MTV has ripped off yet another show, one that here would be even more controversial, from the UK, but apparently wasn't so controversial IN Great Britain. But we've been going through that for years. America is over the top Puritan about issues and you can see the reality of that by just looking around and seeing our culture. If we had more real reality and supplied realistic options to current and possible behaviors, we just might see a more functional country.
I watched one episode, "Tony" where a friends is trying to get his friend "laid" (to no longer be a virgin). It wasn't that bad. Is it content for teens? Before you ask that, ask yourself this: "Do you really know what your teens do, say, think, when they are not around you?" You may think so, but you'd be surprised if you could visit their brains for a minute. Apparently, "skins" are rolling papers.
A Clever TV Report on MTVs Skins show.
One viewer of this video said this:
The Young Turks report on Skins.
Gives you a little better idea of what's going on.
I can see a value to showing kids what kids really go through, for a change. But I think when you get into underage kids doing questionable activities for kids their ages, you need to put more into it than less. For adults, its one thing to show questionable behavior, but once you touch on minors, you need to not just show reality but also not to push questionably useful religious attitudes, but better, down to earth, reasonable, rational, and actually useful orientations to the kids.
By showing some useful scenarios in the context of the show, turns it from a voyeuristic teen show, to one that can be educational and save a lot of kids the pain and anguish they really don't need to be experiencing at these not so young anymore ages.
Yes, kids are going to do stupid things. Should other kids see what kids actually do out there in the real world away from their parents? I suppose if the producer's have the parent's consent, after all, a lot of money is involved here and greed nearly always wins out, then the issue isn't for the show to exist but for who's kids to watch it. But even if you just filmed whatever happened without a script, you could still use editing to make a point. Still, this is a scripted show. Teens need quality shows, if this will turn out to be that, then cool, but to scream about it at this stage, is premature.
A new millennium "Ferris Bueller" was bound to hit TV sooner or later (yes, I know it WAS a TV show for a while, but it didn't last long for a reason: the producers, the studio, completely missed the point), the fact that it took this long for a more interesting version, is amazing. That point, may have been understood by the producers of Skin.
So, will kids want to imitate what they see on this show? Probably, but
not for the most part. We also need to see how MTV will take on this
responsibility and adjust to the needs of their teen community. Yes,
that is dangerous. But really, MTV has not yet, killed all of our kids
or driven them all to drugs or prostitution. By the way, I couldn't really see where they were glorifying the behaviors most would object to. The question perhaps is not so much should they be doing a show like this, or should they be allowed to, but at what age should this not be allowed to happen at?
Would you let your kid be on this show? Would you let your kid watch this show? Before you comment, WATCH the show; don't go on a tirade like so many Christian groups did to "The Last Temptation of Christ", or many other films, shows, records and books. If you haven't actually seen what you want to complain about, shut up, you have no right to speak out, until you actually know what it is you are talking about.
Otherwise, you may just put yourself in the position of acting dumber than the kids in the show you are complaining about.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Choosing a special friend
How do you decide you want to date someone? Well, you meet someone, somewhere, you know. If they seem to have similar feelings, there you are.
But, how would you decide otherwise? Consider the online dating format. Do you meet, or run into someone in public and feel the chemistry, know they are interesting to you, and so you strike up a relationship?
No. You can't. It doesn't work that way. So, you are put into the realm of criteria, conscious thought about it, and rankings. There's no question about it.
Depending on the site or how you go about it, you either first see someone's photo, or you get search result returned depending upon your criteria. So right there, you have rated someone. If by nothing else, than age, race, distance, height, weight, perhaps even, hair or eye color, or other criteria.
Once you get your results, you have to eliminate people, narrow your search, decrease your search result pool to something manageable.
These are things we do out in public, if we meet someone, run into a stranger that intrigues us, or are introduced to someone new. Only it happens seemingly without thought, in a split second decision.
Makes us kind of hypocrites when we put someone down for using a dating service, dating site, or are even simply dismissive of a potential date because of almost any criteria we do not want. Some even say you are being vain, or "ist"-ist: racist, sexist, weightist, heightist, the list goes on.
But should we allow those in whom we are not fully, or as much as possible, attracted to? Maybe. Maybe not. But don't you want, and isn't that the stated purpose of sites like that, in that you can pick and choose before hand, who you will have to choose from?
I do not want to find the best person in the world for me, if they live in Finland. Or Turkey. I want someone local. So, I'm eliminating what? Long distance, potentially expensive relationships. For myself, I don't really care about your eye or hair color. I do have preferences for height, weight, etc.
I do not want to date a person who is 500 pounds. Sorry, I just don't. Why? Because it brings along with it, health and mobility issues. If nothing else, they won't fit in certain places, they can't do certain things. So, I"m eliminating those. If they feel bad about that, either don't, or lose weight. Or find someone who likes what you have to offer, or seek only people similar to you.
I've seen striking women who were 6'5" and I would date them, but they wouldn't date me. They didn't want to have a guy shorter than themselves and I fully understand that. It would eventually, probably, be an issue for me too, after a while.
So, if I don't want someone who is 500 pounds, then what weight is acceptable to me, what weight, should I begin to consider it a possibility? 300? 200? Now I have to consider the height. What is the tallest height of a person I might want to date? Now, as I'm not considering this of a person I'm meeting, I have to think about it and make a decision. How, do I do that?
Perhaps I consider past results of relationships, or women I've been near, or danced with, or held. What height seemed most pleasant? I found, about 5'6", preferably around 5'. For me, that means, about 90-110 pounds also.
Now, does that make me a bad person? If you say, yes. Really? Then, why? There is nothing wrong with preferences in life. There is, in fact, nothing wrong with prejudice in life.
What IS wrong, is being prejudicial out of hand, with ill intent, and stereotypically. But if you simply prefer, this over that, there is nothing wrong with that. In the end, you have to make a decision. A conscious decision is always best.
But, how would you decide otherwise? Consider the online dating format. Do you meet, or run into someone in public and feel the chemistry, know they are interesting to you, and so you strike up a relationship?
No. You can't. It doesn't work that way. So, you are put into the realm of criteria, conscious thought about it, and rankings. There's no question about it.
Depending on the site or how you go about it, you either first see someone's photo, or you get search result returned depending upon your criteria. So right there, you have rated someone. If by nothing else, than age, race, distance, height, weight, perhaps even, hair or eye color, or other criteria.
Once you get your results, you have to eliminate people, narrow your search, decrease your search result pool to something manageable.
These are things we do out in public, if we meet someone, run into a stranger that intrigues us, or are introduced to someone new. Only it happens seemingly without thought, in a split second decision.
Makes us kind of hypocrites when we put someone down for using a dating service, dating site, or are even simply dismissive of a potential date because of almost any criteria we do not want. Some even say you are being vain, or "ist"-ist: racist, sexist, weightist, heightist, the list goes on.
But should we allow those in whom we are not fully, or as much as possible, attracted to? Maybe. Maybe not. But don't you want, and isn't that the stated purpose of sites like that, in that you can pick and choose before hand, who you will have to choose from?
I do not want to find the best person in the world for me, if they live in Finland. Or Turkey. I want someone local. So, I'm eliminating what? Long distance, potentially expensive relationships. For myself, I don't really care about your eye or hair color. I do have preferences for height, weight, etc.
I do not want to date a person who is 500 pounds. Sorry, I just don't. Why? Because it brings along with it, health and mobility issues. If nothing else, they won't fit in certain places, they can't do certain things. So, I"m eliminating those. If they feel bad about that, either don't, or lose weight. Or find someone who likes what you have to offer, or seek only people similar to you.
I've seen striking women who were 6'5" and I would date them, but they wouldn't date me. They didn't want to have a guy shorter than themselves and I fully understand that. It would eventually, probably, be an issue for me too, after a while.
So, if I don't want someone who is 500 pounds, then what weight is acceptable to me, what weight, should I begin to consider it a possibility? 300? 200? Now I have to consider the height. What is the tallest height of a person I might want to date? Now, as I'm not considering this of a person I'm meeting, I have to think about it and make a decision. How, do I do that?
Perhaps I consider past results of relationships, or women I've been near, or danced with, or held. What height seemed most pleasant? I found, about 5'6", preferably around 5'. For me, that means, about 90-110 pounds also.
Now, does that make me a bad person? If you say, yes. Really? Then, why? There is nothing wrong with preferences in life. There is, in fact, nothing wrong with prejudice in life.
What IS wrong, is being prejudicial out of hand, with ill intent, and stereotypically. But if you simply prefer, this over that, there is nothing wrong with that. In the end, you have to make a decision. A conscious decision is always best.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Weekend Wise Words - Churchill and Fields speak
Two of my favorite characters out of History, Winston Churchill and W.C. Fields. I sometimes wonder just what those two would have been like stumbling around drunk in the night from pub to pub.
Winston Churchill
Quotes I ran across but hadn't heard in years:
Lady Nancy Astor (to Churchill): “Sir, you’re drunk!”
Churchill: “Yes, Madam, I am. But in the morning, I will be sober and you will still be ugly.”
A second quote:
Lady Astor: “If you were my husband, I’d put arsenic in your coffee.”
Churchill: “Madam, if I were your husband, I’d drink it!”
W.C. Fields
"Always carry a flagon of whiskey in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake."
A second quote:
"I'll be sober tomorrow, but you'll be crazy for the rest of your life."
Winston ChurchillQuotes I ran across but hadn't heard in years:
Lady Nancy Astor (to Churchill): “Sir, you’re drunk!”
Churchill: “Yes, Madam, I am. But in the morning, I will be sober and you will still be ugly.”
A second quote:
Lady Astor: “If you were my husband, I’d put arsenic in your coffee.”
Churchill: “Madam, if I were your husband, I’d drink it!”
"Always carry a flagon of whiskey in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake."
A second quote:
"I'll be sober tomorrow, but you'll be crazy for the rest of your life."
Friday, January 28, 2011
Its Friday night!
I've always said:
A great euphonious sound in every box.
So, what sounds good to me right now is:
"It's Friday Night!"
Yeah, that's all I got....
A great euphonious sound in every box.
So, what sounds good to me right now is:
"It's Friday Night!"
Yeah, that's all I got....
US Army or Covert Ops?
I've never really been one to say, "I told you so", unless it would save someone's life, or in the speaking of those words, it would save someone else grief. Yes, I can revel in the words, but I don't much like saying them for ego's sake. But this is one I've been saying for a long, long time, and when you have a public forum where you talk about things like I do here, you really need to say it, whether you enjoy it or not. In this case, I admit, I enjoy saying it.
Michale Hastings, is a Contributing Editor to the Rolling Stone magazine. Okay, its not like he's a senator, congressman, or security council member or top edge of one of our intelligence agencies, but hey, he's a guy that has been around and all over the Middle East and has seen, as he puts it:
"Having been witness to both Iraq and Afghanistan, saw some of the devastation we've wrought in both those countries, to fulfill the sort of need in the American psyche, to meddle in other people's business, it would be better to do just do covet operations".
Considering that Tunisia rose up against their government, and perhaps rightly so, and considering the
"Stuxnet worm" that hit Iran nuclear plant staff computers back in September of 2010, according to BBC Middle East Desk reports, Sian John, Symantec: "It's very sophisticated. A complex computer worm has infected the personal computers of staff at Iran's first nuclear power station, the official IRNA news agency reported.However, the operating system at the Bushehr plant - due to go online in a few weeks - has not been harmed, project manager Mahmoud Jafari said. The Stuxnet worm is capable of seizing control of industrial plants. Some Western experts say its complexity suggests it could only have been created by a "nation state". Israel? The U.S.?
My point in all this, is that had we kept intelligence ops going in Iraq when we were propping Saddam Insane up years ago, we wouldn't have had much of the problems going on now that we have. Had we depended more heavily upon smaller, "surgical" teams, rather than massive military ops, we could very possibly have decreased or eliminated the immense damage to the Iraq infrastructure that we have brought to bear upon its people. When you yell at someone you're going to attack, then do, they tend to step back, hide, take countermeasures; but if you simply do it, quietly, there is no protection.
The US Intelligence oversight committees and Congress have for decades whined and cried about the cost of covet and intelligence gathering. But what was the cost of what we did do instead? Lives, literally Trillions of dollars? Paying so much attention to war we allowed our economy and the world's economy to falter, trip and land perfectly hard on its face?
I've watched too many military ops over the last decade or few decades even, and wondered why in the world they didn't just send in a specialized team, or build one in place to do specific damage that would in the end, topple a top heavy blunt instrument like for instance, Saddam Hussein. But it would have taken intelligent thought, knowledge we have been so badly needing, and calculated risk operations. And what was our alternative actions? Blunt force weapons. Do you like being known as the country that doesn't think but puts their head down and takes out a wall with your helmeted head?
Why won't our leaders listen to those who know these countries and act accordingly? Are they really that stupid (defined as being given the chance at knowledge and turning it down in the face of necessity)? I've heard time and again how our Nation's leaders have gone against the sage advice of those who know, forsaking that for the good feel of sending in a battle group, rather than thinking and using intelligent thought to manipulate, finesse situations to our desired conclusions. Why don't we do that? Because we must be so bad at it. Why are we so bad at it? Because we don't do it, practice makes perfect after all.
Now, finally, that war has become so overly burdensome and expensive, we are starting to, we are being forced to, look at "alternative" forms of fighting back. What is that? Using our brains it would seem. Thank God for the economic crisis. Because, much good is coming from it. Finally.
I have always said, where a small team can be used, skip the battalion group. Why use a battleship, or aircraft carrier when a small team or one man (or woman, but hey, its the middle east right?) can accomplish the same thing, cleaner, cheaper, and with less bad feelings from the local citizenry.
Think and act smart. That's all I'm asking.
More on the Stuxnet Worm:
"It is believed to be the first-known worm designed to target major infrastructure facilities. "An electronic war has been launched against Iran", Mahmoud Liayi, head of the information technology council at the ministry of industries, told the state-run Iran Daily newspaper.A working group of experts met last week to discuss ways of fighting the worm, which Mr Liayi said has now infected about 30,000 IP addresses in Iran." - BBC
"Unlike most malware, Stuxnet does little harm to computers and networks that do not meet specific configuration requirements; "The attackers took great care to make sure that only their designated targets were hit...It was a marksman’s job."[24] The attack requires in-depth knowledge of industrial processes and an interest in attacking industrial infrastructure.[3][7] The worm contains, among other things, code for a man-in-the-middle attack that fakes industrial process control sensor signals so an infected system does not shut down due to abnormal behavior.[24] These capabilities would have required a team of people to program, as well as check that the malware would not crash the PLCs. Eric Byres, who has years of experience maintaining and troubleshooting Siemens systems, told Wired that writing the code would have taken many man-months, if not years.
"There has also been speculation on the involvement of NATO, the United States and other Western nations.[55] It has been reported that the United States, under one of its most secret programs, initiated by the Bush administration and accelerated by the Obama administration, has sought to destroy Iran's nuclear program by novel methods such as undermining Iranian computer systems. A diplomatic cable obtained by WikiLeaks showed how the United States was advised to target Iran's nuclear capabilities through 'covert sabotage'." - Wikipedia
Michale Hastings, is a Contributing Editor to the Rolling Stone magazine. Okay, its not like he's a senator, congressman, or security council member or top edge of one of our intelligence agencies, but hey, he's a guy that has been around and all over the Middle East and has seen, as he puts it:
"Having been witness to both Iraq and Afghanistan, saw some of the devastation we've wrought in both those countries, to fulfill the sort of need in the American psyche, to meddle in other people's business, it would be better to do just do covet operations".
Considering that Tunisia rose up against their government, and perhaps rightly so, and considering the
"Stuxnet worm" that hit Iran nuclear plant staff computers back in September of 2010, according to BBC Middle East Desk reports, Sian John, Symantec: "It's very sophisticated. A complex computer worm has infected the personal computers of staff at Iran's first nuclear power station, the official IRNA news agency reported.However, the operating system at the Bushehr plant - due to go online in a few weeks - has not been harmed, project manager Mahmoud Jafari said. The Stuxnet worm is capable of seizing control of industrial plants. Some Western experts say its complexity suggests it could only have been created by a "nation state". Israel? The U.S.?
My point in all this, is that had we kept intelligence ops going in Iraq when we were propping Saddam Insane up years ago, we wouldn't have had much of the problems going on now that we have. Had we depended more heavily upon smaller, "surgical" teams, rather than massive military ops, we could very possibly have decreased or eliminated the immense damage to the Iraq infrastructure that we have brought to bear upon its people. When you yell at someone you're going to attack, then do, they tend to step back, hide, take countermeasures; but if you simply do it, quietly, there is no protection.
The US Intelligence oversight committees and Congress have for decades whined and cried about the cost of covet and intelligence gathering. But what was the cost of what we did do instead? Lives, literally Trillions of dollars? Paying so much attention to war we allowed our economy and the world's economy to falter, trip and land perfectly hard on its face?
I've watched too many military ops over the last decade or few decades even, and wondered why in the world they didn't just send in a specialized team, or build one in place to do specific damage that would in the end, topple a top heavy blunt instrument like for instance, Saddam Hussein. But it would have taken intelligent thought, knowledge we have been so badly needing, and calculated risk operations. And what was our alternative actions? Blunt force weapons. Do you like being known as the country that doesn't think but puts their head down and takes out a wall with your helmeted head?
Why won't our leaders listen to those who know these countries and act accordingly? Are they really that stupid (defined as being given the chance at knowledge and turning it down in the face of necessity)? I've heard time and again how our Nation's leaders have gone against the sage advice of those who know, forsaking that for the good feel of sending in a battle group, rather than thinking and using intelligent thought to manipulate, finesse situations to our desired conclusions. Why don't we do that? Because we must be so bad at it. Why are we so bad at it? Because we don't do it, practice makes perfect after all.
Now, finally, that war has become so overly burdensome and expensive, we are starting to, we are being forced to, look at "alternative" forms of fighting back. What is that? Using our brains it would seem. Thank God for the economic crisis. Because, much good is coming from it. Finally.
I have always said, where a small team can be used, skip the battalion group. Why use a battleship, or aircraft carrier when a small team or one man (or woman, but hey, its the middle east right?) can accomplish the same thing, cleaner, cheaper, and with less bad feelings from the local citizenry.
Think and act smart. That's all I'm asking.
More on the Stuxnet Worm:
"It is believed to be the first-known worm designed to target major infrastructure facilities. "An electronic war has been launched against Iran", Mahmoud Liayi, head of the information technology council at the ministry of industries, told the state-run Iran Daily newspaper.A working group of experts met last week to discuss ways of fighting the worm, which Mr Liayi said has now infected about 30,000 IP addresses in Iran." - BBC
"Unlike most malware, Stuxnet does little harm to computers and networks that do not meet specific configuration requirements; "The attackers took great care to make sure that only their designated targets were hit...It was a marksman’s job."[24] The attack requires in-depth knowledge of industrial processes and an interest in attacking industrial infrastructure.[3][7] The worm contains, among other things, code for a man-in-the-middle attack that fakes industrial process control sensor signals so an infected system does not shut down due to abnormal behavior.[24] These capabilities would have required a team of people to program, as well as check that the malware would not crash the PLCs. Eric Byres, who has years of experience maintaining and troubleshooting Siemens systems, told Wired that writing the code would have taken many man-months, if not years.
"There has also been speculation on the involvement of NATO, the United States and other Western nations.[55] It has been reported that the United States, under one of its most secret programs, initiated by the Bush administration and accelerated by the Obama administration, has sought to destroy Iran's nuclear program by novel methods such as undermining Iranian computer systems. A diplomatic cable obtained by WikiLeaks showed how the United States was advised to target Iran's nuclear capabilities through 'covert sabotage'." - Wikipedia
My Strange Addiction - TLC Channel
There is a new show, "My Strange Addiction", on TLC cable Chanel. I watched one show, just to check it out. I'm now on my third episode.
Do you have a strange addiction?
Here are some of the addictions explored on this show: sun tanning (kind of boring, but important to explore); shopping (boring, too common, but worth exploring for those who are addicted); running marathons (again, boring, but deadly if done too much); eating chalk (okay, now we're getting somewhere); eating toilet paper; sleeping with your hair blow dryer; treating a doll as a wife (we have a couple of movies/documentaries out on this one: "Guys and Dolls: A Real Documentary about Life-Size Sex Toys" about owners of the "Real Doll" full sized sex doll; and 2007's "Lars and the Real Girl", actually a sweet little movie), the individual on "Addiction" was also on the "Guys and Dolls" documentary; and, picking scabs (okay, an oldie but a goodie; and eating laundry detergent.
These all sound pretty bizarre but when you actually experience these case studies it's pretty amazing. Should one become addicted to this show? Probably not, but if you have any interest in human nature, you cannot avoid this one. Much like another show, "Hoarders" on A&E cable channel, which I recently watched and was amazed by. These shows are delving into the very personal lives of people who have problems, but it is beneficial to those people if they will allow these shows to get them help, as well as those of us who also have problems and we are not facing.
We may look at these poor people and think, "poor sods, I'm not like that", however, but except for the grace of God, there goes I, one might also think. These people get a chance to tell their story, share, then discuss with family and those who love them, and finally, a professional, in order to give them as much reality as they can handle and hopefully see them healed. For most of these people, all they are doing is trying to self sooth.
Typically these people have other issues in their lives, or another issue with self discipline. In some cases, their issue is with too much discipline, as in the marathon runner. His issues is seeking protection through being too busy, running, much the same as you see in Type A personalities or the classic workaholic.
So, forget about the voyeuristic aspects of this show, there are so many "reality shows" now, that everyone seems to be a voyeur. What is interesting in these shows is to learn about others, to be less judgmental, to get help when you need it and to look more closely at those you know need help, but are avoiding it.
Do you have a strange addiction?
Here are some of the addictions explored on this show: sun tanning (kind of boring, but important to explore); shopping (boring, too common, but worth exploring for those who are addicted); running marathons (again, boring, but deadly if done too much); eating chalk (okay, now we're getting somewhere); eating toilet paper; sleeping with your hair blow dryer; treating a doll as a wife (we have a couple of movies/documentaries out on this one: "Guys and Dolls: A Real Documentary about Life-Size Sex Toys" about owners of the "Real Doll" full sized sex doll; and 2007's "Lars and the Real Girl", actually a sweet little movie), the individual on "Addiction" was also on the "Guys and Dolls" documentary; and, picking scabs (okay, an oldie but a goodie; and eating laundry detergent.
These all sound pretty bizarre but when you actually experience these case studies it's pretty amazing. Should one become addicted to this show? Probably not, but if you have any interest in human nature, you cannot avoid this one. Much like another show, "Hoarders" on A&E cable channel, which I recently watched and was amazed by. These shows are delving into the very personal lives of people who have problems, but it is beneficial to those people if they will allow these shows to get them help, as well as those of us who also have problems and we are not facing.
We may look at these poor people and think, "poor sods, I'm not like that", however, but except for the grace of God, there goes I, one might also think. These people get a chance to tell their story, share, then discuss with family and those who love them, and finally, a professional, in order to give them as much reality as they can handle and hopefully see them healed. For most of these people, all they are doing is trying to self sooth.
Typically these people have other issues in their lives, or another issue with self discipline. In some cases, their issue is with too much discipline, as in the marathon runner. His issues is seeking protection through being too busy, running, much the same as you see in Type A personalities or the classic workaholic.
So, forget about the voyeuristic aspects of this show, there are so many "reality shows" now, that everyone seems to be a voyeur. What is interesting in these shows is to learn about others, to be less judgmental, to get help when you need it and to look more closely at those you know need help, but are avoiding it.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Video Games vs Dreams?
Okay, this isn't really about video games versus dreams. But it is about how they are very much the same.
I was just talking to my son, who is a "gamer" and something occurred to me about video/computer games. I think, Felicia Day of "The Guild" webisode fame and Joss Whedon's "Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog", and he might get along really well.
About the games, think about it, games relax you, they can help you work out aggressions. I know they have helped me. Years ago, I used to get really frustrated at work sometimes. I'd get home, fire up my favorite video games and blow away some monsters. By time I got done, I started feeling better, I'd "blown off some steam". If you feel like you aren't accomplishing much, you can play a game and accomplish a level or game, puzzle, battle, whatever.
Dreams let you do pretty much the same thing. They are random. They allow you to work out issues from your daily life. If you are anxious, they give you anxiety dreams to either help you work them out, or bring them to your attention. If you are attracted to someone, you can bring that to your attention in your dreams by way of various devices and dynamics. Claims are made that climbing staircases, falling, etc., are symbols for sexual things.
So, I don't know, you can look at this in two directions. Video Games are like dreams, or dreams are like Video Games. Either way, you have the productive aspects of taking a mini vacation. Then again, you have wasting time.
Of course, they have a benefit. Just as vacations, have a benefit. But some people think wasting time enjoying yourself, or doing nothing on vacation is a bad thing. Happily, its all good. Moderation in all things, you know.
Someone once told me that you should do the extremes of what you can do on a daily basis. Stare into the distance as far as possible, examine something extremely close up, exercise your eyes, both directions. Mediate on a daily basis, and be extremely hyper, say aerobics and weight training. Whisper and scream. And so on.
We do not seem to have trouble in being too busy, too rushed, or too stressed out. So, why shouldn't we also be too still, too unrushed, too unstressed out? Games, dreams (and vacations) are all good for this. Just don't over do. Moderate.
Dreams let you do pretty much the same thing. They are random. They allow you to work out issues from your daily life. If you are anxious, they give you anxiety dreams to either help you work them out, or bring them to your attention. If you are attracted to someone, you can bring that to your attention in your dreams by way of various devices and dynamics. Claims are made that climbing staircases, falling, etc., are symbols for sexual things.
So, I don't know, you can look at this in two directions. Video Games are like dreams, or dreams are like Video Games. Either way, you have the productive aspects of taking a mini vacation. Then again, you have wasting time.
Of course, they have a benefit. Just as vacations, have a benefit. But some people think wasting time enjoying yourself, or doing nothing on vacation is a bad thing. Happily, its all good. Moderation in all things, you know.
Someone once told me that you should do the extremes of what you can do on a daily basis. Stare into the distance as far as possible, examine something extremely close up, exercise your eyes, both directions. Mediate on a daily basis, and be extremely hyper, say aerobics and weight training. Whisper and scream. And so on.
We do not seem to have trouble in being too busy, too rushed, or too stressed out. So, why shouldn't we also be too still, too unrushed, too unstressed out? Games, dreams (and vacations) are all good for this. Just don't over do. Moderate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Which I think, pretty much sums it up. And exemplifies the same thing I've complained about for years. The US media industry is too fearful to take chances on their own idea; rather, going for tried and true shows from other countries, frequently, Japan and the UK.