the plague

the swine flu is not the problem.
the Nobel Peace Prize is no cause for alarm.
Our enemy has shown its face. Shall we cower into the night?

or

SHALL WE FIGHT!!!!!!!!







"That's what she said."

Since when is a phrase our enemy? A threat to our national security? Something that makes baby Jesus cry?

Well, I believe it is time for the smoke alarm to be rung. Really, since when is it considered acceptable to take the catch phrase of an acknowledged dolt and make it our own? Since now.

I have no problem with Michael Scott using the phrase. He actually does well with it; the writers are actually poking fun at the type of people who would embrace that kind of humor- and, inadvertently, they found that this group consisted of: most of their viewing audience. You can even tell by the writing, that they are already tiring of this schtick. Mr Scott, of recent has used it quite sparingly. They don't want to write him into a corner, so they are trying to let us forget about it. But I doubt that will happen.

I used to be like you. I was once as carefree and happy. A few people were saying "that's what she said," but they mostly consisted of those who are unable to acheive on a level field of play. Then, slowly at first, intelligent and coherent people started following suit. But they grew in number, that number unintelligible in so many ways. Now, the contaigion has spread so far that anyone could be a potential carrier. I can no longer listen for signs of acuity and base my conclusion on this. The dreaded phrase could emanate from any local source.

My only source of hope is that, by some miracle of God, there will be some sort of vaccine or cure developed before the disease reaches myself and the ones I love. Current research has come to a standstill, but if I understand correctly, we can use frog DNA to complete the code, and Bingo! A cure! Now, just like any good vaccine, this one gets you a little sick with the virus you were trying to avoid in the first place. So, if you would just bear with me temporarily...

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID

THA--

THAT-

th-

(heavy breathing)








(heavy breathing continues)







(I'm kind of out of shape)






I think I am done. And that's all it takes. If you want to be completely healed of saying something that is totally not funny at all (only if you are smart; if you aren't, then don't worry about it), then say the dreaded phrase 4-10 times and ye shall be healed (1).



















1. Ye may not be healed. It's really up to ye.

Movie Revision #2: Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith

Hello, Friends.

For the second installment, we will be discussing the third (and final) prequel to George Lucas' Star Wars Saga. As with the last time, the plot will be treated like a chess game. The premise is that one move is made to change it for the better. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the story, a few important details:

• Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) is a whiny protector of the republic, whom everyone believes is going to be a great catalyst for change due to a misunderstood prophecy. If only I had a nickle for every time that happened.
• In seeking to protect his wife, he accepts turning to the dark side, only he ends up killing her.
• At no point in the story are we ever convinced that this querulous jedi will ever gain the capacity to turn into the Darth Vader we came to know in the plots of episodes IV, V, and VI.

We, of course, know that Anakin is supposed to embody the characteristics of Vader even at an early age. Does he ever reach more than that Seinfeld-esque high comedic pitch anger? I say no.
My advice is, if you're going for comedy, why not go for broke?

Move:

Insert G.O.B. Bluth as the new Anakin.



For those of you unfamiliar with Arrested Development, Gob (Will Arnett) is the eldest of the Bluth children, and brother of the main protagonist, Michael Bluth.

References can be found here, here, here.

This would fix the problem most people have with this movie, namely, Hayden Christensen's portrayal of such an iconic evil figure. What I encourage you to do next time is insert Will Arnett and some of his classic lines as Gob Bluth to enhance your viewing experience. I went ahead and did some of the work for you, recreating most of the last dialogues between OBI-WAN and ANAKIN:


OBI-WAN:

What are you doing here? Did that Queen of Naboo throw you out?

ANAKIN:

She's not that Senator, she's my Queen. And she's a senator or something.

OBI-WAN:

What's her first name? Quickly.

ANAKIN:

Crindee!

OBI-WAN:

Name's not Crindee, Anakin.

ANAKIN:

Ah, Mace Windu. Nope that's the Jedi. Well, Well, she's GOT a name. And I'm gonna find out what it is. And I'm gonna make a pun on it. And that's what I'll call her. Bad example: if her name's Leia, I'll call her Lame-O.

OBI-WAN:

You have allowed this Dark Lord to twist your mind until now . . . until now you have become the very thing you swore to destroy.

ANAKIN:

Yeah, like the chosen one of the prophecy needs to worry about the Dark Side. COME ON!
Zero hour, Obi-Wan. It's the end of the line. I'm the chosen one. I'm sick of playing second fiddle. I'm always third in line for everything. I'm tired of finishing fourth. Being the fifth wheel. There are six things I'm mad about, and I'm taking over. I have brought peace, justice, freedom, and security to my new Empire.

OBI-WAN:
Your new empire? Anakin, my allegiance is to the Republic ... to democracy.

ANAKIN:
Then there's me. The joker. The goofball. The Padawan.
[quickly makes a Jedi's gesture with his hands at OBI-WAN]

OBI-WAN:
I thought you were gonna do a little lightning ball there.


ANAKIN:
I was. It didn't go off.



ANAKIN lashes out at OBI-WAN, and they begin a ferocious sword fight.
After much fighting, DARTH SIDIOUS discovers what remains of ANAKIN/DARTH VADER.


DARTH SIDIOUS:
Lord Vader, can you hear me?

DARTH VADER:
Yes, My Master.

DARTH VADER looks around the room.

DARTH VADER:
Where is Padme? Is she safe, is she all right?

DARTH SIDIOUS:
I'm afraid she died. ... it seems in your anger, you killed her.

DARTH VADER:
I've made a huge mistake...






I hope that now you can thoroughly enjoy Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
to its fullest. My apologies to those who are unfamiliar with either, but they say to write what you know...

Plot Revisions #1: Lord of The Rings Edition

Premise:

In one move, vastly improve the plot of a movie, book, or epic poem.

Case #1:

Lord of the Rings.


Revision:


Give the palantir of Orthanc to Treebeard.





The palantir of Orthanc (pictured above), for those who don't know, was an orb in the Lord of the Rings series. This orb contained considerable power for those who held it. Yet, coupled with this power was the potential for undesired consequences. For the palantir imparts clarity of vision to those who hold it. They can communicate with the holders of other palantirs, and use them to see what is happening through the other portal. Sauron, the story's antagonist uses the palantir he has access to in order to manipulate and subvert the actions of those who would fight against him.

Gandalf is a very competent leader and military strategist. As far as that goes, no one in the storyline rivals his abilities. But where he went wrong was with the palantir. Gandalf gains access to it after the Ents defeat Saruman at Isengard. He keeps hold of it, until Pippen nabs it from him while he is sleeping. He (Pippen) has contact with Sauron through the palantir, and fortuitously sees a dying tree (simbolizing Gondor). So, Gandalf and friends find out where Sauron is plotting his next attack, yet at the cost of Pippen becoming Sauron's main target, and at the risk of Pippen letting him know something very costly (Frodo's quest to destroy the ring). Now, this obviously didn't happen, but it could have.

It is at Isengard, when Gandalf first gets the palantir, that he could have decided differently.

So why oh why, you ask, should we give the palantir to Treebeard? He knows nothing.

Exactly. You grab the palantir from Pippen when he first picks it up, hand it to Treebeard and say,

"Go to town."

"Buuuut whaat shaaall IIII doooo wiiiiiiith thiiiiiis?"

"I don't care, just don't lose it, and keep your hands on it at all times."

"Ooohhkaaay."


He takes it, and off towards his duties as keeper of Isengard.

He takes the palantir, peering into it.

Sauron, sensing the use of one of the orbs, quickly attempts to seize this opportunity to bend the will of his enemies towards his own. An ominous, peircing voice enters Treebeard's head.


"I SEE YOU!! WAIT. WHO IS THIS?"


" I am not going to tell you my name, not yet at any rate. For one thing it would take a long while: my name is growing all the time, and I've lived a very long, long time; so my name is like a story. Real names tell you the story of things they belong to in my language, in the Old Entish as you might say. It is a lovely language, but it takes a very long time saying anything in it, because we do not say anything in it, unless it is worth taking a long time to say, and to listen to."



"TELL ME OF YOUR PLANS. WHAT OF THE RING, THE WAR!"


'Hoom, hum, I have not troubled about the Great Wars. They mostly concern Elves and Men. That is the business of Wizards: Wizards are always troubled about the future. I do not like worrying about the future. I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side, if you understand me: nobody cares for the woods as I care for them, not even Elves nowadays. "


"HAVE YOU NOT ANYTHING OF VALUE?"


"'When Summer lies upon the world,
and in a noon of gold


("NO. NOT POETRY. NOT LIKE THIS.")


Beneath the roof of sleeping leaves
the dreams of trees unfold;


("GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!")



When woodland halls are green and cool,
and wind is in the West,


(We see the Red Eye, the Evil Eye, the Lidless Eye desperately searching for the source of its antagonism)


Come back to me! Come back to me,

(The Lidless Eye begins to close. It is still fighting off the intense dreariness, but the soothing low, hoarse voice is too much)

and say my land is best!"

(The Eye is at rest. Treebeard looks back into the palantir, and is about to begin lecturing Sauron on the evils of the orcs, but he noticed his audience captive with sleep, decides not to attempt to wake him. )

What happens next? Well, Frodo and Sam now have a lot easier road to destroy the ring. If the eye went to sleep, it would seem unlikely that the hoards of mordor would still be motivated to fight, given the loss of their leader. He was indescribably important, and terribly motivating to their cause. So that's all. That's it movie over, and we're done in less than 2 hours. Who doesn't like that?

Sarcasm addendum

I was not planning on making a series out of this, but...


I'm still not going to.

I did, however, want a chance to respond to a majority of the comments without posting 11 times on the page. I also wanted to elaborate on the things I did say. To those who have ventured in expounding on the subject, thank you. For the most part, Matt (catfish) Gately was right. My intention was not a general apology for past wrongs-for that, schedule an individual appointment. I do recognize my shortcomings, but the important thing is recognizing the tendency one might have to make such comments. From a believer's perspective, once we become aware of something that is keeping us from entering the fullness of God, we are no longer allowed to plead ignorance:

Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?"
Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

Television plays a more than mild part in molding the character that we present to others. One general attitude towards the world is one of apathy. But apathy's most viable opponnent is criticism. You can either not care about anything, or care about everything, and proceed to complain about it. I think it says something about our society, when the most common response to the phrase:

"I didn't vote"

is

"Well, now you can't complain."

Oh, really? Well it just so happens that I am in the process of downsizing my complaints dept. as well (maybe for nothing other than this). But the spirit of criticism lives on. When we are subjected to its ways, its life results in a type of death for us. But I don't need to convince anyone. We know it from its fruit, the heaviness of which we have all experienced. Eventually our spirits are worn down, and we do acquiesce to its advances. After awhile, we stop even noticing its effects. Not because we have become desensitized, mind you, but, because, a long time ago, a seed was planted. That seed serves the same function as any seed: to take root in the place it was planted. So, now grafted to our very souls, is a full-fledged monster of botany that feeds on criticism and sarcasm and insults. Needless to say, there are television shows that use to have my wholehearted endorsedment, which are minus a viewer due to their high levels of sarcasm and criticism. Even when I'm around individuals whose conversation basically consists of 0ne insult after another, I find myself grappling to find a way to one-up them. Afterwards, in a moment of clarity, I regret letting myself get carried away. I guess I could always become apathetic.

Are there only 2 viable options? Are we either constantly criticizing or intermittently not caring? Is it some combination of the two, nothing in excess?

Certainly there is some other answer.

There is, but it's not this guy.

I think it has something to do with this:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Care passionately. Take an active stance against apathy. The things that are from God are light. What I am advocating is a level of discernment towards the thoughts that enter our heads. Discerning thought is the enemy of critical thought. It makes decisions without its foundation being on any parameters that we could come up with on our own. More on discernment is found in Matthew 7:15-20.


Thanks to those who encouraged me with their own words. I feel honored that I have friends who see the good in me and in others. That is an admirable trait. But as far as motivations go, some reasons for my original diatribe are the following:

• I am usually accused of sarcasm. More than most. If you've ever been around me for very long, you have probably heard me plead my case: "You're not using the true definition of sarcasm. There is a difference between facetiousness and sarcasm. The word you want is facetious." This is important because:
  

• As the infamous John Wayne Lusk commented to me at celebration, if enough people use a word the wrong way, the definition of the word changes. This is why comptroller is a word, and irregardless is becoming one. Sarcasm and general irony are coalescing into one broad definition, and it would be in everyone's best interests if they didn't.
  

• Finally, although I ardently defend my actions, if I look closely, I do use sarcasm. I am critical of others. If I can realize this, then maybe I can become more aware of the adverse affect it has on myself and on others. And when I am through plank-pulling in myself, maybe I can say a few things to encourage others to be aware as well (note: not through yet).

I guess this has turned into a criticism of criticism. I never said I didn't endorse circular reasoning...Rest assured I may tone down criticism, but I won't refrain from saying something flippant about this.

Edict on Sarcasm

Is the title sarcastic?

No.

I just wanted to take this opportunity and officially declare my glaring disapproval of sarcasm. Of course, many who read this will say to me on this day, "Skolnick, Skolnick have we not seen you be sarcastic before?" And on that day I shall say to them: Away from me, I never knew ye. I have had this discussion with a heralded group of people, notably Mary Gray and Greg Wilson. But, yes, I do have a bone to pick with sarcasm.
As a result of the internets, and the televisions wreaking havoc on our souls, in our society, sarcasm has taken a lofty position. It has now become complementary to tell someone that they are sarcastic- as praises go, it is on par with being witty or intelligent. And although some have taken it to mean the same as those, it certainly does not. Most people who are unapolegetically sarcastic are both witty and intelligent, but it doesn't go both ways. Now it has come to this. I'm ready to take it down a few pegs.
On a regular basis, we break conversational rules, or maxims. We are irrelevant. We pay too much attention to detail. We say things we don't mean, at least in the literal sense. The last example is irony in its most basic form. Using words to convey something that we do not want the audience to take at face value. Sarcasm is different. More or less, it is irony, used with malicious intent. Sarcasm has a life of its own. Most forms of criticism can be heavy, but this is worse-it adds on the expense of being made fun of. Who wants that? Where sarcasm really gains steam is in junior high. And as a result of this trend, the world is beginning to resemble Whittier Middle School a little more than I want it to (don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed it, but there are some things I could have done without).
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not unstained in this. I do use sarcasm (though not to the extent I am accused of it), and will probably slip up somewhere in the future. But I am going to try to not do that. You can do what you want.

nearing despair

Some thoughts on today:
That is, today, in the context of yesterday and tomorrow.

Yesterday, on the day of Preparation, a man went to Sheol. He went quietly and there were little there to grieve his passing. There is much recorded about that day. But for this day of Passover, the annals of history are discrete. My friend left me yesterday, but not before I could leave him. , save a few. What else is there, when the walls come down? We fled yesterday. Traded trust for comfort and loyalty for safety. And today? Today, we cannot look each other in the eyes. Today, we look for one to blame. Today, we grieve him. Nothing matters anymore. He even raised others, but can he raise himself? I do not know if I can believe that. There is nothing left for us now. Those in power want to find us. I am ready to go to them. Hope itself is fading.

So you think you're a philosopher

well, you're not.
and neither am I.


I Just finished my first-half semester since spring of '05. That's four years, for those of you keeping score at home. It started out without much fanfare. Sure, there was an AP article a few months ago, but (surprisingly) a ticker tape parade was somehow deemed unfeasible. I say : If the public wants it, let them have it. Wasn't that one of the campaign slogans? Nevertheless, I decided to trod through this travesty and haven't looked back. Except right now. I remember my first day of school like it was January:

Like many addled adolescents, I stood, paralyzed with unbridled enthusiasm for the impending expedition I was to embark on. I got to my class -PHIL 6593 with plenty of time to spare.
Its official title is: Sem—Contemp Phil (How Do I Go On?)
That's right, How Do I Go On? Class commenced with us stating our names, for the record, and then a slight overview of the course. Most of the schedule was and has been devoted to studying Wittgenstein, who thought he had solved everything about philosophy in a book he wrote in his twenties, only to recant it in a book he wrote later (We are studying the later book).
My second class was PHIL 5523, the next day. This class is Epistemology (the study of knowledge).
What I found out in these classes was this:
Almost all modern philosophy has been dwindled down and devolved into a philosophy of language. The logical postitivists had made it their goal to make it a field of observational evidence only. So, the most intriguing areas in philosophy (all metaphysics and ethics) have been relegated to Xanga status: most people just don't care anymore.

Apparently, though, diving into the deeper waters of philosophy consists of things like:

• Using words like adjudicate and normative.
• Being extremely offended when non-philosophers use the phrase "begs the question"
• Taking fairly simple ideas and construing them in terms that don't really tell us about the real world.

• Taking more simple ideas and transplanting them into far-fetched scenarios that make you think: So this theory does not work because this situation that will never happen causes the theory to give unpleasant results.

We all know that the theory of addition says that 2 +2 =4.
But it is possible to imagine a world where 2+2=8. Therefore, because the theory of addition is not able to account for all possible scenarios, it cannot be an all-encompassing theory.

This is an oversimplification, but that is the gist of much of it. It only took pursuing a graduate degree to realize my field had become frivolous. And one could certainly argue that skolnick never had problems with frivolity in the past. On the contrary, in the past I have been an ardent advocate of it. But alas, even the most frivolous have the capacity to tire of it in one way or another. That is not to say I have given up; that is a decision to be made further down the road. Being a philosopher, however, is not a prerequisite to contributing to philosophy. There are still glimmers of hope in it, and I still feel like I have a great deal to say about it. But the theme for me has always been:
What I believe and know to be true is not found on the basis of any argument. Neither is it for anyone else. Not for my friends, my classmates, or my professors, regardless of what they say. Even in the presence of logical necessities, humanity tends to hold strong to what they believe. An evidence of faith, though it does not seem. In this, I do not profess to be distinct. But what I believe once hung on a tree. God pursues humanity.