I may keep using this blog, despite the fact that it was for a school assignment and I've already gotten all the grades I'm going to get on it. It's kind of nice having a place where I'm allowed to rant about things. I don't really have anything to say at the moment, though.
Oh, wait. I suppose I do.
Nothing particularly interesting. But it's after one in the morning, I'm exhausted, and I'm still awake. Why? Because of world geography (which happens to be the same class that I was forced to create this blog for). You see, we were assigned countries (asian, for the most part) to do projects on recently. If we bring food from the country tomorrow, we get extra credit. I usually don't jump at extra credit opportunities, but for some reason, I decided that I wanted to do it. My country was Japan, so I decided to make Onigiri (rice balls; usually filled with something) because they sounded easy.
HAH.
Unfortunately, I didn't realize until AFTER I'd bought all the ingredients I needed that making sticky rice (asian rice, japanese rice... whatever you want to call it) takes a very long time. You have to rinse it about a billion times, then drain it and let it sit for 30 minutes to an hour, then soak it in a pot with water for at least an hour, THEN cook it, and then wait an eternity for it to cool. And then when you finally get around to making the actual onigiri, you realize just how sticky this rice acutally is! I had decided to try to make them the "traditional" way: simply molding them with my hands. That lasted all of three seconds. When I tried to take a small amount of rice out of the pot and form it into a ball, it got stuck to my hands. I could hardly get it off, let alone form it into a recognizable shape! Eventually, I discovered that this unfortunate mess could be avoided by placing a spoonful of rice onto a piece of plastic wrap and molding it through that. This worked especially well because I don't need these onigiri until tomorrow afternoon. After I finished with each rice ball, I simply wrapped the plastic wrap all the way around it to prevent it from drying out in the next 15 hours or so.
After I'd exhausted my first batch of rice, I realized that I only had 23 rice balls. I need at least 28, and I want to have a few extra. So I got to start the whole process all over again! What fun!
At this point, the second batch of rice should be cool enough to use. As soon as I finish this post, I'm going to go make even MORE rice balls!
Needless to say, I'm not going to be attempting this project again. Not on this large of a scale, at least. I suppose this might have been a whole lot easier if I had a rice cooker, but I don't. And if I were ever to obtain one, it would probably sit in the Corner of Unused Kitchen Appliances with my food processer and bread machine.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Saturday, May 9, 2009
One Place I'd Like to Visit?
You're really asking me to pick one place? Do you realize how impossible that is? EVERYWHERE. I want to go everywhere! However, for the purposes of this blog post, I'll just pick a handful of places and talk about them some. I'm kind of a geek, so my reasons for wanting to visit most of these places are history-related.
First up: Scotland. Well, England and Wales, too, I guess. That general area. I'm oddly preoccupied with learing about my heritage, and everything I've found leads back to that island in the North Atlantic. I'm really interested in the history of it, partially because of my heritage and partially because I really love learning about the ancient tribes of Europe. It gets kind of frustrating because not much is actually known for sure about them, but that just makes it all the more interesting.
I'd also love to visit parts of the Middle East. Again, for historical reasons. Some of the world's most amazing early civilizations were located there. If you haven't noticed, I kind of have a thing for ancient history. I also find it interesting because that area is considered sacred by many of the world's most prominent religions.
Since the other two places were mostly because of my obsession with ancient history, I'll try something different here. I would love to go to New Zealand. Purely because of the scenery. It sounds like an amazing place. No big cities, so the destructive influence of humans is very much decreased. And the fact that it's an island (well, two islands, but you know what I mean) means that there are lots of interesting species that have evolved there.
Ok, so ALL of that sounded pretty geeky. But there are also plenty of cities I'd like to visit, mostly in Europe. Then again, the main reason that I want to go to most of them is because of their history. So... Never mind. I'm a geek and I love it.
First up: Scotland. Well, England and Wales, too, I guess. That general area. I'm oddly preoccupied with learing about my heritage, and everything I've found leads back to that island in the North Atlantic. I'm really interested in the history of it, partially because of my heritage and partially because I really love learning about the ancient tribes of Europe. It gets kind of frustrating because not much is actually known for sure about them, but that just makes it all the more interesting.
I'd also love to visit parts of the Middle East. Again, for historical reasons. Some of the world's most amazing early civilizations were located there. If you haven't noticed, I kind of have a thing for ancient history. I also find it interesting because that area is considered sacred by many of the world's most prominent religions.
Since the other two places were mostly because of my obsession with ancient history, I'll try something different here. I would love to go to New Zealand. Purely because of the scenery. It sounds like an amazing place. No big cities, so the destructive influence of humans is very much decreased. And the fact that it's an island (well, two islands, but you know what I mean) means that there are lots of interesting species that have evolved there.
Ok, so ALL of that sounded pretty geeky. But there are also plenty of cities I'd like to visit, mostly in Europe. Then again, the main reason that I want to go to most of them is because of their history. So... Never mind. I'm a geek and I love it.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Uh-oh... OVERPOPULATION!
So the title's a bit melodramatic. Oh well.
Anyway. Overpopulation is a bigger issue in the world today than most people realize. For most of human history, our population has been at a fairly level and low number. However, it has been exploding for the past few decades and continues to do so today. The fact is, our planet can only support a certain amount of human life. We're approaching our carrying capacity, to drag a little biology into this. Unless we want to deal with famine, lack of adequate resources, etc., we've got to slow down our population growth.
The only non-violent population-control method that I've ever heard of is China's one-child policy. The name's pretty self-explanatory. However, making laws like that isn't a perfect solution: additional children just, well, happen sometimes. This law has also led to multitudes of baby girls that are abandoned by their parents because parents want their one child to be a son. They often don't survive.
Why has the human population grown so much in the past few decades? Well, let's start at the beginning. In the past, people had as many children as possible. It was like insurance: they could help provide for the family, and you had to have as many as possible because many of them died in infancy (or later on). When the quality of life in a society improves, people don't need as many children because they don't really need them, they're expensive, and hardly any of them die. However, when countries are in the in-between stages, the death rate has dropped but people continue to have as many children as possible, either because they need them around or because that's just the way it's always been done there. This leads to extreme population growth. As it happens, in the last few decades many countries have improved their quality of life to the point where not nearly as many people are dying. However, quite a few of those countries haven't reached the point where they are industrialized enough that the birthrate drops. Which is why the world's population is growning like crazy right now.
Of course, it's not just less-industrialized countries. If you assume that most people have children before they die, then in order to keep the population constant, each family should have an average of two children. Many families in the "more industrialized" countries do limit themselves to two children, but there are also many that don't. While having three children instead of two may not seem like that big of a deal, it adds up to a lot of people if everyone does it.
So how can we solve this? Basically, the countries in which families are having as many children as possible need to improve their quality of life to the point where they don't feel the need to have as many children. Obviously, they're probably going to need some help with that from other countries. But it can be done. In addition to that, people the world over need to be informed of our population growth problem. Many people are simply unaware of it. Families everywhere should be strongly encouraged to limit themselves to one or two children. I don't think there should be laws enforcing it (seeing as that's had some negative consequences in China), but maybe the government could provide incentives to have two or fewer children.
Apart from that, nothing short of mass executions will do anything about this problem. As I'm not a cold-hearted, bloodthirsty, inhuman savage, I don't support the latter "solution". Sounds a bit like Hitler, no?
Anyway. Overpopulation is a bigger issue in the world today than most people realize. For most of human history, our population has been at a fairly level and low number. However, it has been exploding for the past few decades and continues to do so today. The fact is, our planet can only support a certain amount of human life. We're approaching our carrying capacity, to drag a little biology into this. Unless we want to deal with famine, lack of adequate resources, etc., we've got to slow down our population growth.
The only non-violent population-control method that I've ever heard of is China's one-child policy. The name's pretty self-explanatory. However, making laws like that isn't a perfect solution: additional children just, well, happen sometimes. This law has also led to multitudes of baby girls that are abandoned by their parents because parents want their one child to be a son. They often don't survive.
Why has the human population grown so much in the past few decades? Well, let's start at the beginning. In the past, people had as many children as possible. It was like insurance: they could help provide for the family, and you had to have as many as possible because many of them died in infancy (or later on). When the quality of life in a society improves, people don't need as many children because they don't really need them, they're expensive, and hardly any of them die. However, when countries are in the in-between stages, the death rate has dropped but people continue to have as many children as possible, either because they need them around or because that's just the way it's always been done there. This leads to extreme population growth. As it happens, in the last few decades many countries have improved their quality of life to the point where not nearly as many people are dying. However, quite a few of those countries haven't reached the point where they are industrialized enough that the birthrate drops. Which is why the world's population is growning like crazy right now.
Of course, it's not just less-industrialized countries. If you assume that most people have children before they die, then in order to keep the population constant, each family should have an average of two children. Many families in the "more industrialized" countries do limit themselves to two children, but there are also many that don't. While having three children instead of two may not seem like that big of a deal, it adds up to a lot of people if everyone does it.
So how can we solve this? Basically, the countries in which families are having as many children as possible need to improve their quality of life to the point where they don't feel the need to have as many children. Obviously, they're probably going to need some help with that from other countries. But it can be done. In addition to that, people the world over need to be informed of our population growth problem. Many people are simply unaware of it. Families everywhere should be strongly encouraged to limit themselves to one or two children. I don't think there should be laws enforcing it (seeing as that's had some negative consequences in China), but maybe the government could provide incentives to have two or fewer children.
Apart from that, nothing short of mass executions will do anything about this problem. As I'm not a cold-hearted, bloodthirsty, inhuman savage, I don't support the latter "solution". Sounds a bit like Hitler, no?
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Darfur
Mkay. So I believe what I'm supposed to be answering in this post is a) who is to blame for the crisis in Darfur? and b) what should the US policy be in regards to Darfur?
That being said, I don't have much to say about the first part. Lots of people are to blame. Some deserve more of the blame than others, but no-one has all of it. I don't think it really matters who's to blame: the fact is, the situation there has gotten to the point where lots of innocent people are dying. Therefore, we need to do something about it instead of sitting around pointing fingers at each other and playing the blame game. It's as simple as that.
What should the US policy be in regards to Darfur? Hmm, I don't know! D'you think maybe we should, I dunno, STEP IN SO THAT MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE DON'T DIE? Hmmmmm...
The US government MUST DO SOMETHING. We cannot allow large-scale killings to occur right under our noses YET AGAIN. Aren't we supposed to be the great and noble America? Defenders of human rights? Isn't the most basic human right the right to be alive? This is our chance to try to redeem ourselves for what happened in Rwanda more than ten years ago. Are we going to take it? If we don't, who will?
The issue certainly isn't that we're not capable of intervening. We certainly are. If we have the troops to invade Iraq, we have the troops to save people in Darfur. The problem is that people in positions of power in this country are lazy and greedy. They don't want to get involved in messy international affairs unless there's something in it for them. Of course, Darfur is a little more complicated than that because of Sudan's relationship with China that has led to China's support of the Sudanese government. Sudan supplies China with oil, so China doesn't want the UN to intervene. America doesn't want to offend China because they do so much of our manufacturing. Which of course is much more important than human lives. Oil and cheap plastic garbage. Yup.
This is ridiculous and disgusting. China needs to take a stand against Sudan. There are other places to get oil, and the world in general needs to get over it's dependence on the stuff anyway. It won't last forever, and it's destroying our planet. But that's a topic for another post. The US needs to stop worrying about the future of our manufacturing in China. Who else would buy that trash from them? Really. They need us as much as we need them.
That being said, we need to do something. It should be obvious to pretty much everyone. One of the reasons that I supported Barack Obama in the last presidential election was that I thought he cared about humanitarian crises like Darfur. However, the longer his administration goes without taking action, the more of my faith in him I lose. Something. Needs. To. Be. Done. And that's it. We can and we have no good reason not to. This is far from a political issue; it's purely a moral one. Has the human race truly come to this?
That being said, I don't have much to say about the first part. Lots of people are to blame. Some deserve more of the blame than others, but no-one has all of it. I don't think it really matters who's to blame: the fact is, the situation there has gotten to the point where lots of innocent people are dying. Therefore, we need to do something about it instead of sitting around pointing fingers at each other and playing the blame game. It's as simple as that.
What should the US policy be in regards to Darfur? Hmm, I don't know! D'you think maybe we should, I dunno, STEP IN SO THAT MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE DON'T DIE? Hmmmmm...
The US government MUST DO SOMETHING. We cannot allow large-scale killings to occur right under our noses YET AGAIN. Aren't we supposed to be the great and noble America? Defenders of human rights? Isn't the most basic human right the right to be alive? This is our chance to try to redeem ourselves for what happened in Rwanda more than ten years ago. Are we going to take it? If we don't, who will?
The issue certainly isn't that we're not capable of intervening. We certainly are. If we have the troops to invade Iraq, we have the troops to save people in Darfur. The problem is that people in positions of power in this country are lazy and greedy. They don't want to get involved in messy international affairs unless there's something in it for them. Of course, Darfur is a little more complicated than that because of Sudan's relationship with China that has led to China's support of the Sudanese government. Sudan supplies China with oil, so China doesn't want the UN to intervene. America doesn't want to offend China because they do so much of our manufacturing. Which of course is much more important than human lives. Oil and cheap plastic garbage. Yup.
This is ridiculous and disgusting. China needs to take a stand against Sudan. There are other places to get oil, and the world in general needs to get over it's dependence on the stuff anyway. It won't last forever, and it's destroying our planet. But that's a topic for another post. The US needs to stop worrying about the future of our manufacturing in China. Who else would buy that trash from them? Really. They need us as much as we need them.
That being said, we need to do something. It should be obvious to pretty much everyone. One of the reasons that I supported Barack Obama in the last presidential election was that I thought he cared about humanitarian crises like Darfur. However, the longer his administration goes without taking action, the more of my faith in him I lose. Something. Needs. To. Be. Done. And that's it. We can and we have no good reason not to. This is far from a political issue; it's purely a moral one. Has the human race truly come to this?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Modest Mouse
Ok, so I don't really have a "favorite musician or group". But right now, I'm kind of into Modest Mouse. So I'm doing this post about them.
It's hard to explain why I like them. I think it's partially because their music isn't depressing, but it's not exactly happy either. I've been trying not to listen to so much depressing music lately, but I can't make myself listen to smilely happy stuff either. Besides, good music is rarely the most cheerful music. I also like the fact that the lyrics have meaning to them, even if the meaning isn't always exactly clear.
The first time I listened to Modest Mouse, I hated it. Really, I did. I was at "nerd camp" (I think I talked about it in a post a while back) and my roommate loved them. Every morning, her alarm clock would start blaring one of their songs ("The World at Large", as I later discovered) and I would yell at her to turn it off. Several months later, I looked them up out of boredom and discovered that they'd really grown on me.
Links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNxa9pFwimk
^"The World at Large". I really love this song now. I think it helps when you listen to it on your own time instead of being woken up by it at seven in the morning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbqYzArcTqQ
^"3rd Planet". This is probably my favorite Modest Mouse song. Part of this is just because this is an amazing song, but part of it is because I discovered it around the same time that I started talking to my best friend (more like a sister, really) that I'd grown apart from again. I mentioned the song, and she immidiately exclaimed that she loved it (and Modest Mouse) too. Now that I read that part again, it sounds stupid. But it means a lot to me because I care about her more than words can say and I really hated not being in contact with her. Well, nevermind. It's a great song.
It's hard to explain why I like them. I think it's partially because their music isn't depressing, but it's not exactly happy either. I've been trying not to listen to so much depressing music lately, but I can't make myself listen to smilely happy stuff either. Besides, good music is rarely the most cheerful music. I also like the fact that the lyrics have meaning to them, even if the meaning isn't always exactly clear.
The first time I listened to Modest Mouse, I hated it. Really, I did. I was at "nerd camp" (I think I talked about it in a post a while back) and my roommate loved them. Every morning, her alarm clock would start blaring one of their songs ("The World at Large", as I later discovered) and I would yell at her to turn it off. Several months later, I looked them up out of boredom and discovered that they'd really grown on me.
Links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNxa9pFwimk
^"The World at Large". I really love this song now. I think it helps when you listen to it on your own time instead of being woken up by it at seven in the morning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbqYzArcTqQ
^"3rd Planet". This is probably my favorite Modest Mouse song. Part of this is just because this is an amazing song, but part of it is because I discovered it around the same time that I started talking to my best friend (more like a sister, really) that I'd grown apart from again. I mentioned the song, and she immidiately exclaimed that she loved it (and Modest Mouse) too. Now that I read that part again, it sounds stupid. But it means a lot to me because I care about her more than words can say and I really hated not being in contact with her. Well, nevermind. It's a great song.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Free Post... Wow...
Hmm. So I have a "free post". But what to do with it? Ah, I know! I'll rant about the idiots at my school. No, I'm not naming names and no, this does not in any way refer to everyone at my school.
Before we begin, I'm going to say that I'm straight. No doubt about it. That being said, I absolutely cannot put up with people that are intolerant of bisexuals and homosexuals. I want to scream every time I hear someone remark "That's so gay" when they think something is undesirable in some way (bad, annoying, stupid, unfair, etc). Half the time, I think they really don't even process what they're saying. But that's not really any better: it just means that prejudice against homosexuals has become accepted by society.
Whenever I think about it, I really start to wonder why anyone cares about anyone else's sexual orientation. I've come to the conclusion that a lot of people are just scared, either for the "future of traditional marriage" or because they think that every homosexual of the same sex that they ever meet is sexually attracted to them, both of which I find utterly ridiculous. If the gay couple down the street gets married, is that going to cause you to leave your wife and kids and run off with the mailman? I really don't think so. Are you sexually attracted to every member of the opposite sex that you ever meet? Didn't think so. So why should homosexuals be any different?
Of course, I've never yelled all of this at anyone in person. Much too shy. But one day I might snap. That would feel soooooooo amazing.
Before we begin, I'm going to say that I'm straight. No doubt about it. That being said, I absolutely cannot put up with people that are intolerant of bisexuals and homosexuals. I want to scream every time I hear someone remark "That's so gay" when they think something is undesirable in some way (bad, annoying, stupid, unfair, etc). Half the time, I think they really don't even process what they're saying. But that's not really any better: it just means that prejudice against homosexuals has become accepted by society.
Whenever I think about it, I really start to wonder why anyone cares about anyone else's sexual orientation. I've come to the conclusion that a lot of people are just scared, either for the "future of traditional marriage" or because they think that every homosexual of the same sex that they ever meet is sexually attracted to them, both of which I find utterly ridiculous. If the gay couple down the street gets married, is that going to cause you to leave your wife and kids and run off with the mailman? I really don't think so. Are you sexually attracted to every member of the opposite sex that you ever meet? Didn't think so. So why should homosexuals be any different?
Of course, I've never yelled all of this at anyone in person. Much too shy. But one day I might snap. That would feel soooooooo amazing.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Fall in Love or Learn to Love?
This is a difficult question, and I really believe that it depends on the situation. On one hand, "falling in love" is much more enjoyable and most people believe that it is the ultimate goal in a person's life. On the other, "love" isn't always real, and when it fades, a married couple may find themselves out of love and stuck with a person that they have nothing in common with. This may be part of the reason that there are so many divorces going on these days.
For me, "learning to love" always conjures up mental images of arranged marriages, young brides, and formal awkwardness. In general, this term only applies to arranged marriages, which modern American society tends to view with horror. It is true that in many of the countries where arranged marriage is practiced today, women are dehumanized and young girls are sold to much older men and often abused. However, a few years ago I was reading an article online about arranged marriages in modern times. I seem to remember it being about several Indian (and by that I mean from the country of India, not Native American) people who had either been in arranged marriages or had arranged marriages for their children, or both, etc. I actually found it quite surprising. I don't know if this is true for all families, but the parents in the article took great care in picking spouses for their children. They looked for ones with compatible personalities, and they didn't force their children to marry against their will. They truly did want them to be happy. Many of the people that had been in arranged marriages said that they were very happy with their spouses and had either "fallen in love" early on or had grown to love them.
In conclusion, I really can't answer that question. It always depends on the circumstances. However, I think that both of them are definite possibilities.
For me, "learning to love" always conjures up mental images of arranged marriages, young brides, and formal awkwardness. In general, this term only applies to arranged marriages, which modern American society tends to view with horror. It is true that in many of the countries where arranged marriage is practiced today, women are dehumanized and young girls are sold to much older men and often abused. However, a few years ago I was reading an article online about arranged marriages in modern times. I seem to remember it being about several Indian (and by that I mean from the country of India, not Native American) people who had either been in arranged marriages or had arranged marriages for their children, or both, etc. I actually found it quite surprising. I don't know if this is true for all families, but the parents in the article took great care in picking spouses for their children. They looked for ones with compatible personalities, and they didn't force their children to marry against their will. They truly did want them to be happy. Many of the people that had been in arranged marriages said that they were very happy with their spouses and had either "fallen in love" early on or had grown to love them.
In conclusion, I really can't answer that question. It always depends on the circumstances. However, I think that both of them are definite possibilities.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
OMG. Global Warming.
Global warming is a huge issue where I live (well, the same is true for almost everywhere, actually), but people never seem to actually do anything about it. Oh sure, everywhere you look there's something new being toted as "Green!" or "Natural!" or "Eco-friendly!", but it doesn't mean anything. Sure, it's a little better than the "old, destructive" way of doing things, but it's not enough.
All over the US, grocery store customers are being encouraged to bring their own reusable bags to the store with them instead of getting new plastic/paper bags at the store on each visit and then throwing them away. This is definitely a good thing, but it's not really going to make a significant impact on our effect on the environment. Everyone and their grandmother owns a lovely new hybrid car, but that's still a lot of petroleum being burned.
There is some debate over whether or not global warming is actually occurring, but I consider this irrelevant. For one thing, I'm definitely convinced that global warming is occurring. But even if we can't be sure, isn't it better to be safe that sorry (or dead)? The consequences that we will face if global warming is real and we don't act now outweigh (by far) the inconvenience that changing the way we treat our planet will cause.
This sounds cowardly of me, but I personally try my hardest not to think about global warming. Drastic action needs to be taken now, but I know that it's never going to happen. I'm almost positive that our species is going to destroy this planet, or at least itself, pretty soon here.
All over the US, grocery store customers are being encouraged to bring their own reusable bags to the store with them instead of getting new plastic/paper bags at the store on each visit and then throwing them away. This is definitely a good thing, but it's not really going to make a significant impact on our effect on the environment. Everyone and their grandmother owns a lovely new hybrid car, but that's still a lot of petroleum being burned.
There is some debate over whether or not global warming is actually occurring, but I consider this irrelevant. For one thing, I'm definitely convinced that global warming is occurring. But even if we can't be sure, isn't it better to be safe that sorry (or dead)? The consequences that we will face if global warming is real and we don't act now outweigh (by far) the inconvenience that changing the way we treat our planet will cause.
This sounds cowardly of me, but I personally try my hardest not to think about global warming. Drastic action needs to be taken now, but I know that it's never going to happen. I'm almost positive that our species is going to destroy this planet, or at least itself, pretty soon here.
Technology
It has begun to seem like my life revolves around technology. I probably use it the least at school, but even then our announcements are televised and teachers are constantly using their computers for various things. Outside of school, I am practically attached to my iPod and am constantly using my cell phone to send people text messages. When I get home, I often have to use the computer for homework. Of course, I'd use it even if I didn't have to.
I'd say that of all the technological innovations in today's society, the Internet belongs most in the category of fire and electricity. Television is up there too, but the Internet allows almost instant connection with people all over the world. News can now travel instantly between countries, which can be vital to negotiating and avoiding warfare. The Internet has also allowed anyone with a computer and an Internet connection to talk to people all around the world and make their opinions heard. I have a feeling that this will help create a much "smaller" world, and I consider this an excellent thing because I feel that a sense of unity among the people of the earth is the only way that world peace can ever be acheived.
I'd say that of all the technological innovations in today's society, the Internet belongs most in the category of fire and electricity. Television is up there too, but the Internet allows almost instant connection with people all over the world. News can now travel instantly between countries, which can be vital to negotiating and avoiding warfare. The Internet has also allowed anyone with a computer and an Internet connection to talk to people all around the world and make their opinions heard. I have a feeling that this will help create a much "smaller" world, and I consider this an excellent thing because I feel that a sense of unity among the people of the earth is the only way that world peace can ever be acheived.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)