fighting back.

That title really sounds almost self-important, as if I'm some sort of rebel or something. Trust me, that is definitely not the case, I just didn't know what else to name it. I guess another title could have been 'War?! What is it good for?! Absolutely noooothing!'....you know, that awesome song by Edwin Starr. I'm actually pretty sure it's just called 'War', but I forget, hehe.

This post is actually about something that came up when I was talking with Christianne a few days ago, in terms of fighting back. She claimed to be able to 'annihilate' me, the exact word she used. I then described to her what 'curb-stomping' is, and that pretty much ended that specific conversation, before we just changed the subject to some other random conversation. It got me thinking, though...what ARE the limits to which someone will go in war to win? This also reminds me of another conversation I had with another friend, when we were discussing the war in Afghanistan. His viewpoint, albeit said somewhat lightly, was that you have to make the situation untenable for your enemy in the conflict. For every one of your soldiers that is killed, you have to raze an entire enemy village. Make the losses for the enemy so unbearable that they will simply give up. While I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment for the Afghanistan war in particular, I do agree with that general viewpoint in winning battles; damage your opponent so badly that he/she/them either does not want to fight back, or so badly that he/she/them are incapable of fighting back.

I particularly enjoy this tactic, however heavy handed it might be, when I play video games. I play a lot of games that either are sporting games (NFL, NBA, etc.), or strategy games such as StarCraft or the Civilization series. In sports games...well, I'm going to try and score as often as possible. I'm not going to be conservative...what's the point? I want to win the game, as there's no consolation prize for second place. Be as aggressive as possible, and you'll win. There are downsides to that, of course, such as screwing up/getting injured/whatever, but still, there are plenty of benefits to such an approach. Of course, you also run the risk of being called unsportsmanlike, since you're always trying to score, whether you're up 7-0, or 59-0...but, hell, I don't care. It's their job to stop me, and if they can't do their job, well, I'm sure as hell not going to do it for them. I do that in real life sporting situations too...I was lucky enough to be a part of the Victoria College Flag Football Team this year, both Men's and Co-Ed, and both teams made it to the finals, with the co-ed winning the championship, and the men's coming up short. The entire season, we went for it on every down, never punted the ball, always went for the touchdown...it was great. For those of you who do not understand football, let's just say that we were ridiculously aggressive in our approach to the game, and it clearly paid off with two visits to the finals along with an undefeated season for the Men's team (well, until the last game, lol).

As far as those other strategy games go, such as StarCraft or the Civilization series, they often have objectives such as 'Destroy the enemy's command centre', or 'nuke target ____'. I enjoy these objectives, because, again, it IS just a game, so doing certain things gains you certain rewards in terms of game mechanics...but, still. I am super aggressive when it comes to this, so I much more enjoy building a massive army and using it to wipe out every last soldier, worker, man, woman and child. If they're too weak to stop me, then...well, it sucks to be them, but I'm not stopping for anyone. I mean, often, to achieve certain objectives, it IS necessary to wipe everyone and everything out, but still, doing that regardless is fun.

Looking back through history, this is a military strategy that has worked in the past. The blitzkrieg, for example, is an all-out attack used by the Germans (first in World War I) to overwhelm their opponents by attacking on all fronts. Of course, fighting a battle on two fronts is pretty hard to do and also pretty hard to sustain, and ultimately is a large reason why Germany ended up losing WWI and WWII, but regardless, the blitzkrieg is an effective tool in combat. Looking forward to WWII, the United States of America had their own effective weapon in their arsenal...the atomic bomb. When the USA was forced to engage in battle during WWII after Pearl Harbour, what did they do? They dropped an atomic bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, effectively ending Japan's participation in the war. What were they supposed to do? Their enemy had just demonstrated that not only were they capable of destroying entire cities, but they were willing to do it, too. If Japan hadn't capitulated after those two bombs were dropped, the Americans were just going to continue until the entire country was dust. The Emperor basically had no choice, and I don't blame him for surrendering. I'd like to say the American tactic is something I would employ myself, but I don't know if I'm psychologically capable of signing off on an order that would knowingly kill millions of people, most of them unarmed. I mean, the bombs were as much a demonstration of how mighty the Americans were (to the entire world, such as future enemies over in the Soviet Union) as they were tools to end WWII.

Unchecked aggression is bad, and I'm not saying it's a good thing...I just am saying that being aggressive in terms of battles and wars is effective, in certain situations. That can even be applied to every day things. People are always telling me 'if you want something, you have to go and get it'. Now, that's not saying that I should go steal everything that I want in life, but that I can't just passively sit back and hope for something to fall into my lap. I realize that that's what I do with women sometimes (it's funny, I wasn't like this during high school...meh, I've changed, probably for the better =P), and what I do with a lot of things, but it's the truth: if you want something, you got to go and at least take a chance and try. You don't always have to blow up an enemy to do it, either =P

a whole new world

No, this is not about the Disney song, as much as I may like that particular song (from Aladdin, in case you didn't know). I was talking with my friend today about the Canadian Armed Forces, and how I had previously given thought to joining up with them after university. Honestly, it's not such a bad thing, especially if you have an undergraduate degree; you can join up, go straight into the officer corps and do stuff like Press Corps Officer, or other more media-related facets of the army. Still, though, you'd be called into battle when (if) necessary, and you'd be put through the same training that everyone else goes through. I've given it some serious thought, and I actually think this is a viable option for me to do in my life at some point....although, maybe as a backup, as there are other career options for me to explore (like being a lawyer, a teacher, etc) before that becomes something at the forefront of my mind.

That, though, is what this post is about: the life after post-secondary education, aka, the real world. It's a daunting prospect for people my age, I suppose, going out and finding a job that could potentially be your career (because they are two different things), and living on your own, and what not. I'm definitely not living at home for the rest of my life, and honestly, as soon as I get the chance, I'm moving to downtown Toronto, so I don't have to spend hours on the TTC every day. I've had jobs before, and honestly, they're awesome. It's not really the job part that frightens me, nor can I really say that life after university actually frightens me, its just a bit surprising that it's so close. I think what does scare me a little is not knowing what I want to pursue. Like I said above, do I want to do the Canadian Armed Forces? Do I want to be a teacher? A lawyer? Work for the government in some way? I actually have no idea. I feel as if my decision goes back and forth by the day, depending on my mood. If I'm doing particularly well in my courses for Political Science, maybe the lawyer option seems a bit less daunting; otherwise, no. I dunno, it's a bit silly, but I feel as if everyone expects you to just KNOW what you want to do at this point in your life, which is a bit stressful. I mean, damn, I already have enough stress with the crap I do on a daily basis, it's not as if I need any more.

Still, though. The three most likely careers for me are as follows: law, education or government. Those three always did interest me beyond so much else, and I can actually see myself doing those jobs. Law requires a crazy high GPA to get into, especially at UofT, and so I dunno if I can even get in after 5 years, even if my marks were at 90+ for the rest of my university career. Teaching and government are possible; I always wanted to apply for CSIS and be an analyst of some sort and help protect the country and what-not. That seems like it would be fun and interesting, in terms of career choices. Teaching is somewhat of a different spot, especially in my family. A lot of my aunts are teachers, my own mother is a teacher (having done everything from kindergarten to grade 8), and everyone tells me I would be a good teacher...which, I suppose, is a compliment. Still, though, I don't know if that would be the best career choice for me, because I would definitely have to be a high school teacher, as I don't have the patience for little children on a daily basis, despite the fact that kids are awesome.

Another job that I always thought would be cool would actually be working for Victoria College. The current Campus Life Coordinator and Residence Life Coordinator, they all went to UofT for school, with the RLC having been a don at Vic himself! The CLC went to UC, so I guess she's not AS cool, but still, they're both awesome =P Regardless, they honestly have the best jobs in the world; they get to work with the students on a regular basis, are friendly and inviting, their doors are always open, they work with the Dean of Students, etc etc etc. As someone involved a lot with student life as well as orientation week and an aspiring don, I feel as if that's almost a tailor-made job for someone like me. I don't really know how one applies or even gets a job like that, because the contracts (from talking to the CLC) seem to be fairly capricious, so who knows. Still, an awesome job.

But, even after all that wondering, that brings me back to the fact that I have no idea what I want to do with my life. Law, education, government, working for the university or for a more specific branch of the government in CSIS....who knows what I want to do? They're all awesome job opportunities, and I mean, I'd be happy in any of them. I just feel as if the clock is ticking, as if there's an unseen hand pushing me towards a decision...a decision I'm incredibly unprepared to make. Maybe I'll just do grad school and postpone that decision, but...maybe even THAT is a poor decision.

Honestly, I don't know. I guess while the clock is ticking, I do still have SOME time...I'm currently in my 3rd year out of 5, so two more years on the clock. Who knows what'll happen in that time?

online gaming

As it's Reading Week, I've been playing a fair amount of video games, and honestly, I've been playing a lot online. I don't usually get the chance to do it during the school year, because let's face it, extracurriculars in addition to class usually have me leaving home super early and coming home super late, with no time for anything but doing work and sleeping (yes, I left out eating on purpose; sometimes that does not happen, unfortunately).

But, online gaming. I've been getting my fair share of gaming in, amongst two games: Madden NFL 10 and Halo: Reach. I'll save Reach for second/last, since I have more to say about it.

Madden 10, though. It's ridiculously fun. I've been getting pretty good, I suppose, as when you play, you kind of play every position. If you play a normal game, you play as the head coach, the QB, everyone; you get to choose the plays on offense AND on defense, when you throw the ball and catch it, you change to the receiver; if you're on defense, you change into the person who intercepts the ball so you have more control...the game really gives you control over everything, which is nice. I'm currently playing through 'Be A Superstar', meaning you create your own player and he gets drafted by a team in the NFL, and you basically control his career. My quarterback, one 'Jerek Dunes', was drafted by the Oakland Raiders, taken in the 4th round at the 100th overall pick. Right now he is in his 7th NFL season, and he has won 5 Super Bowl rings (against the Packers, Seahawks, Saints, Falcons and Vikings, having been in 6 Super Bowls in his career, having lost the first one against the Vikings...so the last SB he was in was a bit of a revenge game. That game was ridiculous, by the way; my QB, in his rookie season, threw the ball 25 times, completed 22 times, had 4 touchdowns and no interceptions, and still lost the Super Bowl thanks to the defense letting up a 30-yd TD pass with like 4 seconds left in the game, and ended up losing by 4 points. I vowed to never let something like that happen again...and it hasn't, so far =P). It's kind of fun living your fantasy through a virtual version of yourself (my guy is my height/weight), and he is breaking records left and right (he owns the records of most passing yards in a season as well as most passing touchdowns in a season). It hurts me whenever I play the Patriots, though...I'm tempted to throw the game sometimes, just so they can win, but in the end, I still win.

Anyway, that's Madden. Madden NFL 11 has been out for a while, and since the season is over, Madden NFL 12 will probably be coming out soon, but there's no way I'm paying almost $80 for what amounts to a roster update. No thank you, EA Sports, you can go gouge other saps for their money.

Halo: Reach is another story. I've been playing Halo since the very first iteration; Halo 2 was one of the first multiplayer games my friends and I really gorged ourselves on after classes in high school. When Halo 3 came out, I borrowed my friend's bike just so I could ride from school to the mall during lunch to buy a copy of the game to play when I got home later that day. Halo: ODST was a must-buy as well, and while I didn't care much for the story, it DID introduce Firefight, one of the more fun things to come into Halo in a while. Finally, Halo: Reach, telling the story of how humanity's military capital, the planet Reach, fell and was destroyed by the Covenant. The multiplayer in Reach is fantastic; I played the beta, and it was super fun, but they changed a lot of things for the actual game, and it's constantly being tweaked, which is nice.

Since it's Reading Week, like I said, it's been a time for me to catch up on online gaming, meaning, a LOT of matchmaking on Halo: Reach. I've been playing with my good friends both online and offline, and as a result, my kills have gone up substantially in the past few days. I've leveled up twice (now a Warrant Officer Grade 2, lol, still an awful rank), and have killed several hundred other people online. I think my best streak of games came a few hours ago; I went to go pick up my friend from the subway station, and when we got back, I had the following streak of kills/deaths: 25kills/10deaths on Team Slayer (Sword Base), 24kills/14deaths on Bro Slayer (Powerhouse), 20kills/6deaths on Bro Slayer (Countdown), 31kills/14deaths on Elite Slayer (Forge World), and then after an 11kills/16deaths on Team Slayer (Countdown) during which we lost because my friend put down his controller and nodded off (lol), we played Rumble Pit, and I won with 25kills/15deaths on Countdown. In the span of 6 games, I racked up 136 kills to 75 deaths, a 1.81 K/D ratio. For most of you, this probably means nothing, and is probably really bad, but still...I was proud of myself, especially the 31-kill game, considering the game went up to 50. Heck, in THAT game, the other team had 35 kills total...w00t!

I have to say, there is a certain appeal in killing nameless people online. It's a wonderful way to vent frustration, although to be fair, it's possible to become even MORE frustrated when you play online. I think that's why when you reach a certain point, you have to either quit, or play a different gametype, one where you don't have to interact a lot with humans. I think that's why Firefight is so successful; in gametypes like Team Slayer, your success largely depends on your the success of your teammates. I mean, yes, I had ONE game where I had 31 kills, but that's not going to happen for me every game (I wish it did, hehe). In Firefight, however, you can go the whole game without really interacting with your teammates, since its you (and three other people) vs. endless waves of Covenant soldiers (aka, humans vs. endless computer-controlled waves). It's a lot of fun, and Bungie, the creators of Halo, decided it would be a good idea (and it was) to have different TYPES of Firefight...there's Swordfight, Sniperfight, Rocketfight, Nadefight, etc etc etc., and they all make for very different experiences, though they're all fun (Sniperfight is MY favourite, in case you were wondering =P).

The Halo universe is quickly becoming one of the more popular ones out there. The books, the games, toys, even a much-maligned movie is in the works...everything is really coming together to make Halo an even more lucrative franchise than it already is. Halo: Reach is super fun, and I hope you guys enjoy it as much as I do. Granted, I know everyone who reads this blog (or at least I think I do), so I'm guessing only ONE person enjoys it as much as I do, hehe. Regardless, video games = fun, and guaranteed there will be more video game posts on this blog, eventually. For now, I guess you'll have to be content with Madden NFL 10 and Halo: Reach. w00t!

(Note: I've been listening to the remixed version of 'A Little Less Conversation' by Elvis Presley; it's actually kind of good! I love singing along to this sing. That is all =P)

music music music

Honestly, where would my life be without music? I'm sure a lot of people feel this way: I listen to music every day, I play musical instruments, I can read musical scores...music is an integral part of my life. Music is an integral part of many people's lives, and it's present everywhere; in commercials, in sporting events, in television shows and films, on the radio, in people's voices and cultures...it's literally everywhere.

For me, I have to say, music has been a part of my life from a very early age. I played the recorder in grade school like so many do, was pretty good at it, and was subsequently assigned the flute in grade 4. I sucked at playing the flute from grade 4 to grade 7, where I was subsequently told I would be much better at the clarinet...which I was. I played clarinet from grade 7 to grade 12, and I still play occasionally now. I also picked up tenor saxophone along the way in that gr. 7-12 stretch, but my primary instrument is still the clarinet. Because of that, not only can I read music pretty well, classical music is perhaps my favourite genre of them all. I have quite a few favourite genres, but classical is definitely the most calming/interesting of them all. Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Brahms, Vivaldi...them and many more, I love listening to. Here are some of my favourite classical songs:

Beethoven's 9th Symphony (mvmt 4) (note: this is part 1/3, the youtube video was split into three different uploads, you can see the other two parts on the sidebar once you hit the link)

I posted this one, and I labeled it as the fourth movement, since that's my favourite. It's kind of a 'movement within a movement'; the beginning of the movement has the instruments 'trying out' the themes of the first three movements, with the piece somewhat...deciding that that's not what it wants, and trying out theme after theme, and 'brooding' on it, and at the end of each theme, you can hear the faint elements of what ends up as the main theme of the whole piece, which is the 'Ode to Joy' theme that so many people are familiar with as the 'Drink Milk, love life' commercial music. If you don't get what I'm talking about, listen to the piece (the whole piece)! It's truly fantastic.

'The Rite of Spring' by Igor Stravinsky (note: again, this is part 1/3, you'll have to go to the sidebar to get the last two parts thanks to the divisive nature of youtube video uploading rules.)

It's so chaotic! I love it. When this piece was first released, it caused a mini-riot in the theatre where it was released, as people either LOVED it, or HATED it, and the reaction was so visceral, fights actually broke out. Now THAT's a piece of music.

I think I'll move onto another genre of music, otherwise I'll be here all night typing about classical music...and as much as I love it, I also have other favourite musical types as well. Let's see...what's next...maybe...rap? =D

Rap is fantastic. I love the different styles that different rappers bring to the table. There are also SO MANY rappers. Busta Rhymes, Jay-Z, Three Six Mafia, Flava Flav, Ludacris, etc etc etc. I can't really put a finger on WHY I like rap, I just...do. I think it's the flow and rhymes that get me, they just click in a way that is somewhat difficult to explain. Even for songs that don't have rap in them, when I'm by myself in my car, driving home, I find myself making up songs about absolutely nothing just because I can. It's great! Here are some of my favourite raps:

'Get Back' by Ludacris

'Ignition' by R. Kelly (alright, I cheated, this is really hip-hop, but man I love this song, it's great lol)

'99 Problems' by Jay-Z

'The Real Slim Shady' by Eminem

I mean, all that stuff is pretty mainstream rap. I like other type of rap too, but this is just great stuff. OH, I can't forget the best song ever: 'Gettin' Jiggy With It' by Will Smith! So. Awesome.

I'd probably say my third favourite genre is rock. Rock is such a broad term, though, so how does one even define that? For me, I'd limit it to 80s rock as well as Elvis Presley as well as The Beatles. I dunno what it is about 80s rock that is so appealing to me, I really don't. Maybe it's the new beats? The new sounds? The crazy guitar solos? The high pitched vocals? I have no idea, but it's awesome. Elvis as well as The Beatles are just unique sounds, and they both offer such different things. Here are some of my favourite songs from ALL of them (there's going to be a lot!):

'A Little Less Conversation' by Elvis Presley

'Jailhouse Rock' by Elvis Presley (note: I am aware of the fact that some of Elvis' songs were originally not made for him, but for other artists who, because of the colour of their skin, were not publicized properly, their works later made famous/immortal by Elvis. Still, he's highly entertaining, but I'm not giving all the credit to him, hehe.)

'Roll Over Beethoven' by Chuck Berry

'When I'm 64' by The Beatles

'Twist and Shout' by The Beatles (I think I'll stop here with The Beatles, otherwise I'll just end up listing their discography. Still, though...they're awesome, and Twist and Shout is probably my favourite Beatles song =P)

Now, for the 80s rock. I LOVE these next few songs, as they're fantastic. I hope you do too!

'Back in Black' by AC/DC

'Thunderstruck' by AC/DC

'TNT' by AC/DC

'Sweet Child O' Mine' by Guns N' Roses

'Welcome to the Jungle' by Guns N' Roses

'You Give Love A Bad Name' by Bon Jovi

'Wanted Dead or Alive' by Bon Jovi

'Livin' On A Prayer' by Bon Jovi

'Rio' by Duran Duran

'Beat It' by Michael Jackson

'Thriller' by Michael Jackson

'Our House' by Madness

'Anyway You Want It' by Journey

'Don't Stop Believin' by Journey

'The Power of Love' by Huey Lewis & The News

'Back in Time' by Huey Lewis & The News

'The Touch' by Stan Bush

I also want to add Queen ('We Will Rock You', 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'Don't Stop Me Now', etc.), but they're the 70s, albeit the late 70s. Still, I love them, so I had to add them here regardless.

I should also say, these are the songs of my childhood. I readily admit I was born in the 90s, and it's not as if I'm trying to hide that fact, but let's face it, the songs I listed (from the 80s) are insanely popular. I'm not listing obscure music; chances are you've heard most if not all of the songs on this list. Like I've mentioned before, I grew up with cousins who were born in the 70s and 80s, and as a result, that shaped my musical preferences. It's why I like Elvis, The Beatles, MJ, Stan Bush (or, really, that one song...w00t Transformers 1986 animated movie to which I know all the dialogue for!), Huey Lewis, Bon Jovi, Madness, Duran Duran, Queen, AC/DC, Guns N' Roses, and Journey...and many others. I also should say, I don't like just these songs of these artists; I like all their music, these are just my favourites, as they are for so many other people. I don't like them BECAUSE they're popula, but just because I find them entertaining/pleasant to listen to. I understand, though, that some of them have been 'modernized', for lack of a better term, such as through the tv show 'Glee'. I've listened to the new versions, and to be honest, they're not bad, I just like the originals better. I mean, here's a version of Thriller from Glee; it's not BAD, it's just strange. It's definitely nice to listen to, but Thriller is fine on its own, IMO.

Anyway, those are my favourite songs, genres, what-have-you. I hope these songs entertain you as they have me for so many years! They are classics, songs that are not going to be forgotten any time soon, if ever. Music is a wonderful tool, and I think these songs are indicative of that. Anyway, enjoy!

hypocrisy at its finest.

Honestly, now that I have my laptop back, typing is so much easier. I'm so used to my laptop, that it feels natural to type for a long time and at a really high speed (there's a joke in there somewhere). Also, not related to what I'm going to talk about in this post, but I just won a slapbet! In the 2009 NFL playoffs, the Green Bay Packers were defeated in overtime thanks to a fumble recovery for a touchdown by the Arizona Cardinals in the Wild Card round. In the very next round, the Cardinals were stomped by the eventual Super Bowl champions, the New Orleans Saints. I said 'man, what a shame, the Cards got stomped the very next week, and now they're super irrrelevant.', and my friend asserted that I was wrong, and that 2009 was the year the Cardinals went to the Super Bowl against the Pittsburgh Steelers. Well, as I thought/knew, the Cardinals lost to the Steelers in the Super Bowl in 2008, and indeed lost to the Saints in 2009. Long story short: I was right, he was wrong, and I slapped the crap out of him. I hit him so hard my hand hurts. Anyway, the sports story was an appropriate segue way into the topic: hypocrisy.

I'm also namely talking about my hypocrisy. A few posts down, I spoke about my intense dislike for the fashion industry, Perez Hilton and other insignificant things. I am definitely a hypocrite, when it comes to these things. I'm not saying I secretly enjoy those things, definitely not. But, I mean...as am example, I recently bought an issue of GQ Magazine, simply because it had Tom Brady on the cover. I directly funded GQ for nothing other than the fact that I like Tom Brady.

I said the sports story was relevant, and that was because in that post about fashion and what-not, I declined to speak about the sports culture that I also find inherently distasteful. I mean, let's think about it - we have sports superstars (LeBron James, Sidney Crosby, Tom Brady) who make literally tens of millions of dollars a year...and for what? They entertain people. These guys all are being paid upwards of $12million a year, for several years...based off their athleticism. I mean, sure, the people that pay to watch them perform makes the owners of their various teams richer beyond anyone's wildest imagination, but still, it's a little sad. It's even sadder when you consider how much professions like teaching gets paid. My own mother has been teaching since I was born, first as an ECE, and then a substitute teacher, then a full-time teacher who taught kindergarten, and grades 1 through 6 until I was 20, and is now a vice principal at a middle school....and she still gets paid less than $100k a year. That's absurd! I mean, teachers' salaries are a completely different topic, but these are the people who shape the future of our country/the world, and they get paid literally 120 times less than someone who can throw a football/go five hole/dunk a basketball. Sure, that's an oversimplification of what athletes (especially those three athletes) can do, but still, it's a little sad that that's the way our society works. I also dislike it when people say 'well, you know, they'll be out of a job by the time they're 40, at most.' Well, guess what, by the time Tom Brady is 40, he'll have made probably almost $200 million...I can guarantee you I will not make that much money (not even a quarter of that) in my entire life. It's saddening.

Having said all of that...I still directly fund that stuff. I still have a Tom Brady jersey. I still go to Raptors and Argonauts games. I still watch all the Patriots games I can find time to watch, raising ratings for football games. Heck, I saw a $2 binder thing of the Patriots at Dollarama a week or so ago, and I bought it instantly, without even thinking about it, and that's definitely directly against all the stuff I just said.

I guess I just am admitting to being a hypocrite, really. I accuse other people of being dumb for liking Perez Hilton, yet I read/follow Rich Eisen's blog on NFL.com, where he interviews celebrities and football stars alike. I criticize people for following magazine editors on what is hot/what is not, and yet I not only bought a GQ magazine because it had Tom Brady's face on it, I also have his jersey (not because of the magazine, because I like Brady, but it's still relevant) AND a Patriots hat. The funny thing about all that...is that I don't really care. I kind of enjoy having a double standard like that, if only because I'm so aware of it, and the consternation it causes in other people when I'm ripping into them one sentence for their fashion things and then praising Tom Brady's GQ pictures the next. It's kind of fun seeing people get really angry when you push their buttons (which, I have to say, I excel at...so much fun), and then double back to say something completely contrary to what I just said. The look on their faces, their expressions...priceless.

Ah well. In the end, it just comes down to your opinion. And, let's be honest: my opinion is always right. =D

VUSAC? more like VUSUCK

Oh VUSAC. I previously made a post about how messed up VUSAC is this year, and honestly, that's not changing, haha. It's always fun to kind of go 'what if?', though, and that's what this post is about. What if I was EVERY commissioner? What would I do differently? How would I do it? What would I change? Well, intrepid readers, read on and find out!

The commissions on VUSAC, by the way, are as follows: President, VPI, VPE, Finance, Clubs, Commuter, E&E, S&G, Productions, Communications, Special Projects and Sustainability.

If I were the VPI...things would be a little different. First of all, Winterfest would have been moved back a week, to give students some time to think. 'Vic Gives Back' week would have way less E&E events, because...well, charity doesn't always mean giving back to the community, and though the VPI is mandated to have a charity event once a semester, this week was a flop, and everyone knows it. It was poorly organized, and could have been handled way better. Secondly, the constitutional amendments. It would have been compiled in January, and have had things discussed on them way before; the holiday break was more than enough time to get those things done. Finally, the CRO hiring. This would have been done IMMEDIATELY once the last CRO resigned, and not left until a few weeks before the next election. I do understand why it was left, because the CRO is only needed for elections, so it was probably not seen as a pressing concern, but still, not very professional. The Secretary hiring would have also been done differently; if someone recants their vote and then suddenly wants to add it back, well....as the Chairperson of the hiring committee, it's up to your discretion, and you can't just let people do that, especially when it changes the results of the vote + adds several hours of meeting time to the discussion.

The VPE, I wouldn't change much, though I'm horribly biased. Still, though, more residence inclusion, and the creation of that residence council (where every floor and building president are on a council, and someone from there is elected to be the head, and that head sits on VUSAC as an assessor member) would definitely have to happen.

The Finance Chair was just way too unorganized this year...although, to be fair, the FC job is a crazy one. I would just change the frequency of cheques getting out to people who request them; two weeks is the time, yes, but having them out sooner is definitely a boon to those who need money. Also, when the time extends into a month...well, that's when you know something's wrong.

Clubs. I wouldn't change much, really...the Associate status was just a little dumb, but in the end, it's probably going to end up being another insignificant little change that no one will use, since that's pretty much what it is. Still, though, the Clubs commissioner is there to relay clubs' needs to VUSAC, and the current commissioner is doing that pretty well (even IF she makes it look like way more work than it is), so I guess I wouldn't change much. If we were talking about the makeup/structure of VUSAC, though, I would definitely merge Clubs into the VPI portfolio, since now the VPI has less to do. The Secretary would also get changed, as that duty would now be expanded to not just minutes, but keeping the office clean and filing all that stuff into people's boxes and what-not. The Secretary honourarium would be upped, and the Chairperson's honourarium lowered, but the discrepancy in what they were doing would be a large one.

I digress, though. E&E. It's all well and good, but I find that every year, only one of the two are focused on, either Education, or Equity. Last year it was Equity, and this year it's Education. You're supposed to do BOTH, not either or. I would honestly just cut the Education part of the commission, and add it to another commission....or, my preference, which includes Sustainability (which, IMO, is a useless commission and is a waste of funds), would be to merge the two. It was proposed this year as a Social Justice commission, where there is just one commissioner who oversees two committees, but those two committees have two other heads (either MALs, which we'll discuss in a bit, or appointed heads), who do the bulk of the work. The commissioner is then left to plan the larger scale events and programming and services that VUSAC is supposed to provide, and it'll work out.

Productions is another useless commission. Honestly, Ultra-Nows and trips to the AGO don't really need a commission. This is definitely something that can be given to VCDS, the Drama Society of the college, and they can just have a new commissioner who deals with all that stuff, rather than have someone on VUSAC do it. Regardless, though, I would have changed the sheer amt of trips that happened this year; no wonder half of them were underattended, since there were so many of them. Which student can afford going to three or four trips to plays in one year? I can barely afford ONE, much less four. Anyway, now the commission is called the 'Arts and Culture' commissioner, and they have more programming duties such as International Week and Charity Week, which is cool, because maybe that means that they'll plan less trips, and do more programming that is actually useful.

Special Projects is being phased out of VUSAC, which is what I want, so...no need to talk about that!

S&G, the party planners, that would have also changed. Because of the weirdness of Reading Week this year, it is unwise to have a party the week before Reading Week....and then have the largest ticketed event of the year in Highball the week AFTER Reading Week. I would have simply removed the reading week party, and also have shifted the first party of the year back a week, or at least advertised it wayyyy more during Orientation Week. I think the S&G commission simply got caught up in trying to do too much this year, and then suffered as a result when Highball suddenly needed to be planned, and everything went crazy. Also, not foreseeing any revenue from Highball when budgeting is ridiculous, since it is an event that costs several THOUSAND dollars, which greatly screwed with the budgeting process. My goodness.

Communications. Meh, they're doing their job. The Publicity Committee was probably the most useless thing ever, so...yeah, that's one strike against that. The scrollboard wasn't put up, which was supposed to have been done months ago...and posters take forever to get made. Granted, posters aren't the only thing that the commission does, but still, they're a pretty large component. Anyway, they're still pretty competent, though I'd just like to see the commission do MORE.

What would I change about the President? I mean, this year, it's not as if he's not doing his JOB. He's just an annoying douche sometimes. I mean, the major problem is that he has crazy fits of anger, has ridiculous double standards, and just does not like to not get his own way, in ANYthing. How can I change that? It's a personal thing; he's doing his JOB, which is essential, so...I mean, I guess other than waving a magic wand to change his personality, I can't really change anything, because every problem this year has come from his ridiculous mood/personality, and not from things like not paying attention, etc., because he DOES do that....he's just crazy.

I would also lessen the amount of MALs we have, if only because so many of them are so useless. I wouldn't even assign them to anyone, just have them mill about, because assigning them to commissions are usually do-or-die, since so many people have problems with either not delegating, or delegating too much. I'd cut down MALs to about 5 members, 2 of which are first years.

If I could change VUSAC, though, the structure of the council would change so drastically. It'd be like this:

Judiciary:

President

VPI (has Clubs folded into it, has office cleaning/filing duties taken away except for office hours schedule making)

VPE

Commissions:

Commuter

Social Justice (E&E + Sustainability)

A&C (who now has less trips to plan and more things with the two weeks under his/her purview)

S&G (who also has less club nights to plan and maybe more collaboration with residences)

Communications

MALs:

MALx5

Non-voting members:

Finance Chair

Chairperson (who just chairs meetings, doesn't even make the agenda)

Secretary (now makes the agenda, cleans up office, files documents, and takes minutes for VUSAC + related committees)

Assessor members (heads of levies [which also now includes Special Projects as a levy], UTSU reps, Residence council head, VOCA co-chair, etc.)

This structure of VUSAC brings the membership down to 16, from the 21 it is now. It's a little less bloated, sure, and if I could go even farther, the A&C commission would not exist, being a part of VCDS, and Communications would be folded into VPE...or at least would be given some more duties, such as the list-serv or caucus meetings. Anyway, I digress. Time to go eat some food; VUSAC critcism always gets my appetite going!

from downtown!

I went to go see the Toronto Raptors play the San Antonio Spurs last Wednesday, at the Air Canada Centre (just fyi, this is basketball). They lost, of course, because not only are the Raptors really bad, but the Spurs are also really good...never has there been more of an example of two teams heading in opposite directions. To be fair, though, the three core players of the Spurs are all over 30, while the Raptors have a young nucleus of players, who are all developing right now. I can hope that in a few years time, the Raptors will be good enough to at least MAKE the playoffs, since that's quite unlikely right now.

There was a moment during the game, though, when the Raptors took the lead, and the ACC was as loud as I've ever heard it. Tony Parker, a Spurs player, gets blocked while attempting to score, and the rejection turned into an alley-oop pass for a ferocious dunk on the other end by Toronto. Another block on the Spurs side, and THAT turned into a breakaway three pointer made by Toronto, and suddenly the entire building was energized more than it had been the entire game. They were winning, against the best team in the NBA!? What was happening? Needless to say, the elation didn't last, as the Raptors collapsed in the fourth quarter as they always do, and they lost the game 111-100. Ah well, fans still got their free pizza!

I decided to make this post about Toronto sports teams, or at least the three that I'm interested in: the Raptors (NBA), the Maple Leafs (NHL) and the Argonauts (CFL). If it had an NFL team, I'd talk about that too, but Buffalo is juuuuuust too far out of reach =P

Anyway, sports. We already know about the Raptors, and how Chris Bosh, their star player, took his talents to South Beach, and is currently helping Dwyane Wade and LeBron James win an NBA title. The Miami Heat are doing pretty well for him, and as much as I would have loved for him to remain here in Toronto, I guess I'm happy to see him do well. Still, I wonder how it'll be this COMING Wednesday, when the Heat play in Toronto for the first time since Bosh left...

The Leafs are crap. Let's face it, they are. I will allow that they're not as bad as they were last year, because they're really not; they're oodles better than last year. They're actually only something like 8 or 9 pts out of a playoff spot right now, and while they'll probably still miss the playoffs, there's room for hope. Vesa Toskala is gone, thank god, but the goalies are still getting beat on a regular basis. Jonas Gusstavson is on injured reserve, having undergone minor heart ablative surgery, and so the netminding duties have been left to Jean-Sebastien Giguere, and rookie James Reimer (he has the best nickname ever - Optimus Reime). Tonight they lost 3-0 to Montreal, probably my most hated team in NHL (second hated overall behind the New York Jets in the NFL), which is awful. The Leafs have a lot of potential, and honestly, they squander it so many nights. We have Tomas Kaberle, who is constantly the talk of trade rumours, but other than him, we have no good defensemen. On offense, Kessel has been crapping the bed lately with his lack of anything + his general inconsistency, but he IS pretty young. I hope he stays for a while, even IF his price was two first round picks that might turn into some crazy good players in the future for Boston...a team in our own division. But, enough about the Leafs. If they win the Cup in my lifetime, that'll be good enough for me; when Team Canada won the Gold medal in Men's Hockey last year, that was perhaps one of the most memorable moments of my entire life. I can't wait for something like that to happen again.

The Argos are actually not that bad. In 2009, they were beyond awful, winning 3 games to 15 losses, and 2008 had been not much better, with 4 wins and 14 losses. In 2010, amazingly, they won 9 times and lost 9 times...a pretty nice jump, considering it was more games than they had won in the past two years combined. They even made the playoffs, and made it all the way to the East final, where they lost to the eventual Gray Cup champion, the Montreal Alouettes. It's funny, I don't dislike the Alouettes as much as I dislike other Montreal teams; it's weird. Anyway, there's a lot of potential there, though I dunno how much I like Cleo Lemon as the franchise QB for the Argos. I actually went to go see a game this past summer, which was fantastic, as the Argos not only won, they won in incredible comeback form. Down 20-17 with 2 and a half minutes to play in the game, the BC Lions QB decided to throw the ball, and not only was it intercepted by Byron Parker, the defensive back managed to return it for a touchdown to take the lead, 24-20, RIGHT under where my cousin and I were sitting. Needless to say, we all went nuts, everyone in the entire SkyDome (excuse ME, the Rogers Centre, lul) screaming their heads off, and the Argos eventually won the game by the same score. It's great when your team wins like that, as everyone gets swept up in the emotion, fan or not. It was even better when Parker took the rest of the defensive players, lined them up in the end zone like pins, and pretended to throw a 'strike', as they all fell backwards...the Lions must have hated that. Well, sucks to be them!

Despite all that stuff, most Toronto teams really aren't that great overall. Maybe it's the pressure of playing in a huge market? Toronto IS the largest market in the country, and one of the largest markets in all of North America, to boot...especially in hockey. Heck, the Hockey Hall of Fame is IN Toronto, so it's kind of ridiculous to play here. Ah well...if one of these franchises wins a championship during my lifetime, it'll be worth it =P

the 90s strike back

This post is kind of about the 90s, I guess. My friends will definitely get the title's reference, considering it was the name of our Orientation Week, back in 2008. That seems like such a long time ago....ah well. The main reason I named it that was I decided to just continue talking about my favourite tv shows, but going back in time...to my childhood! I am sure most people are familiar with these shows, considering how popular they were in the 90s, but I'm going to talk about them anyway. After a tiring day of stupidity and incompetence, I think talking about my childhood tv shows is almost therapeutic. Anyway, here we go!

The first show on my list, which is my favourite, has to be the Transformers cartoon. I do not mean Beast Wars/Beasties, but the original Transformers with Optimus Prime, Megatron, Starscream, Soundwave, Ironhide, etc etc. I know it's not a 90s show, mainly from the 80s, but I grew up with cousins who were much older than me, and as a result, I am a fan of a lot of things from the late 70s/early 80s....like G.I.JOE, Transformers, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Back to the Future, etc etc etc. Anyway, Transformers was definitely a huge part of my life growing up, and I have many of the original toys; the Decepticons were the best, by the way, with Soundwave being the most awesome of them all. "Soundwave superior, Constructicons inferior" will always be one of the most memorable lines to me, hehe.

Secondly, I'd have to go with Bill Nye the Science Guy. Now this was a true show of my childhood. I learned so much from this show, it's crazy. It was a true educational show that combined learning with crazy fun, and Bill Nye himself is awesome. I mean, what more can I say about this show? I learned about gravity, electrons, atoms, outer space, geology, physics...you learn so much from him/the show in general, and it's entertaining enough that you can retain the information you learn and still want to learn more. Plus, every episode ended with a sweet music video about SCIENCE. How awesome is that?

Directly related to Bill Nye is The Magic School Bus. What kid of the 90s didn't watch this show? No one, that's who. What I didn't learn from Bill Nye, I learned from The Magic School Bus. Ms. Frizzle, Liz, the bus and the rest of the class were often people I wish I knew in real life; they just seemed so fun. I mean, really, the premise of the show was them going and doing crazy things, from traveling back in time to see the dinosaurs, to teleporting inside one of their student's bodies, to shrinking down to miniature size in order to bake a cake, to creating a lifesize Rube Goldberg machine, to visiting a world without friction, to going to the rainforests of South America, to going to outer space (where one of the students takes his helmet off on the surface of PLUTO, and promptly turns into a block of ice). I mean, it's probably one of the best shows ever. I think something I appreciated about it was, once it was done, the show's producer or something would take a 'call' from the 'audience', and explain the differences between the show and real life, just so kids didn't get the wrong impression about what happens (as in, that not only can humans NOT travel to Pluto so far, but they definitely would not be able to take their helmets off on the surface and still live =P). It definitely helped me...but, whatever, awesome show.

To be honest, other than those three shows, I really only remember the Power Rangers, which I didn't watch all THAT much. It was a hilarious show, in hindsight, and as a kid, I really enjoyed it. I only watched the first few seasons, though, considering how ridiculous it got eventually. Later on, towards the end of the decade/in the new decade of 00s, Digimon, Pokemon and other shows took centre stage, but those three shows definitely defined my childhood and me as a person. I wanted to be a scientist for the longest while, but high school soon dissuaded me of that notion...and here I am, majoring in English and Political Science. How exciting! =P

live together, die alone

I think that's a quote from LOST, from Jack Shepard, from Season 1, actually. This post isn't aboust LOST, but about my favourite tv shows in general.

To start, I should say I quite enjoy the entertainment that tv provides. I understand this is hypocritical of me, having just blasted other forms of entertainment in just the last post, but whatever. Part of entertainment is being able to criticize the ones you don't like....like, really, fashion/reality tv/gossip girl/perez hilton can go **** themselves.

Anyway, tv. I'm limiting the list to current shows...maybe a trip down memory lane is in store later, but this one is just the present. There are some fantastic shows made every year, and many series are renewed season in and season out. The list for me includes: 24, LOST, The West Wing, Dexter, 30 Rock, The Office, How I Met Your Mother and Castle.

So, yes, right off the bat, I cheated with the first three, three shows that are no longer on the air. I should probably say that out of the entire list, LOST is definitely the top one. Twist after ridiculous twist, fine acting, poignant moments, mysteries that go unsolved...there was nothing better on television than LOST for me. I had never actually rushed to go home to watch a television show before other than a football/basketball game, before LOST. It was just absolutely fantastic...and I won't even hesitate to say that I totally cried during the series finale. Jack, by the way, is the best character EVER.

I'm not spending long on each show, since there are quite a few, but the thing about Jack serves as a good springboard into the next show....24. Jack Bauer, the world's greatest badass (who is played by Canadian Kiefer Sutherland), stars in this show. Simply put, in eight days (eight different days, not consecutive ones), Jack saves the world eight times. Um...what? How is this man not the President himself by now? Granted, I've only watched the first three seasons, so many in seasons four through eight, he does some crazy things (which I've only heard of...so excited to finish watching it), so...who knows? The best thing about it being done is that I can now watch them at my leisure =P

The West Wing is a show about the inner workings of the west wing of the White House; you get to see the President of the United States and his staff in their day-to-day dealings, and the show covers everything from elections to war to terrorist attacks, and it does so with snappy dialogue and a fast pace. Aaron Sorkin, now an Oscar-nominated (hopefully an Oscar-winner, soon) screenplay writer, was behind much of the dialogue for the show, and man, it was good. Not just the dialogue, but the entire show; right up there with 24 and LOST.

As for shows that are on now, though, there are some excellent ones. The Office, 30 Rock and How I Met Your Mother...all comedies, and all hilarious. The Office is done in a 'mockumentary' type deal, where the characters are aware of the cameras that follow them around on a daily basis. It's in its seventh season right now, and some of the humour is admittedly dying out, but now I'm just watching it for the final plot developments with characters who are leaving. It was great, however, in its first two to four seasons, providing some huge laughs, be it through slapstick or dry humour. 30 Rock is all dry humour, wit, and offbeat humour, which is definitely my style of the lolz to be had. Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin, two of the funniest people alive, star in this show, and with a fantastic supporting cast, they tell the story of the daily workings of 30 Rockefeller Centre, which in real life is owned and operated by the television network NBC. It's great, you see cameos by many stars, and Tina Fey's background on Saturday Night Live for many years definitely helps her here, as it's loosely based off those experiences...except, magnified several times with a lens of ridiculousness. Finally HIMYM (woo for acronyms) is a sitcom (situational comedy); the characters are ridiculous, they engage in slapstick humour and puns, the situations they get themselves into are all ridiculous, and there is a laugh track. I really hate laugh tracks, I must admit, but they serve the show well here. The series makes use of an unseen narrator, telling his children how he met their mother. The entire show, then, is a sort of flashback through the narrator's life, with the year 2030 providing the narrative framework. It's actually quite awesome, as serious as that may sound =P

Dexter and Castle are two very interesting shows in their own right, and I put them together here because they are very unique, I think. Castle is a show about the smart aleck writer Richard Castle, who, in his efforts to write a new book, tags along on cases with the beautiful NYPD Detective Kate Beckett...and as you can imagine, not only do sparks fly, but so do barbed words, comments and puns...all in good fun, of course. It's a procedural show, meaning, every episode stands on its own, more or less, but involves a crime being committed (a homicide), and being solved by the end of the episode, after some interesting twists and turns. It's a great show, and Nathan Fillion (star of the fantastic but short lived Firefly, another amazing tv series) really makes it great.

Dexter, now....Dexter is probably the best tv show on television right now, and is arguably up there with 24, LOST, and The West Wing. Its premise? A blood spatter analysis tech who works for the Miami Police Department in homicide is actually a serial killer, someone who goes around and kills at his own discretion...but he only kills bad people. Michael C. Hall in the titular role is absolutely hypnotic in his role as the serial killer Dexter Morgan, as he balances his every day life, his blank soul, and his job at Miami Metro Homicide with the need to kill. It's always a thrill to see him in action, wondering whether or not he'll get got, get away, or if things will unravel further than he lets them. The show's 5th season just ended, and it was renewed for a 6th, so it'll be fantastically interesting to see what happens next. Needless to say, it is a show with many twists and turns, and I do not want to ruin it for anyone, because the show is a work of art...yes, it's that good. It's interesting...when Dexter kills someone, you don't feel bad, as the audience. I think by watching (and enjoying) the show, you as the audience are inherently approving of what Dexter is doing as the character...which is to say, you're fine with the murder that he is committing. In that respect, you can really enjoy what he is doing, because you stop going 'my goodness, he's actually just brutally killing this person', and instead think 'oh, wow, this is actually really interesting.' Maybe that's also a result of our desensitized culture, too, but that is a discussion for another time.

Anyway, those are my favourite tv shows. The Wire is another great one, but so far I've only watched S1 and S2, and while S1 was great, S2 was...well, pretty bad. I'm told that S3 onwards is some of the best television ever to be created, and this is coming from someone who was a huge LOST fan...until they watched The Wire, so I'm willing to give it a chance.

I hope you share my tastes in television, but if not....well, it's not like I have any time to watch any more tv, so I guess trying out your tastes will have to wait =D

pre-ripped jeans? what the hell?

So I had a discussion today about fashion with two female friends of mine. Honestly, I make fun of them a lot, but I made even more fun of them because of fashion. As I'm sure you know, our society (and I don't just mean the Western society, I guess I really am referring to human society as a whole) is incredibly shallow. Celebrities and models are the most popular people alive...hell, even one of the most popular blogs in the world, Perez Hilton's, is about celebrity gossip and all that crap. Why Perez Hilton is popular is honestly beyond me, but I actually am a little disappointed that people find his crap and that general crap (and yes, it is crap, despite your feelings towards it) is as insanely popular as it is. It's not that I'm jealous, I'm genuinely dumbfounded that anyone can find that stuff entertaining in the slightest.

We started off by talking about TV shows, such as Gossip Girl and reality TV. First off, Gossip Girl. How is that entertaining? I mean, it is literally a teen soap opera. Someone has sex with someone else, but the two people are in other relationships, so as revenge their significant others sleep with each other, and then everyone's sleeping with each other...oh yeah, and everyone is rich, so they can buy and do whatever they want, they're all super attractive but omg person A is actually related to person B, so lol they committed incest and the joke's on them. What. The. Hell. How is that entertaining? I think the only part of that I found remotely entertaining was the fact that Blake Lively (and the rest of the women) are ridiculously attractive, and even then, I'm content to look at pictures in magazines like Entertainment Weekly if I was that into them.

Reality TV gets even less of a pass from me, if only because they pretend to be 'real', even though the world knows its scripted. I mean, 'The Bachelor'? How does that get any ratings at all? It's literally a show about one super attractive/smart/nice/talented guy who tries to get married to one super attractive woman, and they're all either crazy or dumb. That is the premise of the show, season in, and season out. I can kind of see why people watch it, if only because it's such an escape from their own lives, I suppose. No one in 'real' life is going to be that lucky as to have a million different super hot women vying for his attention, so I guess people watch it because they can wish that they can relate? Even if my quasi-psychoanalysis is true, it's still goddamned stupid.

But, after that, we got into talking about fashion. Now, I'll be the first to admit, my mom still buys me a majority of my clothes as gifts for Christmas or my birthday...because, honestly, I don't really care that much. She has good taste, and my dad gives his input, so as a result, I have a pretty varied wardrobe. But still, I don't really care either way. When I hear that magazine editors are the ones deciding what is 'in' and what is 'out', I just get annoyed. Much like Heather and Oprah in Chapters, telling me what books I should buy (for the record, those 'picks' can go right to hell. I will read what I want, thank you very much.), I do not appreciate faceless people telling me that my clothes aren't cool enough to wear in public. Those people can also go right to hell for all I care.

It was then we got to pre-ripped jeans. The two of them thought they were cool and worth the money you pay for them. I was supremely offended by this. First of all, why on Earth would you pay MORE money for clothes that are, essentially, damaged? You're intentionally paying for something that is broken! You wouldn't buy a damaged fridge, or a gaming device, or a damaged couch or table, would you? No, of course not. Why would it be any different for clothes? They are meant to be practical and keeping you warm, though people who buy pre-ripped jeans are obviously only buying them because they LOOK nice. Now, this isn't a rip (lol) on people who buy things because they look nice, because EVERYONE does that for a variety of items. I just can't understand why someone would pay more instead of doing that to a pair of jeans themselves, which in itself is still dumb, but god, if you HAVE to do it, then at least don't pay for it.

I just feel as if our society is messed up, if we're at the point where pre-ripped jeans cost more than normal jeans. Yes, that is an exaggeration, but I hope you get my point. I mean, people go out and buy extravagant things, things that cost hundreds of dollars, when they can use that same amount of money to buy food or pay for transit, or any number of those things. I'm not suggesting that everyone give up luxuries and donate the difference to charities and third world counties, because as nice as that would be, it's also unrealistic. Is it, however, unrealistic to ask that people just spend a little less frivolously? It's just ridiculous to see people spending $140 on a pair of boots because they're 'in', or $100 on a pair of jeans that you get with holes in them already, or buying whatever the latest celebrity has tweeted or posted somewhere about.

Anyway, that's it for my little (large?) rant. I missed posting the past few days, because of class, meetings and on Sunday, the Super Bowl. I hope I made a point, somewhere there, but...yeah, it just bothers me. woo for blogging!

Minecraft

I was trying to think of a witty/relevant pun to write for this post's title, but I blanked. Ah well, considering this post is about Minecraft, the title isn't exactly misleading =P

But, yes, Minecraft. Perhaps one of the most entertaining games I have ever played, and it definitely is vying for top spot in that category. It has a ridiculously simple premise: punch blocks and build things. You start off in your own world, in the middle of nowhere, with absolutely nothing but the clothes on your back. You go to a piece of wood, and you have nothing else, so you beat it mercilessly with your hands. After hitting it for a while, it pops, and suddenly you have a block of wood in your inventory. You can, after you have gathered enough wood, build a workbench out of the wood, and then after you've gathered some more, use the bench to build a wooden pickaxe. What next? You use your wooden pickaxe to dig and dig, until you find stone, and then you can use the stone you mine to build a stone pickaxe (which is more durable), and then suddenly you're finding more materials to build sturdier tools to build larger structures and so on and so forth. The one danger are the monsters that come out at night, from bow-and-arrow wielding skeletons, to fast-moving spiders, to exploding creepers (which are terrifying, btw), so you must use your newfound knowledge of building things to build yourself a little shelter to weather the monster storm during the night (a Minecraft day is probably 15-20 minutes, while the night is equally as long, so a 24 hr equivalent is about 30-40 minutes, possibly less).

The object of the game? There is no object, other than to build whatever the hell you like. In my single player world, I build a gigantic citadel, with a mine that extends far below the surface in every direction. It has several stories, towers, bridges, storage areas, pens for animals, even a secret tunnel that leads out under the nearby ocean to an island for a quick getaway, in case my fortress ever came under attack (not that it would, considering I was in single player, but still, a nice thing to have). There is also the option to play on multiplayer servers, so what did I do? I grabbed some guys I've been with on an internet forum for years (literally, for years, I've been going to this forum for probably 5-6 years now), we all chipped in with $10 each, and bought our own server. On this server, we have done some amazing things. We built a to-scale version of an Imperial Star Destroyer, complete with command tower, engines and turbolaser batteries. We built an entire city, after clearing out thousands of blocks worth of dirt (each block is supposed to be 1m by 1m by 1m, btw, for a sense of scale). We each have our own base, from hollowed out mountain, to lighthouse made of glass, to a stone pyramid, to a tree-fort, to an underground maze (the hollowed out mountain is mine, btw).

This game is perhaps the ultimate sandbox game. The factor that makes it better than other sandbox games is, I think, the fact that you have to work to gather the materials yourself before you can build whatever it is you have planned in your mind. Many other games, like Gary's Mod (for Counter-Strike/other Steam games) or Forge (within Halo), simply give you the tools and materials necessary to make your dream come true. With Minecraft, you have to work for it; you have to create the tools, you have to use those tools to gather things, you have to protect the things you've gathered from monsters, you have to repair broken tools, etc etc etc. At the end of the day, everything is just so much more gratifying.

You know the movie, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring? The first one? The scene where (sorry, people who haven't seen this movie, I'm spoiling it for ya!) Boromir dies? When he dies (man, Sean Bean = great), they put him in a boat and send him off with style; through the gigantic statues that have their arms outstretched, and over the waterfall. I'm in the midst of building those two statues (to scale, of course) in my multiplayer server, right at the part of our map where the little bay where we all spawn opens up into an absolutely massive ocean...right at the bottleneck, so everyone will see its glory!

It's stuff like that that makes the game so interesting. I think another great feature is that the map goes on forever. As in, the terrain will forever generate itself. You can literally walk forever in one direction and never get stopped, as the game itself will continually generate land, dungeons, oceans, whatever for you to continually see and explore. Of course, it can also be a pain in the ass, considering that when you die, you respawn at the spot you spawned the first time you played the world. In the multiplayer server, we just build a house around the spawn point, so we always spawn within a certain protected area, rather than die, spawn, immediately run into a creeper and have it blow us up right then and there. It's rather useful, I think.

This game provides no end of amusement for me. After I'm done my statue, my next plan is to build an underwater base in the middle of the ocean, made entirely out of glass, on the ocean floor. I'll be able to see the rest of the fish in the ocean, and be completely dry! I feel as if that's something Dr. Evil would build....but, hell, it's fun. After that, who knows? Maybe I'll go back to my hollowed-out mountain base and surround the whole mountain with a huge wall. Pointless? Yessir. Fun? Daaaaaaaamn straight.

Welcome to Rapture

Everytime I read/hear that, it sounds like some religious dogma (Dogma, btw, is another great movie....it's directed by Kevin Smith, so good) that you would hear in the Bible or something. But no, that is not what I'm talking about today. BioShock, a game for the Xbox 360 and PS3, is perhaps one of the best games that I have ever played. It's not a new game, having come out several years ago, but man, does it excel at what it does. It's classified, I believe, as a horror/thriller (despite the actual genre being an FPS), and the game has one of the more intense openings that I can remember. You're on a plane, traveling over the ocean (which one, I do not remember), and all of a sudden the plane is going down, it crashlands, blows up, and you are the only survivor, swimming to the surface only to find that in the middle of the ocean, there is a tower nearby. You go to the tower, take a mysterious elevator/submersible thing, and all of a sudden, you're on the ocean floor, where the city of Rapture awaits you. The only thing is...Rapture is not a nice place. There's blood all over the floor, dead bodies, and crazed maniacs who wield claws and knives and other...implements. What happened? Well, it's up to you to find out, and believe me, do you find out.

The name of the game, 'BioShock' comes from the various things you learn/receive in the game. As the main character, you are introduced to a strange world where genetics have been tinkered with, where you can inject yourself with a strange substance known as ADAM, and gain superhuman powers (they range from being able to throw lightning bolts from your hands, to telekinesis, to summoning swarms of killer bees) to aid you in your quest. As you skulk about the mysterious and damaged city of Rapture, you meet some interesting people, and you're never sure who is a good guy and who is not.

I'm trying my hardest to refrain from spoiling anything, because this game has a fantastic twist, one that I definitely did not see coming. I mean, twists can sometimes be foreseen, but not all the time, and this one was right out of left field. Suffice to say, your arrival in Rapture wasn't as random as you would like to think...

I guess a reason I decided to review BioShock was because this is probably one of two games that I can say I actually had 100% completion rate for. This (and the Godfather for PC) was such a good game that I found myself going out of my way, backtracking to levels previously completed, just to find that one little scrap of info that I needed to be 100% complete. Because it was for the Xbox 360, with their achievement system, there was one achievement that was given only if you, the player, managed to collect all 51 audio diaries left throughout the city, which is gigantic. Not only that, but the diaries were left in the most obscure places; underneath fallen equipment, buried in gardens, inside killer plants, in lockers that were underwater, etc etc etc. You had to use some truly ingenious ways to find them, and even the easy ones were misleading; you'd see one just lying there, go to pick it up, and then five guys would drop out of the ceiling, wielding guns, all of them pointed at your head.

The most fantastic thing about the game was its atmosphere. 2K Games really managed to show off the way they made the city as creepy as possible; there was writing on the walls from people, written in their own blood, the corpse still curled up underneath. There would be moving shadows that would freeze at your approaching footsteps, only for you to hear whatever casts that shadow giggle and run away...to have, moments later, a gigantic iron-clad monster with a drill for a hand come charging at you out of the darkness. There would be tremendously large rooms, with nothing in them, and then the moment you took a step inside, the room would go dark and laughter would echo out of the walls...creepy as hell. The atmosphere was wonderfully done, and BioShock 2, while I've only played a little, doesn't quite measure up to the first one.

My favourite story from BioShock, though, was near the end, when I was backtracking to find a certain potion that I needed to upgrade my powers. I went into a dentist's office, inside Rapture somewhere, and there it was, just sitting on the desk. As I walked in, though, the stuff that dentists use to freeze your gums when they operate, the tank was broken, so it was occaisonally misting up the entire room, and freezing your character for a few seconds at a time. I just beared it as I walked to the desk, but as soon as I picked up the potion, the room misted up once again. Seconds later, it cleared, so I turned around.....and the dentist himself was standing right up next to me. His face was so close, it took up the entire screen, and I could clearly see his disfigured, demented smile as he reached for me. Luckily for me, I was so overleveled at this point that my character was super strong, and I was already holding the shotgun....so I just pulled the trigger, unloaded a blast of lead into the guy's face, and blew his head off. Still, though....terrifying.

Moments like that are why I love video games, and BioShock was full of them. It was definitely scary, and I loved every moment of being scared. The ending was great too, as it had one of those 'multiple endings' depending on how you played the game, so I definitely went back through and played it again...and again. If you haven't played this game, and you're fond of shooters like I am, then I definitely recommend this game, as Rapture is a strange (but fun!) place to visit.

well, that's fucked.

I don't usually like to swear online (which is weird, because I curse like a sailor in every day talk), but I decided to make a special exception for this one, if only because this post has to do with my student council. To start off, I've been on a student council since I was in grade 4. That year, I was the representative from my homeform to sit on the Student Representative Board (a council comprised of reps from every homeform from JK/SK to gr. 6), which was awesome. I did it again for grades 5 and 6, and then in grades 7 and 8 I did it again (albeit at a different school, but the rep system was still intact). In grades 9 through 12, high school, the student council was more of a council and less representatives. I was a grade 9 rep to the council in grade 9, assistant treasurer in grade 10, treasurer in grade 11 and external affairs officer in grade 12. Heck, I had more experience than the President that year, and as a result, I was also the Head Prefect (the only guy, lol) and the Valedictorian.

So, in short, I was a keener. I've always been like that, and I can't really explain what draws me to the whole student government thing. In first year of university, I actually didn't sit on my college's council, but was the first year representative for VOCA, the Victoria Off Campus Association. The following year I took a pretty big leap, as I became the college council's Finance Chair, responsible for a budget of 200,000$, and now in third year I am a Member-At-Large, for the same council.

It's interesting, VUSAC (Victoria University Student Administrative Council) hasbecome such a large part of my life, I can't really imagine what I would be doing if I wasn't a part of it. I mean, yes, I've done Orientation Exec, and I've done VCDS (god, I am a keener, aren't I?), but VUSAC is so different from them, and is gratifying in a different way.

It's also funny, as when I was the Finance Chair, I cared so much about the council. Perhaps that comes with the job, as the FC position was a pretty high stress, high work position, one that you got paid for ($500 honorarium), but if you screwed up, the onus was on you to fix it and also to explain to people how student money went missing. In short, I cared quite a bit. I still had a fantastic time, however, as the council was comprised of some of the best people I've ever had the pleasure to work with. Indeed, some of my best friends at university have been made through the council (i.e. Ashley, Evan, Sarah, Micah, all members of the council in 2009-2010), and everyone else on the council I still count as my friends, people I could joke with and make fun of and all sorts of things. Even in meetings, when things got heated, afterwards people were able to take a step back and still be friends and joke around and laugh at the silly things that were said to one another during the meeting. To be fair, though, the Finance Chair was supposed to be as neutral as possible, and even though I developed friendships with people, I was as neutral as I could be.

This year, everything is different. I should start by saying the Member-at-Large positions are quite minor, when compared to the other commissions. MALs, as they're called, are basically the grunts (Grunts, if you like Halo =P) of VUSAC; they're assigned to a commission, and while they're supposed to be treated like a co-commissioner, most of the time they just do whatever their commissioner tells/asks them to do. The experience of a MAL really depends on which commissioner you're assigned, if only because you might get one who is really controlling, so you don't get much work, OR you get a commissioner who delegates everything...its hard to find a middle ground. As the FC, I kind of didn't think much of the MALs, because I primarily dealt with the commissioners/President/Vice-Presidents. Now that I am a MAL, the whole game has changed.

Firstly, I definitely do not care as much. I am also lucky, because I have who I think is the best commissioner (well, he's the Vice President External, so technically not a commissioner) on the whole council. He's fair, gets me enough work to make me feel involved, but doesn't swamp me with it. I've seen other MALs this year either get NOTHING to do, which is a waste of time (why bother running to be elected, then?), or get SO MUCH that they can't handle it and burn out. I honestly have the best situation, which is why I think I don't take much seriously. In addition to not caring as much, it seems as if the dynamic has changed a LOT. To backtrack a little, last year's elections (so when this year's commissioners were elected last spring) carried with it a little taint of scandal, due to the Presidential vote having some tampering with it. The candidate who had tampered votes added to his total still ended up winning, and some felt that this was not right....anyway, fast forward to the present, and now half the council resents him for it. It's kind of sad, really...well, it would be sad if he were a better President, but there you go. As it stands, he's harsh, and somewhat mean to people who don't agree with him. To be fair, though, that is his personality, but still, not the most becoming one for a President.

It's great, though. Because I have the experience and the less-important position, I get to lol at everything! Commissioners sniping at each other during/outside meetings, awkward moments in the VUSAC office, the President berating people/yelling at them/taking sides in debates, the Chairperson shutting people down/displaying blatant favouritism during meetings...it's awesome. This, finally, has brought me back to the title of this post. A friend of mine and I decided that because the meetings/VUSAC in general is messed up this year, that it needed an appropriate slogan. So, whenever something crazy happens....'well, that's fucked' is uttered. I think it's catching on!

But, still, it's a little sad that VUSAC is this messed up this year. There have been moments which are awesome, but for the most part, it has definitely not lived up to expectations. I feel as if part of it comes with being a MAL; work with no glory, basically. It also has to do with commissioners expecting a lot from everyone else, focusing on their own events and not really caring to help out with other commissions' events. There is a lot less unity, although I'm proud to say I am friends with everyone on the council. Having said that, I still enjoy sitting back and enjoying lol after lol.

Even after all that, though, I find myself gearing up for election season next year. The only way to make VUSAC better is to do it yourself! I mean, I already have some idea of who is running for what, and if everything falls the way I think (or rather, I hope) it will, VUSAC will be wayyyyy better next year. We're working on some reform policies right now that will hopefully shrink the council for next year, so that there are less people doing more, rather than the bloated mess we have now, but I have hope for next year regardless of what happens concerning the policies. It'll be interesting, no doubt...anyway, time to go ready my VPE campaign. wooo VUSAC!

magneto > batman

I got into a Facebook argument (you know, posting back and forth with someone/multiple ppl) about Magneto > Batman, and on a girl's status update, no less. She already knew I was a nerd, though, so I guess it's alright...? No, not really, me convincing myself that it is clearly isn't going to make it true, hehe. Anyway, while Batman is super interesting, and has some pretty awesome storylines/comics in general, the villains have always been more interesting to me. I mean, just looking at Batman by himself, you get Two-Face (my personal favourite), the Joker, the Riddler, the Scarecrow, Bane, Mr. Freeze, Man-Bat...moving on to other heroes (from both DC and Marvel), there are villains like Apocalypse, Doomsday, Brainiac, Lex Luthor, Doctor Doom, Loki, Doc Ock, the Green Goblin, Mandarin, the Red Skull, Kingpin, Darkseid, Galactus, Bullseye, the Juggernaut, Mystique, Black Adam, Sinestro....so many of them. In fact, IGN made a top 100 Comic Book Villains list, and I never tire of reading it, especially when I see who is at no. 1.

Villains, really, are what makes comics (as well as novels and movies, amongst other things) as interesting as they are. No one wants to just hear about the protagonists and their happy lives. Superman comics would be the most boring things in the world if it weren't for Lex Luthor and the gang; the man is literally invincible, he can jump buildings, fly, shoot lasers from his eyes, punch through anything, etc etc etc. By having a villain who is as smart as Superman is strong makes for some pretty interesting comics, even if Superman's one weakness is a material that is not natural to Earth (in the comics, at least)...yet somehow Luthor always seems to obtain some, impossible though it may seem.

It's kind of interesting when the antagonist isn't a person or an alien or a sentient thing like that, but when its something that cannot really be combated, like a disease or even nature/loneliness within nature/loneliness in general. I think that is why zombies are so popular and why they remain an enduring fixture in movies and popular culture; its less the zombies that are the antagonists, and more so the fact that there are always so many of them, that the situation seems hopeless, that you're all by yourself, or with a group in the middle of nowhere. The Walking Dead (both the comics and the newfound TV series), Left 4 Dead/Dead Rising/Resident Evil (video game series), or even movies such as 28 Days Later or I Am Legend (the latter of which was also a book), they are all insanely popular items within their own mediums.

Going back to villains, though, they remain the drawing point for movies as well. A recent (relatively) example of this can be seen in The Dark Knight; Heath Ledger's turn as the crazed and anarchistic Joker earned him a posthumous Academy Award. Javier Bardem's role as the bad guy from No Country for Old Men (I forget the characters name despite having seen the book and read the movie) earned him an Academy Award, and I suppose most recently, the villainous Oscar has gone to Christoph Waltz for his portrayal of Nazi Colonel Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds. While those three awards/roles are perhaps indicative of the times of movies, clearly the villanous roles are getting to be more and more popular with the mainstream audiences these days. Even Liam Neeson's role as Ra's Al Ghul in Batman Begins was insanely popular, but then again Liam Neeson is awesome in everything. Denzel Washington, who I spoke of before in my blog, won his Academy Award for being a bad guy in Training Day as well! I am, of course, leaving out two of the most famous cinematic villains of all time: Hannibal Lecter (portrayed by Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, who won an Oscar for that as well) and Darth Vader (portrayed by David Prowse, voiced by James Earl Jones, in Star Wars). Is it a coincidence that these villains are two of the most lasting figures in popular culture? Heck, even the Godfather wasn't a 'good guy', and that is one of the most famous roles/movies of all time!

I always think it's interesting that for James Bond movies, the 'Bond villain' is always such a big deal...and why wouldn't it be? James Bond is the perfect spy; he saves the world and gets the girl, always. The person to match wits with him, who always is defeated in the end, needs to be smeone almost as smooth and suave as him. Some fine actors have been in the role of villain, from Sean Bean to Christopher Lee.

While heroes and protagonists in general often give you the more memorable moments, villains arguably have just as many, if not more, of those moments, and they can be quite fantastic.

hugh jackman ftw

With February comes Oscar season, and with Oscar season comes oodles and oodles of analyses (is that the correct plural term? I think it is =P). It's kind of annoying, but to hell with it, I'm going to do it myself anyway! I should also mention that whenever I think of the Oscars, I go and watch this video of Hugh Jackman (my favourite part is about The Reader. It never gets old). That, and how the rap group Three Six Mafia actually won an Oscar. How awesome is that?!

But, yarr, the Oscars. So much fun. I hope Anne Hathaway and James Franco do a good job this year; Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin, while that sounded good on paper, just looked really awkward. Granted, they do have a ridiculously awesome sense of comedic timing, so I mean, maybe that was the point? If so, it was clearly lost on me...I can appreciate people like Jon Stewart, or Chris Rock, and maaaaaybe even occasionally Ellen DeGeneres (even if she's a bit annoying sometimes)...or maybe I just like the solo acts better than the duo. Who knows? Hugh Jackman was pretty sweet, though, you have to admit.

There are a lot of sweet movies up for Oscars this year, yet one of my favourite things to look at are not the people who were nominated, but the people who were not nominated. Like in 2008, Christopher Nolan was once again snubbed, leading fanboys (of both The Dark Knight and Inception) to cry foul. Inception was nominated, though, for Best Picture, so that's kind of like the Academy saying 'alright, stop whining, here's your goddamn nomination'. It's very unlikely that Inception will win anything other than technical achievement awards (it was also nominated for Art Direction, Cinematography, Music (Original Score), Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects, and Writing (Original Screenplay), all nominations it could potentially win), but garnering a Best Picture nomination (even in the renewed age of the new expanded BP nominees) is still pretty impressive.

Again, though, the nominees are pretty sweet. I was lucky enough to have seen True Grit, The Fighter and a host of other Oscar-nominated movies, and all of them are fantastic. One race that always intrigues me is the Best Animated Picture. It's no secret that Pixar is often lightyears (c wut i did thar? Pixar? Lightyear? BUZZ LIGHTYEAR? i r teh funnay) ahead of the competition; since 2001 (the 74th Academy Awards; this year we have the 83rd) Pixar has won the award five times. In the years it didn't win, there was either a much better movie (such as Shrek over Monsters Inc. in 2001, or Happy Feet over Cars in 2006), or Pixar simply hadn't made a movie that year. Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Wall-E, Ratatouille and Up all won awards for being fantastic movies, and indeed, if Toy Story 3 does not win the Oscar this year...well, I'll be one sad dude. Granted, its competition is one of the best non-Disney/Pixar movies to come out in years, How To Train Your Dragon, but still, it's no Toy Story 3. Hell, if TS3 can garner a Best PICTURE nomination, it can at the very least win a Best Animated Picture award.

The Fighter is a fantastic movie, and Christian Bale really went all out for this role. He lost something like 30+ lbs to prepare for his turn as a crack-addicted former boxer, while his younger bro is going for the chance to win something he never could: a world title. It's based on a true story, but Bale really shined in this one...I hope (and fully expect) him to win. Best Actor and Best Actress I'm going with Colin Firth and Natalie Portman, respectively, as they won the SAG awards for those categories as well, and those are usually pretty good indicators of who will win the Oscar. Jeff Bridges was great in True Grit, but I feel as if because A) he won last year and B) Colin Firth was great in The King's Speech, they'll not be giving it to him, as impressive as that would be.

The Best Picture and Best Director awards are always tricky to predict, because there are always so many fantastic movies that come out each year. Last year it was down to Avatar and The Hurt Locker, and the latter won out in both categories. I have no idea who will win this year, so I'll just say who I want to win: Best Director - Darren Aronofsky and Best Picture - The King's Speech. woo for baseless predictions, considering I haven't seen either The Black Swan or The King's Speech! =P

In the category of technical achievements, Visual Effects is always a fun one. I hope either Inception or Iron Man 2 wins...two of my favourite movies. At this point in the picking of winners, I'm just going with my personal preference, really. While I want Toy Story 3 to win for Best Adapted Screenplay, I feel as if the Social Network will win, considering Aaron Sorkin (who was a creator as well as writer for The West Wing, one of the best television shows period) was the guy behind it.

But I digress. In the end, the Oscars are literally a bunch of actors, directors, writers, etc. giving other actors, directors, writers, etc. golden statues to worship at home and the right to say 'hah, my movie made x millions of dollars more than yours!/hah, I'm a better actor/actress than you!/etc.' for a year. You're always hearing about how our society is a destructive one because everyone is a gluttonous (lolololol) consumer, in the age of celebrities, Facebook and Twitter, and yet millions of people (including myself) will tune into the Oscars to watch these celebrities pat each other on the back. The day after the Oscars, February 28th, I'll be going downtown, to the VUSAC office, preparing to pick up a package for my college spring elections...the world will still (hopefully) be the same. What I'm basically trying to say (in a quasi intelligent way) is that my predictions don't really matter, so why are you still reading? Go do something productive!

Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

wooo madness! University really is crazy. What with intramurals, student government (and all the drama that comes with THAT), friends, family...it's crazy. Anyway, I was just surfing the internet in the VUSAC (Victoria University Student Administrative Council) office, and I decided to change the background of my account on the office computer to one of my favourite people...Tom Brady. Yes, this is a post about TOM BRADY. Prepare to be blown away.



...wait, I don't know that much about him. I mean, he IS fantastically handsome...? I feel as if there are only a few people (read: celebrities) in the world who I would absolutely love to meet, and he's probably one of them. I mean, the list isn't really that long, kind of like 1) Tom Brady 2) Harrison Ford 3) Brendan Fraser 4)...well, I don't really know who I'd put at four, but those first three are pretty cool. What is Brendan Fraser doing in the company of such distinguished men, you may ask? Well, hell if I know, but he's so awesome, I'd love to meet him.

Anyway, Tom Brady. Three-time Super Bowl champion, including a repeat when he beat both the Carolina Panthers and Philadelphia Eagles in back-to-back years (well, when the New England Patriots beat them in back-to-back years, football is a team sport, I can admit that), one of the most clutch quarterbacks of all time, has a perfect regular season (oh how I wish I could just say 'perfect season'), 50 TD season and most attempts without an INT as records under his championship-laden belt. As of late, though, the Patriots haven't been as good as they have been in the past, although the problems have nothing to do with Mr. Brady; it's the defense. Bill Belichick, the Patriots' head coach, while he is a defensive mastermind, he can't do much with players who just...aren't as good as he's used to having in the past. It's like playing a game of chess where all the pieces you start with are pawns with a single bishop and a single knight thrown in there for good measure. You're not going to get anywhere too fast with THOSE pieces, I'll tell you that much. Having said that, though, the Patriots still went 14-2 this season (out of a 16 game season), which is pretty good. With a ton of picks in the upcoming draft, the Pats look to upgrade their defense even more...considering this season was supposed to be a 'rebuilding' season, well, I have some high hopes for the next few years, as I'm sure most Patriots fans do.

Tom Brady, meanwhile, will probably collect his second MVP award in a few days, after having posted a season where he had exactly 3900 yds passing, and led the NFL in TDs (36), fewest interceptions (4) and highest QB rating (111.0). With the departure of Randy Moss, Brady and Belichick basically completely changed the offensive sets used; no longer did Brady have a weapon that could stretch the field as Moss could (and frequently did)...heck, he didn't even have a weapon that could stretch the field even half that. Wes Welker did what he could, which was a lot, but even for him, coming off a reconstructive knee surgery...well, the Patriots were lacking at receiver. They went out and got an old friend, Deion Branch, but still, if the Patriots get Tom Brady another toy to play with on the field, then I'm certain a Super Bowl ring or two await them in the near future (although defensive toys are good too!).

Apart from all the amazing football things Tom Terrific has done, he's also a ridiculously famous celebrity. It's weird, the guy was a backup his entire career, for the Michigan Wolverines, the no. 3 QB for the Patriots (drafted 199th overall, not good by any standards), and through perseverance and hard work, has now become a household name in the world of sports. As a result, he dates supermodels, has hosted SNL and even makes appearances on Entourage. I guess that's the life of a superstar. Did I mention he just signed a 4-yr contract extension for $72 million dollars? No? Well, I guess it is easy to overlook such a fact....=P