Wednesday

Sorry, All.

Hey everyone-

I apologize for my lack of posting during the last few weeks. I'm ramping up to go back to school and things get a little hectic. But I wanted to thank all of my loyal readers and give you somethings to look forward to while I get ready to begin the new school year.

1. AWESOME NEW BLOGS- including (maybe or maybe not) how Olympic Gymnastics is sometimes rigged, God and the War in Iraq, and the Existence of Free Will. They'll all be a-coming soon.

2. AWESOME RADIO SHOW- That's right! I'll be back on air coming in the fall, spinning records and talking philosophy. If your in the new york city / long island area's you can tune in on 88.7 FM, and if not you can listen on WRHU.org anywhere around the world! As soon as things are solidified I will be announcing the day and time of my bi-weekly show!

3. AWESOME FILMS- My last film, "When the Tin Man Need's A Heart" is in its last finalization stages and will be premiering at the HFC film festival in the fall. I will also begin production on a new short film in the coming months, one of which I will keep you in the dark about now... but I'll tell you it's much different then all of my past one.

4. AWESOME USAGE OF THE WORD AWESOME- Already done.

So see, there are things to look forward too! Keep checking back and I'll let you in on the information as it comes.

I love you all!

-Nick Danger

Monday

Was Jesus a Liberal?

You can basically boil down all people into three groups (especially when applied to politics): People who want change, People that don't, and People that don't give a damn. When applied to politics, it translates into: the people who want change = liberals, people that don't = conservatives, people that don't give a damn = Canadians.

Barrack Obama is a liberal, George Bush is not. Journalists are liberals, the corporations that publish them are not.

Jesus was a liberal, and the people who killed him were not.

Now this does not mean that I'm saying that conservatives killed Jesus. That's ridiculous. I'm just saying that if Jesus and the people at that time were tested by this theory, Jesus would be the person that wanted change, and the people that killed him didn't.

Now, would Jesus be a democrat? I don't know. But he was revolutionary for his time, preaching to the poor and sinners instead of the rich and "Pius", preaching equal rights to women, and speaking out against capital punishment ('let him with no sin cast the first stone'). 

Sounds a lot like what the democratic party stands for today, eh? 

But I really have no place to say what Jesus would do, or how he would vote, or if he would even support a party over another. But it is interesting that most Christians consider themselves conservative, when Jesus was honestly one the most liberal people to have ever graced this planet. 

And, as a Christian, if your supposed to model you life after him, wouldn't it seem like you would want it too?

Saturday

A Meditation on Water

So last night I was watching some of the Beijing '08 Opening Olympic Ceremony. Some commentator was talking about Chinese Philosophy and symbolism in the performance, and quoted something along these lines:

"A good life is lead like water, constantly flowing and moving away from resistance."

I was (and am) like, "damn, that's deep" (no pun intended). But I started putting some thought into it and it seemed pretty enlightening.

Maybe going with the flow is always the best thing to do. Water never questions where it's going, but always ends up where it needs to be. As said earlier, it moves away from resistance, which doesn't seem like a bad thing at all. Who wants conflict?

But you could always argue that sometimes conflict is good and needed, and sometimes going with the flow might be the wrong thing to do. Sometimes you just have to Carpe Diem it up.

I don't know, and don't have a solid answer. I'm still living and trying to figure it out for myself.

Thursday

I Won't Take Off My Glasses



This may be the funniest thing I've seen in along time. Check it out.

Wednesday

Why Gay Marriage is the new Civil Rights Movement

I recently got in an argument with a friend over the issue of Gay Marriage. We came to the conclusion that she believed that marriage was between man and a woman and that, "there should be another thing that [gay couples] could get that is the same thing, except not marriage." 

So I asked her, "So you're saying that there should be something else, separate, but equal?"

She said, "Yes. Exactly."

I responded, "Does that sound like anything to you?"

----

I don't want a gay marriage. I'm not even gay. But I don't have a problem with gay couples getting married. In fact, it doesn't really effect me that much. I can't see why it would really effect anyone, to be frank. If you don't want one, don't get one. 

I know that it says in the Bible that marriage is between a man and woman, and I get that. I'm a Christian. But I am also open minded enough to realize that not everyone else is. The separation between Church and State is what has kept our country strong, and only when this separation is crossed have we run into trouble (the past couple of years). What right do I have forcing my religious view upon marriage onto someone else who doesn't believe in God? And the even deeper question, Who says God is against Gay Marriage (I'll leave this discussion for another blog).

Either way, I don't believe that the country has a right to take away the rights and joy of marriage from gay couples just because they are gay, just like we had no right to take away the freedoms of black men and women, and just like Rosa Parks had the right the sit where she wanted on that bus.

Separate but equal doesn't work.

Aren't we all equal under the eyes of God anyway?

Tuesday

Do You Really Want to be an Olympian?

So here's the thing, I kind-of always wanted to be an Olympian.

It didn't even matter what sport, as long as I was there, at the highest level of competition representing my country. I'd be awesome right?

Well, not really. You kind-of give up every other facet in your entire life in order to do that. I read an article in Men's Journal a while back that talked about a man who was training to be an Olympic marathon runner. He said that he trained so much, that he lost his ability to be with other people. Like he went to a party, and he would just lean against the wall thinking about how   he could probably run faster then any of them.

And he didn't even make it.

In order to represent your country, you need to exclude yourself from it entirely.

Which to me, seems like an unfair trade off.

My great friend and mentor John was a state-level swimmer in high school who was recruited to many different division one colleges to swim. He chose not to go to any of them. When I asked him why he gave me this following  explanation.

"Alright, so you go to school to swim. They make you practice every day for hours, twice a day, and you start to lose your hold on academics and not really find out what you want to do. All you do is swim, and there is no future in swimming unless you go to the Olympics. And say you do go to the Olympics, if you try your best and get really really lucky you get on a relay spot. You might even get there and not swim. But say you do, and you swim two your part of the relay and its great. You come home, and you really have no idea what you want to do with your life and you end up working at Home Depot" (They employ more Olympians then any other company), "And I don't want to work at Home Depot for the rest of my life."

John's now owns his own web design firm and has a great life with an awesome wife and beautiful kid. But would it all be the same if he would of went for an Olympic bid?

Probably not, because the Olympics steal your life.

So, on Friday, be ready to watch a bunch of loners run-swim-throw-dance-shoot-kick-polevault better than anyone else on earth.

Sunday

Let it Be & LSD

John Lennon once burst into a board meeting and told everyone, "I am Jesus Christ."

He was on LSD.

Of course they just batted him off, saying "That's great John, we've got to get back to this meeting now." Or something along those lines (I forget which book I read this in, probably John Lennon: The New York Years by photographer Bob Gruen, but I'm not sure).

What if LSD is the real perception of reality?

Supposedly The Beatles argued about this often. My friend Mandy responded when I told her this idea by saying, "That sounds like something someone on LSD would say." Which is true. But what if it wasn't? What if the only way to actually see how the world is was by doing some drug invented in a lab in the 60s? Or any drug, or ANYTHING for that matter? What if we've been living in an altered sense of reality because we haven't found the right glasses to wear to see it properly?

What if the world is a movie in 3-D and we haven't found the glasses, so all we are seeing is a blurry image? Eventually we'd just think that blurry picture was how it was supposed to be.

Now, this probably all comes back to some Descartes thought about centuries ago. Descartes asked, "How do you know your not dreaming?" and through endless babbling and questions, he decided that they only way we know that we're not dreaming is because God wouldn't do that to us. But when you asked him, "How do you know God exists?" his answer was something along the lines of "Well, according to my definition of God being all-powerful, all-knowing, etc... that must include all-existing, and therefore he exists."

You might not think that makes any sense. And that's because it doesn't. It's called the Cartesian Circle, and philosophy professors will be debating about it for the next 2459 years.

So I guess we'll never know. I mean, how could you ever tell?

Maybe this was what John Lennon was getting at.

Or maybe he was just high.

Saturday

Pinkerton Review

Yes, I know Pinkerton came out in 1996, but I just bought it yesterday and I think its fucking brilliant.

It's probably Rivers' most personal album. And probably Weezer's best. It's rough, real, deep, meaningful and just all around amazing.

When it was first released, it was both a commercial and critical failure, and I can see why that would be. It's so completely different from their debut Weezer (also known as The Blue Album to fans). Its not powerpop, and its not straight forward musically. It flows.

It's also loosely based on the opera Madame Butterfly which is just freaking cool.

It's grown quite a following in the past few years, reaching gold in 2001, and coming out as a major influence on bands like Saves the Day.

The best way to explain this phenomenon, is by saying it was  ADVANCED (see Chuck Klosterman's latest book IV pg. 249-254) when it came out.

Pinkerton is not only one of Weezer's best albums,  but possibly one of the best ever written.

It might just be sneaking into my top 5.

Just go out and buy it.

9.8/10

Friday

The Oprah Effect (and how we are taught to think everyone is right)

Nowadays no one is ever wrong. Everyone is right. This is a horrible thing, and its all because of Oprah Winfrey and her god damn show.

Oprah Winfrey began her queenship of the television industry on September 8th, 1986, and has since had 22 seasons and over 3,000 episodes. She teaches the fact that everyone as a right to be right, and this is inherently wrong.

Now, I know what your thinking, something along the lines of your evil or more likely why is that a bad thing? And I admit, on the surface, it seems great. Everyone is right and no one is wrong. But I'll tell you why its bad, because it throws off the God-Given balance of the universe. Some people just have to be wrong.

Sure, agreeing that you are both right when arguing about your preferred style of clothing, is harmless; but what about the war in Iraq? You would probably come to the same conclusion, that you were both right in your own way.

If I saw a tree, and said "Hey, look, there is a beautiful Oak tree with many leaves." And my friend Mikey looked at me and said, "Dude, there is no tree." This would seem like I was living inside of the movie The Matrix first of all, but second of all, one of us has to be right. Either the tree is there or it is not. 

Of course you can get all philosophical and say that the existence of the tree is based on both of our personal perceptions of reality, but this is retarded. The tree either exists, or it does not.

This inability to argue with a successful outcome has made American society weak. Look at our partisan government; two groups that can never agree, and therefore never (really) try to.

I'm not saying this isn't a problem I deal with. In fact, I may be unable to say anyone is wrong. This is very prevalent for me when talking about religion, who am I to say that another face is wrong and I am right? I know your probably saying this is a good thing, which may or may not be true. I honestly don't know.

But either way, imagine a world without constant compromise. Imagine a world without Oprah Winfrey.