from this point on) I wrote a post about it, but it was so abysmal that I didn't bother to post it.

Okay, enough beating around the bush. The topic of the day is............. inappropriate choices in clothing!

I know it's sexist to say that this is only an issue that affects women, so saying that would be... well sexist, and also laughably incorrect. Tell me that you've never been uncomfortable around a man who was wearing a Speedo at the beach. I know I have.

Of course, all of this has to be prefaced with two disclaimers. One: these kinds of things change pretty quickly with the times. It wasn't too long ago that it was considered scandalous for a woman to show her knee in public, and now... well I'm not sure what to say about now. Two: These are my opinions, as are most of the pieces on the site, all of the ones written by me.

Now, down to the hard part.

I've always had two conflicting opinions on this issue. On one hand, I believe our society is way too uptight about sexuality. Our bodies are just the physical forms used to carry us from point A to point B, and we make too much fuss about who sees what. Comfort also dictates that you wear what you feel is comfortable. I like that. I'm much more form over function, but that's just me.

 On the other hand, not everyone needs to see what you feel like showing. This, for me, mostly applies to children under the age of 12, though that is a number that I just pulled out of thin air. Does a six-year-old need to wear a bikini? Do the nine-year-olds I see at camp really need to wear shorts that show the buttocks? Even girls in high school do this, as apparently the best way into a man's heart is through his pants.

If I had to make a case one way or the other, I would choose for everyone to wear more clothing. At this point in time, covering up is considered 'decent' by society. I don't like where all of the lack of clothes is leading. Sure, it is entirely possible that the need to physically leave a certain place is all but gone in less than 100 years, but for now, we have to see each other. So make sure we don't see TOO much of each other.

I'm not too happy with this post either, but its better than nothing. Arguably.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J. Valett

Teeny-Boppers (or Yet Another Guest Author)

So, being the kind, generous, majestic soul I am, I decided to grace you readers with yet another guest author, a miss "Bella Darling" (Trust me, I tried to convince her/him/her not to name themselves this). I'll put up a poll to the left of this post asking if you want to see more of her/his/her opinions. Cheers!

So this is not “Joshua Valett” if you were expecting it, sorry. Instead, it’s a girl this time, with a different view of being a teenager, also known as living hell.

This is the time of our lives when we make mistakes. In fact, most people expect mistakes from teenagers. These mistakes include falling in love and then crying our eyes out over a tub of Ben and Jerry’s triple chocolate brownie while watching *insert chick-flick here* when the relationship ends…or maybe that’s just me. But the falling in and out of love thing is true. Now. Were all friends here right? So when I ask you if you have ever had your heart broken, I fully expect the majority of you reading to say yes. I know I have multiple times, and I’m not ashamed to say that.  Having my heart broken has made me a stronger person and made me realize that guys are not, in fact, the center of the universe. The difference between guys and girls is girls have an easier time with feelings . GASP FEELINGS! CODE RED CODE RED! I know. This is dangerous territory. Here’s the thing, admitting your feelings doesn’t make you weak, or vulnerable, it actually makes you more ten bajillionmilliontrillionthoussandhundredbillion times more attractive just in general. I know this is asking a lot, but the next time you see your girlfriend, boyfriend, best friend, crush, or significant other, just ask them how they are doing, how their day is going, or what’s new with them. You would be surprised how far it will get you. Feelings aren’t something to be afraid of, every person has them, you should capitalize on them instead.

I recently had my heart broken. Sad times. But I don’t regret it, because it showed me the persons true colors. My point is that you, yes YOU, should NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER be afraid to like someone, or more importantly, do something about it! I know that liking someone and the thought of doing anything more than admiring from afar can make death seem like a more enjoyable alternative, but im serious its not that bad. I told someone I liked them once, it made me want to throw up while I was doing it, and I got my ass rejected to the street. It sucked for a while, but it was better than never knowing and spending my life wondering. Plus, I moved on and I was happier from it, gave me the ability to find someone who really cared about me.  I want you to say something with me, both girls and guys.  Repeat after me: Admitting my feelings is not the worst thing that will ever happen in this world. Let that sink in a moment. Then repeat. Not so bad right? Because it isn’t! Feelings are what make us human! Without them, well we would be cold blocks of heartless mush. Eww.  

Here’s something beautiful about being a teenager: Were still young. We have loads of time left! So if no one likes you right now, or you have come to the realization that people suck, or you just aren’t ready, that’s all okay. There’s plenty of time for all of that.  

One more thing? Love is beautiful. Never be afraid of it.

Thanks for reading and considering,

-B. Darling

Amor (or How you SHOULD Feel)

During this wonderful and decidedly short break, I had a conversation with someone about love. Being an avid reader on this site, my compatriot decided that I did love my family. The person argued that how I felt for my parents constituted love, and that once I meet a little blonde pig-tailed girl for whom I felt the same, it was time to get married to her and skip off into the sunset.

At the time, I politely disagreed and changed the subject.

I know I have another article up about love, and another one from a second mystery author on the way, so I'll go back and re-read that article to make sure this isn't a retread. (For those interested, http://ideasofidealists.blogspot.com/2011/05/chocolates-and-flowers-or-love-of-love.html). Gosh, were my writings all that short back then? Is all of this clutter (Hyuk hyuk hyuk) detracting from my message? Eh, whatever, I'm enjoying myself.

One of my biggest detractions from the assumption that you should automatically love your parents and your siblings is what it implies. I'm not really sure where I stand on the "one-true-love" thing, but I don't think I'm for it. The idea that there is only one person in the world that can make you happy is daunting, considering there are 6,999,999,998 other people besides the two of you to sift through.

The thought that anyone you endure for long enough can, nay SHOULD, be loved is one I don't like. I prefer to actually have connections with people, to find common interests or ideas to start a friendship with, not just common genes. If your family is horrid, for e.g., should you automatically love them?

No! You should not! Now I'm not saying that my family is horrible, quite the contrary. I really do like my parents, and my sister isn't quite as bad as I make her out to be. We just aren't really compatible. If she was not a relative of mine, I doubt we would be friends. Hell, I don't know if I would be friends with any of my relatives!

One major thing that bugs me about love is how incessantly it is pushed into movies, television shows, and video games. It seems that for every romance that fits and makes sense in the context of the piece, there are roughly ten others that were shoe-horned in for no apparent reason! Lazy story writers use romance as a way to add some more emotional weight to the piece, without needing relatable characters or interesting scenarios.

I'm not opposed to the idea of love. I even disagree with the second comment on my first article about love, that says that teenagers can't experience it. Why? Do we lack the proper glands to feel love? There are plenty of adults who say that they are in love when they are not, so why can't teenagers actually be in love.

I thought I was in love once. Perhaps I was, though I doubt it. They say that when you are in love, you know it, and I didn't know it, so perhaps I wasn't. The time I thought I was was awesome though. Love, if popular culture has taught me anything, is the greatest thing in the world. Dumbledore was a big fan of the thing, and if there's one guy I agree with on almost everything, it's Albus.

But it shouldn't consume a life. Love, in my humble opinion, should be the salt on the pretzel. While it isn't 100% necessary, you'd say it was missing... something without it. But don't put too much on, or you will miss out on the flaky rest of the treat.

That was a bad analogy for me though, because I love salt. Seriously.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J.Valett