Dog Appreciation 101

I really love dogs. I've had exactly one pet dog, a now 13 year old cockapoo named Chelsea. She looks like this:

She's completely blind in one eye, well on her way in the other, and pretty convincingly deaf as well. But if she's not the best little dog ever...

The reasons why dogs are awesome are numerous. If you don't know any of them, a good place to start would be to watch the NOVA documentary called Dogs Decoded. (Available on Netflix! My life is an advertisement for Netflix.)

Anyway, dogs are awesome because they've evolved basically for the purpose of living in harmony with humans. After thousands of years of selective breeding, they are nothing like their wolf ancestors. But humans have domesticated lots of other animals - why have only dogs come this far?

Dogs come in an enormous range of sizes, shapes and colors. And they are still all the same species. This variability is found only in dogs because of the unique flexibility of their genes. All house cats look basically the same, but dogs, for this reason, come in breeds that are entirely different from one another.

How did this variation in appearance get started? Well, the answer has been found in only a few generations of selective breeding among foxes in Russia. Researchers bred together the most "tame" foxes and after a couple generations, not only did the foxes begin to behave like dogs - they began to look like dogs. Their ears flopped over, their tails curled, their fur began to come in in patches and spots of different colors. What happened is that the most docile foxes had the most puppy-like genes: both in temperament and physical appearance. These traits that we love in dogs (floppy ears, curly tails) are juvenile traits. Selective breeding allowed these traits to persist into adulthood. Further selective breeding produced dogs with a consistent appearance - a breed standard. But it all started with temperament.

The amazing evolution of dogs only begins with their looks. They connect with humans in ways no other animal can, even the most intelligent and human-like. Dogs respond to hand gestures without being trained, and even watch the motion of our eyes. In one experiment, a chimpanzee and a dog were presented with two cups. Under one was a tasty treat - under the other, nothing. The dog (an ordinary, every day dog) watched the person who sat behind the cups as he looked directly at the one which held the treat. When the dog was released it went to the right cup every time. The chimp however had no interest in the human and when it was released it went bumbling over to whichever cup it pleased - and did not pass the test. 

Dogs not only respond to our communication with them, but they have developed ways to communicate with us. Wolves in the wild do not bark, except as a warning to other wolves. Domesticated dogs, as you may have noticed, bark all the time - and most of the time, it's directed at us. They want something: food, attention, to be let out. And barking proves to be an effective way to get what they want.

While the barking adaptation may be a little annoying, no one can deny that a dog's hopeless devotion to his master is one of the greatest things in the world. Every time my dog notices I'm in the same room as her (might take her a while, she is mostly blind), she wags her tail and downright smiles at me. It's just pure exuberance - no matter if we've been gone for a week or fifteen minutes. There's something sort of inspiring, too, about really well trained dogs, in the way they stare at their human for their next command and hold treats tortuously on their snouts until given the signal. Not to mention dogs who save lives, and military dogs, and service dogs, and the legendary few who sleep each night at the grave of their deceased owners.

I just really love dogs. And I've only ever had one dog. If all goes according to plan, I will own many, many dogs in my life time. Next up, of course, are two Italian Greyhounds named Marco and Polo. These are my post-college, apartment dogs. They'll look something like this:

Here are some other breeds that I adore. (I clearly have a type: long, skinny legs; long, skinny noses; long and skinny is key.) 

Bedlington Terriers look like sheep.

Manchester Terriers have all the elegance
of a doberman in a smaller sized package.

Dachshunds are great and always will be.

I like dogs that look closer to wolves or foxes than to say, cats or monkeys. No squished up faces for me. Gross. In my opinion, the 2012 Best in Show, the horrible, monkey-faced, rat-bodied, mop-ball Pekingese should be demoted to cat, but that would be an insult to cats.

It's just awful. Absolutely awful.

In fact, China has produced a lot of pretty terrible dogs in their long history. They make up for it with sesame chicken, but just barely. I also believe that a dog breed should exist to serve some kind of purpose. Even poodles exist for hunting water birds (they look the part when they aren't forced to sport awful haircuts). Again, China - what are you doing? The Chinese have created many variations on the Emperor Sleeve Dog.

Chinese Crested Dogs aren't entirely unacceptable in
my opinion, but they're sort of flamboyantly pathetic.

Chinese Imperial Dogs. Honestly. Are they in an Easter basket?
It's just degrading. I also like my dogs to look intelligent, and
these things look  incredibly stupid. Not to judge or anything.

Some people like Pugs. I am not one of those people.

It's like you can feel the pain in this Shih Tzu's eyes.
It's blank, glossed-over eyes.

This is a Japanese Chin, but it was on the Wikipedia page of Dog
Breeds Originating in China, so I'm gonna put it here. If by Chin
they mean Lack-Thereof, I guess the name fits. It just looks like a
stupid, ugly monkey to me, though.

Miniature Shar Pei. I have more respect for this
dog than the previous few, but that's not saying much.

Australians, however, they know how to make dogs. That's because they're ranching people descended from British convicts. Plus, they all look like dingoes. (Australian dogs, not Australian people.)

Of course the Australian Shepherd. Lovely. 

A Koolie. Absolutely gorgeous.

Even their froo-froo dogs, like the Silky Terrier, are respectable.

I generally prefer smaller dogs, just because I can scoop them up and they're easier and I realized recently that the feeling of having a dog's mouth around your entire arm is kind of freaky. But at the same time I love the idea of owning a Great Dane and a SmartCar simultaneously. Just for the comic juxtaposition of it. 

Refuting the Opposition: Gun Control

Welcome to the second installment of Refuting the Opposition: why have an actual opinion when you can just prove why other people are wrong instead? This one will discuss gun control, and expand on my earlier and shorter post on this topic.

"The 2nd Amendment is about protecting yourself from a tyrannical government." I understand that, and that's fine, but let's think about this logically for a second: How could any private citizen protect himself from the government nowadays if the government really wanted to off him? How can one person with a bunker and a collection of assault rifles expect to stand a chance against unmanned drones, machine guns, and a whole array of other weapons that are illegal for the average citizens to own? The 2nd Amendment was supposed to apply to state militias that could arm themselves and maybe back in those days, in high enough numbers, they would stand a chance against the federal government. But something like that is not going to happen these days. Also, considering the feds can't work together on anything, it's really doubtful they'll put aside their differences for the purposes of forming an autocratic state.

"Background checks would not have stopped Newtown or Aurora or many other mass shootings." This is true. But is stopping mass shootings our only goal? We should be trying to save anyone we can from being murdered and it seems like preventing criminals and the insane from easily purchasing guns seems like a good starting point. It's just common sense. We can't stop every bad thing from happening, but I'd like to hear someone besides Wayne LaPierre explain why background checks are a bad idea. You have to get background checks to work at Wendy's for God's sake - why can you buy a powerful weapon without one?

"If we let anything be done, any small victory for the gun control supporters, Obama will come for  all of our guns." Yeah, no. Our good-for-nothing Congress stands in the way of anything being done in the first place, and even if something is pushed through, you can always count on them to block future legislation. If we've learned anything in the past few years, it's this: Congress is no longer a legislative body, but a legislation-killing body. Also, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, and thus invalid. Next question please.

"Even if assault weapons are illegal, crazy people will find ways to kill people." Seems legit. But the thing about assault weapons is that they are so much more lethal than any other weapon. There have been people in America and China recently who have attacked dozens of people with knives, stabbing them. But here's the thing: no one died. No one. Knives and even less powerful guns are nowhere near as lethal as assault weapons. Not to mention, it's considerably easier to take down someone with a knife (they have to get close to you to hurt you, so you have a chance for self-defense) than someone with a gun. So, yes, murder will still happen, obviously, but successful mass killings would be fewer in number.

"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." First of all, sweeping generalization much? Second of all, there were armed guards at Columbine. And how did that go? There are a lot of people (like me) who don't want to have to carry around a gun and who think that we shouldn't have to in order to be safe. I mean, if the "bad guy" doesn't have a gun then... what's the issue?

"If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns." This is a clever saying, so props for that. And yes, criminals will still find ways to access weapons, but at least in doing so they would be committing a legal offense and would be arrested if caught. But the real issue with this argument is - no one's trying to outlaw all the guns! Just a select few that have already been outlawed in the past. Actually, fewer guns are candidates for banning than were banned last time around.

I'm still "holding my ground," if you will, on this issue and would like to see something done. Soon.

You know what would be even more fun than me arguing with myself? If some of my lovely readers sent in "oppositions." Whether you agree or disagree with me, send me a statement that you think I'd disagree with and I'll do my best to refute it. It can be on gun control, or any other topic really, preferably something political, but you can always do something like "Sherlock sucks" and I'll gladly destroy you. So leave a comment if you have anything to say :) Let's get some interaction going on in here!

So, I got a 12 string guitar... (and my wisdom teeth out)

A few weeks ago I splurged on a gorgeous (40% off) 12 string Seagull guitar. Below are pictures of it getting to know my older 6 string Baden. The purpose of this post is to show off, of course, and to justify why it is absolutely necessary to have both a 6 string and a 12 string. Because it is.

More recently (on Friday) I got my wisdom teeth removed. For some reason these two topics got blended together into one post. Enjoy!

My Baden probably feels a little inadequate.

But it's way shinier than the Seagull and the Seagull doesn't have a pickup. I still love you, Baden. I will never replace you.


But I also really love this new guitar. The double strings are eating my fingertips alive, but I just can't stop playing it. And when I switch back to a 6 string it's like... an empty feeling. I don't know. But you can't do this on a 12-string:

Yeah, I can play the Sherlock theme song. It's not a big deal.

I'm kidding, it's a really big deal. I think it is, anyway.

Let's do a little 6 string versus 12 string sound comparison, shall we?

Well, not only did you get to hear the amazing difference between 6 and 12 strings, but also see my room... hahaha do you like my magazine pages of The Cumberbatch and Stephen Colbert on my wall? Yeppers.

Again, blaming that video on my first experience with general anesthesia and pain meds. About wisdom-teeth-removal, it went very smoothly... well, I mean, I remember very little of it, but that's perfectly fine with me. And whatever that stuff is that they make you breathe in so you pass out - it's awesome. I was like, oh, you're sticking a needle in my arm? Okay, that's cool. What are you putting in my mouth? My feet are all tingly... I actually don't remember waking up and getting out of the chair, which is weird, but I remember the nurse walking me out and she was like "You're doing a great job walking!" as I'm clutching her for support, and I'm thinking, how do people normally walk after this?!  The rest of that day I ate Jell-O and room temperature mashed potatoes and watched too many episodes of Heroes before feeling like I wanted to do something with my life. And you got the latter half of this post out my restlessness, so lucky you! The worst part is just being super sore. And having weird urges such as making a vlog.

Since then, I've swollen up to a cute chipmunk look and today it's settled down into some serious Brad Pitt jawline. So, I'm having fun. 

On diversity and prejudice

Wow, this is kind of heavy. It might even, dare I say, matter.

There's a current line of thought that people who are different are really just the same "on the inside." This could not be further from the truth, actually. Can't we get over ourselves and our bloated sensitives and admit that everyone is different, on the inside and out, but that's okay? Gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic level... All these things affect a person's worldview so completely, and worldview is a big deal. It's sort of everything, actually. 

I recently read in a book (I think it was the Social Animal by David Brooks, but I'm not sure and this ain't no English paper so I'm not about to cite any sources, thank you very much) that even the best intentioned, nicest people can't help but have prejudiced thoughts sometimes. It's just an evolutionary remnant we're stuck with - distrust of those different from us. And race is an obvious visual indicator of someone who is different from you. But this is no excuse for racist words and actions. We have a conscious mind that for most people knows wrong and right, so let's use it. I guess my verdict is don't feel awful about yourself if you think a racist thought every once in a while. Don't worry about it as long as your next thought is, "Oh my god, did I just think that? I don't believe that, not at all! Why did I think that?" Then make sure your thoughts don't turn into words or actions and viola! You're not a racist. Congratulations. 

This apparently evolutionary trait makes it seem a little less likely that racism will die out with older generations, as many hope - as I hoped. While these instinctual thoughts might not disappear, what will hopefully die out is these thoughts finding their way into the public. It's always becoming less acceptable to say politically incorrect things in public, and this trend will undoubtedly continue. Whether or not PC culture is going overboard, well, that's not something I'm going to go into right now. 

(But in AP Lang last year we had a synthesis essay prompt about this very topic and one of the documents was a list of words that were deemed by some company to be offensive and their more preferable alternatives. And it was ridiculous. One of the included words was the word "hut." Then "replace with small house." I'm sorry, but I don't want to order pizza from Pizza Small House.)

By "not going into [it] right now" I generally mean "going into it right now, but inside parentheses."

Side rant over. Main rant cont'd. 

Racism, as least internally, will continue unless everybody is the same race. Some people think that we'll all blend together in the future into one nice olivey skin tone. Sorry sunburnt white people, but that's not going to happen because a.) the majority of people reproduce within their own racial group and b.) have you seen how many people are on earth? Diversity will continue, my friend, unless a terrible tragedy cuts the human population down to roughly the size and racial proportions of the people on the island in Lost, and then, well, we have a chance to achieve a happy medium of skin pigmentation once repopulation begins. (Which, given the behavior of the inhabitants of the Lost island, will be in no longer than a season or two.) 

On the other hand, do we really want to all be the same hybrid race? Talk about boring, especially if cultural distinctions disappear along with race. Besides, racism is something we can overcome, without getting rid of race. The problem is not in the diversity, but in people's reactions to it. 

So let's all react positively, but realistically. By which I mean, acknowledging that people are different from you and just being okay with that. Like, what's the big deal?

Let's analyze the heck outta Life of Pi! (Spoilerfest)

By Spoilerfest I mean this post will be chock full of spoilers. And I don't want to get your hate mail when you finally read or watch Life of Pi and realize it's been ruined for you. If it comes to that, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Life of Pi repeatedly whacks you over the head with symbols. And even explains some of them. So this is one example where you can't wonder if the author meant for such and such to represent such and such. First of all, the author usually means it, and in this case Yann Martel knew what he was doing. And did it brilliantly.

Let's start with the ones that are explained for us, just so we're all on the same page here. The zebra is the injured Buddhist guy, the hyena is the nasty cook, the orangutan is Pi's mother, and Richard Parker, the tiger, is Pi. Or actually a part of Pi, but we'll get to that.

For the intents of this post, let's assume that what actually, physically happened to Pi is the story he tells at the end: there were no animals, he witnessed murder, cannibalism and other unspeakable atrocities, before snapping and killing the only other remaining survivor. And then he was alone on the lifeboat for a really long time. I'm reluctant to call this the "truth" however, because one of the lofty questions this book tackles is: what is actually true? And that seems a little too pretentious to delve into in only the fourth paragraph.

We'll warm up by discussing Richard Parker, the tiger, who represents a part of Pi. A piece of Pi, perhaps. Oh, I'm so funny... The tiger is the part of Pi that is basically evil: capable of murder. I think the reason he invents a separate entity to represent this side if him is because it surprised him and he wasn't able to cope with the realization that he had killed someone. (The whole animal story spares him from having to cope, but we'll go into that later.) He wants that part of him to not actually be a part of him, but something separate. And he clearly wants to keep his distance from it. He has to learn how to live with this evil inside of him, and how to tame it, if you will. (Yeah, I know - some of this symbolism is really not that sophisticated.) But he admits that it keeps him alive. It is fierce and frightening, and he has to feed it to keep it at bay so it won't kill him. (Whatever that means...)

Maybe this is why the tiger leaves him as soon as they reach the shore; he doesn't need that ferocity to survive anymore. But by now it seems he is emotionally invested in his belief that the tiger is real and is hurt to see him leave so easily.

There's a striking scene in the movie where Pi wrestles a giant fish out of the water and kills it by whacking it over the head repeatedly with something (not symbols). When the fish is dead or at least stops struggling, he stares into its eyes and Pi starts crying, apologizing over and over. My mom brilliantly pointed out that this might have been a bit of a flashback for him. Perhaps he recalled killing the cook, a memory he had repressed, and it overwhelmed him for a moment. I like this theory a lot, but either way it's a great scene and builds up Pi's character quite nicely.

There are a few hints along the way that maybe some of this isn't real (the floating bananas, anyone?) but the biggest one by far is the mysterious island. At this point, you know that something is going on, because islands do not float, Meerkats do not live on Pacific islands (let alone floating ones) and algae does not eat people. The symbol of the island is a bit more open to interpretation, but there are basically two paths.

Path 1: The partially literal island theory. The island story he tells, much like the story with the animals, is a more fantastical, less believable version of what actually happened. He arrived at an uninhabited island, alone, and found that it was somewhere he could survive. There was food and water. But if he stayed there forever, he would eventually die and is that any better than dying alone at sea? The message is that there is more to life than simply surviving and not to settle for the bare necessities, but to journey on in search of a real salvation. (Sounds faintly religious, like EVERYTHING else in Life of Pi.) I like the message, but any amount of "literal" is too literal for me, so I prefer the other option.

Path 2: The purely metaphorical island theory. Pi is in a state of delirium for a good period of time and the island is all in his head, and in a way represents his head. Since he conjured up animals that weren't actually there I don't think this is a stretch at all. In this case, the island symbolizes his method of coping (replacing people with animals in his memory). It's comfortable, safe, and a place where he can live for a while. But in the long run, it will devour him and he will have to move on, and face the facts: he's lost at sea by himself, and an "island" isn't going to change that, not really.

Either way, he leaves the island, a temporary safe haven, for a harsher reality, but ultimately one with a chance of enlightenment.

But what's the big picture of all this? Well, the whole book is a metaphor for religion. (I think I've used the word lofty already...) An adult Pi tells the writer than he has a story that will make him believe in God. How does he plan on doing this? And did he?

Let's try to keep this vaguely organized. First off, Pi uses the story with the animals to rationalize and deal with the horrible things that happened to him. It's a little unbelievable, but it's neat and tidy and a million times more pleasant than the one with the humans. Sounds a bit like religious stories to me. Furthermore, he asks the Japanese men which story they prefer after he's told them both versions. It's revealed at the end that their report notes that Pi survived 227 days at sea... with a Bengal tiger. Guess which story they preferred. The author also admits that he prefers the story with the animals. Pi got them to believe in the unbelievable - a major hurdle in accepting any faith.

So are religions just a preference? Do we simply prefer to see meaning in senseless tragedy? Well, yeah. But does that really matter? What is actually true - what we experience physically or how we experience it emotionally?

I'll leave you rather the way Life of Pi leaves you - with far more questions than answers. And with this: Pi was on the boat for 227 days. 22/7 = 3.14 = Pi. *Cue the groans*

Writers... Always inflicting meaning on everything...

My collections

My philosophy is that once you've got two of something, it's a collection. By these standards, I collect many many things. But this post is going to be about things I actually actively collect for some sort of purpose.

1.) Bumper stickers and other large stickers

I try to get a couple whenever I go somewhere interesting that has a gift shop. Then I put them all over my mom's old guitar case and this is what I have so far: 

2.) Bottle caps

This one started with Izze bottle caps like these:

But then I quickly branched out to any and all bottle caps and I now have this many:

Then I've made one of these, and plan to make more as soon as I can:

3.) Fake bonsai trees

I only have two, but by my standards it IS a collection.

4.) Hmong stuffed animals

These are so great and I always get one or two at places like the Festival of Nations or the People's Fair.

Things that make me irrationally angry

Maybe cataloguing this will cleanse me of this senseless feeling of rage. Or maybe it will just make me madder. Either way, this is my list of Things That Make Me Irrationally Angry.

#1: Sporks

 

Sporks have got to be the most useless invention ever. All we got in elementary school were cheap plastic sporks, so I can speak from experience when I say that they do not serve any purpose. They don’t work as a spoon because if you’re eating soup it all drains out from the end. And they don’t work as a fork either, because the prongs are short, stubby and triangular, and would sooner snap off than skewer anything. Basically, they are a waste of time, money, plastic, matter, space, and of one's childhood. Think of the children.

#2: Forks with three prongs

I guess I have some unresolved silverware issues… huh. Anyway, forks with three prongs are not forks. Forks have four prongs. Three prongs make it a trident or something. So any fork with three prongs is not a true fork, and therefore an impostor. Also, they are ugly looking. Olive Garden, for example, uses three-pronged forks dining tridents and it sort of turns me off Olive Garden. Which is a shame because they have heavenly bread sticks.

 

 

#3:Uncrustables

 
I actually love Uncrustables but I always remove the rim of compressed bread-product before I eat them. And what bugs me is everyone’s like, “Why are you taking the crust off? The point is that thereisn’t a crust!” And I’m like, “Well, there is, what else would you call this crap? Besides, they’re not called Uncrusteds. They’re called Uncrustables. They are able to be uncrusted. So I uncrust them. I don’t see the problem.”





#4: The failure of public schools to properly educate kids on what a pun is

There are a surprising number of high schoolers who wouldn’t know a pun if it smacked them in the face. Then even when I read the definition of a pun to them they still will not admit that it is in fact a pun.

Little survey real quick… Is this a pun? “Mama Turkey’s two sons were misbehaving. She told them, ‘If Grandpa Turkey could see you now he’d roll over in his gravy!’” (Note: this was paraphrased slightly, but is no more or less funny than the original joke and the part that makes it a pun is verbatim.)

The correct answer is yes. But just to make up for the failure of the public school system, here’s the definition of a pun:

A joke exploiting the different possible meanings of a word or the fact that there are words that sound alike but have different meanings.

There, copied and pasted straight from Google. The part that makes the aforementioned joke a pun is “words that sound alike.” Because grave and gravy sound alike. Don’t even try to argue with me on this point.

It actually just makes me so mad. I’m so mad right now.

#5: When people in Honor’s Spanish 3 still don’t know basic pronunciation rules

The H is silent. You don’t say it. You just don’t say it. Not even a little bit. There are no exceptions. Ever. I'm using intentional fragments and simple sentence construction to emphasize my anger. Because I'm just that mad right now.