Post 145: Love Triangles and why they annoy me.

Love Triangles annoy me. A love triangle is when two people like the same person. But could also be explained as, two people ignore the feelings of the person they supposedly care about and instead of treating them like a person with feelings, treat them like an object or trophy to be won. 

Which is what they do. 

In Girl Meets World: Two friends like the same guy. One girl dates him, but then says she likes him as a brother - he says he doesn't feel like her brother, she ignores him. So, she pushes him and her friend together. The friend and he go out. Turns out girl #1 likes him, a mutual friend announces it. So suddenly he knows they both like him and have basically been pushing him back and forth because they don't want to hurt each other. But...

Does anyone bother to ask how he feels? Or even acknowledge it when he says anything? No.

In Mortal Instruments: Simon and Jace both like Clary. Simon then throws a fit when she is with Jace, like really? If you really care about her then why are you treating her like this? Why are you acting like her feelings don't matter?

In My Best Friends Wedding and Made of Honor: the point of the movie is someone coming back to break up the wedding of the person they care about and their new fiancee. Like really? They clearly care about that person if they are getting married, so why are you trying to ruin their happiness? And what do you really think ruining their wedding will bring you? It is, honestly, just selfish. It is someone putting their own feelings before the person they supposedly care about's feelings.

(I didn't see the end of Made of Honor, but I really hope she didn't leave the guy she loved and agreed to marry for the jerk that showed up at the last minute to ruin her wedding after being in love with her for so long but never acting on it.)

This Means War movie summary? Two top CIA operatives wage an epic battle against one another after they discover they are dating the same woman. Or better explained as: two CIA agents disregard their oath to the country and use their training against each other over a girl--as if this will actually resolve the issue. Like she will just automatically go to whichever one wins. Last I checked, feelings don't work like that. 

Anyway, I am tired of seeing this. Seeing girls fight over who gets the guy, or guys arguing about who had 'dibs'. You can't call dibs on a person. You cannot pick who gets who. That is not how the real world works. 

I feel like most of the time this shows up, the two characters might as well be fighting over a hairbrush for the sheer lack of consideration they put into thinking about how the person they are fighting over feels.

Like really. 

A: C is mine!

B: No, C is mine!

C: Does anyone care how I feel? 

A: No. Because we love you so much we don't actually care how you feel. 

B: We will duel at dawn and whoever wins gets to date you. 

C: But I like someone else. 

A: Then they better show up for the duel and win. 

B: Or else they don't get to date you. Because that is the rules in a love triangle. 

Post 144: Google Chrome

I signed into Google on a computer on campus today and was completely shocked to see all my bookmarks along the top of the page. Not as shocked as I was to say Hola! (an extension that allows me to use a proxy, which means I can be in Canada and watch American Netflix). It was weird. I noticed Hola! first and was confused, who had downloaded Hola on the computer? How had they gotten past the administrator rights? Surely, the school wouldn't have added it, so who did?

That is when I realized that Google Chrome is connected to my Google account, something I had known but not really understood what it meant. I didn't really think it would save those things. I never really thought about how the connection between the two worked.

It is interesting, though I'm not sure that I 100% am happy about it. I mean, it is nice that I can save things between computers. However, it does mean that my browser history, bookmarks, most visited pages, etc. are personal things rather professional things. Like Facebook and Youtube come up as the top sites, so if my colleagues or superiors saw it - they might think that I am slacking off at work and going on these sites instead of working. Though, I have gone on these sites at lunch.

Also, what if I forget to sign out? Will it have me signed in on other user accounts? Will someone else sign in and have access to my blog, email, bookmarks, or history?

I think this is something that is still up for debate as to whether it is a helpful feature or not. Anyway, I didn't have too much to say about it. So, going to end this post here.

Post 143: Top Ten Non-Disney Princesses

Or rather, top ten female characters that would be considered Disney Princesses if they were, in fact, Disney characters. By this I mean, characters that would be labelled as Disney Princesses, even though they aren't technically Princesses. Like Official Disney Princess, Mulan and unofficial princesses like Alice, Esmeralda, and Tinkerbell. 

I will reserve the Top Five for Official Princesses. 

1. Tuptim - The King and I

Tuptim is very sweet, but also a really cool character because she was really open-minded. She presented an interesting paradox between the King's eldest son and herself. He felt he knew everything and wasn't really interested in learning anything different at first, but he had a tutor who came all the way from England to teach him. While she was eager to read and learn new things, even though her being able to read was considered a crime. Yet, even though she wasn't supposed to, she continued to read. And even though she knew she would get in trouble for it, you could tell she took pride in it. She also helps save the day. (Obviously, this is based off the animated version, because it has a happy, death-free ending.)

2. Thumbelina - Thumbelina

Being about two inches tall is probably hard enough without adding kidnapping toads, pervy beetles, and, a materialistic mouse. And yet, Thumbelina handles the hardships she faces with grace. She makes her way across a great distance (okay, so it is probably like her backyard - but that's pretty big for her!) with the help of her friends, showing great compassion as she goes.

3. Yum Yum - The Princess and the Cobbler

Yum Yum and Thumbelina are probably tied. The only reason Thumbelina made it to slot #2, is that I liked the animation better for it. There is nothing wrong with the animation for the Princess and The Cobbler, it just isn't as fluid. Yum Yum is a strong character. She is also very clever.

4. Odette - Swan Princess

Odette's character is 4, but could also be 7. I go back and forth, because I really liked her character in the beginning, but not as much later on. She starts off as an adorable and clever kid. She grows up and her and the Prince are constantly at odds. But a kind of playful at odds, then they meet as adults and are instantly smitten. Why? Who knows. He says "let's get married" because their parents are trying to set them up and he's like "let's do this". She says, "okay...but...what do you actually like about me? Like we weren't even friends before and now you're like 'I love you'?" And he says, "you're beautiful." And she's like "thanks but...what else?" Basically, is that all he's into? And he says "what else is there?" And she is like "nope...not going to marry some vain jerk." But, then they don't see each other again and she is all BUT I LOOOOOVE HIIIIIMMM. I mean, it is like love at first sight, if you don't count their childhood, because they almost never have a legitimate conversation. I mean, she went from "I won't marry you" to "you're my true love" without really much of anything in between. I mean, he felt bad. And the audience knew that, but she didn't. Anyway, she has a pretty strong character otherwise. So, if I overlook the lack of real conversation between the two, she is at 4. Otherwise, she is still on the list at 7, because she takes on a lot even as just a bird.

5. Nancy - Enchanted

I love Nancy, I don't know if she fully counts as a princess, though. I mean, she marries the prince, but she wasn't really the one who was supposed to marry him. If the story had been based off a book, it'd be like if Cinderella disappeared so the princess married a step-sister. But, she is great. In the end, she even steps back and pushes her boyfriend to Giselle, because she knows they belong together. She is straight-forward and driven. Honestly, she will make a great Queen.

6. Kayley - Quest for Camelot

Kayley is kick-arse, but not a princess. If she were a literal princess she'd have gotten a higher rating. I love her. I don't like the romance as much because it suffers the way so many others suffer - a brief romance that starts with "You are annoying me" and quickly develops to, "we connect on microscope level either through a common friend or experience, so that means it is true love." Anyway, other than that, she is great. She is a clutz and a spazz, but she dreams about fighting for her home and for honor in her father's memory. And she goes off to save Camelot on her own, later meeting a man in the forest who helps her. Later on, she even goes single-handedly against the villain - even though he is like three times her size and has a magical sword for a hand.

7. Anastasia - Anastasia

Anastasia is stubborn, but also very strong. She has a lot of stuff to deal with (evil villain with the ability to create an army of magic, giant evil bat-things to destroy a bridge? pretty big stuff), and though she is scared - she keeps going and fighting. She also has a lot of integrity. She grew up in an orphanage with no memories and a caretaker that seems kind of harsh (though, she did keep Anya along time and even helped get her a job, so she has to care for her at least a little). And when presented with the opportunity to live as a Grand Duchess, she turns it down at first because she doesn't want to lie about who she is, even if it means money and power. And in the end, she chooses to be with Dmitri over money. Which is sweet, plus - I'd like to think - it was also a choice for freedom. She found out her past, but her life brought her to a different future. Like...just because she found out who she was when she was little, doesn't change who she became. 

8. Chel - Road to El Dorado

Chel is hilarious, she is also very clever - being one of the only people in El Dorado who isn't taken by the Miguel and Julio's 'god' disguise. She is ambitious and adventurous. She is a great help to them and to the people of El Dorado. If it wasn't for her, the main characters would have been killed a dozen times over and, even though she came between them, it wasn't out of ill-intentions.  

9. Marina - Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas

Marina is tough and determined. She takes on pirates and the goddess of destruction to save her fiance, a fiance she doesn't even love but just greatly respects and cares for. She saves their lives with great wit and determination. She is such a great character, and the only woman who could keep Sinbad in line.

10. Susan - Monsters vs. Aliens

Susan is pretty awesome. My favorite thing about her isn't even how she is, but how she develops as a character. In the beginning, she is kind of co-dependent and scared. She is scared of what happened to her and spent most of the movie wanting to go back, but along the way she realized what she was capable of and grew as a person. In the end, she even makes the choice of giving up a normal life and risking her life to save her friends.

American Horror Story (TV Series - 2011)

This review post has been moved to my review blog. Click this link to read it.

Post 142: Retro-Writing: Beauty

A new series? Already? Yes, a new series. This series will be sort of a filler series - I'll admit. It is what the title suggests, though not exactly accurately. This tag and series will be old writings that I've decided to post. This shall be the first, an essay I wrote - thoug,h I don't remember when, why, or for what - on beauty.

Beauty:

There are many things in the world that are considered beautiful, but what makes something beautiful? Beauty is simple; something is considered beautiful if it is pleasant to one of the senses. A beautiful song or sound is one that is pleasant to the ears, and the sense of hearing. A beautiful sight is one that is pleasant to the eyes, and the sense of sight. A beautiful scent is one that is pleasant to the sense of smell.  A beautiful taste is a pleasant taste and a beautiful texture is one that is pleasant feeling, however typically things are not normally described as beautifully tasting or feeling.

            

What is considered beautiful tends to vary between societies. In North America, things that are typically described as beautiful are auditory or visual. Commonly, things like landscapes and art are described as appearing or looking beautiful. However, art and beauty should not be synonymous. Art is something creative; something original and something that makes people who experience it or come in contact with it think or feel something. However, while art like beauty is in the ‘eye of the beholder’, it can be art without being beautiful. A painting that evokes dark and unpleasant feelings would typically be described as beautiful. If the person viewing it did describe it as beautiful, it would be because something in the painting appealed to them on some level. It could be that they find the dominant colour used a pleasant colour. Alternatively, a beautiful painting of a pleasant looking cottage might make some feel pleasant and relaxed, or inspire a feeling of security; while, it makes others feel ill or irritated at its simplicity (or reminds others of the evil witches cottage in fairy tales) so they may not describe it as being beautiful.

            

People are also described as being beautiful. However, there are two different contexts that can be perceived when a person is described as being beautiful. They can be described as beautiful in appearance and/or beautiful in essence and personality. Beauty is skin deep in many ways, though, because it is limited to what can be experienced through the senses. A person can be pleasant looking, but not be considered to have a beautiful personality. You cannot tell a person’s personality without observing their actions or hearing their words. A person is not just seen as having a beautiful personality without proof; they are seen as such through their actions or words- which can be experienced through the senses to create a pleasant feeling. For example, to know that someone is generous we would need to see them donating money. Donating money would be the pleasant sight, or sensual experience, needed for us to perceive that person as having a beautiful personality.

            

People can also be described as having a beautiful voice. The description of a person’s appearance or voice can show just how subjective a person’s perception of beauty is, as people that are liked tend to inspire a higher level of pleasantness, while people who are disliked tend to inspire more discontent. For example, in a relationship one person might find the other person’s voice very beautiful, however after they break up they might view the other’s voice more in comparison with nails on a chalkboard. However, the perception of the sense is processed differently in the two situations, making it remain true that it is what the person experiences with the senses they have.

            

Music is also something that is described as being beautiful. This is another area where the subjective nature of beauty becomes very apparent. While most people can agree that classical music has moments of beauty and can be very beautiful, not everyone enjoys classical music the same way. People can recognize the pleasant aspects of it, without truly enjoying the music genre as a whole. This relates back to the painting and visual beauty. The painting might be on the disturbing side, but if there is some aspect of it that inspires a pleasant feeling, than it can be seen as beautiful. The same is true with music. One can also enjoy a song, without it being beautiful. Most rap and heavy metal lacks a pleasantness, since they tend to have a rough quality too them. However, that is how they are supposed to be. So, if people can enjoy them even though they don’t necessarily find them beautiful.

            

Besides the senses, there are things that effect our interpretations of beauty. However, they only change the way we interpret what we sense, not what we sense. For example, the two people mentioned earlier in a relationship have different views during the relationship and after. This isn’t due to a change in appearance or voice; simply the emotion associated it with it. It can be agreed that the voice of a friend is more pleasant that the voice of a stranger, even when taken out of the context of ‘friend’ and ‘stranger’, the stranger might have a more pleasant voice. This is because our emotions caller the context. This also occurs based on the feelings we have in the moment we are experiencing and sensing. If we are in a happier mood, we are more likely to view things favourably. If we are in a poor mood, we might find things more unpleasant than they otherwise would be. However, as the thing itself doesn’t change only the way we perceive it, it can be rationalized that it is our senses that determine what is beautiful from what isn’t.

            

If a person had never had the ability to sense anything – could never see, smell, taste, hear or feel – then they would not have any concept of beauty is. They could not perceive it, because they could not experience anything through their senses. However, if a person lost their ability to sense anything – could no longer see, smell, taste, hear or feel – then they could still imagine beauty, because they could recall what they had previously found pleasant. This would allow them to experience beauty through the memory of the things they had sensed before. The same way remembering a happy moment or memory stimulates feelings of happiness in the present.

            

In conclusion, beauty is nothing more than what we perceive as pleasant through our senses. This can be seen in what we perceive as beautiful, as well as how our perceptions of what is and isn’t beautiful can change when our emotions toward things change. Since, beauty is perceived through our senses in the same way colour or pitch is determined it is simple in nature. This simplicity in what beauty is makes it easy for people to use it and take it into consideration when trying to make things beautiful, if people don’t try and dig deeper and over-complicate it.  

Cinderella (1997)

This post has been moved to my review blog. Click here to read.

Post 140: GIFS

There is an argument about how 'GIF' is pronounced. Hard G or soft g? Is it G-IF as in girl, or JIF? like jug? I, personally, say JIF, with a j as opposed to a g sound. Even though the 'G' stands for Graphics with a hard 'G', the pronunciation of the acronym with a hard 'G' sounds weird.

GIF stands for Graphics Interchange Format. It is a moving picture, essentially. It is like the above and below moving pictures, like clips of things. There are people who are actually pretty passionate about how it is pronounced, even insulting others who disagree. There are even debates about the pronunciation. 

Steve Wilhite, who created the Graphics Interchange Format, or GIF announced: "It's pronounced JIF, not GIF."

But there is still arguments about the pronunciation. A lot of people argue that hard-G GIF makes the most sense. They argue that it isn't  Jraphics, its Graphics, so it should be GIF, not JIF. Even, Obama says GIF. 

Why does it matter? Why am I talking about it? Because as it so happens, I've decided to start using them in my posts. I've used some already in my Top Ten posts, but I'm thinking - like this one, I'm going to start adding and integrating gifs into my posts. I think they are fun and easy to add. And, there is really a surprising variety of them out there. 

Post 139: Top Ten Forgotten or Under-appreciated Disney Characters

1. Eilonwy from The Black Cauldron - The queen of forgotten Disney characters. She is strong and brave. She gets kidnapped by a pretty freaky (gives me nightmares, at least), skeleton king and locked in a dungeon. And what does she do? She stays calm and finds a way to get herself out. She saves the male lead and does it with humor and sass. She is also very sweet. Unfortunately for her, the movie she is in is one of the most forgotten about Disney movies. Probably because the movie didn't have a clear audience. The main characters looked young (like 10-14), there were fairies and a cute pig which made it seem like it was meant for little kids. Yet, the villain and his army of the dead and the sexual humor of the witches made it seem more for teens and up. Usually, Disney hides the sexual innuendo, but the minstrel being turned into a frog and getting stuck in the witch's bosom? Not very hidden. What was your audience with this movie Disney? You had a good plot and good characters but, really, what was your target audience? 

2. Audrey Ramirez from Atlantis: the Lost Empire - spitting in the face of sexism and beating up bad guys at the same time. She is one of two daughters of a man who wanted sons. Audrey and her sister were raised as sons. Her sister is a boxing champion, while she is an expert mechanic. She took over her father's shop and now is on an elite team of explorers and she isn't even in her 20's yet. But, as a minor character, Audrey tends to be forgotten about compared to Kida and Helga. Which is sad, because she has the most sass - and in the end, when they're about to destroy a civilization, Audrey is the first one from the team to look back and realize what they were doing was wrong. (Except for the Doctor, who wasn't really part of that scene - because, apparently, it was just decided before then they were going to leave him behind. It just wasn't shown.)

3. Megara from Hercules - It takes a very strong person to sell their soul to save someone else's life. Especially in a Universe where the Elysian Fields (a sort of Greek mythology version of Heaven) were real. Assuming he was a good person before he dumped her, she knew he would end up in the Elysian Fields because Hades was real to sell her soul to. Yet, even knowing he would end up somewhere good if he did die, she still sold her soul to spare him from pain. And yet, even after he betrayed her she was still able to open her heart to Hercules. And let me just say, I've worked for some tough employers, but can you imagine a worse boss that Hades? I mean, he sent her to deal with a centaur and who knows what else, and quitting is not an option, so really she is one tough chick. 

4. Charlotte La Bouff from Princess and the Frog - Charlotte is seriously under-appreciated. She is the exact opposite of basically every Disney princess. There were really no hardships in her life. She didn't have wicked step-sisters, she didn't have to clean or hide, and she never had to worry about anything. She always got everything she wanted. But she never abandoned her friend, Tiana, even though she probably had a lot of people swarming her trying to be her friend. And in the end, she wanted to help Tiana get the man of her dreams, even if it meant giving up her own dream to marry a Prince. The first time she didn't get what she wanted, and it was her choice to give it up in order to help out a friend.

5. Edna Mode from The Incredibles - I love Edna. Edna has the passion and fire that makes her the perfect fashion designer for superheroes. She is smart and strong. She also really puts a lot of thought into every design. She takes into consideration not only a supers powers but their personality and situation. Every hero probably goes to her, yet she knows them all on a personal level and is even there for Helen when she is worried about her husband. She also gives good advice.

6. Captain Amelia from Treasure Planet - A captain needs to be respected by their crew, especially in a time where pirates run wild and treasure is buried in the center of planets. No, but seriously, people in charge need the people following their command to respect them (or fear them, as Machiavelli might say). Captain Amelia is a well-respected Captain, something that based off people's reaction to her seems like it is rare for a female Captain to be seen as. She is tough and even after being shot she still tries to take care of her crew mates. 

7. Adelaide Bonfamille from Aristocats - I honestly adore Adelaide. She is fabulous. She is a retired opera singer who was very famous and is now very rich. And she leaves everything, her entire fortune to her butler. True, she does say it goes to her cats first, which is what causes the butler to lose it. But cats do not really live that long, sadly. So, in fifteen years at most, most if not all of the cats would be dead and the fortune would have been his. And in the meantime, it isn't like the cats can shop. So, he would be the primary caregiver. So, he would just have had to take care of them until they died and then he would receive it all. If he had been smart enough to realize that cats having nine lives, doesn't mean they live nine lifetimes, then he'd have known he was going to still be alive and not much older than he was when he received the fortune. Anyway, in the end, she puts her fortune towards helping stray animals and opens her home to strays. She just seems like such a strong, down to earth woman. 

8. Princess Dot from A Bug's Life - I don't know how old Princess Dot was in ant years or otherwise. But, she is clearly very young. And until the end, she couldn't fly either. Yet, she was incredibly brave and compassionate. She was also clever. When she saw someone suffering for being different, she went out of her way to try and make them feel better. She was loyal to her friends and risked her life to try and help her friends and her colony despite her young age and small size.  

9. Kala from Tarzan - Kala is so sweet. There doesn't seem like there were many human visitors to the island, before his parents. But they did seem to recognize he was human, suggesting that humans had been seen around the island before and not in a particularly positive way. Perhaps, it was his parents. Perhaps, it was other settlers. Either way, the fact that Kala took him in disregarding his differences and her own mate's input (who was also the leader) to try to save him really shows how strong her sense of compassion is. She also is very encouraging, she lets him be himself even though that gets them both in trouble. 

10. Olivia Flaversham from The Great Mouse Detective - I think she is under-appreciated, but also sometimes annoying. I think it is her voice that annoys me, it seems a little...off somehow. Maybe I find it a little annoyingly high pitched, or maybe the accent sounds kind of strange to me. I don't know. But the character her self is pretty impressive. She is a young girl who suffered a terrible trauma of having her father abducted and her home destroyed. And what does she do, she goes off by herself far from home with no money or help to try to find someone who can help get her father back. And when she finds the Detective, he seems crazed and is armed, but when he said he won't help, she doesn't give up. She is a strong kid and therefore earns the last spot on this list. (Though, Penny from the Rescuers should get an honorable mention here, because she is also very brave.)

Post 138: Does Nepotism die?

Nepotism: the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs.

My mom got me a job at her office. It was to come in and help out with office administration type things. I have done it before and I did go through an official process, I had to take typing tests and go through interviews. But, in the end, I was flagged for the job because she was my mom. 

It's not that I'm not capable or qualified, but it was nepotism that guaranteed me the job. After the job ended, as it was a temporary position, I went on to other things. 

However, I am now working in the office again, though not in her department, because her boss wanted me to come back and work there. 

Yet, I cannot help but wonder if all of it is still connected back to that original act of nepotism. Has the rest been tainted? Or because they asked me back on their own because I am a good worker, does that make it separate? 

This is a question that I've thought about a lot. Though, I'm still not sure of the answer. I think sometimes people who come in that are also new think that it was only nepotism. I mean, they're not in the same department as me, so much as people I work with outside of it but still with the same overall employer.  

They know my mom works in the same place and sometimes they seem to talk to me in a manner that suggests they don't think that I have experience doing....anything, really. Sometimes they even try and tell me how to do the job that I have been doing longer than they have. I have been working admin. positions for like 8 years. I have been in and out of this office (really, different positions all working in the same building for the same person) for 4 years. I have a typing speed of around 55 WPM. I have taken classes in using word and excel. I have the skills and experience. 

But I am treated differently because my mom works here. At least, at first. 

After a few days working together they realize that I am capable and treat me like anyone else in the office, even coming to me for help. 

But the whole thing does make me wonder about nepotism. Is it still nepotism if my current job is one I got out of skill, if the person who hired me only learned about me through a position I got through nepotism? 

SoundHound: iPhone App

SoundHound is probably one of my favorite apps. It is also one I use fairly regularly. Essentially what the app does is listen to the audio and identify what it is. It is useful when listening to the radio when the song isn't listed or when you are shopping and a song comes on that you like. I have tried Shazam and musiXmatch. I found musiXmatch is best for lyrics, but not very good at identifying songs. I also found SoundHound seemed to have more songs that Shazam in its database.

I also found that SoundHound was better at identifying songs when I sang or hummed them, if the song was no longer on or I remember it later. Personally, I also found Shazam's layout a little disorienting.

One of the features I really like, aside from the main one, is that it saves your searches. So, if I hear a song when I am out that I like but can't use or connect to the internet, it saves so that I can search later. Which is really useful, because I often worry about going over on Data charges.

After finding the song it gives you the option to search on iTunes. So, you can buy it after you find it. I have used this to find a lot of songs I really enjoyed.

The most recent songs I used it to find are: Rewind by Neverest, 503 by Hans Zimmer, Dark Horse by Katy Perry, and Dream on the Dance floor by Basshunter.

I also use the app to see lyrics for songs. This is a feature of other apps as well, but I find SoundHound has a lot. (Or at least it did, since the last update it doesn't seem to have as much.)

I would recommend the app to those who find music out or on the radio they like. It is easier than writing down lyrics to search up later. Even if you don't, it is free and you never know when you might need it.

So, I recommend you check it out on the iTunes store, or the Android store (I assume the apps are the same).

Zoobe

So Zoobe is a pretty interesting and very popular app. People who frequent Tumblr have probably seen things from it before. Basically, what it is, is an app that provides people with minimalistic animations of characters that you provide a voice for. The lips move sort of in time and then you complete them and you have your own video. 

Often, they are used to make rant videos. People will complain about something and then post it on Tumblr or YouTube. It allows them the anonymity of not showing there face and tends to add some humor because it allows you to complain about serious situations through a bunny or shark as opposed to a person. 

There are other uses, people make funny videos or say 'I love you'. There are videos of people using an animated Smurf to ask their loved one to pick up certain kinds of cereal at the grocery store.

I find it a strange app, but amusing. However, I do understand some of the surrounding frustration that real animators have that their own work isn't getting as many views as some of these videos that were created by the poster with little to no effort.  

I'd recommend it to anyone who can find a use for it. I have some sample videos below. 

Post 136: Breaking the Laws of Logic

I'm thinking of taking the LSAT. And, to be honest, I mostly want to take it for fun. I don't know if I really want to go to Law School. I don't really know much about it. I know that I don't want to be done with school once I graduate, but that's about all I can say for sure.

No, the LSAT is strictly something that seems fun to me. And challenging. But the kind of challenging that stimulates and inspires, as opposed to the kind that makes you want to tear out your hair.

Why do I think this test will be fun? It is a test, after all. Because I like logic problems. They're like math, without the math. The fun part of math, if there is such a thing.

And I like them a lot. I remember when I was young and we created these weird diagrams to solve problems. Like Jon, Mary, Stew, and Connor were in three races. Mary wasn't first when Stew was third. Connor didn't finish last. And Jon never beat Stew. Who was second?

This is, of course, not an accurate problem because it is off the top of my head and probably would only yield nonsense.

But, you get the idea of the questions that were asked.

You then drew a chart, and the more variables the more complicated it became. The one I described would be pretty simple, a more complicated one would be:

Mary, Kyle, and Nick all have cars. The cars are red, blue, and green. Mary's car is the fastest. Kyle has a blue car. Nick's car is not the slowest. The green car is the slowest. And then it would ask something like, who drives the slowest car?

Those graphs and these questions are fun for me. I like them. I like doing them. Does that make me crazy? Probably not. Am I still crazy? Probably, but for other reasons.

Anyway, I was looking over questions on a practice LSAT and I think the test is cheating people. I'm in a Logic and Reasoning class, and the subject has come up in other Philosophy classes, and one of the things that comes up are formally valid arguments.

A formally valid argument has to fit into a particular mold, because these molds show what argument forms work ALL THE TIME. If there is an example where it isn't true, then it is logically invalid.

The two most basic forms are Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens.

Modus Ponens: If A leads to B, and A is happening, then B is happening. (If you stub your toe, your toe will hurt. You stubbed your toe, so your toe hurts.)
Modus Tollens: If A leads to B, and B is not happening, then A could not be happening. (If it rains, the ground will be wet. But the ground isn't wet, so it couldn't be raining.)

Get it?

One of the most common mistakes with these (called a logical fallacy) is assuming that not A, means not B. (If it is raining then the ground will be wet. It isn't raining so the ground won't be wet. - BUT what about sprinklers, snow, hoses, the Ice Challenge, etc).

Other things can lead to B.

But on there are questions that go against this.

For example, N cannot be selected unless L is selected. So, if N, then L. Because if there is an N, there will always be an L. But it doesn't say that it goes both ways to mean both, if there is an L there is an N and if there is an N there is an L.

And yet, there were three questions of the six that I was looking at in the practice test that relied on this assumption that it goes both ways to get the answer. Some of these answers would be wrong if it wasn't true.

And according to the practice test, a lot of people do poorly on these questions and I think that THIS is why. From the wording, they are going against what we are taught in school about logic and how it works, because it gives us something that can be put into a specific rule and then it breaks that rule.

Confusing, but in an interesting way. I mean, clearly. I am blogging about it, so it interests me. And now I know to watch for it. And other potential trick questions.

The Good Witch (Movie Series, 2008 - 2014)

The Good Witch, The Good Witch's Garden, Gift, Family, Charm, Destiny, and Wonder.  Seven movies in one series may seem a little bit excessive, especially without any explicitly known mythical creatures, action adventures, or wars of any kind.

No, they are all Hallmark movies, about a family. And a 'Good Witch', though it is never fully out and out stated. I think that I like it best when it is kind of ambiguous, if they had ever completely come out and shown her to be a witch or made it obvious then it wouldn't have had the same magic.

The first movie is about her coming to town, trying to get settled in. It was a sweet movie, with a good message about not judging a book by its cover. The second was about having hope and helping others, as she still struggles to fit in as certain townsfolk still work against her. The third is about her wedding, and second chances. The fourth about family and growing up, as an unexpected distant relative comes to town. The fifth is about family as well, but more specifically about how good parenting isn't an exact science but something built from good intentions. The sixth is about destiny and responsibility. The last is about relationships.

Of course, as they are Hallmark movies, there are overlapping messages, but all are positive. All are about having faith in yourself and others. And in one movie, Cassie says that is what the real magic is.

Okay, that sounds a little sappy. But, Hallmark is a little sappy. They're all about happy endings and meaningful messages. These are no exception. But they are funny too.

And I think, compared to some of the Hallmark movies I've seen, they don't cross the line between heartwarming and sweet into cliche and cringe-worthy.

I must say though, the TV show is a no-go. At least not if you liked and watched the movies. I've only seen an episode and I can tell you that it is not the same. The magic behind it is gone and the relationships seem weird. I think, you can watch the movies or the TV series, but not both.

Not for everyone, must like happy endings and have a tolerance for sometimes sappy moments.

Post 135: Character Quotes

Everyonce and awhile I come up with a quote, saying, or rant that I think would make a good insert into a story. Most of the ones I have don’t yet belong to a character or specific story. But, some have inspired stories. Here are a few:

The greatest tragedy I can imagine would be for me to become any more like you, and any less like me.

We’re holding on. Ha. Holding on. Clinging on is more like. We don’t have the strength to hold on forever or the sense to know when to let go. Like a child who acquired some contraband that an adult is trying to take away.

Truth is vintage.

Take that sh*t out of the microwave, it’s starting to get mushy.

My desire to share is often outweighed by my desire not to care.

I am a mood ring, ever changing and indecisive, colorful and bright, but not always accurate.

Never try to be someone you are not for so long you lose who you are.

I bite my tongue, I hold my breath and I delve into the darkness of my mind, unprepared and terrified of the monsters lurking there.

Travel the world, capture what you see and treasure it like a memory.

Grief is the price we pay for love.

When we were young, love was the place where care and attraction met.

I’m not fearless, just foolish.

What’s my aesthetic? Some random person playing Bad Touch on a Ukulele in the middle of a lecture hall. And by some random person, I mean, me. Let’s face it, it would be me. 

Post 134: Third Wheel vs. Spare Tire

'Third wheel' is a term often used when describing the third person in a group, that was really meant to be a pair. Like when someone tags along with their friend on their friend's date. But there is a difference between being a third wheel and a spare tire.

Third wheels are often unintentionally so. Maybe there were supposed to be four people and someone cancelled. Maybe it was supposed to just be a three person group, but two people in the group are pairing up and making the third feel left out (this happens unintentionally sometime in activities that require pairs).

A spare tire is someone that is intentionally invited to an awkward gathering as backup. For example, Mary has been set up on a blind date and asks her friend to come with her, in case the guy bails.

The term can also be used when people are put on the 'back burner'. For example, when a friend comes to you when they are fighting with their best friend and acts like you're their best friend, but as soon as they stop fighting it is like you basically disappear.

Neither are good.

But I think in some ways, being a 'spare tire' is worse. Because like a real spare tire, it is only when needed that it is appreciated.

That's it for this post.

Post 133: Thoughts on Phil. - Divine Control Theory

Phil. as in Philosophy, my almost minor.

Divine Control Theory: 

Divine Control Theory states that things 

are morally good if they are commanded by God.

This theory states that things in themselves are not right or wrong. So, murder is not wrong until God says it is. This is all well and good on paper, but accepting it as true raises some complicated questions. The main question that hits me is whether an act committed by someone that believed they were acting on God's behalf is the same as someone actually doing it. 

For example, let's say a man is suffering from schizophrenia and he honestly and wholeheartedly believes that God is talking to him and has chosen him for a special mission to kill Tom Cruise for working on the Sabbath. If he goes and kills Tom Cruise (who I have nothing against it was just the first name that came to mind), would this act be morally good because the man who did it was told by God to do it? Even if he doesn't know that it wasn't really God? 

On the one hand, "thou shall not kill" is the 6th commandment. So, it seems like this might supersede other commands. But, most interpretations take this to mean "murder" not "kill" and distinguishes them as separate. Making most interpretations of this that "murder" is wrong and that murder is only committed through acts of the heart and are personal acts. 

Assuming that the man does not hate Tom Cruise, but is only following the voice that as far as he knows is God, it would not be murder according to this definition. And Exodus 35:2, could be said to condone Tom Cruise's murder as well, because it states that people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death. 

Does the fact that he is not actually being commanded by God change the virtue of the act? Especially taking into account that the Bible is thousands of years old and was written by 40 authors on three continents in three languages. It has been translated and re-contextualized and amended by many different people all of whom are assumed to be speaking on God's behalf. So, in order to be morally good, all these people must be right and trusted to have said exactly what God had intended, even with all the middle men it went through. But one man, listening to and trusting his own senses is deemed crazy. But even deemed crazy does not rule his action morally good or bad. 

Before moving on from the Bible, I would also like to point out that so much of it is ignored or reinterpreted while other parts are taken as literal. Other than the earlier example from Exodus condoning Cruise's murder, Exodus 21:7 condones selling one's daughter into slavery. 

So, assuming the man was sent to kill Tom Cruise for working on the Sabbath, would the act be justified even if it weren't God's voice, because it is still in the Bible?

And there are arguments that everything is God's will, so even if it weren't his words in the man's head, it would still be God's will that he heard them.

So, according to Divine Control Theory, are the man's actions morally wrong?

Addendum:

After a brief discussion in tutorial, I still haven't arrived at a specific conclusion. However, the tutorial did bring up some possible solutions. The two theories we discussed were very different. One suggested that there is a right and wrong, even if we don't know it. So, it doesn't matter what the man thinks, murder is wrong. Though, it doesn't really address the potential that it was still God's will that the man think he was being commanded to kill. Or, Exodus 21:7. 

The other is that we make right and wrong as a society. Which would mean that he would be wrong, because society would say it is wrong to kill, even if he heard voices telling him to kill. Though, either way, he would probably end up in an institution. 

Post 132: Thoughts on Phil. - Ring of Gyges

Phil. as in Philosophy, my almost minor.

The Ring of Gyges:

The Ring of Gyges is the story about a Shepherd who finds a 

magical ring that makes him invisible. He uses the ring 

to seduce the queen, kill the king, and take over the kingdom. 

Glaucon's argument seems heavily focused on the immediate consequences of an action. His example of the just and unjust man (unjust is loved by all and given all the rewards of being just while the just man is hated by all and suffers as if he was unjust) proves this because it relies entirely on the idea that because the unjust man is happier now, he will always be happier. Though, even in a situation where he is always happier, he may not know he will always be happier. Also it is suggested in later works that Plato's definition of a happy life is one of contentment and mediocrity.

This is suggested when he is talking about the perfect city as one where people are at a level, but they never move higher or lower. They just serve a single purpose that they are best at. So, if the two lives were graphed, with the just mean experiencing low highs and lows, while the unjust man has extreme highs and lows, then maybe Plato would argue their experiences were equal or even that the just man has a better life because he did even though he did not experience as high-highs, he also doesn't experience the dramatic shift to the low-lows.

Though, this could be argued, another question comes up for me regarding Glaucon's argument of things valued. Does something necessarily have to make someone's life better to be valued? Does someone's life being happier necessarily mean it is better? If someone smokes, they might be happier in the moment, but does it make their life better?

Glaucon's argument about the two men seems to rest on the idea that just living is better only if the man is happier than an unjust man. Is it not possible for the just man to still have a better life even if he is not happier? And even if he does, does that really mean being just isn't of value?

Someone might cheat to get ahead and beat all the other players in a game, but does that mean they will benefit in the long run?

In Glaucon's discussion of the Ring he doesn't take into account what could happen. Just because the Shepherd killed the King and tool over the kingdom doesn't mean he will always get away with it. Claudius killed the King, married the Queen, and took over Denmark in Hamlet and for awhile he got away with it, but in the end he loses everything. And because he had so much he more to lose. So who's to say the shepherd isn't going to eventually get caught?

I also disagree with his point that if someone were to turn it (the ring) down people would mock them for it behind their back. But since a lot of people assume that they could be just even with the ring, why would they mock someone for turning it down? When in mocking them they are doing it because they turned down the opportunity to be unjust.

Grace and Frankie

Of things I regret this month, watching this show is one of my greatest regrets. Not to say that it is bad. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The reason I regret it, is that it was only after watching the first season, that I realized that only season 1 was out and that because it only came out a week or so before, it would be a long wait for the next season. And what a cliff-hanger!

As a fan of both West Wing (I even did a review for it) and Law and Order, it was strange seeing Martin Sheen and Lily Tomlin from West Wing. But even stranger seeming Detective Jack McCoy and President Barlet as a couple.

But, the show is interesting and it brings up some very real issues. The show is about two married couples that have been close, though also strained. The husbands confess that not only are they looking for a divorce, they are gay, and have been having an affair with each other for 20 years.

It brings up some real issues: from how the wives feel people will see them and how they couldn't see it themselves, and the husbands deal with coming out as two successful lawyers in their 70s, to how the kids come to terms with it. A big issue that comes up with the kids is, 'can we be mad?'

Which makes sense, their dads cheated. Their dads were leaving their wives. But the main reason they didn't do it sooner was because they felt ashamed and scared. Does that make it better? Does that make it more excusable? This is something they try to work through.

The issues are all treated with the right amount of seriousness mixed with the right amount of humor and respect. It was good. It was funny.

I liked all the characters too. Not to say any of them are perfect. they are flawed in some way and they are all the better for it: from the recovering addict to the way-too-blunt CEO.

I would reccomend it, and have. My friend Negin reccomends it as well. She also says that Nwabudike is her favorite character, and to pay special attention to him. Personally, I like Brianna. But, Grace and Frankie's relationship brings the most heartwarming moments and the most humor, in my opinion.

Post 131: Sympathetic Bad Guys and Evil-doers pt. 2

I was thinking about my last post about bad guys and evil-doers who didn't deserve what they got, and it made me think of Into the Woods, the musical. It is a great musical, though the original is better than the movie in some ways (mostly relating to Rapunzel and the second prince who barely make an appearance in this movie as well as the ending song that in the original is funny but in the movie is more sentimental).

Anyway, this movie is such a great example of this kind of thing because the whole movie is about what happens outside the basic fairy tale. After ever after, is it really always happy? And are the stock Prince characters more than what they seem?

In the movie there are two giants, who are probably the main antagonists, along with the witch. The witch uses the baker and his wife to get what she wants, but at the same time, she really cares for Rapunzel. Meanwhile, the giants are almost never fully shown, because everyone knows the story.

But even in the original story, the giants didn't really deserve to die. A complete stranger came to their home and stole from them. In the musical, Jack went up and stole from the giants three times. And when the giant came to get his stuff back, they caused his death. Then when his wife came down, they killed her too.

I think what is so interesting about this musical is that it really exposes some of the problems with fairy tales: from the Princes' lack of personality to the illogical 'happily ever after's.

Post 130: Why do we root for Elle Woods: Man-Stealer?

It didn't occur to me until I'd watched it a few times, but the major premise of the movie is following a man's ex as she tries to ruin his current relationship with his fiance. I mean, she does have an epiphany later on that she doesn't actually want to be with him, but the main motive she has is getting him back and proving herself to him. This is not the character we usually root for. This is the character that is usually the antagonist, but in this movie the fiance is the antagonist.

Elle goes so far as dressing up as a playboy bunny and flirting with him at a party. Honestly, i understand why Vivian is so hostile towards her. If I was engaged to someone and there ex started following him around and flirting with him with the clear intention of getting him back and acting as if I didn't exist and he was single, then I'd be pretty pissed off too. 

I think that they both crossed the line. I mean, it was one thing for Vivian to want Elle out of her way, but another to turn other students against her for no reason. For example, when Elle went to join a study group, it made sense that Vivian wouldn't want Elle to be in the same group as her and Warner, but telling the head of another study group that Elle had called her a 'dyke' was crossing the line. It hurt the girl she told and it hurt Elle, because it meant another study group she couldn't join. 

Elle does have a change of heart after the party when Warner still doesn't seem to be interested, even though she basically showed up in lingerie to flirt with him, and she becomes more interested in proving herself to him more than getting him back- but even then, it starts off mainly for him. 

I think that Elle is actually pretty self-centered. She didn't even think about Vivian's feelings OR Warren's. I mean, if they had just split up then it would have made sense, but he was ENGAGED to someone else - that would suggest that he actually CARED about someone else, but Elle didn't even think about that. She didn't ask him about it or anything.

She basically just acted like he was single and if she hung around enough that was all it would take to win him back. 

It was Paulette's advice, but still...it was not a good plan. 

I think the reason we still root for her is because we are first hit with an emotional connection to her pretty soon, when we see her get dumped when she thought she was going to be proposed to. It helped create a connection to her of sympathy so we wanted her to have a win. So, this way we could better ignore what it was we were rooting for her to win. 

It also didn't last very long. I mean, she didn't say she wasn't interested in getting back together with him until the end, but after the party she stops flirting with him and that certainly helps it from being hard to root for her. 

Still, I think it is interesting to wonder, if the movie was from Vivian's point of view or if the movie had started with Elle just deciding to go to Harvard to get her ex back, would we have rooted for her or just seen her as a crazy, obsessed ex-girlfriend?

Post 129: Family, Fame and Focus.

Family, Fame, and Focus: 

How Ghost Whisperer and Medium are actually very different.

When I first saw the descriptions of the two shows, I kind of just lumped them together as two parallel shows. After all, they are both about a female medium who sees ghosts and communicates with them to get things done. Both are pretty, both are married, and both struggle to come to terms with their gift's effect on the people in their lives. 

But, they are actually different. In many ways,  Medium is closer to something like Law and Order than Ghost Whisperer. And Ghost Whisperer is closer to Oprah. Medium is about a woman named Allison who can see ghosts and who has dreams sent to her by ghosts about how they died. She uses these dreams to help the District Attorney prosecute cases against murderers, kidnappers, and other criminals.

There is very little focus on the ghosts themselves. There are times where you don't even really know where the dreams are coming from, because the victim is still alive so technically they can't be the one sending her the dreams.

Also, there are times when they have a different effect on her. Like a young girl who was deaf was kidnapped, and until the girl returned to her mother, Allison was deaf too. Which didn't really make sense. It isn't like her being deaf helped her find the girl, it may actually have impeded her ability to find her.

Anyway, Melissa, the medium in Ghost Whisperer, does not solve crimes. She is kind of like a social worker or therapist. You see the ghosts come to her. Every episode (with the exception of three or four), is about her finding a ghost or a ghost coming to her with unfinished business and her helping them move on by talking to their family.

Melissa feels like she cannot ignore them, if she sees a ghost she has to help them. Allison helps ghosts who ask her for help. Basically, Melissa will go out of her way to help if she even sees a ghost, Allison will avoid them.

The best example of this is in episodes where they go to the hospital. Obviously, a place high in ghosts. Allison puts on headphones and ignores them, so they don't know she can see them. Melissa goes to help the ghost who needs her, but acknowledges the ghosts she meets and then comes back later to help them.

The focus of the two, and the show itself, is different. Medium is about solving the crime. Ghost Whisperer is about bringing peace to the families and finding closure before people move on. Medium almost never (only three times) talks about something other than just being a ghost. Most of the time, it is in reference to a ghost that she says 'should pack for the heat'.

In regards to the Fame they have, obviously Allison will get more because she is working to put people away. A news reporter even outs her as a "psychic", while Melissa had a few people (a blogger and a professor) start to question her, they both let it go. The blogger because he dies, the professor because he sees what she can do and becomes an ally.

Family, though, I find is a really big difference. Allison has three kids. Melissa has one in the final season. But the biggest difference is with the husbands.

Allison's husband annoys me. A lot. He has really no character development. Actually, he does. He just gets worse. From the very first season he seems annoyed with Allison 80% of the time. And most of that time, it isn't things she can control.

The ghosts have more of an effect on Allison than Melissa. In Ghost Whisperer, they can move things and effect lights. Things like that, but not much more. In Medium, ghosts can make Allison deaf, make it so everything she hears is gibberish, make it so all she hears is a song, make her hand move on her own, and in several episodes a ghost completely takes over her body. None of these things are in her control.

But her husband always gets mad at her for it. In one episode, he apologizes and says sometimes it just gets to him and he is sorry. But, he doesn't actually change. He still gets mad at her every time, like she can control it. And in the final season, it starts to suggest he is going to start an affair with her doctor. Not the first time this suggestion came up, but the only time it escalated instead of ending. (Ex. his business partner who kissed him, but then he didn't tell Allison, his ex who invited him to lunch and he went even though Allison said he shouldn't, and that she could tell his ex was still interested in him). The only reason he didn't was because he died first.

On the other hand, Melissa's husband is hugely supportive. He only ever questions it once when she is in danger. But he loves that she helps people, he loves that she is selfless. And when she says that she can't just ignore a ghost in trouble, he says he is constantly amazed that he could love her more.

Also, Allison's husband in the beginning basically suggested that he didn't even really believe her gift. And there are other times where it seems like he wants to try and undermine it as real. While Melissa's husband totally accepts and even when she thinks she has lost it, is supportive her.

Allison's husband doesn't just get mad at her. When he finds out the kids are psychic he is just as annoyed with them. He is teaching his daughter to drive and she can tell what he is going to say before he says it, at least that is what he assumes. It is totally possible that she actually knew what to do because she studied, but no, he assumes she is just reading his mind and gets mad at her and acts like he is miserable spending time with her. He even constantly blows her off.

Meanwhile, when Melissa said she was worried about passing her gift on, her husband said that he would love any kid they had no matter what.

It is just two very different relationships. And what is interesting is that, I don't know if Allison's husband would have married her if he had known about her gift or the job she would have. While Melissa's husband knew before and accepted it. Maybe that is why Allison's husband sometimes takes issue with it, because he didn't really have the chance to accept it.

Like in Bewitched, she tells him on their wedding night. After it is more difficult to just walk away. If he had known before and come to terms with it first, he might be more accepting now because he agreed to it. This was kind of just sprung on him, and he seems bitter about it.

Not to say that Allison is totally innocent in their relationship. She is pretty narrow-minded, in that she misses big things. She doesn't notice her kids miss her, her husband is frustrated and lonely because she isn't there, and in one episode she completely ignores her daughter's feelings and drives her away.

She is so blinded sometimes by what she does that she doesn't see how it affects her family. And then she thinks about it briefly, but then dismisses it almost instantly. (Ex. in one a man is hunting her for her gift putting her and her kids in danger, she thinks about giving up her gift, and then next morning after having a dream she has completely moved on from that idea).

So, I can kind of see why her husband is frustrated. But he just kind of doesn't really talk it out, his solution seems to be get mad, ignore it, or pout. Then, later, he turns to infidelity.

Anyway, over all, I think while I thought both were interesting, they should not be compared or seen as similar. There are different things that are good about both, but one should not watch one assuming it will be like the other.

Ghost Whisperer is a feel-good kind of show. Most of the episodes end on a pretty happy, but emotional note (A mom saying good-bye to her child, as he moves on to a better place and she can move on and forgive herself). Medium is a crime show, things are often solved, but there aren't a huge number of truly 'happy' endings beyond the bad guy going to jail or dying.