Giant Spiders

Currently Watching: Outbreak
I wouldn't consider myself an arachnophobe. I don't hate spiders. I don't like them by any means, and I won't seek them out, but they don't send me on top of chairs when I see one.

But judging by the dreams I've had about spiders, I'd say they may be the greatest irrational fear I have.

The last time I had a nightmare about spiders, it was after I watched the episode Exposeeee, of Lost. I dragged out the e because I can't do accents, despite the best efforts of every Spanish teacher I've ever had. For the uninitiated, that episode is about two minor characters and they're arguing and lying and backstabbing, and at the end they're both bitten by spiders. First, the girl throws a spider on the guy, and then another one shows up and bites her. Except these spiders don't kill, they just paralyze. Except no one else on the Island (who is alive) knows this, so everyone assumes they are dead and the couple is buried alive. And right before the others start shovelling, HER EYES OPEN.

Oh, the terror.

And I had a nightmare that night, about being bitten by spiders while being underground. Obviously my subconcious wasn't paying too much attention during the show.

Then last night I had another spider-mare. I can't remember it nearly as vividly as the Lost dream, but I do remember man-sized spiders chasing me and characters from Indiana Jones (spoiler alert: Sallah got eaten). And at the end, Indy and I defeated the spiders, except I knew that it was only a temporary victory and that mankind would some day die at the hands of these arachnids.

Now, I'm a believer in interpreting dreams, and the first spider dream makes sense; I was just re-capping an episode of Lost I'd seen hours prior.

But what the hell does the second one mean?

This Post Now With 100% Less Relevant Title

Currently Listening To: Saturday Night by Kaiser Chiefs, a sophomore-year classic
Tonight was a big night in our house -- the "big announcement" episode of Jon and Kate.

My littlest sister was going to watch it later -- she and a friend were occupied with something else -- but my older-younger (I have long struggled with how to differentiate between the two of them without using names, for when I'm talking to people who don't know my sisters) sister was ready to watch now. Junior (as I've taken to calling her lately; youngest is Nugget) was ready to watch now, so she came in to my room.

Blame it on my short attention span, but I was on my laptop while watching TV. Five minutes in to the TV, I saw on IMDb that the "big announcement" had leaked early. I clicked on the headline, which led to a page with all of IMDb's related articles. The first to catch my eye was a Huffington Post article begging readers not to support this show any more.

So I didn't.

Normally I try not to be so swayed by someone else's opinion. While I'm not of the mind that there's always two sides to a story (sometimes people are just right), I do like to weigh options. But I saw "don't watch" and was just compelled. Huffington Post's reason for the boycott was the Helen Lovejoy argument. I don't subscribe to Helen Lovejoy's beliefs; fuck the children. The reason I didn't watch is because my recent obsession with this has made me into a hypocrite. This is a reality show. I don't watch reality shows.

Now, I am not completely averse to documentary shows. I love Anthony Bourdain's show, and really any travel shows. Anything that isn't hyped on drama, which is exactly what Jon and Kate has strayed from, unlike the other sideshow-shows on TLC (I'm looking at you, Midget House 1 and Midget House 2). Jon and Kate has become the Hills. It's not about "How does a normal couple deal with the day-to-day of a large family?" anymore. The episodes are no longer, "This week, how they deal with shopping," et cetera. It's now half-soap opera ("Will they or won't they?" I have LOST for that, thanks so much), half rich-people-day-to-day. As happy I am that they now no longer face financial problems, the fact that they no longer deal with penny-pinching and coupon clipping (and thus there is no need for a shopping episode) has driven the human element from the show. They aren't normal people any more.

So I turned it off five minutes in. National Geographic had a show on about the history of the US and Iran's relations, so I went for that.

Junior asked me if I was retarded. Then she left.

Creepy Kid In Checkout Line

I was in line today at the Terget... I was buying a shirt because I was all sweaty and I don't manage money very well. Seriously, twice I bought underwear instead of doing laundry while off at school. I'm terrible, and thus I'm broke.

But back to business. I'm in line at the check-out, shirt in hand. In front of me is a woman with a cart, and there's a kid in the seat in that cart. And he's staring at me. I normally don't like it when people stare at me (does anyone?) but this kid was particularly unsettling. He wasn't staring, he was staring daggers; he was glaring at me.

So I'm alternating between looking away (because like I said, staring makes me uncomfortable) and looking at the kid to see if he's still staring. I don't know, in case he jumped me or something. You never know, a three year old could have a knife on him.

But he kept staring. He was like determined. To stare at me.

And finally he starts talking (toddlers can talk? Whaaaa?) He says "Boo boo" and starts rubbing his forehead. A forehead that is clearly untouched; he's talking about my forehead. He stops saying boo boo and starts shouting it. This kid is freaking out about the "boo boo" on my head. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing wrong with my forehead, and there wasn't anything wrong with it six hours ago.

What the hell was that kid talking about?

I may never know.

Comment Section

Currently Listening To: Cuddle Fuddle by Passion Pit
This whole web 2.0 nonsense (and yes, I realize that would include, say, my facebook, youtube and blogspot accounts) is based upon user-created content. And you know, there is some stuff of value coming from it. Every so often I'll see a funny or insightful video on youtube, or read something of interest on blogger, and facebook is good for keeping in touch with friends over the summer and planning events during the year, and also talking shit about people I know with other people I know.

But then I'll read an article on a news site. Pick any news site. Almost all of them do it. At the bottom there will be a comment section, and nothing thoughtful or coherent will be contained within. If the article in anyway references politics (or even if it doesn't), within five comments it will have been reduced to "liberls r ritarded" "no conservitivez sukkk big tyme" "no u guse r pansies GO 2 FRANCE!!!" "hay fuck u racist"

I actually really enjoyed typing that.

But I digress. The four comments leading up to that disintegration will more than likely be "first". You'd think that only the first one would say that, and then the second would say second and so on an so forth, but usually they will all say first because people are so refresh-happy that that will all see the article the second it is published and immediately and simultaneously head for the comment box. That's my first issue with the "first" phenomenon. My second is, as I'm sure everyone else who isn't guilty of this nonsense, "How on earth is this in anyway relevant to the discussion?" Very rarely do these ever have anything beyond the "first". They just leave it that. Never a "first"+"The Great American YouTube Comment".

Web 2.0 has given voice to the voiceless, and shown why they were voiceless to begin with; they had nothing to contribute.

And yet, the once-respectable news sources like CNN have been reduced to asking what we think. To consulting twitter, to giving polls and asking for viewer videos. The results on this rap are then presented alongside the news. The already non-news Letterman-makes-a-joke-about-Palin's-daughter bit becomes even less interesting when I hear that it's only still on Fox News' homepage because 60% of readers think his apology wasn't enough. The news shouldcover events. This story skidded to a halt when Palin accepted the apology... but now they've left it open-ended.

I suppose, as dearest freshman year at college has taught me, I should suggest some sort of solution. I don't have one. At least, one that doesn't evovle removing these people from the gene pool. It's only like this because people eat this shit up. Ooh, CNN wants my video. CNN should have specified; they need your video or your tweet when you're on the scene of the downed plane or the riots in Tehran, not when you have some inane commentary. They've already got guys for that.

Juno Betrayed

I'm watching Juno on HBO. Haven't seen it in a while, and at and hour and ten minutes in, I'm reminded why I don't rewatch this movie as often as I do some of my other favorites.

Jason Bateman's betrayal floors me every time. I suppose it isn't a betrayal the same way 006 betrays James Bond in Goldeneye, or something like that, but it still hits hard. This kid trusts him. Jennifer Garner (whom I loathe, except in this movie) trusts him. He fucks everything up! Enter my over-thought, self important analysis of this movie: Obviously it's about kids, being that it tracks a teenager's pregnancy. But beyond that, it's about grownups who are still kids. Juno, though a minor, is an adult in the freshman-year-biology-class sense of the word. She can reproduce. And yet, she is completely unaware of what a perv Bateman is, despite her stepmom's warning. Bateman himself is also a kid, thirty-something and still dreaming of being Cobain, as Jennifer Garner puts it, rather than wanting a family.

What's worse is Juno will probably find herself in the same situation as Jennifer Garner in ten years. Bleaker is obsessed with "the band", and in true childlike fashion, thinks of pregnancy in terms of being what "moms and teachers" do.

It's this level of douchebaggery that tell me that I really have changed after a year of college.