Have you ever been alone in a crowded room when I'm here with you?

Have you ever been alone in a crowded room; well I'm here with you...

Well, it's not much but I can proudly say that I got my false start out of the way in regards to the informal writing piece I've been meaning to start for the last little while. Soon, I'll actually begin!

Oh man, I had so many epiphanies during my vacation that I would have blogged everyday were it possible. Here's my latest (and incidentally, the most frivolous). It is that I've realized that there are 2 things that unite the United States and Canada no matter what the differences we have. 1. that at 40 degrees below zero, celcius and fahrenheit are the same. 2. that when you drive on the freeway in both countries, it doesn't matter if it's glorious weather in broad daylight, there will be some point where traffic randomly and inexplicably grinds to a halt. It will continue for a few miles and it will miraculously, with equal inexplicability (<-- not a word), start moving again.

You know how radio stations have their "request hour" or something usually once a day when people can call in and request to hear certain songs on the radio? I always found it a little weird when people phone in and request to hear songs that are currently REALLY popular. Like requesting to here Rihanna's Take A Bow during this past summer. I mean seriously, do you really need to REQUEST that song? As if you couldn't just turn on the radio at any given point during the day and probably hear that very song within 5 minutes of your tuning in?

Oh man do I feel like having a bacon cheeseburger right now. Seriously...

My mother has this weird habit of changing all the garbage bags in the house on a bi-weekly basis. I noticed it today when she asked me to do it and I couldn't figure out why she doesn't just change them as they get full. Half the garbage bags weren't even half full. Some were almost full. Some were actually full. I suppose convenience plays a role in all this but come now, it's silly to assume that garbage cans fill up at an equal rate and thus should be changed on a clockwork schedule.

Wow, I failed in life so badly today it's... still funny. But man...

It started when I woke up and the carabiner that normally holds my keys to my belt loop broke. At this point in the day, it's no big deal. So I drop by Sports National to get another one... except that they no longer sell them. Failure number 1.

I drove to Stouffville to get my eyes checked... possibly the only thing that I actually succeeded in today. Mrs. Genin gives me David's address and suggests that I drop by since he's only a block away from her office. So I do. He's not home. Failure number 2.

I go to pick up the badminton racquets I had dropped off to get restrung. The guy says he's running behind and they're not ready yet. Failure number 3.

I go on some insane quest for a laptop-compatible sound card. None of the retailers sell it (Canada Computers, PC Village, Tiger Direct, Best But, Future Shop). Failure number 4.

I drop by Markville Mall (WHY?! I keep forgetting that malls are pointless places for me to go). No caribiner. Fanattics only sells winter sportswear so I didn't get Brett's baseball cap (I'll have to go to Headquarters at STC). Spencer's doesn't sell neon signs that aren't crappy. Failure number 5.

I go to Mastermind in search of a specific toy only they would sell. They don't sell it. Failure number 6.

Unbelievable... I hope nobody gets on my nerves for the rest of the day. I am liable to snap.

I finally saw Wanted!

It was AWESOME. I refuse to classify it as a guilty pleasure because I'm not embarrassed about how much I enjoyed it. You know how I always say I'm ok with comedies that exist for no other reason than to be funny if they're funny enough? It's the same with Wanted. It's go no redeeming values whatsoever beyond being an awesome action flick. But man, what an action flick.

This is weird. Here's what my philosophy prof had to say about our intro paragraph:

"In your introduction, get your bottom line to the top. State here as directly as possible what you take to be the most philosophically significant thing you have discovered through the process of thinking about this material and writing about it. This is a stylistic difference between philosophy papers and other humanities papers, where you typically build toward your conclusion. In philosophy, get the significant outcomes stated directly in the introduction, then use the rest of the essay to support them."

So basically, have a thesis in your intro paragraph. What disconcerts me is that she says that only philosophy papers do this while other humanities papers don't because you put your thesis at the end of other humanities papers? What? I'm pretty sure every humanities course wants your thesis in your intro paragraph. I hope the first years don't look at this and assume that their other classes work differently. When are you ever supposed to build towards your conclusion in any essay?

Fuck, I broke the backspace key on my laptop. That's like the single most commonly hit key on my laptop. And with an essay to write too. You know what this means. Everything I write is for keeps. Yup. That's how I'm gonna do my philosophy 111 paper. There will be no backspacing. My essay might end up looking like something a first year might write but hey, it's a first year course. Think of it as leveling the playing field...

I'm not really going write my philosophy essay such that everything I type is for keeps. Are you kidding me? And sabotage the 93% I am currently riding in that course?

Because apparently, this has become a hot comic and me being me, I want in on the action!

Is that too small? It's here: http://xkcd.com/513/

So what we have here is a case of a "nice guy" considering a hypothetical situation that doesn't involve the possibility of him being actively rejected. Except that, as I have mentioned before, there are many weird and wonderful traits that make up who we are. But undoubtedly, this poor sod in the comic is a nice guy.

He's also a huge coward without the balls to risk being rejected. Honestly, if this is what you think of when you think "nice guy," you need to reexamine your interpretation. "Niceness" might be one of his traits, but "cowardice" seems to be an equally strong characteristic. He gets blue balled because he is a wimp, not because he's nice. Please don't get these traits confused.

Sure, wimps finish last. Now if he would just make a comic that illustrated why nice guys do as well...

I was never a fan of Canadian politics because I think it's idiotic. Not that the current debacle in our government isn't idiotic but it seems I can't escape talking about it because it's that big of a deal.

No, I do not support the coalition.

That is my straight answer to the coalition question. Why? Because it is undemocratic. No, I don't support Stephen Harper. I think he's an idiot. But people are making the assumption that anti-coalitionists are automatically in favor of Harper, which I am not. Harper may be a doink. And arguably, dissolving parliament for 2 months is not really democratic either. You're still missing the point if you think that Harper performing something as undemocratic as dissolving parliament somehow CANCELS out the fact that the coalition is still undemocratic.

I have no problem with forming a coalition, tabling a vote of non-confidence, and thus obliging the Governor General to suspend parliament and call for another general election even though we just had one a month ago. But you shouldn't form a coalition after an election and try to put yourself in power by virtue of the fact that you are now a "majority". That's not how a democracy works. If you really want to run the government as a coalition, I'm fine with it. Then campaign as a coalition under a new election.

I don't care (in the spirit of this post) about what Stephen Harper is doing/has done. I don't care about how bad he is as a Prime Minister. If you believe in democracy (which might not be the case for everyone), then what the coalition tried to do was wrong/undemocratic. If you think Stephen Harper dissolving parliament is wrong, it's no worse than the coalition dissolving parliament and putting themselves in power. Let me make this clear. IF you believe that Canada should be a country with a democratically elected government, then what the coalition did was wrong. Stephen Harper's reaction to the coalition movement might be wrong as well, but that doesn't change the fact that the coalition's initial movement towards putting themselves in power - without being elected in AS a coalition party - runs contrary to the democratic principles that govern our country. That's not why the option to form a coalition - within parliament, post-election - exists. That's not what coalitions are about. You form them after an election in order to keep the power of a minority government in check. In a democracy, they exist to curb power, not to beget it.

This is a repost of the 2 ways I interpret the ending to Donnie Darko. I am posting it again for the benefit of Christian, who by this point, should already have watched it and is probably pondering about it furiously. So I offer my interpretation (again) with some slight grammatical modifications. I've read it over again and I still stand by these ideas:

Having seen Donnie Darko twice and taking Grant's suggestion to look up theories about the story line, I have concluded that there are 2 basic ways of looking at the movie. I am going to expound them so if you've not seen the movie, watch it first because there are enough spoilers here to destroy the movie-watching experience if you've not already seen it.

Theory 1: Donnie Darko saves the universe.
This is believed to be the true theory regarding what the movie is about... and a theory that I find profoundly unsatisfactory (possibly due to it conflicting with my need for a more romantic theory). But the director himself says this is more or less how the movie should go (even though he also claimed that he intended for the ending to be open ended... wtf?!). Note also that this a very watered down version of the actual theory itself but contains what I believe to be the essential points.

Premise
The jet engine from the beginning of the move does not arrive through a time portal, it comes from a "corruption" in the fabric of time (the future). It is a "corruption" by virtue of the fact that there is no reasonable, logical cause for the engine to travel from the future to the past; some "mistake"; some inexplicable blip in the space time continuum - caused the engine to be thrown from the future to the past in the blink of an eye, creating an alternate future (since in the "original" future, this should not have happened), and ripping open the fabric of space and time (because it's something that is not logically possible, hence it being a "mistake"). At the end of the future (28 days later), the world will literally come to an end as the corruption causes the universe to collapse unto itself. The movie we see is what happens in the alternate, corrupted future.

The World Ending
By this theory, it is literal.

Notes
Donnie Darko's job is to literally save the universe from destruction and every single character and nuance in the movie is designed to direct him towards this task.

The Story (or how it ends anyway)
Donnie, after making love to Gretchen (or so the theory goes... we don't know for sure but it would be nice to think that they consummated their love for each other before the end of the universe), realizes that it's been 28 days, the world is about to end, and he really hasn't done jack to prevent it, hence his panic attack and he rushes off to Roberta Sparrow for help on how to stop the universe from collapsing unto itself. That final scene, culminating in Gretchen and Frank's death, happens, all hell breaks loose, but the important thing is that by some epiphany or another, he manages to create a time portal at the exact same instance that the "corruption" occurs (this I guess happens when he's sitting in the car next to his soul mate's road-killed corpse... creepy). But now, it is the time portal that sends the engine back in time. Therefore, there is a reasonable and logical cause for the engine to travel from the future to the past (through said time portal) and the universe is thus saved because the corruption doesn't cause something inexplicable to occur and destroy the fabric of space and time. Donnie Darko, giggling hysterically in his sleep for some reason, doesn't get called out of the house by Frank (Frank, as mentioned in the "Notes" section, only called him out of the house at the beginning of the movie because Donnie needs to live and save the universe. Now that the universe is saved, I guess Frank decides to just leave him in his room). Donnie Darko himself, does no time travelling. His death scene is merely the past (or a replaying of the past) although there is also a theory that all the characters in the story can see the alternate future in their dreams, hence Gretchen and Mrs. Darko pseudo-recognizing each other while Donnie's corpse is being wheeled out.

That is the first, supposedly true theory about how the movie ends. And like most theories, it is filled with holes. Onto my theory (i.e. the way I thought the movie went after seeing it twice, before I consulted external sources).

Theory 2: "I don't want to die alone"
This is my interpretation of how the movie goes, after giving it some thought after the second screening. In my opinion, this makes more logical sense than the world-coming-to-an-end theory, but I am, of course biased. This is, I think, a slightly more straightforward interpretation of the movie, without the "corruption in the fabric of space and time" mentioned in the one before.

Premise
IF God exists and has preordained time and destiny (fate), then logically, one should be able to jump from one point in time to another because everything (including the future) already exists. Think of your life as a timeline. You don't make it as you go, it's already there... you just need to walk it. But this is only true IF God exists and has created this path for each of us to walk (it's the opposite of existentialism... where we write our future as we go and there isn't a preordained path for us to follow). But does God exist? Because if not, we all die alone.

The World Ending
According to my theory, the end of the world is metaphorical; i.e. the world ending = his death

Notes
The liquid things that come from people's chests seem to indicate that they are the materialization/manifestation of the immediate future, as evidenced by how all the characters seem to follow the paths of these liquid... things. But is that enough to say for sure that God has given us a preordained path?

The Story (or my interpretation of how it ends anyway)
At the party, Donnie Darko makes love to Gretchen (again, unproven but he dies in my theory just as he dies in the first theory so it's still nice to think that they've consummated their love), and concludes that she is his soul mate. But to him, that won't matter if he dies alone. So he goes to the only person he thinks has the answers; the person who told him everyone dies alone in the first place: Roberta Sparrow. The death scenes happen, he sees the portal sucking the jet engine into it, and wakes up, realizing that he's seen the future in a dream. He stays in his room knowing that if (when) the engine crashes through his room, killing him, not only will he save Gretchen, but it will be proof that the future already exists (since the engine comes from the future showing that there is already a preordained path and he's working within God's channel). Therefore, God exists, therefore, he won't die alone.

That's Jon Wong's theory. It makes much more sense to me to look at the movie from that point of view simply because it's an ending you can envision without having to look up details. The first theory presupposes knowledge that the jet engine that crashed through his room the first time was due to a "corruption" and was due to a time portal the second. Oh yeah, and I also thought my theory ran more thoroughly with the quotation: "...what if you could go back in time, and take all those hours of pain and darkness and replace them with something better?" which is probably one of my all time favorite quotations from any film ever.

Hmm, this should be basic math but I want to write it out to make sure I've got it right.

For my Classics final exam, we have been given 12 topics. Under the 12 topics, my prof has written, "The final exam will include 6 of the above topics. You will be asked to choose 3 of the 6 and write an essay on each"

12 topics, out of which she will choose 6, out of which I will have to write upon 3.

If I understand this correctly, I have to prepare myself fully for 9 out of 12 questions... right? Cause if I prepare myself for 6 out of the 12, there's a chance that the 6 on the exam will be the other 6 I did not study. But if I study 9, I am guaranteed, no matter which questions she chooses, to be able to answer at least 3 of them... right?