Someone explain to me why the Smart kidnapping is so important and other kidnappings aren't. No answer? Exactly.

I'm not posting tonight. Err.... Well.. Oops... Umm... Yeah....

Enjoy this instead.

You know what really pisses me off a whole lot? Insurance companies. Especially auto insurance. The government requires that you have auto insurance before you can drive a car, and then the insurance company rapes you and gets away with it. My sister was in a wreck last night--totally her fault, so I can't complain too much--and no matter what--even if we pay out of pocket for everything, involving the insurance company not at all--my sister can no longer be on the family's plan, and my parents will now have to pay many thousands of dollars a year for her and her alone--and this is her first offense! I understand that they have to charge more for the "risky" customers, but they don't have to pay so much, and they don't have to be so cold and the-rules-say-this-so-fuck-off. It's just inane.

Homeowner's insurance is a bitch, too. If you make more than two claims in one year, regardless of what the claims are, regardless of how long you've had the policy, no matter how much money you've yielded to the insurance company, you're off the plan. No questions asked. And this is LEGAL.

I'm gonna stop here because I'm exhausted and I don't want to think about this anymore right before bed. But there's a lot more to say...

Hey Nationwide. Hey Statefarm. Hey Allstate. FUCK. YOU.

I was reading a comment board for an article a little while ago. The subject of discussion is tangentially about religion, and one person made a comment to the effect of "look at the universe around you; there's no scientific explanation for where all of it came from: it had to be God." This commits a huge logical fallacy that so many people overlook, conveniently forget, or consider to be invalid: lack of proof is not sufficient proof. The lack of proof for one idea does not prove another. Just because you cannot prove that there's no God doesn't mean that there must be one. Just because you could not prove the earth was round didn't mean that it must be flat.

This is a very powerful blog post by a fellow blogspot blogger concerning Gay Pride Parades and how it really defeats the cause it's meant to help. I was going to give a rehashing of what he says, but his post really says all that needs to be said. So go read it.

I found this one someone else's blog, so I can't take credit for it, but it's too damn good to not mention:

"The Random Quote of the Day is, 'If sex is an urge to procreate, then hunger's an urge to defecate.'"

First off, if you haven't read Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth," you're really missing out. In a portion of that book, Campbell discusses the concept of following one's bliss. The concept essentially echoes Shakespeare's famous line, "this above all: to thine own self be true." If you follow what your heart tells you to do, if you follow your bliss, your life will be much more satisfying than if you follow the suggestions of society, your family, your friends, television, etc...

The reason I bring this up is because I'm facing a bit of a dilemma in my life. I am--and if you've read much of this blog, you'll know this--an atheist, but despite that, I don't want to be an atheist. Yes, that sounds strange, I know. I would very much like to believe in God, spirituality, or at least the idea that there is something beyond this simple physical realm in which we seemingly exist. But at the same time, I have to follow what my "heart" tells me, and believe that these things do not exist, and that we are simply products of a giant machine, iterating through the ages. Some of my friends tell me that it would be better for me to believe in God such if that's truly what I want to believe. Campbell's idea of following one's bliss would suggest the same thing, and, thus far in my life, following that advice has borne sweet fruit. Nevertheless, what does it say when a person chooses to believe in whimsy simply because it's "more fun," when that's not what they truly believe? Not just that, how does one accomplish that to begin with? Really, in a lot of ways, that's just doublethink.

So if I believe what I want to believe, I'm not being true to myself, and if I believe what I do believe, I'm not following my bliss. Which is more important, being true to myself, or following my bliss? Would I rather live a lie and be happy, or be honest with myself, and continue to desire something else? Tough questions.

It kind of makes me wonder why it is exactly that I want so badly to believe in spirituality. Christians would say that it's just God calling me. Poppycock, I say: if you look for patterns, you find them everywhere. I actually think that it's because I want to fit in better with my family and society (I live in the Bible belt). And it also opens up a whole new world of thought: if there's a spiritual realm, I have to consider what it consists of, how it exists, how it relates to our physical realm, etc.., and that's a lot of fun thinking to do :-). So my reasons are really quite superficial, and I don't know what would really be gained. So I'm just going to stick with my current beliefs, and continue to examine spirituality from a distance, even if it is just a bunch of mythology.

This sort of reminds me about my foray into Wicca. I find Wicca to be an absolutely beautiful religion, and I agree with a lot of its teachings, but at the same time, it's a load of hooey in my opinion, and so despite its beauty and despite my attraction to it, I've passed it by, taking only what little bits I feel strongly about, because to fully adopt it would be an absurdity to me. So yeah....

I started writing another short film last night, and I have a strong feeling that something very much like this has been done before. I think it's something very viable and very entertaining, but at the same time, I worry that the originality that I'm going for isn't actually there. I very rarely share my stories/films/etc. with people outside of my creative circle before I've got a first draft completely written, and I'm not going to make an exception on a public forum like this, but at the same time, I would like to know if my idea seems familiar because I'd thought of it before or because I've seen it. Oh, well, there's an old adage that says something akin to "all the original ideas have been taken, the issue is not how original your idea is, but how original your remake of that idea is." Problem is, I'm still using cliched techniques. I guess I can fix that when I'm revising. Oh, well.

Side note: what movies have been made where the main character isn't sure whether he's awake or asleep? (Or an idea similar to that)

There's a fine line between genius and insanity, and Mulholland Drive is somewhere on the razor's edge. I just finished watching it, and if you asked me, I would have absolutely no clue what it was about. I tend to think that it was as insane as it appeared superficially to be, but generally when you think something is insane, it is only because you're not wise enough to see its genius. So by that logic, Mulholland Drive was a work of pure genius. I'm really very intrigued, and I would very much like to have some semblence of a clue what the hell just happened, but at the same time, perhaps not knowing is part of the point. Anywho, if you've any inkling, do tell.

(And go see the movie, too)