Just a quick warning: this post will not be funny. At least, not intentionally.
It's funny to go to sleep and realize you're terrified. Last night I went to bed really early. Like, six pmish. This is because I'd been up for over twenty four hours and was really tired. As a result, I had some pretty weird dreams. The majority of them had something to do with me being in college. You see, I just graduated from High School and I'm getting ready to go south for the... fall... for college. Anyway, I've been really excited. REALLY excited. Even after I figured out I wouldn't be able to take the classes that I wanted to take this year, I was still REALLY excited. I only saw the good things. Moving away from home, meeting new people, taking new classes, and being independent. Last night, however, I began to see the terrifying stuff like moving away from home, meeting new people, taking new classes, and being independent.
Don't get me wrong, I love independence. I love the declaration, I love the day, I even love undecided voters. I've never been scared of being independent. That is, until last night.
Last night I had quite a few, well, nightmares I guess. They weren't the scary kind of nightmares, they were the uncomfortable and realistic kind of nightmares. Basically, I was in a lot of normal college situations (in class, in my house, walking around campus, etc.) and no matter where I was or what I was doing, I was uncomfortable. I had this horrible feeling that I didn't belong. Nobody was saying anything or doing anything to exclude me, but I couldn't shake the feeling. In one of my dreams, I was back in my home town. I kept going to the houses of people that I knew in high school in an effort, I assume, to rid myself of that feeling of not belonging. But even with them I felt uncomfortable. I woke up pretty soon after this and started thinking about why I felt that way.
I came to this conclusion. I'm not afraid that I'll be unable to make friends. I'm afraid of not having that feeling of camaraderie that you have in high school. In high school, you feel like a prisoner. Not a terribly uncomfortable prisoner, but a prisoner nonetheless. And when you make friends, the biggest thing you have in common is your imprisonment. You bond over it. You enjoy the times you hang out outside of school because they make you feel rebellious. You enjoy the times you hang out inside of school because you share a distaste of your perceived captors. Now, high school isn't a prison. It's not a terrible place to be; not by a long shot. Teachers in high school are usually okay. But everything about high school seems worse when you're in it. That feeling is what brings high schoolers together. I don't feel like it will be the same in college.
I've spent so long being excited that I didn't allow myself to be afraid. The reason for that is that I wanted to be excited more than I wanted to be afraid. I won't miss high school. I don't want to go back or anything. College and independence are both just a little scarier than I wanted to admit to myself.
Unready and willing,
Simon
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
How Colbert Super-PAC Will Change The World
Hi there, everyone. It's me, Simon. It's been a while since I've sat down and written a blog post. This is mainly due to the fact that I have been really busy. Now, however, I'm pretty much done with everything. So here we are again. Now, let's get to the meat of the matter
FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ALREADY UNDERSTAND STEPHEN COLBERT'S SHOW, PACS, AND STEPHEN COLBERT'S INTENTION TO MAKE A PAC, PLEASE SKIP DOWN TO THE NEXT THING IN ALL CAPS. THIS WAS PRETTY BORING TO WRITE AND I CAN ONLY IMAGINE IT'S KIND OF BORING TO READ.
Stephen Colbert.
For those of you that aren't familiar with Colbert, here is all you really need to know. Stephen Colbert is an incredibly intelligent political satirist. He has a television show on Comedy Central that is a parody of a Fox News pundit's show. He bases his character off of Bill O'Reilly from The O'Reilly Factor. He has a huge following of very loyal fans that follow him blindly. His show is extremely witty and awesome. If you don't already watch it, you should. Because of all of this, he is about to change the world.... by doing what our lawmakers want everyone to do.
Let me explain as best I can. Stephen Colbert has been seeking to start something called a PAC for a while now. A PAC is kind of a complicated thing that I only understand to a point. I'll do my best to explain, but please keep in mind that I could totally be wrong about a lot of this stuff...
Basically, a PAC is a way for politicians to raise money and, usually, a way for them to make more attack ads. You see, when someone is running for public office, they have certain restrictions on the amount of money they can raise as well as how they can raise it. I don't know them, but they exist. Enter the PAC which politicians use as a great big loophole. A PAC (not to be confused with APAC, heh) is an organization that is created for the sole purpose of raising money. They began as a way for independent, issue-based groups to raise money for candidates that support their issues. The nice thing about them, is that they exist outside of the campaigns. This means that the candidates don't have to approve any ads that a PAC makes with the money they raise. In fact, they aren't allowed to approve them. PACs make all of the ads for candidates you see that don't start or end with "I'm Ugly Politician and I approve this message."
As I mentioned before, candidates use PAC money and PAC ads mainly to attack their opponents. Since they don't technically run the PACs, they aren't immediately associated with them. Therefore, it just seems like a bunch of concerned Americans got together to attack a certain candidate (which is what it is supposed to be). Now, this stuff is getting pretty boring, but there is a little bit more. There is this other thing that is called a "Super-PAC."
A Super-PAC is a PAC that can receive donations from corporations. The Super-PAC was created because of a supreme court ruling that basically said that because money equals speech, that corporations should be treated as people when it comes to donations. Therefore, corporations should be allowed to donate as much money as they want to candidates because any cap on the amount that they can donate would be an infringement on free speech.
Now, back to Stephen Colbert. Stephen Colbert tried to start a PAC. Soon after announcing this on his show, his mother-company Viacom contacted him and told him that he can't start a PAC anymore because he has announced it on his show. This means that Viacom has given him donations for his PAC by allowing him to air stuff about it on his show and they can't donate to a PAC. Colbert proceeded to apply for a Super-PAC. This would mean that he could advertise for his PAC on his show because Viacom would be allowed to donate to him. Everything looked good for him, but then Viacom sent him another letter that basically said, "Please don't start a Super-PAC. It will make things really complicated for us because we will have to calculate how much we've donated to you by allowing you to talk about it on your show." Colbert is now grasping at his last straw. There is another loophole that allows pundits to report on their own PACs because their PACs are news and they report on news. It's called a media exemption. It requires going down to the FEC (Federal Election Committee) and basically pleading your case to them. Sixty days later, they'll tell you if you can have a media exemption for your PAC. Colbert went down there to plead his case a few days ago so we have yet to hear whether or not he'll be able to start his PAC. These are the reasons why they should let him.
THIS NEXT PART IS THE POINT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE THIS WHOLE TIME!
Colbert intends to do something incredible with his PAC: exactly what they were created to do. He intends to make ads for candidates without their knowledge or approval and show another (probably humorous) side to their beliefs and stances on issues. Hopefully, he will force candidates to address issues that they are all afraid to bring up. Stephen is doing what every third-party political candidate hopes to do: he is raising issues that main-stream candidates avoid and he is doing it in a way that will get a lot of attention. He is doing the only things that everyone who runs a PAC should do. The sad thing is, I really don't think he is going to be allowed to start his PAC. The world kind of stinks in that way.
Taking forever to explain something and kind of hoping nobody reads this,
Simon
FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ALREADY UNDERSTAND STEPHEN COLBERT'S SHOW, PACS, AND STEPHEN COLBERT'S INTENTION TO MAKE A PAC, PLEASE SKIP DOWN TO THE NEXT THING IN ALL CAPS. THIS WAS PRETTY BORING TO WRITE AND I CAN ONLY IMAGINE IT'S KIND OF BORING TO READ.
Stephen Colbert.
For those of you that aren't familiar with Colbert, here is all you really need to know. Stephen Colbert is an incredibly intelligent political satirist. He has a television show on Comedy Central that is a parody of a Fox News pundit's show. He bases his character off of Bill O'Reilly from The O'Reilly Factor. He has a huge following of very loyal fans that follow him blindly. His show is extremely witty and awesome. If you don't already watch it, you should. Because of all of this, he is about to change the world.... by doing what our lawmakers want everyone to do.
Let me explain as best I can. Stephen Colbert has been seeking to start something called a PAC for a while now. A PAC is kind of a complicated thing that I only understand to a point. I'll do my best to explain, but please keep in mind that I could totally be wrong about a lot of this stuff...
Basically, a PAC is a way for politicians to raise money and, usually, a way for them to make more attack ads. You see, when someone is running for public office, they have certain restrictions on the amount of money they can raise as well as how they can raise it. I don't know them, but they exist. Enter the PAC which politicians use as a great big loophole. A PAC (not to be confused with APAC, heh) is an organization that is created for the sole purpose of raising money. They began as a way for independent, issue-based groups to raise money for candidates that support their issues. The nice thing about them, is that they exist outside of the campaigns. This means that the candidates don't have to approve any ads that a PAC makes with the money they raise. In fact, they aren't allowed to approve them. PACs make all of the ads for candidates you see that don't start or end with "I'm Ugly Politician and I approve this message."
As I mentioned before, candidates use PAC money and PAC ads mainly to attack their opponents. Since they don't technically run the PACs, they aren't immediately associated with them. Therefore, it just seems like a bunch of concerned Americans got together to attack a certain candidate (which is what it is supposed to be). Now, this stuff is getting pretty boring, but there is a little bit more. There is this other thing that is called a "Super-PAC."
A Super-PAC is a PAC that can receive donations from corporations. The Super-PAC was created because of a supreme court ruling that basically said that because money equals speech, that corporations should be treated as people when it comes to donations. Therefore, corporations should be allowed to donate as much money as they want to candidates because any cap on the amount that they can donate would be an infringement on free speech.
Now, back to Stephen Colbert. Stephen Colbert tried to start a PAC. Soon after announcing this on his show, his mother-company Viacom contacted him and told him that he can't start a PAC anymore because he has announced it on his show. This means that Viacom has given him donations for his PAC by allowing him to air stuff about it on his show and they can't donate to a PAC. Colbert proceeded to apply for a Super-PAC. This would mean that he could advertise for his PAC on his show because Viacom would be allowed to donate to him. Everything looked good for him, but then Viacom sent him another letter that basically said, "Please don't start a Super-PAC. It will make things really complicated for us because we will have to calculate how much we've donated to you by allowing you to talk about it on your show." Colbert is now grasping at his last straw. There is another loophole that allows pundits to report on their own PACs because their PACs are news and they report on news. It's called a media exemption. It requires going down to the FEC (Federal Election Committee) and basically pleading your case to them. Sixty days later, they'll tell you if you can have a media exemption for your PAC. Colbert went down there to plead his case a few days ago so we have yet to hear whether or not he'll be able to start his PAC. These are the reasons why they should let him.
THIS NEXT PART IS THE POINT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE THIS WHOLE TIME!
Colbert intends to do something incredible with his PAC: exactly what they were created to do. He intends to make ads for candidates without their knowledge or approval and show another (probably humorous) side to their beliefs and stances on issues. Hopefully, he will force candidates to address issues that they are all afraid to bring up. Stephen is doing what every third-party political candidate hopes to do: he is raising issues that main-stream candidates avoid and he is doing it in a way that will get a lot of attention. He is doing the only things that everyone who runs a PAC should do. The sad thing is, I really don't think he is going to be allowed to start his PAC. The world kind of stinks in that way.
Taking forever to explain something and kind of hoping nobody reads this,
Simon
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
I Beat My Old Record!
There are a lot of stupid traditions out there (holidays, shaking hands, stopping at red lights, etc.), but one of them stands alone. Anniversaries. Now don't get me wrong, in theory they're great. They provide an excuse for a couple to say to each other, "Hey, we made it longer than we thought we would. Good for us!" However, it's gotten a little out of hand. I don't particularly mind it when old couples celebrate their 40th year together, but when stupid high school students celebrate their second month together it seems really pathetic. Now, I'm a reasonable person. I realize that the tradition of anniversaries is here to stay. All I'm proposing is an alteration to the way they are done.
Let's look at the thinking behind anniversaries. As I said before, they exist as a way for a couple to congratulate each other on making longer than they expected. But, they have another purpose that few recognize. They also work well as a slap in the face to your ex. You see, if a girl dates a guy for six months and then they break up, she probably feels pretty bad about it for a while. The best consolation for her is dating another guy for seven months. So, why not only celebrate the anniversaries that matter; the ones in which you win the break-up with your ex. I think that the only anniversaries that should be celebrated are the ones that you have yet to celebrate with someone else.
Now I know what you're thinking, "But Simon, what happens when one person has celebrated up to a six month anniversary and the other only up to a three month anniversary?" It's simple, really. In this event, only one person celebrates the anniversary. However, the person that has already had this anniversary is obliged to get the other a gift. This also adds an incentive to make each of your relationships longer than the last (because that way you get presents). All around, I think this would solve a lot of problems and give something pointless some meaning.
And you wonder why I'm single,
Simon
Let's look at the thinking behind anniversaries. As I said before, they exist as a way for a couple to congratulate each other on making longer than they expected. But, they have another purpose that few recognize. They also work well as a slap in the face to your ex. You see, if a girl dates a guy for six months and then they break up, she probably feels pretty bad about it for a while. The best consolation for her is dating another guy for seven months. So, why not only celebrate the anniversaries that matter; the ones in which you win the break-up with your ex. I think that the only anniversaries that should be celebrated are the ones that you have yet to celebrate with someone else.
Now I know what you're thinking, "But Simon, what happens when one person has celebrated up to a six month anniversary and the other only up to a three month anniversary?" It's simple, really. In this event, only one person celebrates the anniversary. However, the person that has already had this anniversary is obliged to get the other a gift. This also adds an incentive to make each of your relationships longer than the last (because that way you get presents). All around, I think this would solve a lot of problems and give something pointless some meaning.
And you wonder why I'm single,
Simon
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
I hate Asymmetry!!yrtemmysA ehat I
Symmetry is beautiful. It gives you that nice feeling. Ahhhhh. Asymmetry is disgusting. It gives you that uncomfortable feeling. Ughhhh.
There is one exception to this rule. Faces. As those of you with photographic memory will remember, in my blog post "Gum" I talked about my ideal woman and one of her attributes was "Asymmetrical Face". This is the one area in which I actually like asymmetry. It makes people's faces, which are usually boring, interesting. I also like faces with character in them. Also, people with perfectly symmetrical faces look really fake.
Now, let's list a few of the many ugly asymmetrical things
Facebook trends? Those things that plague my News Feed like nothing else? The annoying, obnoxious, and incredibly similar fads that never seem to end? Yeah, I know them. Why, who cares?
Mythbusters just confirmed that someone that is sleep deprived is a much more dangerous driver than someone that is tipsy. If there was ever any doubt, let it be known that alcoholic insomniacs shouldn't drive.
A lot of people ask me, "Simon, why do you love Canadians so much?" A great question. And actually, I don't think anyone has ever asked me that, but I was thinking about it today. It's not that I've never met or heard of a Canadian I didn't like, it's just that I know of so many that I love. Barenaked Ladies, Rheostatics, Steve Nash, Wayne Gretzky, Robin Scherbatzky, and many others. These great people are most of the Canadians I have heard of. Therefore, using inductive reasoning I must come to the conclusion that the majority of Canadians are really awesome.
Don't try this at home,
Simon
There is one exception to this rule. Faces. As those of you with photographic memory will remember, in my blog post "Gum" I talked about my ideal woman and one of her attributes was "Asymmetrical Face". This is the one area in which I actually like asymmetry. It makes people's faces, which are usually boring, interesting. I also like faces with character in them. Also, people with perfectly symmetrical faces look really fake.
Now, let's list a few of the many ugly asymmetrical things
- Facial hair (Which is actually always ugly, but it looks worse when it is asymmetrical)
- Pants
- Sleeves
- Those stupid tops that girls wear with the head hole that stretches over one shoulder
- And finally, ears. I realize that this one isn't a choice, but you could have just as easily gotten an asymmetrical face which would look good.
Facebook trends? Those things that plague my News Feed like nothing else? The annoying, obnoxious, and incredibly similar fads that never seem to end? Yeah, I know them. Why, who cares?
Mythbusters just confirmed that someone that is sleep deprived is a much more dangerous driver than someone that is tipsy. If there was ever any doubt, let it be known that alcoholic insomniacs shouldn't drive.
A lot of people ask me, "Simon, why do you love Canadians so much?" A great question. And actually, I don't think anyone has ever asked me that, but I was thinking about it today. It's not that I've never met or heard of a Canadian I didn't like, it's just that I know of so many that I love. Barenaked Ladies, Rheostatics, Steve Nash, Wayne Gretzky, Robin Scherbatzky, and many others. These great people are most of the Canadians I have heard of. Therefore, using inductive reasoning I must come to the conclusion that the majority of Canadians are really awesome.
Don't try this at home,
Simon
Sunday, October 24, 2010
So Over Joy.
So, good news and bad news. Let's start with the bad news (What can I say? I'm a pessimist). You might remember when I blogged about how my Nona and Papa (Grandma and Grandpa) were temporarily living with us and that they were moving out soon. Well, that isn't happening. My Papa isn't taking the job he was offered after all. Which, of course, is very disappointing.
Now, on to the good news. Steven Page (Who rocks in case you don't know) just released his new solo album Page One and it is awesome! He released a single from it called Indecisive a couple of months ago and it actually inspired the name of my old blog Indecision. There are a lot of things that I love about this album, but what I love the most is that it made me realize something. A good song is, in many ways, like a good painting. What first draws you to a song is it's melody and the harmonies. The music. Which, is the equivalent of a painting's aesthetic appeal. Its color palette, brushstrokes, and a lot of other things about which I know nothing. However, what makes a painting or a song a masterpiece is the meaning behind it. In the case of a song this is usually shown through the lyrics. Now, these two things don't always have to correspond. A painting can have bright, flamboyant colors and still convey a dark or cynical message. A good artist can still show the deeper meaning without making it obvious. I feel like Steven Page does this with his new album. The majority of the songs have sarcastic, depressing, or cruel themes, but the entire album is really upbeat. It kind of reminds me of what Adler says about enjoyable beauty and admirable beauty.
Well, done with talking about Steven Page for now. Hope that didn't bore you too much.
There are some things in life I don't want to try. However, some of those things I don't realize I don't want to try until I have tried them. Take, for example, pumpernickel bagels. You see, I had never tried pumpernickel bagels until yesterday. I had smelled them before, but never tasted them. They didn't smell bad or look bad. My sister (or my pumpernickel pusher if you will) encouraged me to try it. However, she did warn me that it had a weird spice in them. I took a bite. It was disgusting! I wanted to throw up. My only consolation was that my sister, who had actually never had a pumpernickel bagel either, tried it after I did and was just as grossed out.
Land Ho!
Simon
Now, on to the good news. Steven Page (Who rocks in case you don't know) just released his new solo album Page One and it is awesome! He released a single from it called Indecisive a couple of months ago and it actually inspired the name of my old blog Indecision. There are a lot of things that I love about this album, but what I love the most is that it made me realize something. A good song is, in many ways, like a good painting. What first draws you to a song is it's melody and the harmonies. The music. Which, is the equivalent of a painting's aesthetic appeal. Its color palette, brushstrokes, and a lot of other things about which I know nothing. However, what makes a painting or a song a masterpiece is the meaning behind it. In the case of a song this is usually shown through the lyrics. Now, these two things don't always have to correspond. A painting can have bright, flamboyant colors and still convey a dark or cynical message. A good artist can still show the deeper meaning without making it obvious. I feel like Steven Page does this with his new album. The majority of the songs have sarcastic, depressing, or cruel themes, but the entire album is really upbeat. It kind of reminds me of what Adler says about enjoyable beauty and admirable beauty.
Well, done with talking about Steven Page for now. Hope that didn't bore you too much.
There are some things in life I don't want to try. However, some of those things I don't realize I don't want to try until I have tried them. Take, for example, pumpernickel bagels. You see, I had never tried pumpernickel bagels until yesterday. I had smelled them before, but never tasted them. They didn't smell bad or look bad. My sister (or my pumpernickel pusher if you will) encouraged me to try it. However, she did warn me that it had a weird spice in them. I took a bite. It was disgusting! I wanted to throw up. My only consolation was that my sister, who had actually never had a pumpernickel bagel either, tried it after I did and was just as grossed out.
Land Ho!
Simon
Friday, October 15, 2010
Pretentious.
Is it weird that I kind of like pretentious people? I guess it is just a matter of taste (which is funny because those who are pretentious feel that their opinion is the only one that matters). I understand why they annoy people, but I like them nonetheless. Let me be clear, people who are pretentious without any real reason to be that way annoy me. But, if someone really knows what they are talking about I'll listen to them no matter how snobbish they are. The same is true of people who are arrogant and really good at something.
Facebook is a dirty liar. She (yes, it's a girl) always tells me that I have a new message when I actually don't. Oftentimes I will be in the middle of a discussion with someone of Facebook and doing something else at the same time. I then rely on the little tabby thing at the top of the screen to tell me when they have answered me and sometimes it says "New message!" when they have not yet answered.
In my last blog, Indecisive located at http://nyrole.blogspot.com/, I would often write about how I was unsure whether or not I liked the television show House. Near the end of it, I concluded that I did like it and that if I had learned nothing from the experience of blogging, I had learned that I did like the television show House. Well, in recent weeks I have found a new television show: How I Met Your Mother. It is one of the most entertaining shows I have ever watched. I mean, you don't need to be a big thinker to appreciate it, but it is really entertaining.
I like the song "I would walk five hundred miles and aaI would walk five hundred more" not because of the tune or lyrics, but because of the accents of the guys singing it. It is especially awesome on the word "thousand" which they pronounce in a sort of "thayowzend" way.
Zitch Dog. Yes! One-nothing,
Simon
Facebook is a dirty liar. She (yes, it's a girl) always tells me that I have a new message when I actually don't. Oftentimes I will be in the middle of a discussion with someone of Facebook and doing something else at the same time. I then rely on the little tabby thing at the top of the screen to tell me when they have answered me and sometimes it says "New message!" when they have not yet answered.
In my last blog, Indecisive located at http://nyrole.blogspot.com/, I would often write about how I was unsure whether or not I liked the television show House. Near the end of it, I concluded that I did like it and that if I had learned nothing from the experience of blogging, I had learned that I did like the television show House. Well, in recent weeks I have found a new television show: How I Met Your Mother. It is one of the most entertaining shows I have ever watched. I mean, you don't need to be a big thinker to appreciate it, but it is really entertaining.
I like the song "I would walk five hundred miles and aaI would walk five hundred more" not because of the tune or lyrics, but because of the accents of the guys singing it. It is especially awesome on the word "thousand" which they pronounce in a sort of "thayowzend" way.
Zitch Dog. Yes! One-nothing,
Simon
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)