If you're going to preach, for God's sake, preach with conviction

So, I saw Casablanca the other day, and for some reason I view that fact as disproportionately significant. I keep telling people proudly, as if, once I also get Gone With the Wind and Schindler's List under my belt, I'll be inducted into some cinematic literacy club in which members sit around, smoke cigars, and congratulate each other on the fact that they understood a reference to Rhett. I really shouldn't be surprised by the fact that my friends react to my news in the same manner as, say, an announcement that I painted my toenails a radical shade of purple.

Speaking of movies, remind me to never, ever counter a comment about a movie with a reference to the book from which it came - especially if the counter response is something like, "the book was much better," "here's a list of discrepancies from the book," "you should have read the book first," or "did I mention how superior I am for having read the book? Because I am. I read. You suck."

I think each person holds himself to a different standard (socially, morally, behaviorally, mentally) than he does anyone else, to some extent. He either gives himself miles more slack and as a result lowers his personal bar; or consciously, sometimes tenaciously, and occasionally arrogantly raises it based on personal goals or bias. Is it more unsettling to think that we don't hold people to the same standard as ourselves, or that some of us do? Is holding people to your loftier standard unfair to them? If so, is it only okay to apply your standard to others if your standard is on the lower half? Isn't that kind of insulting?

All I know is, the thought or memory of being underestimated is one of the few things that gives me that angry, bristly feeling. Other things on that list include being lied to, unnecessarily malicious attacks on my religion, and Cathi borrowing a piece of clothing that I just washed and intended to wear.

25 Days until Poland!
41 Days until Glen Lake!
51 Days until college!

Breathe in deep, kid; you're on your own

I'm working on coming to terms with the fact that as fun and cRazy-kewl as group activities are, I function much better on a one-on-one basis. I'm also trying to convince myself that that fact doesn't somehow make me lamer.

So, I've been reading Eats, Shoots and Leaves by Lynne Truss. It's a grammar nazi's book of punctuation and proper usage, complete with symbol stickers to pass out and stick on literarily offensive signs and publications. Reading it has given me conflicting emotions, being that I'm 1) relieved that someone else cares about the punctuation incorrectness of "Two Weeks Notice," and 2) disappointed that this British chick has beaten me to the punch. I'm never going to be able to write a novel now, because if I did, this would be it. Apparently plagiarism is all that awaits me.

Honestly, I don't think a lot of people fully grasp the meaning of the word "opinion." Or "nomothetic," but that one's understandable.

You told me that, too

I've never really liked history. I recognize the necessity for other people to like history, but seeing as I'm not planning on running for president any time soon, I'd rather avoid those classes. For one thing, history classes have always involved abundant amounts of textbook reading, which isn't necessarily excruciating, but it is when books are typically formatted in a coma-inducing "And then... And then... And then" fashion. Secondly, I subscribe to the "history repeats itself" theory, which inherently makes the subject repetitive. Thirdly, I'd rather let someone else dwell on the past.

I'm well aware that all of these are potentially stupid and arguable points, so I recently thought of a fourth and, I think, largely more substantial reason.

Most of conventional history is defined by conflict. The classes I take are almost exclusively concerned with who was forming their country, or who was gaining (or losing) their independence, or who was conquering Poland. Some attention is, granted, given to culture, but by and large "history" is all about people disagreeing with other people. There is a whole world of history that is completely neglected when there's a narrow-minded focus on who happened to be holding a gun at the time. History depresses me, because it's consistent evidence to support how slanted our priorities are.

What are you supposed to do with a high school diploma? The deluxe squishy cover thing seems to suggest I should display it on a table or other flat surface somewhere, but that seems a little out of place. Between a ceramic fish and a picture of me and Kim sticking out our tongues strikes me as an inappropriate position for a significant educational document.

Movies I Don't Want to See:
- Nacho Libre
- Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties (How galactically clever!)
- The Fast and the Furious 3: Tokyo Drift
- Mission: Impossible 3

Some things just can't be explained

Philosophy has the bittersweet capacity to effectively destroy any sense of absolute certainty for those who study it. Anyone with the slightest awareness of life outside his own reality can realize that variations in opinion make abstract concepts (like beauty or morality) subjective, but philosophy takes on even the concrete and the seemingly assured. A lamp or the ground becomes subjective when someone suggests that they only exist in his imagination. As philosophy progresses past the postmodern age, certainty has become synonymous with close-mindedness and backwards thinking; everything depends on perspective.

I'm guessing you, like most people, consider some things to be closed to interpretation, such as religion or personal standards of right and wrong. But the very fact that other people don't agree, that they have their own opinions and interpretations on those same ideas, inherently makes those concepts subjective, whether you think they are or not.

If there were such a thing as absolute truth, it would still be considered subjective thanks to the people who would refuse to believe it.

A better question, then, might be: should everything be subjective? As enlightened as a postmodern, subjective mindset appears to be, when considered in a rhetorical or educational setting, it's a pathetically simple excuse. When any discussion can be definitively, unarguably ended with "well, that's just your opinion," what's the point in debating at all? Subjectivity creates conversation and argumentation through variations in point of view, but it also has the contradicting, dangerous ability to end any dialogue with that glaringly obvious statement.

After being alive for a certain period of time, the omnipresence of subjectivity is impossible to ignore, but being aware of relativism doesn't make opinions or personal interpretation any less valid. For the sake of decent discussion, it is essential that an individual sense of opinion and certainty remain intact despite the acknowledgment of other points of view. Everything is subjective, but life would be awfully boring if arguments ended there.

Do you ever wonder what happens to the words that we send?

So, I've gone on a lot of little rants about how much I hate the internet. Without the internet, would we be seeing the grammatical atrocities of l33t sp33k or emoticons? Would plagiarism and obesity be at epidemic proportions? Probably, but the internet is a good scapegoat.

I'm pretty sure human beings replace brains for rainbows when it comes to inventing things. It seems like everything we create, if used properly, has the potential to skyrocket humanity a little bit further into some Disney dreamland image of tomorrow. Imagine if everyone used the internet only for moderate, wholesome, and accurate informative, communicative, and entertainment purposes. E-mail and IMs could actually improve writing and communication skills with thoughtful, deliberate messaging. That whole "free exchange of information" thing could actually happen in a trustworthy manner. And there'd be a lot less porn.

That's, I imagine, the kind of rose-tinted mindset people have when these things are invented. And then it goes public, and people abuse it, and we wind up with 45 year old men posing as 13 year old girls and high school juniors trying to convince their teachers that they can find "ur" in the dictionary. It's amazing how much all of humanity has in common with a three year old.

Oh, and about that "trying something out of character" thing I mentioned? I'll be spending the next week or so dusting off the ash and regrowing my eyebrows. Thanks.