Irrawaddy dolphins

I'll take ten.

In the movie Changeling, a woman named Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) returns home to find that her nine-year-old son has disappeared. After a five month investigation by the police, a boy is brought to Los Angeles from Illinois. The LAPD tell Christine and everyone else that the boy is her son. The boy was not her son.

This is every mother's worst fear. And it is one of my worst fears. And one of the worst realities! Because this happened to me once and it happened to all of you, too.

One time last year I was into Roseanne (not apologizing for it). In the fifth season, the oldest daughter on the show, Becky, leaves home to marry her boyfriend Mark in Minneapolis. When this happened, of course, I was distressed. I asked myself: how would the family dynamic stay the same without the presence of this stupid bitch?

In the sixth season, something even more horrifying happened. Becky was back, but it wasn't really Becky! The original actress, Lecy Goranson was gone, only to be replaced by someone new-- Sarah Chalke! While I'll admit Sarah Chalke was a huge improvement over that other bitch, I couldn't help but feel like Christine in Changeling! I wanted my son (Becky) back! And I hated the LAPD (the writers of Roseanne) for trying to put the wool over my eyes.

This is not an uncommon situation. Shows do this all the time-- steal our sons and pretend like nothing happened when they are replaced! Remember Ross's ex-wife Carol on Friends? Harley Keiner on Boy Meets World? Whatever happened to them, huh?

At the end of Changeling, one of the other boys imprisoned with Christine's son is found alive. He tells Christine that one day Walter escaped, giving Christine hope that her son is also alive somewhere. It is a happyish ending, one that inspired me and still gives me faith to this day. Somewhere, I wonder if the real Becky is being a bitch, and the real Harvey is being an asshole, and the real Carol is being a lesbian. Someday, I hope, they will return.

Lacrosse is weird. Have you ever been to a lacrosse game? It's weird. What happens is you pick up the ball and start running with it. Then people smack you on your head, shoulders, legs, and chest until you drop it. Then you do the same to them. That's it. I think that's why it's not a real world sport, because it's dumb and doesn't make sense to adults.

Took this photo for the newspaper today. It was my first lacrosse game ever. Now I know I never need to see another one!

When I was in 7th grade, this was all I aspired to:

There are certain people I just cannot understand.

You've met this type. He's male. Kind of bro-y. Very chill. You meet him for the first time and ask him what he's in to. He responds:

BRO: Uh...I don't know...like...sleeping? And, like....eating?

This is simply preposterous. Your interests are SURVIVING?

Dude, EVERYONE likes to sleep and eat! We're humans! It's what we do! But for most of us, those things are not interests, they're necessities. Fully developed people have real interests, like wakeboarding or stamp collecting or bird watching.

So, yes, I simply cannot understand people who have been on this earth for like twenty years and still haven't found something more interesting than simply staying alive.

Okay I'm done.

The release of several 3D movies this year including Coraline, Monsters vs. Aliens, Bolt, and Journey to the Center of the Earth has some, including Josh Quittner of TIME magazine, wondering if 3D is the future of film making. I have some concerns about this idea.

In his article, Quittner described watching 3D film as some kind of mind-blowing relgious experience:

The lights dim in the screening room. Suddenly, the doomed Titanic fills the screen--but not the way I remember in the movie. The luxury liner is nearly vertical, starting its slide into the black Atlantic, and Leonardo DiCaprio is hanging on for life, just like always. But this time, I am too. The camera pans to the icy water far below, pulling me into the scene--the sensation reminds me of jerking awake from a dream--and I grip the sides of my seat to keep from falling into the drink.

For me, this description is problematic. And by" problematic," I mean totally exaggerated.

I've seen Monsters vs. Aliens (don't tell anyone). I've seen Coraline. And let me tell you, I was not gripping the sides of my seat, and I was not hanging on for dear life. Don't get me wrong though. I thought it was pretty cool. But the most important part of that sentence was the "pretty" and not the "cool." The thing is, I am a product of the 21st century, and my expectations of 3D are probably a lot different than Josh Quittner's.

When I shell out fifteen dollars to see a 3D film I don't really want to see a film, I want the equivalent of a Disneyworld ride. I want shit to be flying everywhere off the screen. I want things rushing past me, I want things going nuts on every side, I want to grab at the empty space in front of me, thinking that there's actually something there. That's the 3D I care about. But it's not the 3D I've seen. When I saw Monsters vs. Aliens it actually seemed as though the characters were placed further into the screen than usual.

I don't blame studios for pursuing the 3D idea. I understand that it's becoming harder to justify spending money on a movie when it's so easy to watch this stuff on TV or on the computer free of charge. The truth: 3D is a good gimmick, and it seems like a good way to get people to make the trip to the theater. But it won't last unless shit starts popping out of the screen.

At least, I certainly won't be going to see another 3D movie unless someone reassures me that they've figured this out.

In all my years I have never come across such a specimen, until yesterday! What IS it? How did it GET here? What would you CALL it? Halvsie? I don't know. Must be some crazy inbreeding going on in the Boston Common.

"The mass media causes sexual misdirection: It prompts us to need something deeper than what we want. This is why Woody Allen has made nebbish guys cool; he makes people assume that there is something profound about having a relationship based on witty conversation and intellectual discourse. There isn't. It's just another gimmick, and it's no different than wanting to be with someone because they're thin or rich or the former lead singer of Whiskeytown. And it actually might be worse, because an intellectual relationship isn't real at all."- Sex Drugs and Cocoa Puffs, Pages 6-7

Fml.

LOL

Look guys, I'm Carl Sagan!





I was playing on my compy and the similarity struck me. Lol.

Bored.

Just saw the whiniest fucking article ever on the New York Times website.



Oh my god, poor Emily! Her mom, like, totally couldn't get her tickets to see the JoBros because getting shit on the Internet is like, really really hard. Doesn't life just suck mega hard sometimes?

Please.