Okay, we're studying personality theory this week in my Psychology class this week, which of course, entails an overview of a good chunk of Sigmund Freud's work, like the 3 parts of the personality, The Id, the Ego, and the Superego. Which, given that I am a huge nerd, of epic proportions, as I was taking notes, made me think of the 9x9 alignment grid from Advanced DnD and DnD 3rd Edition.

The Id, of course, is our most basic primal instincts (hunger, thirst, self-preservation, and pleasure drives) it wants what it what it wants when it wants it, and operates on the pleasure principal (if it feels good, do it.) which made me think of the Chaotic Neutral alignment.

From Wikipedia:
"Chaotic Neutral is called the "Anarchist" or "Free Spirit" alignment. A character of this alignment is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, and generally shirks rules and traditions. Good and Evil come a distant second to their need for personal freedom, and the only reliable thing about them is how totally unreliable they are. They typically act out of self-interest, but do not specifically enjoy seeing others suffer. Many free-spirited adventurers are of this alignment. Alternatively there are madmen whose actions are chaotic, but are not themselves inclined towards evil. A good example of this is Captain Jack Sparrow."

The Ego, is of course, the self, our conscious thinking being, operating on the reality principal, it seeks to satisfy the demands of the Id only when negative concequences do not result (the reality principal). This makes me think of the Lawful Evil alignment.

From Wikipedia:
"Lawful Evil is referred to as the "Dominator" or "Diabolic" alignment. Characters of this alignment see a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit, and show a combination of desirable and undesirable traits; while they usually obey their superiors and keep their word, they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct, and loyal soldiers who enjoy the act of killing.

Like Lawful Good Paladins, Lawful Evil characters may sometimes find themselves faced with the dilemma of whether to obey law or evil when the two conflict - however their issues with Law versus Evil are more concerned with "Will I get caught?" vs "How does this benefit me?" Think Boba Fett, of Star Wars, or perhaps Magneto of the X-Men."

Then there is the Super Ego, a moral compass of sorts. This is where our conscience comes from. Making me think of the Lawful Good Alignment.

From Wikipedia:
"Lawful Good is known as the "Saintly" or "Crusader" alignment. A Lawful Good character typically acts with compassion, and always with honor and a sense of duty. Lawful Good characters, especially paladins, may sometimes find themselves faced with the dilemma of whether to obey law or good when the two conflict - for example, upholding a sworn oath when it would lead innocents to come to harm - or conflicts between two orders, such as between their religious law and the law of the local ruler. Think something along the lines of Dick Tracy, Indiana Jones, or Batman."

D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

I am a sorcerer! And blue!

 I'm sick and tired of the debate over what's "too sexy" for children to be wearing.

If it's inappropriate at at 16, it will be inappropriate at 12, 8, 4, and 2 as well.

Use your brains people!

 It's almost Haloween!!!

Where are the horror movies!!!

Where are the classic monster flicks!!!

Vincent Price!!! There is no Vincent Price on my TV!

Panic!

Also:

Vincent Price > Paris Hilton 

 It seems to me that this blog has become the soapbox on which I stand and loudly proclaim what I find wrong with...well  pretty much everything. Which is cool, because topical writing is easy, the news is full of people's outlandish bullshit, which is something I have little tolerance for and frequently need a place to vent.

I hardly write anything about myself or my life though, probably because I find it boring -it is my life after all, even the most epic moments of glory become boring if you relive them enough times.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I will leave a little blurb every so often about my life.

On that note, I'm on Twitter now. Facebook and Jim Beaver made me do it.

 Okay, the movie industry has gotten waaay out of control here...Saw VI? (That's Saw 6 for people who lack the intellect skill to read roman numerals) Seriously, Rocky at least had the popularity to warrant it; and they didn't spam us with a new one every year. They had the basic human decency to keep you going..."Gee I really liked Rocky III do you think there will be another?" for a few years before they gave you Rocky IV. It was a gift, they gifted you with it, they didn't spam you with a new one every year until you come to expect it, and then they suddenly quit because people got tired of seeing basically the same crap over and over, and they stopped making money off of it.

Trilogies used to be Awesome! (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, ect) now they are expected, mediocre and in the worst case scenario, the same plot of the first movie, will be recycled and repackaged in the second movie. (I'm staring at you Disney, you Jonas peddling morons!) 

The absolute worst part of all of this is that people buy this crap, they contribute money to ticket and video sales and even TV ratings, showing the people who peddle these mentally un-stimulating creative abortions (yes, I called them abortions - bite me) that america is a nation of zombies, who will watch anything you put in front of them like it was the most amazing thing created, and then run to their blogs, or their Facebook pages, Twitter pages, or (God forbid) all three and rave about how it is the "BeSt ThInG 3var!!!"

And they'll type it exactly like that, like they don't know how or when to use the shift key (probably true) and they are so "uber" they have to use letters to replace numbers in order to make you feel inferior. You can do the same thing with an hour and a dictionary of the English language! "Hacker" is Leetspeak...it was cool when it was limited to hackers, and its cool in a group of 12 year olds, but not when your 20. (I'll say its acceptable when you're 18, because most 18 year olds I currently know have the mentality of a 12 year old)

 ...and Best Buy is not a music store, but their prices are cheap (personally I think the latter rips you off on DVD box sets, but that's just me). Wal-Mart is trying to be a bookstore though.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33347048/ns/business-consumer_news/

business.theatlantic.com/2009/10/wal-mart_takes_on_bookstores.php


See? Why do people buy books at Wal-Mart? Because they are already there and they are cheaper. But Wal-Mart's book selection sucks; so if you wanted, say a good book, and not mainstream vampire dribble (Yeah, I read the Twilight books: summary Book 1: Decent, Books 2-3 Angst, Book 4: Was not read because Books 2 and 3 weren't decent) you still have to go to a bookstore.

Granted in oh, I don't know, maybe 200 years the Twilight Saga will likely be considered a literary classic, since most of the people who ever thought that the books were okay, or that the movies were shoddy and overrated and notable only for their popularity will be dead. Assuming of course, that humanity hasn't destroyed itself by then, but that's a rant for another time and place.

Not that I shop at bookstores very often, as there aren't many near me, and I don't drive. I order from Amazon and will continue to do so for s long as they keep selling books. No they aren't a book store in the traditional sense, but they have a large enough selection for me to consider them a legitimate bookstore, something which Wal-Mart lacks, not counting Wal-Mart.com, which I don't because Wal-Mart is a physical store, not an online entity.

Oh yeah, and getting back to Best Buy, how do they justify charging 39.99 for a 6 disc complete series and 69.99 for a two disc complete series from the same studio, from the same distributor, and in the same format - DVD. Someone tell me how that isn't a ripoff?

Dear Michael Steele and the Republican Party,

Kindly get bent.

I realize that President Obama probably doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize for any work done during his presidency, I also will admit that he may not even deserve it for anything accomplished during his time as a Senator, and I personally would have rather seen it go to the Afghan Women's Rights activist, but that isn't the way it turned out, is it?

Nevertheless, it is no reason to start trash talking the council, devaluing the Nobel Peace Prize, or making wild claims about your political opponent (especially since the latter won't win you any points with any being capable of rational thought).

I am personally quite offended by your latest fundraising email; granted I was likely never intended to read it given that I do not affiliate myself with any political party, nor do I make financial or any other sort of contributions to any, because I at the age of 22 find that politicians are a bunch of self-serving, blow-hard windbags, who muck up elections with their personal agendas, slander, scandal and greed.

I realize that the quote "And truly patriotic Americans like yourself and our Republican Party" was intended to flatter idle brained idiots to give up their hard earned money to you in a time when many American families are facing financial crisis, but it also seems to stipulate that Americans who do not align themselves with your party are, in fact, unpatriotic and by extenton  unAmerican.

I vehemently oppose that insinuation. True I do not nor have I ever supported the war in Iraq and Afgahnistan, but I have never once badmouthed or opposed to support the soldiers serving overseas. I observe Memorial Day, Veterans day, and the 4th of July, just as all "patriotic" republicans do, and I am a registered voter. In fact, despite my disdain for politics and politicians I do in fact, vote.

So please, take a moment to bend over pull the stick of political contention out of your ass, and think about what is good for the majority of the people in your country, not just the ones who fund your political interests, or kindly get bent.

I saw this: Old Dora, New Dora quite a while ago, and wanted to write something about it, so I guess you could say I've been hiding it up my sleeve. It turns out I don't have to blog daily, just weekly, which is nice not having to come up with something to write every day. So some of my best stuff is likely going to be surfacing now.

Anyway...looking at the article, makes me wonder what the hell is wrong with parents. There is no good "tween" role model for girly girls; save for those hideous Hookerz Bratz dolls, which I believe have finally been discontinued. Dora is dressed modestly, she's wearing some kind of tunic, or minidress with leggings underneath and very cute slip on shoes.

It looks like she might be wearing a little bit of pink lip gloss, which isn't entirely inappropriate, I had some kind of Pink Strawberry flavored Bonne Bell lip gloss when I was 12. She has a necklace that matches her bracelet, or watch maybe; and earrings.

I guess because she's supposed to be Latina, some people feel this is promoting a stereotype. That may be true, but stereotypes are stereotypes because they are, or were at one point common.

But even if she is stereotyped; when did it become a crime for a little girl, or a tween girl for that matter, to want to be girly? To want to wear make up, and nice clothes, and not play sports with the boys, and paint their fingernails. When did feminism get such a stranglehold on us, that we're no longer allowed to teach our girls that its okay to want to be girly, or to marry and have a big family?

Is it really such a bad thing to want to wear make up and nice, feminine clothes?

So its already August. Children are going back to school; frazzled mothers are relaxing now that their little monsters are somebody else's problem for 6-8 hours of the day and summer is coming to a close; Labor Day is just around the corner. You know what that means? That's right, already there is talk of that most inglorious, ignoble and downright dastardly days of the year. Election Day.

Now don't get me wrong, Democracy and all that Freedom of choice, and people choosing a leader (provided that is actually what happens) is great, but overall I think elections are a Bad idea. Why? Because politics and politicians suck all the good out of it, with their lies, and agendas, and outright slander of their opponents.

That being said, I a beating the ads you'll no doubt see with a call (campaign if you will) for sanity during this election year. Here are a few things to look out for in said TV ads:

1. Anyone sitting on a tractor (John Deere or otherwise) who talks about family values, children and/or education. You know this guy is on his third wife at least, or has several bastard children fathered by hookers and/or women he met on craigslist who were "looking for a good time."

2. An ad that pulls up pulblic record of the senate, or house (state or national) showing they have in the past done the opposite of what they are now claiming they will do. This is what I like to call "slander with no legal backlash."

3. Ads that say Vote Yes/No on proposition __.  They never tell the truth. There was one here, telling you to vote Yes on a proposition that would make it illegal for anyone in the state to recieve a treatment for a disease, if the treatment was derived from stem cells. The reasoning behind it? Doctors pay single, unwed,mothers to abort their babies so they can harvest the stem cells. It's like they wrote the most outragous shit possible and printed it up an Kinko's. It didn't pass, fortunately. Too many people willing to abandon their morals in the face of death I suppose.

4. People who hand out pamphlets or fliers on street corners. A lot of these people print out anti-candidate propaganda and pass it out. (I've done this myself)

5. "Slam Polls" or "Rumor Polls" which spread a rumor about a candidate, then poll you opinion afterwards. Example: Would you vote for Pro-Life candidate Joe Blow knowing he paid for his 12 year old daughter to have an abortion at a local women's clinic.

Remember. You have a brain, research the candidates, the issues, and the propositions on the ticket. If you don't know what something is, its best not to vote for it.

So I was on the EBSCO article database the other day, looking for stuff related to this article about the T. Rex and the mortality rate of juvenile dinosaurs: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32334420/ns/technology_and_science-science/

I didn't find what I was looking for, but I found something distrubing. Apparantly the technology used to revive the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park isn't quite science fiction anymore. They've found a sample of tissue or something from a mammoth that contained enough DNA that they think they could fill in the blanks with the DNA from an elephant and breed these cloned mammoths.

What the hell do we need Mammoths for? They've been extinct for millions of years! They are extinct because earth's climate can no longer support their needs, food wise, temperature wise, and otherwise. They'd have to be kept in large, indoor climate controlled habitats in zoos; which probaly wouldn't be hard to find a zoo to take one in, you just know every zoo in the world would want one. Maybe that's how we can solve our budget crisis. The US can get itself out of debt by cloning mammoths and selling them to foregin zoos.

Of course, that's assuming this scienece experiment on steriods actually works, and doesn't produce some kind of twisted, unstable elephant baby that can't survive outside of a test tube its mother's womb.

Anyway, the article went on to say that if this works (implying that either some self serving or well meaning scientist with an inflated ego is going to do this!!!) that it has conservation applications, and went on to mention the Polar Bear and how they are in danger of becoming extinct. Everything on the planet is in danger of becoming extinct, get used to it! Which, to me sounds like some bullshit excuse to play at being a god by reviving an extinct species.

And when did we suddenly start caring about the Polar Bear? We knew that the climate was changing 10 years ago. Oh wait, it was just El Nino/Global Warming was just a hoax/We were too lazy to care. Yep. 10 years ago we probably could have come up with a carefully planned conservation plan that might have saved the polar bear, but let's face it, nearly every fossil found was once a plant or animal that used to live on the Earth but no longer does, because something changed and they went extinct. I bet you dollars to dougnuts that there was nothing human beings could have done to save them, just like there is realistically nothing we can do to save the polar bear.

Sorry kiddies its probably true, you can go cry to mommy and daddy now if you want to, and they'll spoon-feed you a load of crap to make you feel better, but that's just the way things are. You can't change it, so you might as well accept it, or at least get used to it. Nature isn't always pretty; for that matter life isn't always pretty but you get used to it and you learn to cope with it and you move on. Those of us who can't handle it see a shrink once a week and take Prozac; or we buy pot from the guy who lives down the street.

If the Polar Bear is meant to go extinct in the wild it will, if not it won't. But think about this; polar bears are about to go the way of mammoths for proably the same reason and some crazy stupid people are wanting to clone both to "save" them. Why? Do they really care? Probably not. They just want the fame and the money and the patent.

I guess this is my first official entry here (ha ha). I'm going to be blogging daily for a while so I guess I ought to get started. I have no idea what I'm going to be writing about most of the time, but anyway, welcome and thanks for reading.