Monday, August 13, 2012

I'm No Artist #24: Shark Week

I'm No Artist #24: Shark Week 

I wonder if sharks watch Shark Week like we watch the news.  Actually, it's probably more like a British person watching a documentary on the American Revolution...


Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the introduction here: I'm No Artist

Monday, August 6, 2012

I'm No Artist #23: Welcome Back, Walt


I'm No Artist #23: Welcome Back, Walt


To celebrate Walter White's return to television (season 5), I present a mash-up: Breaking Bad meets the Alabama Leprechaun

Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the intro here: I'm No Artist

Monday, July 30, 2012

I'm No Artist #22: The Olympics

I'm No Artist #22: The Olympics


Unfamiliar with the series? Check out the introduction here: I'm No Artist

Monday, July 23, 2012

I'm No Artist #21: My Dog, the Author



I'm No Artist #21: My Dog, the Author

Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the introduction here: I'm No Artist

Monday, July 16, 2012

I'm No Artist #20: Eight



I'm No Artist #20: Eight

Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the intro here: I'm No Artist

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

I'm No Artist #19: Save



I'm No Artist #19: Save

Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the introduction here: I'm No Artist

Monday, July 2, 2012

I'm No Artist #18: Graduation

I'm No Artist #18: Graduation



For those of you who graduated later than others, I dedicate this comic to you.



Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the introduction here: I'm No Artist

Monday, June 25, 2012

I'm No Artist #17: Tie the Noose

I'm No Artist #17: Tie the Noose

Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the introduction here: I'm No Artist

Monday, June 18, 2012

I'm No Artist #16: Father's Day...Sort Of


I'm No Artist #16: Father's Day...Sort Of


(P.S. - This actually was a Father's Day comic until it...fell through.  The words are there, however.  #StarWars)

Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the introduction here: I'm No Artist

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

I'm No Artist #15: 3 Feet

I'm No Artist #15: 3 Feet



Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the introduction here: I'm No Artist

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

I'm No Artist #14: Student Loans

I'm No Artist #14: Student Loans

I really wish this wasn't true...



Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the introduction here: I'm No Artist

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Monthly Thoughts: May 2012

Judge

This is relevant to some of my previous posts, as I've reviewed several energy drinks. Note that Red Bull, my favorite, is apparently little more than an elevated soft drink, while Starbucks coffee is about the same as five Cokes.

Grammar Nazis, unite! I like to read these sorts of articles to test my grammatical meddle more than anything else, and this time I came out a mixed bag. But, commas are a big bugaboo, so really it's worth everyone's time to at least skim through the article.

Old people have a distinct smell, now. Of course, everyone always knew this.

Joker

I want to pitch a TV show to the E! network to be directed by Gene Roddenberry (well, his spirit, RIP), and I want to call it Keeping Up With the Cardassians.

They are doing a lot of telephone-pole construction near my workplace, so I see guys in cherry-pickers all the time. And everytime I want to ask them if anybody ever pays them in Trident Layers...

Do you want me to blow your mind like you've been liberated from The Matrix? I present to you one of the biggest "Can't Unsee" things I know: the FedEx logo.

If you like really neat real-life stories, I highly recommend that of Future Shock, the tale of "Velocity Gnome." It's a real-life story that happened to a random kid from the interwebz that he dictates for all to read. (It starts off sounding like a random, fictional short-story, so I was confused at first, but as you go along it makes more sense as you realize what's happening.) Do yourself a favor and read the entire thing. There's even a video at the end. It is amazing how much time and effort went in to planning it. All in all, it's one of my favorite things I've ever heard about.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

I'm No Artist #13: Atoms

I'm No Artist #13: Atoms


Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the introduction here: I'm No Artist

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Cartoons and Culture Shifts

I wanted to address something that I'd been thinking on some recently. Those who know me (or even those who've read this blog before) will know that I watch cartoons. And not just cartoons geared towards 20-somethings (Seth MacFarlane's shows immediately come to mind), but those cartoons that still make up the bulk of Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon's programming--though I'm well aware that many of their offerings are shifting away from that model and more towards the Disney Model of live-action, "culturally" "diverse" teen dramedies. Granted, much of what I still watch comes down to shows that would have been on when I was the target age, but still (see Spongebob, the show that never dies).

Anyway, I think I initially fell victim to the thought that a lot of us have as we age, that the things we grew up with were "best" and somehow inherently different than those of the younger generation. It's the same logic that leads newspapers to write every couple of years about how the newest generation is the worst one yet. By their count, the Greatest Generation was just that, and by now we're down to young adults who can't tie their shoes. But cheer up Millenials and Gen Yers, in a few decades you can all point at the newest generation coming-of-age and lament how terrible they are. But I digress. This sort of resistance to acceptance of new things beyond our own formative years extends into all aspects of pop culture that we consume, most notably with music but also, as I'm focusing on today, with TV programming.

I like to think I'm somewhat impartial, at least more so than average. So I wanted to give some new cartoons a chance, even though my inclination would be to pshaw on anything that I haven't watched before (one of human nature's biggest ironies is its ability to judge the quality of something without ever having encountered it, apparently). I have to admit that this post is really only about one cartoon in particular, but I like it enough to defend all that is new through this blog. Anyway, that cartoon is The Amazing World of Gumball, found on Cartoon Network. After watching one episode, I actually found I enjoyed it (Step 1: give something new a chance!), and after a few episodes, I found myself wanting to watch as many as I could. It's really very clever and--surprise--not much different from the shows I would have watched growing up (this is a fairly representative clip of the show, for those interested).

The Gumball title sequence
The point of this is twofold. First, shows may change over large periods of time as the culture itself changes (for example, Looney Tunes obviously had a different culture to them than today's shows), but I would argue that the age of the Nicktoon (i.e. 1991 and on) began a new generation of cartoons we still see today, and within that generation cartoons tend to have a certain stylistic similarity. I don't think, on balance, today's cartoons meant for 7-10 year olds are any different than those made in 1993, at least in level of sophistication or general humor. Gumball contains the same number of jokes that are meant for the grown-up audience that Rocko's Modern Life would have had 18 years ago.

Second, I think the bias we all have for things that we grew up with, even when they're substantially similar to things that come about once we're adults is easier to overcome than one may think. Obviously, the longer a person goes without encountering an "update" on a cultural area they knew growing up, the more likely they will be to have severed all connection between the two and simply reject the new version outright (I'd call this the "get off my lawn conflict"). But so long as we occasionally refresh our views of a cultural area during our lives, I think we can maintain the connection with the updated version and appreciate the evolution of the thing, rather than see it as an abrupt change. This is why those of us who grew up with some form of computer technology are not subsequently baffled by new technological developments, even as we reach adulthood and on, rather than suddenly being lost in new technologies as we age. Having maintained that connection as technology progressed allowed us to see the evolution and build on it, rather than suddenly waking up to a whole new world.

Obviously there's a bit of a gap between keeping up with cartoons and keeping up with world technology, but I think the idea is the same. No, you don't all need to quickly watch episodes of Gumball to avoid falling behind in the development of culture (though I do recommend the show), but we should all consider that, while the world does change and generations do have their differences based on the climate of their formative years, most things change in an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, fashion. If we keep an eye on something as it changes, we won't feel so hopelessly lost in our old age (and will potentially avoid the "get off my lawn conflict").

Monday, May 21, 2012

I'm No Artist #12: Write Useless Letters


I'm No Artist #12: Write Useless Letters


Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the introduction here: I'm No Artist

Monday, May 14, 2012

I'm No Artist #11: Color Blind

I'm No Artist #11: Color Blind



Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the intro here: I'm No Artist

Monday, May 7, 2012

I'm No Artist #10: Pet Tree



I'm No Artist #10: Pet Tree



Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the introduction here: I'm No Artist

Friday, May 4, 2012

Some Guys Update

Have you noticed the incredible dearth of posts lately? Yes, there are the weekly "I'm No Artist" posts, but other than that the production has been a little off. I want to assure those of you who actually check the blog on your own volition that we're still here, we're just each individually in a lull period because of other things going on. For myself, I expect to be a more regular contributor again in a week or so. For Joker and Joules, I can't be sure, but I expect Joker will at least cobble together a comic for you once a week, if not more. Joules is hit or miss for a little while.

And to provide a bit of entertainment in this post, here's a GIF of a cat who has trouble with a piece of ham on its face. Enjoy.

Monday, April 30, 2012

Monthly Thoughts: April 2012

Joker:

I don't think any article on CNN should be remotely titled "Was That Guy Hot for My Baby Bump?"  Regardless of it's relevance to the article, I think there's a more professional way to title it.  What's next, a New York Times piece called "144 Ways to Reach That Perfect Summer Bod"?

I'm sorry, but there's a point at which "...but he's a good kid" stops applying; sometimes, at a current moment in time, no, he/she is in fact not a good kid.  "Yeah, he's been in a few fights at school, but he's a good kid.  And I mean, he did get suspended for drug possession, but he really is a good kid.  And he may be having some trouble now in college; actually, he just got arrested for drug trafficking, but he is a good kid at heart.  Well, we got the bail posted, then found out that he stole some money from us (not sure what for), but he's a good kid..."  Honestly, how far is this gonna go?

I've decided the best job I could have would be as a ranch-hand with a donkey...but I do not manure the fields.  So basically I can sit on my ass all day and not do shit.

As a former-cellist and amateur loop-pedalist, I find Zoe Keating impressive and entertaining.

Judge

Over a few days earlier in the week, there was a spate of late night hammer attacks in the Petworth neighborhood of Washington, DC. While that is bizarre on its own, it turns out that the suspect in at least some of the attacks, who was arrested in possession of a claw hammer shortly after police came upon a victim, happens to be the brother of NFL stars Vernon and Vontae Davis.

For those of you who don't follow the NBA (or the Charlotte Bobcats, for which I wouldn't blame you), the Bobcats just finished the worst season in NBA history. I'll let Wikipedia sum up how the season went:
In the lockout-shortened season the Bobcats struggled and posted an NBA-worst record of 7-59, losing their last 23 games of the season. In a nationally televised game against the New York Knicks the Bobcats recorded yet another loss as their win percentage dropped to .106, setting a new record for the worst season by an NBA team in history. Their 23-game losing streak is a franchise record, which broke their previous record of 16 that was set earlier in the year...
It may not be nearly as pronounced as the effects of the burning of fossil fuels, but it appears that wind power generators have their own climate effects, though perhaps just on the micro level. It turns out that, at least in one study, the presence of large wind farms can raise the temperatures at the generators' bases due to the way the windmills move the air.

I don't think I need to say anything more than this: does the NFL Draft really have to take three days now? After the first round, teams take less and less time to make a decision as the rounds go on. I don't expect a lot of people really tune in on day three to see who's getting picked in the last few rounds, anyway.

On a similar note, I was watching SportsCenter after the Draft and they had Todd McShay on there already predicting the standouts for next year's draft! Come on, guys. At least McShay was willing to say he hadn't really even looked at the tape of any of the players that would be coming out next year. The only player he mentioned specifically was Matt Barkley.

I'm No Artist #9: Ant

I'm No Artist #9: Ant


Not familiar with the series?  Check out the introduction here: I'm No Artist

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Review: Rockstar Energy Drink

I'm beginning to wonder whether all energy drink manufacturers come together in order to standardize "energy drink taste" before rolling out a new product, or whether it's something in the taurine, ginseng, and guarana blend that makes them all taste essentially the same. Here, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I said before how I like the taste of Red Bull. While I was less thrilled with the various Monster products, I think Rockstar decided to lean more towards the Red Bull formula. Thus, I like the taste of Rockstar. I'm not entirely sure how to describe the taste, because generally it's hard to describe the taste of a thing without comparing it to something else ("buttery like butter!" "like a candy apple!" "a lot like eating an old dishrag!"). However, I will say it tastes...carbonated, for one (but only "lightly carbonated"). It's a little sugary, but not like drinking a bottle of Mountain Dew. Aside from that, it's just standard energy drink fare. I've created a short flowchart to decide if the taste of Rockstar is something you might like:

1) Have you ever had one of these types of energy drinks before?
          a) If no, then I can't help you. Maybe compare it to soda generally?
2) If yes, did you like the taste of that one (assuming it was the normal flavor, not some crazy alternate variation--I'm looking at Mountain Dew's monthly output of "special editions" here)?
          a) If no, then you won't like this one, I'm sorry.
3) If yes, then you'll probably enjoy this, it's pretty standard.

I hope that was helpful in deciding whether to purchase a Rockstar energy drink the next time you want a bunch of caffeine but don't want coffee. That's really all there is to it.

Verdict: 7/10.

Because that review was so unsatisfying, I thought I would take a moment to comment on the marketing strategies undertaken by all of these energy drink companies. They all seem to cater to extreme sports and guys with flat-billed hats and skater shoes. I suppose caffeine has been linked to increased performance while exercising (just don't overdo it and have your heart beating so fast it can't handle the actual workout), but I feel they may be overdoing it on the "extreme" side. The one area where I appreciate it is in motorsports, because I tend to be a fan. In that area, however, Red Bull seems to dominate, at least among the ones I watch. I suppose Monster and Rockstar sponsor rally events, but Red Bull appears in both NASCAR and Formula 1, even fielding a championship team in the latter. Maybe that's why I like Red Bull the best? Is their advertising subliminally affecting my enjoyment of the beverage? Whatever the case, I wonder what would happen if these energy drink manufacturers tried to go the route of the "Five Hour Energy" deals. The commercials for those "shots" tend to feature working adults who need a boost at the office, rather than a 16-year-old kid para-hangliding off of the side of Taipei 101 (yes, I fabricated that scenario). Does that strategy lead them to be more accepted by those same working adults? Or do they advertise to that demographic because the idea behind the product already appeals to them? I'm not sure which it is.

Monday, April 23, 2012

I'm No Artist #8: Ghost

I'm No Artist #8: Ghost


Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the introduction here: I'm No Artist

Monday, April 16, 2012

I'm No Artist #7: Diamonds

I'm No Artist #7: Diamonds


Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the introduction here: I'm No Artist

Saturday, April 14, 2012

It Was A [Regular] Day in April...

I just finished reading George Orwell's dystopic novel 1984.  Now, I know what you're thinking, but I promise: I'm not a high school junior.  I just never read it when I was in high school, so I figured I might as well do it now and see what our future was like 28 years ago.  It's a shame though - after having read it, I really want to write a 5 page essay comparing Orwell's vision of the future to that of Joseph Conrad in Heart of Darkness.  (Double-spaced with at least three references, of course.)  Unfortunately, I doubt anyone would want to read that.  (Perhaps I should narrow my dating pool to naught but English teachers.)

Big Brother is watching you.

If you're unfamiliar with the novel, then I recommend you go back to school and get your GED because come on, serioulsy?

Kidding.  Just check the Wikipedia.  In essence: dystopian future, freedom of all kinds is suppressed, the ruling class ["the Party"] knows and controls all.  (But seriously, read the book, it's plusgood.)

Obviously our society has not (yet) fallen into such a dystopic state as predicted warned by the novel.  The validity of Orwell's concerns is not really what I want to discuss, though - again, I'm sure you had enough of that in your English classes.  What I want to discuss (-ish) is the new diction/language in the novel's society called Newspeak.  It is basically the Party's attempt to be more in control by actually limiting the vocabulary, making every word have one specific meaning and eliminating "unnecessary" words.  Also, using combinations of the fewer words to replace "eliminated" words, such as good is "good" and ungood is "bad" and plusgood is "great/excellent/superb/awesome".  By eliminating words (or changing their meaning), concepts such as freedom and liberty and anything anti-Party eventually will disappear from the lexicon and thus from ideology/thought in general.  Everyone will be a goodthinker.  (It would be very helpful if you read this appendix on Newspeak that Orwell included in the novel.) 

One such word I really like is doublethink, and it basically means to hold two contradictory ideas in your head, but accept them both as true.

I never knew there was a word for this concept, but it's something I'm sure we all do in one instance or another.  Personally, I've been doing it in one very specific case for quite some time; a necessity to my happiness and positive outlook on the world.  I'm, of course, referring to the ultimate Jurassic Park gaffe.  You know the one: at first, the T-Rex paddock has a ground that is level with the car-path outside.  However, the T-Rex bursts through the fencing, stepping from one ground to the other, and yet a mere minute later when he flips the car off the track and into the paddock...suddenly the paddock floor is a hundred feet down, as seen by the car free-falling down into a tree, and Grant/Lexi scaling down the wall on a long cable.

When I first was made aware to this rather large mistake, I had two reactions.  One: I'm an idiot for not noticing this earlier since it's one of my favorite movies that I've seen a thousand times.  And two: damn you interwebz for destroying my happiness at the glory that is Jurassic Park!  My world was marred for while and I felt jilted.  However, I soon resolved to not let that alter my perception of the movie, so I started actively accepting the contradictory ideas - not creating excuses/reasons for the faux-pas, but simply believing one or the other when it was necessary/convenient.  Doublethink.

[Pro-tip: this movie, along with many of your other favorites, is rife with mistakes - if you want to remain innocent and happy with the films, please do not seek out their mistakes.  It will make you doubleplusungood.  Ignorance is bliss.]

Real quick: another interesting concept from the novel, somewhat akin to doublethink, is the fact that the Party literally rewrites the past to make it fit with the current state of events/ideas/etc of the present.  (Another means of control, showing the Party is always right and painting them in a good light at all times.)  They perpetrate this via the doublethink-ly titled "Ministry of Truth."

Now I'm not saying that our government does this or anything.  It's simply that I just recently saw an article about how unemployment was at a low, when I swear I had just seen one that said it was at a high.  Same with new job creation.  Pretty much anything to do with economics or politics.  Again, I don't think our government is perpetrating any grand-scale hoodwink on us - I'm just admitting that I am woefully ignorant with certain current event topics.  Maybe I wouldn't mind a Party doing all my thinking for me.



Fun facts!:

-The title of this post references 1984's infamous opening line, "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."  But today was just a regular April day.

-The basic purpose and ideology behind Newspeak are somewhat akin to the Esperanto language.  They just differ in vocabulary and that pesky "we're doing this to control you" vibe that Newspeak has.  (Gratuloj, vi povas legi esperanto!)

-The Bad Religion song "Boot Stamping on a Human Face Forever" gets it title from a line in 1984: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."  Powerful imagery.

-If you're feeling pretentious and/or rebellious, there's this fun poster.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

When is a Family Guy Joke Canon?

I've always been interested in the the field of canon as a part of a story or series that has an ongoing development schedule. I think the easiest way to think of this is a seasons-long TV series where each episode tells an individual, generally unrelated story, while overall maintaining some semblance of linearity in the characters' development. Another area where this is highly visible is in video game series' where the user is given some level of choice in outcomes from event to event. If the exploits of that character are referred to in subsequent games, the developers must either stick only to events that they required the player to complete (hence, canon), or else risk the possibility of creating canon out of something that didn't necessarily happen to a particular player in a particular game.

Focusing on the development of canon in a TV series, this concern occurs most often, as far as I can tell, in comedies, particularly animated ones (I'm looking at shows like Family Guy, Futurama, and I suppose non-animated shows such as Seinfeld). Each of these shows has a general character development timeline throughout the series. In essence, there is a linear backstory to the character that develops on each character both through revelations made during various episodes and through certain events within episodes that the writers decide will become part of the character's, and hence the series', canon. Here arises the distinction between canon and non-canon within episodes.

As a small example, I will use Family Guy situations because it's a great example of the seemingly arbitrary distinction between what becomes canon and what is ignored. Because Family Guy consists of both "cut away" jokes and plot-based, situational jokes, each provides an opportunity to either create or ignore canon. As a rough rule, "cut away" jokes tend to not become canon, and often can ignore past canon in making the joke. A good example is where Peter is shown in Vietnam during the Vietnam war, dressed as a clown. Peter is somewhere between 43 and 44 years old, and so would have been too young to serve during the time of the Vietnam War.

This age discrepancy is actually a running issue throughout the series, as well as with many other animated shows that don't show characters aging (an example of the rare story where animated characters do age is the comic strip, For Better or For Worse). In Family Guy, the lack of aging becomes an issue that requires the suspension of disbelief as the series progresses. Two of the most egregious examples consist of Stewie being perpetually one year old, and Bonnie Swanson being pregnant "for like six years." Both situations are referenced by other characters at some point in the series--Stewie, when Brian asks him why he still has a stuffed animal and is surprised to hear Stewie is still one, and Bonnie when Peter calls her out for having a six-year pregnancy. However, these age impossibilities are still canonical, as each is an element that transcends individual episodes and becomes part of the show's fabric. I wonder, though, how they can fit together, as Bonnie having a child who becomes a functioning baby would seem to conflict with Stewie never aging (though he does at one point have his first birthday). This concern is better left for another post, however.

Returning to the distinction between plot-based jokes and cut away jokes, even when a plot-based joke appears to be believable and likely to transcend the specific episode in which it occurs, often it is not later referenced in any way, leaving it up to the viewer to guess whether it was indeed made canon or not. To contrast, often cutaways are easy to spot when they are non-canonical because they involve an outrageous situation that is impossible to reconcile with an ongoing story (such as when a main character dies in the scene). However, when something that occurs in a cutaway is plausible, but very unlikely to occur, it is more questionable.

A few things that occur in episodes and become canon later on are, for example, Kevin Swanon's presumed death in Iraq (which is later made into a plotline in an episode, where Kevin miraculously returns unharmed). His participation in the Iraq War was only briefly noted in an single episode, but is cemented as Family Guy canon when he returns. Another is the death of several secondary (but recurring) characters in the episode, And Then There Were Fewer, which are later confirmed (mostly through the simple fact that they are no longer in the show). As a further tidbit, James Woods, who was one of the victims in the episode, later returns in another episode, attributing his apparent resurrection to medical science and his status as a famous actor. This canonical fact in itself illustrates the distinction I'm trying to make. Had the deaths in And Then There Were Fewer not been canon, no reference would have been made in the later appearance, because non-canon events don't need to be referenced, and often aren't allowed to be, by definition. The simple fact of an explanation for James Woods' return in a subsequent episode stamps the events in the earlier episode as "canon" in the Family Guy story.

Tracking the differences between jokes that produce canon and those that don't is difficult without explicit references later on. Are we to believe that Peter has had dozens of jobs in recent years outside of the few that are certainly canonical (Happy-Go-Lucky Toys, Pawtucket Patriot brewery, even freelance fisherman for a period)? Did Stewie and Brian really fight in the Iraq War?

I think that because a lot of the situations are far-fetched and seemingly disjointed, it makes the determination of what is canon and what is not all the more interesting. Peter probably has not actually been addicted to the various hard drugs that we see him face throughout the series, but we are to believe he has repeatedly destroyed the front of Cleveland's house, as well as many other structures (as his propensity for mayhem was referenced in an episode where a contractor asks Lois whether she had any house repair needs in a given week). The suspension of disbelief and the distinction between what is "real" and what is simply for extended comedic effect are difficult concepts to reconcile, but they make shows of this type more interesting to piece together beyond the simple entertainment of an episode.

In essence, the problem with canon vs. non-canon helps this kind of show. On one hand, those who have never seen it can pick it up in a given episode and follow along with near-full entertainment (in contrast to heavily storied shows where a new viewer must be clued in to every relationship and scenario in order to understand much of anything); and on the other, a seasoned viewer can pick up on nuances and subtle character-background developments that are referenced, left up to that viewer to determine whether it is canonical or else used simply for entertainment value at that moment, to make a joke work.

I'm going to leave this discussion here, with TV shows, rather than carry on into the video game series examples. Long posts can get tedious, and I would likely double the length of this one if I continued. Perhaps I'll address it in a later post.

Monday, April 9, 2012

I'm No Artist #6: Ninja

I'm No Artist #6: Ninja



Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the introduction here: I'm No Artist


Thursday, April 5, 2012

Twelve Songs in Twelve Months

I thought it would be interesting to do a short piece on songs that incorporate months into their titles, whether or not they're truly about those months at all. For example, March and May are both about subjects other than the months themselves (March is about the act of marching, while May is about a woman). I also wanted to keep each artist to one showing, but I failed with Counting Crows, because I couldn't overlook "A Long December" and had trouble finding a good August song.

"January Wedding" by The Avett Brothers

"February Song" by Josh Groban

"Marchin' On" by OneRepublic

"April in Paris" performed by Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong

"Maggie May" by Rod Stewart

"June Hymn" by The Decemberists

"1000 Julys" by Third Eye Blind

"August and Everything After" by Counting Crows

"September" by Ryan Adams

"October" by U2

"Come November" by Thriving Ivory

"A Long December" by Counting Crows


Honorable Mentions:

The Avett Brothers could have also gotten credit for "November Blue" and "Denouncing November Blue (Uneasy Writer)". November was a tough month all around, with "November" by Trampled by Turtles also receiving recognition for being one of my favorite bluegrassy songs.

The Avett Brothers are big on using months in their songs--I also considered including "Sixteen in July".

I also wanted to note several artists I've listened to over the years with months in their names: Making April, Until June, Blue October, The Early November, and of course The Decemberists (who received credit for "June Hymn" but also could have gotten in with "July, July!" There are undoubtedly more artists that fit the criteria, but I only wanted to include those I'm most familiar with, and this isn't meant to be comprehensive.

Monday, April 2, 2012

I'm No Artist #5: March Madness

I'm No Artist #5: March Madness


Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the intro here: I'm No Artist

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Monthly Thoughts: March 2012

New monthly series, people: last day of each month will now be Monthly Thoughts day.  A day in which we recount our random thoughts from the preceding month.  So here's what crossed our minds in March:

Joker

I feel that getting a tattoo on your face is essentially saying, "I don't want a job that requires a college degree."

Zero to hero in no time flat?  Dan Brown's first three books - Digital Fortress, Angels & Demons, Deception Point - printed less than 10,000 copies each in their first printings.  Then The Da Vinci Code came out, hit the NYT Best Seller list in one week, and sold 81 million copies over 6 years.  81 million!  No wonder all of his books now say, "From the author who brought you The Da Vinci Code..."

I saw a guy dressed as the Statue of Liberty advertising tax service as "Fast.  Accurate.  Fun."  Fun?  Really?

I want to write a rap song about a steel-worker, just so I can use the line, "I got hot-ass swag / I got hot-ash slag"

Dear Taco Bell, I hear that it is pronounced the "five buck box."  However, your sign has printed "$5 buck box" which is technically pronounced "Five dollar buck box."  So make up your mind.

Prediction for the (hilarious) TV show Community: Since each season is one year at college, if they make it past season 4, ie, their 4th year, Jeff will have earned his needed degree.  I predict something will happen such that he is disbarred for X-amount of time and will grudgingly take a job as a law professor at Greendale.  Go Human Beings!  (I don't know what will happen with the rest of the cast - perhaps there will be a tragic accident or a strike of Greendale's administration and they will all take office/administration jobs there.  Or Shirley will open her bakery there.  And Troy coaches the football team.)

Judge

A concept art screenshot of Maxis' new SimCity title
Maxis (EA) is releasing a new SimCity game in 2013. I'm a big fan of simulation/strategy/design/management games, and so I'm obviously looking forward to it. A few of the more touted features are 'curvy' roads (rather than just grids and slants) and a new gameplay engine that appears to be incredibly realistic. City planners in training rejoice!

If you haven't already, check out Famous Paintings Improved by Cats. Though they're all pretty clever, my favorite is the first one, the Mona Lisa, if only because I could totally see her holding a cat like that during a portrait.

While I'm sure everyone is familiar with (sick of) tilt-shift pictures and videos, I found this series to be very interesting. The videos are all of high production value and use some clever scenes to get the viewer really into the "real world-as-miniature" focus.

The first game of the Major League Baseball 2012 season occurred Wednesday (morning) in Japan. It answered the question "if a season starts in a foreign country at 5am ET, and no one is around to watch it--does it really happen?" The answer is that, yes, it happened, but it sure didn't make a sound. Not only did the game between the Athletics and Mariners go largely unnoticed in the U.S., but the league immediately resumed pre-season play for the rest of the teams. Even more bizarrely, the rest of the regular season doesn't occur until April 4, when the Cardinals play the Marlins on "Opening Night." I'm sure there was a reason for the first series to take place a week in advance of the true season opening, but I'm not sure what it is.

Joules

On my way to work one day I stopped at a gas station (as I do every day) to pick up a couple of bottles of Gold Peak sweet tea to get me through the day.  However, on this particular morning they had run out of the sweet tea, but filled that empty row with the Gold Peak green tea from the adjacent two rows.  I guess this strategy is meant to confuse me and make me believe that there never was, in fact, any sweet tea in that spot, and that I must be going crazy.

On the rare occasion when I have trouble falling asleep, I go here and let the gentle voice of Mister Rogers lull me to sleep like a glass of warm milk.  In one particular episode (Sharing Can Be Hard), the concept of sharing is (obviously) emphasized, but Mister Rogers digs a little deeper and states that "Everybody has some things that they shouldn't have to share...If it's extra special to you, that's something that you shouldn't have to share."  In a society where seemingly everything we say/do is considered "politically incorrect," this sort of gray-area message is a breath of fresh air and reinforces the subjective nature of society that many like to sweep under the rug.  Not everything is a black-and-white right-or-wrong issue, and if everyone would look at issues from others' perspectives in addition to their own, the world would be much more intelligent for the experience.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

The Time Travel Fallacy, part 3

This is the third article in a mini-series on time travel. To read the first two articles click here and here.


Issue 3: What happens to a person who time travels?

There are two main questions I want to look at with regard to a time traveler's person. First, how does one's body time travel? This is much like the question of how one can teleport, as bodies are broken up into pieces of matter or energy and reassembled upon arrival--is the person who arrives the same as the one who embarked? And second, assuming the person remains the same after travel, what does the differing passage of time do to the traveler? Not only does time pass more slowly the faster one is traveling, but the process of time travel would mean that one who spends significant time in the past would return to the present measurably older than he left.

Now this is starting to get ridiculous...
Starting with bodily effects of time travel, the result would depend on what manner of travel is used. There are two main methods I can think of: travel by vehicle that moves beyond the speed of light and travel by "teleporting through time" in a stationary (or sometimes rotating) machine. While I can feasibly see the vehicle method resulting no physical changes in the traveler, I am more skeptical about the results of travel by teleportation.

As I understand it, such time travel involves the traveler being teleported from a particular place and time to another. I'm not sure how such a machine would accomplish the "time" portion of the teleportation, because it seems most theories of time travel require massive physical velocities to accomplish the slowing and reversal of time. Nevertheless, let's assume it's possible to be instantaneously zapped from one time to another. Even so, how does that work? Because such teleportation requires the disassembling and reassembling of matter at the molecular level, it would seem reasonable that--even if the same human form emerges on the other side, it would not be the same body of consciousness. In other words, outside observers would see the same person (and for all intents and purposes it would be the same person), but the consciousness and awareness that exists in that body would be different.

To break it down further, think of a person as an "original." When the atoms that make up that original are teleported, they must, theoretically, be broken down into energy (or at least to the smallest atomic structures possible). The thinking is that you can't pass a 160 lb. person through time and space in its entirety. Then, the body is reassembled on the other side (this would be the work of a retrieval machine that has scanned and stored the structural data of the traveler, e.g. the Transporter in Star Trek). In essence, the time traveler is scanned in the copy machine at the take-off point and printed out at the destination in another time and place.

Here we come across the troubling question: who is this "printed" person? I have to believe that consciousness can't travel across time in the form of atoms or energy in the way that a body can. If this is true, the person arriving would have the mental knowledge, wherewithal, and capabilities of the original, but it would not be the original in the true sense. This is of little consequence to the outside world, because your friend Dave would still be Dave--he remembers your trip to Vancouver, can still recite the Shakespeare he learned in college, and has the same character and personality traits as Dave has always had. But the original  "consciousness of Dave" is now gone. This may not matter to the larger world, but to the original Dave it's a pretty big deal!

Putting aside this concern, let's look briefly at the effect of the passage of time on the time traveler. We already know that time passes more slowly the faster something is traveling--at least, relative to its slower-moving counterparts. This has been observed in astronauts who spend large amounts of time aboard the International Space Station, who are a few seconds younger than they would have been on Earth during that span. Consequently, it seems reasonable to believe that a time traveler would age significantly slower during his travel, relative to time's passage on Earth. Because time travel theoretically requires movement beyond the speed of light, it would exhibit the ISS effect to the extreme.

However, what about one who spends time in another era? Presumably they would age at the normal rate of a being at rest in that time (that is, they would age at a 1:1 ratio with what is standard on Earth, if that's where they are). However, their age upon return depends entirely on (1) how long they were in that other era, and (2) what time they choose to return to, relative to their departure time. This second point means that  a person who spends a few years in another time and then returns to his contemporary time at even the exact moment he left will suddenly appear much older. Taken to the extreme, someone who chooses to return sometime before he left will compound the effect and age before he left.

As far as I can imagine, this aging phenomenon will only go one direction--forward. So time travel for long periods of time would become an "at your own risk" scenario, where one would essentially choose to live his live at normal speed and time in his contemporary age, or spend time traveling throughout the years. The more time travel a person undergoes, the less time he will have to spend in his contemporary time due to the ongoing aging. This doesn't account for the time slowing effects of extremely fast travel in a time machine that actually moves. However, even in such a case, the person will age once he reaches his time destination. That aging can't be undone, no matter when he chooses to return to the present.

In sum, it seems that time travel is a risky proposition for the one doing the traveling, even if all of the possible kinks are worked out. I'm not sure that I would volunteer for such a trip.

Monday, March 26, 2012

I'm No Artist #4: The Hipster Tributary

I'm No Artist #4: The Hipster Tributary


Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the intro here: I'm No Artist

Friday, March 23, 2012

Selective Memory

The other day I was doing some long-distance driving for a job interview, and so I plugged in my iPod as I always do during extensive drives to pass the time.  Eventually my shuffling playlist played a few songs by the Moody Blues, and I was instantly transported back to my childhood summers.  I remembered my dad playing those songs on the stereo during warm summer days, all the windows in the house thrown open to invite a cross-breeze, the music mixing with the sounds of neighborhood lawn mowers and weed whackers as the background ambiance for my brother's and my Pokemon battles and plans to explore the neighborhood creek.


I snapped out of my nostalgic trance just in time to keep from rear-ending the driver in front of me, but the fibers of that memory remained at the forefront of my mind, and I started to wonder: Why would my brain conjure that particular set of memories when listening to those songs?  Especially considering that I've listened to those same songs so many other times, and in so many different settings.  Obviously, hearing these songs in warm weather (such as yesterday) would evoke flashbacks of similar warm weather events of my childhood, but what about the other seasons of the year?  I had listened to the same songs in the cold weather during my childhood, but when listening to them as an adult, even in the dead of winter, I continue to reminisce about the summers I grew up with.  Admittedly, my memories of childhood summers trump just about all others, but how could that association be so strong as to convince my senses that I am not driving or cleaning or shovelling snow, but rather playing games with my brother on a warm, breezy summer afternoon.

Everyone has a favorite memory or memories, and to an objective listener, the events may not seem like anything worth remembering.  But for the person to whom these memories belong, there are indescribable and subtle nuances that comprise its entirety, and the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts.  To you, reader, the memory I've recounted here may appear to be simply that of boring, uneventful summer days.  But I remember it as days of bonding with my brother, sharing in the musical tastes of my father, and most of all, enjoying the freedom represented by all the sights, sounds, and smells of summer.  That association is strong enough to bring those summer memories flooding back with only the slightest of stimuli (i.e. listening to the Moody Blues).  Now that I have a nine-to-five job and no longer enjoy such freedom in the summertime, I can recall memories like this as a constant reminder of the childhood, and more generally, the life that I have been blessed with.

Please feel free to post your own associative memories in the comments below, we'd love to hear from our readers!

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Review: Taco Bell's Doritos Locos Taco


Mmm

Heroes in a half shell!  Wait, that's Ninja Turtles.  Tacos in a half-Dorito shell!  Similar, but Michael Bay isn't trying to ruin the latter.  (Although, the Doritos Locos is like an explosion in my mouth - Michael Bay style - so again, similar enough.)

In case you haven't heard yet, the Doritos Locos taco is real, and it's exactly what it sounds like.  It is a regular Taco Bell taco supreme* (ground beef, lettuce, cheese, tomato*, sour cream*) in a shell coated in Doritos cheese-dust (original flavor, Nacho Cheese).  I guess it's "Locos" because it's so crazy of an idea!  And it rhymes!!

The taco itself is point number one in it's favor - it's a taco supreme (which I prefer), so you have a better basic taco to begin with, and also more flavors for the Doritos to interact with.  Particularly the 'smoothness' of the sour cream playing off the [slightly] tangy/'biting' cheese-dust.

As far as price goes?  It's not too bad I suppose.  Honestly I don't remember - I got it in the Doritos Locos 5 buck box - but let's be serious...this is Taco Bell, you can go in with $5 and dine like a king.

My biggest fear was that the Dorito taste would be too overpowering.  Fortunately, they managed to balance that out just right - the shell isn't exactly a Nacho Dorito chip.  Like I mentioned above, it has a "cheese-dust" on it that reflects a Dorito, but it's not quite as powerful.  [It's different than their volcano taco since the volcano is strong and spicy and your tastebuds are much more focused on that than the other ingredients of the taco.  It can be a little overwhelming.  (Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the volcano taco, too.)]  That's fortunate for two reasons.  One, you don't want it so strong that you think you're just eating Doritos as a side with your taco - ie, two strong and different flavors that don't mix.  You want the taste of Dorito to be a supplement to the taco, there to enhance your taco experience.  And it does.  And two, I think that the Doritos taste can be too much to handle in large quantities.  I can only eat so many Doritos before I start to feel a little queasy.  Fortunately, you can order multiples of this taco if you so desire: you'll be full due to the taco-ness well before your system would start rejecting the Dorito flavor.

All in all, this is a positive addition to the Taco Bell menu.  If you're a fan of Taco Bell in general, give it a shot.  Is this the end-all be-all of tacos?  No.  Is it a good addition to the Taco Bell line-up and your repertoire of go-to menu items?  Yes.  We'll see how long it lasts.

So there you have it, a quick overview of the Doritos Locos taco.  Recommended by myself and some random twitter-ers on the box/cup. 

Now your Taco Bell experience can be: Come for the Doritos Locos, stay for the food-to-price ratio (so good, so cheap!).  (Leave with the Taco Bell-exclusive Baja Blast Mountain Dew.)

And to let you know: as a basis for my review, I am grading it as a taco, as compared to other tacos / Taco Bell items.  Not as a stand alone food against every other edible out there, because surely it pales in comparison to steaks and pastas, etc.  (Well, I suppose that's dependent upon the level of a certain illicit drug in your system.)

So, to recap:
Positives: taco supreme, good taste / good flavor blend, not overwhelmingly Dorito-y, not too expensive. 
Negatives: I don't know...it has a tendency to break apart, but what hard taco doesn't?  And it gets your fingers cheesy.  I just don't like giving out perfect scores - sorry every professor I ever had.

Verdict: 8 out of 10

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

The Time Travel Fallacy, part 2

This is the second part of a multi-part series on time travel, posted weekly on Tuesdays. For part 1, click here.

A sequel? Well, all right...
Now that we've discussed the problem with time travel's effects on reality and events, I'd like to move on to the issue of why no one has ever been outed as a time traveler. (I think the closest we've come is Nicolas Cage, the immortal / time-traveler).  Are time travelers that stealthy? What's the deal? Without further ado, let's dive in.

Issue 2: If time travel were possible, we would have already encountered travelers at some point in history.

This one is pretty easy to wrap your head around, even if its implications are pretty far-reaching. If, at some future time, humans gain the ability to time travel, why have there been no confirmed (or as far as I know, officially reported) instances of encounters with time travelers? One could easily imagine a situation where someone heads back in time and is unable to hide their identity as a future-person, thus tipping off those of us in the past. For instance, if future time travel becomes a new recreational activity (like the time vacations that are so common in the future in Family Guy), it would seem inevitable that someone would slip up and let the cat out of the bag. Because this has never happened, it leads to one of three possible results:

     (1) time travelers have been unfailingly diligent in covering their tracks,
     (2) time travelers have rarely to never visited a time in which humans exist, or
     (3) time travel simply is not possible.

I would argue that possibility (3) is the most likely on this list. The chances that no one will ever slip up while time traveling is all but impossible, even if authorities are somehow able to restrict its use to "official, non-commercial use only," like the military tries to do with a lot of groundbreaking new technologies today. Only an outright ban on all time travel (before it even begins to be used) will prevent a foul up in traveling to the past. Possibility (2) is also very unlikely, because the thought of traveling to times in which past, historically recorded events have occurred is essentially the main draw to the ability to time travel. There is very limited utility in only traveling to times in which trilobites roamed free and humans were millions of years in the future.

This list of possibilities ignores the possibility that is always looming in the margins of such things: that the answer is "we can't comprehend it with current understandings." I'm willing to accept that as a possibility, it just doesn't make for a very interesting discussion. Perhaps there is some future technology that renders it impossible to unmask a time traveler, or perhaps there is some aspect of the time travel process that perfectly disguises the fact of travel. But while that is possible, remember that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. And in our case, the simplest explanation is that, given the concerns above, time travel is not possible.

I recognize that an argument could be made that relates the fact that no one has verifiably encountered aliens. The gist would be that, the above scenario, when applied to alien encounters would essentially mean that there are no intelligent life forms on other planets. That is a logic leap I am less willing to make for a few reasons. First, there is a difference between the two subjects because aliens would travel (presumably) in their contemporary time, so there's nothing that says we would have to have already encountered them if they are out there. Think: if they are progressing technologically at the same rate as humans (from the same starting point), we would not have encountered them at this point because we have not been able to travel intergalactically ourselves.

If he can become a flaming skeleton, time travel's a cinch.
The other key difference is the application of Occam's Razor. In the time travel situation, it is indeed simpler to say we have not encountered time travelers because time travel is not possible. But with regard to aliens, the unimaginable vastness of space tilts the scale, leading me to believe that the simplest explanation (which is usually the right one) is that we haven't encountered visitors because (1) we haven't expanded our own universal footprint enough to find them ourselves and (2) there is simply a lot of empty space out there.


To summarize: if time travel is possible, where are the travelers? Is Nicolas Cage the only one who has been allowed access to time travel? Or is he the only one who (may have) slipped up? I suppose we just don't know (yet).

Monday, March 19, 2012

I'm No Artist #3: Zoo

I'm No Artist #3: Zoo

Unfamiliar with the series?  Check out the introduction here: I'm No Artist

Saturday, March 17, 2012

St. Procrastination's Day

Happy St. Patrick's Day everybody!  Of all the holidays out there, this is definitely one of them.  So instead of boring you with a Wikipedia-rewrite of today's history, I'm going to talk about something more interesting.  And that topic is: procrastination!

I know you're expecting me to say, "So let's talk about procrastination...some other day."  And then ending the article.  I, too, had that initial thought.  However, I did not want to rob you of this fascinating, hopefully-educational post.  (Also, I've already been working on it staring at it for a few weeks now, so, self-fulfilling prophecy or something.)

Caption, to be determined

If you're wondering what procrastination means, but don't feel like looking it up...well, there you go.

Procrastination is putting off something until later.  "Why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?" is how the (twisted) saying goes.  The word is generally meant to have a negative connotation: it's being lazy, not taking initiative/action, dilly-dallying, avoiding responsibility, etc, etc.  However, for you cockeyed optimists, consider it a biological mechanism that allows us to truly prioritize our lives, and see what's really important to us - like video games and Pawn Stars reruns, as opposed to homework and job applications.

Of course, those aren't really what's most important, but we still choose to do these menial things over other, more truly important tasks.  There's a thousand reasons / excuses why we procrastinate.  Perhaps it's an internal fear of failure for that important task, or truly not knowing what to do / where to start, thus forcing yourself at a later date to make a decision because you have no time left.  No time to weigh this option versus that one, just choose.  Putting yourself in desperation / survival mode.  Or perhaps it's true laziness.

Sometimes it turns out alright, sometimes it doesn't.  And I'm not condoning procrastination, but I'm not going to castigate you for it either.  It's something we all do.  Just, some more so than others.  However, everyone who does procrastinate always realizes  - after the fact - that perhaps it wasn't the best decision that could've been made.  But hindsight is 20/20.  You want to learn from your mistakes.  You want to do better.  But you can't quite overcome that mental barrier, despite all your past failures and disappointments.

So are you doomed to procrastinate forever?

No!  Fear not, friends!  Over the years I have found a way to combat procrastination, and it doesn't require you to be any less lazy!  I know, at first it sounds akin to the diets/pills that allow you to (healthily) lose weight with no exercise, no nutritional guidelines, eating what you want / when you want, and no surgery.  But it's not, I promise.  I see it as something more similar to "the bigger they are, the harder they fall," or using your opponent's size against him.  Un/willingly forcing yourself to be more responsible.  Yes, ladies and gentleman, I'm talking about battling your procrastination...with more procrastination.

[Whoa, did you just feel that?  That was me rocking your world.]

Yes, the best way I've found to force myself to do something is to come up with another task I want to do even less.  Procrastinate something so much, that you actually have to do something to keep up the procrastination.  At first glance that may just sound like a quip, or a "surface-level" solution that actually holds no water upon further scrutiny.  However, it is a tried-and-true method for me.  For example, back in college, if I had to do laundry, I wouldn't be motivated to do so by the overflowing dirty clothes basket - simply pick that which smells less pungent.  Rather, I'd remind myself that I have a paper due in 3 days, and I should really be working on that.  I need to do research, type up an outline...nah...I really need to do laundry, I'll work on that paper later.  Boom!  Two hours later, laundry is done.

Now I know you're thinking, "OK, I guess that works for small tasks.  But eventually you'll run out of larger / more imposing tasks to put off as time goes on."  Well, that's the beauty of this system: it actually works "circularly" and not linearly.  You don't need a more daunting task to make you do a (relatively) smaller task - you can get the larger task done by procrastinating the smaller task(s).  It may take multiple smaller tasks combined to be imposing enough to force you to do the larger task, but it will work: "Gah, I really need to do laundry, but I really don't want to.  And I should finish that book and return it to the library.  And vacuum my room.  Oh yeah, I have that paper due in a few days that I could be working on..."  Bam!  Two days later, you finish your paper!  Admittedly, it was awkward going to the library to print it while wearing a Christmas sweater, swim trunks and your girlfriend's pink toe socks.  But the paper got done, and that's what's important here.

So there you are.  A method to help battle procrastination using the ammunition you already have.  So please, use this system to your advantage.  If there's something you really should be doing, but can't un-procrastinate quick enough, just start procrastinating a thousand other things, and somehow that first task will get done.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

Congratulations!  You've made it to the end of the article - you are not a (complete) procrastinator!  To bring this post full-circle, seeing as how it is St. Patrick's Day, I'd be remiss if I didn't ask you, "Who all seen da leprechaun, say yeeeaahhh."