So this is what happens when you ask me to write a story about fairies over AIM.

There once was a fairy princess named Constance who had the most beautiful, incandescent wings. The sunlight glinted off of them ever so slightly and, if you watched her closely, you could just make out a kalidescope of sky and cloud through them as she flew over head. All of the other fairies told her how grand and gorgeous her wings were, but Constance didn't see what was so special about them. To her, they were ordinary and plain. She hated the way they'd change from robin's egg blue to lavender as she moved in the sunlight. She couldn't stand the sapphire tint they'd take on at night. She wanted them to be ordinary: yellow, orange, green red, just something that didn't stand out.

One night, Constance waited up, flipping between Conan and Jimmy Kimmel mostly, until long after the other fairies had all gone to bed. Then, she quietly made her way to the communal tool shed, found an old saw she'd used to make a bird house when she was eleven, and slowly and steadily hacked off her radiant wings, with only a few sips of wine to dull the pain and a rag to bite on that muffled her screams. She managed to bandage up the stumps on her back before passing out on the floor of the tool shed in a pool of her own blood.

When the other fairies found her the next afternoon, they were, of course, appalled. "Constance," they asked, "who did this to you?" Constance's only response was a smile. She finally had what she wanted.

After a while, life got back to what now could be called normal. Constance returned to the same daily routine as before, only minus the flying and without the showers of admiration from her peers. She was still unique. She still stood out. But now it was something different. She was the damaged one. The freak. Boisterous conversations would quickly decay into whispers or silence when she rounded the corner. Several of the fairies refused to fly around her; so she wouldn't feel bad they reasoned. No one let their eyes meet hers for long, afraid of what they might find if they looked too deeply. And Constance just kept on smiling. She didn't mind this kind of attention. Now she was different by her own hand. Now she was special with a purpose. Her smile screamed futility. It pleaded for logic and reason. No more flying. No more parties. Just cold, dead weight. Tethered to the earth. Constance swore she knew a secret: soaring or crawling, we all end up together.

We're not so different, you and I.

A phrase people say to me fairly often is, "You think you're always right." It's generally made in an acusatory tone after the speaker and I have been discussing something at length. It refers to the fact that I like to argue. I enjoy a good discussion about a variety of topics and I'm not afraid to disagree with others, no matter how firmly held their beliefs may be. It's been a bit of a trend in this blog too. Don't act like you haven't noticed. And while there may be some validity to the phrase, "You think you're always right," I believe it's a bit of a misnomer. Let's break it down:

If you're referring to factual information, then it's not true at all. Obviously, if I've heard a fact and comitted it to memory, believing it to be true, then I think I'm right about it. That does not, however, mean I'm not willing to investigate to find out whether I'm correct or not and it doesn't mean that I'm not willing to admit it when I turn out to be incorrect. I'd like to think that times when I feel sure about something, when I'd say something to the affect of, "I'm pretty positive," I turn out to be right more times than not. I haven't done a longitudinal study or any such nonsense though, so I can't really claim to know the percentages. I certainly don't claim to know everything or even most things and I've definitely been mistaken on many occasions. Britney Spears was, in fact, born in Kentwood, contrary to my feelings otherwise. I know more than some people, but less than a lot of people. I feel that I'm reasonably intelligent, but I don't have any proof of that, so I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

So maybe the phrase refers to issues of opinion. And, if that's the case, I'd say that it's mostly true. Changing the syntax to, "You always think you're right," might give it a bit more truthiness, but that's probably just splitting hairs. We'll work with the assumption that, "You think you're always right," is true when it comes to my opinion. And I ask, so what? Isn't that the case for everyone? If I didn't believe that my opinion was right, then it wouldn't be my opinion. If I didn't think I was correct in liking and respecting Fight Club, then I couldn't really like or respect Fight Club. If I didn't believe that Thrice had talent and wrote good songs, then I wouldn't listen to them or list them as one of my favorites. Truth is, everybody thinks their opinion is right. That's part of the definition.

I guess the problem comes in with the fact that I tend to vigorously defend my opinion. Unless it's something like, "asparagus is gross," I'll produce facts to support myself and logically argue as to why my opinion is the correct one. And it's fun. I enjoy it. I rarely get upset or frustrated. I'd say it's one of my favorite pastimes. I don't see how it makes me arrogant or mean.

The other thing that gets me in trouble is the fact that I tend to mock the opinions of others. But it's all in good fun. I swear. I don't honestly care that Bryan watches "Stargate" and loves "Resident Evil." It doesn't bother me that Maggie went to see Rascal Flats (even though their singer kinda' sounds like a girl). It's just good natured ribbing and, beyond my sister, I don't think I hurt many feelings.

Sure I'm "right," but everybody is in their own head.

I guess what I'm getting at is this:
I'm smarter than you in every way and all the music, books, movies and TV shows you like are crappy. I'm just a better person. Completely.

The end.

stuff on my mind

I was standing next to one of our new employees as he was ringing up a sale yesterday and cleared my throat. He looked at me and said, "I gotcha" and preceeded to sell an extended warranty on the product. That was good of course, but I actually just had congestion in my throat. It's funny to me that throat clearing has become so synonymous with trying to get a point across that you can't just clear your throat because it needs to be cleared anymore.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I bought the new Dead Poetic cd the other day and, after one listen, it seems to be pretty good. Thing is, it's a big change in sound. They've gone from what most people refer to as "screamo" to a much more mainstream rock feel without a lot of screaming or punkish guitar riffs. That seems to be a bit of a trend right now. A lot of bands that had been lumped into the screamo category have since released albums that varied a great deal from their previous sound. Finch and The Used, two of the first screamo bands to get mainstream airplay released follow-ups that sounded quite a bit different than their debut albums. Story of the Year's second album had an 80's Bon Jovi feel to it. Thrice went with a more textured, varied sound on their latest and Thursday seems to be evolving slowly as a band rather than changing overnight, but their new disc only features one song with any real screaming. It seems that all the screamo vets are abandoning the sound and moving into other territories. The part of me that enjoys several of these bands would like to think that they're simply growing up and naturally changing as good bands tend to. The cynical side of me, however, wonders if it has more to do with record label execs telling the various bands that screamo is on the way out and they'd better get off the bandwagon while they still can. It reminds me a bit of the late 90's/early 2000's when rap-rockers like P.O.D. and Papa Roach, sensing that trends were changing, suddenly started singing. Of course, Papa Roach is still around while Limp Bizkit, who stuck to the rap-metal (when they aren't doing Who covers) sold about 25 copies of their last album. We'll see how things go for the current crop of hitmakers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I've been to a couple of parties thrown by fellow Christians lately and both of them featured, along with other snacks and drinks, alcohol spiked punch. And I don't see anything wrong with that at all. While I don't think it's right for a Christian to get drunk, I don't think there's anything in the Bible that prohibits a follower of Christ from having a glass of wine with dinner, champagne at a wedding, or a couple of cups of "adult punch" at a party. The thing is, at the second party especially, everyone seemed to be really excited about it. It's something I've noticed quite a bit. A lot of Christiasns, while they don't ever get trashed, are really, really into drinking and that seems weird to me. I mean, if you're not getting drunk, then it's just another beverage, right? I like Dr. Pepper a lot, but I've never spent an entire night standing around a two-liter of it or drinking it out of special glasses and trying out all sorts of different concoctions. It's almost like they get some sort of thrill out of it, like they feel more adult or are revelling in the fact that they're not legalistic. Or maybe people just like the taste. And maybe I'd understand if I ever drank. Maybe I'd be just like everybody else. I'm certainly not claming to be better than anyone or looking down on those that choose to drink. I guess I just don't get it.

the one thing I don't like to fight about...sort of

People say that the two things you're not supposed to discuss are religion and politics. I wouldn't say I disagree exactly since I understand where the expression came from, but, when dealing with reasonable, not very easily angered people, they can both be fun subjects to delve into. Anyone who knows me even casually knows that I'm usually up for debating just about anything. There's one subject, however, that I've learned over the years to avoid arguing about at all cost and it's one that relates to both religion and politics: abortion.

I say "over the years" because I've definitely been in a few ill-advised abortion debates in the past. I never managed to convince anyone even slightly and it's not just because their beliefs were so firm. The problem is that the debate all comes down to one question, and it's a question that no one really has an answer to. The whole issue hinges on when exactly life begins.

If you must know, I'm pro life. I don't bomb clinics or stand in picket lines and I'm very sympathetic for people who end up in situations where they feel like an abortion is their only option. But I would like to see abortion outlawed at some point in the future. None of that really matters though, because it's only my opinion, guesswork at best.

So many pro choice people claim that abortion has to remain legal because it's a women's rights issue. It's really not though. Yes, a woman should have a right to control her own body, but if a fetus is alive then the right of that living human to keep living supercedes the rights of its mother in the same way that parents don't have the right to kill their children at any other age. On the other hand, if a fetus is not a living creature, but simply a collection of cells, then abortion is no different than having a mole removed. On the pro life side of things, so many people try to make it a religious issue. The Bible doesn't specifically talk about abortion, though, or state at what exact point life begins. People try to say abortion is playing God or messing with his plan, but we do that so often in a million other ways. Even scientists seem to have different opinions on the matter. With so many conflicting ways to define "life," how could we ever come to a universal agreement on when it starts?

So I somewhat arbitrarily picked a time. I think life begins somewhere after conception but well before birth, which makes me pro life. Can I prove it? Not completely. I could come up with a good argument I'm sure, but I imagine, with a bit of effort, you or anyone else could come up with a rather compelling argument for your arbitrary time too. And that's okay. Pick your side. Stand firm. Argue with someone if you want. Just don't tell me that your decision is about women's empowerment or your relationship to the Creator or anything other than your gut feeling about what's right.

the immoral majority

"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals" - Jerry Falwell

"And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, You helped this happen." - Falwell on who's to blame for 9/11

"Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan." - Jerry Falwell

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." - Pat Robertson

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." - Pat Robertson

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war...We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." - Pat Robertson, calling for the assassination of democratically elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez


Am I the only one who's getting sick of those guys? It seems like every time I turn around, one of them is saying something bigoted and idiotic and in the process making Christians look bad. Because I'm a Christian and a republican, I end up being associated with them. The media acts like they represent my views, my thoughts. Obviously, they do not. And I don't think they actually represent many Christians at all.

Beyond God doing a miracle, I don't think there's any way to get Pat and Jerry to shutup. And of course I believe that they have the right to say whatever they want to say, no matter how horrible it may be. However, that doesn't mean that the media needs to keep giving them an outlet to say it. They keep putting those clowns on the air partially because crazy people make good TV, but partially I think they because they honestly believe that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson speak for "evangelical Christians" (I hate that term, by the way). So how do we stop it? We show them that they do not speak for us and they do not speak for anyone. It's a small step and might not accomplish anything, but I started an online petition. Please sign it, whether you're a Christian or not, and let your friends know about it too. Somebody needs to stop these men from making us all look like hateful idiots.

Click here to sign the petition.

flash fiction

Whenever I try to follow the dotted line, I get lost somewhere between the dots. The shortest distance between point A and point B isn't a straight line when there's a chasm between them. I always end up falling somewhere around step three. Sometimes I'll make it to five if I'm lucky. Sometimes.

The box has gotten a bit dusty over the past three weeks. I cleaned up my apartment today, which meant I had to notice it. Not that I don't notice it anyway, sitting in the living room next to the fireplace. Sitting there. Collecting dust apparently.

I don't know what's in it. Nothing special I'm sure. At this point it's become the Pulp Fiction briefcase. Whatever's inside could never live up to the hype. So I let it sit there, don't even touch it. It's just an ordinary box: four walls and a roof, taped up with blue masking tape she brought home from her job. It's gained a life of its own now. Some mornings I make an extra bowl of Fruity Pebbles in case the box decides it's hungry.

Part of me wonders if maybe she left it on purpose. She hasn't asked for it. Not that we've talked. She's come online a couple of times from her parents' house, but she hasn't said a word to me. I'm afraid to break the silence. She cleaned out every other trace of herself while I was gone to work, even vacuumed her hair out of the carpet.

Maybe she wants me to open it. Maybe what's inside is important. It's a burmese python patiently waiting to end my life. It's pictures of her sleeping with all my friends. It's the teddy bear I bought her on Valentine's Day with a note saying she'll always love me.

I've never been this sentimental, so pathetically tied to my emotions. I should just leave it on her parents' doorstep. It's just some pots and pans or old sweat shirts. It's not important. It doesn't have power. It's just a box.

I'm watching one of those shows on E!, one of those "look how rich and better than you celebrites are" shows, the ones that make me sad to be American. The box is right there. Ten feet away. Five steps. I should throw it in the dumpster, take it to the country and burn it, cut it to shreds with a chainsaw. But I'll let it stay here for now. Maybe I'll use the box as a bridge to connect the dots, a raft to sail down the river at the bottom of this canyon. Maybe it's part of the metaphor, some sort of symbol for something. I so wanted to make it to step six this time, but my cardboard friend and I are stuck here at five.

NYC Pictures

This isn't an actual post. I just wanted to post links to the pictures from my vacation. Look at them.

album one
album two

more honesty

I wanted to add something I forgot to mention in my last post. Total honesty doesn't mean you always say everything that's on your mind. Remember that movie, Liar Liar? While it's one of Jim Carrey's funniest, it always bothered me because I didn't buy the premise. I'm okay with the kid's wish making it so that his dad can't lie, but that doesn't mean he has to say everything he's thinking in every situation. Every time I watch it, I find myself wanting to yell at the screen, "Just shut up!"

At any rate, I'm not advocating people saying horrible, mean things to each other simply in the cause of being honest. Sure, there are some things that people don't need to hear and there are ways to tell the truth in a nice way. I'm not against any of that. I just think too often we cross the line from being tactful to being deceiptful.

time to cancel the policy?

We've all heard it said a million times that honesty is the best policy, but is it really? Sure, it's good to tell the truth most of the time, but is it always best to be completely honest with another person in every situation? Let's think about it.

For our first scenario, we'll use an incident that occurred in my last relationship (I say "last" like there's been so many). My girlfriend at the time (we'll call her "Jessica"), got her hair cut a month or so into the relationship. While it wasn't a drastic change in length, to me at least it was a pretty big change in her "look." When I saw the new 'do, she asked me immediately if I liked it. I thought for a second and said something along the lines of, "I'm not sure yet. I definitely don't dislike it or think it looks bad, but I liked your old haircut a lot and this one's going to take some getting used to." Obviously, that wasn't the answer she was looking for. She wanted me to simply say, "It looks great. I love it." whether I meant that or not. And maybe that's what I should have said. But, as I told her at the time, "If I tell you the truth now, then when you ask me another question down the line like, 'Am I fat?' I can say, 'not at all, sweetheart. You're beautiful." and you'll know I mean it. I chose to keep my credibility rather than telling her what she wanted to hear. On the one hand, my total honesty (some might say lack of tact) was probably one of the myriad reasons we split up. On the other hand, at least I can look back and say that I never lied to her. Was it worth it? Hard to say.

Speaking of break-ups, one of the times when people lie the most is when they're breaking up with or rejecting someone. They feel bad enough about the whole thing already and try their best to spare the other person's feelings, even if that means giving them some false reason for the decision rather than telling them the truth. But is that wrong? Personally, I've always said that I'd rather have a girl tell me, "you're ugly and annoying and I don't like you," than give me the old standby, "I don't want to date anybody right now" (translation: I don't want to date you. Ever.) or some other made-up excuse. That's just me though. I can't claim to speak for everyone. Some people might prefer to have their feelings spared. I was actually discussing this subject with a friend the other day and she wondered if maybe it isn't best to sugar coat things sometimes. And it's definitely a logical point. Unless you have some sort of grudge, nobody wants to hurt another person unneccessarily. Why tell a person your real reason for not wanting to date them, she wondered, if it's not something wrong with them or something they can change? What purpose does it serve? My answer was that it doesn't need to serve a purpose. Honesty is intrinsically good. It's right and good to be honest with someone regardless of what it accomplishes. Sure, it may save someone a few self-esteem points to tell them a lie or half-truth, but rejection hurts regardless and at least they won't lie awake in bed at night wondering what went wrong or if they have a chance in the future if you tell the truth. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that, when you lie to someone in a break-up or rejection, you're really worried more about your own feelings than theirs. You want to feel less mean and not seem like the bad guy. And I don't mean just girls. They probably get more chance to practice since they get asked out more, but I gave a girl a half-truth once myself in my younger, stupider years. In that case, like most I've seen, all it did was cause more problems and we went from being good friends to not on speaking terms anymore in a matter of months. If I'd been completely, brutally honest, I may have hurt her feelings, but maybe I'd still have her as a friend.

So there you have it. If you're protecting government secrets from the Iranians, by all means lie your butt off, but otherwise, what's the point? If we can't be honest with each other, why even bother communicating? That's my take on things at least. I know it's not exactly ground-breaking (So you mean lying is bad??? Wow!), but maybe it's a bit thought-provoking at least. The way I see it, honesty is, in fact, the best policy.

"how are you" shouldn't be a rhetorical question

I went through the drive-through at Wendy's tonight to grab a baked potato and a frosty. When I got up to the window, the girl gave me a rote, "How are you tonight?" I responded with, "Not too bad. How about you?" I got back nothing but a blank stare. Not a "pretty good, " or an, "okay." Not even a shrug or a smirk. She made it completely obvious that she did not, in fact, care how I was. The same thing happened to me at Burger King recently. That time, the cashier didn't even give me a courtesy "how are you?" She just stood there and let me do all the talking without even saying so much as, "may I take your order" or "thank you." And you know what? That really pisses me off.

Honestly, few things irk me more than a lack of friendliness from people in the retail and service industries. To me, that's such a basic part of the job that ignoring it is just as bad, if not worse, than getting my order wrong or over-charging me. And it's the easiest part of the job by far. I don't care how much you hate being at your job. I don't care how little you're getting paid. If you can't put on a fake smile and pretend to have some sort of basic people skills for a few hours a day, then you don't need to be in the work force. My job at Toys [backwards]R Us gets tedious or stressful some days and there are times when it's the last place I want to be, but one thing I've never failed to do is smile and greet the customer and thank them for their purchase. I may seem unimportant, but it's not. Think about it. How much better do you feel about a store when you have a real conversation with an employee or share a joke with the cashier? It makes you want to go back. And more than that, it makes you feel good for at least a brief moment of your day. I'm not claiming to have talked people off of ledges or saved wives and children from abuse. All I'm saying is that as long as I'm collecting a paycheck, I'm going to do my job to the best of my ability. And part of that means being friendly and personable even on days when I don't feel like it. Even when I'm not on the clock, I still smile and attempt to be friendly with people. It's part of who I am, not something I have to think about, and I can't understand why some people find it so difficult.

a long-winded response

After reading my last blog, my friend Austin, posted an interesting response. I like what he had to say and I feel like I owe him a well-thought out response, so here's his comment followed by my thoughts.

Again, I completely agree with you on "the one" concept. I was just wondering, though, how big the difference is between saying, "I just know he's the one," and, "I just know He's the one." It seems to me that both statements employ a blind faith in the service of relenting any doubt that the object of that faith will fail. I guess if you believe that there is a sovereign governing power controlling the life that may house the changes, imperfections, and variable outcomes you mention then there is no worry associated with those experiences, and a person consequently submits to God, Providence, etc. That said, I do think it's important to believe in something larger than oneself and one's total ambient experience or to, as it were, allow oneself to be convinced of the extraordinary, the sacred, the divine mystery. In order to do so, though, it often helps to have empirical evidence rather than an interpretation of an occurrence or action. Of course, I don't want my entire experience of things like love and passion to stem from science. Though it's blasphemous to say this as a writer, there are many things I'd prefer to simply feel and not understand or be able to articulate. I do, however, suspect anything based entirely on a feeling someone has, in spite of the romantic notion that a gut feeling will determine the correct answer and save the day. I guess it just seems that the only ultimate defense of a belief in religion is, "You just have to believe/trust/have faith" or, in other words, "I just know. Because the Bible, or my physiological response to pheromones says so."

AT

And sorry to offend your many Christian readers, as well as you; I have the utmost respect for your (collective) belief.

You're right of course that despite any evidence we might have of God's existance, it does take a leap of faith at some point to move beyond that to belief. However, I don't think it's as complicated as people make it out to be sometimes. Faith isn't some mystical, magical thing. We use it every day, in every aspect of life. To quote Memento, "I have to believe that when my eyes are closed, the world's still there." When I sit in a chair, I have faith that it's going to hold me. When I flip a light switch, I have faith that there will be light. If you're talking to a friend and he walks into another room, do you sit there and contemplate whether he still exists or not? I highly doubt it. Faith is nothing more than making assumptions based on the evidence at hand and what's happened in the past. Let's take my friend Britney for example. We met online. I've read her blogs and seen her pictures and we've chatted over AIM, but we've never met in person. If you were to provide me with enough evidence, you might could convince me that Britney's not who I think she is. Maybe the pictures she posts are of a friend. Maybe her name's not really Britney. Maybe she's actually a thirty-seven-year old bald man from Queens. But somebody wrote those blog entries and somebody typed to me over AIM, so the person I know as Britney does, in fact, exist. The same could be said for God. I've seen His creation. I've felt His prescence. And I've seen His hand working in my life. Maybe my concept of Him isn't perfect, but He most definitely exists.

I don't have a problem with someone asserting that their significant other exists. I don't think it makes you crazy to believe in Thomas Jefferson or Julius Ceasar. How is believing in God any different? And if I do believe in Him, then why wouldn't I worship and praise the being who created everythings and gave me life? I don't think it's wrong to have faith or make assumptions. When I flip that light switch, unless there's a power outage I don't know about, it's pretty safe to assume that the light will turn on. I could probably guess when my roommates will come home tonight with some degree of success. If a really crappy football team was playing a really great one, I could probably predict the winner. Making educated guesses is different from claiming certainty though, and predicting what will happen five minutes from now is different than claiming I can see thirty years into the future. Maybe I'm using semantics or splitting hairs, but it seems to me that having faith in God and having faith in some fairy tale life with a significant other are two entirely different things.

the one part 3

To finally finish this stupid rant, I had to cover the one thing that bothers me most about the idea of "the one." What I hate the most is the phrase that so often accomponies it. I absolutely can't stand it when people, referring to the person they're dating, say, "I just know." You've heard it before. "I know I just met this guy and I know I said this about my last three or four boyfriends, but it's different this time. He has to be the one. I just know it." Or almost as bad is when people try to use seemingly happily married couples as proof for their fatalistic ideas. "My uncle and aunt only knew each other fifty-seven minutes before they got married and they're still married forty-two years later. When you know, you know." As far as I'm concerned that's better proof for the idea that there are lots of people out there who you could be happy with. So your aunt and uncle or your parents or whoever were young and dumb like you once and they made a rash decision that happened to work out for them. Does that mean you should use it as the model for your life? Because someone you know happened to get lucky and be compatible with a stranger or because they were determined enough to work through any hardships and make things work despite some compatibility issues? That's great for them, but I wouldn't try to emulate it if I were you.

Let's break this down. What do people actually mean when they say, "I just know." For the most part, they're saying, I have strong feelings for this person, we seem compatible so far, and I don't see any major issue that could keep us from being happy together. Well, that's great. Good for you. But are any of those things a good indicator of what's going to happen in the future? Can you predict what's going to happen with your feelings? How many other times in life does this concept work? Did you know what college you were going to or what job you were going to have years in advance based on your feelings? Can you successfully predict when friends and loved ones are going to die by closing your eyes and feeling things? Can you tell me what's going to happen at the end of a movie you haven't seen based on how you feel about the characters? People claim to have premonitions about things occasionally, but nowhere is it as widespread as it is in the dating scene, where practically everybody says they know. Sure, you have some say in the outcome of your relationship, but things happen. Stuff changes. If there's anything you can guarantee about life, it's that it's unpredictable.

And you know what? When you say you "just know," it comes off as an insult to the rest of us. It's a slap in the face to anyone who's ever felt the same way you're feeling, to those that have been "in love" and hoped it would last forever. You're saying your feelings are different, that you're smarter, or closer to God, or some sort of psychic. That's why it pisses me off so much. Because if I can't see the future, then neither can you. If my feelings aren't enough to make things work out, then neither are yours.

It's not that I don't like seeing people get together. I generally rejoice for my friends when they find someone that makes them happy. All of you out there in good relationships, I wish you well and hope things work out. I don't like seeing things fall apart. But I know they do sometimes, despite our best intentions and intense feelings. By all means, be positive. Be happy. Hope for the best. Just don't tell us you know something the rest of us don't.

npr for dummies

Nobody really complained about my last post. In fact, I had nothing but support from the female community both here and on my MySpace. It could be that a few of you were offended and didn't feel like getting into an argument with me. That's okay too. I realize I'm mean. Obviously I don't think we should totally ban Romantic Comedies. That would sort of go against my free speech stance a few posts ago. I'm a bit of a hypocrite because, not only do I have Can't Hardly Wait listed as one of my favorite movies, but I tend to scoff when people in the media or congress attack movies or video games for causing violence (even though I almost ran over a homeless guy one time after playing too much Grand Theft Auto). Truth is, movies do affect us, whether we realize it or not. I was glad to know that several of the women I know do realize the effect that movies can have and are careful not to take them too seriously. Kudos, ladies. And as for us guys, as I briefly mentioned, and as my friend Austin explained in more detail, movies definitely affect guys too. I wonder if people were less screwed up before recorded fiction.

At any rate, I'm going to attack something today that shouldn't anger anybody. What can I say? I like easy targets.

You've all been there. You get tired of whatever cd you have in and flip on the radio, hoping to hear some decent music. Little did you realize that it's before noon. Instead of hearing a song, you discover people talking. About nothing. On the air. Is this the news? The dj killing time between songs? Are they having a contest? No, it's everybody's favorite, a morning show.

The format is pretty simple. There's two guys or a guy and a girl or two guys and a girl and they sit around talking about random crap. It's basically water cooler conversation. They'll discuss the latest world news and celebrity gossip in a manner not unlike you and your friends would, if your friends were ignorant, middle-aged douche bags. If you come across the morning show on, let's say, an oldies station, it's all very genial. Just nice folks discussing life and talking about what's going on in the community. "Ooh...there's a watermelon festival in Aiden? That sounds exciting." On the more rock oriented stations, however, they've taken a page from Howard Stern. Not only do they mock and make crude comments about whatever celebrities are in the news, but they have listeners call in and they make fun of them too. Here's how the typical conversation goes:

caller: I think my husband may be cheating on me. What should I do?
DJ #1: Divorce him, ya' stupid slut.
caller: But I'm not really sure that he's cheating on me.
DJ #2: If you suspect it, he's probably cheating on you. That's how guys are.
caller: I love my husband though. We've been married five years.
DJ #2: Look, ya' stupid whore, slash his tires, throw all of his stuff away and then divorce him because he definitely doesn't love you, skank.
caller: But, but...
DJ #1: He's right. Your husband's probably cheating on you because you've gained weight. You're fat, aren't you?
DJ #2: Yeah...I'll bet she packed on a bunch of weight and doesn't give it up anymore. Isn't that right, fatty?
caller: Actually, I only weigh about 110 and I get hit on by guys all the time.
DJ #1: Oh really? Honey, I'd like to help you get back at your husband. Stay on the line while we go to commercial.

You get the idea. They treat their callers like they're idiots and dispense Dr. Philesque "keep it simple, stupid" advice that's probably hurts more people than it helps. They're perfectly happy bashing whoever's on the phone (usually some well-meaning person who is upset and actually needs advice) for the sake of laughs and ratings. I caught a few minutes of the local rock station's morning show of choice the other day and I was appalled. Whoever they were talking to on the phone was a regular caller apparently. He informed the hosts (Lex and Terry I think it is) that, after several treatments for lung cancer in the past, it looks like he's finally going to die this time. As usual, they showed absolutely no sympathy. "Good." "About time." "That'll teach you." Now I don't really listen to the show for more than a minute or two at a time, so I have no idea who this caller was. Maybe he's a jerk. Maybe he was only joking. He sounded serious to me though and he didn't sound too happy about the whole thing. I've always said that if something's funny then it doesn't offend me and, when it comes to humor, it takes a lot to piss me off. There was nothing funny about that though. Even if it was all just made up, what about the listeners out there who might have cancer themselves or who might have a loved one with cancer? What purpose is this show serving? Who flips on the radio hoping to hear a dj making fun of people who are hurting and saying, "good riddance," to someone dying? It must get ratings or they wouldn't keep it on the air, but who listens to this crap? Again, I'm not a fan of censorship and I guess it's no worse than "Jerry Springer" or "Cops" or a lot of the other trash that passes for entertainment, but it really worries me that people enjoy that. When did being a jerk to everybody become an acceptable way to make a living?

another chance to make every woman I know hate me

I have a bone to pick, not with a person, but with an entire category of film. If you know me at all, you can probably guess that I'm talking about the genre of films known as Romantic Comedy.

Let's forget for a moment that the word "comedy" usually connotes humor of some sort. While Romantic Comedies sometimes cause those in the audience to chuckle or smile and say, "that's cute," the rarely illicit real actual laughter. In fact, a good portion of the movie is usually so focused on the romance part of the equation that the film-makers don't even attempt to be funny. But in the classic Greek sense, comedy merely means a story with a happy ending, so we'll let the genre slide on that one.

Then there's the fact that men are so often forced to watch these so-called comedies when they could be watching movies that would actually serve as entertainment. We've all forced women to watch cheesey action movies and fart joke comedies though, so we'll ignore that one too.

Where does that leave us, you ask? It leaves us with the irreparable damage that Romantic Comedies do and have done to women's psyche. I know that sounds really overdramtic, and it is, but hear me out. First, there's the fact that they propogate the idea of "the one." I think I've made the reasons that I'm against "the one" concept fairly clear, so I won't get into them again here. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that it's a bad thing. From the time they're born, women's heads are filled with fairytales. They're told that they're princesses in disguise and their prince will come along on a white horse someday and rescue them from their real lives. Then, once they're old enough to watch adult movies, they get fed the same exact garbage. The hooker with the heart of gold is saved from her life of crime by the charming, wealthy businessman. Or the self-confident, overly cold and secretly lonely businesswoman is saved from a life of successful business relationships but short and meaningless personal relationships by the charming scoundrel with the heart of gold. It's the same motif over and over again. And when they end up together, it's not because they took the time to cultivate a strong friendship, which led to a deep lasting relationship based on trust and mutual respect. No, it's because fate put them together and they were powerless to stop it. (For a textbook example of this, see Serendipity, which I actually sort of enjoy. John Cusack, Jeremy Piven and superhot Kate Beckinsale...what's not to like?)

That leads directly to our next point. The characters in Romantic Comedies are usually completely wrong for each other. You know how the plot works. It's that whole "opposites attract" thing. The male and female leads can't stand each other at the beginning of the movie and they fight constantly. But for some reason, despite the fact that they're completely different in every way and have no common interests or opinions, there's some sort of animal magnetism there. They try to stay away, but they just can't do it. By the third act, they've given up and decided that all the fighting was merely a cover-up for their true feelings. After watching this play out on the screen for years, some women can't help but think that life really works that way. Instead of dating a guy who has similar interests and a compatible personality, some girls intentionally go for guys who are their complete opposite. It's one of the reasons so many women like "bad boys," the boys that usually end up breaking their hearts, if not their bones. And even if they don't end up with a jerk, it's hard to build a relationship when you have nothing in common.

My final issue is a big one, at least to me. It's that Romantic Comedies give women (and a lot of men too actually) the wrong idea about what romance is. They discount small gestures and long-term commitment and focus on superficial gifts and surprises. They make women expect fountains and doves and endless mounds of rose petals. And those things are fine in moderation. It's cool if that's what you're into. But that's not romance. That's not real love.

Romance is being there every day. It's calling because you want to hear her voice, not because you have to. It's struggling to find words to tell her how much she means to you. It's buying her dinner with your last twenty dollars. Romance is letting her cry on your shoulder when her dog dies, telling her she looks beautiful on a day when she doesn't feel beautiful. Romance isn't about making a show. It's about being real and honest and letting her see how much she means to you. I understand that those things don't make good cinema, but they're a million times more important than flowers or candy or last second airport proposals.

Again, it's not that I'm against buying flowers or kissing in the rain or picnics in the park. Those things can be fun. And when they're from the heart, they can be special. It's when they're expected that I have a problem, when a guy has to preen and pose and go out of his way to impress a girl just to get her to appreciate him. If you're basing your relationship on some fake bull crap, on how good of a show a guy can put on, then you're going to run into problems somewhere down the line. Guys, by all means, buy her nice things sometimes, take her out to fancy dinners and plan fun little outings. But do it when and how you want to, because you want to. And girls, it's okay to enjoy those things, but don't forget that there are so many other ways a guy can show you that he cares.

There you have it. Three big reasons why Romantic Comedies should be outlawed. Contact your local movie studio at once.

Now, ladies, feel free to take issue with my ideas. If you're passionate about Sleepless in Seattle and think it's a spectacular piece of movie magic that's good for the soul, then don't be shy about telling me why. Just, please, don't take this post to mean that I think all women are idiots. Far from it. I know that many of you don't fall into the mindsets I talked about and I don't think the ones that do are stupid becuase of it. Any time you're constantly pummelled by the same concepts over and over again, they're going to affect you in some way. You think that the aforementioned cheesey action movies and dumb comedies haven't led to an increase in men that think violence is the best solution to all their problems and that it's funny to ask someone to pull their finger? Think again. We're all victims here. I'm just calling it like I see it and waiting for the backlash.

a man for all seasons

I was reading someone else's blog earlier today and she was talking about David. You know...the guy from the Old Testament. She was talking about how David is always referred to as "a man after God's own heart" and how, as Christians, we all can and should be Davids. I agree of course.What I've always loved about David, though, is how human he seems. Maybe it's because we're told more about him, but he seems to come to life more and seem more human than most of the other figures in the Bible. I've always loved in general how, when we're told about the lives of the great men in the Old Testament, there's almost always a story of sin included too. David had his soldier killed so he could steal the man's wife, Moses doubted God and struck the rock, Abraham lied and said his wife was his sister, and Noah got drunk and acted like an idiot. While we see them doing great, amazing things for God, we also see them being human and screwing up. That's always meant a lot to me. Some days I don't feel like dancing in the street or fighting giants. Some days I don't feel like I'll ever be a strong leader or a good father. Some days I don't have the courage to follow God when no one else is. But I lust and I sell out my friends. I doubt God. I lie. I act like an idiot. So if I'm just like David and Noah on their worst days, then I can be just like David and Noah on their best days. Because it has nothing to do with me. It's God in me. Just like it was God in them.

a colossal waste of time

I've been meaning to finish my rant on "the one," but I keep getting distracted. This is another one of those distractions.

Every few years (usually in an election year, coincedentally), congress decides they'd like to once again discuss the possibility of creating an ammendment that prohibits flag burning. And every time I hear about the discussion, it pisses me off. I mean, it's obviously neccessary. You know...'cause people burn flags all the time. To paraphrase an Eddie Vedder rant I heard years ago, I can't even go to get a cup of coffee and a paper in the morning without running into a flag burning. I took for granted that most clear-thinking, intelligent people would see the idiocy and inherent contradiction behind the proposed ammendment, but apparently not. Apparently, some of my otherwise rational friends are all for the ban. So I figured I should come here and tell you all why they're very, very wrong.

When I was discussing the issue in my living room last night and mentioned that I thought congress was wasting time by even discussing the bill since flag burning happens so rarely, my Limbaugh-loving roommate immediately responded with, "Well then they should stop discussing and pass it." Obviously, that's not the way our legislature works. Even if everyone was unanimous about wanting a bill, there would still be a ton of nuances to discuss and it would take time to figure out the proper wording among other issues. Beyond that, since the law would be going against the previously established Bill of Rights, it would have to be an ammendment rather than just a federal law. If I still remember my ninth grade civics correctly, all new ammendments have to be voted on by the American public before they can be ratified. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like holding a vote on that or adding it to the ballot would cost quite a bit of money. So there's your first argument: it's a huge waste of time and money to create a law prohibiting something that, in this country at least, is an extremely rare occurence.

But even if our legislature could instantly create a suitable new ammendment for free, it would still be a horrible idea. First of all, it's not in the government's job description to create a law like that. The government's job is to protect its citizens from physical harm and loss of property. You can debate about the existance of social programs and whether they fall under that category or not, but either way, it's not the government's job to legislate morality and/or keep people from being offended. "Well maybe it should be," my friend responded. Sure. That sounds lovely, doesn't it? We'll have niceness police patroling, making sure nobody swears at old ladies or lies to their mother or gets drunk and acts like an idiot. We'll create our own little Utopia. Problem is, who decides what's moral? While people with similar moral beliefs as you may be in power right now, who's to say they will be in the future? What if one day, someone decides that your behavior is immoral? My friend chrisbaker pointed out that, if we have a liberal president and/or legislature sometime soon, it's very possible that they could pass a "hate speech" law. Again, it sounds nice, but it could be trouble for the conservative Republicans who are all behind the flag burning law. Preachers who tell their congregation that homosexuality is biblically wrong could find themselves in jail. People who protest abortions could be accused of hate crimes. Doesn't sound like a world most conservative Christians would want to live in.

Above everything else, there's one reason to denounce the proposed flag burning law that seems so obvious to me that it amazes me that anyone could ignore it. Clearly, any law that prohibited burning the flag would be a huge violation of the first ammendment. Not only do Americans have freedom of speech (which includes nonverbal communication), but we also have the right to protest. Those rights have been guaranteed to all of us since pretty close to the beginning of this "grand experiment." Generally, I hate it when people tell me that America is this or America stands for that. America is flawed, just like every other country, and our founding fathers weren't the perfect heroes we sometimes make them out to be. But if there's one thing that this country has always stood for at least at its heart, it's that freedom of speech. This country was built by protestors. People like Thomas Payne and Samuel Adams took to the public squares and made their opinions about the British government known. They didn't let some misplaced idea of patriotism stop them from seeking changes and eventually seeking a new government all together. Telling people that they can't speak out, that they can't protest in whatever way they see fit, as long as it doesn't harm someone else, goes against the spirit this country was founded on. Outlawing flag burning would be in direct opposition the very things the flag is supposed to stand for.

And you know what? A flag is just a piece of cloth. It's a symbol. And that's what people do with symbols. They use them to make a point. The few people in this country who burn flags generally do so because they're trying to make a point, because they have something to say and want attention for their cause. Maybe you don't think it's the best way for them to make their statement, but so what? Stupidity isn't illegal. My previously mentioned friend asked me if I'd feel the same way if people were out there burning Bibles or crosses. I told her that yes, I would in fact feel the exact same way. If someone was burning a cross in my lawn, I'd call the cops and get them to leave. But if they want to do so on their own property or in a public place with a permit, then they're more than welcome to as far as I'm concerned. What people choose to do with pieces of wood, paper and leather that they bought and paid for is none of my business and honestly doesn't concern me. There's nothing magical about a Bible or a cross. They're just symbols and symbols only have power if you allow them to. That doesn't mean that I don't understand why people are offended by stuff like that and it doesn't mean I don't understand why people are offended by flag burning. It doesn't mean I think the people who burn flags or Bibles or crosses or whatever else are right or clever for doing so. What it does mean is that I know that my opinion on whether their causes are just or their methods are the best doesn't matter at all. It doesn't matter whether they're burning a flag to protest a war, support the draft, or celebrate a world cup victory. It doesn't matter how much or little thier actions offend me or anyone else. I may not agree with every protestor out there, but I have to support their freedom of speech if I expect anybody to support mine.

punk bands don't like Jesus

I was present at the Raleigh stop of the Warped Tour today. I must say that despite the rain, I had a good time. I was a little miffed by a couple of the bands though. First, I was checking out The Casualties, a sort of gutter punk band, ie dayglow mohawks and liberties and yelling over melodic three chord riffs. You get the idea. At any rate, towards the end of their set, they pointed over to the other main stage, where Underoath (a Christian screamo band) was preparing to go on next and said something to the affect of, "When you leave here, let's go give those Christians hell." Then, an hour after Underoath finished, NOFX played. I wasn't there for the beginning of the set, but, according to my roommate, they said all the Christians could leave when they started. I was there later on when Fat Mike, the lead singer, said the following (again, it's a paraphrase):
"You know North Carolina is the best state in the country, right? Haha. I'm just saying that to get you to buy our cd's...actually, dont' buy our cd's. Buy the Underoath cd because you get to go to Heaven. Our cd's won't get you anything."
He was joking obviously and I laughed. But the fact that two bands took shots at their tourmates just for being Christian bothered me. I don't know a lot about the Casualties, but I'm assuming they're at least somewhat political. And I know the guys in NOFX are political. Fat Mike founded punkvoter.org and released two anti-bush compliation albums on his label, Fat Wreck Chords. So here's my question: aren't liberals supposed to be all about tolerance and diversity? I mean, I understand that most of them hate Bush and feel like he's brought his faith into the job too much. That's fine. I'm not a Bush fan either and I have no desire to live in a theocracy. And I realize that the majority of practicing Christians are conservatives also. I'm not saying I don't understand why they're at odds sometimes. But how does juvenile humor and unprovoked attacks solve anything? Every other band I saw today had nothing but nice things to say about the other bands on the tour. They spent their limited time complimenting the other bands and encouraging the crowd to check out their friends and heroes. And NOFX did some of that too. But for some reason they felt the need to take shots at the Christians in attendance while they were at it. That's okay though. They/we can take it. I just think it's silly and immature and I wish I could expect better from men in their thirties with a bunch of impressionable kids listening to them. Most of all, I just think it's another symptom of the fact that, while no one's allowed to make fun of any other political, social, or racial group in the country, Christians are fair game. I'm usually up for any time of humor and I rarely get offended. I just hate that there's such a double-standard. I'll stop ranting now though.

Beware.

it's theoretical, not personal

I wanted to clarify my last blog entry since the elder Miss Crosswhite seems to have been upset by it.

I didn't mean to say that I think girls are evil. I didn't mean that I don't believe in love or happiness. The entry wasn't even about me at all really. I just think that instead of one special person and only one person that you are destined for, there could be multiple people out there that you're compatible with and that you'd be equally happy dating or married to. I don't see that as a negative thing.

While we're on the subject though, it bothers me when people tell me that they know I'm going to find someone. I realize they're just trying to be encouraging, but I don't agree. After years of watching movies and reading fairytales, Americans have developed this nothing that everyone has someone out there waiting for them. The Christian community has co-opted that idea, turning it into a faith issue. "Don't worry. God has someone special for you." I guess that's a nice thought, but I don't remember the passage of the Bible where God promises everyone a mate. Lots of wonderful people, both Christian and nonChristian, go their whole lives without ever finding someone. I'm not saying that I'll neccessarily be one of those people, but I don't think you or anyone else has any evidence to the contrary. I may meet some amazing girl and fall in love tomorrow. And I may die at eighty-five without ever having been married. I don't think there's anything pessimistic about considering both possibilities.

there is no Neo, said the spoon

I don't believe in "the one." I didn't before my last relationship and I certainly don't now. I guess I've never been a big believer in fate or determinism or predestination or whatever you want to call it. Our lives are, without a doubt, influenced by outside forces, but we're still logical creatures that make decisions and choices. You can certainly find a one, but the? That one person you were meant to be with from birth? The only person you could ever truly be happy with? I don't think that exists.

That's not to say you shouldn't believe the one you're with is "the one," if that makes you happy. But I'm against the concept for a few major reasons:

1) It gives to much credit to fate. So many girls think they can just sit back and wait for their prince to come, for some guy to fall into their lap. They don't want any guy who doesn't come out swinging, who doesn't attempt to woo them. And too many of them won't give a guy a chance if he doesn't fit that ideal in their head.

2) If someone's "perfect for you," then you expect things to be perfect. Successful relationships take a lot of work and a lot of right choices and it's easy to forget that when you're caught up in emotion. It's easy to rest on your laurels, confident that you've finally found that special someone and let things fall apart right in front of your eyes. And when things aren't perfect, when there are problems and work that has to be done, too many people cut and run, secure in the knowledge that it must have not been "meant to be" if things were so hard.

3) On the other side of things, people sometimes cling to a relationship that's obviously not working because they had some feeling, some premonition that this one was going to last and they don't want to let that go. We've all seen it, that friend who puts up with constant abuse, who soldiers on through fight after fight, through numerous metaphorical or literal slaps in the face because their emotions tell them that they have to. Because, from the beginning, they knew. They "just knew."

So call me a cynic if you want to. Tell me I don't have enough experience to make statements like that. Tell me that I'll find her someday and then understand. That's fine. I know I can't change anyone's mind about something they've probably believed their whole life. Just promise me you'll be careful.

there goes the sun

For those of you that don't know, I work part time at Toys [backwards]R Us. It doesn't pay hardly anything and it gets insane around Christmas and boring the rest of the year, but it's not a horrible job to have, all things considered.

When I first started working there, I immediately hated the music. It was Christmas time, so, of course all the songs were Christmas songs. I hate most Christmas songs anyway and the fact that all of them were Disneyfied didn't help. There was even (horror of horrors) a Macarena Christmas mix. I wanted to shoot myself.

Things got better after Christmas ended though. The songs were still mostly really bad, but they would rotate every day, so it was bearable. Then, after I'd been there a while, the satellite music system we used broke somehow. The first day, there was weird static coming through the speakers periodically and we couldn't use the intercom at all. Then, it stopped working completely and we went without music for a while. It was peaceful and I have to say I enjoyed it.

Unfortunately, we all knew it couldn't last. The music would return. Instead of getting the satellite system fixed, the managers simply switched back to the old system, a tape player that only plays special tapes we get from corporate. So now, instead of the music rotating and being different every day, the same songs play day after day until we get a new tape. The tapes are longer than normal tapes, but short enough that you can hear the same songs at least five or six times, if not more, in an average shift. It doesn't take long to get sick of songs when you hear them that often and it doesn't help when they're stuff like the "Tail Spin" theme or a Kids Bop version of a Hillary Duff song.

I provided all this back story just to say that we got a new tape yesterday. Along with the usual annoying crap (much of it repeats from earlier tapes that I already loathe), there's a couple of decent songs on there. Only I never know how to feel about good songs being on the tapes. On the one hand, it's better than the tape being full of all kids songs, but, on the other hand, I know I'm going to wind up hating songs that I previously enjoyed. I've already gotten sick of such classics as Modern English's "I Melt With You," The Monkees' "Last Train to Clarksville," and Lisa Loeb's, "I Do." Now, "Here Comes the Sun," which is an excellent Beatles song is doomed to follow the same path. After a two or three months of hearing it fifteen to twenty times per week, I'll never be able to hear it again without thinking of Bratz Dolls and The Nintendo DS. Sad.

I'm frackin' obsessed!

I've always seen myself on the fringes of nerdom. In my opinion, to be an actual nerd, one needs to be obsessed with something. I have a lot of nerdy friends and I know enough about most nerdy subjects to keep up in a conversation, but I've never been a fanboy. I've watched some "Star Trek," but only "The Next Generation" and none of the original movies. I've seen the Lord of the Rings movies, but never read the books. I enjoy Star Wars, but I've never bought anything related to it. I watch some comic book movies and TV shows, but I've never really owned any actual comic books. I used to be sort of a computer nerd, but I kicked my chat room habit years ago and I don't know anything more than basic html and how to get around Windows. I like to stay on the fringes. I've never found an obsession: until now. I think I'm officially a "Battlestar Galactica" nerd.

Both are my roommates are pretty nerdy. Not the kind that don't have social skills and only date fat, ugly girls, but they're still pretty high on the nerd continuim. One of them, Bryan, tends to watch the Sci-Fi channel quite a bit. Ocassionally, when I'm bored enough, I've been known to watch a few minutes of one of the "Stargates" with him, but only to mock it and laugh at how bad it is. For me, the Sci-Fi channel was an object of scorn, not somewhere I would ever stop for more than a minute when the remote was in my power. But all that changed a few months ago. Bryan started watching the Sci-Fi channel's "re-imagining" of the cheesey 70's Star Wars cash-in "Battlestar Galactica." I knew, like everything else on Sci-Fi, it would be horrible, but as a caught a few minutes here and there, it actually seemed watchable. The acting wasn't laughable and the effects looked realistic. When Bryan bought the first season on DVD, I decided to have a go at it. He'd already almost finished watching the first season before I started, but I quickly caught up with him and months before the second season was to be released on DVD, I was bugging him to buy it. Now, through the magic of DVD, I've seen every episode of seasons one and two.

And, believe it or not, it's actually a really great show. The acting is great. The characters are richly developed and not at all static. The plots are exciting and intricate. The special effects are always seemless and the sci-fi aspects of the show never seem silly. Time and Rolling Stone have both done articles proclaiming it one of the best shows on TV and those are just two of the many critical raves that the new "Battlestar" has recieved. A week ago Tuesday, Bryan and I finished up the Season 2 dvd's together. Of course, it ended on a cliff-hanger. I knew that the Sci-Fi Channel was already several episodes into Season 3 and that I'd probably have to wait months before it would be released on DVD and I could watch the show again without missing anything or ruining the first few episodes for myself. When I found out they were showing a marathon of all the third season episodes on Tuesday, my heart leapt, to use the cliche. That's when I realize that I couldn't deny it anymore. "My life can continue," I said to Bryan, forever claiming my place in the annals of nerdiness. I'm no longer on the fringe. I'm officially a "Battlestar Galactica" nerd. And I think I'm okay with that.