Archive for January, 2002
found this link on memepool. it’s for an archive of video news covering the september eleventh events. loads of good stuff. very odd to see some of it again, and from foreign perspectives. the way the rest of the world saw things, though similar in its condemnation of the attacks, varies from sympathy to “what did you expect?”
tonight’s episode of enterprise was really good. between last week and this week, the show is starting to assuage my doubts that they would stumble and fall. tonight’s story, dear doctor, was solid and engaging, as was last week’s.Comments Off on 2002.01.23 | Catergorized: life tv
the cat is getting more and more confident. today i let him out of the room and let him wander around the living room. he’s still skittish, but that’s a new area and i’m not too suprised. i’ve been putting a baby door i originally got for killian up in my door and it seems he’s getting used to people walking by and the general noise and smell of the place. (note: the place doesn’t smell per se, but cats have a different sense of smell than we do).
i’ve also been thinking of a few names. the current leaders are keatting, darwin, and kitwik. somehow i think he’s going to be kitwik. renee was saying i should name him sir bartholomew of douglas. uh, no.
saw blackhawk down tonight with scott and renee, too. it’s a good movie, but don’t expect to come out feeling good or excited. in fact you might come out of there a bit confused and agitated. i can’t imagine how people who have lived their lives with no real understanding of the military will react. the movie is, in many ways, an attempt to say that being in the military is not something that can be explained, it has to be experienced. i guess ridley scott felt that a movie is probably (and hopefully) the closest most people will have to come to war.
i came out of it thoughtful. i was amazed that for the almost 24 hours our troops were out in mogadishu, with the thousands of local militia hounding them and shooting at them, that we lost only 19 people. scott pointed out that the actual casualties would have been significantly higher, but even so. 19. i was also suprised at how confusing communications between the troops (on the ground and in the air) and the operations HQ were. it seems that it would take more than just a helicopter getting shot down to throw the whole thing into disarray. i’m sure they’ve fixed this problem.
it also made clear to me that we need to learn alot more about urban combat.Comments Off on 2002.01.19 | Catergorized: life movies
in a wonderful bit of news, i learned that california passed, several years ago, a law which requires highway exits to be numbered. the best part of the news is that they plan to start numbering them *soon*. anyone who knows me and my gripes about the drivers and driving out here knows this is best bit of news in a long time. now we just have to hope they don’t do what they did in pennsylvania and just number them numerically…Comments Off on 2002.01.15 | Catergorized: life
came up with a definition of a stereotype yesterday on the drive to work.
stereotype: an opinion directed at or about a group based on trackable behaviour.
this is not to say that all stereotypes are valid or current, but that there must have been at some point something to base it on. stereotypes are or were based in reality and there is a real reason for their origins.Comments Off on 2002.01.12 | Catergorized: thoughts
i have a theory. actually i have several theories, but there are two in particular i want to talk about here now. one i might have mentioned before and that is about guys and girls and friendship, and the other concerns “sins” being carried over to new relationships in the form of karma.
the first is summarized thus: a guy and girl may just be friends at the beginning, but one *will* develop a crush on the other which more often than not puts odd twists on the friendship (unless the crush is reciprocated, in which case they become a couple, also ending the platonic friendship). they can become friends again if the person with the crush can redirect their strong emotions to another person. this is not easy, and i speak from experience. most often this assumes both people are single. if both are attached, then ideally they are happy in their relationships and it doesn’t apply. however, if one of them isn’t attached and the other is, the probability is still high for the crush to develop.
often when i tell people this they will respond that it’s not true and then go on to tell me friends of the opposite sex that they are just friends with. after talking to them about the person, i often get the impression they are blind to the facts. usually people only want to see what they want to see, especially in the people we let close to ourselves. people don’t want to know about the true and sometimes overly complicated slurry that is human emotion and social reality.
to me it’s a very strong theory, which i’ve observed in my own life (both sides of the table) and in many others. the second theory is a bit more tenuous, so if anyone has any corraborative evidence, please drop me a line.
this theory holds that whatever the cause of the breakup of a previous relationship, it will be repeated in the next relationship by the new person. thus, let’s say i dated someone named sandra (picking that name because i don’t think i’ve ever really known a sandra). though she is very happy with me (imagine that…) i break up with her because i’m bored and because i’m not sure what i want anymore. shortly thereafter i start dating someone named (trying to think of another name…) mary. now i am pretty happy with things, but before i know it mary breaks up with me because she’s not sure she wants to be with me and because she finds me a tad bit boring.
now this is incredibly simplified, but i find it interesting that i did break up with someone because for whatever reason i wasn’t *in* love with that person, though i did care for her greatly. the very next relationship the girl broke up with me for much the same reasons. at the same time the first girlfriend broke up with her post-doug relationship because she found she wasn’t so much in love with him. strange, neh?
as i said, it’s not the strongest theory i’ve ever had, but it’s one that’s nagged me for years. it seems like some sort of karma, but if so, there ought to be a way to break the cycle, right? otherwise it would seem that every new relationship is doomed from the start.
i thought about it and it seems to me that the one time i broke the cycle was when i gave myself time to actually get over the person and become really single again. i had an almost nine month period from the breakup till the new relationship and the new relationship ended on a sort of fluke (we never did officially breakup, so maybe we’re still together…?).
maybe this is all just an elaborate justification for my not being ready to move on after polecat. the theory is really pretty old in my head, but i was thinking about it alot over christmas/new year’s break so i thought i would get it down while i was thinking about it.Comments Off on 2002.01.04 | Catergorized: life thoughts