Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol Review

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol certainly ran the risk of extending a series that was running on fume since its last go-around. Tom Cruise was not the movie star he used to be. Jeremy Renner, while a tremendous actor, was not an absolute sell as an action star. Paula Patton's biggest role to date was in Jumping the Groom. Simon Pegg was not an action star, but the plucky comic relief. But with Brad Bird (The Incredibles) at the helm and energetic turns by all of the actors, MI4 did the seemingly impossible. It made Ghost Protocol arguably the best Mission Impossible yet.

This was not a perfect movie by any means. Between Dubai and Mumbai, there was an odd and prolonged layover that, while completely pertinent, was also completely boring. Many times, the MI series tries too hard to entangle the viewer in this confusing web of story lines, especially with the abuse of the perfect facial masks that have been used multiple times throughout this series. While (thankfully) the protagonists left this to a minimum, there was still some camouflaging in this film. But outside of this, the films was solid and fast-paced.

The actors were outstanding, though not perfect. Patton seemed to edge on the hammy side when she was forced to be emotional. Cruise seemed to waver between all-too-serious secret agent and bantering spy colleague. Pegg ran the risk of turning into a one-joke guy with his quippy-ness. Renner played his role of action star well, but had some trouble in the more emotional parts of the movie. But on the whole, this team was actually a team. The chemistry can be felt among the four actors as they effortlessly flowed through the movie, turning into a tight-knit team of spies.

Bird took his first stab at live-action film and brought a cartoon-y aspect to it. The opening credits were a testament to the limitlessness that Bird has dealt with in animation. It jumped from scene to scene following a dynamite wick on its way to an explosion. His best idea was not anything to do with the editing or the cuts. It was the scenery. Bird brilliantly captured the beauty of both Mumbai and Dubai in his far shots. The majesty and magnificence of Dubai served as the backdrop to the most thrilling scene in the film. Bird is also willing to turn all of the buildings into his playground. One of the best parts about confined spaces in this film is that Bird turns these closed areas with limited movement into this vast expanse of area. At times, it felt too slapsticky, too cartoony. Some of the stunts would work better in an animated setting. But overall, Bird kept the suspense high and the thrills on.

Overall, the movie was great. It had one of the easier plots to follow of the MI series, and the entire film was an unending thrill ride. The actors were having fun, the director was having fun, and even the composer, Michael Giacchino (the genius behind the score of Up) seemed to have fun with the riffs off the hold MI theme music. And that is what made MI4 so great. The film was so much fun that the audience could not help but stand in awe with the artistry that a seeming popcorn flick could have.

A Dangerous Method Review

I recently watched A Dangerous Method, a film about Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, and Sabina Spielrein. Going into this movie, I was very excited about watching it. I was sold on the sole fact that it was the third straight collaboration between Viggo Mortensen and David Cronenberg, including Mortensen's Oscar-nominated turn in Eastern Promises. Then, there was the fact that it was a film about Jung and Freud, two brilliant thinkers. Just to see the embodiment of these minds would have been an experience in and of itself, but with the pedigree of the actors (Mortensen, Michael Fassbender, Keira Knightley), it seemed like this would be one of the best movies of the year. This film is essentially Oscar bait anyway. 

I will admit that parts of me wanted to see this film at the Oscars. The dialogue between all of the characters was interesting and packed with intricacy. While the subject matter may be too advanced for some moviegoers, it was always fun to listen to the technicalities and methodology that resounded in each sentence. The acting was similarly impressive. Mortensen truly disappeared into his role as the father of psychoanalysis, and Fassbender played Jung with a subdued intensity that could have been misconstrued as boredom or blandness if acted by an inferior actor. Vincent Cassel, as Otto Gross, added a breath of life into a very serious film. And while Knightley's performance was at times too extreme, it did what was necessary and turned many scenes with her into this uncomfortable and, in a way, humiliating experience, something that the film likely aimed to do.

But, I was woefully disappointed at the stagnancy of the film. Admittedly, my sights may have been set too high after the very active A History of Violence and Eastern Promises, but it was not just the scenery that need to be kinetic. The story moved at a glacial pace, which is never good if it is a shorter movie (about an hour and a half). Part of the problem was the artistic decisions by the director. Because this film dealt with psychoanalysis, I should not have expected movement in every single scene. But more often than not, the scene was limited to one area, and the film moved forward through jumps, never making a truly smooth transition between one point to another. While there were interesting parts of the movie (particularly the string of letters between Spielrein, Freud, and Jung near the end), characters were very motionless. Even while they were moving around, it felt that they were going nowhere. This could be a clever ploy by Cronenberg to assimilate the audience into the film by creating a sense of idleness through the closed-off settings and stalled plot. But that seemed to be too intelligent for most directors this side of David Lynch. Cronenberg fails to send the plot in any direction, preferring to keep everything in a little contained box. He, in a way, is much like Freud, not willing to take any risks. Both seemed to be content strengthening the basis of the movie, rather than reaching out and grabbing something potentially better. Could these risks have led to more negative results as Freud would assume? Yes, it could have. But as the director of a film with so much potential in the first place, he should not fear these uncertainties. 

This was a great movie, but it is too artsy for its own good. It never plays out like a movie in the typical sense. It is more like a play. It jumps from scene to scene without much understanding as to what is going on between each of them. The setting rarely changes in a scene, preferring multiple changes rather than one fluid motion throughout the film. Nevertheless, it is well-acted and well-written. But Cronenberg unfortunately errs on the side of caution. He creates a serious movie that takes no risks. His movie could be interpreted at the field of psychoanalysis that he presents. It is a solid field with substance, but it is so rooted in one thing that it never branches out. Cronenberg takes too few risks and creates what will likely be an award-winning movie, which is sad because it could have been more than that. If he only had Jung's ambition and creativity, it could have been a modern classic.

The Last Airbender Series: The Spirit World and the Trope of Outnumbering

One of the most common tropes in film and television is that the good guys are always outnumbered. It is not a necessity to be a good guy, but people just tend to root for the outnumbered party. Think of some recent movies that use this cliche. Zombie movies are one of the essential movies with an outnumbered group, a small, ragtag gang of survivors against the monstrous mob of zombies.  300 is blatant about the outnumbered Spartans, going so far as to tell us how many there are. But Iroh makes a very good point. While you may be outnumbered, that does not necessarily mean that you are outmatched.

The scene is set with Uncle Iroh and Prince Zuko ready to face off against 5 Earth Nation soldiers. These soldiers remind the two firebenders that they are outnumbered. Iroh accepts this fact, but rebuts saying that they are outmatched. This is the essential definition of this trope. The good guy has to be outnumbered or visibly outmatched in order to be the good guy. No one wants to cheer for the person who does not have to go through any conflict. Winning is supposed to be an uphill climb, even if it is a story about a winner. Many sports movies about winning teams have them overcoming another obstacle outside of the game. People do not want to see movies about a person that never faces any difficulty. You have to be outnumbered (or visibly outmatched) in order to win in movies. Or at least in order to be considered the good guy.

What does this quote imply about the rest of the series? Up until now, we are supposed to root against Zuko and Iroh. But Zuko is the ultimate antihero. He is always clearly outmatched. When compared to Zhao, he lacks the resources and manpower (and the respect). Against these Earthbenders, he lacks the numbers. But he finds a way to overcome these obstacles. While outnumbered, he is never outmatched. This solidifies him as a hero (or at least anti-hero) in this story. He has to be a good guy because he is never given any victories. Everything he has is hard-earned, and the only way to regain his honor is to overcome all obstacles that get between him and the Avatar, despite the hardships that will certainly face him.

The Last Airbender Series: Imprisoned and the "Help Me, Sue You" Effect

This is a sad, yet sometimes true, scenario. You see someone in dire need of help, be it CPR or otherwise. As a Good Samaritan, you go and help this person, but by saving their life, you also accidentally cause harm to them. Rather than thanking that person for what they did, they do the unthinkable. You expect someone to show gratitude for saving their life or doing good for them. But more and more, you hear stories about Good Samaritans not being thanked, but being sued for what they did. This blindsided move is demonstrated in this episode of Avatar: The Last Airbender.

Our Aang gang found themselves in a Earth Kingdom village taken over by the Fire Nation, and the Fire Nation has banned all earthbending. Haru, an earthbender, sees an old man trapped by a rockslide, and Katara and Haru decide to help the old man, despite the illegality of earthbending. Since Haru saved that man's life, you'd expect him to thank Haru for his generosity. Instead, the old man informed the Fire Nation that Haru was earth bending. This does differ from the real world examples in that saving a person's life is typically not illegal. But this does not seem like the ideal situation or the right thing to do in this scenario. If you are saved by someone, do you thank them or try to exploit them? You thank them, you treat them as a hero. You don't throw them under the bus, but this still happens. And that is unfortunate.

So what is the message the Avatar is showing now? On one hand, they could be enforcing a cynical opinion. When you see someone who needs your help, don't help them unless they explicitly ask. Essentially, you're not supposed to go out of your own way to help someone. That's a pretty gritty message for a kid's show, but that's only one way to construe this event. The other is a commentary on people who take advantage of good, kind-hearted people. Does the audience ever think that Haru did the wrong thing? No, they don't for the most part. But it's a general consensus that the old man did the wrong thing. The message here is gratitude. Whether or not you know the person, if he helps you, you owe them. They don't owe you anything. And unfortunately, this is a message that needed to be delivered, rather than a moral that should be naturally assumed.

The Last Airbender Series: The King of Omashu and its Nutritional Values

When it comes to food, the stereotypical child will agree with two things. You can never have too much candy, and you never want to have your vegetables. You'd expect a kid's show like Avatar: The Last Airbender to agree with these mantras, despite their vegetarian main character. So they created a symbol for vegetables in the show by introducing the cabbage merchant, an unfortunate seller of vegetables who somehow cannot escape the chaos caused by the avatar. He even has his own catchphrase: "My cabbages!" The constant abuse that the cabbage merchant gets can be construed as a metaphor for the incessant hate of vegetables that many children have. But what about the excessive amounts of candy? Well, in this episode, Avatar takes a stab at that problem too, and children may not enjoy its message.

After Aang and his friends are captured by the King of Omashu, who we later learn is Aang's old friend Bumi, Aang is forced to complete three tasks. As incentive to complete the tasks, he gives Sokka and Katara a ring, which holds a mineral that grows larger and larger. It essentially imprisons both Sokka and Katara. By the end of the episode, Katara and Sokka are nearly completely covered by the rock, but King Bumi frees them from their prison and reveals that the "rock" that had encompassed them was, in fact, rock candy. The obvious takeaway message from this is that King Bumi is crazy. But the second slightly similarly obvious message is that candy, in excess, is bad. It doesn't hurt to have candy in small portions, but if you have too much, you'll be imprisoned by your insatiable sweet tooth. The side effects of too much candy are actually demonstrated. Your movement will be restrained, you will become heavier, you may have difficulty breathing, and you could become blind. You want an anti-obesity message in a kid's show that is subtly put in there? You've got it right here.

It's interesting that they introduce the cabbage merchant in this episode, where one of the messages could possibly be that too much candy is hazardous to your health. It goes to show the nutritional values that the show may want to give to children. Maybe kids will realize that sometimes if you throw away your vegetables, you also ought to lessen the amount of sweets that you have. In a way, it also humanizes vegetables as it criminalizes sweets. You end up feeling bad for the cabbage merchant, while you start to hate the rock candy prison that has trapped Katara and Sokka. So in an interesting, albeit unconfirmed, manner, the writers of Avatar actually promote a vegetable-filled diet and lifestyle. Just not vegan, but more on that later.

I Guess I Ought To Choose My Favorite for Dancing with the Stars Again...

So at some point last year, I tried to guess who was the favorite in Dancing with the Stars (Ralph Macchio in the nostalgic choice). Unfortunately no one sticks out to me as a nostalgic favorite quite like Ralph Macchio.

Apparently she's famous for some reason.

So, just thinking about the choices, there is no one that I can think of as a standout favorite not based on their dancing abilities. There is the choice you'd love to hate (David Arquette, who broke Monica's Jules Cobb's Courtney Cox's heart). There's the reality television choice (this year with twice the reality with a Kardashian and Kristen Cavallari from The Hills). There is the All-American choice (Hope Solo, who was a critical member of the USA women's near World Cup or J.R. Martinez, who is an Iraq War veteran).

Vote against this man. I dare you.

But sometimes, the best choice is the crazy choice. Not crazy in the sense that they are blatantly controversial. But crazy as in clinically crazy. I present to you my choice to win Dancing with the Stars.

Ron Artest, or soon to be Metta World Peace

Yes, I will say now that Ron Artest will win Dancing with the Stars. Admittedly he's not exactly the most savory person in the world. He's made a name for himself for crazy antics like thanking his psychologist after winning the championship, and of course, there's the entire name change. This isn't like the Ochocinco name change, where you could actually derive where the name is coming from (8-5 in pseudo-Spanish). He wants to be called Metta World Peace.

And that entire brawling with fans ordeal

But I've gotta admit, he seems like the most fun character on the show. There are some interesting stories (Chaz Bono's gender-twisting tale, J.R. Martinez's inspirational story, Hope Solo and the World Cup), but they don't seem charismatic. Honestly, love him or hate him, Ron Artest is entertaining. And without a true nostalgic vote, you'd expect the audience to vote for the crazies. I mean, who votes for the good dancers anyway? But that's beyond the point. When If I watch a show, I expect to be entertained. So, considering the fact that people have voted for equally polarizing dancers in the past, I'm expecting Ron Artest to make it. And I hope that we enjoy every fun-filled, insane second of it.

The Last Airbender Series: The Warriors of Kyoshi and the Tiger Woods Effect

Old story here, but we all know now that Tiger Woods is not the upstanding family man that he led us to believe. He's kind of a philandering sex addict. But ignoring all the hate for Tiger Woods, you couldn't help but think that the only reason he would do this is because he can. He's Tiger Woods, and though this does not belittle the scandal, it does give it some merit. As I pointed out in an earlier post, Tiger Woods was the best golfer ever, and it would be only human of him to use this trait about himself to get some improper benefits. This concept (though in a more child-friendly manner) is demonstrated in this Avatar: The Last Airbender episode, where Aang, who, as the avatar, is the closest thing to a celebrity in the Avatar world, is our parallel to Tiger Woods.

Aang and his friends find themselves on the island of Kyoshi, named after the Avatar Kyoshi. Near death, Aang reveals himself as the avatar, and the town that was about to burn him to death was now adoring and adulating him. He had fans following everywhere. And maybe most importantly, he had caught the eyes of the local girls. How did this happen? Aang is a monk, so he isn't exactly Mr. Smooth (and if you watch more episodes, you'll realize this as well). I can't imagine that he was necessarily the dreamiest person in the world (though considering the female to male ratio of Kyoshi island may disprove this theory). The obvious reason is that Aang is famous and good at what he does. The Tiger Woods effect. Fame, backed with talent? That's the recipe for getting the females. Just think about it. Derek Jeter was (and now is) one of the most eligible bachelors in New York not just because of his dashing looks. He is one of the best Yankees of all time, and one of the most famous men in New York. Tiger Woods is the best golfer of modern time, and he also was one of the most famous people in the world. Something about fame and talent makes people irresistible. So, in the Avatar world, there's no surprise that on this island, Aang quickly found many admirers.

The most interesting question now is how does Aang respond? Does he go the Tiger Woods route, where he acts upon these admirers? Or does he go the Jeter way, and not philander about? In my opinion, whether or not it was a kid's show, I think Aang will go the Jeter way for one main reason. He's not like Woods or Jeter because both are sports stars. They're famous, but not exactly one hundred percent important. Aang is like the president or any other politician. He is famous and has an important role in the Avatar world. Though there are certainly unsavory characters in the political world, Aang's importance to the world forces him to above all of that. Aang may be affected by the Tiger Woods effect, but he will never act upon them.

Remembering Mark Buehrle's Perfect Game

I was one of the fortunate 23,000 or so fans in attendance at Mark Buehrle's perfect game. The sheer fact that I was a witness to history still seems surreal today. It was so totally amazing and simply a perfect day to watch baseball. I was with my little brother and my dad and the game was apparently some sort of work outing. They were cheap seats, so unsurprisingly we were watching the game from the balcony. My other brother was at home, so we decided to buy him a White Sox pen, and on our way, I unexpectedly received proof that I was at the perfect game. A photographer decided to take a picture of me and my little brother. He gave us a slip of paper with a link to the website. Typically, I would throw away something as seemingly forgettable as that, but I felt that it may be a good idea to save every memento from this baseball game.

Even in the first inning, I was watching intently. My dad bought me and my brother some peanuts, but we never did finish them. I didn't want to miss a second of the action so I just held the peanuts in my hands. Most people go to the game and lounge around and hang out with friends. I was invested. I watched every pitch Buehrle made and every play the White Sox did. When Buehrle went 1-2-3 in the first inning, I surprisingly was expecting a perfect game. I always had this belief that a perfect game really is an inning by inning deal. Getting through the first inning perfect was enough hope for me to believe that there would be a perfect game. But the odds were against me. So far there were only 17 perfect games in about 27000 regular season matchups. I doubted that I would see Buehrle pitch a masterful perfect game, despite his pedigree. Then my day was made when White Sox first baseman Josh Fields hit a grand slam in the second inning. I was telling myself that as long as the White Sox win, this will be a good day. But each inning passed and Buehrle continued his streak. After about five innings, I whispered to my brother that Buehrle was perfect through five innings. Had I told any die hard fan this, he would have punched me square in the face. The first rule of perfect games was you do not talk about the perfect game in the middle of a perfect game. But I neglected this rule, and apparently so did Hawk Harrelson, the boisterous and biased White Sox commentator. But I would not be celebrating on my own for much longer.

By the sixth inning, more and more people realized that Buehrle was pitching a perfect game. More mumbling came from the crowd that Buehrle was perfect. So naturally, when Buehrle went to the mound, more and more of the crowd stood up in support of the southpaw. When the eight inning rolled around, the entire stadium was filled with cheers. Every out was greeted with cheers. Every called ball was greeted with boos. I remember gasping on one foul ball that nearly was safe. When the ump called it foul, I, along with my fellow fans, sighed in relief. But as we know, that wasn't even close to the most stressful moment of the game. That would be the opening batter of the ninth. At this point, I was telling my brother how awesome it would be to get the perfect game. Against the hot hitting Tampa Bay Rays, it would be amazing for contact pitcher Mark Buehrle to defeat a good hitting club in a hitter's park. I then told him that Gabe Kapler, who was up to bat, would probably be the second least worrisome person in the lineup other than backup catcher Michel Hernandez. But Kapler knocked one deep. I watched the ball travel and saw Dewayne Wise watching it too. Then he leapt at the wall, put the mitt on the ball, and then grabbed the loose ball with his free hand. I whooped and hollered along with the crowd. I was amazed at the catch, but it wasn't until later that I realized how spectacular the catch really was. Then he struck out the next batter for out number 26.

Then there was batter number 27 Jason Bartlett, the shortstop for the Rays. He was also a great hitter, and he got Buehrle down at a 2-1 count. Then it happened. Bartlett softly grounded the ball out to Alexei Ramirez, one of the best defensive shortstops in baseball. All he had to do was make a routine throw to first and history would be theirs. He made the throw and the crowd watched the ball intently. Fields, who hit the grand slam in the second inning, caught the ball cleanly and ran towards Buehrle. The entire crowd burst into cheers, myself included. And those peanuts from the first inning? They were still clutched in my hands, as the superstitious person that I am. Everyone shouted "Buehrle! Buehrle!" It didn't matter whether we were still in U.S. Cellular Field or on our way to the parking garage or the CTA Red Line. Buehrle was the hero of the day. Even two years later, I remember that feeling of breathlessness while watching history in the making. Even right now, while I'm writing this, I smile when I think of July 23rd, 2009. The game on tap was my White Sox versus the Tampa Bay Rays pitting Mark Buehrle against Scott Kazmir. 10 years later, people may start to forget the minor details. But no one in attendance at that game will never forget Buehrle and his perfect game, making our perfect day.

The Last Airbender Series: The Southern Air Temple and the Importance of Sports

With the latest hoopla with the US's run at the World Cup or Derek Jeter's 3000th hit, it seems more and more obvious that sports are a mainstay in society. But if you look at related news surrounding these incidents, you can see that sports are not just spectacle for us. There is definitely something important about sports that changes and affects people. If you look at the Avatar game mentioned in this episode called "Airball", you see that sports separates people from real life. It transports them into this perfect world where we can escape the trouble of the real world.

Aang returns to the southern air temple for the first time since running away. He first acts excited about finally returning to the air temple and seeing all of the monks, air bison, and flying lemurs. But he walks into a lifeless temple, and he sees the airball field and he convinces Sokka to play. Of course, there are many interesting questions during this scene. One of the big ones is how Sokka managed to get on top of the pole. Another is how the game is actually played. But in that moment, Aang is completely and utterly happy. This scene, seemingly pointless or merely fun, is juxtaposed with Katara hiding the Fire Nation helmet. Though this is almost certainly reading way too much into this scene, it seems that the writer is suggesting that airball is a way to hide the truth. It is a way to avoid realizing that the Fire Nation army destroyed the Air Nomads. But isn't there some truth in this? The concept that sports are a way to escape from our everyday problems is a common idea and something actually discussed in How I Met Your Mother. But how about bigger problems like this genocide? Well according to this, it seems to be true. And today seems to be the best example. Japan won the World Cup. This win is so important because of what happened to Japan, still recovering from the devastating earthquakes and tsunamis. Though they still have to rebuild, Japan could celebrate their team's win despite all of the tragedy.

Like life, the story of Aang continues when he realizes what happened to his people. It shows that sports are merely a distraction, a diversion from the troubles of the real world. We can't wrap ourselves around sports or else we will never return to the real world. Sports are not supposed to consume our lives, but sometimes it's nice to escape from it all by immersing ourselves in sports. It gives us peace of mind, if even for that one game, that one championship, that one moment.

Beauty and the Beast Review

I recently watched Beauty and the Beast on Broadway in Chicago. Though the musical was not a Broadway production (it was non-equity and it showed), it was still a very enjoyable time at the theater. Of course, this musical was benefited by a classic story and great songs. The talent level was lower than the usual Broadway show, but the actors definitely earned their stripes. They did not have the most melodic voices or most honed acting skills, but they were very charming nonetheless. That was the big thing about this musical. It was never going to attract the audience with flair and boisterousness. It would have to convince us that it really was the little engine that could. Everything else was not top notch. The ending was affected by a shortage of players and the sets were minimalist at best. The acting and singing was good, but not great, though this musical's Gaston did sound like Gaston. But it had charm. It was witty (although sometimes it was a little too tongue-in-cheek) and it was cute. It was not a showstopper, but a musical that after watching made you feel good. It charmed you and entered your heart, even if it was not the best. It did lack the resources of a typical Broadway play, but it made do, and the result is something worth seeing.

Transfomers: Dark of the Moon Review

After seeing this movie, I can only say that Transformers: Dark of the Moon is a lot better than Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I mean this, and I think that this will be the highest grossing movie of the year. But, it still leaves much to be desired.

First, the good about the movie. The movie was rather witty, with many tongue-in-cheek remarks that an astute viewer could catch on. No more jive talking Autobots. Brilliantly hilarious turns by Alan Tudyk and Ken Jeong. Tudyk played Dutch, the do-everything assistant to John Turturro's former agent Seymour Simmons (another gleefully over-the-top performance for Turturro). Jeong played Jerry Wang, a former NASA member. He did what Ken Jeong did best. Despite little screen time, he churned out the laughs with his sheer wackiness. And of course, the destruction of Chicago. The unbelievable destruction of Chicago was some of the greatest F/X generated apocalyptic scenes ever. Bay literally out-exploded himself on this one.

Now, the bad. Despite solid actors like Frances McDormand and John Malkovich joining the fold, the acting in general was weak. This was absolutely the case with Megan Fox's replacement Rosie Huntington-Whiteley.  Don't get me wrong. Megan Fox's Mikaela was not a great character. But Huntington-Whiteley's character Carly was not a suitable replacement. At least Mikaela looked sultry rather than vapid. Carly had one improvement. She was British. She was a weaker, less emotional, and less alluring character compared to Mikaela. She was another case of Michael Bay adding spectacle to the movie. I had trouble with Bay's directing. Though he did overuse cliched tropes like slow motion, I think that my biggest problem was that he could not focus. He would use unnecessary cuts and angles to make the movie seem more kinetic. But in my opinion, he did not need to. Just look at the battle scenes between the Autobots and Decepticons. Despite everything already going on in the scene, he added to the motion by jumping between battles. He never gave us a good view at what he wanted to show us. We wanted to see fighting, but Bay's erratic directing never allowed that to happen.

This was a very entertaining movie. But it wasn't good. This movie never drew me in. Instead, it took all of its special effects, all of its explosion, all of its fighting, and all of its spectacle and then bashed the audience over the head with it. This led to an incredibly detached experience. Even when there was supposed to be an emotional connection between the audience and the character, the loudness and showiness of the movie kept us out of it. But if you came to see that movie, you didn't expect something to draw you in. You wanted to be bashed over the head. That's what made it entertaining. You were so detached that you could enjoy it and then seemingly forget about it.

The Last Airbender Series: The Avatar Returns and The Paradox of Fate and Free Will

The concepts of fate and free will are tossed around in society. Fate is the notion that everything that happens happens for a reason, and free will is the idea that our decisions impact what happens in the future. Herein lies the paradox. How could the world be based on both fate and free will? If the world is based on fate, then the choices we make are already decided, therefore there is no free will. If the world is based on free will, then our choices affect what happens, therefore there is no fate. So it seems that there cannot be a world where fate and free will coincide. But Avatar: The Last Airbender gives us a new look on what we can consider fate and free will. It could be that fate is merely luck by another name, and what we know as fate is actually destiny. It is our destiny that is essentially a function of both fate and free will.

I seem to be taking a very mathematical approach to these concepts, but with good reason (I like math). But it does help elucidate these concepts. Let's look at fate, free will, and the end result of destiny in context of Avatar, and more specifically this second episode. It is implied that fate has brought Aang into Katara and Sokka's lives. Not everyone gets the chance to encounter any actual person enclosed in an iceberg, much less someone with such importance and power like the avatar. This is fate. Fate is this chance encounter with the avatar. But while Katara seemed willing to follow Aang and put her trust in him, Sokka was more skeptical. This is where free will comes in. When Aang is captured by Zuko, Sokka and Katara are given a choice. They very well could continue living in the Southern Water Tribe, or they could save Aang and help him become the avatar. Both decided to join Aang in his journey, even though they did not need to. Aang successfully showed that he could defeat Zuko and his army, so Sokka and Katara did not exactly add much in that equation. But they freely decided to join Aang. Even Gran Gran said that Sokka and Katara's destiny is intertwined with that of the avatar. Fate intervened and free will allowed them to change their destiny.

This episode does not consider the most important and troubling case of free will, fate, and destiny. That would be Aang. He was thrust into the position of avatar. But his case seems to be an outlier. Most people would experience these phenomena like Katara and Sokka. This shows that there is no fate and free will paradox, just a misinterpretation. Fate is not deterministic, but in my opinion, probabilistic. Fate is essentially luck. We consider fate as deterministic because fate is something we consider in hindsight, which puts it at odds with free will. There is no illusion of free will. There is simply free will. Fate gives us the options that free will chooses. This function acts as our destiny.

If You Are REALLY Bored...

I am once again contributing to another blog. My friends and I decided that it would be good to keep each other posted on the goings on in our lives. So check out summer2011family if you so choose. It's an interesting if not good read on the ennui that 7 or so regular college students face during their first summer away from each other since meeting in college. It's like the sisterhood of the traveling pants, but there are three guys and four girls and we are not sharing each others' jeans.

The Last Airbender Series: The Boy in the Iceberg and What Constitutes an Adult?

Adulthood. One of the major points in every person's life. Typically you would consider adulthood as a set point in your life. Once you reach this age, you have entered adulthood. When you see a child acting mature, he has not necessarily reached adulthood, but he is acting more adult. But is this true? In my opinion, adulthood is not a phase in life like your teen years, but rather state of mind. The reason you act like an adult is because you are an adult. But acting like an adult is also a very vague term. But if you look at the Avatar: The Last Airbender episode "The Boy in the Iceberg Part I", you not only understand what an adult is, but also how an adult is differentiated from a child.

In the first episode, we are introduced to four teenagers. They are Aang, the avatar, Katara and Sokka, siblings from the Southern Water Tribe, and Zuko, the fire prince. Though they are likely only four or so years apart, they have very different personas. Katara, Sokka, and Zuko all seem to be relatively more adult, though all act childishly petty at times. Katara gets angry at Sokka because Katara has been given all of the chores in the tribe, while Sokka plays soldier. But Sokka shows his mettle when he questions Aang's motives as he feels that he is harming the tribe. Zuko not only looks the part of a weathered adult with his scar but also acts the part with a surly and commanding demeanor. But their seemingly adult behavior is countered by Aang, a free spirit. The first thing he says when he gets out of the iceberg is "Do you wanna go penguin sledding with me?" This is a great example of childishness. Aang is not concerned about food or the division of work like Sokka and Katara, nor is he burdened with a quest for redemption like Zuko. All he cares about is fun. He is a kid, but Sokka, Katara, and Zuko are adults. The latter three are forced into adulthood because of the responsibilities that they inherited. But they are not only responsible for themselves, but for everyone around them. Sokka and Katara are in charge of their tribe, while Zuko is in charge of his ship. What is the difference between their leadership role and a leadership role at a school club or something of the sort? Their leadership role does not stop at the club. Yes, being a president of some fan club or academic club does give you responsibilities, but these responsibilities do not dominate your life. Being in charge of a tribe or a ship forces these responsibilities to be intertwined with your life. These responsibilities are no longer a part of your life, but your life itself. That is what I believe is adulthood. When you not only have responsibilities to others, but that these responsibilities are the most important part of your life. Aang does not have this burden. He escaped this burden by running away from his true calling as the avatar. He knows that he has to reach adulthood sometime, but he postpones this inevitability by having fun and not having a care in the world.

The difference between Aang and Katara, Sokka, and Zuko show what it means to be an adult. It is not merely the responsibilities you have, but the importance of them. But this episode shows how you can escape these responsibilities every once in a while. It is true that Sokka and Katara are more childish than Zuko, but that is because Sokka and Katara can escape their responsibilities. They have fun with Aang. But Zuko is forced to maintain these responsibilities, not because he can't escape them, but because if he does, the consequences are much graver to him than the consequences involved with Sokka and Katara. So I say now to postpone your inevitable ascent into adulthood and have some fun. Go penguin sledding if you have to. But remember that your responsibilities can only wait for so long.

The Story of a Story: How Different Forms of Media Affect the Impact of a Story

The story may be one of the most interesting human inventions in that it is strictly human. No one ever sees a duck standing in front of other ducks telling them the hilarious story about how he stole bread from an old man earlier that morning. People tell other people stories all of the time. When I tell my friend about my summer, I'm telling him a story. When I read a novel, someone is telling me a story. When I go to the theater and watch Super 8, I am being told a story. But each story is different. There are the obvious differences in medium, but what is important is not the existence of these differences but rather how these differences affect the interpretation, appreciation, and overall experience of the story.

Different media naturally lead to different sensory experiences. When someone tells me a story, I am clearly experiencing the story aurally. But there are times in the story where I might be visually involved by the storyteller's body language. But that visual experience is very difference than the visual experience I get when I am reading. When I read, I experience the story visually through reading the words. This visual experience is also different from a movie or television show. The story that I receive from these media are visual. But the visual experiences are different. When I hear a story from a friend, I am at the mercy of my friend's interpretation. I am allowed to interpret his story as funny or serious, happy or sad. But my opinions of the characters and my vision of the story is controlled by the storyteller. This is the limit of oral story telling. There is a huge handicap when considering interpretation. Even the appreciation of the story is affected by the storyteller. This is why storytelling is a skill. The storyteller not only determines how the listener interprets the story, but also affects whether or not the listener likes the story. A good story with a bad storyteller is thus a bad story.

But this does not occur when you read a book. When you read the book, you are given the details that encompass the story, but as the reader, you are free to interpret as you wish. You are not confined by the abilities of the author either. A reader can add what he wants to the story and often times, the book acts merely as a guide. Your appreciation goes only as far as your imagination can take you, and though that seems like a halfhearted endorsement for reading, it is true. Just consider why children read picture books. It captures their attention through many means, but I'm sure on of them is this assisted imagination that the pictures create. So when we grow older, we mature out of picture books and then use our own imagination to create our world of the book.

The movie is the most interesting because it immerses you in this childlike way, but still calls on you to interpret the movie. The movie does not require you to create your own world. The director does that for you. He not only gives you the image of the main characters, but also the setting. All of those worlds that you create as the reader are no longer necessary because the movie does that for you. It is an interesting phenomenon, but it has led movies to be criticized in that they hinder the imagination process. But they really do not. In fact, in some cases, the movie is improved because of audience's imagination. The most obvious and recent case would be the film Inception. This movie used one of the classic methods to force the audience to think: the cliffhanger. For those of you who have not seen Inception, here's a spoiler alert. The top never topples. This sent people into a spiral as to what happened, and this led to fan theories galore. But this shows that just because a movie gives you so much, it does not mean that it takes away from the experience. Though there are many movies that fall into the category of stellar or horrific, most movies do not have a consensus of whether it was good or not. This relationship between the movie and the audience is one of appreciation or criticism, depending on the movie. Unlike oral stories, films are not always hindered by a bad cast nor are the always aided by a great one. A movie with a bad cast can be as good (or as bad) as a movie with a good cast in the eyes of a viewer.

Movies, books, and oral stories all have their place in society, but that does not mean that they all convey a story in the same method. Each have certain detriments and unique traits that come with the media. Therefore, each has their place. Stories belong in everyday life. I don't need to write a book to tell you about this hilarious thing that happened in class. But books give you the ability to stop the story. You can stop a movie, but there seems to be more discontinuity than when you stop a book. Movies give you the collective experience. I don't usually read books along with other people, but it would be weird to watch a movie on your own. These methods each tell a story differently and in doing so they each fill a niche in society that the other methods could not do.

Why Do Actors Do Cameos?

We all know when they happen. You're watching a movie and then you see a familiar face. This actor may not be a supporting actor or even mentioned in the opening credits. But you recognize this face. But this actor does not stay for long, but he or she somehow leaves a lasting impression on you. In film, this is known as a cameo. Though the actor does not get first billing, this cameo is typically one of the things that you will remember from the film. But why do actors do these cameos? Do these actors get paid a lot for these cameos? I know in certain cases they don't. Sometimes they do it for free, like the case of Liam Neeson in The Hangover 2. This case also brings about another problem. Cameos don't always make it to the final film. As with the case of Neeson's tattoo artist cameo, the cameo was cut. So doing a cameo does not give you much monetary gain, and it may not even give you more screen time. So why do a cameo?

Sometimes, the cameo is done as a favor to the director, actor, or someone else involved with filming. That was the case with Neeson, who was texted by his The A-Team co-star Bradley Cooper. There are other famous cameos that happened because of some sort of relation to someone in the film. The infamous "I'll have what she's having" scene from When Harry Met Sally... is an example of a cameo. The woman who uttered this line was none other than the mother of Rob Reiner, the director of this movie. Edgar Wright's movies Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz also enlist the help of family members of both Wright and cast members like Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. It is even more common to see actors in cameos as nods to the director. Kevin Smith's movie Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back has so many cameos. There are cameos from George Carlin, Chris Rock, Matt Damon, Brian O'Halloran, Jason Lee, Jeff Andersen, and Ben Affleck, who all acted in previous Kevin Smith movies. Cameos like these both show some professional relationships between the director and these actors and they act as Easter eggs to truly devoted fans.

Sometimes, the cameo acts as an homage to the actor, the director, or the genre of movie. George A. Romero cast Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg as zombies in one of his movies because of their work Shaun of the Dead. Mark Hamill was cast in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back because of his affiliations with Star Wars. Kevin Smith even went so far as to break the fourth wall and tell the audience that his movie, already riddled with references, had yet another reference to Star Wars. Gus van Sant was also cast in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back as the director of Good Will Hunting 2: Hunting Season, referencing his previous work as the director of Good Will Hunting. Leslie Nielsen, the king of the spoof, was cast in Scary Movie 3 as the president in a spoof movie, literally affirming his status as the best spoof actor of all time. Maybe the most infamous cameo would be all of Stan Lee's cameos in Marvel movies. The comic book revolutionary can be seen in almost all Marvel movies. Does he have a substantial role? More often than not, no. But the directors tip their hat to Stan Lee by allowing him to be in these movies. It is a deserving gesture to a deserving person. Would people still know about these people and their accomplishments without these cameos? Certainly, but the cameo is just another way to draw admiration for these stellar actors.

Sometimes, the cameo is there because it enhances the movie. In Zombieland, Bill Murray, after being talked about for what seemed to be forever by Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), finally shows up. He first appears as a "zombie", but he truly is alive. His turn in Zombieland put that movie over the top, because though it was funny throughout, no one could top Bill Murray. His cameo added to the hilarity of the movie. But cameos don't only add hilarity to funny movies. Sometimes they ground the movie even more. One example is Rodney Dangerfield in Natural Born Killers. The classic funny man seems to give the dark movie some more humor, but Dangerfield shows his acting chops by completely creeping out the audience as the abusive father of Juliette Lewis' Mallory Knox. The scene is devastating on its own, but it seems to reach new heights (or depths) by Dangerfield. Another superb example is Alec Baldwin's cameo in Glengarry Glen Ross. Baldwin is a spectacular actor, both drama and comedy, and he shows his ability to milk a script in this movie. Cameos like these are intended to better the viewing experience by adding something that any other actor could not do.

Of course, the issue now is what constitutes a cameo. Did Jim Parsons have a cameo in Garden State or did he have a cameo in Garden State because he is Jim Parsons? This question is essentially asking whether the cameo exists because someone played that role or whether the cameo exists because the actor is famous. Because there are many films where an actor may have only a small role, but they never call it a cameo. Does a cameo stand on its own? What I want to know is about the role of the number of actors in the scene. This could explain why henchman, though they have onscreen time, are not considered cameos, but extras. There is also a fine line between cameos and supporting roles. Pete Postlethwaite had a supporting role in The Town, but he arguably had a cameo in Inception. Does the cameo only count if the scene is brief or if the character only occurs once? There are many questions about cameos, but at least we know why actors do them. An actor takes cameos because it is an homage, a favor, or a vital part of the movie. It may be funny or serious. It may be relatively long or short. But they will always have importance for a movie goer and a movie maker.

Super 8 Review

Super 8, J.J Abrams-directed and Steven Spielberg-produced, is a truly great science fiction movie and a superb homage to some films of the 80s. In the plot alone, there are hints of great films like E.T., Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Goonies, and Stand by Me. But its greatness does not hinge on its ability to reference these films. As a science fiction film, it shows originality while it sticks with the cliches of a sci-fi film. It has a great story, interesting characters, and good action.

One of the best parts of this film was the characters and their actors. Like other 80s movies like Goonies and Stand by Me, it relies a lot on the young characters. What is so interesting is that even the minor characters seem to have their own personality. They have characteristics that typically drive a moviegoer crazy like a loud mouth or a weak disposition. But they were played to perfection by young actors. Moviegoers may only recognize Elle Fanning as Alice, the daughter of a petty criminal, and though she had an amazing performance, I believe that the standout actor is Joel Courtney as innocent-faced Joe Lamb. He deals with the emotions from death of his mother and the confusion from not only first love, but also fighting for this first love with his best friend. He uses his innocence so well, and for those of you that have seen the movie, you understand which scenes that I am referring to.

The story is also very impressive. I won't spoil the ending, but it deals with aliens. The suspense is built up well and each surprise is as shocking as it could be. My one problem with the movie is that it seemed to stall in the middle by adding too much emotion. But it seemed to move the movie forward, so I don't have that much of a problem with it. The story flowed smoothly and it developed the plot and the characters equally well. I thought that the relationship between Joe and his father, also brilliantly played by Kyle Chandler, was the most interesting. Both were clearly dealing with the death of a loved one, and neither knew how to deal with it. The acceptance, which works its way around full circle, of this passing by both the father and Joe is not only heart-wrenching but also exquisitely done.

This is one of the best movies of the year, and will be considered one of the best movies of the summer. It flowed perfectly from beginning to end. It scared you at times, and it made you root for the right people. It brilliantly paid homage to the 80s, especially Spielberg's movies, but it did not force it too much. The action scenes were directed perfectly. The cast was heart-warming and surprisingly genuine. The relationship between Joe and Alice and Joe and his father were developed very well. There was great chemistry between all of the actors. The story was great, the plot was great. It may be cliched, and it may be seen on almost every poster for Super 8. But in my opinion, and in most opinions, Super 8 is, for lack of a better word, super.

I Wrote a Novel???

So many of you may not know this, but I wrote a novel. It is not a great novel, and I did it for National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo). I had to write a 50,000+ word novel and this is what happened. Don't critique it too heavily, if you decide to read it. I just wanted to do this in high school, so I finally did it in college. Some disclaimers: this is based on real events and real people. It's kind of a memoir in that way. Disclaimer: there are a lot of profanities. It added words, so that helped. Here's the link. It's not a great novel, again, but it is a nice quick read. I'm not expecting much, just wanted to let my viewers know that I have poorly written a novel.

P.S. I also intend to do NaNoWriMo next year, so look out for that novel. In a couple of  years, I may very well be Stephen King!

Flawed Statistics: Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Edition

So apparently I learned in economics class today that in the game "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" the "Phone-a-Friend" option is successful 66% of the time while the "Ask the Audience" option is successful 95% of the time. My economics teacher, whom I presume never watched "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", wrote this off as an anomaly in the logic of people. Why are these supposed experts so much worse at answering questions compared to a supposedly lower IQ audience? I will cover why this statistic exists and what was flawed in that reasoning.

The anomaly that arises seems to be that the audience is smarter than the people that the contestant chooses. This could be true. There could be a super-genius in the audience that you don't know and your friends may not be as smart as that person. But you are working against large numbers. You should expect an average IQ from the audience, and if you played your cards right, an above average IQ from the phone-a-friend. This still does not explain why the Ask the Audience option has such a high success rate. Well, this anomaly can be easily answered by anyone who watches "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" It is all about the difficulty of the question.

Any real Millionaire contestant knows that the audience is never as smart as your friend. They also know that the audience may not give one absolute answer. Even on easy questions, there are people in the audience who answer blatantly incorrect answers. Could this be a flaw in the system or a ploy by producers? Maybe, but that is a digression for another day. The audience is stupider, and any contestant would know that. So if you are stuck on the $2000 question, do you go to the audience, which has no set opinion and a lower IQ, or your friend, who will give you one answer and has a higher IQ? Any smart person would use the audience for an easy question. If the question costs such a low amount, you could expect that the question has a more obvious answer. Let the audience support your belief or give you the answer. But when it comes to the $64,000 question, who do you want? Most people would choose their friend. The fact that they are using a lifeline means that they are unsure about the answer. The audience would simply muddy the waters more. A friend, who is smarter and more decisive, would at least give you a hunch. If they are wrong, they are wrong. But they are not wrong because they are stupider. They are wrong because they had a more difficult question.

This leads to another problem. There are different sample sizes for the "Ask the Audience" and "Phone a Friend". If the audience is used more on easier questions, then they will be asked more often than a friend. Just because you use the audience does not mean that you will use the friend. Though it is true vice versa, that is typically not the case. So there are not only easier questions for the audience, but also more questions. This in turn means that there are harder questions and less of them for the friend. The friend could be right 95% of the time given the same sample size and question difficulty, but that is not the case on Millionaire.

Are there cases where the friend is stupider than the audience? Most definitely. Is that always the case according to a quick glance at the statistics? Also yes. But if you look at what is behind the statistics, it is very obvious that the analysis was short-changed. In this case, the observation beats the statistic. People observe that the audience is stupider than the friend, but the statistics disagree. But the story behind the statistics supports the observation. So if you are on Millionaire, don't ask the audience for help on the $1,000,000 question. Ask your friend. Or 50-50. Just never ask the audience, no matter how smart the statistics say they are.

Why The Exploitation of Division I Football and Basketball Athletes Will Likely Never End

It is no question that Division I athletes in football and basketball are exploited. They are unpaid, despite the large amount of money that both sports make. Their sports also are not funded proportionally because less popular sports get money from both of those programs. Looking at the salaries of the coaches, it seems that the colleges can afford to compensate their athletes for their efforts. There are other controversies in that both of those sports are dominated by black athletes, while the sports that are essentially free riding on their success are dominated by white athletes. But the exploitation comes from the fact that these athletes generate a lot of revenue, but do not reap any of the benefits. But if this exploitation were to end, it could be catastrophic and bring more trouble than the current situation.

One of the primary problems that would be affected by the removal of this exploitation would be that the already flawed collegiate ranking system would be overhauled. Each bowl game or every season of March Madness has some element of controversy. Certain teams deserved a bid that other teams undeservedly got. The choice for a BCS Championship contender is never always as clear as it was this season, and when that occurs, some teams will be left out. Non Big 6 teams are always shorted when it comes to playoff time. But when the players get some compensation, a stricter policy will need to be implemented. Take for instance last year. There are 6 different systems that help determine the ranking outside of  the coaches poll and Harris interactive poll, both more or less arbitrary. But last year, one of the systems had a flaw in the ranking, which did not affect the seeding, but it did mess up. And the system that messed up was the only system available to the public. So if the other 5 systems had a mistake, no one could know. But last year, it was the college getting the money, and to the college, the only thing that would be hurt is their pride. They can manage without the extra money from the revenue generated from the Rose Bowl or the BCS Championship game. But when you are giving money to the players, you are shortchanging them. The players are the ones robbed of the extra cash, not the college. This becomes a moral issue because these players are affected by the small difference of revenue between a small game like the Capital One Bowl and a big match-up like the Sugar Bowl. Right now, if they don't make the bracket in March Madness, they miss out on glory, which is unquantifiable, so we will live with that. But if they miss out on a payday, because of an arbitrary system, it is not fair.

Professional sports would grow into larger and larger international-based sports. An athlete that makes nothing for playing basketball or football in college would surely see the incentives, despite the risks, of going to pros. They go from making nothing to making at least $400,000 a year. But most athletes do this without completing their education, so if they don't make it in the pros, they have no backup plan essentially. But if athletes are paid for the services to the college, then they will see a steady paycheck in college versus a variant one in the pros. There will be players like Derrick Rose and Kevin Durant who are talented enough to jump straight to the pros, but many other players would take that steady college paycheck every time. There are an overwhelming amount of benefits of paying college athletes. First you would end the blatant exploitation of these athletes. But it would prioritize education. If college athletes are being paid, then they would likely stay in school, so if their professional career falters, they have a backup plan. And since college athletes are being paid, they will not need to spend as much money on athletic scholarships, allowing colleges to reallocate the money into academia and research. But there is one massive con to this plan. This would completely ruin professional sports. There would be players like Rose and Durant who have the talent to jump straight to the pros without the issue of job security. But you have two dilemmas for other players without this security. You have players like Greg Oden, who though talented, are brittle. They would benefit from staying in college. If you are injured in college, you may miss out on your chance in the pros, but you can set yourself up to have a future in a profession outside of sports. But the other problem is that many players in the NBA did not have the talent to enter the draft out of high school. These are role players, such as energy guys like Udonis Haslem or sharpshooters like Kyle Korver or Robert Horry. There are defensive specialists like Tony Allen or Ronnie Brewer. There are career back-ups like T.J. Ford who can start, but are much more suited to help off the bench. These players are hit-and-miss and players expected to fill these roles may be better suited to stay in college and hone their craft rather than risk it all by going to the pros. This problem may not be as critical in the NFL where each team will always have multiple roles to fill or the MLB where the players can opt out of a contract or play in the farm system. But solving this exploitation problem will certainly draw some concern from professional leagues. They still have many sources to get new talent like international players and the National Basketball Developmental League, but it is not the same pool as the college system. Other special interest groups that would be angry at reducing the exploitation of these athletes would be the other sports programs. Take lacrosse for instance. Not many people watch lacrosse, even at Northwestern where they have one of the great dynasties in college sports. The only reason that they are still in existence is the revenue generated by the bigger sports. Lacrosse and other less-watched sports require the exploitation of these basketball and football players.

The most important problem is that it would affect the goals in the NCAA system. There are already problems in the NCAA, as documented by the Ohio State football debacle which led to Jim Tressel's resignation and the Cam Newton controversy. You can argue that now that players make money, they will not seek underhanded deals. But that is not true. Even though people make money, they will still seek to make more, especially if the player is talented. There is nothing keeping a player like Austin Rivers, the number 1 recruit of the 2011 high school class, from competing for a better price. A player like him could ask for more money because colleges are willing to give more. It creates the issue of equity in the NCAA. Should every player in the NCAA make the same? Probably not. Bench players and walk-ons do not deserve as much as a starter. But does your starting point guard deserve more than your starting center because of their talent levels? If this were a professional league, no one would disagree. LeBron James is a lot better than Mike Bibby so James should get more money. But does a player like Jimmer Fredette deserve more than his fellow starters because he is their best player? Is that the ideal that the NCAA wants to implant in their players? Colleges would also be forced to essentially bid on players. This would reallocate the money once again into the athletic department rather than academia.

Is the exploitation of football and basketball players bad? Yes, definitely. Do they deserve to be compensated for their efforts? Yes, certainly. But there is a difference between deserving compensation and getting compensation. There are ways to do this fairly and ways to do this efficiently. But as is the problem with many economic situations, it is difficult to find both an equitable and efficient way. So the big question is will the exploitation stop? In all likelihood, probably not. And that may be a shame, but that may be an inevitability.

More Speculation on Barney's Bride

I have come up with new clues as to whom the bride could be. First, what challenge was Barney accepting? It would make sense that Barney is accepting the challenge his father gave him. In this scene, Barney admits that he may have met the girl of his dreams already, but was very regretful while saying it. Barney seemed to have a mutual breakup with Robin, but he could have certainly regretted his decision. But it seems that he would regret his inaction with Nora more. The challenge for Barney was that Barney had to find the girl of his dreams, and when he sets up a date with Nora, he accepts this challenge. But, in that same scene, the HIMYM geniuses give us a little misdirection with Robin's longing stare towards Barney. Second, you have the mantra the new is always better, but is it? Barney and Robin (kinda) agree that new is better, and reaffirm it by Barney returning to his past. Something is off with that statement, and I think that Barney will realize that old is sometimes better. But which past girlfriend will he choose? Nora or Robin? Lastly, did it look like Lily was wearing a dress fit for the maid of honor? Though the series would say otherwise, I doubt that Robin would not have Lily as the maid of honor, though she promised Ted to make him the best man. Barney would undoubtedly have Ted as the best man, as shown by years and years of saying that Ted is his best friend. So Barney's best man is his best friend. Robin's maid of honor should hypothetically be Lily. Lily was wearing a bright pink dress, so I believe that she may have been one of the bridesmaid. I have never actually known the difference between the maid of honor and a bridesmaid by appearance, but it did not look like Lily was the maid of honor. But, that is just my opinion, and my fashion compass may be uncalibrated, so it could have very well been that Lily actually was the maid of honor. As reference, Robin was wearing a lilac dress of comparable length when Robin was the maid of honor at Lily's wedding. Also a nice side note, how awesome would it be if James's father Father Sam were to officiate the wedding. That would be the second wedding this show has had a officiator with a Stinson connection. Now I really can't wait for next season. I still hope that Nora is the bride, but I would not be disappointed if Robin was. Hopefully the show creators won't throw a random person as the bride because as of this point, everyone is expecting either a Barney-Nora or Barney-Robin marriage.

So How About How I Met Your Mother Season Finale?

I just watched the How I Met Your Mother season finale, and I could say that I am very content in how the season ended. The season began rather poorly, but after the hiatus, they just hit the episodes out of the park. This has been some of their best episodes yet, and they will continue improving from what it seems. Just to recap, Lily is pregnant, Ted is single, and Barney is getting married. More on that in a sec.

So Marshall was right about his year. He had a horrible year, that started with losing his father and it seemed like it would end with him without a job. But Lily, despite her supposed food poisoning, was hiding a secret. She was pregnant. How about a way to end a season? The entire season was supposed to be based on the fact that Lily and Marshall were having a baby, and though it was cliched (and expected, just ask the people watching with me) to have this breakthrough at the end of the season, it seems like the perfect thing for HIMYM to do. This show thrives because it shows growth. It tells a heartfelt story within a story. This pregnancy will do wonders for HIMYM. Which reminds me, what should they name their baby?

Ted is single, which is huge. That means that the next girlfriend that Ted has will likely be the mother. I am anticipating how they reveal the mother. They did almost reveal the mother as a random woman in a coffee shop, but just another psych-out moment for HIMYM. But I guarantee you that Ted's next major relationship will be his last. I hope that they reveal the end of the series. It does not seem right to reveal the mother mid-story and then continue to tell the story about how they got married and so on and so forth. But, just watch out for Ted's next date. If he tells a corny shellfish joke, we have our mother.

Barney is getting married, which is a major step for our favorite Lothario. In my opinion, this character change in Barney culminated from meeting his father, who told him that the best step to having a better life is finding the right person. Now, the question is who is this person? Barney and Robin definitely grew closer to each other at the end of this episode. Robin, especially, seemed to have rekindled a lost flame that she had for Barney. But Barney, though probably still filled with feelings for Robin, also wanted to rekindle an old flame by the name of Nora. Nora has returned and she has challenged Barney. Now I get to play a prediction game. Will Barney's wife be Robin or Nora? From this episode, it could go either way. You have Nora agreeing to meet Barney for coffee, but we never know if Nora goes through with it. You also have Robin's longing look towards Barney after he asks Nora on a date. Both have shown signs of interest in Barney, but only one of their dreams will come true. Even in the wedding, they made sure not to reveal any details. Barney is the groom, but we never meet the bride. We got to see Marshall, Ted, and Lily, but where is Robin? Robin would certainly be at Barney's wedding, so why is she not out there with Ted? So there is valid reason that she is the bride. But we know that Barney is pursuing a relationship with Nora. And Robin does not seem to be pursuing Barney. So we are led to believe that Nora is the bride. But HIMYM people are tricky and they will not shy for the surprise ending, so it could also very well be that Robin is the bride, through similar logic. Just judging throughout the series, it is interesting that Ted refers to his friends as Uncle Barney and Aunt Robin as well as Uncle Marshall and Aunt Lily. It implies that there could be a marital relationship between Barney and Robin simply because of the names given to the already married couple of Marshall and Lily. But what about Robin's crush? I think that show has caught itself in a bind if they want to prolong the will-they-won't-they of Barney and Robin by introducing this crush and stating that he will come back again in the future. Does that mean Barney and Robin won't get married? No. But it definitely will mess up with the storyline going forward. So I guess (and hope) that Barney marries Nora. I think that Robin likes Barney, but nowhere near the extent that Barney loves Nora. When they broke up, they made one very important observation. They could not maintain the relationship because they were better as friends than they were as boyfriend and girlfriend. You heard it here. Barney will marry Nora. And now I can't wait for the next season of HIMYM.

Western Conference Finals Preview

With the Eastern Conference Finals in full blow, we take our tour down to Dallas, where tomorrow will be the start of the Western Conference Finals between #3 Dallas Mavericks and #4 Oklahoma City Thunder.

Center: Tyson Chandler vs. Kendrick Perkins
Contrary to popular belief, the Perkins trade helped the Thunder not because of Perkins' presence, but because of Serge Ibaka's new role in the offense and defense. I am not taking anything away from Perkins because it was a great trade for the Thunder. It is a great trade for different reasons. Both Chandler and Perkins are defensive and rebounding specialists. Both are very good on the offensive and defensive glass, but they are also limited offensively. Chandler has the athletic edge, but Perkins has the strength. Advantage: Draw

Power Forward: Dirk Nowitzki vs. Serge Ibaka
Ibaka has been a revelation. He has good range on his jump shot, can rebound very well on both sides of the floor, and is a blocking machine. Unfortunately, he has to line up across from the best power forward in the game right now (arguably). Nowitzki has been a nightmare to guard, and though Ibaka will need help, Nowitzki can beat most players. He has a soft touch from the outside, is very difficult to guard in the high pick and roll, and commands too much attention to be left even the slightest bit open. Advantage: Dallas

Small Forward: Shawn Marion vs. Kevin Durant
Marion used to be a feared double-double threat. He is a good defender that can run in transition. But he has yet to cover as dynamic of a scorer as Durant. Durant has one of the sweetest touches from the outside, and he is strong enough and fast enough to burn you on the inside. He does have some holes defensively, but the Thunder run a fast game, which is something where a hot jump shooter like Durant excels. He is good on the glass, and knows when and how to make the extra pass. If only he took the most shots in each game, then the Thunder would be a menace. Advantage: Oklahoma City

Shooting Guard: DeShawn Stevenson vs. Thabo Sefolosha
Granted, the starters aren't nearly as interesting as their respective bench players (Jason Terry and James Harden), but it will be an interesting lineup nonetheless. Stevenson is a shooter with defense. Sefolosha is a hard-nosed defender with some comparable speed. This position will not determine who wins the series, and it really is the most boring and uninteresting position in the starting lineup. Advantage: Draw

Point Guard: Jason Kidd vs. Russell Westbrook
General knowledge says that Westbrook has the advantage here. But I'm going to go against the grain on my choice here. I believe that though Westbrook is faster and a better scorer than Kidd, I think that Kidd will overall have an advantage. Kidd is a good defender (if you doubt that, look at what he did against Kobe Bryant), and will force Westbrook to take shots that he will (but shouldn't) take. Westbrook is too trigger happy with his jumper, especially considering his options on offense. Will Kidd have a difficult time guarding Westbrook? Yes, he will. But Kidd is wily, and with options like Nowitzki, Jason Terry, and Peja Stojakovic on his team, he will be even more deadly as a distributor. Advantage: Dallas

Bench:
The Dallas bench and Oklahoma City bench are both stacked. On the Mavs, you have great scorers like Stojakovic and 2009 Sixth Man of the Year Jason Terry. But, you face a similar problem with the Thunder who have shooters like James Harden and Daequan Cook. On the Mavs, you have a good defender and speedy point guard with J.J. Barea. But on the Thunder, you have an able distributor with a nice touch from beyond the arc with Eric Maynor. The Mavs have a good back up center with Brendan Haywood, but the Thunder counter that with another veteran in Nazr Mohammed. The real wild card is Nick Collison, who will likely have the challenge of guarding Nowitzki. But, these teams have evenly matched benches that are very productive. Advantage: Draw

Coach: Rick Carlisle vs. Scott Brooks
Carlisle has the experience, having been in the conference finals twice. Neither team has truly exceptional offensive or defensive schemes. Experience wins over in this scenario. Advantage: Dallas

Intangibles:
No one is playing as good as Nowitzki (arguably). But Durant can turn it up on any given night. But the Thunder are going to be tired from their last bruising series against the Grizzlies. The Thunder are also under a lot more scrutiny (it seems) compared to the Mavs. Advantage: Dallas

Prediction:
The Thunder have looked unstoppable at times, but they also have horrendous lows. Dallas has been extremely consistent, especially in their spanking of the LA Lakers. Expect them to ride Nowitzki to the NBA Finals. I predict that the Mavericks win this series in 6 and advance to the NBA Finals.

Eastern Conference Finals Overview

The Eastern Conference has come down to the number 1 seeded Chicago Bulls and the number 2 seeded Miami Heat. On one side, you have a once glorious franchise returning to the top of the conference. On the other side, you have arguably the most polarizing team to play the game. Here's an overview of what could be the most interesting playoff series this year.

Center: Joakim Noah vs. Joel Anthony
Both Noah and Anthony are both hustle players who make plays using determination rather than skill or speed. Both are great defenders and superb rebounders on both the offensive and the defensive end. Where they differ is offensively. Noah is a better offensive player than Anthony. Noah possesses the ability to shoot the jump shot and take the ball off the dribble. He also is better at moving away from the ball. Noah will also run on the fast break more often than Anthony. Advantage: Chicago

Power Forward: Carlos Boozer vs. Chris Bosh
Both Boozer and Bosh are looking to prove something in this series. Boozer is trying to prove to his fans that he can be the number 2 option that Chicago is looking for. Bosh is trying to prove that he is more than a third wheel to the James-Wade party. Both are notorious for their criticism. Bosh has been called soft and inconsistent. Boozer has been called a defensive liability, who has not justified his weakness on one end with strength on the other. But both Boozer and Bosh are very good offensively at times. When their jump shots are falling, they are two of the more feared post players in the game. Boozer has a nice fade away jumper he relies on, and Bosh uses his left handedness to his advantage. Advantage: Draw

Small Forward: Luol Deng vs. LeBron James
This is not as lopsided as it seems. LeBron James is the best player in the NBA. He is too strong to cover and with his jump shot, he can create a shot out of any scenario. He also is one of the better defenders because of his size and speed. He has perfected the art of the chase-down block. But I don't think that James will have easy picking against the Bulls. Luol Deng is one of the best defenders in the game and can force James to take difficult, contested shots. Deng also plays long minutes, so he will have the job of wearing down James. Deng has a good outside jumper and can slash his way to the basket. But when LeBron James is the person you are facing down, it is impossible to have an advantage. Advantage: Miami

Shooting Guard: Keith Bogans vs. Dwyane Wade
This is as lopsided as it seems. Dwyane Wade is one of the most dynamic players in the game. He can make his way to the basket. He can change the game with his jump shot. He and James are feared on the fast break. Bogans takes 3 shots a game on average, all of them from downtown. Bogans, however, will give Wade fits on the defensive end. He did a great job stopping the larger Joe Johnson against the Hawks, so expect him to give Wade fits. But once again, when Dwyane Wade is the person you are facing down, it is impossible to have an advantage. Advantage: Miami

Point Guard: Derrick Rose vs. Mike Bibby
This is another extremely lopsided matchup. Unlike Jeff Teague, Mike Bibby has no speed when compared to Rose. Bibby takes too many shots and is typically the beneficiary of slashing by James or Wade. Derrick Rose, on the other hand, carries the Bulls. He is developing as a passer, and will allow his teammates to try to take over the game. But when he needs to carry the load, Derrick Rose is prepared. He can now stretch teams with a perimeter shot to keep his defenders honest. But when you play Rose too tight, he can beat you off the dribble like no other. If Wade and James are the best slashing shooting guard and small forward respectively, I'd argue that Derrick Rose is the best slashing point guard in the league. His speed allows him to attack the rim at will, and his ability to finish, as well as his pure athleticism, allows him to score on these drives. When Derrick Rose is the person you are facing down, it is very difficult to have an advantage. Advantage: Chicago

Bench:
The Chicago Bulls have filled the bench very well with role players. They have a superb young backup center in Omer Asik. Asik can add some energy with hustle rebounds and blocked shots. They have a starting caliber backup power forward in Taj Gibson. Gibson helps out defensively and can add some offensive help when Boozer is on the bench. Ronnie Brewer is a super defender, and Kyle Korver is one of the best sharpshooters in the game. C.J. Watson can run the plays to give Derrick Rose ample time to rest. Then they have Kurt "Big Sexy" Thomas, who adds some old school defense to the game. The Heat have Mario Chalmers, a defensive point guard, and James Jones, another good 3-point shooter. Everyone else is either a non-factor (Zydrunas Ilgauskas) or recovering from injury (Udonis Haslem). Advantage: Chicago

Coaching: Tom Thibodeau vs. Erik Spoelstra
No offense to Spoelstra, but he really is merely Pat Riley's pawn. When you have LeBron James or Dwyane Wade, drawing up plays is rather easy. He has established a good defense, but once again, that seems to fall under the influence of James and Wade. Spoelstra is very good in the video room at pinpointing where his team needs to improve. Thibodeau, on the other hand, is the defensive mind that was able to stop LeBron James the last two years when he played Boston. He has masterfully crafted a defense that has allowed low field goal percentages and points. Though he does not have an offensive mind near to where his defensive mind is, he is a disciple of the game and lives and breathes basketball. He is in the video room analyzing footage. But most importantly, he got his team to buy into his strategy, and it has worked. Both are relatively new head coaches, but based on where they are with what they have, Thibodeau has seemed to do more with less. Advantage: Chicago

Intangibles:
The Miami Heat have successfully embraced their role as the villain in the NBA. LeBron James (as well as Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh for that matter) has to prove that he made the right decision by spurning the Bulls and creating a Big Three in Miami. The Chicago Bulls have home court advantage. They have the serendipity of having a chance to win a championship 20 years after Jordan's first. They are entering as the underdogs. The Heat have a sense of entitlement, but the Bulls have a sense of urgency. The Bulls are scrappier and defying the odds. The Heat are riding the talent of their two stars. There are too many storylines in this series. Advantage: Draw

Interesting Notes:
-The Chicago Bulls are 3-0 versus the Heat in the regular season. Those three games were won by a total of 8 points.
-Which Kyle Korver will show up? The clutch Kyle Korver from the Indiana series or the struggling Kyle Korver from the Atlanta series?
-Don't expect any big games from James Jones. The Bulls are one of the best perimeter defending teams in the league.
-Mario Chalmers beat Derrick Rose in the 2007 NCAA championship. Can we expect a similar outcome?
-Derrick Rose broke LeBron James' attempt at a three-peat for MVP. Will LeBron James finally win a championship without the burden of being MVP?
-LeBron James beat the Celtics...after Thibodeau was hired as the head coach of the Bulls. Maybe James' biggest enemy is not the Celtics, but their former assistant coach Tom Thibodeau.
-Pat Riley and Gar Forman both won Executive of the Year. John Paxson also received three votes, meaning that the Bulls' executives combined could have won that award.

Prediction:
The Miami Heat are playing amazing basketball, and with two superstars, it is difficult to imagine the less star-studded Bulls to pull off the upset. But the Bulls are a hustle team who looks to outwork you, especially so in the playoffs. I see this as a 7-game-thriller. Bulls will have home court advantage, but Miami's star power will shine and (unfortunately) the Bulls go down in 7 games. Miami advances to the NBA Finals.

Breaking Apples Aren't So Hard To Do

So I go to UChicago and we are known for our extravagant scavenger hunt, colloquially known as Scav. For Scav, someone had to break an apple using their bicep, which we successfully did twice. But this video is just amazing on so many levels. At least, in my opinion. Have fun watching my friend break an apple with his biceps.

Lessons Learned from How I Met Your Mother

Many of you know (or at least now you do) that Mother's day is tomorrow. Which is fitting because today I will talk about lessons that I learned from the CBS show How I Met Your Mother. It is one of my favorite shows on television right now, and it has some of the funniest and most interesting characters on television. So here are some life lessons that you can pick up from How I Met Your Mother.

1. "I think I'm in love with you" is not appropriate to say on the first date.
2. Writing a paper in one night is not always a bad thing.
3. Don't be afraid to do something legendary.
4. You may find out that something you hated in the past is something you like in the present (as long as it/she doesn't know krav maga).
5. Don't always believe the hype.
6. Wear Halloween costumes more suitable for the present day.
7. You don't need a computer to tell you about compatibility.
8. The Lemon Law
9. You can be charitable anywhere...even a strip club.
10. If you are wasted, have someone write down their number on your arm in permanent marker.
11. Get psyched.
12. Always check "plus 1". It is a lot easier to find someone than to get rid of him.
13. A drumroll is never good enough.
14. There is always a "first" for everything.
15. True love can change a man. But so can a broken heart.
16. Long distance relationships never work.
17. A great life starts with great love.
18. Nothing good happens after 2 a.m.
19. When a woman says she's a paralegal, she is certainly not a prostitute.
20. Doubt is healthy, but hard.
21. "Did it hurt when you fell from heaven?" actually is the greatest pick-up line of all time.
22. True love can make anything happen, even make it rain.
23. Moving on is difficult, but it only takes time.
24. Sad-sack cute is still cute.
25. Don't have huge secrets like a divorce or a death in the family.
26. Architects are sexy.
27. Marriage is the best antidote for a clingy one-night-stand.
28. Kindergarten punishment is for kids age 5 and up.
29. Watch out for crazy eyes.
30. You really can do anything on international waters.
31. 5 slaps in eternity are not actually better than 10 slaps in a row.
32. Single stamina is a real thing.
33. Watch what you say. It may come back to bite you.
34. Don't be an "I love you" slut or an "I love you" prude.
35. It is very difficult to fire someone.
36. You cannot escape the Super Bowl score.
37. Everything that happens is someone's fault. That someone is typically you.
38. Keeping stuff from exes may be troubling.
39. It's difficult to say goodbye, even if it is to a car.
40. So much stuff could happen in a 23 minute span.
41. Everyone wants true love to last.
42. There's no such thing as too strong of a relationship.
43. A hat is the best thing to cover a bad haircut.
44. Proposing to someone on a sitcom set will always work.
45. Never get a tramp stamp, no matter what level of intoxication.
46. Foreigners are sexy.
47. Everyone gets nervous, and that nervousness increases based on the awesomeness of the scenario.
48. There is nothing sweeter than being a part of a child's drawing.
49. Hotter girls are allowed to be crazier.
50. Lance Hardwood is a better porn name than Ted Mosby.
51. When you marry someone, you marry all of their problems too.
52. Ignorance is bliss. But if you really love someone, all the bad things about them turn out to be things you love about them.
53. Do not ruin Thanksgiving.
54. A trip to the past is not always a bad thing.
55. The Platinum Rule.
56. It's nice to live today without thinking about the consequences of tomorrow.
57. You can have a date in 2 minutes.
58. Nothing is better for decisions than a bracket.
59. There is always someone to scream at.
60. Revertigo.
61. There are no loopholes for the Bro Code.
62. Women find police officers sexy, no matter what causes their nosebleeds.
63. Everything you do has a purpose, though it may not be the one you intended.
64. Miracles really do happen.
65. You don't have to love something to pretend you love it.
66. Put your fullest effort into everything, even if it is as mundane as finding a burger joint.
67. Don't try too hard to get a fist bump.
68. $10 scotch is just as good as $2500 scotch.
69. A broken heart can make even a vegan eat meat. Also be willing to take opportunities when they come. And don't bring exes to weddings.
70. There are always people you'd want to avoid but confrontation is necessary.
71. The Cheerleader Effect.
72. Always stand up for your friends, no matter how alluring the Swedish are.
73. The Naked Man only works 2 out of 3 times.
74. Don't get into a fight. It is never worth it.
75. Have faith in your family.
76. Whenever there is a "friends-with-benefits" scenario, someone always gets hurt.
77. You never are too old to continue a ritual.
78. Everyone has something they don't need on their resume.
79. To create a family, all you need to find is the right person.
80. There are only four reasons why your ex wants to have lunch with you.
81. Everyone should have a front porch test.
82. There is no such thing as a good white lie.
83. You do get too old for this stuff. But you also are too young for some stuff too.
84. Everyone should have a 'thing'.
85. There is never a wait to call someone you're romantically interested in.
86. Sometimes, the world will fall into place perfectly. And creating charts are addictive.
87. The one is trying their hardest to get to you as fast as they can.
88. Life is unexpected, and sometimes the life of your dreams is not as great as the life of your reality.
89. Girlfriends are like Gremlins (don't get them wet, don't expose them to sunlight, and don't feed them after midnight).
90. Don't change yourself to find love.
91. Work hard to keep a girl around.
92. All couples need a couple couples.
93. Everybody needs to have close friends, even if you don't agree on everything.
94. Neighbors know all.
95. Two awesomes cancel each other out. And sometimes after a relationship ends, you are better off just being friends.
96. Anyone who gets too involved with work after a breakup will find someone when they least expect it.
97. It is never too late to be a part of someone's life.
98. There is always a window for opportunity, but you never know how long it will be open.
99. We all have moments in our lives which will define our last of something.
100. Girls are better than suits.
101. Drinking games at the expense of friends never end well.
102. Sports help us forget our own problems.
103. Your perception of someone will change from time to time.
104. Every has been the hooked and the hooker (stringing someone along until you find someone better).
105. Super dates are also possible.
106. That random girl could be the one.
107. A lie is a great story someone ruined with the truth.
108. Stupid decisions can work out in the end.
109. Sharing is caring.
110. Sophistication is great. But nothing is better than Robots vs. Wrestlers.
111. Everyone has baggage.
112. Know your priorities.
113. No one really knows how 'dibs' works.
114. Do not oversell somebody.
115. Eventually, everyone forgets a bad memory.
116. You're not a real New Yorker until you've taken a cab from somebody who needed it more, you've cried on the subway and not cared about it, and you've crushed a cockroach with your bare hands.
117. There are certain things that you aren't allowed to talk about in certain areas (i.e. the locker room).
118. Acting like a child somehow makes women cuter.
119. Being feared is more important to authority than being liked.
120. We all go through phases, and we all pass through them.
121. Friendship is enduring the worst of your friends, not the best.
122. There is always a blitz, someone who always leaves the room before something amazing happens.
123. There is a mermaid clock, where a manatee becomes a mermaid.
124. Sometimes, being tough is the right answer.
125. Embrace your past, regardless of how embarrassing it is.
126. Try to make your last words with someone has thoughtful and meaningful as they could be.
127. Gullibility trumps cuteness.
128. People are more desperate the day before Valentine's day.
129. A mutual hatred can lead to an eventual relationship.
130. Always follow your heart. It knows what's best for you.
131. Don't take for granted the normalcy of your life.
132. Complete and total support is not always healthy for a relationship.
133. A magician's best friend is a drunk audience.
134. We all act differently based on our choice of drink.
135. Sometimes in order to create something better, you have to knock it down.
136. Never get coffee with an ex unless you really want to get back together with them.
137. Life is all about chemistry...and timing.
138. Become a head-over-heels idiot for just that one person.
139. Never ever buy a ducky tie. #GoForBarney
140. Love is sometimes about taking a step back because sometimes you just want the other person to be happy.
141. Dating your therapist is weird. Macaroni salad is not a salad. It really is Edward James Olmos. And Germans love David Hasselhoff.
142. In the great debate of mystery versus history, choose mystery.
143. You can always turn it around.
144. Sometimes the thing you've waited your entire life for just isn't worth it.
145. Life isn't worth living unless there is a sign up because of something you did.
146. Hours can last like seconds, and seconds can last a lifetime.
147. Babies attract women.
148. You don't have to know what's wrong in order to make someone happy.
149. Sometimes private moments require a little bit of public. And you don't want to be in charge of a bar.
150. It doesn't matter where you are, as long as you have friends.
151. Bees totally hate kerosene.
152. Sometimes it doesn't matter what you do when you can't get someone out of your head.
153. Sometimes, you need closure to look at the world anew.
154. We are all haunted by our past, and sometimes the only thing we can do is move on.
155. Everyone has a hypothetical situation for everything.
156. Something will change for you in the next 3 years. Hope it is for the best.
157. Try to make every night legendary...even if it doesn't sound legendary to begin with.
158. You need a palate cleanser. And nothing sounds more official than "executive".
159. Stories help the pain go away. And Wait-for-it is the greatest middle name ever.
160. Sometimes you know in your heart who is right for you, but only time will tell if they are the one.

And remember, life is always legendary.