I was thinking a while ago about doing one of these, and I think I will. In about four hours, 2007 will be gone and 2008 arrived (in this timezone, at least.) With the passing of the year, I think back to what I've achieved, and what I have left to do.
This year I:
Graduated from high school
Started college
Finished the IB program and got a diploma
Started this blog
Read an amazing number of books
Held down three jobs
Joined the Colby College Chorale
Next year I will:
Have a radio show (streaming live online, website link to follow eventually)
Continue college
Keep this blog
My New Years Resolution:
To live life to the fullest. (Seems like an ambiguous cop-out resolution sometimes, but I'm sticking to it.)
Happy New Year, everybody!
Monday, December 31, 2007
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Bravo, I suppose
Just finished with the Giants-Patriots football game. Glad the NFL Network decided to let it be seen after all. Why on both NBC and CBS, though?
Of course, the result is more important than the broadcasting networks. I suppose a congratulatory comment is due to the now 16-0 New England Patriots, so here goes: Congratulations.
Sorry if I couldn't muster much enthusiasm. If you'll recall, I don't particularly like the Patriots, and I thought for much of the game that the Giants (yay!) would win. Sadly, they wasted lots of time on their last scoring drive, and kicked the onside right into the Patriots' hands. Final score: 38-35 Pats, and a great game despite the outcome. Both teams are in the playoffs, and we just might see them play each other again. Maybe.
Of course, the result is more important than the broadcasting networks. I suppose a congratulatory comment is due to the now 16-0 New England Patriots, so here goes: Congratulations.
Sorry if I couldn't muster much enthusiasm. If you'll recall, I don't particularly like the Patriots, and I thought for much of the game that the Giants (yay!) would win. Sadly, they wasted lots of time on their last scoring drive, and kicked the onside right into the Patriots' hands. Final score: 38-35 Pats, and a great game despite the outcome. Both teams are in the playoffs, and we just might see them play each other again. Maybe.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Yet more randomness
I've been rather prolific lately...it may have something to do with the glut of free time that winter break translates to. Of course, I'll have far too much free time in January as well, but at least then I'll be at school, with complimentary distractions.
Today I introduce you to the fascinating world of dorm life at Colby, using my own experience. The basic (weekday) schedule is as follows:
1. Wake up. This could be at any time, but during the week generally occurs at about 7 or 7:15.
2. Shower. My room is pretty much in the middle of the building, so I leave in pajamas, walk past four rooms, head to the bathroom. Waking up at 7 in the morning has its perks: I hardly ever have to share the bathroom. It also means that there are very few witnesses to my towel-wrapped walk back to my room.
3. Get dressed. Quickly, because the room is cold. Once shivering has stopped, pack the backpack and load up the pockets, because we're headed outside.
4. Breakfast. Choose from any of our three dining halls: Dana, Foss, or Roberts (Bobs). Generally Bobs is good for breakfast, as it's closest to the dorm.
5. Class. In the event that waking up did not occur right at 7, it is likely that the previous step of breakfast will have been skipped, and I will have proceeded directly to class. Class will then take up the morning.
6. Lunch. Usually at Bobs, but occasionally Dana or Foss. In the coming semester, there will be very little time for lunch. My schedule on Mondays and Wednesdays will begin at 9 and end at 6 and 4 respectively. Breaks? I don't need no stinkin' breaks!
7. Work/Lab. Again, this will probably be changing next semester. I work at the campus bookstore, doing things like shelving product, doing inventory checks, and receiving shipped items. The fun, it never ends. Or I could be in bio or chem lab. Also fun.
8. Chorale. On Mondays and Thursdays, 4-6. Non-sarcastic fun. Chorale is one of my favorite things about Colby, and I can't wait to go on tour.
9. Dinner. Usually Dana, occasionally Foss. If I can help it, not Bobs, which is truly terrible for dinner.
10. Fun. Usually playing cards/hanging out downstairs. If there's an exam coming up, I study. The wonderful thing about two sciences, math and a language is that there's very little busy work.
Weekend schedule alterations:
1. Sleep may continue until noon or beyond, but I like to wake up early. The hours of daylight are already too few as is.
4. At Foss, if I can. Foss features do-it-yourself waffles, which when dosed with whipped cream are amazingly delicious. Also, hash browns.
5. Not on the weekends. Thank goodness.
6. Breakfast and lunch are one and the same. There's allegedly a separate breakfast at the student union, but it's not worth it.
7. On the weekends? You've got to be kidding me. The only time I ever worked at the bookstore on a Saturday, I slept in, got there late, and then spent three hours reading at the cash register.
9. Anywhere but Bobs. Very rarely, we order in Thai or pizza.
10. All day long on the weekends. Also, lots of movie watching.
That's pretty much a summary of what I do at school...aside from the occasional social event or interesting lecture, it's pretty monotonous. However, it's an entertaining monotony. That sounds...good? Well, I like it. Seems to me that's the part that matters anyway.
Today I introduce you to the fascinating world of dorm life at Colby, using my own experience. The basic (weekday) schedule is as follows:
1. Wake up. This could be at any time, but during the week generally occurs at about 7 or 7:15.
2. Shower. My room is pretty much in the middle of the building, so I leave in pajamas, walk past four rooms, head to the bathroom. Waking up at 7 in the morning has its perks: I hardly ever have to share the bathroom. It also means that there are very few witnesses to my towel-wrapped walk back to my room.
3. Get dressed. Quickly, because the room is cold. Once shivering has stopped, pack the backpack and load up the pockets, because we're headed outside.
4. Breakfast. Choose from any of our three dining halls: Dana, Foss, or Roberts (Bobs). Generally Bobs is good for breakfast, as it's closest to the dorm.
5. Class. In the event that waking up did not occur right at 7, it is likely that the previous step of breakfast will have been skipped, and I will have proceeded directly to class. Class will then take up the morning.
6. Lunch. Usually at Bobs, but occasionally Dana or Foss. In the coming semester, there will be very little time for lunch. My schedule on Mondays and Wednesdays will begin at 9 and end at 6 and 4 respectively. Breaks? I don't need no stinkin' breaks!
7. Work/Lab. Again, this will probably be changing next semester. I work at the campus bookstore, doing things like shelving product, doing inventory checks, and receiving shipped items. The fun, it never ends. Or I could be in bio or chem lab. Also fun.
8. Chorale. On Mondays and Thursdays, 4-6. Non-sarcastic fun. Chorale is one of my favorite things about Colby, and I can't wait to go on tour.
9. Dinner. Usually Dana, occasionally Foss. If I can help it, not Bobs, which is truly terrible for dinner.
10. Fun. Usually playing cards/hanging out downstairs. If there's an exam coming up, I study. The wonderful thing about two sciences, math and a language is that there's very little busy work.
Weekend schedule alterations:
1. Sleep may continue until noon or beyond, but I like to wake up early. The hours of daylight are already too few as is.
4. At Foss, if I can. Foss features do-it-yourself waffles, which when dosed with whipped cream are amazingly delicious. Also, hash browns.
5. Not on the weekends. Thank goodness.
6. Breakfast and lunch are one and the same. There's allegedly a separate breakfast at the student union, but it's not worth it.
7. On the weekends? You've got to be kidding me. The only time I ever worked at the bookstore on a Saturday, I slept in, got there late, and then spent three hours reading at the cash register.
9. Anywhere but Bobs. Very rarely, we order in Thai or pizza.
10. All day long on the weekends. Also, lots of movie watching.
That's pretty much a summary of what I do at school...aside from the occasional social event or interesting lecture, it's pretty monotonous. However, it's an entertaining monotony. That sounds...good? Well, I like it. Seems to me that's the part that matters anyway.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Out of boredom comes...
More blog posts. Today's video is an interesting piece of insight I was directed to by my dad. If the future is now, then ten years from now should be pretty interesting indeed.
Watch!
Oh yeah - if anyone can tell me where the audio for the video comes from, I would be greatly indebted to you. It's definitely something I want to have.
Watch!
Oh yeah - if anyone can tell me where the audio for the video comes from, I would be greatly indebted to you. It's definitely something I want to have.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
How the movie industry lost its creative spark
I cannot possibly be the only one who sees movie after movie based on book after book and think "Don't they have any better ideas?" After seeing the Golden Compass today, I have to step back and wonder. In the previews (of which there were perhaps five or six (ever notice how it's hard to remember all the previews after you leave the theater?) there were two based on books: Inkheart (by Cornelia Funke, now with a sequel Inkspell) and of course the classic Dr Seuss, Horton Hears a Who. (I hereby pause this post to send a missive to Steve Carell: GET THE HELL OUT OF MOVIES). Sorry, but I absolutely despise Little Miss Sunshine. Dan in Real Life is decent, but not justification for Carell to have a career in film. Yes, I enjoy Office, but "lovably awkward" is the only character I see in Steve Carell, and I just don't see him as a good actor.
Anyways...back to the point. I blame New Line Cinema for engineering the shift away from originality in movies. In my limited experience of movie watching, the Lord of the Rings trilogy (which, I have to say, I enjoy very much, and I'm glad that Peter Jackson will be in control of a hopefully decent adaptation of The Hobbit. Goodness knows that the current movie versions are terrible...) cleared the way for many, many other movies based on fantasy/sci-fi books. Now we have had Hitchiker's Guide, Eragon, Golden Compass, Dark is Rising (The Seeker, in movie form), soon Inkheart, etcetera, etcetera...there's a rather LONG list here. And of course, which I just remembered, Harry Potter. Thanks to Rowling, children are reading again. And those of us who were reading the whole time are wonderfully immune (mostly) to the thrill of such books. Yes, they are good. Rather impressive, really. But I for one do not succumb to "Potter mania," having other books which I hold in higher esteem.
A minor digression: some of my favorite authors: Modesitt, Barron, White (of Arthurian fame), Tolkien (of course), Adams, and many others. If anyone knows of an author (or authors) that write similarly, please recommend, and I will give them a try. There are many, however, that I simply cannot recall, but then again, if I cannot recall them, then they are likely not my "favorites."
Back to the topic at hand: honestly, I don't quite remember where I was going with it. I seem to have given facts without opinion. That's how I think I'll leave it, in fact. I reserve judgment on the book to film phenomenon. When it reaches the point that every book that grosses above a certain amount in revenue is made into a film, then I say we're in a bad spot. Right now? I dunno. I'm looking forward to Inkheart despite myself. I can always hope.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Political Correctness Can Burn
It's nearly Christmas, and that means an end to the songs on the radio, the decorations in the street, and all else associated with Christmas - at least for another year.
Being Jewish, I feel somewhat removed from all the hubbub and hype. I get asked if I'm looking forward to Hannukah - sure, why not? I get eight "crazy nights" - thank you Adam Sandler, you immature goon - of presents and candle lighting and dreidel! Fun fun! But of the winter holidays, Christmas means the most religiously. Hannukah means next to nothing as a religious holiday - it celebrates the miracle of the oil and the Maccabees' heroism. For eight days of religiousness, look to Passover. Kwanzaa? Although I admit I don't know much about it, what I know indicates a religious connection on the level of Hannukah.
But Christmas is different. It's amazingly religious. I have no objections - as a Jew, as an agnostic - to being wished Merry Christmas as I go about my day. In fact, the thing I struggle with during the holidays is remembering to wish others Merry Christmas in return. Why? Because it means something. Because Happy Holidays means nothing. It's a wimpy, wishy washy way to say "you might take offense if I get the holiday you celebrate wrong." If I were a cashier, would I say Merry Christmas? Damn straight I would. Let political correctness go right where it belongs (hint: it rhymes with 'bell'). And so I say to any and all who read this:
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Sunday, December 23, 2007
The Mitchell Report
Or, how baseball was and is a game of enhancements.
Since everyone has been weighing in on the Mitchell Report lately (okay, not everyone, but I just wanted a nice lead in), I thought I'd offer my two cents.
I don't care that baseball players use steroids. It's not like these players were terrible up until they took a shot of HGH or whatever. Steroids don't give a player talent, they enhance his natural abilities. Barry Bonds would still have hit plenty of homers without using steroids. Would he have broken Hank Aaron's record? Maybe not. Does it matter? To me, not much.
Roger Clemens and Andy Pettite have both been revealed to have bent over for the needle at some point. Do I think Pettite should get credit (ooh...accidental rhyming humor :) ) for apologizing? No. Do I think he should have to apologize at all? Nope. Clemens, monumental attention whore that he is, is not a terrible person for using steroids. His use of performance enhancers finally offers an explanation for why he's still playing the game at 43, or whatever age he is now.
Do I think baseball has lost some element of "mystique" because the men who play the game have been revealed to have used steroids? Not at all. Read Bill "Spaceman" Lee's two books about his years as a professional (and unprofessional) pitcher. If ever you had any thoughts about baseball being a gentleman's game, these books will quickly disabuse you of this notion.
I go to a baseball game for two reasons. The first is to enjoy a spectacle - be it pitching or hitting, I want to see a good game. And you know, if both pitcher and hitter are on steroids, then that makes it harder for either to gain an advantage. Odd, but true. The second reason is to see players I like. I'll be at GABP in June when the Sox are in town for a three game set. (Incidentally, no current Red Sox players are mentioned in the Mitchell Report). I love watching the Sox play. If they can play the way they do without steroids, then I love them even more. Would I change allegiances if half the team turned out to be users? Not a chance.
I think the Mitchell Report reveals something about baseball. I don't think it shows a problem with the game, but rather a problem with how the American public perceives the players. Were fans really naive enough to think that their favorite players were all steroid free? That steroids weren't a big problem? Performance enhancers have been part of the game for ages. Why criminalize it now?
If you pull anything out of this disjointed ramble of a post, it should be something like this: Steroids are part of the game. They may not be a glamorous part, but they're a part nonetheless. And I gain nothing in terms of enjoying baseball by raising a big stink about who's using them and who isn't. I don't care.
Since everyone has been weighing in on the Mitchell Report lately (okay, not everyone, but I just wanted a nice lead in), I thought I'd offer my two cents.
I don't care that baseball players use steroids. It's not like these players were terrible up until they took a shot of HGH or whatever. Steroids don't give a player talent, they enhance his natural abilities. Barry Bonds would still have hit plenty of homers without using steroids. Would he have broken Hank Aaron's record? Maybe not. Does it matter? To me, not much.
Roger Clemens and Andy Pettite have both been revealed to have bent over for the needle at some point. Do I think Pettite should get credit (ooh...accidental rhyming humor :) ) for apologizing? No. Do I think he should have to apologize at all? Nope. Clemens, monumental attention whore that he is, is not a terrible person for using steroids. His use of performance enhancers finally offers an explanation for why he's still playing the game at 43, or whatever age he is now.
Do I think baseball has lost some element of "mystique" because the men who play the game have been revealed to have used steroids? Not at all. Read Bill "Spaceman" Lee's two books about his years as a professional (and unprofessional) pitcher. If ever you had any thoughts about baseball being a gentleman's game, these books will quickly disabuse you of this notion.
I go to a baseball game for two reasons. The first is to enjoy a spectacle - be it pitching or hitting, I want to see a good game. And you know, if both pitcher and hitter are on steroids, then that makes it harder for either to gain an advantage. Odd, but true. The second reason is to see players I like. I'll be at GABP in June when the Sox are in town for a three game set. (Incidentally, no current Red Sox players are mentioned in the Mitchell Report). I love watching the Sox play. If they can play the way they do without steroids, then I love them even more. Would I change allegiances if half the team turned out to be users? Not a chance.
I think the Mitchell Report reveals something about baseball. I don't think it shows a problem with the game, but rather a problem with how the American public perceives the players. Were fans really naive enough to think that their favorite players were all steroid free? That steroids weren't a big problem? Performance enhancers have been part of the game for ages. Why criminalize it now?
If you pull anything out of this disjointed ramble of a post, it should be something like this: Steroids are part of the game. They may not be a glamorous part, but they're a part nonetheless. And I gain nothing in terms of enjoying baseball by raising a big stink about who's using them and who isn't. I don't care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)