I've Got a Theory...

...and if you sang that title, 10 points to you!

Anyway, I have a number of "theories" that I like to kick around.  Some or all may not be actual theories, and probably don't actually hold up to real life facts, but mostly I just find them amusing.  So, I thought I would share.

1. All loud new millennium rockers have a secret passion for dance music.
Maybe it's just the music I listen to, or maybe I am just reading WAY too much into this, but I swear there is something about loud rockers and dance music that just happens.  Now, I use the term dance music not as the specific genre but more generally as like music that you would dance to or might hear at a club, or something w/ lots of synthe and bounce to it. (Ok, I am a little out of my depth w/ describing this, jeez.)  I mean, I suppose it makes sense in a way as the Millenial generation has only given the world 2 new music genres: dubstep and metalcore.  And there is all the synthecore and similar music that actually combines loud post-hardcore like music w/ synthy dancy stuff.  Let's also not fail to mention that there have been many rockin' artists that have moved on to more fancy dancy stuff.  I mean, one day I got curious to whatever happen to Sonny Moore after he left From First to Last, and when I found out I was all "WFT?!?!?!"  Where did that come from?  Plus, while I do very much love "Save Rock and Roll" you can definitely see that Fall Out Boy got some of their dance groove out w/ this album.  (I think Patrick Stump got way dancier while going solo, but let's be honest, I was all "no thank you."  Idk, I admit I love me some poppy dancing music, but not mixed with and/or from my loud rockin' people.  Combining those 2 worlds just kinds of weirds me out.  I like chocolate and broccoli, but you don't see me combining those together.

2. Despite English being their language, Brits don't know the proper use of the letter "r"
I watch a lot of British things.  A LOT.  They have all sorts of adorable language quirks and silly slang terms, some cooler than other.  I mean, no matter if people speak a common language, slang and enunciation is going to differ from place to place.  I get that.  But what bugs me is the complete inability of many Brits to correctly use their "r"s.  And you would think, since they invented the language, they'd know how to use it better.  Besides, this is an epidemic across all sorts of British locals, not just isolated to one part and dialect.  Here is the problem.  They cannot seem to enunciate the "r" when it's there.  For example, "car" sounds more like "caw."  But then they randomly throw them in other words where they don't belong.  Like "banana" would be said as "bananer."  No!! There is no "r" there!  What do they do? Do they not enunciate the "r" in certain words, and then go "oh, crap, I kept off that "r" and now I need to use it in another word.  This r-less word would do."  No! That will no do!

3. People suck but persons are awesome
I have this theory or thought or feeling, whatever, that people as a whole suck, but persons are awesome.  What I mean is that as a whole, people can really be grouped together as a bunch of ass holes.  People start wars, they are bigoted, they promote things en masse that really stupid, etc.  I swear, anytime you think of grouping people together and then describing them as a whole, it is usually as something negative.  It makes me think of Julius Cesar and how the crowd was dumb and easily swayed by a charismatic speaker to take action, w/o really thinking of what was actually a good idea.  But I find that individually, I will often find a person that rocks.  I think many people taken one at a time have a great story to tell.  Granted, there will always be people that you just want to punch in the face, but I think those are outnumbered by people that would stir more sympathetic emotions.  One of my favorite times is when I check out at the grocery store.  There are some very nice checkers there and I always have an interesting conversation with them.  I really doesn't matter about what, I just like the little connection w/ a stranger, and it brightens my day.  And recently I got my hair cut at the beauty school by a nice young man.  I thoroughly enjoyed just listening to all the things he wanted to do and all the interesting stories he had.  It is moments like this when you realize the world is an alright palce and people aren't so bad.

4. Favorites
Do you often read or hear about someone saying they couldn't pick a favorite something b/c they love them all so much?  Like, how they love wine or music or noir films or whatever so much that it would be hard to pick just on favorite?  Honestly, I think that's kind of BS.  Mostly, I just think you haven't given it enough thought or your not that discerning.  No matter how much you love something and how much volume of it you love, if you really took the time to think about or if something in the group really attached to you, you could pick a favorite.  Like me for example, I easily have a bunch of favorites in music, even thought I love soooooo much of it.  I have a favorite band, a favorite song, and I can even name my favorite song of my favorite band.  Plus, I could name my fav song of a lot of bands I like.  Why?  B/c I thought about it and know there are just some songs, for whatever reason, I just love more.  A lot of times it has to do w/ sentimental reasons or it's something I relate to.  With books, however, I don't have a favorite.  I don't even have a favorite author.  I think it's because books take me longer to read, it's hard to compare a lot of them.  And then it's not always easy to remember all that you read, which makes it harder to compare.  And as for authors, I read so many different ones that it's I haven't pinned down one who I like more than the rest.  There are few authors I have read (almost) completely.  But I have favorite TV shows.  And I have a favorite color.  But that's because those things catch my heart and I an drawn to pink more than anything else.

5. The name Chad
Now, if your name is Chad, I apologize for any offense.  Unless this is accurate to you, then I don't care.  So, I have this theory that no real guys were named Chad, but rather it is a name made up by movie people to be given to snobby preppy-boys b/c it sounds, well, it sounds so much like a preppy snob's name.  Think about it, how many movies have you seen w/ guys named Chad where this was true?  Mind blown, right?  Ok, I know that there are actually real guys named Chad.  My fav band has a Chad, and he is neither snobby or preppy.  But let's face it, there are enough of those Chad's in popular culture to make my point at least a little valid.

6. Romeo and Juliet living would have been a real tragedy
Shakespeare describes there never being a tale of more woe than these two story-crossed love birds.  But I would argue that them living at the end would have been the bigger tragedy.  Let's look at the facts.  First, they are really young.  This sweet, "our parents are feuding but we love each other" thing is all hot now, but once that blows over or enough times goes by, and it's jsut going to be annoying.  Their relationship wasn't exactly based on their liking each other for their personalities.  And let's not forget that not many moments before Romeo laid eyes on fair Juliet was he heart-wrenchingly complaining about some Rosaline ho.  Fickle much?  If her can forget Rosaline so quickly, soon it would be, "Juliet who?"  Oh, but wait, they secretly got married.  Good thing they died.  Otherwise, that marriage wouldn't have ended well.  I can see it now.  It's all "yay, we lived and now we can be together b/c our parents now see how stupid they are."  But soon, with the drama over, the romance would soon fade.  Maybe on its own, maybe b/c Juliet finds out she is pregnant and that makes Romeo feel the noose tighten.  Whatever happens, he starts getting fickle again, this time w/ whomever is around.  Juliet finds out, or at least senses something is going on, but it's way back in the day, so no divorce for her.  This is a perfect time for Paris to swoop in, looking all sympathetic (and like way more by Juliet's parents).  Maybe there's a duel for Juliet's honor, maybe Romeo runs off w/ some hussy and Paris picks up the pieces.  Either way, Juliet is never really happy again w/o her 1st love (who is plenty happy off w/ anyone and everyone else).  I mean, in the real version, at least they both still loved each other in the end.  Right?

If You Can't Use It Right, Don't Use It At All!!

I have a handful of interesting pet peeves, many of them odd.  I also have a very strong feeling about people using the language correctly.  I feel that over time it's bad for language in general, and being able to communicate w/ people who supposedly speak the same language.  So, you can imagine that I am big on people using words and phrases correctly.  Honestly, it's not that hard.  If you don't know what a word means or how a phrase is supposed to be used, don't use it.  Because, honestly, you just sound dumb!!

My biggest phrase usage pet peeve is when people use the phrase "Catch 22."  The next time I hear someone use this wrong, I may just scream and throw a public fit.  And part of the problem is that I just recently heard a very intelligent, professional person use this phrase incorrectly.  Yikes!!  It's funny, because I never really heard many people use the phrase, correctly or otherwise.  But for some reason lately people have been using it like crazy, and using it wrong!

Admittedly, it's not an easy phrase to necessarily understand.  I get it, because when I tried to explain it, I found it difficult to explain in words.  That being said, if it is THAT difficult, don't use it! Period!  But, here goes nothing.  I found it most helpful to read the Wikipedia article.  That explained it much better than I can.

The phrase "Catch 22" comes from a book of the same name. (It's a good book but also somewhat difficult to follow).  Basically, Catch 22 in the book is a law about requirements for people in the military, and pops up all the time to cause trouble to the characters in the book.  The basis from the phrase as it is/should be used is an issue faced in the book.

See, what happens is the main character, Yossarian, and a lot of his cohorts are military pilots during WWII.  The government originally told them they only had to fly so many missions before they are discharged from the military.  But over time the number keeps getting increased, so no one gets discharged.  And seeing how it's WWII and the flight missions are crazy dangerous (with most men dying eventually) you can imagine why these guys get peeved. So Yossarian wants to prove himself crazy.  See, under Catch 22, if you are crazy, you can be discharged from the military.  However, for this to happen, you have to yourself prove that you are crazy.  But wait! If you can prove you're crazy, you are obviously sane enough to realize it, and thus not crazy.  It's a Catch 22!  Or to attempt an explanation, it's a problem where just the nature of the problem makes the outcome impossible.

I think the better to understand example comes from the sequel Closing Time (also a really good book). In this book the President is no longer in office (I forget whether he's impeached or resigns).  Therefore, the VP is now the President.  Well, in protest the Chief Justice of the Supreme steps down.  So, the VP wants to get sworn in, but can't b/c there is no Chief Justice to do it.  And the only way to get a new Chief Justice to swear him in is to have one appointed by the President (which they didn't have).  Idk if this is actually possible in real life, but you can see how the problem works.  They can't get a new President w/o a Chief Justice, which they can't get w/o a President.  It's a Catch 22!!

Get it?  Not yet?  Well, I find the concept easier to understand w/ examples, so I have another one.  The particular example hits close to home, and given the state of the economy and trouble for young people, it may hit home for a lot of other people as well.  It goes like this: I need a job, but to get a job I need experience, but to get the experience I need to get a job. >_<  I've been there.  Many other people have too.  And guess what?  It's a Catch 22!!!

Get it now?  Well, if not, look it up somewhere else or you just will never get it and thus cannot use the phrase.  Let me tell you what is NOT a Catch 22.  The incorrect use that I always hear is when someone is listing two crappy choices, neither of one which you want to chose, but have to, and then say, "oh well, it's a Catch 22."  But it's not!!!!  If there is choice that can be seen to a conclusion, no matter how crappy, it's not a Catch 22.  It sucks, and I am sure there is a name for that, but not Catch 22.

So hey!  Now you know something new.  And if you want a phrase to explain the immediately above situation, look it up.  And you may learn a few more things.  But whatever you do, just don't use Catch 22 incorrectly in front of me.  I may not have control by then of my reaction.

Oh, the Cleverness of Me!

Okay, it can't be a surprise to people that I think myself so, so clever.  I often regale my friends and family with my wit and humor.  Unfortunately, sometimes I say clever things and there isn't an audience, or a large enough one anyway.  So, I have taken to compiling such cleverness (pathetic, I know) and I'd like to share some with you now.  In no particular order...

(1) While watching a preview for the One Direction film, one of the guys breaks more than one tea cup.  I say to my mom: "Isn't that a felony in England, punishable by death?"


(2) I was discussing Michael Phelps once w/ a co-worker, and how her used illegal plant substances and got in trouble for it.  She was upset that he was doing that, and said something like "Isn't you body a temple."  And I replied "don't they burn herbs at temple, though." Hahahaha.


(3) People talk about emotional baggage, and sometimes you see it in shows represented as actual baggage.  Well, if my emotional baggage were personal baggage, it'd be one of those briefcases you handcuff to yourself, and you have to saw off my hand to get at it.


(4) What if there are actually only very few people who possess criminal stuff, and they just have really awesome pants?  And they purposefully tell others to wear their pants, knowing there is contraband in there.  It's a conspiracy!


(5) I like to drive like I like roller coasters: fast, with my hands in the air.


(6) Or how about, I like my men like I like my coffee: sweet, covered in whipped cream.

(7) I recently went and saw the new Superman movie.  There was one scene when a young Clark and his dad (played by Kevin Costner) were having a conversation outside, and I could see their corn fields in the background.  I suddenly had the thought, "with all of Clark Kent's super powers, he could easily get that baseball field made for his dad."

(8)  I find it quite fitting the I have a B.S. degree in B.S.  And boy do I use it well.

(9) I could never be a trophy wife, you know, unless some guy wants a participation trophy wife.

I Am So A Millennial. Jealous?

Not long ago, I was definitely not a fan of "young people" in general, complaining about all the things wrong with them.  To be far, I hated teenagers practically from the moment that I stopped being one.  But after doing some research and some soul searching I learned that, while a lot of now young twenty somethings are obnoxious and annoying, I do share many traits.   I guess that's what happens w/ generations, where the span sometimes 20+ years.  I think it's more growing up and being annoyed by youngsters, who you so weren't that annoying a few years ago when you were that age.  But I digress.

What really made me realize and embrace my Millennial identity was entering the workforce and really experiencing the differences between my generation and older generations.  So, I thought I would go over some of the characteristics of being a Millennial and then my thoughts.  Here we go!

One of the most broadcasted traits of Millennials is probably the one that pisses me off the most, b/c while it can be true w/ many young adults, it's also unfair to label us this w/o examining the cause.   Yes, the Millennial generation is also called Generation Me.  And Yes, there is often a sense of entitlement among members of my generation, even when such entitlement is unwarranted.  I know more than one person as a young twenty something who just assume someone should give them a job b/c they deserved it, w/o actually getting any education or working hard or doing any trying of any kind. So, yes, that exists.  And true, sometimes I feel entitled to more than I have, b/c I am educated and really smart.  But I was also raised with a great work ethic and the knowledge that most people have to work there way up, so while I know I can and will do great things, I know I have to work for it and pay my dues.

Which brings me to my point: maybe Millennials wouldn't feel such a sense of entitlement if it wasn't for the generation that raised them!  

Think about.  Granted, I have no actual statistics, but from personal knowledge I can deduce that the majority of Millennials were raised by Baby Boomers. Duh, duh, duh.  And let's be real, Baby Boomers are probably, as a single generational entity, super greedy and selfish.  I have heard and read so much about that generation.  They are (probably) the ones who killed our environment and busted our economy.  But beyond that, think about how it was as a kid being raised by the Baby Boomers.  In my lifetime technology has advanced and changed more than it probably has over the rest of time, ever, or pretty darn close.  And I always felt that as a culture during my lifetime there was this sense of you had to have the most recent gadget, item, outfit, technology, whatever, and if your parents didn't buy it for you they were bad parents.  Ummm, I pretty sure this mentality wasn't the Millenials' fault; we were just kids!  Rather, it was our parental generation, buying us stuff by creating and giving into this idea.  So, when you are raised w/ the mentality that it's culturally required to get everything new and what you want when you want it, then how can older generations be shocked that we have a sense of entitlement.  Granted, it's not true that every kid got every new thing when it came out, but those of us (myself included) who couldn't keep up w/ trends (often b/c of money) we definitely felt disadvantaged b/c of the way the attitudes were.

But it gets better!  Because not only did the Baby Boomers raise a generation to expect everything, they are also the jerks that brought you the unpaid internship.  So, all the opportunity that the Baby Boomers got to make themselves successful, they took away from our generation just in time for us to enter the workforce, so they could get even more while we may just be screwed as a generation.  Well, maybe, if you count your success and worth as a person by money, which I don't and as a generation, we don't all do either.

That's probably my favorite part, and the part I most relate to, as a Millennial: Not necessarily subscribing to the old fashioned way of living your life.  Older generations expect Millennials to enter the workforce and have the same attitudes about it.  They expect us to want to enter big fancy jobs, work 1000+ hours a week (Hyperbole is the best thing ever!!), all for the sake of one day being a big fancy head honcho.  Millennials, however, as a generation don't feel that way.  Look at the lawyer market, for example.  Many younger lawyers now are not interested in the big law jobs, working ridiculous hours to one day become a partner.  The law market is changing, partly because younger lawyers don't really want to marry a law firm and become a partner.  People are wanting jobs that give them more time w/ family.  I personally really need my time outside of work for identity purposes.  I like my time to indulge in other activities, and even at work I like to be able to express myself as an individual (like my totally nerded out cubicle.)

Another characteristic is that we are more creative.  I think this is a real plus, especially in the workforce.  Sometimes older generations can be scared or put off by Millennials' different way of thinking and doing things.  However, if we learn to embrace each other I think there are great opportunities to make some great things happen in the workforce.  I think Millennials could learn some things from older generations, and I think Millennials can bring some real creativity and innovation if given the chance and understanding.  Personally, I am always thinking differently and coming up w/ odd ideas.  I love to write and I love music, which I think in general helps expand my mind to make me better at ideas and thinking.

Now, there are other qualities, and it's an interesting exercise to look into, so if you are interested I suggest you do some learning like I did.  I am only going to discuss one more aspect, but it's the one that I think makes a big difference: technology.  Technology is everywhere.  And it's always changing. I remember, vaguely, a time before the Internet.  I sometimes have found memories of Dos.  But I also am so glad to be rid of dial up and crazy slow Internet.  Did you know some people still have AOL? Who knew that even still existed?

That's why I think Millennials have a double advantage over older generations when it comes to technology.  First, we grew up using technology for practically everything.  It's nothing to me to have to use a new program because I am used to technology.  I used to think it funny when reading job descriptions and them saying you have to know how to use a particular program.  For me, a program is a program is a program.  I know from past technology use that programs often have similar functionalities and are made in a way that an experience tech user should be able to use it w/o much trouble.  Words are used in similar fashion and often things are set up in familiar ways.  I learned a lot on Excel just be thinking "hmm, I know how to do x, I wonder if I just mess around w/ a few things then maybe I can do y."  But then I realized that some older people aren't use to technology.  They can't just troubleshoot on their own.  To them, each program is an entirely new beast that's daunting to learn and they have to be shown everything step by step to do anything.  And it's hard for some people to learn technology and become comfortable with it.

The second advantage we have as a generation is not only are we used to technology, but we are used to it constantly changing.  Just think about it.  Now matter how cranky people get when Facebook changes, and no matter how long I put off updating iTunes, once the changes are made, I get used to them and get over it.  Unless the changes are so bad that it makes functionality unmanageable (and that rarely happens) we just tend to grumble and move on.  And sometimes we get really excited about new stuff!  Older people, on the other hand, can have difficulty w/ such rapid change.  They are just getting used to some technology, which was already difficult in the first place, just to have it change, and they aren't adapted to adjust.

So basically, I identify w/ my generation, even if I am on the cusp right there in the front.  Maybe, as am older Millennial, I have a chance to lead my younger peers and teach them well, and to help bridge the gap.  Maybe? Idk.  What I do know is that I like being a Millennial. I don't think we are better than any other generation.  However, we are here, we're coming up in the world, and I think other generations need to be ready for us and learn to work with us.  It could be fun, right?

My Literary Boyfriend

So, recently, an amazing friend of mine asked me who my ideal literary (i.e. from books) boyfriend would be.  I found this a tough question, to which she then allowed me to combine more than one man.  I was glad for this, since I found any individual difficult to meet all of my personality interests in one.  Idk if this is b/c literary characters aren't dynamic enough, or if I just have too many, crazy requirements.  If you remember my discussion of Sense and Sensibility, you'll note I basically want me, with a penis, and perhaps some tattoos and facial piercings.  It's like that SNL skit for MeHarmony.com, where the cast were matched w/ a person of the opposite sex that was just them in drag.

So, I thought this idea of my literary boyfriend was interesting, and therefore perhaps worth a blog post.  Plus, I had a number of thoughts about it that I thought I should put together, as I have expanded more on my reasoning for each man.  So, I guess these are in the order in which I thought of them, so I can walk the thought process through.  I really think that if this dude were real, it could be awesome, or insane.  Here goes nothing...

(1) Fitzwilliam Darcy
I cannot help it!  I am such a Pride and Prejudice fan, and I love the relationship b/t Lizzy and Darcy.  (Perhaps one day I will regale you with my thought on P & P).  Admittedly, what I love so much about that relationship is the interplay of how they were mean and disliked each other, but then fell in love.  And as someone who's had a history of enjoy the witty (and sometimes admittedly mean) banter, I am naturally drawn to this relationship.  Plus, as I see myself as very Lizzy Bennet-ish, it would make sense that I could love a Darcy if she could.

But more than that, I love his loyalty to his friend and how he loves his sister.  I also think that if he were around in a modern setting, he'd be perhaps less rigid, you know w/o the formal class system and all the propriety.  I recently watch The Lizzy Bennet Diaries on YouTube, which is a web series that sets P & P in modern times, and I love they way they portray Darcy there.  I imagine he'd be like that, perhaps rigid and pompous seeming, but also really kind of shy and awkward.  And hot! Not that I've ever seen a version of Darcy that I didn't find hot. ;)  Lastly, I'd love a guy with a house like Pemberly. Jk.  While that's true, it'd be more a fringe benefit than an actual attraction, b/c let's be honest, I couldn't put up with an ill-fitting boyfriend just for the house, even if Pemberly is awfully nice.

(2) Peeta Mellark
Just for clarification, this is in a "he wouldn't be too young for me" sort of way.  And besides, it's more that characteristics and not the actual character, since this is an amalgam that I am creating.  Plus, I have this issue.  It's like, when I was a teenager, all the celebrities I liked were in their 20's, so I couldn't wait to be in my 20's so they'd be age appropriate.  Only, once I got into my 20's, now all the celebs I like are in their 30's (despite being a mostly different group of guys).  So, I guess w/ the combined ages of all the guys, more at the end of their stories than the beginning, the composite guy would be age appropriate.  Also, 1/2 English.

So, anyway, I love Peeta b/c he's sooooo romantic.  He says the most amazingly sweet things.  Katniss may have issues with those things he says, but I just eat them up.  *swoon*  I also like how he's not the alpha male type.  He's strong and fights, but emotionally he's so much more sensitive than I think an average man is.  I like this a lot.  Plus, who wouldn't want to marry a baker?  I also REALLY love bread.  Okay, granted, I think that in real life Peeta might not be that interesting, and I don't see him as the type to have Doctor Who marathons with me, but everyone could use some romance, right?

(3) Rhett Butler
MmMmmMMMMmMMmmmm... Wait, what?! Sorry, I got distracted.  I absolutely LOVE Rhett Butler (and the casting in the movie = so hot!!).  This may be another draw b/c of the drama, only I am so NOT a Scarlett O'Hara.  I just love Rhett's sass and his just being all manly and doing what he wants and being direct with it.  Plus, I think beneath it all he was sensitive and caring, and he was definitely determined.  With me, he wouldn't have had to be such an ass, since I would be such a bitch.  However, I am glad to add some other dudes in the mix, kind of mellow him out.

(4) George Weasley
So, when I originally gave my answer, I thought I was confident in it and therefore done.  However, upon further introspection, I realized that my literary boyfriend, while romantic and w/ a strong personality, he'd be kinda boring, or at least too serious.  So, I thought, where do I get some humor?  I am at heart a humorous person, so I needed my guy to have a source of humor.  And that's when I realized the person person to add: George Weasley.

You may wonder, why George?  And not some other Weasley.  It's funny, b/c I always loved the fun that Fred and George always had.  Yet, I definitely had a preference for George.  I used to think I was a little nuts for liking one more than the other, but then I read something from J.K. Rowling that said there was a difference, where Fred was more the leader and George was more reserved about some stuff.  That was what I saw, and I think that's why I like George better.  And, I know this is going to sound bad, but I picked the right one, right?  Only, my amalgam guy is going to have 2 ears, but he should totally be a ginger.

Doctor Who Could Use Some Shapening Up, and I've Got Some Ideas ;^)

So, as you may have figured out previously, I am a huge fan of Doctor Who (well the reboot, as I've not watched the classic episodes).  However, I did notice that lately, especially the 2nd half of series 8, it's been a bit of a let down.  I was particularly frustrated w/ the Clara mystery, as I tried to figure it out on my own, yet it turned out to be something that wasn't hinted at at all during the season (not like previous mysteries) and then it was revealed and solved all in such a short time that I found it disappointing.

However, as a fan of some serious sci-fi fantasy, I know that many times shows can hit lulls and low points, (like, say, Supernatural season 6, geez).  So, with some analysis of past mistakes, a few new clever ideas, and some great writing, I think it can get back up to snuff.  Plus, there is an impending announcement, which could give a needed boost in the form of a new Doctor.  And, since I have lots of thinking time and power, I came up w/ a few ideas myself. And knowing all too well that ideas are not legally protected, I mention them with all full knowledge that they can be taken by the show's writers, and if they are any good, please do take them.  I just would like to reserve bragging rights.  :^D

1. Step down, already, Steven Moffat!  This needs to happen. Yes, he's done a lot of great things for the show, even things that make your head ache from the tears and make your heart break.  But it just seems to me that whatever he had for the show has been spent and it's time to hand the reigns over to someone else.  Besides, you want to go out on a high note.

2. Pull a Claudia Brown/Jennifer Lewis time oopsie.  I like other English sci-fi, like the ever so awesome Primeval.  (Side note: Andrew Lee Potts, future Doctor?  Think about it, it'd be awesome!)  Anyway, if you've never seen the show, basically there are these anomalies in time that lead all over Earth time, and lots of prehistoric creatures sneak through.  Well, at one point the super bitch Helen messes with time to somehow cause the rewriting of her estranged husband's love interest's life history. So, suddenly Claudia Brown is Jennifer Lewis and no one has any memory of the 1st version of life other than the poor, heartsick husband.  They totally need to do this on Doctor Who! Have the Doctor meet a companion, get everyone to love her to bits, and then have the Doctor screw with time somehow to where suddenly she disappears from where ever they are.  Then, the Doctor finds her somewhere back on Earth as a whole new person, that we then get to know and love, although there are marked differences.  The Doctor can either remember her or not.

3. Make many people's fan fiction fantasy come true!!  I particularly love this idea because it brings together plot points from David Tennant's Doctor, it involves casting an already one considered actor, and it makes some serious fantasies come true.  Okay, first, you they have to cast Russell Tovey as the Doctor (preferably soon because people aren't getting any younger).  Now, if you've seen Doctor Who you may remember that Russell Tovey was on the Titanic episode, where he played the assistant pilot, captain, driver, whatever of the space Titanic.  His character was Alonso.  You may also remember he pops up again at the end of The End of Time, where the Doctor (played by David Tennant again) helps Captain Jack Harkness get flirty w/ Alonso.  So, you may be catching on to what I've done here.  The Doctor is now Russell Tovey, who realizes at one point "hey, I've met this guy before."  Then the Doctor goes onto the space Titanic because he knows he already did and has to help his earlier self save people.  He also picks the name Alonso because he did say he always wanted to say "Alonse, Alonso."  Bit too much of a coincidence, right, unless he did it for himself!!  But wait, there's more!  This also means that he set his future regeneration up with Captain Jack.  And of course as it already happened, and the Doctor can't not give his friend a nice time, and it would be awesome, the Russell Tovey version of the Doctor hooks up with Captain Jack.  I know Jack's wanted it, and I know the fans have wanted it.  So, why not, right?

4. Captain Jack Spawns.  How about the Doctor gets a new companion who, through a season of hints and buildup, turns out to be the child of Captain Jack?  I know I've played the scenario out in my head a number of times.  I also know I can't be the only fan who has thought about it (i.e. rumors about Clara).  You could even make her an American.  I of course volunteer to play her. Obviously.  My scenario has always been some variation of the US government somehow farmed out Captain Jack's genetic material for secret government experiments.  The experiments could be like trying to make everyone not die like Jack does, they have some alien DNA they are trying to splice with human to make super humans and need resilient genetic material, or something along those lines.  And then she'd have some extra human power, like not dying like her dad, aging really slowly, or super smart.  Then, she meets the Doctor, he learns her special powers, and then the mystery is solved.  The daughter meeting her father can be optional, but more fun for audiences.  Maybe meet him as the Face of Boe AND Captain Jack.

5.  I have a fun plot idea.  Have 1/2 of an episode, or maybe a whole one, where the Doctor and his companion are doing something trying to save whomever.  The tone should be scary or intense.  During the whole escapade they get little clues or help from an unknown source, like a door that suddenly opens or rocks thrown at them to get their attention.  Then, once they figure everything out and save the day, they realize that all those little clues were done by them.  (Something in the end can give them the hint.)  That way, in the 2nd half or the next, related episode, they have to trace all their steps to help themselves out in the exact same way, without letting their past selves unto that it's them.  The companion can ask something like "what happens if we fail" and the Doctor can reply with something like "everyone we saved could die, the Universe could implode and cease to exist, or nothing.  I don't know."  The second bit can be really funny, like how they dodge, zigzag, and weave to avoid getting noticed.  I know there are some episodes with elements like this, but I think it'd be cool to see something more complex, especially where they HAVE to do the same thing.  I get so tired of them changing the past to fix issues.  It's kind of like how Harry and Hermione go back with the time turner in Prisoner of Azkaban, where they HAVE to get things done the same way.

6. Let's Have Some Consequences.  I think there is a little too much of something really bad happens, like a death or the end of the Universe, and then time gets changed to fix it all right again.  Honestly, the show needs to go back to where there are consequences to actions, and the day is saved through honest smarts and hard work, not just rewriting time.  And there need to be consequences, like with Donna and Rose.  But there need to NOT be consequences like with Amy and Rory, where it's total B.S. because they've been saved 1,000 times before, so enough making things up that seem against all the other B.S. that gets pulled and yet made alright in the end.

7. Doctor Who does The Tudors.  This is really more of a hope of mine, since if I were ever to be asked to travel in the Tardis with The Doctor, I'd request to go to Tudor England and meet Henry the 8th.  There are plenty of fun points in his lifetime to make for some fun Doctor Who.  While I love Jonathan Rhys Meyers, I always thought he was too hot to play Henry VIII, especially in the later years when I'm sure the real king had some crazy STD issues.  It would be fun to play up some of those historical inaccuracies.  Plus, it'd be funny if King Henry wanted to make the companion his next wife. I also liked to say that King Henry would have been very displeased to see himself played on TV by an Irishman, and so a line from the Doctor to that affect could be funny.

8. Let Joss Whedon executive produce the show.  Okay, I know that Joss Whedon is currently tied up with Marvel, and would probably never even want to do Doctor Who, but as an epic nerd fan, and a very loyal Whedonite, I wouldn't mind seeing what would happen. ;^)

Dayna's Fantasy Doctor Casting

Since the identity of 12 is imminent, I thought it would be fun here for a moment to fantasize about how could play the Doctor, despite the improbability.  Most likely it will be some actor I've never heard of, but I went through my list of fav British actors and picked a few I'd like to see, even if just for kicks.

Rupert Grint: I think he's adorable, and the Doctor wants to be a ginger.

Liam Neeson: This is a long, long shot, but it would be badass and epic!  Plus, think of all the fun references that could be made.  There could be light sabers, and someone could kidnap the companion.  Maybe one episode the Doctor could have his consciousness transferred to a lion. So many awesome and/or ridiculous things could happen.

Alan Rickman: We could always have a more serious, moody Doctor.  This would be very interesting, right?  Plus, he's still pretty fine for someone his age.

Dominic Cooper:  While I do highly appreciate the yumminess of David Tennant and Matt Smith, why not a just plan crazy hot Doctor?  MmmMMmmMmMmMMMMmmmm...Ooops, sorry, got lost in thought a moment.

Jack Davenport: Personally, I absolutely love Jack Davenport.  He's hot, a great actor, and awesome.  I think he also has a great acting range for the Doctor.  Mostly people may know him from very serious roles, but he is also hilarious, which I think someone playing the Doctor really needs.  Plus, I read somewhere the show people wanted someone older, but I am sure the fangirls want someone delicious. So, for me at least, this idea works.

Michael Gambon, Ian McCellan, or Christopher Lee: Can you see a theme here?  Maybe an epic wizardly sort would be a fun idea.  The long white beard and hair can be optional.

Benedict Cumberbatch: It may be too much awesome (and time commitment) for him to be Sherlock Holmes and the Doctor, but I think he'd be good, even if maybe on the more serious side.

Andrew Lee Potts: (Also see note above).  Granted, I wasn't the biggest fan of Conner Temple and Primeval at first, and didn't see what all the girls on the Internet were all crazy about.  But he grew on me, and I saw him in the Alice in Wonderland reimagination "Alice" done on scyfy where he was the Mad Hatter.  I think the Doctor needs someone with a bit of goofiness to him.

Paul Bettany: Seriously, who doesn't love him?  I think this would be fun.  While I am throwing all kinds of crazy ideas out here, let's add this one to the pile.

Matthew Lewis:  I'm thinking we need a Doctor who was in Harry Potter (you know, for more than 5 minutes w/ a better character than the not so great hack job they did w/ Barty Crouch Jr.'s character).  Besides, he can be all "So what Harry Potter got to be the Chosen One.  I get to be the Doctor."

Okay, I think I have reached the bottom of my barrel of ideas, as bad as most of them probably are.  But who knows, maybe one of my bad ideas could give the show's people a good idea.  It could happen, right?

Retail Therapy? I'm Gonna Need Therapy!

I go shopping.  Big shocker, I know.  Everyday millions (billions maybe, idk the stats) of people go shopping.  And I know working in retail or food service isn't the most glamorous job.  And often times the people working there aren't the smartest or most mature people in the world, but there are some issues I've noticed that I think can be easily addressed.

For the love of all things holy, be nice.
Okay, I know that working these kind of jobs can be stressful, but everyone at one point in their life, and if you have a job probably all the time, has to be nice to someone even when pissed off or stressed. It happens.  But being able to put that aside and do your job is a good thing.  It shows maturity.  Besides, I try to be as nice and polite as I can be.  I say "thank you" and "you too" when told to have a nice day.  I go out of my way to be a customer that makes the day suck a little less.  So, please, do me a favor: be nice!  Because you get paid to be nice, and I don't, so unless you want me to be a bitch to you, do your job.

This is particularly bad when you frequent a place and have to see the bitchy person a lot.  Like how I can't stand the lady at Starbucks.  And she seems to wait on me every time I am there.  Boo!  I really should just get a new Starbucks, since they are everywhere!!  Maybe the sucky barristas should think about this when being rude.

Work is not social hour
One of my biggest pet peeves is when I am at the cashier, and the cashier spends most of the time chatting with a co-worker or friend.  Guess what!  You don't get paid to talk to your coworkers, you get paid to talk to me.  So until your coworker hands their paycheck to you for talk time, pay attention to me.  Besides, it's also good etiquette for your fellow coworkers, since the other good workers don't want to pick up your slack b/c you are being a chatty Kathy.  That will cause them to talk trash about you behind your back. :P

Your merchandise sucks, so leave me alone!
Sometimes, I like to do some browsing, especially when I go to a store I have never been to, or I am just killing time.  And when I browse, I might leave the store in 2 seconds because there's nothing interesting to me.  So, I can't stand it when I enter just to look around, and the employees hover.  Say hi, ask me if I need help, fine.  But when I say I am just looking, leave me alone!!  If I need help I will ask.  Otherwise, I feel uncomfortable when you won't leave me alone.  It's even worse when you walk into a store and soon realize the merchandise is too expensive or butt ugly, or both.  Because then I have to feel awkward and somehow end the conversation so I can sneak out without being rude.  Oh, and recently I felt compelled to try something expensive and butt ugly on, just to appease the stupid store clerk.  Boo!  I can't take the pressure! Leave me alone already!!


But let's change perspective here for a bit, because while some people suck at their customer service, some people just suck as customers, so having worked in retail, I have some pet peeves of customers.

For the love of all things holy, be nice.
When you have to talk to people all day, and often times be on your feet all day, it can be exhausting.  So, it doesn't help when customers are douchbags!!  Unless it's one of the few occasions where the particular business and/or employee has pissed you off, be nice.  It's not those people's fault your spouse pissed you off or you had a bad day at work.  It's a normal, decent person thing to be nice even when you aren't in the best mood.  Also, it will increase your service because employees like getting positive customers.

Your mom doesn't work here, so clean up after yourself
I get really frustrated as a customer when I go to a store and it's thrashed.  And it's a million times more frustrating when you are an employee and have to clean up the mess.  So, I have some advice.  Retail employees have enough time (maybe) to either help you with your inquiry or clean up after your mess.  So do them a favor and either put things back or leave them alone!  It's not hard.  They even have places where you can place merchandise you don't want, so don't stash it wherever.  Fitting rooms are the worst!!  Don't be a douchbag and leave the things you try on in the fitting room.  There's a rack for that.  The worst is when people are super douchy and lazy and leave the merchandise all over the floor. I swear, some retail employee should find the office you work in, go there, and throw your files all over the floor.  Then maybe next time you will have some more consideration when you try stuff on.  Personally, when I go to fitting rooms, I try to find a room where someone left their stuff, so that when I am done I take me stuff and their stuff to the rack.  I know what a nightmare fitting rooms can be, so I like to help out a bit.

Terrible parents
No matter if you are an employee or even a shopper, irresponsible parents are the worst!!  I can't stand when parents are mean to their kids in stores.  I really just want to give them a piece of my mind (since I can't slap them or call CPS).  Your baby is crying nonstop for an hour while you shop?  Hmmmm...  Maybe you should take it home and take care of it!!!
But the most annoying thing is when parents lose track of their children.  Kids are messy, and like to throw stuff around.  It's not the employee's job to watch and clean up after your kids.  I swear, anytime a kid gets lost, they should become wards of the store, and given out to better homes.  That'll teach parents to mind their kids.  Oh, and btw, the store intercom is not a toy!!  >_<


But really, people, it's not that hard to be a little nicer.  If we all just watched ourselves, then we wouldn't have to worry whether the person we are interacting with is a jerk.  It's not that hard.  Seriously!

Because Eventually I'll Hate Every Song Ever

Like many people, I watch a lot of TV shows, and since I don't actually have cable, my preferred method is using Hulu and Netflix.  And, truth be told, I enjoy watching a season straight through.  I think I've lost the patience to wait a week for the next episode of a show I like.  That's why I like to stream shows that have already ended, so there's no waiting for the next episode or the next season.

However, I have encountered a problem with watching a whole season through (in maybe a couple weeks, perhaps less if I have the time and insanity.)  This problem has to do with TV theme songs.

Now, TV has a great history with theme songs.  Many of them are memorable, and I have plenty of them in my music collection.  My personal favorite in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer theme, since it rocks.  There are definitely some good ones out there, and since they are from a TV show, the songs can bring back some fond memories.  Of course, there are some theme songs that make me cringe and want to grind my teeth.  Any time I hear the Dawson's Creek theme song I get twitchy. Eek!

I used to like it when they made songs the theme for a show, like you take a song it becomes popular because of the show, or you take a popular song to help a show be popular.  Of course, there are those TV themes that are from songs, but you couldn't actually name or sing a significant part of the song w/o wikipedia.  Like how the Scrubs theme was a full song, but I didn't realize that until they played the whole thing once.  Or like the time I heard the whole, weird song that they took the House theme from.

Later, I decided that the best themes were songs made specifically for the show.  I think that gives the theme a little more of a personal touch, because it was made to fit the show.

But then, the time of the DVD and streaming video allowed me to watch multiple episodes in a day, a week, a month.  And that's how I've grown to dislike most TV show theme songs.  Some still hold up after many episodes.  I still enjoy the How I Met Your Mother theme, despite more than once watching 6-7 seasons in a row (over the course of a couple months, maybe less, I don't remember).  I can now however pretty much sing the whole song, despite not having actual lyrics.  And I have yet to grow tired of the Doctor Who theme.  Maybe it's because I love Doctor Who too, or because it's short, or it's good, idk.

However, there are some themes that now drive me nuts.  I have, have, have to skip pass the Bones theme, because it makes me angry.  Just hearing it makes me edgy.  And even though I only binge watched one season, the New Girl theme (despite it usually being REALLY short), is probably the most irritating of all time. >_<

I much appreciate Smash and Glee, since there's really no big to do.  Maybe it's because they are shows full of songs, they don't need theme songs.  But my favorite TV theme, and I use that word very broadly, is from Lost.  Yes, Lost.  That short "bong" noise, a flash of the title, and then one to the show.  No fuss, no muss, nothing obnoxious to get in your head. Perfection!

Now, idk if I am necessarily advocating for the eradication of TV theme songs.  I do enjoy many of them, and they can be fun when they pop up on my iTunes.  However, at the very least someone needs to change how the themes are put on the DVD's and streaming.  Really, if the show is on DVD or streaming you really don't need the theme EVERY episode.  How about once a disc, every 4-5 episodes or so, or maybe even just once a season.  And for shows w/ longer themes, you could at least cut them down or out once in awhile for those that watch each week.  (But let's avoid making the short version too annoying, otherwise it'll be like when I walk around unintentionally going "It's Jess" and then wanting to punch myself in the face.)  Or, alternatively they could just write songs so awesome that you don't mind listening to them 100 times in a week (if such a song exists).

Thanks, But I Don't Need a Song to Remind Me How to Spell Banana

I have a number of pet peeves.  One of them is the quickness and unfairness with which fans call musical artists sellouts.  I think people are way too quick to label artists with this word without really thinking about it, or the use being fair.

I thinking my dislike of this stemmed from the hypocrisy of fans sometimes.  Fans complain about how their favorite bands never get recognition, opportunities, or radio play.  But then sometimes once that happens, suddenly the fans turn on the artists and call them sellouts.  That seems weird, right?  You got what you want, but know you hate them.

Let's set some parameters.  Obviously, you have to have some standards before you can be called sellouts.  No one is ever going to call Justin Beiber a sellout.  He had nothing to sellout to begin with; he started out as commercial crap.  Really, sellouts are artists that had some artistic credit, whatever and then gave it up for commercial success.  I see it as an artist made music from their soul, whether alone or with a band or group, and then decided to make crap that is a dime-a-dozen, something anyone can release and is made just to cash in on music trends.  Given this idea in mind, I've got some realities to explain to people that hopefully will curb their use of the term sellout.  Otherwise, the word loses it's power.  The word should be reserved for those who really deserve it, and should retain the power it has as an insult to one's art.

People often get mad that artists sellout because their music is used in commercials (and movies too? Idk about this or not).  I have no issues w/ music being in movies, even big commercial ones.  If a film or TV maker can appreciate how awesome a song is, even from a non-mainstream artist, then more power to them.  However, I think the real issue people have is w/ music in commercials.  If your song is used to hawk cars, or laundry detergent, or some other item, suddenly people bust out the sellout word.  Egad!!  1st of all, that's kind of common now.  Maybe you should cut someone a break when they do this, maybe depending on the product.  2nd, there is the pesky thing called copyrights.  Put simply, an artist my own the rights to their song, like the notes and lyrics, but they can make a track recording and someone else, say a record company or whatever, can own the rights to that particular track recording.  Idk how or from whom the commercial making people get songs, but it's possible that they buy the rights from the track owner, regardless of what the artist would do.  So before you call an artist a sellout b/c their song is in a pretentious commercial, maybe think to learn who actually profited from the rights.  Hmm, something to think on.

Another thing people may not think about: artists get older.  You may blast an artist you loved as a sellout b/c their new music is milder, and maybe that gets them more mainstream attention.  You may claim it's b/c they sold out.  However, it may just be that your favorite artist just mellowed with old again.  It happens to a lot of artists.  Think about it.  Many artists I listen to start from very emotional places.  Some artists write music about young love, which can feel full of turmoil and deep, gut wrenching emotions.  Some artists make music about their life issues, like addictions, criminal trouble, growing up in bad neighborhoods, mental/emotional illnesses.  These can be huge issues that make for great music, and are a great way for these artists to make beauty out of badness.  But often what happens is whatever influenced them to write gets better, or isn't there anymore.  They get recognition and help that comes from getting their art out, and while that improves their lives, it also could affect their music.  Also, a people tend to mellow w/ age, love becomes less tumultuous and changes w/ age, and that can mellow music.  For example, it's hard for an artist that made music from a place of anger at 19 to continue that same way as a happily married person w/ kids at 27.  It's been said to me once by a friend of a band we like that the music went downhill when the singer got sober.  I whole-heartedly support sobriety, but in truth changes in life affect art.  So, before you judge your favorite artist for their change, maybe invest some time in learning about their life changes.  You may just better appreciate them.

Your favorite artist getting more opportunities does not make them a sellout.  One of the perks of becoming successful as a musician is that you get more opportunities to work w/ other artists or do other things that can be cool and not available to all artists.  And often this can lead to interesting collaborations that perhaps produces music that is different than what has come before.  Or maybe the artist pops up in films or TV, or gets to play for other well-known people.  Things like this doesn't make your artists a sellout.  As a devoted fan, you should be excited for your artist, that they get these changes.  Granted, there some opportunities that are sellout worthy, especially if motivated by purely financial gain.  But if some other famous artist in maybe another genre wants to collaborate, that could be a cool experience, and should be seen as good.

So, I hope that maybe people should give their favorite artists more credit.  Honestly, I think that use of sellout sometimes comes from a vulnerable place.  People become really attached to their favorite musical artists.  Music is such a beautiful, personal, soul-reaching wonderful thing that people feel connections with artists despite never meeting them or talking to them.  And it can worry fans if their artist changes too much, or gives in to commercialism w/o integrity.  Sometimes it's almost as if what your favorite artist does reflects on you.  It's like guilt by association, and selling out can make a fan feel betrayed.

Now, given the above discussion, I do think there are people who deserve being called sellouts.  I personally have one example that I use personally to judge selloutdom against.  If you can't guess from the title, to me the epitome of a sellout is Gwen Stefani.  I was a huge, HUGE fan of Tragic Kingdom.  That album was so good.  And while I was not really into the next album, I respected it; they went in a respectable direction.  I also liked the band's back story, how Gwen took over singing b/c, if I remember correctly, her brother was the singer but something happened.  It was very sweet.  But then there were some issues w/ her over shadowing the band, and while it looked for a little while that she was working on correcting that, next thing you know the band is making weird music that is totally different, and seems to be steered by whatever Gwen was doing outside the band.  And then she's doing solo music, which is my opinion is terrible.  It was catchy and many people into mainstream music loved it, but it's torture for me to listen to.  It almost literally hurts me.  It was just that music that gets made b/c it's trendy, and empty.  Maybe I am like other people in other situations and I don't understand the whole story, but from my perspective it looks like a lead singer went solo to monopolize on a fad sound with music that has no substances.  I don't believe that being popular in the mainstream is mutually exclusive of having substance; many popular artists to have substance, which usually goes to great skill or sometimes just great timing.  But there are obviously artists that mimic what's popular w/o really having heart in it, or have others right generic songs for them, and it's sad.  And honestly, as a listener, I think I can tell the difference.

It's a Good Week To Be ... You Know, a Decent Human Being

Okay, so I generally don't like to get personal or political with my blog.  (I say generally like I've had enough posts or continuity to have a "general" principle).  Anyway, I have it in my head that generally I want to keep my blog more on the silly, unpolitical, trivial side.  Mostly because it is the Internet, and I don't want too much personal stuff out there, and if by a miracle someone I don't know wants to read this drivel, I'd like to not alienate people by being too intense, political, extreme, whatever.  Besides, I am not really one to talk about serious things too openly since I tend to keep things to myself.

However, I think it's important that since I am alive during two very important Supreme Court decisions I think it's important for me to weigh in, if not for the grander scale of like (I'm not really being read by any significant size group), at least I feel I should express my feelings on it for those I know who do read this, since they are the most important people anyway.

So, I just watched the Daily Show episode covering the decisions, and I think that was really good.  1st, it explained what happened well, and of course it was funny.  I think the thing that makes me the maddest about the people who disapprove w/ what happened is some of their comments that just show a complete lack of understanding of history and the way the country works.  Why is a Constitutional Law class not a requirement before taking office into a position made by the Constitution?  Ummm, is it just me, or do others think US Congress people should know the other branches work?  *head desk*

I do think it's funny how the SCOTUSblog guy on the Daily Show said it would probably take a month for same-sex marriages to resume in California b/c the 9th Circuit had to act.  Well, it took 2 days.  Now, I am not going to explain the whole "how the courts work" thing.  There are other people who can explain it and I'm lazy.  But if you really want me to explain it (and you know me), give me a call! I already explained it all to my mom. :^)

Anyway, if you couldn't tell, I am super happy and excited about the outcome (well, the Prop. 8 case was not on the merits, so legally it wasn't the best outcome, but the practical reality is awesome.  Again, if that makes no sense, since you don't know what standing means, call me or look it up).  Now, in case you didn't catch it in earlier posts, I am a heterosexual.  But that doesn't mean that I can't be super excited.  Let's be honest, if you know anything about the history of US civil rights issues, those fighting for rights would have had much harder (maybe even impossible?) times getting rights if not supported by those who weren't being denied rights.  One of the 1st gender equality cases was about some whiny men who didn't get to drink some % beer as young as women (that's right enough, I think).

I am I think is what's called an Ally.  Like one of the countries in WWII.  It's funny, because I never really thought about it much.  And looking back on my personal history, it's interesting.  I grew up in a small town.  And despite what the other 49 states may think, there are actually really conservative pockets of California, me being from one of them.  I think I was a senior in high school before I even met a gay person.  I remember as a senior my friends introducing me to the play Rent, and how we thought I'd be fun to put on, only that would NEVER have happened in my town.

I think the thing that gets me is how people just like to hate other people for dumb reasons.  I have never disliked anyone for dumb reasons, because of how they were born, like gender or ethnicity or sexual orientation.  I just like people.  I can think of a 100 reasons or more to not like people, and none of them are reasons because of ways they were born that they can't control.  Honestly, it's dumb and you miss out on a lot of great people for just being ignorant.  Besides, let's be honest w/ each other.  A lot of hatred based on one of these reasons is not about disapproving of them, but really about making the oppressors better off.  It's like the popular girl hating on the nerdy one because the popular one feels bad about herself, despite her being privileged, and she has to hate to make herself feel better.  People can do this in groups.  I for one don't think putting others down makes you better, it just causes problems.  And I am not even going to address the religious arguments, b/c those have been done by people so much funnier than me.  Besides, in the end I just choose to love, and let the cosmic chips lie where they may.

Seriously, though, I think the best way to actually become part of the supporters for gay rights is just knowing someone who's gay.  It's like any other civil rights issues to come before.  It's one thing to think of an issue abstractly, but when you actually meet people, and get know to care for people, who are negatively affected by oppression that's when hearts and minds are changed.  Of course, all those sad or heart warming videos on the Internet of all the same-sex couples help too.  OMG, the number of times I have teared up over some couple's story or just photos!  I swear, I get emotional so easily, it's a mess.  But on the other hand, I have a big heart, so I like me better for it.

Personally, I know plenty of gay people, who are awesome, because they're, you know, people.  Specifically, I have friends who are actually married, one of the few that happened before Prop. 8.  And being a kind of naive, small town girl, I have learned a lot about them.  I remember when I 1st met one of them, and they just casually said "I was telling my same-sex-spouse" (I am being purposefully vague so as to respect their privacy.  I don't want my friends to be mad that I tell too much about them online.  My mom may already be offended about how much I've mentioned her.)  Anyway, I just remember finding that out and thinking "oh, that's cool," and not evening thinking it a thing.  And I know that with some people that can be an issue.  Really, the point of this post is to show my support for all those people who got more rights this week, but mostly to show support for my close friends b/c I love them, and they are awesome people!  I think it's time for a tissue.

Shakespeare + Joss Whedon = Magic!!

 In case you couldn't deduce it from the title, I just watch Much Ado About Nothing. And it was AWESOME!!  Not that I was surprised or anything; I tend to absolutely love most things Joss Whedon.  (Most things meaning I have mixed feelings about Dollhouse, but I digress).

If you haven't seen it, you should do that ASAP.  If you weren't planning on seeing it, you have to change your mind.  I'm already wanting to watch it again, and I will definitely buy it on DVD.  So I guess here's my review of sort, or my thoughts, or whatever you want to call this random blogging thing I do.  Let's go!

So, 1st obviously it's Shakespeare.  It's not "based" on Shakespeare, but literally the words of the play w/ modern day settings.  This may be a little daunting to people who have bad high school English class flashbacks to having to read Shakespeare.  And even though I've read a number of his plays, it's definitely been a few years since I've read him.  At first it did take a little adjustment, especially since there is a lot of quick witty things being said right off the bat.  It does get easier though.  Idk if I just got used to the language (like how if I watch too many British movies and suddenly the accent disappears), if I am just more adapt at understanding Shakespeare than perhaps the modern person, or if it's because oddly enough many of the sentences/slang/word usage was more similar to today's English than I expected, but after the 1st few scenes I had no problems following along.  Basically the point is don't let the "OMG it's all Shakespeare language" dissuade you from the film, b/c you should be able to adjust just fine.

I have to say that one of my favorite things about Joss Whedon (besides his just general awesomeness and genius) is his choice of actors.  He does a really great job at finding these fantastic actors w/ serious skills.  He even takes pains to cast the minutest of roles w/ excellent people, so I guess in Whedonville there are no small parts.  (Get it? No?)  Anyway, I also love that he's very loyal to his group of great actors, and that's why you see them pop up in a lot of his projects.  Don't think I didn't notice "Victor" from Dollhouse as one of the random cops in The Avengers.  That made me smile. :^)

Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof did fantastic jobs as the lead couple.  They were so great, and they played off of each other so well.  I've seen Amy Acker in many things over the years (since Angel), so I've seen her do a great range of things.  She was very good at delivering all that  Shakespearean wit in a way that I could relate to as a modern wit person.  And if was nice to see Alexis Denisof doing a big role.  The only thing I've seen him on since Angel is as Sandy Rivers on How I Met Your Mother, and that character is a tool.  I loved how Alexis was doing some really funny slap-stickish movement while having there was more serious dialogue.  Plus, he also showed great range in the film, having to be both ridiculous at times, but later having to be really serious.  Brilliant!!  Okay, and I can't help but mention that there was one point where I was all excited to know these 2 got a happy romance ending, since their previous romance as Fred and Wesley ended so, so very badly.

My personal favorite character in the film was Claudio, played by the ever so talented, and freakin' adorable, Fran Kranz.  You may not know this about me, but I have a huge crush on Fran Kranz!  Maybe part of it has to do w/ the nose (I've always had a thing for guys w/ epic noses).  Or maybe it's because he played Topher Brink on Dollhouse, who I've identified as a fictional example of the guy who best fit the qualities I looked for in a guy (back when my tastes weren't the best, where 1/2 the guys I liked could be douchey and "too smart for their own good" as I phrased it, while the other 1/2 were nerdy and sweet).  OMG, his performance in this movie was so good.  He was adorable and sweet during the romantic parts, and, while it was heartbreaking, did an excellent job being all angry and heartbroken.  Plus, I love how his face lights up when he's being happy or making jokes. *swoon*

There were so many other great actors in this movie.  Sadly I didn't recognize some of their real names, I just knew them as Simon Tam and Agent Coulson. Right?  Clark Gregg was very good in this movie, and it was nice to see him being a character that had some more serious parts to deliver.  And I was kinda sad to see Sean Maher begin such a bad guy.  He did it very well, but he's so cute, and the guy from Firefly I loved the best, that it was sad to see him being a meany.  But also kinda hot.  Whatever.

And everyone else did an excellent job too!  There were some actors I didn't know, or know little of, but everyone did so well, and were so well casted.

Nathan Fillion and Tom Lenk were so funny.  They played off each other well.  Granted, their characters were in few scenes, but they fit so well w/ their characters.  And I love when Tom Lenk shows up in things b/c I think he is so, so funny.  And come on, who doesn't love Nathan Fillion?  I was telling my mom I saw this movie, and she's all "how'd my Nathan Fillion do."  I may have to fight her for dibs, but to be fair she did watch him on One Life to Live back when I was a child, so she may have a valid claim.

Seriously, though, this movie was so good.  The acting was excellent, the directing was superb, the setting was beautiful and I loved how it was adapted to be modern.  The black and white made it feel romantic and dreamy.  The music was excellent too.  I am glad to see that Joss Whedon has continued w/ his music skills.  Seriously, is there nothing this man can't do?  Oh, and I particularly loved that there was a fist bump.  I could see Shakespeare being fond of the fist bump, seeing as it's really a very emotive, expressive hand gesture of the modern culture.  Now, he only complaint I have is that I had too much soda too early and had to pee the entire time, but I couldn't leave b/c I didn't want to miss anything, and there really aren't any down moments, not like in an action film when you can pop out during fight scenes and not miss much.  I was really hoping for an intermissions, seeing as this was based on a play and all.

So, finally, in conclusion, GO SEE THIS MOVIE!! Do it!  If you want company, I'd see it again.  And if Joss wanted to do another Shakespeare adaption, I'd have my stamp of approval, except for Hamlet.  I think there have been enough Hamlets to get on with.  I'd love to see a King Lear though.  Just putting it out there.

In Defense of Love Songs

WARNING: This may get really deep.  Or really pathetic. Whatever.

I don't know where I was, but someone was complaining about there being too many songs about love, and how you can't find any songs about anything else.  That prompted me to consider this, and I found that either this person is just suffering from something that makes love song too poignant, or they just listen to the wrong artists.  My personal music collection contains so many songs not about love (whether it's being in love, losing love, looking for love, looking for lovin', etc.)  Idk, maybe it's just the radio that plays too many love songs.

And I have to admit, I've had times where I was just so over anything having to do w/ love.  It particularly sucks when you can't relate.  Yes, I admit, in my some many years of living I have never been in love.  I love people, like friends and family, and I have definitely had romantic type feelings for guys, but I have never actually been in love.  Honestly, there have been many times lately when I've felt that love like that, when two people are romantically head-over-heels in love, doesn't actually exist.

It's just that, having never felt love like that, and knowing so much like I do about the bad sides of people, I find it hard to believe in sometimes.  Let's clarify a few things.  I am not one of those people who only believe things that I see, hear, smell, etc.  And I believe you can love someone, again like friends and family.  I guess that despite being a hopeless romantic, lately I have just learned about too much that makes me sad, like if there's so much badness between people who are supposed to love each other, how can there be any room for joy, or enough love out there for me.  Pathetic, right?

But this is where I stick up for love songs.  I have watched enough romantic comedies to know they are totally ridiculous.  I can hardly believe that love really happens the way it does in those movies.  If I was just going from them, I would classify romantic love as another creation of fairy tales, like dragons, fairies, trolls, etc. etc.  But love songs are different.  I'm talking real love songs, written by people who are/were actually in love and write about what they feel.  I am NOT talking about those cheap pop songs that are written by middle-aged women and sung by teenage guys to make tweens swoon.  We all know those kind of songs.  They're like rom-coms, but shorter and set to music.

You can tell a real love song by listening to it.  These are the ones written from the heart, from real feelings.  They hit you in your soul.  And sometimes you can relate and it resonates in your being.  It's songs like these that give me hope true love actually exists and makes me believe.  And the songs don't even have to be happy.  There is something so beautiful, yet so sad, about a good painful love song.  Not everything we have can stay, and not all feelings are positive, but the fact that something good was there and now gone is hope that something will come again, and at least is existed at all.  That's why people say it's better to have love and lost than to never have loved at all.  As someone with the later, I'd like to give the former a try.

Now, I don't want anyone to get the impression that I am one of those girls who thinks I am not complete w/o a man.  Anyone who thinks that is sad.  But I don't think that it's wrong, or sexist, or weak, or whatever, to believe that there's something more to gain by being with someone.  I don't want to be w/ someone b/c I just want a relationship, or because I need someone to make me feel good about myself, or for any of those other lame reasons that people use.  This is way I want to fall in love, to live some love songs of my own, as it were:

People have layers.  Most of us have parts of us that we take different places.  For me, I am not the same way I am at work as I am with my friends and family.  And there are parts of me, attitudes, little quirks, habits that I don't do anywhere except when I am at home, like how I like to sing when I do dishes or just any number of cute little things.  These are the kind of things that only you see, unless you are lucky enough to have someone else to share these intimate spaces of your life.  And there are other things: thoughts, feelings, and things you've done that are so hard to share with anyone, but can be so easy to share with that one person.  It's like there is this need in people to be known completely, but that it's okay if some of those things are only know by one person, because that's what matter most.

And that's why, no matter how annoying they can get, I defend love songs.  They give use hope for love; they commiserate what we lost; and sometimes they can be glimpses into those little parts of a person to show us that someone somewhere gets it.  So, love 'em if you got 'em!

Car Rides with the Dashwoods and Co.

Fear not, faithful readers! All 3 (4, 5, >10) of you.  I have not abandoned my writing or my blog.  I have just been busy w/ a more ambitious project, which was partly inspired by a little trip I took recently.

A couple weekends ago I took a road trip w/ my mom for 8+ hours, and to make the time go faster we listened to Sense and Sensibility on audiobook.  I know what you may be thinking, "Yikes, 12+ hours of old timey English.  Boring!"  Well, if you are thinking that, well you suck, b/c Jane Austen is amazing.  And seeing as it was only ladies in the car, it's fine (although men would be smart to love Jane Austen too!)  It's better than the last road trip, when we listened to The Crucible.  While I have always loved a good Salem witch story (seeing as I am related to one), it was not that fun for the car.  Jane Austen is so much more witty and romantic.  And there was less dwarf singing, like the time as a child we listened to The Hobbit.  While I love all things Hobbity (like Elijah Wood ;^) ), I swear that dwarf song went on for hours, or I was just really young.

So, after 12+ hours of car time w/ the Dashwoods and friends (and enemies), I had a lot of time to think.  Granted, to me 5 minutes in the bathroom gives me lots of time to think, so you can imagine what those hours gave me.  Therefore, here are my thoughts on me and Sense and Sensibility.

The Ladies

I know that the object of the novel was to determine whether it's better to be full of sense like Elinor or be full of sensibility (i.e. very in touch w/ and moved along by your emotions).  I think Austen becomes less clear about her preference the further along you go.  I am personally a fan of Aristotle's golden mean, so all things in moderation.  Wait, maybe I can't choose b/c I can be extreme in either direction. Hmmm...

I find myself often trying to be very full of sense like Elinor when it comes to how I appear in public.  The way Maryanne behaves about Willoughby in public makes me want to cringe.  But then again I am the person that will behave the same (or at least try to) whether a guy is a stranger, a friend, a relative, or the focus of my idol daydreams.  Okay, maybe that's not actually true.  I cannot decide if it's because I have more sense or less than Elinor, but if I were in her shoes I'd try to avoid Edward Ferrars altogether.  She probably just has more sense, since she could be around him and still behave warmly to him, despite her heart being wrenched in 2 b/c she knows that stupid bitch Lucy Steele is engaged to him.  I'd have to avoid him completely because I honestly wouldn't know what to say, or would want to be fake nice when I didn't want to be.  And maybe that's why I have more sense.  She was made to sit in a room w/ Edward and Lucy, knowing too much and having to be in that totally awkward room.  If she had just given him his space to ease out of loving Elinor, that could have been avoided.

But then in private I can be such a Maryanne.  I used to think I was solely an Elinor, but maybe I only wanted to be.  I started to think differently from early on.  At one point Maryanne states that she will never find love w/ someone unless they feel exactly the same way about books and music as she does.  I may have scoffed as such a sentence when uttered (and w/ my mother scoffing too), but then I got to thinking.  I remember one day thinking about what I wanted in a man.  I jokingly (although honestly somewhat seriously) stated really what I wanted was myself as a man, maybe w/ some tattoos and face piercing.  Ideally I'd love to find a man who loved the same music like I do and who I could nerd out w/ to things like Doctor Who and Harry Potter.  So, yes, sue me, I've had Maryanne moments.  Not to mention that I bet some friends of mine could tell stories about times my sensibilities got away from me as I discussed this person or that.  And at times when I am home I do let my emotions get the best of me, until it's Elinor time and I talk some sense into myself.

So, as you can see, I am probably just as torn about what's best, and maybe the best way to be is evenly so throughout your life.  I could learn to loosen up my sense in public a little, and use some sense at home when I stress out about life.

The Gentlemen

It's been awhile since I have journeyed into S&S.  I've read it a few times before now over the years.  I used to think that there really was no likable man in this book.  And I don't me likable as a person; Edward and Col. Brandon are likable as people.  But I always felt it lacked a good crush worthy man, like a proud but annoyingly delectable Mr. Darcy, an ambitious and yummy Captain Wentworth, or the caring but older brother-ish Mr. Knightly.  These are the Austen men I love most, and why I prefer these books to the others.  But I found this time around, now that I am older and wiser, that perhaps I over looked the charms of the men of S&S.

Let's start w/ Edward Ferrars

Let's not forget Colonel Brandon.  I must confess it if I were to suddenly plop into S&S I'd take Maryanne out and marry Col. Brandon.  In the past I wasn't that big of a fan.  It could have been because I was much younger then, and to me a man of five and thirty was WAY too old.  Now, it's totally fine by me!!  Granted, back then men of that age my not have been so sexy as they can be today.  Pretty much every male actor that I love the most is in his 30's.  (Back to Col. B. in a sec).

Now, I have seen multiple versions of S&S, but while listening to this I was picturing the cast from the 2008 version I watched more recently (although I have the one w/ the super famous actors, the one w/ Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet).  I think it's b/c the guys are hotter.  I did rent it b/c my roommate and I were looking up other things w/ Dan Stevens after viewing Downton Abbey season 3 (*tear*).  Plus, Dominic Cooper is so hot, like proper hot no matter where you're from (unless you've bad taste).

So as I was listening I was imagining that Col. Brandon (b/c even if he wasn't actually the Doctor, he's still an attractive older man).  But that's really beside the point, tangentially.

I think what really drew me to Col. Brandon was that I could kind of relate to him.  Okay, I never lost a great love, or anything super tragic, but I could relate to him.  I particularly related to this comment by Willoughby: "Brandon is just the kind of man ... whom everybody speaks well of, and nobody cares about; whom all are delighted to see, and nobody remembers to talk to."  I don't know if everyone has felt like that, but I sure have.  I feel that way a lot, actually, and I think this succinctly summarizes something I couldn't put into words myself.  Well, this of course assumes that people actually speak well of me and are delighted to see me, but my powers of social interactions aren't so bad as to think that not true, right?  Throughout the book I just felt so bad for him; he is obviously a caring guy w/ taste in things Maryanne likes, he's just grown more weary with age, I would say. Or whatever, maybe I am just starting to get old myself. Well, not THAT old.

And that's a wrap on that. :^)