The Kitchen Is Trying to Kill Me…

Posted in &tc..., Randomness on 01/21/2010 06:49 pm by Kristen

So, it started with the toaster. I got up to eat breakfast and discovered we were out of my breakfast staple: cereal. We were also out of bacon and, yes, I know the bacon flow chart says one must go to the store to get bacon, however, it was quite early (9:30-ish) and I didn’t feel like braving the store, so I remembered an alternative: the toaster! I plugged it in, stuck some bread in, pushed it down, and waited. Now, the toaster started to make a funny noise and I figured it just had something stuck in it funny, so coming from an engineering family; I applied the fix-all solution. I gave it a good smack. And viola! The noise stopped. I turned to get the butter and when I came back I noticed that the cord was on fire. I am actually quite proud of myself for this, I didn’t panic. I reached to unplug the toaster, but the cord separated from the plug and the fire continued on the plug. I blew out the fire and yanked the plug out of the wall. Then I announced (rather loudly) that the toaster was on fire (which wasn’t strictly true at this point) and that no one should use it (not that they could since the plug and the cord were no longer attached). Since we were out of cereal, bacon, toast was no longer an option, and I was slightly afraid of what else the kitchen might have in store for me, I didn’t eat breakfast that day.

Later, I was at the store and I remembered that we were out of horseradish. Now, this isn’t a common thing to run out of, so I thought I would wander over and see if they had any on sale while I was there. Sure enough, there was a little jar on a pretty good sale, considering the obscene price they charge for a little jar of white, smelly stuff. I grabbed the jar, tossed it in the cart, and went back to shopping. We used some of it tonight…maybe it was on sale for a reason. Not only is this particular horseradish strong enough to clear out your sinuses, it burns all the way down your throat, causes your eyes to water, and removes any smelling ability you once had for several minutes. Now, you may say that it is impossible for horseradish to do this. I beg to differ, it can, I know, because it happened to me. And I am not the sort of person that thinks a bell pepper is too spicy. No, I use a liberal hand with jalapenos and think mild salsa is bland. This particular extra, extra hot horseradish can indeed clear your sinuses, burn your throat into oblivion, cause your eyes to turn into Niagara Falls, and destroy any sensation in your nose for at least 10 minutes. I have determined that some horseradish should be diluted slightly more than others when shrimp sauce, this particular stuff requires about 2 gallons of catchup.

So, I think the kitchen is trying to kill me; maybe I should become fast friends with take out.

 

Campaigns

Posted in &tc..., Campaigns, Randomness on 08/31/2009 12:01 pm by Kristen

I should be studying, but instead I am starting two campaigns and if Lauren or someone else wants to contribute pictures or something, I might even get a logo!

My first campaign is:

Students Against Professors Writing Their Own Textbooks

This campaign has been created for the good of mankind.  There is a stipulation though, if the Professor must create a textbook, he mustn’t publish it and must instead provide it free of charge to his students!

My second campaign is:

Be a Man and Drive!!!!!

This campaign comes from the propensity of guys to let their girlfriend/wife drive them around!  I have only one thing to say to this behavior:  Be a Man and Drive!!!!  If it is her car, get your own car and drive it!  (Yes, in extreme cases there are times when it is safer or wiser for the girl to drive, but most of the it isn’t!  So just drive already.)

If you would like to join, please feel free.  Perhaps we could create buttons or stickers or magnets or something…  Or maybe we could just lurk around the internet randomly touting our campaign.

I shall now return to something slightly more profitable.

 

Books…

Posted in &tc..., Books on 08/18/2009 01:50 pm by Kristen

“Books are to be called for and supplied on the assumption that the process of reading is not a half-sleep; but in the highest sense an exercise, a gymnastic struggle; that the reader is to do something for himself.” – Walt Whitman

Don’t you like that quote? Books are not intended to spoon feed you information or to indoctrinate you into their thinking, but rather to provide an exercise for your mind and thought processes. When you read, you should be thinking, questioning, doubting, and considering. If the book convinces you, it does so because it is true and has adequate proof and of its truth, not simply because it had a good argument. Reading is not something you do because you don’t want to think, but rather something you do when you are thinking!

 

Rebellion = Rudeness?

Posted in &tc..., Philosophical Discussion on 08/10/2009 10:22 am by Kristen

I was reading an article and it mentioned a scene from some movie that had never heard of, it considered this scene to be the essence of the1960s and 1970s.  The article continually praised this scene, because it showed free spirit or something like that.  It described the scene as a man requesting to have a side of toast with his breakfast and the waitress continually refusing him.  Eventually he was forced to leave the restaurant, when his reasonable request for a side of toast is refused.  The article went on to detail a spin-off scene written to show the attitude of today, instead of a fuss, the customer meekly accepts the fact that there are “no substitutions” and eats his breakfast as they serve it.  The article indicated that the first scene showed the unharnessed attitude of the 1960s and 70s and their unwillingness to let mindless authority rule them.  While the second scene showed a world that had given up and allows authority to trample it down.

I was rather confused, how can a scene about a person ordering toast with his breakfast be some sort of icon for a couple of decades?  So, being innately curious, I found the scene on YouTube.  Allow me to describe it to you as impartially as possible it goes something like this:

A group of young people are in a diner, a young-ish man orders an omelet with a substitution and a side of toast.  The waitress informs him that they cannot substitute anything and they don’t offer sides of toast.  The man orders again and is told the same thing, but if he wants a plain omelet, he can have one.  He orders a plain omelet and demands a side of toast.  The waitress says they don’t have sides of toast, he can only have what is on the menu.  He rather loudly informs her that what is on the menu is “not what I want”.  She says she doesn’t make the rules.  He then demands to know if he can order a sandwich on toast, she says yes, and he tells her to give him a side of toast.  She again refuses.  He finally demands that she give him a sandwich without everything except chicken and the toast.  She says she can do that and asks if he wants anything else.  He tells her quite uncouthly to keep the chicken and only give him the toast.  She then asks him to leave.  He gets up and sweeps all of the glasses on to the floor, where they shatter, and storms out.

Now, it does seem slightly absurd, the guy just wants a side of toast with his omelet, how hard can that be?  Let me rephrase the situation for you:

Not to insult anyone’s intelligence or offend anyone’s sensibilities, but imagine that you work at Starbucks.  You work as a cashier, not a barista, you don’t make the coffee, you just tell the baristas what everyone wants.  A rebellious-looking-younger-than-you man comes in and orders an Iced Snickers Macchiato and a side of whipped cream.  You politely inform him that you don’t serve Iced Snickers Macchiato and you can’t give him a side of whipped cream.  Undaunted, he orders the same thing.  You tell him that you don’t have that, but you do have a Iced Caramel Macchiato, would he like that?  He rather rudely orders the caramel one with a side of whipped cream.  You tell him you don’t offer sides of whipped cream and he demands to know why.  You start to explain that you can’t just tell the baristas to make  a side of whipped cream, what will they put it in?  How much should they give him?  How will you ring it up?  You don’t have that option on your cash register.  How much do you charge?  Will it upset the manager?  Will you get fired?

However, before you can explain this he demands to know if you have whipped cream.  You say, yes, because you put it on your Vanilla Bean Frappuccino.  He again demands a side of whipped cream and you again refuse, saying he can have anything on the menu.  He tells you he doesn’t want what is on the menu, you start to explain that this is Starbucks, not Burger King, but give up and tell him you can give him a Vanilla Bean Frappuccino because it comes with whipped cream.  He then tersely orders a Vanilla Bean Frappuccio, hold the vanilla.  You enter it in your register and ask if he wants anything else.  He then crassly tells you to hold the Frappuccio and give him only the whipped cream.  By this time, there is a huge line, he has upset the other customers and insulted you, so you ask him to leave.  He shoves the display case of desserts on to the floor and storms out.

Now, were his attitudes and actions justified?  Clearly, no.  Is his request overly difficult?  Not really, but because the store is not prepared for it, it cannot meet the request.  Is he triumphant?  Does his rage and rudeness indicate that he has beaten you and the authority structure?   I don’t think so, it merely indicates that he is incredibly rude and unable to understand that you cannot help him with his request.

So, here is my question: how does a guy behaving very rudely and crassly, demanding that the rules be changed to accommodate his unimportant request become the symbol for a generation?  Is it is simple action of rebellion that is supposed to be so empowering?  Or is it the fact that when faced with circumstances that he cannot alter, he looses his temper and is rude, crass, and destructive?   Wouldn’t it have been even more significant if after his polite request had been refused, he had just moved on?  I think the article was simply saying that the act of rebellion was in and of its self laudable and worth of imitation.  Personally, all I saw was a rude, spoiled guy who wanted something the restaurant didn’t serve and was angry that they wouldn’t make a special exception just for him.

I think the scene, instead of being empowering and commendable, is rather absurd and laughable.  The man should either have gone to a diner that served a side of toast or been content with what the restaurant offered.  Instead he made a big fuss, was rude and destructive and didn’t accomplish his goal of getting breakfast.

 

…sigh…

Posted in &tc..., Bulletin on 08/01/2009 12:24 pm by Kristen

This week is communion Sunday, so I thought it would be a good idea to give the bulletin a communion theme.  While searching for images that I could legally use in the bulletin, I continually found images with one thing in common: loaves of bread.  Every single image, it seems, has a loaf of bread with yeast or some other leavening agent!  The passover used unleavened bread, that was kind of the whole point.  The leavening symbolized sin, unleavened bread symbolized removing sin.  Don’t you think that because Christ used unleavened bread at the last supper, Christians should do the same?

To be honest, I think I have only been in one church that offered leavened bread at communion.  However, the graphics and image designers (including Christian ones) think that a loaf of artisan bread is close enough.  Most of the images required money for the privilege of using them, I wonder what else they get wrong in the pursuit of profit.

 

Am I Becoming a Feminist?

Posted in &tc..., Anti-feminism, Movies, Philosophical Discussion on 07/31/2009 10:48 am by Kristen

I saw a movie–yes, I am posting about a movie again–and I liked the heroine, for the most part.  Does this mean I am becoming a feminist because I liked a heroine from a recently released movie?  I’m not sure, so allow me to elaborate.

The movie wasn’t what I would call grade-A material, it was historically inaccurate, lacked proper character development, was quite violent and bloody (something I wasn’t prepared for), and its plot was fair to middling.  The CG effects were quite good, though, the acting wasn’t bad, and it did have the guy who played the Count of Monte Cristo and I always liked his acting.  But the most surprising part of the movie was the heroine.

When the movie started the heroine was dressed rather unhistorical and immodestly and she was sword fighting with her father.  My instant reaction to the scene was, “Oh, it is one of those movies.”  “Those movies” being Kiera Knightly vehicles where the 90 pound, anorexic/bulimic girl beats up on trained, skilled warriors/monsters who have about 150 pounds and 6 inches on her.  However, at the end of the fight scene, the girl lost!  She got angry and hurt herself and something miraculous happened, she didn’t pout and she didn’t try again, she accepted her defeat and moved on.

The next few times she appears in the movie she is serving the men, preparing meals, nursing the injured, and she never complains about it.  Her entire attitude is one of a joyful woman, she does the work of a woman happily!  She knows her special niche and she thrives!

Unfortunately (or fortunately), there were two other instances of feminist actions.  The time she insists upon accompanying the men (notably, not in to battle) she gets in trouble and has to be rescued!  She does kill a beast that has been blinded and she “assists” the hero in slaying the ultimate foe.  (I’m not really sure I would call it assisting when she takes a knife to it’s tail, while the hero is attacking it head on; I’m not sure she really did that much.)

Once, when the fort is attacked by raiders, she has to defend herself and, with what appears to be a lucky swing, the raider is killed.  Her reaction is not one of triumph or diving into the fray, but rather of horror.  She realizes that she had no choice, but it is not easy.  She is seen to be emotionally damaged by the act and has no desire to join in the battle.  In fact, when faced with a very dangerous enemy, she and the other women and children willingly enter a place of safety, while the men fight.

She is never shown to be empowered, but rather content.  She never needs anyone to “free” her from her oppressed society, but rather she is an integral part of a thriving community.  When the opportunity comes for the film-makers to make her a ruling queen, they don’t, instead she names a good king.  Her clothing, for the most part was modest, though perhaps not very accurate.  Her emotions are shown to be a part of her, but trouble almost always results when she allows them to control her instead of controlling them herself.

Although, the heroine’s actions are not always what I would wish, her attitude always seemed to be feminine.  She was never pouty or trampled upon, but respected and loved.  Helping in the kitchen, serving the men, caring for the children, and nursing the sick were all lauded and instrumental in the community.  A woman doing womanly things was not shown to be a problem, but rather a blessing.

So, am I becoming a feminist?  Or is it possible that one film-maker, at least, is unwilling to insult women by making them men?

 

Confusion…

Posted in Movies, Philosophical Discussion on 07/27/2009 01:23 pm by Kristen

I saw a movie, it was a little independent film of no consequence, but it was rather interesting.  During the movie, I thought it was kind of sweet and unique and slightly slow, but something was nagging at the back of my mind.  Somehow, I couldn’t quite like this movie as much as I seemed to think I should.

It was when the movie completed its climax, when the conflicts were being resolved that I saw the problem.  To give a brief synopsis, in the 1920s a woman comes from Germany as a “mail-order bride” of sorts, but she and her husband-to-be cannot wed because she is German and doesn’t have the proper papers to be a citizen.  Of course, much of the movie is spent with that particular conflict, they fall in love, but cannot marry and she cannot become a citizen.  However, at the end of the movie, she announces that in her “heart” she is a “citizen” and she is “married”.  The local priest informs her that it is all well and good to believe things, but they have to be real.  She then asks him,  you believe in God, don’t you?  And the movie then moves on to resolve the other minor and major conflicts of the film.

So, what is the movie saying?  The woman’s final question is, apparently, supposed to resolve the conflict of her citizenship and marriage, but what is it really saying?  Is it saying that if you believe something you will it into existance?  So, if the priest believed in God, he made God exist?  If she believed she was a citizen, at least for her, she was a citizen?

Perhaps, instead the movie is really saying that if you believe something, it doesn’t really have to exist.  Is it saying that God doesn’t really exist, but if you believe in Him then it won’t hurt anyone, as long as you don’t press that belief on anyone?  Is it saying that if the woman believes that she is a citizen and married, she doesn’t really have to be, because all that matters is how she feels?

I think the movie implies the latter and states that rules, regulations, standards, and morals are really unnecessary.  I think it is preaching the idea that if you believe in something, anything, then those are your standards or morals.  It is saying the woman doesn’t have to be an official citizen according to the Government and she doesn’t have to be married according to their laws or God’s laws, she just has to believe that she is both, because rules are, at the very least, biased and, at the very most, pointless. The “moral code”, as it is called in the movie, is considered to be at the most a blight on the freedom of the individual and, at the least, fuel for gossip.  Morality doesn’t matter if you believe that you are right, the movie openly and happily declares.  If there wasn’t right and wrong there wouldn’t be gossip about what you are doing.  The movie happily assumes that rules are really just stupid things that don’t allow people to be themselves.

Not only is this kind of thinking dangerous, it is wrong.  The dangerous side is that there is no end, whatever a person believes, they can and will do.  It is also wrong because rules and regulations, standards and morality are not given to stifle humanity or to create hypocrites.  God creates them us because He is a just and righteous God and we are fallen sinners.  Pretending they don’t exist, believing whatever you want doesn’t change God’s standards.  Believing that you are good enough to go to heaven will not take you there, you need Christ’s redeeming blood.

Perhaps the most dangerous thing about the movie is not that it declares that God may or may not exist and that God’s standards are really just something created to bind humanity pointlessly, it does it very, very subtly.  It is not until the end of the movie that I began to realize it messages hidden in a boring, artless facade.  The movie appears to be nothing more than a simple, slightly boring, family movie, but it isn’t.  The movie tries to shake the foundations of morality and Christianity.  For the discerning viewer, this isn’t accomplished.  Even the undiscerning view probably won’t believe that God is created by your beliefs or that rules are just meant to be broken.  However, a seed of rebellion is certainly planted, if rules inhibit me or I don’t like them, as long as I believe I am following them, I can do whatever I want.

The woman’s statement that in her “heart” she is what she isn’t legally is problably lauded by almost everyone, decerning and undecerning.  If you take that idea one step out, the movie is really saying “I believe I am doing right, therefore I am.”  It isn’t really.

 

Settling in Comfortably…

Posted in &tc... on 07/25/2009 05:51 pm by Kristen

So far, except for a few minor issues, I am quite fond of my new blog.  As you can see, I imported all of my old posts and their comments.  I am quite happy about that, actually!  Although, any tags that they had disappeared in the transition, but aside from that I thing the transfer went rather well.  It took quite a bit of searching, emailing, and calling before the website finally worked, but I think it was worth it!  A big, huge, tremendous thanks to my big brother who was invaluable in this process.

I hope to have several more in depth posts, forth coming, but at the moment I need to do the bulletin and I am a little tired of messing with my blog.

 

Friday April 10, 2009

Posted in Uncategorized on 04/10/2009 01:25 pm by Kristen

Four score and forty furlongs ago,

Our Forefathers fathered a famous document,

For the future of the favored Fatherland.

Forming a famously favorite facet of our fellow country,

Fitted them fabulously into the fabric of our fantasy.

Fables of their fantastic feats fascinate the faculties.

Flights of fancy overtake faulty facts

And facilitate failing attention fortitude.

Fantasy and fables fill the vacant faculties,

Displacing forgotten facts with far-fetched fiction.

~Vendethiel

 

Thursday April 9, 2009

Posted in Uncategorized on 04/09/2009 10:32 am by Kristen

1) What author do you own the most books by?
Personally? Jane Austen. As a family? Francis Schaeffer, maybe?

2) What book do you own the most copies of?
I don’t usually buy more than one copy of a book, but I think we have two copies of The Lord of the Rings

3) Did it bother you that both those questions ended with prepositions?
Sort of, I didn’t like it, but I wasn’t going to re-word them.

4) What fictional character are you secretly in love with?
Oh, let me think… Eugene? (Can’t remember his last name.)

4a) What fictional character would you most like to be?
Anne Eliot, probably. She is very kind and patient.

4b) What fictional character do you think most resembles you?
Hmmm….  Elizabeth Bennet crossed with Margaret Hale?  (Witty, not the best judge of character and having several faults.)

5) What book have you read the most times in your life?
The Bible probably.

6) What was your favorite book when you were ten years old?
Probably The Chronicles of Narnia.

7) What is the worst book you’ve read in the past year?
Oh, my that is a long list.  English Comp II has introduced me to horrible books, I would probably say The Lottery.

8) What is the best book you’ve read in the past year?
Umm…  Everyday Use, maybe.  It it just April and my summer reading hasn’t kicked in yet.

9) If you could force everyone you tagged to read one book, what would it be?
The Bible?  I truly don’t know; I wouldn’t want to force anyone to read one book, they should read lots of books!!!!

10) Who deserves to win the next Nobel Prize for literature?
Can I write in a contestant?  Okay:  David Maxwell or Caleb?  (Not that I’ve read anything by either recently….hint…hint…)

11) What book would you most like to see made into a movie?
Depends, who is making the movie?  Hmmm?  Andrew Davies?  Nothing, thanks.

12) What book would you least like to see made into a movie?
The Bible, they always ruin it.

13) Describe your weirdest dream involving a writer, book, or literary character.
I dreamed that I was working on an African animal reserve and there was some sort of writer, but then we got ambushed by bad guys with shotguns and he died.  But I lived!!!  (No more pizza after midnight…)

14) What is the most lowbrow book you’ve read as an adult?
How about what I want to read?  Pride and Prejudice The Comic Book!  (The drawings are pretty cool!)

15) What is the most difficult book you’ve ever read?
::sigh::  I don’t know.  Several by Francis Schaffer.  Macbeth was difficult in some places, mostly because I wanted to slap Lady Macbeth and I kept hoping that the 3rd murderer was really Macduff in disguise!!!

16) What is the most obscure Shakespeare play you’ve seen?
I’ve only seen movies, so that doesn’t really count does it?

17) Do you prefer the French or the Russians?
Russians, comrade.

18) Roth or Updike?
::sigh::

19) David Sedaris or Dave Eggers?
I’m sorry, can you repeat the question?

20) Shakespeare, Milton, or Chaucer?
Shakespeare.

21) Austen or Eliot?
Austen!!!  Are you seriously asking that question?

22) What is the biggest or most embarrassing gap in your reading?
I’ve only truly read one Shakespeare play, the rest I just read the Spark’s Notes on.  I started another play, but got interrupted.

23) What is your favorite novel?
Pride and Prejudice, Persuasion, Our Mutual Friend, Ivanhoe, The Antiquary, The Count of Monte Cristo, North and South…  I’ve got more!!!

24) Play?
Much Ado About Nothing?  (Only saw the movie, so I’m not too sure about that one.)

25) Poem?
Oh, I have several.  Ozymandias, The Road Not Taken, Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening, and several others I can’t remember right now.

26) Essay?
Can’t say that I know of one.

27) Short story?
I haven’t read very many, but I liked “Everyday Use”.

28) Work of non-fiction?
Hmm… Got nothin’.

29) Who is your favorite writer?
I have a lot of favorites, but I really like Jane Austen’s humor and brevity.  (Scott and Dickens go on and on and on.)

30) Who is the most overrated writer alive today?
Whoever wrote Harry Potter.

31) What is your desert island book?
How to Build a Multi-Million-Dollar Resort in Three Easy Steps!

32) And … what are you reading right now?
English Comp II assignments, Lord Peter, and Emma.

 
Older Entries