And I'm off on a rant (Part 2!)

So here is the probably not at all awaited finale to my rant about one of my generation's flaws. In summary, last time I said that because we take wholesome things and declare them to be uncool, eventually Hollywood is going to get the message and start bombarding us with even more undesirable entertainment. Pardon the term, but there's already plenty of crap coming out of Hollywood, we shouldn't be trying to help. That part of the rant specifically pertained to movies. Now I want to talk about how something a little different. This is still about how my generation will reject something because it isn't "cool", but its also about how they will form and opinion and refuse to change it, no matter what. I'm just going to jump right into it:

Justin Bieber. Now, if you honestly just don't like his music, then you're exempt from this rant. However, if the phrase "He sounds (or looks) like a girl!" has ever crossed your mind or left your lips, this is for you. When Justin's first album came out in 2009, he was 15 years old and his voice was a lot higher. Since the YouTube videos and that first album were the catalyst of his success, the majority of people who weren't fans just came to know him as the boy with the high voice. His second album came out in 2010, and by that point a few of the songs had been edited to take into account the fact that he couldn't reach certain high notes anymore. His speaking voice is quite deep, and his singing voice had gotten deeper as well. He still retains the ability to sing high, which is apparent in some of his songs. This is a talent. Many artists do not have this ability and it limits their talent. Now, I'm not a rabid Bieber fan of any sort. I like him, and I like most of his music. I'm a little tired of Baby, but there are some of his songs that are on my favourites playlist. Now, given that this guy will only be 17 this coming March, why does our generation feel the need to ridicule him incessantly? I have many friends who are good people that are completely against bullying of any kind. They try to be kind to others and apologize when they've hurt someone. However, they berate Justin unmercifully. The kind of behavior they demonstrate in regards to this singer has nothing to do with his talent. Most of them have only ever heard the first version of Baby that was released, a song that used to be a lot higher and is quite repetitive. Given their limited exposure, you'd think they'd hold on the judgement until they actually knew what they were talking about. "You'd think" is the operative phrase there. When I see the way they treat someone with genuine musical talent, saying things they would never say to someone they knew, it makes me really sad. Honestly they should be ashamed of themselves. Just this morning on FaceBook I saw a status referring to Justin with gay terminology, something I would never expect that person to say. All these people are doing is criticizing behind his back. Just because you don't know him and he'll probably never hear what you said does not make it right. That's all I have to say for now, but seriously, think about it. Treat others as you want to be treated doesn't just apply to the people you know.

A quirk I happen to have (or, How I almost killed my brother)

Ever since I can remember, I have absolutely despised wet paper. I refuse to carry tissues around with me, I refrain from paper towel use if I can use something else, and if something gets spilled on paper, I throw it out as soon as possible. My family apparently didn't know this until early at dinner. I'm sure we've had such instances  before, but for whatever reason this quirk was new to them. I looked up from my dinner to see my brother sucking on a straw wrapper. He used to eat paper as a little kid, and that has always made me physically nauseous. I never throw up, so when I get the feeling that I'm going to its doubly more unpleasant than it would be to someone prone to that kind of physical reaction. I have to be excessively violently ill for it to happen. Anyway, at dinner I immediately expressed my displeasure and asked him to stop and get rid of his wrapper. Its a common occurrence when we go out to eat that my brother will try and shoot his straw wrapper at me, which is something I despise in close relation to my wet paper quirk. As soon as I revealed that I was feeling physically ill, my mother and brother both decided that I had serious issues and this was hilarious. My brother went so far as to take the straw wrappers home with him, and was not five minutes ago sucking on one in front of me. This is not unusual behavior for him, as he also likes to sharpen the knives because he knows the sound pains me. Tell me, is it unreasonable for me to ask that actions that make me ill or in pain be refrained from? 

I suppose I should qualify this by assuring everybody that I do love my brother, and we don't always fight. There is, however, a direct correlation between my level of patience and his desire to annoy. Though, what sibling relationship doesn't have such a correlation at some point in life?

Inception

I've just finished watching Inception for the second time. Its definitely one of those movies that makes a whole lot more sense upon numerous viewings. It had been long enough since I saw it in theaters that it maintained it's intensity for me, and the one thing about the movie that drove me nuts still managed to drive me crazy this time around as well. It was my brother's first time seeing the movie, and less than ten minutes after the movie he referred to an instruction my mother had given him as "just a dream". I can't wait until that wears off.

In other news, I have a pretty awesome weekend lined up, which is relatively rare for me. First, I'm going skating with some friends, something I happen to be pretty decent at despite a complete lack of balanced equilibrium. Following that, I will be attending the Mikado with a friend. Then, of course, its Super Bowl Sunday. Now, I don't particularly like football, but I'm starting to grasp the sport and I enjoy watching with friends. Plus, Super Bowl commercials are always awesome.

We've come to an end...sort of

As I write this, I have just finished watching the season finale of season 2 of Lost. Hence the fact that my brother an I have come to an end...sort of. We'll probably start season 3 in a few days. Several things about this season made me think though. The whole season encompassed a vast variety of things, but everything revolved in some way around the hatch. For non Lost fans, the hatch is basically an enigmatic metal thing in the ground that opened up to reveal an apartment/bomb shelter/secret agent station thing that nobody really understands. There was one purpose for the hatch, at least one known purpose. Every 108 minutes, someone had to enter the code (4 8 15 16 23 42) or presumably the world would explode. No one knew what would happen, or if anything would happen, but they pressed the numbers and then "execute" on this ancient little computer every 108 minutes, without fail. Which brings me to what I think this season was all about. Faith. Specifically, Locke's faith, Jack's lack of faith, Ecko's growing faith, and Locke's loss of faith. In the beginning, the man who lived inside the hatch told Locke everything he needed to know to press the button, then ran away. Because of many previous factors, Locke already had some serious faith in the island, but now he had a choice. Enter the code, or experience the possibly non-existent consequences. Locke believed in the hatch, so he pressed the button. Enter Jack, who hears all this information and thinks that it can't be for real. They shouldn't enter the code, they should just ignore it. This led to a major confrontation between Jack and Locke, which resulted in Jack caving and entering the numbers. As the season progressed, I don't think Jack ever really developed faith as much as he did caution. Whenever the code needed to be input, Jack never really rushed to get it done if something else was more important. He put the numbers in when he had to, but more often than not someone else did it. I think he thought "better safe than sorry", but I don't think he really believed anything would happen. Mr. Ecko is a Nigerian priest (sort of ) who came onto the scene much later, but after having a dream he through himself at Locke and the hatch with a reverent passion. He and Locke went traipsing through the woods and discovered another hatch. This one was an observation station, overlooking their hatch. The orientation video for that hatch told them that their own hatch was just a psychological experiment. At this point, Locke's faith crumbled, and Mr. Ecko's soared. Skipping forward, Locke ended up locking himself in the room with the computer, determined to let the countdown run out and prove that nothing would happen. Mr. Ecko was certain this would be the death of them all, but ultimately he was unable to stop Locke. A bunch of loose ends were left hanging at the end of the episode, which is how all season finales ought to be, I suppose.

After that long winded explanation, let me get to my point. Everybody has faith in something. I don't mean just religion. Even atheists have faith. We have faith in people, who let us down. We have faith in things, which fade. We have faith in UFOs, who may or may not even be out there. Those of us who have faith in God often struggle with that faith. I would compare it this way. A lot of Americans are like Jack. Those like Jack think, "God's probably not real, but I'd better be prepared just in case." We have a "Christian nation" made up of a lot of people who don't really believe. A lot of Christians are like Locke. They believe strongly for years, then something happens to shake their foundation and they crumble. They lose their faith and they can't find anything to rebuild upon. I think we should be like Mr. Ecko. When that foundation shakes, we should grab on to God with all our might and our faith should increase ten fold. We shouldn't lose our faith when the foundation shakes, we should grab the one thing that will never shake. 

Forgive me if my Lost analogy is a little out of whack. I tried my best in my tired addle-brained state. For those of you who suffer through my Lost posts, I promise to make the next one strictly non-Lost. Oh, and I might get around to posting part 2 of my rant soon.

Since last I wrote

I'm really bad at this whole blogging thing, aren't I? Well, I'm more consistent than I am with my journal at least. So I spent a week in Colorado, visiting all three of my grandparents, seven aunts and uncles, eleven cousins, ten family friends, plus various other people. It was quite busy, but good. We took my grandparents to see Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which I loved both times I saw it. My mum's mother enjoyed it but found many faults with the movie, as she is a self proclaimed "Narnia purist". I like accuracy, but bizarrely book-to-film is one of the few areas of my life where I'm not a perfectionist. I can be satisfied with just about any book-to-film adaption. I mean, I loved Stormbreaker and that was a terrible representation of it's book. One of my grandmother's main points with Dawn Treader was that instead of redeeming the lords who were asleep at the table, the swords had to be collected and placed together to break the hold of the Dark Island. Her point was that originally it was a representation of salvation, but adding the sword thing made it seem like we had to earn our redemption. I can see her point, but I don't agree. Even after she explained it, nothing about that aspect of the plot struck me in that way. I understand, but I don't think that was something that was intended/altered whatever to achieve or remove that particular theological ideal. Speaking of movies, I also so TRON: Legacy a second time, which is a pretty awesome movie. I don't think I need to see it again for awhile, but its one I really enjoyed. And seeing it in IMAX was very impressive. One of the last things I did in Colorado was drink a Strawberry Tsunami at Jamba Juice. That's heaven in a styrofoam cup. If you haven't the foggiest what I'm talking about, they renamed it to Strawberry Surfrider because they thought "Tsunami" was insensitive after that big tsunami however many years ago. Its an amazing drink under any name though. I did come home with a nasty cold, but I'm more or less over it, and I'm planning to go deliver food to the homeless tomorrow, so that should be good.

Colorado

As of yesterday afternoon, I'm in Colorado. I'm here to visit family, starting with my mother's parents. Today we're having lunch at Panera Bread with all three of my grandparents, going to see Voyage of the Dawn Treader again with all of them, and then going to my aunt and uncle's house tonight. We're only here for a week, but its going to be a busy week with all the visiting!

And I'm off on a rant (Part 1!)

Shame on me, second day of the new year and I'm already off on a rant! And part one of a rant as well! I have another part of this rant, on the same thought wave, but I'll save that for another day. Anyway, this is something I stew over a lot, and I need to hash it out, so here goes. Teenagers are idiots. I know I'm making a rash generalization, but its true. Seriously, they choose to love or hate things based on public opinion and celebrity endorsement. Who cares if its quality or not, right? Now, I'm going to go a bit more specific here and talk about one thing in particular.

High School Musical. Don't you dare run away now, if you automatically decide not to keep reading after I mentioned HSM, then you need to hear this. I'm talking to you. HSM is a perfect example of something good (not phenomenal or earth-shattering, but good) was turned into a leper by teenagers. It's not "cool" to like HSM, so no teenager does, or if they do they won't admit it. I'm not making this up either, it's ridiculous. I'm surrounded by people who hate things for no good reason. Let me recap for you a conversation I repeated over and over with many of the girls I asked about HSM. We'll call these girls "Amy".

Me: "So, do you like High School Musical?"
Amy: "Ugh, no!"
Me: "Why not?"
Amy: "It's lame."
Me: "What makes it lame?"
Amy: "Well, it's just not very good."
Me: "Specifically, why don't you like it?"
Amy: "Well, the first one was ok..."
Me: "So why is it lame?"
Amy: "I dunno."
Me: "Ok, what about the second one?"
Amy: "Oh, I didn't like the second one."
Me: "Well, the story wasn't as good, but the music was still really good."
Amy: "Yeah, that's true."
Me: "What about the third?"
Amy: "Oh, I didn't see the third."
Me: "Why not?"
Amy: "Cause the first two were so lame."

That's the point of the conversation where I went hunting for a brick wall to hit my head on. If you don't see any problems with that conversation, then I can't help you. For those of you who identified the screwy logic, let me assure you that I've had that conversation nearly verbatim with at least four girls, and similar conversations with several more. This really bugs me, and here's why. HSM is a very wholesome trilogy Disney released that includes lovable characters, great morals, catchy music, and a fun time. If you just don't like musicals, you're exempt from this rant. Somebody somewhere decided it wasn't cool to like HSM, since apparently all Disney shows/movies on the Disney Channel are for little kids. Therefore, you're not allowed to like HSM (or Hannah Montana, or Jonas, etc.). When we take something wholesome in its values and declare it to be uncool, we're sending a message to Hollywood, Disney, whoever, that they need to feed us more cursing, more violence, more sex, because that's what's cool. I don't know about you, but that's not the message I want to broadcast.