Sunday, October 19, 2008

Entry 88: "License to Swill"

Yo!

What the crap happened with gas prices last week? I was driving by a Zooms recently and nearly had a heart attack, highly uncharacteristic of someone in their early twenties, upon seeing this price from the side of the road!


...Especially since only four months ago, this was how pricey things were:



I honestly was starting to think we'd never see a two in the dollar column again for a while there! Oh, but then earlier today I noticed a few stations selling unleaded for $2.69. It's almost as if someone/"THEY" want us to forget about the astronomical gas prices since we're so close to a major election!

Ah, what am I saying? That's crazy talk, right?

Moving on...........

So today was my 21st birthday.

Believe it or not, I did not get drunk today.

I've been getting a lot of comments thrown my way about how 21 is the birthday where you enter full-blown adulthood. While true to a certain extent, what does 21 really do? Think about it; 18 gives you...

- Voting.

- Smoking.

- Soldier.....ing <---It's a word!!--]

Obviously 18 beats 21 by a long shot when you compare them from a benefits standpoint. However, more people still give first place to 21 because as I said, it's more typically associated with maturity. Even though as we all know, maturity knows no particular age limits. Or better yet, how does one define IMmaturity? Some of my readers penalize me for citing Wikipedia references, so fine!

Merriam-Webster Online defines
immaturity as:

"lacking complete growth, differentiation, or development."


Complete
growth? So partial, or even a majority of your psychological and emotional growth's completion by 21, for example, since it's technically not 100% there by the time the candles are blown out, does that mean you're still by definition immature? Never mind the fact you survived long enough to see your 21st birthday, which unacceptably too many don't get to experience for themselves for one tragic reason or another. For that matter, how do you gauge the completion of your own personal development without the ability to see yourself far in the future so you can know where you should/will be, and see your own progress better.

Or, how about defining
complete:

"having all necessary parts, elements, or steps"

Which, since all birthdays are incremental steps through life anyway, that definition helps nothing since you can't know how many steps you're meant to have without looking into your personal future somehow, which even if that were possible would bring up more questions about the nature of destiny and inevitability or the lack thereof depending on what your beliefs on that are (now and then/later). Plus that whole thing about the same matter can't exist in two places at the same time or it could tear the universe a new bellybutton or something apocalyptic like that, I forget the line.

Hey, was that from
Back to the Future or Timecop?

....Yeah, probably both.

Anyway, I'm tired of this goose chase through the dictionary. Of course we're supposed to better ourselves as we grow up, but in what sense (which brings us right back to maturity)? Also, why can't we take care of adult matters while trying to enjoy ourselves in spite of it as much as we can? Life sucks. We all know this. But sacrificing your "youthful" mannerisms and wit that got you laughs in late high school, got you some chicks in college, and makes you the life of the party at... well, parties, doesn't make you any more of a mature adult at twenty-something than you were at 18. Or 19.

Congratulations, you're a square.

In fact, I believe the extreme is true: Making yourself more "traditionally" mature by common definition
sooner, makes you way less mature than you would be if you started changing your ways later at 21. You've just rewritten the core of your character to conform to what others say they expect of you. They may have your best interests in mind, true. But where do you draw the line between keeping some "immaturity" and compromising your individuality? These days, you have to find a way to laugh at life, or how can you cope with the hard times? How can you cope with yourself? Most importantly, how do you not cross that line without that certain Delorean car which would help give you "Ghost of Christmases Yet To Come" moments to see what'll happen if you continue down whatever path in life you're on at that time.

You gotta stay on the right path--- sorry,
steps somehow...

Bottom Line: Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that we all devolve into a society of Stiflers, just spewing vulgar sex jokes and forcing derogatory nicknames on people all the time because we can. That's a different kind of immaturity. All I'm saying is since when did making certain observances within the appropriate tasteful and environmental or verbal context constitute immaturity? Within reason, of course. Everyone knows you should always be careful what you say when, and about/with whom, etc.

Knowingly & willfully throwing away your sense of social decency & self-censorship, now THAT's immature.

...But that's just me.

Happy drinking! ...Just don't forget to forget your keys.

-D.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Entry 87: "She Blinded Me With Science Fiction"

Yo!

A small milestone was reached very recently.



This is the first
video response I've ever gotten for one of my 'Rant' shows over on YouTube. Thanks "DreamingJonasOJD"; wish those types of replies & comments would happen more often or at least more promptly than three months after the post, but that's YouTube keywords for you, I suppose! Lately (especially over the summer), if you don't put the phrase "Joker Disappearing Pencil" SOMEWHERE in your video info as you post, the search engine doesn't pick you up and you won't get a lot of views very fast, for some strange reason.

By the way! No, I didn't forget about episode five though. Just started finally filming interviews again yesterday!

I'll make this quick. The Fox network has this crazy sci-fi show going on now called Fringe, and yesterday was its five-week-anniversary. I'm calling it crazy because it's simply textbook J.J. Abrams. Seemingly random characters (seasoned FBI agent/female lead character, cynical con man with checkered past, elderly quack scientist fresh out of the straitjacket) thrust into a mysterious situation (the Pattern!!! ...Because it sounds just ominous enough for network television), some of whom may know more about the situation than they let on originally (okay, a lot), and the explanations always seem like they were written by the
Futurama staff in another Anthology of Interest, but in a bad way: Just cobble together an explanation with a bunch of big words and the average 18-35 would be too stupid to know they're BS-ing, and too lazy to do the fact-checking for themselves.

Okay stereotypically, maybe that last part's a little true.

.....BUT MY ENCYCLOPEDIA'S WAAAY UP ON THE TOP SHELF!

....AND THE BRITTANICA.COM BOOKMARK IS WAAAY AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST!

In any case, this isn't to say that crazy pseudo-science makes for a bad show; we've just seen this formula before. As I hinted at last paragraph, It's Lost plus X-Files. Nothing more.

Fox just recently ordered what's known as "the back nine", meaning nine more episodes for season one, bringing the total from 13 to 22. Good for them, but just a reminder-- Excuse me,
Bottom Line: The pressure's on with this show. Need I remind Fox, the 18-35s may Want to Believe, but not enough to get past wanting to see Dark Knight for the tenth time ("Did you see that? He made the pencil DISAPPEAR!!"), and no, saying the second movie was five years too late is true but not enough of an excuse. We're still open to another "Mulder-Scully-Doggett-Reyes-Skinner-AnyOtherAgentsIForgot" dynamic in primetime, but it will not last very long into the sophomore year without more to offer than crazy blue lights on the side of your TV screen every time something Pattern-related happens. By the way, I heard a TV podcast recently discussing this (I think it was IGN's Channel Surfing) and I agree completely: This show was story-wise and formula-wise just rushed together too much, too soon.

Case in point: On last week's show, I didn't think that bald "Observer" guy regressing into a second-grader and mimicking Joshua Jackson should have been enough to get Jackson's character to stay on the team after the audience is reminded several times that episode alone how badly he wants out of it. J.J. Abrams and his team have been in this industry far too long to not know that you can't rush character development or their own convoluted plotlines that you need OnStar to navigate through.

...But that's just me.

Later.
-D.

This Day in History