What am I doing with a blog?

Awww…heck. I dunno.

Juno N’ such: now with spoilers January 7, 2008

Filed under: film,running — himbly @ 12:27 pm

My most recent “running goal” was to be able to run 10K without much trouble. Like, not in a race and not for a reason other than ‘hey, let’s go 10K today’. My advisor and her other running partner have started to include me in their weekly 10K (or more) sessions and for the past few weeks (4 weeks but 3 runs) that’s exactly what I’ve been doing. It feels great. I am able to run 10K now without stopping, whining (much), or losing my balance/mind. Sweet. I have a new goal now, though: running 10K without the need for a nap later on that day.  Holy crap! I was fine when I got home and then BAM! Sleep! Right between the eyes! I woke up on the couch disoriented and sad I missed the last half of a really good Curb Your Enthusiasm. I own the DVD, so I wasn’t that sad.  I mean to write about Juno so, that’s exactly what I’m going to do now. Difficult, though, so bear with me.  I saw Juno just over week ago, so I’ve developed different thoughts than when I left the theatre. First and foremost:  I ~did~ like Juno.  At first, I wasn’t sure, but I really did.  I’d actually see it again.  I’d recommend others see it.  So, let that be the foundation that evenly matches our skin tone so that I may apply the cosmetics of criticism.  Nice.  I don’t even wear makeup.  Things I loved about Juno:  Juno.  The acting (everyone).  The love (I said that to be cheesy, but it’s true.  It’s a very sweet movie.).  The cast (Michael Cera, the guy who plays Schillinger in Oz, Jason Bateman, whoever the girl was who played Juno…).  Juno was level headed, smart, and adorable throughout.  I loved the relationship she had with her father and her stepmother.  I loved her best friend… equally clever and very supportive without at all being sappy.Here’s what I didn’t love: the male roles.   And I am clearly in the minority on this one, but I felt -as a whole- the male characters in Juno were weak. Not underrepresented, as supporting female roles often are…but just plain weak. Lemme explain. *** Here is where I always have trouble explaining exactly how I feel without sounding like an a-hole. So, instead of writing another long description of the male characters in Juno, I’ll just quickly state it as best I can and then if anyone has a beef, they can comment and I’ll try to explain more. Here goes: the stepfather was lovely. Bleeker was sooo lame. He was pushed out of the events in such a way that I’m not sure his character could stand. That whole things just didn’t make sense to me. The most disappointing was Jason Bateman’s character. I was really rooting for the blossoming friendship between Juno and him and I felt that the turn it made (the nearly romantic and creepy) just wrecked it. The tension held because he was a good guy in a marriage that was not healthy, although his wife was wonderful…just too high strung for the likes of him. I liked that. Two multi-dimensional characters, one who identifies with the baby and the other who identifies with the girl carrying that baby. I thought his weird flirtation with Juno and his sudden bombshell (along with the step-mother’s foreshadowing) turned him from multi-dimensional character to creep in seconds flat. There. I said it. That was my big let down. Both of the most important male characters seemed to throw up their hands in a I-dunno kinda way as soon as the baby issue fell anywhere near them. As if it was ‘chick stuff’. The women all leapt into action, but the men…at least the two main ones…dropped the ball completely.It’s been difficult to write this one, but I think I got my main point across. Does it make sense?  UPDATE:  I went to go see Juno again and I think I’ve changed my mind.   


Creationism in Big Valley Part two: The Ice Years August 21, 2007

Filed under: misc,running — himbly @ 10:25 am

I’ve been wondering what I should feature in my next episode of Those Wacky Creationists. Last night I had my father and his gf over for dinner, and talked about creationism. Then, I went with my friend S for a pint, and talked about creationism. Through both those conversations, I’ve realized that this is the next story I need to relate. Hold on to your hats…it’s a doozy.

Lilithattack and I discussed our strategy in the car. We both knew that we were about to enter a museum entirely dedicated to an idea we were both whole heartedly against, so how to act? Both of us knew we’d be upset at what we saw, did we march up to the curator and demand an explanation? In the end, we decided to be passive. We figured that we didn’t want to get into a full blown argument because it was unlikely we were about to change anyone’s minds in an hour.

However, when we finished all the displays, a volunteer invited us to talk to him. We did and launched into several reasons we thought the museum was bunk. Respectfully, the whole conversation was actually very civil and polite…which I didn’t expect and was a very nice surprise.

I began by telling him that the entire museum was based upon a profoundly flawed idea of what evolution is, exactly. That the science they argue against is often not the same science that evolutionists believe. Man…I actually hate using the term “evolutionists” but it’s easy to use. When I say “evolutionists” I mean “everyone else”.

Now, I’ll go through different parts of this conversation in subsequent posts as I remember them and as they relate to what I’m talking about, but this post is dedicated to the ice shell story. If someone who reads this know, could you please tell me if this is conventionally accepted in creationist circles as true?

It’s a complicated story…bear with me. Here we go:

The man looked at us and said, ‘now, what I’m about to tell you is probably going to seem wild to you.’

“I bet that you’re absolutely right. Tell us, though.”

And he did. He told us that the earth, before the flood, was cloaked in ice. There was a shell…a massive ice shell…that contained the earth within it.

“Above the clouds?”, I asked.

“yes…it would have been difficult to see from earth, but it was somewhere above the clouds.”

He went on to explain that this ice shell caused a different atmospheric pressure and composition. This is what allowed people to live into their 900s (eg. Noah, who built the ark when he was in his 600s). In fact, he told us, this different pressure and composition has been found in bubbles within amber. A scientist (no idea who) extracted the air trapped in a bubble in amber and built a chamber with the same pressure and composition he found in that bubble. In that chamber he managed to grow a cherry tomato tree 14 feet high!!

I will remind you here that everything I’m writing is what he actually said to us.

To any chemists out there I have a question. Is it possible for the composition of air trapped in a bubble in amber to change by certain elements dissolving into the amber? That was my response to part of that argument, but I have no idea if I was right.

Anyway. Cherry tomato trees 14 feet high…yeah. So. This is, he said, what the earth was like pre-flood.

Oh…also…he said that the water of the earth and the water of the sky were separate. In other words, clouds were clouds and puddles were puddles. I asked if that meant there was no cycle of evaporation and then rain..blah blah blah. He told me that since rainbows did not exist pre-flood (actually, ha…I “knew” that) it must mean that, no, there was no such cycle.

Now we get to the flood. “Something hit this shell”, he said punching his fist into his other hand to illustrate. “Something”. I didn’t mention it but ‘something’? We’re talking about how god is the man in complete control and then just ‘something’ hits this earth shell? But, I decided there were other battles to be fought here.

This ‘something’ that hit the earth ice shell smashed the ice and caused heavy rain for 40 days and 40 nights.

See? All perfectly scientific [that’s me talking, not him].

I think that’s enough for this post. In more of a reminder to myself than anything, I will try to remember to relate the part of the discussion about ‘flood mythology’ vs ‘there was a flood’.


What’s with all this gravity? March 22, 2007

Filed under: running,school — himbly @ 9:19 am

Since the days have gotten longer (thank you, DST) and the weather warmer and I have this false sense of well being, I’ve been inspired to do some more running. It used to be that I would run 3 times a week for at least an hour and feel energized enough to continue on with my day. Yeah. Well.

When I run these days, I feel like I”m wearing ankleweights. Through molasses. In January. I can still keep up on whatever run my advisor makes us do once a week, but…funny how our minds work…that’s purely pride and unwillingness to be a wimp in front of other people. On my own I’m like, ‘sheesh…that was a good 3 minutes…I ought to take a break’. Who the hell turned up the gravity?

So…my ‘big girl’ self (as in ‘grown up’ not as in ‘fat ass’…though both apply) is correctly telling me that the only way to fix this is to squeeze in as many runs as I can and get myself back into fighting shape. I hate my ‘big girl’ self. But she’s right.

We’ll see. I’ve still got termpapers due, and those due dates are coming fast and furious. I still see carby-sugary snacks in my future.