MAXIMS FOR MAXIMUS
February 06, 2012
These are the maxims I now live by, and have been for the past 6+ months. My life has improved immeasurably. They are in no particular order. Yes, there are 11, and yes that is an odd number, but it's my number.
1. Memento Mori, remember your mortality. Do want you want and do it today, for you may be dead tomorrow. Fear not failure or embarrassment.
2. Do what you love and do it well. Follow your heart.
3. Never, ever, ever give up. Not on your dreams, not on people, not on life.
4. Improve each day; physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.
5. Find the good in every person and situation; always make an effort to see through the
eyes of other people before judging.
6. Find and exploit the opportunity in every situation.
7. Be an actor; wear masks, adapt, and change roles to fit the situation and environment.
8. Speak few words, but let your words carry the weight of a thousand armies.
9. Always question what you do and how you do it; if you do not, you will become
comfortable with inefficiency and fail to improve.
10. Ignore dogma and create your own path in life.
11. Do not plan, but rather trust that the dots of destiny will connect in the future.
Namaste.
DRIVE
February 05, 2012
Excuse me while I take a moment to bash what was quite possibly the worst movie of 2011. Ordinarily, I wouldn't do this. In fact, I never have. But this movie deserves it because it was hailed as an exceptional movie when it hit theatres.
"Drive", starring Ryan Gosling.
For starters, the movie features very little driving, with the exception of one scene near the very end, and even that scene sucked more than Pamela Anderson in a porno. There are a couple scenes, max 1 minute long, which feature Gosling driving with a woman, played by Carey Mulligan. These scenes feature no dialogue; they drive in a straight line in a horribly unimaginative scene, and do nothing once the driving ends.
Second thing: Gosling is perhaps the worst actor in the history of Hollywood. I don't care if he acts differently in other films – and he very well might – but I have no intention of ever, EVER, watching another Gosling film based solely on his performance in "Drive". I give most people, things, and experiences second chances, but Gosling choked so bad in this movie, I was running through suicide options in my head. But I was in a theatre and, well, jamming a straw through my head didn't seem very feasible. So I did the next best thing, dreamt of imaginative ways Gosling's character could die in the movie; my favorite idea was keelhauling.
Seriously, the guy blew more than the Kansas wind.
1. He was emotionless and expressionless through 99-percent of the movie.
2. He took FOREVER to respond after, say, Mulligan said her line. She'd say something like "You look good today," and you'd be sitting in your seat counting the minutes until Gosling would respond. 1 minute, 2 minutes. Finally, he would acknowledge that his co-star did in fact say her line, but not by uttering a line of his own, oh no that'd just be too damn enjoyable, so what's he do? He simply smiles or nods his head.
Honestly, for the first half of the movie I wanted his character to take a leap of faith off a skyscraper; for the second half I wanted to myself, knowing full well that I could not erase the memory of this movie from my brain.
My eyes were raped by this movie. It's the very epitome of "shitacular movie." If you want to see the very worst of what Hollywood offered the world in 2011, watch "Drive". Don't say I didn't warn you.
MITT ROMNEY AND WEALTH
February 01, 2012
The media and left-wing moonbats seem determined to drag Mitt Romney down based solely on his wealth. Apparently, now it is a crime to be wealthy. Wealth equals success and the Democrats prey on jealously and envy by painting Romney's wealth as an evil thing.
Oh no! Heaven forbid someone do well and achieve financial success! What a crime! According to these moonbats, Romney should have also paid a much higher tax rate than less-wealthy Americans. The truth, however, is that he did in fact pay a higher tax rate.
Not only did Romney pay close to 15-percent in taxes, nearly double the effective average tax rate of 8.2-percent, he paid 16.4-percent of his income to charity. And while he had an offshores bank account, he even paid taxes on that money, negating one of the primary benefits of having an overseas bank account.
The point is that Romney has clearly paid his dues. But if you really want to argue that the wealthy shouldn't be president, I suppose you can remove George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Herbert Hoover, and JFK from the history books.
Wealth is generally a sign of success, success a sign of hard work, determination, and intelligence. That is why I have no problem with a wealthy president.
Perhaps if those who envy the wealthy should get off their asses and start upping their efforts; in truth, those who aren't wealthy are that way primarily because of laziness. This "unfortunate people" nonsense is bullshit. Those who have the will to succeed – either financially or otherwise – will find a way. Some of the richest people have come from the poorest backgrounds, so I don't buy into this "unfortunate" nonsense. They're just lazy, envious, and looking for big government to solve their problems, and the left-wing nutjobs are catering to them, as they always do, by targeting Romney's wealth.
Full disclosure: I'm not a Romney supporter. In fact, I'm rooting for the other guy. But at the end of the day, if Romney is the nominee, I will support him over the socialist lunatic that currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
RESPONSE TO COLLEGIAN EDITORIAL
January, 28 2012
Earlier this week, an editorial was published in the Collegian by reporter Jakki Thompson, headlined “Student Senate purpose clear, certain areas lack professionalism.”
One example was senators checking score updates on ESPN and cramming legislation research in at the last minute. Another example was senators standing outside the room prior to the meeting discussing drinking. While upon initial inspection, the editorial appears to bear merit, after a proper understanding of how Senate works, the article is a moot point.
I started writing for the Collegian my freshman year, covering both SGA and City Government. Ms. Thompson mentions at the beginning of her article that Senate is “quite a learning curve” and I’d agree to that. It was a learning curve for me, a freshman writer, when I began, which is why I refrained from criticizing SGA before I had overcome the learning curve.
When I was a reporter, I too noticed senators seemingly not paying attention, checking ESPN.com, Facebook-ing. But I trusted senators knew what they were doing.
Having served a while now as senator, I’ve come to understand this with a different perspective. What reporters don’t know or report on is the amount of work senators do outside of this room. Many of us know the legislation on the agenda like we do the backs of our hands, after spending hours in committee meetings working on them. So while we might drift over to ESPN to check a score, that doesn’t mean we don’t know the legislation. I’m not saying our divided attention is right or wrong, I’m merely pointing out the truth.
If I were the reporter writing the editorial, I would have chosen to take a more factual approach on criticizing actual flaws rather than perceived weaknesses. Are there things we can improve on? Of course there are.
We could get out of this entitlement and tradition mindset. At some point over the years, this very body decided to relax and start going through the motions, and began doing things simply because “that’s the way we've been doing it.” Doing things for the sake of tradition is unintelligent and weak-minded. We must always question what we are doing and how we are doing it otherwise we become comfortable with our inefficiencies and fail to improve ourselves
We could get back to Robert’s Rules of Order. Again, at some point over the years, we became lazy and decided that to be recognized, we should remain seated and raise our hand like in kindergarten, when Robert’s Rules states that we must stand up to be recognized.
And finally, we simply start doing things the right way and do our jobs. If we don’t like something in the by-laws, then change it through legislation, but until then, follow it. In one of the final meetings last semester, debate was ended on a bill for the reason that “the committee wanted it this way and they already debated it.” Well, if a committee’s say was final, bills wouldn’t be brought before senate.
So, my fellow senators, it is my hope that we can look at Ms. Thompson’s recent editorial as a wakeup call to correct the real problems with Senate and set a new standard of quality for future senators.
TIM TEBOW
January 16, 2012
Is there a logical reason for all the Tim Tebow hate that transpired this season? If there is, I haven’t found one, and I’ve looked all year long. I was never a Florida Gator fan and I barely knew who Tebow was during his college years. But I had seen him on Sportscenter highlights and when he was drafted by the Broncos, I started paying him a bit more attention.
When the Broncos sucked it up in the 2010 season, I wondered why they weren’t playing that Tebow kid they drafted. Sure he was a rookie, but why not see what he can do? And you know what? They did just that when they played the Houston Texans, a game in which Tebow lead the Broncos from a 17-0 deficit at halftime to victory.
That’s when I believed the Broncos, who after that game had a 4-11 record, should play Tebow as starter. Their record couldn’t get much worse, could it? But, as we all know, Broncos brass decided to start Orton this season and went 1-4 under his “performance.” They put in Tebow and miracles began happening. Come back wins. Game-winning fourth quarter drives. Overtime magic shows.
Clearly, this kid is a winner – and not only on the field, but off it as well. Many articles have been written of his philanthropic work and his amazing too-good-to-be-true-but-it-is character, so I won’t rehash it here.
So why the hate? I’ve identified three possible reasons: 1.) you’re a fan of another AFC West team, 2.) you don’t like his unconventional (zone-read-option) style, 3.) you don’t like him talking about God and Jesus Christ.
The first reason is the only understandable reason, and even then, you must give him credit as a skilled quarterback.
Those hating on his unconventional play style need to read up on their NFL history. First off, passing wasn’t initially a part of football, in fact it was illegal. Secondly, the NFL has a history of evolving and going through phases. Lastly, if it ultimately wins the game and works for the Broncos, why complain? The quarterback's job is to be a game manager - lead your team to a victory and manage the clock.
Critics point out that the zone-read-option is not sustainable over the course of multiple seasons. With a Coach like John Fox at the helm, I’d agree. Fox only unleashed Tebow’s potential for one game; the Pittsburgh Steelers Wildcard matchup. Tebow must be allowed to pass more than only on third downs. The zone-read-option cannot be used every play, nor will merely handing off to McGahee work every play. There needs to be variety.
The Patriots handed the Broncos defeat in the divisional round because John Fox miscalled the game. Belichick is hard enough to coach against, but when you run a highly predictable game plan against him, you might as well prepare for the offseason.
Another component of Tebow’s play style is his lack of passing accuracy. Does he throw a perfect spiral? No, far from it. But saying “Tebow can’t pass” ignores all the evidence to the contrary. Yes, he does have less than a 50-percent completion rating for the season, but that also includes throw-aways and dropped passes. Tebow passed great against the Patriots during their first meetup in regular season and just look at his passing against the Steelers! Wow!
He can pass when John Fox unleashes him. Forcing him to only pass in high pressure 3-and-long plays and expecting a 100-percent completion rating is ludicrous.
To those that hate Tebow for his outspoken Christian character, I ask you, is it not better than the scandals, criminal accusations, and hate spoken by other athletes? I welcome Tebow spreading the Word of God; him using the post-game podium to do that is vastly preferable to having a player use the podium to rant or take shots at another player.
So, where does the Tebow train go from here, now that the season is over? Right to his first critical offseason. Remember, due to the lockout, he did not have offseason practice in 2011. If John Elway makes good on his word to help him during the offseason, and if John Fox can open his playbook some more, I believe we’ll see a much improved Tebow next season.
The larger question, I feel, is if Denver can add some decent receivers and a dependable tight-end to its roster next year.
The NFL was so much more interesting to watch this year with a polarizing figure like Tebow playing under center. And that's coming from a Steelers fan. Who says the NFL can't be entertaining?
Final thought: Tebow’s record for his first 16 starts is better than that of Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and Eli Manning.
