5.21/2008

Got a phone call from a random number that was ridiculously long. I answered it and it was Beth, calling from Costa Rica. She's doing okay. She called to see how things were going and wish me luck on the MCAT this Friday. Thats nice.

Glad to hear from her. She's a good kid.

---

Got Wii Fit. It's an interesting game...Well, I guess you can call it a game. Anyway, it basically is all about balancing games and small exercises. It seems like a good buy for those who want to stay active, or those who need a small push to work out.

The main, and obvious, problem I see with Wii Fit is that it is not a replacement for a full-blown gym. It is probably good for weight loss and muscle toning, but not the creation of muscle. It's regimen lacks weight lifting which is a crucial part of bicep and tricep muscle building. Another thing which it lacks is a program for people to follow in order to increase their balance and their general fitness. The game is just a collection of minigames. This is can be a huge turnoff for someone lacking a drive to workout or someone who doesn't have a clue to how to properly workout.

On a final note, Wii Fit seems more interesting than entertaining. In this sense, I can see myself continuing to use it for small exercise, but not because its fun per se, but because I want to keep active.

Nintendo is innovating, but slowly killing the Nintendo gamer in me at the same time.

5.12/2008

Do I take family and friends for granted? Yes.

Family for me is something highly important. For me, I feel that family, my family at the least, is inalienable. I believe that family bonds are near impossible to break: I feel that my people in my family could get away with almost anything as long as it's not too extreme (killing someone, armed robbery, etc.) I think that, because of this durability, that things become less sensitive for family. For example... I think that gifts should be given to friends, whereas with family it shouldn't matter. Family should care less about things like that. Friends however, because they can be more transient than family, should be shown that their friendship matters. A little screwed up isn't it? I realized this when talking with Chivon yesterday.

Here's an analogy. Not using creativity when thinking of a gift for your mom, but using that creativity on a friend or a girlfriend (or boyfriend), is messed up. Although the woman is your mother, she is also a woman and individual and enjoys thought and good gifts just as your friend or girlfriend (or boyfriend) do. Why is it that things should be that way? Yet, I still believe that family is so close that they shouldn't care about things like gifts as much as friends and significant others do. I feel like thought counts more in relation to family than friends and partners.

Friends follow similar lines: They are both important to me, yet expendable at the same time. To me, friendship is something that can begin and end in the blink of an eye, and is generally something less intimate than family. This is one of the many reasons why I believe that if I appreciate a friendship I should tell the person and show the person. However, in comparison to a girlfriend, I feel as though I'd spend far more money on a girlfriend than a friend. For some reason, it just seems right. Here's where I take friends for granted. I believe that there is no need to impress a friend in comparison to impressing a girlfriend. Why? A good friend should already know you and shouldn't have to be impressed in the same way as a girlfriend. A girlfriend generally doesn't know you as long as a good friend does, and therefore needs more of an impression.

I guess it is a little screwed up when I analyze it from an outsider's point of view, but, it makes complete sense to me. High-end relationships should be with people who understand you for you. The more transient the relationship, the more of impression you need to make. (I guess...)

Strange...

---

Is friendship selfish by nature? If people get different things out of friendship, aren't they using each other for different things? Suppose I enjoy conversation and my friend likes camaraderie. Aren't I using this person for their thoughts and ideas, while they're using me for someone to hang around with and someone to be able to do things with?

This requires more thought.

---

Suppressing this impulse as best as I can.

Keep it in. Keep it in. Keep it in.

---

I've decided to start going to church. Why? I'm finding the sermon of this church both enlightening and entertaining.

Is that wrong?

5.5/2008

I just achieved the impossible. I passed my grant writing class.

Another bullet dodged.

4.27/2008

A clone? Is this possible?! I went out with Jenn and friends for her roommates twenty-first birthday and saw some interesting things. I always believed in personality clones, but now I'm realizing that people are really not that unique physically.

I can't believe this is possible. Can people really be replaced that easily? Are we really not that unique after all?

---

"Do you mind if I rest on your shoulder?"

Strange how different some women are... Maybe it's a southern thing?

4.18/2008

I was talking with Chivon yesterday and, for some reason, we got to talking about emotional weakness. Looks like there are two schools of philosophy of cutting people off. My philosophy is this: Cutting people off is an emotional strength, because a person must be able to end things cold turkey, without residual feelings. Cutting people off is a sign that the person can objectify people and emotions and let them go. I see letting people stay in one's life as a sign of weakness because the individual can't seem to let go of their ties to the person. They need some kind of connection to the other person, even if they aren't talking.

Chivon on the other hand believes that cutting people off is a sign of emotional weakness. She believes that a person that cuts people out of their life is someone who is not emotionally strong enough to deal with the person if they can't talk on good terms. She believes that an emotionally-strong person would be able to deal with the person in their life, that the person would be able to move on with the person there. It was so strange for me to hear this idea, because I'd never thought about it her way before. I'd never thought about cutting people off as a weakness.

Good talk.

4.12/2008

Just attended a presentation featuring a video created by Jenn about victim blaming. I've got some problems with this as well. I understand that no one, and I mean NO ONE, should every blame the victim entirely, but, I feel as though in some non-extreme situations, that the victim can't be totally free of blame: Common sense has to factor in somewhere. For example, there's a story about this guy who walked through the Duke Gardens really early in the morning alone. Long story short, he got robbed. I can't really sympathize with him as a complete victim because I see him lacking common sense. He knows that there's crime in Durham, and he should know that there is crime even on Duke's campus. Lastly, he was walking through the Gardens early in the morning, when it is pitch black. Antwone and I walked through it once, scared out of our minds. It was so dark that light didn't seem to go anywhere. Lights from our cell phones didn't seem to travel more than a few inches in front of the phone. Anyway, I think that had the man used common sense he could've avoided all of this. I mean, heck, there's a system of busses and saferides that are established because of situations like this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying the person who committed the crime, not at all. I'm just saying that people need to understand that the world and the society we live in is completely flawed, and they need to take certain precautions to protect themselves. That's it. Common sense is necessary. If a person becomes victimized despite common sense, then all I have is sympathy for them.

The world is messed up. You better get used to it.

---

I was talking to Chivon a few days ago, and telling her about my worries about finding someone else. I guess I was worried because I don't feel as though I know how to "flirt" and I can't really see the signs of flirting myself. Flirting to me, unless it is completely obvious, just seems like the person is being nice or friendly (which would be normal for someone who is extroverted). As an assignment, she told me to watch how other people interact. I decided I would passively watch. (Not take time out of my day, but, if a chance were right in front of me, I'd observe.) But, I'm starting to see some of the signs now. Here's an obvious one: While sitting down, studying my MCAT book, a woman walked up to me, asked me my name, and, after I responded, she smiled and walked off. A potential subtle one: I went to dinner with my family and a few of Jenn's friends. After talking through dinner and gathering our things to leave, one of her friends asked me about the MPH program. I answered all of her questions and then inquired why she wanted to know (seeing if she was premed). Turns out she's a music major, and has no intention of going into medical or another health-related field. The real question here is, why would you ask if you weren't interested? The only reason you would ask someone so specifically and pointedly is because you are interested in them and want to get to know them. I mean, why didn't she ask anyone else (Chris or some of Jen's guy friends)?

I'm getting back into the swing of things, relationship wise. I've met two new women, one named Jennifer (who is a student at the Medical School and a Duke Alum. I think I might have met her before when I was applying to Duke in high school. Coincidence?) and the other unnamed, that have been able to hold my attention for more than just our random encounters, and I'm trying to decide on what to do next. I guess I should contact them right? Talk with them a little, and see if they want to go see a movie or get some lunch one day?

Hmmmm... Interesting.

---

(The following clearly doesn't apply to all women, but a fairly large amount)

We live in a society where women are idolized as princesses in relationships, and that's a problem. Why is it a problem, you ask? It's because it makes things one-sided. It makes it seem as though, if the man isn't doing things for the woman, that he doesn't care, or that he's neglectful. Women want men to always being doing things, either for them or to entertain them. Women don't just want men to do things for them, but they also want men to innovate, to always have something fresh, something never done before. This is problematic for multiple reasons: Why don't women (and the rest of society) think about how the traditional relationship is structured: How men are supposed to put in all of the effort to pursue (court) a woman, woo her over, and then get in a relationship with her. Secondly, what does the man in return? Thirdly, how is is that women can hold good men to standards that they might not even hold to themselves?

In reference to the second question, many people would say that the man gets sex or physical benefits. But, I don't know if that is a good point because these are examples of mutual trade. Women too have nervous systems and erogenous zones. They too get stimulation from the physical, so, because sex and other physical interactions are mutually beneficial, the point becomes moot. Gifts that a given by the man are completely one-sided. He loses money, he loses time thinking and innovating, just to show his affection. It's funny to me how society doesn't think of it as a two-way street. Valentines Day is a perfect example of this. Men get the women in their lives gifts, and its perfectly okay for the woman not to reciprocate. Perfectly okay... and that's a problem. Why shouldn't women have the same pressure to do for men, that good men have to do for women?

Women need to understand what they're asking, and what they're prepared to give.

---

(This also doesn't apply to all black women, but a decent amount.)

My last issue mainly concerns black women. I guess it mainly concerns black women, because the most experience I've had is around black women. (It could also apply to white women, Asian women, or Hispanic women, but, I can't say for sure.) I believe that one of the problems of the black relationship is male and female roles. I don't want to say that a lot of black women are confused in their roles as black women, but that they adopt many different roles which becomes problematic.

The example I'd like to talk about is the tough-princess black woman. The woman that is raised aggressively, and this aggressiveness becomes completely infused in academic, professional, and personal life. The problem I see is that these women want to be treated and pampered as princesses, yet, they get upset when pampered because it's a form of paternalism or condescension. When men switch to treating them like men, however, they have a problem with that because they're also women and "should be treated like such." Personally, I think that women can be aggressive in their academic, professional and personal lives. I see no problem with that, as long as they are consistent. When they begin to flip flop, that's when I have a problem. When a woman says, "I think you're using me with your money," but then, as you stop using your money on her for dates, flowers or gifts, she says "Why aren't you paying for me any more, don't you care about me?" You can't have it both ways. You can't ask to be treated like a man, but then complain when you're not treated like a woman and vice versa.

For the black women that apply, choose one... please.

3.31/2008

Chin up, that's what I say. Just returned from a weekend in St. Louis, visiting the parents, Bean and the new dog. It was the break I needed to get myself out of a self-made rut. Although I felt great physically, mentally I just wasn't feeling as great. I was worn out, stressed, and depressed and needed some kind of relief. At home I was able to talk to my parents, get re-oriented through their advice and begin to see everything I'm working towards.

Also, while I was there I got a few ideas.

---

I wonder if people ever change. Deep down, I'd like to think that they do, but it seems as though everyone around me experiences the opposite. I talked to my grandfather and he told me that there were tons of small things that upset him about my grandmother, but that he learned to live with them. "Did you ever tell her that these things annoyed you?" I asked. "Nope," he responded. I probed into why he wouldn't. "It's not worth it," he said, "Some things just don't change."

This has applications in other areas as well. When I'm looking for someone, should I find someone that is more like me than different, or more different than similar? On one hand, there's the notion that "Opposites attract." I don't know about the attraction, but I don't think the relationship will last. Why? I don't believe that there is a foundation of similarity to maintain it. People whom are too different will find it harder to connect personally than people whom are similar. Similarities help ease conversation and can also help avoid conflicts. Also, since people probably don't change that much, the problems created by the differences will most likely perpetuate. So, I guess the solution would be to find someone similar to me in belief or personality.

I still want to believe in change for myself and others. I refuse to believe that I'm stuck in place for the rest of my life. But, even though I deny it, it could still be the truth.

We'll see.

---

Life is a dynamic continuum. I think this is one of the sources of my discontent. I feel as though recently I've been searching for an equation, a formula which I could apply throughout my life. But, this is impossible, people around you are constantly different, the environments are different, the situations are different. I'm realizing that the reason I'm getting contradicting advice at times is because different people live by different means, and neither of these methods are wrong, but that they are custom fit to their particular lives. For example, some people believe that openness is the solution to all problems. Some believe that you should confront the person you're with about every possible problem you have, because it allows them to change and understand you better. However, some people see this as petty antagonism, and hate feeling put down about everything. Here's another example: For some people, if they don't deem it important to the relationship, then it doesn't need to be said. Problem is, the importance they think of is relative to them. Something they're not saying could be important relationship-wise to the other person. I guess, in reality, it is impossible to actually give perfect advice, or advice that works across varying lives, because there are so many factors that make similar situations (a priori) so different.

Everyone walks a different road, and can really only speak of that road.

3.23/2008

Sigh... I ended up pressing the "update time stamp" by mistake while spell check editing a post. Unfortunately, I can't reset it. So, I ended up re-posting it along with the new things.

<edit>

Nevermind, looks like Xanga is messing up. Every post I re-submit is being changed. The timestamp on the post gets changed every time I make grammatical changes. I wonder when this will get fixed.

Sigh.

---

I went to church with Chris today at EBC, Elizabeth Baptist Church. I enjoyed the sermon, because it was the first church that I'd been into where the preacher openly admitted that everyone there had a problem of some sort. He did this through use of a medical analogy. All of the members of the church were sick in some hospital, some where in intensive care, some in outpatient, and others somewhere in between. However, what these people had in common was a good physician, God, who would help them get better.

Although I did like the sermon, I had some problems with the church. It was one of those huge, mega churches. It looked as though it could seat a thousand or more. Hundreds looked like they could be seated in the main church, and more could be seated in "overflow" rooms that had televisions and other church clergy to help with the presentation. The main thing I didn't like about it was the presentation of the church. Inside they literally had ads for worship, bible study, and other things. These weren't typical flyers either, they looked like something that a board of people constructed... much like people would convene to create a Verizon Wireless commercial, or an Apple ipod advertisement. It just seemed fake to me.

I think I might return to this church for two reasons: First, I want to see if this good sermon was fluke, and, also, I want to see what the full service is like. Chris and I arrived late due to me having to pick up some MPH classmates from the airport.

Interesting...

---

I was talking with Cliff yesterday about some problem he had, and I told him to let it go. He told me, "Letting things go is what created the problems we have." Afterward, I talked to Chivon who shed some more light on this. She told me that telling people how you feel, even about the little and relatively-insignificant things, helps them understand where you're coming from and helps them try to change. Not telling them, appears to be a lie, because it lures them into a false sense of security that everything is okay.

I wonder which is better? To confront all problems and upset people, or to say "They're not important," and sweep them under a rug?

---

I'm currently watching another HBO series called The Wire, and I have to say that HBO makes some great television shows. This one follows homicide police and police that pursue drug dealers. It's fascinating to see how political both sides of the war on drugs are, and how much thought goes into both attempting to catch the people responsible and evading the police. Another element I found interesting was how it humanizes some of the people involved in drug trafficking and dehumanizes some of the "good" guys that pursue them.

Not sure if it's going to reach the level of Six Feet Under, but I think it will at least come close.

---

OLD POSTS

3.22/2008

Looks
like the surgery went okay. I didn't want to post immediately afterward
because I was afraid that something might happen within the next few
days. However, things are looking okay. She's in pain, but she seems to
be recovering well.

Good stuff.

---

Looks like I found another movie which I can call one of my favorites of all time. I just saw Gone Baby Gone
and I have to say that it was incredible. The plot was slightly
predictable, but the ending, and Morgan Freeman's acting made the movie
worth it. That is one of the best endings I've ever seen. It's up there
with The Prestige and American Beauty: It made you think... what would I have done, given the same situation. Would it have been the right thing to do?

Another movie worth buying.

---

Okay,
screw Pit. Pit has some obvious flaws. Namely, he cant kill easily. My
newest most hated character is Wolf. He's the cheapest character I've
seen yet. Seems like all high level players do is run and gun. His
laser is slow, but thicker than Fox's and Falco's... and it stuns you a
little upon impact. His attacks seem average at first until you account
for the amount of knock back they do. Even if they dont land, he still
is able to push you away to avoid a counter attack. If you start to get
too close, then players start spamming the laser and his forward-A and
down-A smash attacks. The cycle continues. You have to jump or short
hop to get past the laser, and then you have to get lucky enough to not
get pushed to far back to not be able to attack or have to jump the
lasers again.

Then again, perhaps this is just an online thing. Perhaps spamming seems like a more effective strategy because of the lag.

---

3.17/2008

I
talked to Antwone a few days ago and asked him what the difference
between acquiring definition and muscle mass were. He told me that
definition required high repetition with low weights and muscle
required low repetition of high weights. I got curious. I wonder how
much can change in a specific period of time. So, to test this, I got
my camera, took some "before" pictures and posted them in a new album.
I'll check back every month or two to see if there are any results.

Experiments are great!

---

My mother goes into surgery tomorrow. I'm not a relgious man, but I'll be praying for her.

Hope everything comes out okay.

---

3.11/2008

Where
does idealism or optimism come from? Do they come from nurture? Do they
come from your own developed personal belief? I'm not sure, but I'd
like to know. It seems like nearly everyone I talk to doesn't believe
in change in reference to relationships. Most women I talked to, told
me that if their boyfriend cheated on them once, that they would never
be able to trust that person again. Similarly, if the person revealed
that they were once bisexual, most thought that it would be difficult
to trust the person, because they felt "lied to."

Personally,
I'd like to believe in change. Although the change is definitely not
immediate, people can change if they have the motivation to do so.
However, I think it may take months, maybe even years for this change
to occur. I believe that someone who cheated on their significant other
can change and understand the value of their relationship. This is not
to say that I don't understand the female perspective. I understand it
well. Suppose someone cheated on you, and a few years down the road,
you decide to take them back. If they did it again, it would make you
seem more foolish for trusting them after
the knowledge of the first instance of cheating. Only a fool would
trust so easily. Yet, I have a slight problem with this... if you never
try, you'll never know whether they have truly changed or not. Perhaps
that moment of cheating (and subsequently admitting or getting caught)
might have led them to an epiphany. Perhaps they've changed for the
better.

My personal belief, that has developed extensively since
high school, is that things can change a lot and relativity and
distance can help this change. In my life, if I have an argument with a
person that ends in a rift, or flat-out just don't like them, these
problems only stay problems for a little while. After I get some
distance (both physically and temporally), it's possible for me to get
things in perspective and become friends with the person again. My
thought is: "Maybe they've changed. Maybe I've changed. Maybe we might be compatible again." Other times it comes down to what we argued over doesn't matter anymore. It has lost its meaning through time.

Neither
side can be proved unless the risk is taken. If it is not taken, the
situation remains an argument between logic and faith. The logic being,
if the person is willing to lie to me once (or be unfaithful to me
once), he or she is capable of doing it again. Faith would emphasize
capacity for change in the person and lessons learned from their
behavior (benefit of the doubt).

Why did all of this come up? I've been watching the second season of The Game,
and one of the main characters is deciding whether she should begin to
take back her cheating boyfriend. (Kind of cliche, but interesting
none-the-less.)

Ironically, I have faith in people.

---

A
brief, interesting thought I had while talking to Chivon about
divorces: Maybe people aren't meant to be together for that long. I
mean, its not unusual for people to switch jobs after a certain amount
of years, why can't it be the same with people?

I'll see if I can develop this thought further. I doubt it though.

---

God, I hate this teacher...She teaches backwards (gives assignments for a grade, then lectures you on how you should
have done it), she expects perfection without knowledge, and, to top it
all off, she's arrogant as hell. She returned midterms yesterday, and I
looked at my grade and it was a "C." Why? She arbitarily took off half
credit on the largest problem there. I went in to ask her to explain
why.

Here's how it all went: I asked her about my theoretical
framework, since it didn't apply to any of the theories we learned. On
the test, I mentioned a scientific study that backed my work. She
didn't accept this. Okay, I move on. "What was wrong with my objective
(to create a baseline for the measurements that would follow in my
study)? You said it was too vague?" I asked. "Yes, it was." She
responded. "What could I have done to make it more specific?" I asked.
"I don't know." By this point, I was getting visually upset. How could
she take off points without knowing what a correct answer was? It's
like me taking a math test, putting down the number four as an answer,
and she saying it isn't right. "What's the right answer then?" I would
ask. "I dont know," she would respond. How does this make sense? If you, yourself, don't know the right answer, then how can my answer be wrong? If you cant explain what I did wrong clearly, then was it really wrong? If you cant give me an answer for a question on your
test that I couldve used, then how is my answer wrong? After a few more
questions of how she could take off points, I grabbed my stuff and
walked out.

This was the first time I'd ever had a problem like
this with a teacher, ever. I've never had such an aggressive
conversation with a teacher in my life, I never had to. Every single
one of my teachers could explain where I went wrong, and make it
crystal clear to me. This teacher, couldn't explain anything because
her judging was almost whimsical. She became upset at me because I
called her grading into question, seeing no rhyme nor reason to what
she was doing.

She's been teaching this way for twelve years?! ...What?

3.16/2008

Both the happiest and the saddest moments come from the unexpected. I've seen this my entire life, and, just this morning, was able to articulate the idea earlier this morning upon waking. Think about getting a better grade than you expected, meeting someone new, getting a package in the mail, or finding money in clothes you recently washed. Surprises are the best kind of moments in life.

Like a lot of other concepts and ideas, there are two sides to this coin as well. Unexpected bad outcomes can be the worst anyone can experience. Some of which could be that you find out that you have cancer, someone you know just died in a freak accident, you receieve a worse grade on an assignment than you anticipated,...

<definitely more later... I'll finish when the mood strikes.>

---

Weber was able to procure a Wii and SMASH Brawl today, and we were able to play over the Nintendo Wifi Connection. It's strange... I won every round. It didn't feel normal. Although, maybe it didn't feel entirely normal because he didn't bring out Fox. I don't know. Anyway, I guess we'll be playing more in the future. He has the Wii for a month before he has to return it to his sister.

<Tangent>

One thing that was funny however, was that I was talking to him yesterday about some of my issues with the game... Namely that they nerfed Sheik. I guess he didn't entirely believe me when I said it. He played the game before we talked today and he IMs me going on and on about how they screwed Sheik's slap and killing ability.

<End of Tangent>

Hmmm... strange.

3.15/2008

SMASH Brawl is starting to make more sense. My Marth seems to be coming back or better than what he was in melee due to the lack of wavedashing for defense and offense. I'm not even going to lie. Wavedashing made characters. Without being able to wavedash, Marth's blade seems to be much harder to get away from. Instead of mind games, Marth game has become something of a complete distance game. You know their recovery is limited in this game. They can't get up and wavedash on the platform and grab you, they can do anything but roll up, stand up, or jump. All three options leave them vulernable.

I also have more problems with Brawl... namely with the video recording feature and the sent stuff from Nintendo. I really don't understand why you can only record short matches. Why couldn't it be like Halo 3, where you could record any match, but the match would take up a different amount of memory based on length? Also, why cant the match save the names or the specific taunts in the match? I had a match versus this kid, Benny, who used Fox and it was epic. It went back and forth for a while because I would abuse tip range (while going forward and retreating) and he would learn new ways of approaching and exploiting my mistakes. Anyway, it just upsets me that the replay feature is very, very bare bones. We can't rewind, fast forward, or create a small clip from the larger clip like in Halo. It just makes me appreciate Halo 3's system more. It was able to save how each player looked in each match (even if that look were to change later), the name of each person, and allowed you so many different options to rewind, and see from a plethora of other perspectives.

Okay, this is probably the most annoying feature ever. A priori, it seems amazing. Almost everyday, Nintendo will send you a custom map made by a player, a video made by another person, and a picture made by someone else. The problem with this is that you can't save any of it. Suppose you fight on this new map, and you think it's amazing. You'd have to reconstruct that entire map from scratch! You can't save the data you're sent, and it gets replaced by new data the next day. So, it's all really worthless.

Man, I almost forgot about this. Those custom maps I talked about... even the one's you make yourself... THEY CAN'T BE USED ONLINE!!! WHAT THE HELL???

Sigh... SMASH couldve been my dream game.