In my unpopular opinion, you sound like a tool when you say that.
What I am referring to is a popular answer to the question, "What kind of music do you like?" Whenever people ask that question, they are trying to gauge what kind of person you are. What kind of music you like says a lot about who you are.
So whenever you answer: "My taste in music is very eclectic," you sound like a tool.
Even if you don't use the word, "eclectic," you still aren't really answering the question by saying the phrase "all kinds." Okay, everyone likes "all kinds" of music. Probably anyone can say their tastes are "eclectic." That. Is. Not. The. Question.
I know people are asking me that to get an actual idea of the type of music I like. Even if you give a general answer such as "I like 90's alternative music," which I do, that is more specific than "all kinds." Sometimes a good way to answer this question is to tell the person your top 3 favorite bands/artists (Mine are Coldplay, Nickel Creek, Beach Boys). Sometimes you can answer by telling the person what radio station you listen to.
Lately, my answer to this question would be "guilty pleasures." (Lol) I realize that isn't too specific. Everyone has different guilty pleasures. So I will be more specific.
My current playlist to hula-hoop to: (Yes, I am a hula-hoop enthusiast)
Creep - TLC
No Diggity - Blackstreet
Hungry Like the Wolf - Duran Duran
Feel Good Inc. - Gorillaz
Take Me Home Tonight - Eddie Money
She Wolf - Shakira
Blankest Year - Nada Surf
Can't Stop - Red Hot Chili Peppers
Auf Achse - Franz Ferdinand
Golf Digger - Kanye West
Start the Commotion - Wise Guys
Tearin' Up My Heart - N'Sync
Of course, I need upbeat music to hula-hoop to. None of these songs are my "driving music." They're just fun! You don't need to be so serious. Just listen to what you want and don't apologize for it.
In this blog, I'll share my opinions about pretty much any subject, and if you don't like it, feel free to argue with me.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Monday, July 22, 2013
Atheism Takes as Much Faith As Religion
This is my first post in this blog in almost a full year.
I am completely revamping this blog. I changed the URL and Title.
It isn't going to be too much different from what it was before. This time, I am getting a little bit more raw with the subject matter and a bit more open about my actual opinions. The reason I am doing this is because I am the type of person that tries to relate to everyone despite their opinion. When I am talking to someone about something uncomfortable, I only talk about the parts of their opinion with which I agree. I am a total chicken when it comes to debate and confrontation.
Therefore, I am going to face my fears head-on by posting my true and actual opinions on controversial subject matter on the internet. If you disagree with me, good...I want to hear from you. I am posting my opinions, I am not saying I'm 100% right. We can probably learn from one another through debate. Please feel free to disagree, I do want to hear from you if you do. I want to hear from you if you have something else to offer to the conversation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My First Blog Entry in "My Unpopular Opinion"
In my unpopular opinion, atheism takes as much faith as religion does.
This is aimed at atheists that say "There is no god." They are stating it as a concrete fact. It would be more accurate for them to say, "I believe there is no god." By saying the word "believe," they are being more intellectually honest because no one can scientifically prove there is no Creator or Deity.
I can understand science-oriented intellectuals becoming agnostics, because that is acknowledging that, just like the theory of evolution, you cannot prove Intelligent Design. What you need in order to prove a theory is to repeat the experiment the same way successfully. You cannot recreate the universe. Therefore, neither Intelligent Design, nor the Big Bang/Evolution can be proven into Scientific Law.
Therefore, it is more logical to say, "I cannot possibly know for sure either way" than to say, "I know for sure there is no God" or "I know for sure there is a God."
The same level of faith in what you believe exists in religion and atheism. If you are trying to be intellectually accurate, agnosticism would be more appropriate.
Me? I am a Christian. My beliefs are based on faith, just like an atheist's beliefs are based on faith. I have faith God exists. Atheists have faith in their belief there is no god.
What do you think?
I am completely revamping this blog. I changed the URL and Title.
It isn't going to be too much different from what it was before. This time, I am getting a little bit more raw with the subject matter and a bit more open about my actual opinions. The reason I am doing this is because I am the type of person that tries to relate to everyone despite their opinion. When I am talking to someone about something uncomfortable, I only talk about the parts of their opinion with which I agree. I am a total chicken when it comes to debate and confrontation.
Therefore, I am going to face my fears head-on by posting my true and actual opinions on controversial subject matter on the internet. If you disagree with me, good...I want to hear from you. I am posting my opinions, I am not saying I'm 100% right. We can probably learn from one another through debate. Please feel free to disagree, I do want to hear from you if you do. I want to hear from you if you have something else to offer to the conversation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My First Blog Entry in "My Unpopular Opinion"
In my unpopular opinion, atheism takes as much faith as religion does.
This is aimed at atheists that say "There is no god." They are stating it as a concrete fact. It would be more accurate for them to say, "I believe there is no god." By saying the word "believe," they are being more intellectually honest because no one can scientifically prove there is no Creator or Deity.
I can understand science-oriented intellectuals becoming agnostics, because that is acknowledging that, just like the theory of evolution, you cannot prove Intelligent Design. What you need in order to prove a theory is to repeat the experiment the same way successfully. You cannot recreate the universe. Therefore, neither Intelligent Design, nor the Big Bang/Evolution can be proven into Scientific Law.
Therefore, it is more logical to say, "I cannot possibly know for sure either way" than to say, "I know for sure there is no God" or "I know for sure there is a God."
The same level of faith in what you believe exists in religion and atheism. If you are trying to be intellectually accurate, agnosticism would be more appropriate.
Me? I am a Christian. My beliefs are based on faith, just like an atheist's beliefs are based on faith. I have faith God exists. Atheists have faith in their belief there is no god.
What do you think?
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
I Think I'll Go to Boston
I recently went to Boston, Massachusettes for a day trip. Now, there are a lot of wonderful historical sites to see in Boston, so how could I possibly do them all in one day? The Freedom Trail is how!
The Freedom Trail is free, and it has 16 historical sites on it. You start off in Boston Commons (which is like Boston's "Central Park"). You can pay to have a tour guide, or you can tour yourself for free. There is a red line that you follow throughout the city. The last stop is the Bunker Hill Monument.
To see all the famous sites of the Revolutionary War that I have studied in history books was wonderful. I saw the site of the Boston Massacre, The Old North Church (where Paul Revere placed the lanterns to warn about the British), Paul Revere's house, places where the meetings took place that lead to the Boston Tea Party. The oldest remaining pub in America is in Boston, and along the Freedom Trail are many historical pubs. If I go there another day, I'll do the "Pub Crawl," but this time, I just went to one pub for lunch. I had the New England Clam Chowder (since I was in New England).
However, my absolute favorite thing that I saw was the Granary Burial Grounds, in which the most recent grave is from 1826, which means it is an incredibly well preserved historical burying ground. Samuel Adams and John Hancock are buried there as well as Benjamin Franklin's family. It was amazing to stand over the corpses of great men.
If you remember in my blog, Get Away! I mentioned that not all trips have to be incredibly expensive. Look for places that have free attractions, such as the Freedom Trail in Boston. St. Louis is another fun city to go to that has tons of free attractions. So, continue to get out and have fun without spending a ton of money!
Massachusettes State House, which is on the freedom trail. Also famously pictured in the movie The Departed
Granary Burying Ground, where the youngest grave is from 1826.
Nesting
This is the reason I haven't posted a Project of the Day in a long time:
I have been working on this blanket for my son, Peter (due in November) for months. It's one of those things that I pick up from time to time, work on it, then forget about it for a while. However, lately, I've gotten more into working on it, so I hope to finish it soon. In the middle, there will be another blue stripe, and then at the end, there will be another blue corner.
If you would like to see a finished version of my baby blanket, go to this entry to view one that I made for a friend's child. Also click on that link to see how the blanket was made.
If you are pregnant, I would definitely advocate making things for your baby. It will be a special keep-sake for them in the future. I intend to make Peter some baby socks as well. I also feel like knitting Peter his blanket is a bonding time for me and the baby. I listen to music I want him to hear and knit and talk to him. Pregnant women go through a period of "nesting" which is a natural, instincful process of getting ready for the baby. Knitting is a wonderful way to release that "nesting" energy.
My aunt is also talking about us making a quilt for Peter. If you know me, you know quilting is not my thing, unless it's on a potholder, which is small. So we'll see if I end up doing that. :-)
Friday, July 13, 2012
Poor Whites
I really enjoyed my Jacksonian America class this summer. I did my book review for the class on a book called Poor Whites of the Antebellum South. I realized how little people know about poor whites in Antebellum times because history books focus on plantation owners and slaves. So I am posting my entire book review on here (It was only 4 pages), behind the cut. It is important for history not to ignore entire groups of people.
Southern Culture of Honor
I recently reviewed an article for a class on the Southern culture of honor and found it very interesting. Most of you probably saw the Hatfields and McCoys series on the history channel. Many of you are also aware of the male egotism that has been especially notable in the South. I wrote a paper on this subject based on an article, and thought I would share an exerpt with you if you are interested in Southern chivalric society.
"The article "Andrew Jackson's Honor" by Bertram Wyatt-Brown focuses on a side of Andrew Jackson most historians do not focus on, which is the concept of Jackson making decisions in his life based on defending his honor an the honor of those close to him. In the Old South, many Southerners believed themselves to be heirs to the Middle Ages custom of chivalry, which emphasizes honor, societal standing, and allows a man to defend his honor through violence when it is brought into question. This tradition was extremely prevalent throughout the South and brought many Southern men, especially lawyers, to actual duels. Wyatt-Brown offers the notion of honor as the main reason behind many of Jackson's important life and presidential decisions.
Wyatt-Brown notes how easy it is for modern students of Jacksonian history to focus in on Jackson's faults, such as Indian Removal and also when Jackson tried to prohibit the delivery of anti-slavery materials by law. However, he argues that even those things could be representative of Jackson defending his honor. After he took so much land from the Creek Indians, Jackson said it was because the Creeks didn't respect the American's strength since they sided with the British. Jackson also believed in the sovereignty of the American government and true abolitionists could cause a rift, so even that was threatening to his honor.
Wyatt-Brown also discusses how the desire for honor was a very typical reflection of the American South culture. Customs such as dueling were prevalent in this South as a result of this cultural desire for honor and dignity. In the American South, many Southerners felt they were heirs to European chilvalric times such as the Middle Ages. Thus, there was a tradition of code duello in which a man could defend his honor if it was question, even through violent means. Jackson was in several duels in his lifetime.
Wyatt-Brown recalls the time that Jackson killed Charles Dickinson, and notes that Jackson was the only American president to kill a man in a duel. Jackson preferred to handle his conflict with Dickinson over a horse gambling debt (and also insults toward Jackson's wife) in a "gentlemanly" way, by having a "proper" duel. To Jackson, the only thing worse than someone offending his honor was offending the honor of a woman. He staunchly defended the honor of his wife, which was repeatedly questioned since she had married Jackson without having been divorced from her first husband. Jackson thought that it was extremely inappropriate and appalling how men insulted his wife throughout her lifetime and even blamed one of her insulters, Henry Clay, for her death.
However, Wyatt-Brown also points out that many men went into these duels hoping their honor would be restored to them by winning, but much of the time the duels ended up having negative consequences to the victor's reputation. For instance, Wyatt Brown notes that Aaron Burr's career was damaged by killing Alexander Hamilton. Also, Jackson would not have been able to win an elected position in the years following the duel. Not until his victory in the Battle of New Orleans was Jackson's reputation restored."
"The article "Andrew Jackson's Honor" by Bertram Wyatt-Brown focuses on a side of Andrew Jackson most historians do not focus on, which is the concept of Jackson making decisions in his life based on defending his honor an the honor of those close to him. In the Old South, many Southerners believed themselves to be heirs to the Middle Ages custom of chivalry, which emphasizes honor, societal standing, and allows a man to defend his honor through violence when it is brought into question. This tradition was extremely prevalent throughout the South and brought many Southern men, especially lawyers, to actual duels. Wyatt-Brown offers the notion of honor as the main reason behind many of Jackson's important life and presidential decisions.
Wyatt-Brown notes how easy it is for modern students of Jacksonian history to focus in on Jackson's faults, such as Indian Removal and also when Jackson tried to prohibit the delivery of anti-slavery materials by law. However, he argues that even those things could be representative of Jackson defending his honor. After he took so much land from the Creek Indians, Jackson said it was because the Creeks didn't respect the American's strength since they sided with the British. Jackson also believed in the sovereignty of the American government and true abolitionists could cause a rift, so even that was threatening to his honor.
Wyatt-Brown also discusses how the desire for honor was a very typical reflection of the American South culture. Customs such as dueling were prevalent in this South as a result of this cultural desire for honor and dignity. In the American South, many Southerners felt they were heirs to European chilvalric times such as the Middle Ages. Thus, there was a tradition of code duello in which a man could defend his honor if it was question, even through violent means. Jackson was in several duels in his lifetime.
Wyatt-Brown recalls the time that Jackson killed Charles Dickinson, and notes that Jackson was the only American president to kill a man in a duel. Jackson preferred to handle his conflict with Dickinson over a horse gambling debt (and also insults toward Jackson's wife) in a "gentlemanly" way, by having a "proper" duel. To Jackson, the only thing worse than someone offending his honor was offending the honor of a woman. He staunchly defended the honor of his wife, which was repeatedly questioned since she had married Jackson without having been divorced from her first husband. Jackson thought that it was extremely inappropriate and appalling how men insulted his wife throughout her lifetime and even blamed one of her insulters, Henry Clay, for her death.
However, Wyatt-Brown also points out that many men went into these duels hoping their honor would be restored to them by winning, but much of the time the duels ended up having negative consequences to the victor's reputation. For instance, Wyatt Brown notes that Aaron Burr's career was damaged by killing Alexander Hamilton. Also, Jackson would not have been able to win an elected position in the years following the duel. Not until his victory in the Battle of New Orleans was Jackson's reputation restored."
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Ancient Aliens?
I have been watching the History Channel show, Ancient Aliens and decided I had a lot to say about it, much like I did on my previous entry on the show Doomsday Preppers . Basically, this show is incredibly speculative. Speculation is sometimes fun, but some historians can take it too far and I feel as though that is what this show does. Now, I cannot say 100% for sure that they are wrong, since there is no proof that aliens do or do not exist. But I can say for sure that in all of the scenarios they mention, there are far more likely explanations that aliens.
The ancient Sumerians believed that a superior race came from above from another planet and mixed with Neanderthals and that is how modern humans were formed. The "historians/scientists" on the show believe this formation was from ancient genetic engineering and that the "superior race from above" is an ancient proof of aliens. Now, the latest evolutionary theories suggest that modern humans, or homo sapiens, did not come after Neanderthals, but existed with them simultaneously. The best theory is that both homo sapiens and Neanderthals descended from homo heidelbergensis, so they are actually thought to be "brother" species. There is no proof that homo sapiens were able to interbreed with Neanderthals, however. So before you could prove that we were genetically engineered into one species by aliens, you would first have to prove that homo sapiens could interbreed with Neanderthals, which is impossible to prove.
The show also proposed that the beasts mentioned in ancient mythology such as the Minotaur (half man, half bull), Centaur (half man, half horse), and Cerberus (three headed dog) were all proof of ancient genetic engineering by aliens. There are many reasons hybrids existed in ancient mythology. One reason was that many ancient religions practiced animal worship. Another reason is that many of these creatures were being punished by the gods by being turned into a hideous creature (such as Medusa). Many times, hybrids made a philosophical statement about the inner battle humans have between going on their "animal" or base instincts, and being civilized. Aliens is not the most logical solution that comes to mind.
The show also proposes the aliens caused plagues. The 430 B.C. Plague of Athens, the Justinian Plague, and the Black Plague were all events accompanied by reports of seeing glowing gold shields in the sky. The "historians/scientists" on the show believe that ancient aliens had somehow weaponized airborne diseases that they used to wipe out the human race at certain points. I would point out that many intense diseases, especially some as severe as plagues, are accompanied by hallucinations.
The people on the show also find proof of aliens in plagues by saying that "In all ancient time periods, many humans believed that diseases and bad fortune came from above." Well that doesn't necessarily mean aliens. The ancient Greece called it fate. The ancient Hindus called it karma. Many other pagan religions thought it to be the wrath of the gods. I don't know how you can pull "this means aliens exist" out of that.
I don't think that anyone can say either way for sure that aliens exist or aliens do not exist. However, this show seems to blame everything that ever happened in history on aliens. And while you can't prove aliens do not exist, there are much more likely scenarios other than "the aliens caused this."
The ancient Sumerians believed that a superior race came from above from another planet and mixed with Neanderthals and that is how modern humans were formed. The "historians/scientists" on the show believe this formation was from ancient genetic engineering and that the "superior race from above" is an ancient proof of aliens. Now, the latest evolutionary theories suggest that modern humans, or homo sapiens, did not come after Neanderthals, but existed with them simultaneously. The best theory is that both homo sapiens and Neanderthals descended from homo heidelbergensis, so they are actually thought to be "brother" species. There is no proof that homo sapiens were able to interbreed with Neanderthals, however. So before you could prove that we were genetically engineered into one species by aliens, you would first have to prove that homo sapiens could interbreed with Neanderthals, which is impossible to prove.
The show also proposed that the beasts mentioned in ancient mythology such as the Minotaur (half man, half bull), Centaur (half man, half horse), and Cerberus (three headed dog) were all proof of ancient genetic engineering by aliens. There are many reasons hybrids existed in ancient mythology. One reason was that many ancient religions practiced animal worship. Another reason is that many of these creatures were being punished by the gods by being turned into a hideous creature (such as Medusa). Many times, hybrids made a philosophical statement about the inner battle humans have between going on their "animal" or base instincts, and being civilized. Aliens is not the most logical solution that comes to mind.
The show also proposes the aliens caused plagues. The 430 B.C. Plague of Athens, the Justinian Plague, and the Black Plague were all events accompanied by reports of seeing glowing gold shields in the sky. The "historians/scientists" on the show believe that ancient aliens had somehow weaponized airborne diseases that they used to wipe out the human race at certain points. I would point out that many intense diseases, especially some as severe as plagues, are accompanied by hallucinations.
The people on the show also find proof of aliens in plagues by saying that "In all ancient time periods, many humans believed that diseases and bad fortune came from above." Well that doesn't necessarily mean aliens. The ancient Greece called it fate. The ancient Hindus called it karma. Many other pagan religions thought it to be the wrath of the gods. I don't know how you can pull "this means aliens exist" out of that.
I don't think that anyone can say either way for sure that aliens exist or aliens do not exist. However, this show seems to blame everything that ever happened in history on aliens. And while you can't prove aliens do not exist, there are much more likely scenarios other than "the aliens caused this."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





