1.21/2009

Yesterday, I watched the entire Inauguration from eight o'clock in the morning to one o'clock in the afternoon from my bed. Seeing him officially being sworn in didn't really do much for me. His winning the presidential race was a more powerful, emotional moment. For me, it symbolized changing values in the United States. It contradicted my entire notion of how racist I thought it was. This, in contrast was one of those trivial moments for me. It was something I experienced just to be able to say that I saw it, I knew where I was when it happened, and that I could discuss the events with other people. I didn't need to see him get sworn in because he was already the president of the United States to me.

Yawn.

I got back to playing Metal Gear Solid 4 this week and it hit me... when did the Metal Gear Solid franchise begin to seriously blur the line between realism and fantasy? The first Metal Gear Solid had bits and pieces of fantasy in the form of Psycho Mantis, but the rest of the game seemed relatively reasonable. Every boss and every plot twist seemed plausible. Metal Gear Solid 4, on the other hand, seems to enjoy straddling the line between that which is realistic and that which is surreal. Here's an example: Raiden, a character who was once weak, pathetic, and human, in every sense of the word, has been transformed into some kind of cybernetic God. In one scene, he can be seen tossing two mechs around by wires attached to his feet.

I'm not saying that the game isn't amazing in terms of gameplay, believe me, it is... But, I think Hideo Kojima needs to think about continuity of realism in his games. However, maybe my opinion of the realism will change when I know how the game concludes.

I might come back to this when the game ends.

Just figured out how to route the audio from my tv to my speakers. Earlier, I went to Radio Shack to talk to guys on how to rig this system up. They told me that I'd have to use an audio-hub, which is essentially an audio switching device. However, only two audio sources would be able to be plugged in at a time. That's a problem for me because I have at least four different audio inputs: The Xbox 360, the PS3, the Wii (should I ever decide to play it again), and the TV. Therefore, the hub was out of the question. Secondly, even if they had a hub available that could accommodate all of my needs, I'm far too lazy to press a button each time I have to switch the audio source. I needed to find another way.

On the way home, my mind found a solution... although it would require time and a small bit of money: I had to buy to buy three Y-adapters and a three-way female adapter. Saddened, I debated buying the Y-adapters before a second thought hit me and I decided to check my tv. If my tv had an audio output, then if I plugged all of my systems into the tv, then I would be able to access all of the audio on my external speakers by switching the inputs on the tv. I found the laziest and best solution.

There's so much you can learn by just experimenting with technology.

1.17/2009

I can completely understand why two people would want a "friends with benefits" relationship. Two people most likely miss the physical parts of a relationship and want that without the ties involved. Often times, however, people get attached disproportionately and the friendship gets significantly blurred. My problem is that, in relation to me, that makes no sense. I need what I'm doing to mean something. I need what I'm doing to go somewhere. I need all of my efforts to be leading towards a defined relationship in some sense.

A friend of mine has been talking to some girl for about two to three months. He asks her about what they are, and she states that it is something along the lines of friends with benefits. Questions arose: Why is a title so important to you? Why is a relationship so important to you? Without communicating, my friend and I reached the same conclusion: "What's the point of messing around if it doesn't lead anywhere? What's the point of friends with benefits if nothing comes of it? What's the point of us talking every day if there is no progress towards an exclusive relationship with or without titles?"

Lets talk about selfishness...She's being selfish in not wanting a relationship and just wanting to mess around. Is he more selfish because he does want a serious relationship, and because he's leaving her as a result of that? I say, no. It's perfectly fine, and equally selfish for him to do so. I would think that him not ending it, and seeing other girls, should be perfectly fine... Granted, he would still have to tell the "friend with benefits" about the other girls and vice versa. Look at a relationship like this: The formalization of a romantic relationship can be seen as a contract. Asking someone to enter and sign the contract, and them not wanting to means that you have no commitment to that person. He can do what he wants, and act as selfish as he wants. Sure, he may hurt the feelings of the person involved, but he would just giving her a dose of her own reality: It technically wasn't a relationship in the first place.

Furthermore, I believe that he should look for someone who shares his beliefs of wanting a committed relationship instead of trying to bend someone into becoming what he wants. I say that, because, most likely, the person will never bend. You can't make a ho into a housewife, nor a dog into a husband. Finding someone who agrees or at least compromises would be ideal.

...

Tangent:
I find it funny that in this situation, my friend is in the role of the stereotypical girl in a relationship and the girl is in the role of the stereotypical guy. In this situation, the guy is asking for commitment from the girl, when, reality generally sees the girl asking the guy for a title, or for a committed relationship. One thing that boggles my mind is that why wouldn't a girl want a guy who is committed to her? Why wouldn't she want a guy that is open and willing to be faithful? Why wouldn't she want a guy that isn't all about sex? Oh well, either way, she just potentially created another problem for women; The jaded guy. Good job. She'll probably get the shaft from one in the future when finally realizing the importance of having a committed and clearly defined relationship.

I will say this though, my friend has some good morals on him. I can think of dozens of guys that would have exploited the hell out of her, taken advantage of her "benefits" and seen other girls on the side. He, on the other hand, chose the right alternative out of a bag of ethically questionable options.

...

Life is weird. Women are weird.

1.14/2009

I think I'm starting to see a trend here...Although some public health issues are a result of people not being knowledgeable of their rights, many public health issues are directly caused by differences in economic status. Health insurance issues are clearly financial issues, cut and dry, unless they deal with pre-existing conditions in which the insurance agency does not want to insure.

Pretty much every environmental issue is caused by economic status. People are stuck in environmentally disadvantaged areas because they lack the financial capability of moving, or lack the power of lobbying. Sure, everyone can lobby, but it is generally the people who have the most money that have the most lobbying power. Many times elected officials do not listen to those who are the most marginalized. Politicians generally act fastest to help those with money, power (read: money), or high influence (read: money). In addition to this, much of a person's physical health can be attributed to their environment (especially physical issues concerning the lungs [i.e. asthma]). If you switched people living in decrepit, moldy buildings into mansions and switched those living in mansions to decrepit housing, I'm pretty sure you'd see a reversal in condition in the long term.

I'd like to be able to prove this theory with data, but there's no way in hell I'd be able to convince any funding source nor any institutional review board to let me test this. Even if I were allowed to test it, the results would include severe negative health outcomes for half of the participants involved. That's ethical thin ice right there.

A man can dream though.

There are a lot of things that kill me in life. One is video game related homicide. In both of these situations, I believe that Antwone's idea of personal responsibility is completely right.

Video game homicide sickens me for two reasons: It sickens me that someone cannot tell the difference between a game and reality. Secondly, it disgusts me that people could be that serious about a game, especially in the non-competitive sense. I mean, I could maybe, slightly understand why someone would get emotional and want to kill someone because they lost a huge competitive game. Maybe. (Although I don't think I would ever be able to understand the person actually committing the crime.) But, I don't think a mom taking a game away from her kid warrants even the thought of her death. That's ridiculous. (What's also ridiculous is that there was a gun somewhere in the house, not locked up, and the kid was clearly aware of this fact.) Another thing... I think it's pathetic that people try and blame the game for the actions of the individual. He didn't have a gun to his head, he chose to kill his mother simply because he didn't get his way.

Some people might argue that the game influenced him that violence was okay. I mean, come on... if we're going to play the influences argument, then cant you blame movies, books, news channels, music and other forms of media equally for showering this child with violence? Movies like The Matrix glorify violence. Anime does the same (i.e. Dragonball Z, Baki the Grappler, etc.). So does music, some books (i.e. Wanted) and some television programs. In addition to this there are also family influences and other influences external to the home. Despite these influences, I believe that the choice still comes down to the individual. I think that, in this situation, influences may push and pull you, but the decision is all on the person. No single influence could make the choice for him.

The second thing that I dont understand is obese and morbidly obese individuals who have no excuse to be overweight in the first place. Young people, who have not had children and do not have malfunctioning glands or organs, have no reason to be obese. How? Why? I don't understand it. Sure, I admit, part of the weight is environmental. Some people don't have access (proximity-wise or financially) to gyms to work out in or safe neighborhoods to jog in. My problem is that the other half of this equation is food consumption. People would be surprised at how much can be accomplished by eating smaller portion sizes. Honestly, I feel that portion sizes are more important than the type of food consumed.

Secondly, I've never really understood the need to get super-sized food, nor eat beyond full. Personally, I eat to live, not live to eat. I eat until I'm not hungry any more, which is not necessarily eating until I'm full. Eating, at least for me, is just something done to survive or decrease hunger. Although I like the taste of some foods, eating for me is not an enjoyable activity. I don't look forward to it, unless I haven't eaten for an obscene amount of time.

The problem of food and dieting is literally a mind over matter problem. It's a matter of self-discipline. That's all. People need to understand that they can and do influence what they eat and how much of it they consume. All it takes is a little work.

The moral of the story is self-control.

1.11/2009

I've learned over the years that warding off negative emotions, be it sadness or depression, is mediated by two factors. The first factor is yourself. Part of the problem of negative emotions can be controlled locally within each person: I believe that people have a bit of control in their own mood. I feel that your mood can be elevated via focusing on different aspects of what makes you feel that mood. For example, if I'm saddened by receiving a low grade in a class, I can choose to focus on future grades being better to change my attitude. I can look past the present. Similarly, if a friend stated that they would call and they didn't, I could assume that they might have forgotten, or that they got busy.

Other means of warding off negative emotions is by excision. In the end of a relationship, I have found that it is important to remove things that remind you of that person. (Note: This does not necessarily mean tossing things out. It can also mean putting them in a place which you cannot readily access or see them. [i.e. in a garbage bag in a closet, in an obscure shelf, etc.]) Part of this reasoning is because, many times, relationships (romantic relationships, friendships, etc.) create forms of dependence. This dependence can manifest itself in terms of social dependence (having someone to talk to, socialize with) or having a feeling of security or dependency within another person. I believe that removing articles that remind you of these people facilitates the "moving on" process because it allows less room for dwelling on past issues than leaving the articles around.

The last process is by distraction or substitution. Ignoring a problem is not always the best solution, but it works in some cases. In cases in which nothing has to be done (i.e. the end of a relationship, the death of a family member or friend, etc.) distraction may be the best course of action, because it helps you distance yourself emotionally. New hobbies are great means of distraction because they help you focus on a short-term goal and steer your mind clear of what is troubling you. Substitution works well for the same reasons. If you and the person used to talk often, you could fill those moments with working out, or talking to someone new that you just met, or exploring a new avenue (i.e. going to concerts, going to bars, going to theatrical plays, etc.) with a friend.

The second part of defending yourself against these emotions is all about your social network, or your network of social support. I believe that social support is the other critical part of defending oneself against sadness and depression. My friends and family have anyways been my buffer against a lot of negative emotions, and for the emotions that happen to take hold of me, they are the anti-depressants. Sometimes it is their knowledge and their advice which helps me make sense of my situation, and helps me understand whether my experiences are normal or not. Other times, it is the sheer fact that they're present and listening that helps me cope with a situation. In cases in which I am unable to get out of the situation myself, friends and family help me reorient myself. In times when I was sulking in a depressive mood, I've had friends literally come to me to talk.

I know this is a tangent...whatever. I've never quite understood why some seemingly normal, young people need a psychologist or a psychiatrist. I decided to go see one at Duke, firstly because it was free, and secondly because I was curious as to what the experience was like. All I'd ever known about the experience was what I had observed in the media. Anyway, my experience was similar to that of talking to a good friend. We sat there and discussed our lives. I talked about my life up until that point and answered any questions she had, and then asked her about her life and how she arrived at that point in hers. It was interesting, and fun, but I can't understand why anyone would pay for that kind of service, when they can get that kind of therapy from a friend or family member. Sure, I could possibly understand it if someone had no friends or family, but, I have yet to meet anyone who fit that description. I feel as though everyone has someone they can talk to, even if they aren't cognizant of that fact themselves. I could also understand in the case of children, because they might not be able to make sense of their situation or clearly articulate their thoughts and feelings.

Coping strategies.

So far trying to teach myself a little dietary discipline is going well. I haven't had any candy since sometime before New Years. I won't even lie... it's not as easy as it sounds. It gets hard at times. Sometimes I get cravings for Skittles, especially being smelling a pack that my brother just opened, being in a movie theater, or seeing packs in stores.

Strange how similar this feels to someone quitting smoking cold turkey.

1.9/2009

I guess I always knew this was possible, but I didn't know what needed to be done to make it happen. I just figured out how to stream movies from my computer to my Xbox. All I had to do was place the video files in the right folder. (For some reason, I thought that the Xbox would scan all folders to find the video files that worked, and if nothing came up, then nothing was the right file type to play.) Anyway, this discovery means I can watch Samurai Champloo, Full Metal Alchemist, and downloaded movies on my tv with the external speaker system. Man, I wish I'd known how to do this back at Duke.

Nice discovery, but a bit too late.

Oh, God, they're making another live-action Street Fighter movie. I'm guessing this will be about as good as the Dragonball movie.

Didn't they learn from the last one?

1.7/2009

There is a dual nature to fights: On one hand, a fight can help improve a friendship. It can show two people that the relationship is more important than their own superficial, trivial personal issues. All of this is based around two people's personalities, the level of severity of the conflict, and the quality of the history of the friendship. Positively, these forces may work to counteract each other: If the personalities are in conflict, the quality of history and lack of severity of the conflict may counterbalance them. Similarly, if it is the level of severity can be counteracted by the personalities involved and the quality history of friendship. I have experienced this with dozens of people. On the other hand, depending on the severity of the situation and the personalities involved, constant fighting can lead to the degradation of what made the friendship in the first place because the quality of the history of the friendship, along with the second quality (level of severity or personality) are being outweighed.

My past relationship had done many things to me. It had weakened me in in the immediate sense with respect to my own confidence both in myself and in my beliefs, but it has strengthened me in almost every respect for the long term. One of the many arguments I had with Averya was about friendship without fights. She questioned how it was possible for me to have close friendships without a point of conflict. I can see where she's coming from: How can one understand the durability of a friendship without the precedent that it can survive a fight? However, I must disagree with this philosophy. Although fights can validate the limits and sustainability of a friendship between two people, it is not requisite. I believe that quality friendships can exist without problems between the two people, because of either communication or mutual understanding. I have a few close friends who I have never fought with, nor do I ever expect to fight with. Yet, if a conflict did arise, I understand that the friendship would persist given our current relations. It's similar to pouring one's faith into religion. It's just something understood, and cannot be explained entirely in explicit detail. Perhaps these friendships without fights are symbolic in themselves of the quality of the friendship. Maybe we didn't need to fight to gain the type of understanding that conflicts may yield.

One thing I also feel needs clarification... I don't believe that friends can continuously fight. I don't think fighting in any relationship, whether the people are family, friends, or partners, should become routine. Routine fighting has no constructive potential whatsoever. Think of it like a constant, whirling storm: It just wears both parties down. If it is evidence of anything, it is evidence of discord, and it should either be eliminated quickly or abandoned.

Conflict can cut both ways. For better, or for worse.

One thing I'm trying to understand is how people are unable to find other people to talk to on a non-superficial level. I've heard this from quite a few people. I still don't get it. I feel as though you can talk to anyone, it's as simple as that. Of course, you have to get through the boring stuff: The introductions, the small talk, etc. However, once you get through that, deeper conversations become more natural. As long as you're not trying to talk about something that requires academic study, or paying attention to CNN, most people should be able to talk at length. Conversations about people's own experiences should flow naturally, because they are experts and because most people enjoy when others take interest in their own life.

Maybe I'm just lucky though?

Now that I've talked about how friendships can end, I'll try an intellectual exercise by trying to understand how they begin. Personally, I'm never sure. More than half the time when I try to pinpoint when a friendship starts, I fail. I guess it's hard to accurately date for many reasons. Firstly, and foremost, my memory for non-academic things can be horrific: Sometimes I can't even put certain events in chronological order. Another reason may be because my understanding of when friendship began is different from the other person's definition. It may be earlier or later, because "friendship" in itself is hardly ever a simultaneous consensus.

I believe that most friendships, especially same-sex friendships (given that neither individual is homosexual) begin for a plethora of different reasons. These reasons include but are not limited to: Similarity in belief, personality or activity, mutual loneliness, or a particular need [comraderie, to attract the opposite sex, popularity, etc.], etc. If it is an opposite-sex friendship, I believe that the friendship may have spawned for the same reasons, but there is one additional one (granted neither person is not homosexual). I believe that attraction, coming from either person or both, can be a factor. This attraction doesn't have to necessarily be in the beginning of the relationship. It can evolve over time, and can be transient or long-lived. I think this is a critical part to heterosexual friendships.

In my experience, most of my homosexual friendships (friendships with members of the same sex) were caused because of video games. There is not one person that I can remember since high school that I remain in contact with that didn't play video games with me initially. However, over time, the friendship developed beyond these initial constraints. Even though many do not play video games regularly anymore, if play them at all, we are still able to connect through mundane conversation or ideas. (I see the development of the friendship beyond video games as necessary for its sustainability as both of us age and possibly diverge in interest.) Most of my heterosexual friendships started from attraction, similar personality, or the intellectual curiosity of what a female perspective on things might be like. I guess there isn't much of development of friendship with women, because, for the most part it's already centralized on conversation and not something that requires us to be in the same place or doing the same thing (playing the same game, watching the same tv show, etc.).

In the end, I feel as though friendships are developed by need and can be sustained by personal needs or something else (which I have yet to define myself). Even if the friendship begins from attraction there exists a need (from at least one individual) to want to be with the person romantically. I found in homosexual, or same-sex, friendships that friendship generally starts from similar activities (i.e. video games, tv shows, living together, etc.). It is more necessary to develop conversation into the friendship, because, otherwise, there is low viability of a friendship outside of shared space or proximity of the two people. In context to heterosexual, or opposite-sex, friendships I found that conversation usually seems to be the backbone of the friendship anyway, so further development isn't always necessary (unless the conversation is entirely too mundane).

I might come back to this topic later.

1.6/2009

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one who takes fortune cookies somewhat seriously (even though I never actually eat the cookie). Strange thing is that, more often than not, they're actually fairly accurate for what I already intended on doing. I guess that's probably because the majority of them are vague. However, today I received three fortunes from one cookie. The first one states: "You will do well to work as a team in the coming week." The second one states, "Take a trip with a friend." Lastly, the third states, "This week, you have a good head in matters of money." I'm still a little clueless about how the first one will apply to my life. But, I guess I'll see as the days pass by. The second and third one relate to my trip to California. This week I'm trying to save a little spending money for my trip down there to see Beth. I'm doing this by eating one reasonably big meal instead of two meals per day, or cooking to save money in the long run.

I love fortune cookies. Well, sort of...

Haha...Jenn just called and told me she wants to learn how to play Halo to beat a friend of hers. My knee-jerk response to this was "What level is he?" She tells me, "He's a 31." Sad times for the friend. Once I get Jenn moving around fluidly and she knows the weapons and level, her friend is as good as dead.

It's a rap.

1.5/2009

Just got last semester's grades. Good stuff. I thought I got a B-/C+ in a class, both of which are failing, and I ended up with a B. In other class, I thought I got a B- or below and I ended up with an A. In the end, I had one B and three A's. Best part of all...I feel more energized academically than I have felt in a while.

Nothing better than good news coming from negative expectations.

Yesterday, I finally tossed out the last remnants of my relationship with Averya. Strange, I thought I would have felt something as I did it... maybe a little disgust or residual resentment or emotional attachment... but there was nothing. It was as if I was tossing out notes from a class I'd taken in high school. It wasn't personal, it was because the articles were useless to me: I no longer had a present need for them, nor did I feel as though I would need them in the future.

Nothing personal.

I got a PS3 for Christmas and I've been analyzing the differences between it, the Xbox 360 and the Wii. Clearly, its better than a Wii and more versatile since it also doubles as an extremely good Blu-ray player. Simply put, the PS3 just has better games than the Wii: It shares many games in common with the Xbox 360 and also has its own amazing exclusives. Seriously though... does the Wii even have games? So, since Nintendo's console is one huge marketing gimmick, the only other point of comparison is the Xbox 360.

When compared to Microsoft's console, the PS3 also seems to fall short in my opinion. Why? Firstly, and surprisingly, the PS3 is lacking in the RPG category. For some reason all of the good traditional Japanese RPGs seem to be on the Xbox 360 (Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, Eternal Sonata, Tales of Vesperia, etc.). Now, lets talk about "Achievements." Sony copied these and called them "Trophies." Trophies come in four distinct levels: Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum. However, for some reason, I have less of a desire to get them. I guess this is because the Trophies are not related to any kind of continuous point system like Achievements are with one's "gamerscore." Trophies just don't seem to inspire me to play to get them the way Achievements do. One thing good is that the PS3's online capabilities, like the Wii, are free. The problem is that, while it is free, it just seems weak in comparison. I don't feel as connected to people as I would on the Xbox. There's no sense of community.

Don't get me wrong, the PS3 is still a good system, and it will definitely be splitting my attention from playing my Xbox, but I feel as though it's just not as good of a system as the Xbox 360 (when it's not dying on me). I'm glad I have the system, but it's not as revolutionary as I thought it would be. Then again, maybe I'll appreciate it more with time and more games.

Xbox 360>PS3>>>Wii

Feeling like I'm on cloud nine.

Good times.

1.3/2009

I'm beginning to wonder about Beth and what she thinks of me. Recently, there have been times which make me wonder whether she likes me as a friend or something more. Here are the things that stand out:

-One time I came back and asked Beth if she wanted to go to a movie. She said that she was going to have dinner with her mom after going and asked me if I wanted to eat with them. This had never happened. It'd never been offered before. Even though I've been always awkward around people's parent's, especially hers, I decided to go anyway. It was a bit strange, because I didn't know what to expect, but it still worked out okay.

-When we went to the Children's Museum we crawled through the different man-made caverns and I found some writing from someone who had been there before. I whipped out my camera and took a picture. Beth, in turn, took out her camera and took a picture of me. In all of the years of hanging out, we had rarely taken pictures. I felt as though this moment was awkward.

-I'm starting to realize that Beth's mom loves me. I guess this is because I spend a lot of time with her daughter, take her out and bring her back safely. Then again, it could be because Beth talks to her mom and tells her that she might like me. This is a large stretch.

-Here's another thing... recently, Beth has reminded me two times that she still has the iPod that I gave her during undergrad. Once when she came to visit me in Atlanta, and another time over this winter break when I went to visit her, Sallie and other people from Whitfield. What does this mean? Is it just that she's so appreciative of the gift? Is it because she wants attention? Is it to remind me that she has kept something that I had given her? That it meant something to her?

Although I've seen this, it is entirely probable that I have over-analyzed these things.

1.1/2009

Happy New Years... I guess. I have never really seen the point of this day. I would like to think that it started off being a celebration that people survived yet another year and that they are celebrating continued life. However, that's just my hunch. Anyway, I looked back a year in my posts and I found that my resolutions for last year were to exercise more and eat less candy. I kept and augmented the first promise, but I completely and horribly neglected the second.

Throughout last year, I began to exercise more than I had in my entire life. There were many reasons for this. Firstly, and most importantly, it was a diversion from thinking about my recent break-up. It was a method that kept my mind occupied on work and the physical pains of building muscle rather than the emotional-psychological pain of feeling alone and useless. The second reason for this was because I have always felt as though my body was not adequate. It was fit for running distances and sprinting, but it really wasn't too much to look at. I wasn't fat by any means, but I wasn't in the shape I desired. Working out, gaining muscle and definition, has endowed me with a higher sense of confidence in my own self-image. Having seen the benefits of continuous exercise, I will continue this regimen.

The second, neglected promise of removing sugar has become my resolution for this new year. I'm going to work to eliminate candy from my diet. I did it with soda, so why wouldn't I be able to eliminate Skittles and other candy?

Another day, another year.

I'm starting to think that other people may find our family more interesting than their own. I'm not sure why though. There have been dozens of occasions which people have jumped into our conversations, or times where random people have admitted to eavesdropping on conversations in public places. This is especially apparent whenever we invite people to hangout with the family. Many times they walk away saying that they enjoyed themselves, and would love to hangout again, when all we did was talk. My question now is, do other families not talk as regularly as we do? Are they not as frank? Why do all of these people find our family so interesting? Are we abnormal? Do we go against the intellectual grain? (What are other families like?)

Do we inspire conversation?