This weekend was not so good. I did not get to do much. The weather somewhat ruined my free time. But, it was not the only thing that did. The sink broke down. I do not know why. All that I know is that my dad, my brother, and myself would end up fixing it. I thought it was going to be no big deal because my dad and I had already fixed the garbage disposal before. That had only taken us a few hours. It turns out that the sink was just a tad more time consuming.
As usual, I will start from the beginning of what I remember. I woke up in the morning of Saturday. That was when my parents broke my brother and I the news that we were going to replace the kitchen sink with a new one. I guess that it did need to be replaced. whenever one of us puts the water on high it would make a loud screeching noise. The sink had been in the house ever since it was made. That would make it fifty or so years old. So, my dad and brother went out to go purchase a sink, some new pipes and a faucet. I stayed at home because I was still in my pajamas at the time.
They got back at around noon. By that time I was ready to work. We ate lunch first and then got down to business. our first task was to remove the old sink. I read the instructions to what steps we needed to follow after the removing of the sink. While I was doing this, my brother and father were laboriously working away at removing any clamps that bonded the sink to our kitchen counter. When the clamps and garbage disposal were removed, and all the water valves were shut off, we were finally ready to take out the old sink. It took us a while to figure out that it came out from underneath rather than just pulling it right off the top. So we got ready, pulled it out from under until it was out of the lower cabinet, and set it down in the backyard.
After doing this, my brother sized up the rectangular gap that our new sink would go into. There was just one problem. The new sink that my brother and father bought was too big! My dad did not want to make a bigger rectangular space by sawing away at the kitchen counter. Instead of doing that, my dad and I (it was my turn to go with him) left for Home Depot to return the "mis-sized" sink for a different one. It took us an hour or two to find the right one, but we chose an alright one. During the time their we were weighing and sizing them up. We even found a sink that weighed five times as much as any of the others. But, we made our decision on one. It was the only one that would fit.
When we got home, we ate a snack and then worked like crazy. My dad did do the majority of it, but my brother and I found ways to help. Well,now the new sink is in its place. The only bad thing is that we cannot use it because the caulk used to secure the sink is still drying. The new faucet is a beauty. It has this stainless steal professional look, and it does not even make a loud noise like the other one.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Looking into Genocides
The one word, genocide, can bring up so much emotion and remind us humans of so many years and events in history. But there must be something that divides genocide from other violent occurrences, such as massacres and wars. If one were to carefully examine the definitions of these words, they could possibly find a fine line dividing the words. According to the Webster's New World Dictionary, massacre means the "indiscriminate or merciless killing of many people or animals." This word can possibly get confused with genocide, but genocide's definition is the "systematic killing of a whole people or nation." The big difference between the two comes down to a single word, indiscriminate. It makes the meaning of massacre seem more spontaneous, as if the victims of the "killer" were not specifically targeted. As for genocide. In order to start one, the selected target will be a group that has some sort of characteristics that separate them from the killers. On the other hand, war is a bit like genocide because of the separation of the two armies, but usually war has an ending point. Normally, it would be a compromise of both sides, or a surrender of one side then leading to a treaty of some sort. This is the huge difference. People who plan for war hope for it to be over at some point. People who plan a genocide do not want to stop until the targeted group is exterminated completely.
The people that take part in a genocide can range form the insane to the somewhat "normal" citizens. Hitler used tactics of blaming the Jewish people for many of Germany's problems in order to unite its people and to gain more power. The genocide in Rwanda occurred between the Hutu and the Tutsi. The Hutu were tired of being treated unfairly, so they began the genocide of the Tutsi. There was a large amount of propaganda going around about the Tutsi needing to be killed. Ordinary citizens got together and just started mindlessly killing the Tutsi. People that did not participate were threatened with the same fate as the Tutsi. So, in order to protect one's own life and family, one had to kill another.
By looking at how often genocide occurs, I would have to say that it is only committed my human beings. Animals do not just blame other animals for their suffering and kill them. Humans on the other hand do it quite a bit. This must mean that there is some sort of human quality that causes us to do this. I believe that genocides are fueled by hatred. This hatred is usually triggered by some other sort of emotion. Adolf Hitler was able to use blame, which then in time turned into hatred for the Jewish people. Same goes for the genocide in Rwanda. The Hutu were angry with the Tutsi for treating them harshly. They could have even been envious of the Tutsi and their freedom.
There is also another thing that people can see by looking at the history of genocide. Only humans do it. They do genocide to one another and, even to animals. There is a wide variety of animal species that have been wiped out completely because of humans. But there can be possible ties between animal extinction and genocide. Usually, extinction from human beings is caused almost unintentionally. By hunting and defending livestock, many species have died off. It is a shame. California grizzly bears were killed by hunters in California and certain breeds of animals were killed for just the thrill of it. There are certain bison that are extinct now because during the "Railroad Era" of American history, people would bring their guns along on train rides just to open fire on a herd of these bison. No one would even go back to collect the pelts or the carcass for food. One might even be able to call it a waste. Now, the goal of genocide is to intentionally kill of the selected group without holding back. Only humans can do genocide. Animals kill each other normally for food/hunting or out of self-defense. But, they never try to exterminate another group of animals. There might be some similarities between the two. Certain chimpanzees from one group would band together if there are too many chimpanzees from another group are within their territory. They would even kill the infant chimps of the opposing group. This is a lot similar to the Spanish Inquisition. Non-Catholics were to be killed and or tortured regardless of age or gender. Strangely, I view the Inquisition not as a genocide. This is because once I had taken a tour to an Inquisition torture room. It is then that I learned from the tour guide, that some people that were tried before the Inquisition were falsely accused and sentenced to death only because they were wealthy and the Catholic Church (which at that time was corrupt) wanted their land. Genocides are different because they strictly target the group of choice and kill only them and anyone who gets involved with them. To me the Inquisition was just a bunch of killing in order to obtain nearby land.
Genocide is a form of killing a certain group, yet it differs from a massacre. Genocide has a large variety of participants that kill for sometimes different reasons. Some kill to exterminate the other group, and others kill just to keep themselves and their families out of the danger of being killed for "helping" the opposing group. By looking into how many times genocide has occurred, one might be able to spot the human emotions that fuel it such as hatred or even jealousy. Also, genocide does not only happen from person to person. People have been doing something just like it to animals to. Over-hunting has caused many animals to go extinct. Some people might call the Spanish Inquisition a genocide, but I would have to disagree. I view it more as a killing of partially random people to gain land for the Catholic Church. This goes to show that certain acts of violence must be carefully examined for certain traits before being classified as a genocide.
The people that take part in a genocide can range form the insane to the somewhat "normal" citizens. Hitler used tactics of blaming the Jewish people for many of Germany's problems in order to unite its people and to gain more power. The genocide in Rwanda occurred between the Hutu and the Tutsi. The Hutu were tired of being treated unfairly, so they began the genocide of the Tutsi. There was a large amount of propaganda going around about the Tutsi needing to be killed. Ordinary citizens got together and just started mindlessly killing the Tutsi. People that did not participate were threatened with the same fate as the Tutsi. So, in order to protect one's own life and family, one had to kill another.
By looking at how often genocide occurs, I would have to say that it is only committed my human beings. Animals do not just blame other animals for their suffering and kill them. Humans on the other hand do it quite a bit. This must mean that there is some sort of human quality that causes us to do this. I believe that genocides are fueled by hatred. This hatred is usually triggered by some other sort of emotion. Adolf Hitler was able to use blame, which then in time turned into hatred for the Jewish people. Same goes for the genocide in Rwanda. The Hutu were angry with the Tutsi for treating them harshly. They could have even been envious of the Tutsi and their freedom.
There is also another thing that people can see by looking at the history of genocide. Only humans do it. They do genocide to one another and, even to animals. There is a wide variety of animal species that have been wiped out completely because of humans. But there can be possible ties between animal extinction and genocide. Usually, extinction from human beings is caused almost unintentionally. By hunting and defending livestock, many species have died off. It is a shame. California grizzly bears were killed by hunters in California and certain breeds of animals were killed for just the thrill of it. There are certain bison that are extinct now because during the "Railroad Era" of American history, people would bring their guns along on train rides just to open fire on a herd of these bison. No one would even go back to collect the pelts or the carcass for food. One might even be able to call it a waste. Now, the goal of genocide is to intentionally kill of the selected group without holding back. Only humans can do genocide. Animals kill each other normally for food/hunting or out of self-defense. But, they never try to exterminate another group of animals. There might be some similarities between the two. Certain chimpanzees from one group would band together if there are too many chimpanzees from another group are within their territory. They would even kill the infant chimps of the opposing group. This is a lot similar to the Spanish Inquisition. Non-Catholics were to be killed and or tortured regardless of age or gender. Strangely, I view the Inquisition not as a genocide. This is because once I had taken a tour to an Inquisition torture room. It is then that I learned from the tour guide, that some people that were tried before the Inquisition were falsely accused and sentenced to death only because they were wealthy and the Catholic Church (which at that time was corrupt) wanted their land. Genocides are different because they strictly target the group of choice and kill only them and anyone who gets involved with them. To me the Inquisition was just a bunch of killing in order to obtain nearby land.
Genocide is a form of killing a certain group, yet it differs from a massacre. Genocide has a large variety of participants that kill for sometimes different reasons. Some kill to exterminate the other group, and others kill just to keep themselves and their families out of the danger of being killed for "helping" the opposing group. By looking into how many times genocide has occurred, one might be able to spot the human emotions that fuel it such as hatred or even jealousy. Also, genocide does not only happen from person to person. People have been doing something just like it to animals to. Over-hunting has caused many animals to go extinct. Some people might call the Spanish Inquisition a genocide, but I would have to disagree. I view it more as a killing of partially random people to gain land for the Catholic Church. This goes to show that certain acts of violence must be carefully examined for certain traits before being classified as a genocide.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Movie Review: The Lightning Thief
Well. What can I say about this movie? I guess that it was alright. To be honest, I would have to say the book was ten times better than that movie. The first book was one of the longest from the series, so I have to give some credit to the directors for being able to squeeze such a big plot into a two hour film. Now, where shall I begin? Hmm. I will start from the first time I ever witnessed the trailer for the movie. I was with a few friends watching the recent Harry Potter film. The trailers for upcoming movies were playing, and all I saw was a boy standing on the Empire State Building, looking up at a path to a shining city or temple of some sort. At that exact moment, I knew that I was soon going to be upset, but I was never really sure why. Probably fact that filthy rich directors were going to tear apart a book series that meant so much to me and just continue on with their life.
Now, I will begin to talk about the actual movie. It somewhat kept to the plot of the book. The movie had Greek gods, a dyslexic and ADHD Percy Jackson, and a lightning thief. These are the majority of key points that the movie included. I was a bit upset that the acting was a bit "cheesy" and over-dramatic at some times, but a lot of the lead roles were played by new actors. The movie did not include a lot of monsters that I really looked forward to seeing, such as Cerberus and the Chimera. It also did not include the actual character who stole Zeus's master bolt. People in the audience that were watching the movie even got confused from time to time. In order obtain a well understanding of the film, I highly recommend that one should read the book or look into Greek mythology so that they will not get lost in the plot while watching. But, if they read the book, they might end up disappointed (like me) because of how much of the actual characters and story was changed.
Now, I will begin to talk about the actual movie. It somewhat kept to the plot of the book. The movie had Greek gods, a dyslexic and ADHD Percy Jackson, and a lightning thief. These are the majority of key points that the movie included. I was a bit upset that the acting was a bit "cheesy" and over-dramatic at some times, but a lot of the lead roles were played by new actors. The movie did not include a lot of monsters that I really looked forward to seeing, such as Cerberus and the Chimera. It also did not include the actual character who stole Zeus's master bolt. People in the audience that were watching the movie even got confused from time to time. In order obtain a well understanding of the film, I highly recommend that one should read the book or look into Greek mythology so that they will not get lost in the plot while watching. But, if they read the book, they might end up disappointed (like me) because of how much of the actual characters and story was changed.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Insomnia
It was probably a few weeks ago. I was pretty sure that I was starting to develop a sleeping disorder. But, I am okay now. I have no idea what could have caused it. People say that lack of sleep can be caused by stress related to work. But, I do not have a job. Well, not really. My parents say that my job is being a student at school, and my duties are to complete my work on time and to obtain good grades. I guess that I can be suffering from stress, wait, no... I believe that I am suffering form stress. My mom asked me this question a while ago. She got an e-mail and started reading it. Then she turned to me and asked, "Jacob, are you stressed-out?" I looked a way from my homework for a moment to respond, "Yea. I think so." To my amazement she seemed a bit startled and told me, "But you don't even do sports." I am not going to lie, I wanted to yell at her how I never get a break. I want to take one, but my dad drags me to these strange events just to meet these two faced politicians that I feel completely uncomfortable around. I also felt the need to add that some of these classes are killing me. Pre-cal gives out a crazy amount of homework every night. But, as usual, I just remained silent and returned to my work.
That was possibly the only instant where I had admitted that I was suffering form stress. Soon after, it was not that difficult making the connection between that and the fact that I was staying up until one or two in the morning struggling to go to sleep. I would go to bed at around ten or eleven and end up tossing and turning for hours. Then in the end, my parents would just tell me to take some Benadryl. I do have some symptoms of a cold, but I think that I am perfectly fine without the use of it. I think that I even became reliant on Benadryl in order to fall asleep for a few days in a row. But now, I am capable of going to sleep without using any. But if another random occurrence of lack of sleep were to happen, please leave suggestions in the comment area.
That was possibly the only instant where I had admitted that I was suffering form stress. Soon after, it was not that difficult making the connection between that and the fact that I was staying up until one or two in the morning struggling to go to sleep. I would go to bed at around ten or eleven and end up tossing and turning for hours. Then in the end, my parents would just tell me to take some Benadryl. I do have some symptoms of a cold, but I think that I am perfectly fine without the use of it. I think that I even became reliant on Benadryl in order to fall asleep for a few days in a row. But now, I am capable of going to sleep without using any. But if another random occurrence of lack of sleep were to happen, please leave suggestions in the comment area.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Video Games and The Future
My classmate Jordan writes:
I also believe that video games will continue to become better and better. Game designers will enhance the quality of the games' graphics and the realistic feel of the games. This is what has me looking forward to the future of gaming, and somewhat fearing it. If someone was to look at the present state of the gaming world, they could see that the size of the gamer population has drastically increased since the 80s and 90s. The visual graphics and game play of some top-notch games are outstanding and often incorporate real life scenarios, such as playing the role of a soldier in Baghdad on a mission to rescue an imprisoned colonel. These games to appeal to a wide audience because people get to be a character with objectives that they would not be able to experience in the real world. If the graphics of these games and the way we play them (i.e theWii is a simulator because it incorporates real-life motions to play) only continue to get better, some people might not even feel that they are playing a game.
Video game addiction has already become a problem in our current society. As games become better, people just keep finding them more difficult to take a break. I use to be quite the avid gamer. I was possibly even addicted to video games a few years ago. I would play for hours with friends and/or family. But now, with more homework to complete to maintain good grades, and just hanging out and skateboarding with friends to relieve myself of the stress of school, I find myself playing a lot less than the amount of what I use to play. Now, if the gaming audience and continues to increase, gaming addiction is becoming more common, and video games are getting better graphics with realistic game play, I am staring to fear the future of video games. Realistic graphics incorporated with new gaming technology, possibly simulator suits, will draw in a big audience that possibly will become easily addicted (especially the children). Now if someone were to factor in the increase in violent games (i.e war games). The virtual suites might be the worst idea in video game history. I am pretty sure that nobody wants to experience killing someone as if "you don't think you are playing."
Even if we try we cannot stop video games. As technology advances so will video games. I think as we advance into technology there might be a virtual realty. People are going to find better ways to make video games so realistic that you don't think that you are playing.
I also believe that video games will continue to become better and better. Game designers will enhance the quality of the games' graphics and the realistic feel of the games. This is what has me looking forward to the future of gaming, and somewhat fearing it. If someone was to look at the present state of the gaming world, they could see that the size of the gamer population has drastically increased since the 80s and 90s. The visual graphics and game play of some top-notch games are outstanding and often incorporate real life scenarios, such as playing the role of a soldier in Baghdad on a mission to rescue an imprisoned colonel. These games to appeal to a wide audience because people get to be a character with objectives that they would not be able to experience in the real world. If the graphics of these games and the way we play them (i.e the
Video game addiction has already become a problem in our current society. As games become better, people just keep finding them more difficult to take a break. I use to be quite the avid gamer. I was possibly even addicted to video games a few years ago. I would play for hours with friends and/or family. But now, with more homework to complete to maintain good grades, and just hanging out and skateboarding with friends to relieve myself of the stress of school, I find myself playing a lot less than the amount of what I use to play. Now, if the gaming audience and continues to increase, gaming addiction is becoming more common, and video games are getting better graphics with realistic game play, I am staring to fear the future of video games. Realistic graphics incorporated with new gaming technology, possibly simulator suits, will draw in a big audience that possibly will become easily addicted (especially the children). Now if someone were to factor in the increase in violent games (i.e war games). The virtual suites might be the worst idea in video game history. I am pretty sure that nobody wants to experience killing someone as if "you don't think you are playing."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)