Limitless Ramblings

Advertising fascinates me... no matter what you do, it's fairly impossible to get through life without advertising something at least once... we all do it. Advertising is a way to get people's attention... it tests our creativity and teaches us how to appeal to different types of people. They should teach it in schools... it would be extremely beneficial to the development of the present day teenager.

But I digress... the point of this blog is to just get some thoughts out on paper... well, e-paper, I guess... lol. I haven't blogged in a while, and this has been in the back of my mind, slowly becoming a blog, for a while, so two birds one stone, yeah?

Like I said - Advertising fascinates me. It's a universal concept and everyone takes part. Whether you sell girl scout cookies, or raffle tickets, or need something donated, or blah blah blah, you're going to advertise... and there are SO MANY techniques you can use, especially with the technology today.

Signs are used a lot... colorful ones get more attention than black and white ones, bigger signs are easier to see than little ones, streamers and glitter and other things catch the eye, blah blah blah.

Commercials are big, too... though a little more complicated. There are straight forward commercials, where you know what is being sold. There are stranger commercials... skantily clad women dancing in the rain is supposedly supposed to sell tires.... and there are extremely creative ones. Jack in the Box has some of the most interesting commercials I've ever seen.

Slide shows are also a good way to advertise something... pictures of the great times people are sharing get others interested.

I really respect most forms of advertising... there is a lot of creativity put into them and even if they don't make sense to me, they're probably getting someone.

However, there are still forms that I just have to ask: WHY?

What got me on this tangent is... anyone been to the Merced Mall lately?? Down at the Sweet River end, there's a GMC (I think) vitamin store... and they're advertising some new vitamins... but the advertisement is SO strange to me. There are two posters... one is the lower half of a young woman's face. You see the bottom of her nose, her mouth (painted with red lipstick), and one of her hands, along with a package of these new vitamins. The other is a young male. You see his whole face and shoulders, one hand, and pack of vitamins. (No red lipstick.) What strikes me as odd is what they're doing. Both people are very happily biting into these packages of vitamins. Just... biting the packages... not the vitamins, the packages. And it just struck me as strange... is that going to sell them? I mean... really? I can see how some people might be like... "I wonder what is so amazing about these vitamins that they're willing to EAT THE WHOLE PACKAGE!" But there's no explanatory text, just people eating wrappers.

so what about you? What's the strangest advertisement you've ever seen?

So... a while ago, I wrote a blog about the Halo games, and as I was re-reading it, I realized a Halo blog isn't complete without exploring the webshow inspired by the game: Red Vs. Blue. Red Vs. Blue is a Machina series based on Halo, created by the fine people at Rooster Teeth. I stumbled upon the show a while back when I was piddling around online... my brothers stuck with it more than I did, but I kept coming back to it. It was dang funny, and had a really good story line. When the DVDs went onsale, I began to watch it more steadily, finding it easier to keep up with the episodes when I didn't have to wait for a good internet connection. I bought Season 1 of the Blood Gulch Chronicles, and began watching... and got instantly hooked.

The show is broken up into 3 arcs: The Blood Gulch Chronicles, Reconstruction, and Relocated, and the episodes are short, but hilarious, despite some choice language.

The Blood Gulch Chronicles is labeled as such because they mark the beginning of the RvB adventures. RvB takes place during the "great war." Somewhere out there, in the vast galaxy, Master Chief is fighting to save the world, and the battle lines are drawn as such... the Red army vs. the Blue army. The BGC take place in a canyon known as Blood Gulch. Blood Gulch is a canyon... a small canyon. On one side is a red base, on the other is a blue base... and that's it. The character's are stuck in a stale mate to see who will finally win and ultimately inhabit two bases in an empty canyon. Sounds boring, but the two teams get themselves in so much trouble, it's hilarious.

The story starts with each team getting a new recruit. The Red Team gains Private Donut - a clueless n00b who just so happens to be in red armor - armor designated for the Sargent ONLY. The Blue Team gains Private Michael J. Caboose... a naive and fairly moronic character. Caboose is... well, for lack of a better term... slow. The two sides cross each other for the first time when neither side wants to deal with their new recruit. The Reds tell Donut to go find headlighter fluid and elbow grease, and the Blues tell Caboose to guard the flag - loosing the flag loses the battle - because a surprise guest may come and inspect it... a guest who is the only person that doesn't look like them. Donut mistakes the blue base for the store, and Caboose mistakes Donut for the special guest, allowing him to take the flag back to red base. This causes the blues to go on the offense, trying to get back their flag, and ultimately results in Caboose killing Church - a member of his own team. Now greatly outnumbered, Caboose and Tucker (the other member of the blue team) are forced to radio for the help of a freelancer - Tex - but ghost Church isn't happy about that...

Meanwhile, Donut's retrieval of the blue flag gets him a promotion, and a chance to change the color of his armor. The color he picks gets him a bunch of ridicule from Grif and Simmons, the other two members of the Red Team. Sarge (the sargeant) and Lopez (a mute robot) inform everyone that they plan on attacking the blue base, due to their advantage, but the arrival of freelancer Tex and her Omega AI even out the odds.

The Blood Gulch Chronicles have 5 season, in which a number of characters are introduced, and the main characters are fleshed out. It's hard not to have a favorite by season 2, and by season 5, it was hard to see it go. The writing was amazing, and a lot of the jokes they drop are hilarious and out of no where. Amazing one liners, drawn out jokes, and a pretty deep underlying plot made the BGC pretty sweet. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and would recommend it to anyone who can weather the swearing. (Quite possibly the only negative thing about the BGC is the swearing... there's lots of it XD so be warned.)

Then came Reconstruction. The end of the BGC was epic, and left room for a number of things to happen, which is where Reconstruction comes in. We're introduced to the character of Agent Washington, a member of project freelancer (like Tex) that had a sketchy past with his implanted AI. He is assigned to investigate what happened at Blood Gulch outpost 17B (blue base) and figure out how to stop a new menace: the Meta.

Reconstruction was my favorite series, despite that Tucker only makes one teensy weensy little cameo in the whole thing. It had a lot of the charm of the BGC, but it was also really well written. Underneath all the jokes and humor and nonsensical stuff, the plot was AMAZING. Genius, I would dare say. Reconstruction focuses around Project: Freelancer and their implanted AI's, and the whole thing is just done very well. What struck me as truly amazing was how they took something familiar that happened WAAAAAAAAY back in season 1, near the BEGINNING of season 1 of the BGC, and turned it around on me. I didn't even see it coming. XD Not to mention, the ending is somewhat bitter sweet - and ending that makes you want to cry, but at the same time leaves you KNOWING more is coming.

And come more did. Enter Relocated. Relocated is a bit of a landmark series for the folks over at Red vs. Blue - and not just because it's the first time the boys have "relocated" to Valhalla. Relocated was directed entirely by a new director... and I must say, he did a SMASHING job! :) Relocated's run was very short... 4 episodes, and I just finished watching the last one before I wrote this review. It was done well, and did what I think it was intended to do: left viewers wanting more. With only a 4 episode run, I can't say it was my favorite, but I can say it is a necessary watch, if you plan on immersing yourself in the RvB world.

All in all, the show is amazing. I love it. I laugh every episode, and I can't help but appreciate how much work is put into the thing. If you don't mind swearing - and I won't even say mild because it's not mild... there's a LOT of it - then check it out, because it is worth it. A really... really... REALLY good show. :)

And that's all I've got to say... but I'll leave you with one of my favorite episodes:

Reconstruction Episode 5

...and I'm glad I wasn't really hyped to see it. I'm still trying to figure out if I liked it, or if I didn't like it... but right now, this is the vibe I'm getting.

The movie was good... for any fan of the graphic novel, it was exactly what one would expect, save for the ending. It was the comic book, acted out... some things were elaborated on, which were good and bad.

I'm sure I'm not the only one that thought the sex scenes were too much. I won't even sugar coat that... not a bit much, not kind of unnecessary... too much and COMPLETELY unnecessary. Showing those scenes added nothing to the movie, and took a lot away, in my opinion. It was all one could do to laugh and try to pretend it wasn't as uncomfortable as hell. I was lucky enough to miss the first one, but the second one was ridiculous. The graphic novel didn't even show that much, just eluded to it, and I think the movie would have done well to do the same.

The Comedian's death was done well, and props to Jeffrey Dean Morgan for portraying the character in such an amazing light... I was finally able to figure out why I loved the character so much. Despite his flaws, despite his views, despite his screwed up way of thinking... he got it. He was one of the only ones that got it. Save humanity from themselves. His persona really was everything that was wrong with the world, and that was the big joke - everyone hated him, but all he was doing was mirroring the heart of society... the true colors of the people around him. What they really hated was themselves... I love that. He was the very definition of "There's a problem with the world, and the problem with the world is me." Something about seeing him carried out - seeing the character translated to film rather than paper - made it easier to understand what he was about, and why he appealed to me so. He remains my favorite character of the novel. You can hate him all you want, but he was right. He was always right, to the day he died.

Laurie Jupiter's character was done well, too... I hated her just as much in the movie as I did in the novel. Daniel was given a few tweaks, and I actually liked them, save for the aforementioned elaborated sex scenes. Then, there's Rorschach.

He was simply amazing. Every scene he was in, you had to pay attention, you couldn't pull your eyes away. Every. Single. Scene. His character was one that translated VERY well to film... what you understood about him in the novel you understood when he became, essentially, real. The film cut out scenes were we learn the origin of his mask... certain interrogation scenes, yadda yadda, but for the most part, Rorschach remained in tact, and remained amazing. Justice was all that mattered... peace attained by genocide was unacceptable. When he met his end, I cried. I knew it was coming, and it broke my heart because, in a movie that was essentially about heroes, he was the only one that truly was one. I cried just like I did reading the novel. As much as I understand, as much as I get it, I will never be okay with his demise... he was just too awesome.

Dr. Manhattan was done well, too... but there were parts of Doc that we didn't need to see... really. Thanks, but no thanks. I also didn't like how he looked... I realize the movie isn't real but he just didn't blend. He didn't fit. But for the most part, he was handled well. The actor that played Jon did a good job, though I was disappointed that parts of his story were changed or left out, too.

I realize things need to be cut and changed... but I guess I just don't like that some of the things they did show they didn't need to, and some of the things they cut should have been there... I feel we lost a lot of interesting scenes due to ones that weren't necessary.

Like I said, the movie was handled very well. It was like watching the graphic novel... almost word for word dialogue. Beautiful shots and wonderful novel-to-screen translations. All the actors did a great job and the music was used very well, too. The pace was a little slow, but that matches well with the novel, so anyone who read it was probably following right along.

The ending, however, did not convince me. For starters, I don't see why they couldn't keep it the way it was. It would not have been that hard to create the alien... it would have been perfectly easy to cut the sex scenes short and give us the story of the missing artist... at least elude to it. Afraid the alien wouldn't look realistic enough? Look at Dr. Manhattan... that couldn't have been the problem.

The ending they used didn't make sense to me. I don't see how it would unite the world and make them back down. The idea is supposed to be that Dr. Manhattan is now this loose canon that will attack whomever decides to start up World War 3 again... but COME ON, PEOPLE. They were planning on using NUKES! Nuclear war fare usually results in massive destruction to everyone involved... theoretically... so I don't think the threat of being attacked would make anyone back down. I don't see how it would unite anyone... basically, Viedt is saying, if you threaten to destroy yourselves, we're going to destroy you.

Whereas, with the alien, there really was a common enemy, something they COULD defeat, something NOT employed by the US Government.

The other thing that bothered me was the fact that if you didn't read the novel, you would probably be lost. They cut the wrong things in my opinion.

It WAS a good movie... I was pleased for the most part. I'll probably end up liking it, probably see it again... most likely buy it on DVD. There were a lot of little things I caught that I most certainly enjoyed... Rorschach's delivery of my favorite line in the whole thing left me with a smile on my face, and little things here and there were beautifully scattered in... things only a reader of the novel would have caught. To date, it's the best film adaptation of a comic book I've seen... but it had it's areas it was lacking.

So - here's my recommendation:

Reader's of the novel:

If you don't mind the changed ending, if you don't mind not seeing some of your favorite parts, then watch it. You'll love it. It really was handled well. (Mars was fantastic!) Just brace yourself for awkward sex scenes, and be ready to know Doc Manhattan well... REALLY well.

Non-Reader's:

If you don't mind being confused, don't mind the awkward sex scenes, and just want to watch an interesting story, check it out. It's a bit slow to start, but it's none the less good. It's an interesting ride.


I realize this review isn't going to make me a lot of friends so, since I'm not eager to get the reaction I got for not liking the Dark Knight (because God forbid someone have a negative opinion about that movie), I'm not going to tag anyone in this note, except those that have requested tag-ness. That doesn't mean I'm not open to opinions and feedback - I haven't written anything in a while, so this is kind of me pushing myself back into the blogging world. If you want to say something, say it. :) Just be sure that that "something" isn't "you're a frakking idiot for not wanting to have this movie's babies!" Oh, and... say hi to your mother for me! Thank you. :)

~Lauren

How many people have ever joined a message board and actually gotten involved in the discussions??? I've been doing that a lot lately... one online community I've been a member of for a while (www.theactivitypit.com) has a number of features, one of which is a forum. When I first joined, I wasn't very involved, but recently I've been sticking my nose in there and dropping random tidbits of two cents everywhere. A lot of times it's for fun, but other times, it's really thought provoking and causes me to really think about my responses.

One such thread on the forums was called "The Value of Life." Intrigued, I decided to check it out. This is what it said:

This has been on my mind for a few days.

Everyone seems to be more affected when children die in a tragedy instead of adults. So, when does a person's life stop meaning as much? Is there some sort of curve? I would think children would die happy and carefree, which would be the way I would go if I could choose.

When soldiers and police die in the line of duty, why is it more important then when a factory worker dies doing his job? Wouldn't the amount of attention paid to the death be in equal proportion to the inherent risks associated with the job?

When people are begging for their life, they always feel the need to add " I have a wife and children" - why does this make them less disposable? The most basic and neccesary human function is pro-creation, so somone who already passed on thier genes to the next generation should be LESS valueable then someone who hasn't had children (but still may).

So, why are some people more or less valued than others, and who places this value on human life?

I read through the few responses that were already there, and upon agreeing with a few, I wrote my own response. Another member of the site told me to flesh the idea out (I had tried to condense it so it wasn't a horrendously long read) and blog it, so - after giving it some thought - I decided to do just that. Here is my response to the question, with a little more thought... lol.

Why are some people more or less valued than others, and who places this value on human life?

This question really makes me think of high school - one memory in particular. Anyone who went to Judson with me will probably remember the little pamphlets we got at the beginning of the year to take home to our parents. The life insurance pamphlets (Anyone wanna try and figure out why a high school was offering life insurance?? lol... go there and you'll find out). I know a lot of people didn't read the pamphlets before shoving them in their parents' faces, but I did, and I remember being part of a "revolt" on my bus, as well as a "protest" in the early morning (that really didn't go anywhere, and consisted of a small number of us telling everyone that Judson didn't value their life), because of something I noticed about the pay out on the life insurance policy.

The pamphlet listed the type of pay out a person would get for certain injuries and, while I can't remember what loss of hand, loss of foot, etc. were, I do remember the pay out for two particular injuries: Loss of eye, and loss of life.

The pay out for the loss of an eye was $5K.

The pay out for the loss of a life was... anyone? anyone? Bueller? $5K.

It kind of bothered me - but mostly made me laugh - that the school had decided that our lives were about as valuable as one of our eyeballs.

The reason I bring this up is basically to say, the value of life is completely dependant on the person doing the valuing. Each and every person values each and every life differently, and for different reasons. Maybe you and I each value a soldier's life more than that of a serial killer, but I guarantee you it's not for the same reason. Things - not just an individuals life - have value because we give them value.

Do me a favor and think of one thing that means the world to you. Maybe it's a necklace, or a favorite blanket, or stuffed animal, or lucky pair of socks, or favorite pair of jeans... something. Just figure out what you have that is your "favorite" and means something to you. Now, imagine giving that thing to your best friend. Wrapping it nicely, sticking a bow on it, and handing it to them, just cuz. They open it, and pull out your lucky pair of socks. You may be excited, oh these mean the world to me - but what are they thinking??

"Great, dude, you got me a pair of stinky socks... thanks!"

Now, did I just compare human life to a stinky pair of socks?? Yes and no. Basically, everything has value because we decide to give it value, and human life is no different.

Everyone seems to be more affected when children die in a tragedy instead of adults. So, when does a person's life stop meaning as much? Is there some sort of curve? I would think children would die happy and carefree, which would be the way I would go if I could choose.

Children are a tricky topic to handle, so I'm going to do my best to get my thoughts across.

For starters it's a tragedy when anyone dies, period. BUT - I think it's more tragic when children die, because when it comes down to it, children are innocent. They're young and are still learning the whole right/wrong distinction. It's hard to look into the face of a child and think that they may not have that long to live. Look at us - we've made it this far, why shouldn't they? Children touch us in a number of ways - they view the world differently than we do - and as adults, on some level, we feel it's our job to protect them until they get to the point where they can defend themselves.

The statement above says something to the effect of, they think children would die carefree, etc. etc., but I do strongly disagree with this. Yes, children are innocent and carefree, but they're also vulnerable.

I worked as a nanny for a few years and over those years, I experienced a lot of things. At one point, over the course of my job, the little boy I nanny'd for decided it would be cool to run at the couch (which was underneath a window) and do a handstand. He had merely been running and sitting on the couch, and I turned my back the second he decided he wanted to do his handstand. I heard a loud crashing sound, and turned around to see his bare foot in a window that now had a nice hole in it. I immediately got his foot out of the window before he could cut himself anymore than he already had, and set to getting a towel for his foot and calling his parents. Now, he wasn't cut too bad, didn't need stitches or anything... and he was fine - until it started bleeding, at which point he started crying. His foot probably hurt, he was bleeding, and he knew he had done something he wasn't supposed to. I held him for a while until his parents came and while I knew he wasn't hurt too badly, it hurt me to know he was so scared.

The point I'm trying to make is: children are easily scared, and if their lives are put in danger, I don't imagine they're very carefree about it. Children are still discovering things like pain and fear when they're young, and I think any situation that would result in a child's death couldn't be very carefree. Each of us were children, and we know the fears we had when we were younger, so it distresses us to think of a child being scared up until the point of their death. I think this adds to why it seems like children's deaths are more tragic than those of adults.

When a child dies of natural causes, it's treated slightly more tragic than when an adult dies of natural causes, because that child never had the chance to live a long life and discover who they were, experience the emotions that come with growing up, all of that. That child is essentially robbed of their future, and that's upsetting. More so than that, when a child's life is taken, it's more often than not taken by an adult. You don't hear too many stories about children killing other children, though they are out there. When a child's life is taken, it again delivers that distress of knowing the child was probably scared - terrified, really - probably in pain, and along with that comes the knowledge that there are people out there evil enough to take the life of something so innocent and defenseless. Look into the face of a child... no matter how angry that child makes you, I guarantee you can't imagine taking his/her life. No matter what you imagine that child doing, you'll never be able to justify taking his/her life, and it's distressing to know there are people out there that can. It's not just about the child at that point, it's also about the fact that there are evil, sick people out there.

Finally, a child's death probably touches us, because none of us want to go through the pain of losing a child. We know how horrible that would be for us to go through, and we know that somewhere, someone is actually going through that. I should hope no one is sick enough to wish that pain on anyone, because I know I wouldn't dare wish it on my worst enemies. We sympathize with what the parent/guardian is going through, at which point not only has a child lost their life, but others are also suffering. Each of us probably has a small part that wishes we could make the pain and suffering in the world stop, and every time we know there's a mother out there greiving for her lost child, we feel a small sense of failure and helplessness. No one likes to feel that way.

When soldiers and police die in the line of duty, why is it more important then when a factory worker dies doing his job?

I had an answer for this, but I don't think anything I could say could sum it up better than one of the people that commented on the thread. Doc Goolsby said:

When soldiers and police die in the line of duty, they are given more emphasis because they have chosen a life that puts them in harm's way. Most factory workers don't. There are safety measures put in place to lower risk of death. In the life of a soldier or a cop, that can only go so far. The machines and environment of a factory worker are not maliciously intending to exterminate the worker. In the environment of the cop and the soldier, that is not the case.

And honestly, I couldn't have said it better myself. I think we value them more because, when it comes down to it (in most cases), these people lost their lives while working to make our lives safer. We respect that, and I'm sure on some very small level, some of us feel responsible for their life. It takes an amazing person to say they'd rather protect the lives of others than keep themselves safe, and it's sad to see such a person lose their life.

Finally - to address

When people are begging for their life, they always feel the need to add " I have a wife and children" - why does this make them less disposable?

I don't know. I don't know why a man who has a family should have a more valuable life than one that doesn't. All I can think is, perhaps he isn't thinking of himself at that point, perhaps he's worried about his family. As head of the family, it is the man's job to provide for the wife and child, and protect the wife and child. If he's killed, the wife and child are then forced to take care of themselves and, while it's doable, nobody wants to leave their family behind to pick up the pieces. And, I'm sure on some level, it's a way of bartering, trying to make the killer understand that their actions are not only affecting the person they're threatening to kill, but also the person(s) close to them.

Again, these are all just my opinions, because value truley depends on the person doing the valuing.

What about you??? Why do YOU think certain lives seem to be of more value than others?

I posted a news story on my facebook and asked for responses... what people thought, etc. I really only got two responses... 1 from Melissa and 1 from Sarah... but it'll get the job done. This was the story:

OREGON, Wis. (AP) — A father allegedly shot his 9-year-old son in the buttocks with a BB gun, a revelation that came to light after the boy wrote a school essay about the incident. The boy had written an essay about the "painful afternoon my Dad shot me with a BB gun." The elementary-school teacher turned the essay over to authorities.

Prosecutors charged the 36-year-old father on Friday with one felony count of child abuse. The charge carries a maximum penalty of 6 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The criminal complaint said the father told an investigator he shot the boy after the child didn't move fast enough from blocking the TV. He said he aimed at his son's rear pocket because he thought it would be more padded.

"I knew right away it was a stupid thing I did," the father said. "I told my kids the only way I'm going to touch them is to kiss them, hug them, tickle them. I was very, I was not under the influence of anything. It was a very stupid decision."

He was released Friday on a signature bond and ordered not to threaten or engage in any acts of violence against his son. He was also ordered not to engage in physical discipline of any child.

And here are the responses I received:

Melissa:

One of my fifth graders wrote a story one time about how "My daddy got stabbed by gang members. They broke down our door. They came rushing in. I was screaming and stuff." And it was a true story. Another time one of my students wrote in his journal, "My uncle committed suicide after killing my aunt." And it too was a true story. Kids today deal with far more that I could ever possibly fathom.

Too much TV. A generation where the media has far too much power. And parents don't know how to parent or where to turn for help. Ummm.....the church maybe...but which one if you've never gone before?

Sarah:

I think his punishment should be to watch 'A Christmas Story' 24/7 for a year.

The reason I asked this is because... well... I don't know what to think. This has become more apparent to me in the past few weeks... the types of things that make headlines just make me want to cry, honestly... and I do have a view point on these issues, but I'm terrified to try and explain it... I'm terrified of what people will think of me. It shouldn't matter, I know that much... but when I see people take a stand, it looks like everything they decide on... it looks like they can see the issue in terms of right and wrong... and to them, everything falls neatly into these categories.

I don't know if that's how it really is, but it's certainly not that way for me. It's not that I don't know the difference between right and wrong, it's just... I'm a stickler for finding out all the facts. I hate making a decision based on only small bits of information. I hate passing judgment without getting the whole story, and I don't believe that two wrongs make a right.

But I also have a problem expressing my views, and I hate being labeled as something I'm not... and I've noticed that most of the time, people who view things as completely right or totally wrong also like to stick people into slots. If I support a law suit against an anti Christian professor, I'm a bible thumping Christian radical. If I see where the professor is coming from, I'm anti-Christian. If I'm upset with something Obama has said or done, I'm a crazy republican. If I want to be positive and hope that Obama doesn't fail the nation as a president, I'm a whack job lib. If I disagree with republicans on ANYTHING, then obviously I voted for Obama. If I voted for McCain, I'm racist. If I'm against gay marriage, than I must be anti-gay and pro-life. If I want someone to face the consequences of their actions, I'm a goody two shoes and a hypocrite that thinks too highly of myself. If I say it's wrong to wish death upon someone who beat their significant other, I'm pro abuse. It's insanity, to say the least, and it drives me crazy, because it frustrates the hell out of me.

Am I the only person that feels this way?? Is something wrong with me?? So many people are able to pass judgement so easily... can things really be seen as black and white, with nothing in between? Should there never be exceptions?

I chose the above story because... while I do believe the act can be classified as Child abuse, I don't think the guy meant to hurt his son, and I think telling him he can no longer physically discipline any children at all is a bit stupid. How about say he's no longer allowed to discipline with a bb gun?? And the part about him not being allowed to threaten his child... I don't think waggling your finger in front of his face and telling him "NO!" is going to change anything. If he wants to threaten his child, what's going to stop him from doing so??? It seems to me everyone seems to think he's this horrible person who's going to abuse his child more if given the chance, but no one wants to take the steps to make sure it doesn't happen... and why? Probably because they think the same thing I do - he doesn't seem like he meant to hurt his son. Yes, what he did was extremely stupid, yes he should be punished... is he a child abuser? I don't think so. But how do you say that without being condemned??? It seems almost impossible today.

I just don't like viewing the world with a big red line down the center of it, but it seems like more and more I just deal with people who have their set ideas. Black and white. No gray at all, and you're crazy for even thinking there could be the slightest bit of gray. Can't we all have our own views... can't we all have DIFFERING views... can't we all have a chance to explain ourselves without causing an epic chasm of insanity over something trivial?? Or do we all have to be split up into two groups... if you agree with me, stand here, if you disagree... stand there.

So... what do you think? Is it possible to have a gray area? To not have your feet planted firmly on either side of the fence? Or can things really be divided up into black and white?


P.S. - thank you to those who gave me responses. :)

...therefore is trying to steal it for itself.

No joke. Anyone else check out the new Terms of Service? Because honestly... not cool. Now, anyone who follows this blog knows that facebook and I have a love hate relationship... sans the love. We despise each other. Facebook insults me on a daily basis (today it asked my mom if she thought I ever paid money to have sex, and that is NOT a joke), and I do everything I can to thwart it's evil ways... especially since its sudden rise in communist members (I have picture proof, just ask, I'll send it).

But honestly, I never thought facebook would start claiming other people's stuff as their own. The new Terms of Service are a joke... see, in the past, when you deleted your facebook page, Facebook lost all rights it had to your content. But now... now it's changed. Here are the new TOS:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof. The following sections will survive any termination of your use of the Facebook Service: Prohibited Conduct, User Content, Your Privacy Practices, Gift Credits, Ownership; Proprietary Rights, Licenses, Submissions, User Disputes; Complaints, Indemnity, General Disclaimers, Limitation on Liability, Termination and Changes to the Facebook Service, Arbitration, Governing Law; Venue and Jurisdiction and Other.

Basically... anything you upload to facebook belongs to facebook now and forever. Pictures, blogs, videos, music, anything. Anything you upload is theirs to do whatever they want with... even if you delete your page. What I want to know is WHY. Why do they feel the need to do this?? And the only thing I can think is... the people who use facebook are just amazing. There's a plethora of amazing, witty writers, even more talented photographers and photo alter...ers... a number of people on the site are extremely talented, who wouldn't want to cash in??

Most of this blog may be a joke, but I'm serious about this: I don't know how I feel about Facebook taking my stuff. No one should upload anything they don't feel comfortable with to the internet in the first place, but I don't know why facebook feels the need to hold on to my photos forever. What would it want to do with them? And say someone uploads something you don't want uploaded? Then what? You have no control over that... it just sucks. A number of people have photos of their family and children on their pages, and now facebook owns those... it just doesn't make sense.

One thing is for certain - you will never see a note of mine in full on facebook again. I wonder if, by linking you to my blog on a facebook note, I'm indirectly giving them an owner's licence to my blog but I doubt it. It's not that I think I'm this amazing writer, but I do have my moments... and I just don't want my thoughts owned by someone else.

Seriously, though... this is stupid, facebook. Really, really stupid. Myspace wins this round, they have yet to do something this stupid and pointless. Facebook isn't going to cash in on my wit anymore... and it isn't going to cash in on my photo awesomeness anymore, either.

This does raise a question, though. I have a number of photo albums that aren't of me... for instance, my Star Trek (2009) album. I created the album in anticipation of the new movie because, quite frankly, I'm a Star Trek fan and I've been following the progression of this movie for a long time. Now there are pictures on the web and I'm out to get them... and share them with everyone. Now, they aren't my pictures... someone else took them, and I borrowed them. I'm fairly certain I linked to the Star Trek site in the album but I could be wrong, and if I am, I'll fix that. But it's not the point... the point is... those aren't my photos, they belong to someone else... they belong to BadRobot. Can Facebook claim those? Can it infact licence a photo that isn't mine? Will they get in trouble if they try?? Who knows... it's a whole lot of legal stupid that doesn't need to be going down, if you ask me.

This is kind of a rant, but I'm also doing it to let everyone know what's going down, because it was kind of done in secret. I didn't know till someone brought it to my attention. The good news?? I think we still have time to take down what we don't want on facebook. This was on my facebook page tonight... a number of you may have seen it as well:

A couple of weeks ago, we posted an update to our Terms of Use that we hoped would clarify some parts of it for our users. Over the past couple of days, we have received a lot of questions and comments about these updated terms and what they mean for people and their information. Because of the feedback we received, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog.

The good news? This means facebook is listening to us finally... and it means the TOS aren't in effect anymore. The bad news? It sounds like it's a temporary lift of the new TOS, so we only have a small window to clean up our pages, if we have a window at all.

Also, I tried to go to the blog and I can't get there, it doesn't work. If anyone else can access the blog, please let me know, I'd like to check it out. In the meantime, join one of the following groups and keep them strong, hopefully it'll keep the new TOS dormant (I don't normally support groups like this... the new facebook stuff was kind of funny, but I seriously think this whole ordeal is stupid and doesn't need to be going down).

People Against the new Terms of Service

FACEBOOK OWNS YOU! Protest the new TOS.

Those agains Facebook TOS

Let's get this!

~Lauren

P.S. Here's another page to visit:

Facebook Bill of Rights

...I've learned from children. No joke. It's almost like, if we could keep all the understanding we have as a child and simply grow more independent and stronger and wiser as we get older, we'd be much better off.

When you spend some time on the internet, you learn a couple of things.

1. The internet is full of crazies. I mean, sure, you can dig and dig and dig and find a couple people who aren't absolutely insane... but for the most part, the internet is full of crazies. The ability to speak does not boast intelligence or sanity... and I'd like to think that goes the same for the ability to type and use the internet. XD

2. Some of the most insane people online are hard to notice at first, because they say they believe the same things you do... but ask them to define what they believe, and you'll find they don't agree with you at all. They see things completely differently.

One of the best examples of this that I can think of is something that's been apparent to me recently. I've been trying really hard to be a positive person as of late - it's so much easier to just be negative, but it's so much more fun to be positive, you know? Positivity is a big deal to me... it bothers me when people would rather focus on the bad than focus on the good. It gets under my skin. But what strikes me as odd is that a lot of people will claim that positivity is a big deal to them, too. Some people think positivity is ignoring your morals and trying to keep someone's spirits up. Some think it's reminding yourself that everyone breaks the law, so if someone you like does it, it's okay. Some think it's kicking people with a smile on your face. And some think it's more of an attitude... and it's flexible. Maybe it's all of these things, and maybe it's none of these things... but what I've learned today is... maybe it's more simple than that.

Positivity is seeing a hole in the roof of a barn and utilizing it as another entry way, instead of getting upset that there's a hole in the roof of the barn.

Are you lost yet? Probably. lol. Well, let me explain.

I worked in the preschool building today and, for whatever reason, I was in a "get down on the floor and play with the kids" mood. There are a number of moods you can be in while working with children, and not all of them are hands on, but that's how I was today. I played with a few of the kids and as more kids came in, we began to combine games until we had pretty much combined all the cars and Fisher Price connect-a-tiles and created a nice bussling little town.

Then, a tornado hit, and destroyed our barn and yellow brick road, and car garages and extra rooms and everything... so we all had to rebuild the town. We started with the barn. We rebuilt it and made it bigger and better than ever, giving it reinforced walls and two - count them TWO - doors. The only problem was, I ran out of connect-a-tiles for the walls, and had to use singular blocks. I was rebuilding in such a hurry that I didn't realize two of the tiles had big holes in them, until the barn was already built. I was mildly disappointed, because it was a cool looking barn, save for the holes on top. I was about to tear it apart when Konnor - one of the little boys - looked at me and got this really excited expression on his face. He pointed to the holes and said "THEY CAN GO IN UP HERE!" He then very ecstatically made his car fly to the top of the barn and dropped it in one of the holes. We both laughed, and one of the other kids mimicked Konnor's example. Before long, we were all laughing and dropping cars through the roof of the barn. After a while, Konnor decided it wasn't "realistic" that the cars were flying to the roof of the barn and falling in the holes... so we built a ramp so they could drive up and fall in. We had a blast, and majority of the children were playing with us. Everyone took turns driving their cars up the ramp and dropping them in one of the holes.

Now... they're children. It's not like they wouldn't have had fun if I had taken those tiles out and replaced them and made the barn look pretty... but how much MORE fun did we all have, simply because Konnor decided to be positive instead of negative??

I honestly think we should all strive to do this in our every day lives. Instead of looking at the holes in our roofs and frowning, why not find a way to use them to our advantage?? Not only will it make a difference in your day, but it will also affect the people around you. If you're in a good mood, it'll make them want to be in a good mood... and you never know who's going to need YOUR smile to help them through their day.

There are so many things that can ruin our day or week or month or whatever... but how many of those things wouldn't be able to affect us at all if we DIDN'T LET THEM?

So - that's my challenge for all of you this week... try to find the silver lining in your rain cloud at least once a day... try to view the hole in your roof as a door and, if need be, ask some friends for help... maybe all you need to see things differently are a few friends to build you a ramp. :)

Let's get this!

~Lauren