Frightening movies. I don't think so.

I'm using the movie series, Saw as an example here because it should still be fairly recent in everyone's minds and because the fourth part is about to hit the theaters. Bear in mind, I don't have a whole lot of problem with gore in movies. It's easy for me to remember it ain't real and it just rolls right over me. Really, it does. (Gore in real life is a different story, however but that's a topic for another time.)

The real terror of a movie is in the building of suspense and the threat of something freaky or evil or dangerous being about to happen. Look at The Ring or Ju On (or The Grudge). At least, as long as the potential victim of same is not being so utterly stupid as to make you laugh instead of jump in your chair and toss your popcorn on your date. Hollywood film makers forget what normal people are apt to do, even aside from the armchair directors in the theaters. Bottom line is, a scary movie needs to make you think pretty hard for a while after you walk out into the lobby.

I've digressed overly much. Back to the Saw series. And yes, there are a couple of spoilers so if you've not seen it, don't blame me for not warning you. Or maybe you'll read this because you're not going to go see it! In that case, you'll still be disappointed because I'm not really going to disclose so much.

The first Saw was a very nice Hitchcockian suspense flick. There was gore and such but it was incidental; not the focus of the movie. I mean, even though there was a dead guy in the middle of the room in a pool of his own blood, how could you possibly forget that the only way those two captives could get loose was if they were willing to saw off their own foot? Very easy to put yourself in that position, wondering what you would do if you were in that situation and feel a cold chill go up and down your spine.

Add to that the suspense built by the possibility that the two guys may have had a connection which could have caused one to kill the other even though they should be working together to escape, a time limit to figure out how to escape and a half dozen other sub plots equally horrifying and really, the gore is of little consequence, even when the one guy actually does cut his foot off in order to escape. (Just a thought here, the music at this point was absolutely PERFECT!)

The second movie added a bunch of gore but still had a degree of the suspense that the first one had. You could easily go, "good grief," at some of the excessive gore but after all was said and done, it was still pretty decent. The rats-trapped-in-a-maze theme was a little overdone in my opinion but the puzzles were creative enough to take the, "hokey malokey," out of it.

The third installment made the gore the primary focus of the flick and while the story still sort of carried pretty well, it was splattered upon overly much by blood and guts. In short, it was crap. It might have been the kind of thing that would make people look away but it didn't add to my enjoyment of the movie and sure didn't scare anyone.

To be fair, they created and then answered some questions linked to the first movie so that was pretty decent of them. Still, by the end of the movie, I was done with gore-centric flicks. No more desire to see Texas Chainsaw Massacre which was released right about then, no desire to see The Hills Have Eyes 2 (yes, I saw the first one), no urge to get out to rent Hostel and then watch Hostel 2. Now, in place of the urge to see good scary movies, I prefer instead to avoid the gore-focused movies and be more selective with my scary movie selections. The have to be truly scary now. It's just hard to tell, really until you're sitting in the theater.

The fourth one? Jury's still out on it but if they continue the trend, it's going to be a loser just like the third one. I doubt I'll watch it. I may go see it just because I saw the first three but essentially, I'm done with movie makers who can't stay focused on the story, the plot, or just don't really have the skills it takes to make a great frightener.

The new Halloween movie, now, there is a GREAT horror flick! Kudos to Rob Zombie for that one. Well done even if you didn't really care for it.

--Wag--

Miscellaneous crap

Sometimes, I'm on. Other times, I go a fairly long while before writing. I was reading through some of the posts a moment ago and realized, I used to write some funny stuff. Funny to me, anyway. Lately, though, the crap I'm putting up here hasn't been funny any more. Too serious. Am I losing my sense of humor? Did I ever have one in the first place? Does anyone give a rat's ass? If you do, worry about yourself. Your life is too small!

What the hell. I'm enjoying my life. My wife and I were talking about that the other day. We're plenty happy, really. We have what we want. Steady wage, house, two motorcycles we love riding, the vehicles we need in order to get around. Good news, too. We saved a bunch of money on our insurance by switching to . . .

. . . Farm Bureau. Yup. 30% per year for all four vehicles and our homeowners policy.

Niiiiiiiice!!!

Well, we're not independently wealthy yet but we're moving that direction. I think. It's going to be a while, of course. Patience is a virtue in such things. Of course, financial brains would help, too. Anyone have a supplier for that?

I'm cruising down on my 42nd birthday in about three weeks. No, EXACTLY three weeks.

Dayum!!!!

Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't feel old. Well, I have to use reading glasses a lot of the time now. No big deal. But as for the rest of me? It's all still working quite well. I feel that I'm still in my prime. I should go get a degree, though. The most discouraging thing about it, though, is that all my school credits are too old to transfer now. I'll likely have to take them all again.

BUT. That may mean it's a perfect time for me to change careers. 20 years is too long to do the same thing over and over again. Been thinkin' about it for a few days. Okay, a couple of months! I just still haven't figured out what I want to do when I grow up.

Doh!!!

Well, as long as I can keep my luscious, hot wife sleeping with me, probably nothing much else will matter, eh?!

Couldn't sleep tonight. I quit smoking a little over a week ago and it's effing killing me so far. Seems that when I smoke, my immune system gets suppressed. Then, when I stop smoking, my immune system kicks back into high gear and I start feeling the pain of allergies I never knew I had. It sucks, of course. Dammit. I'm on my 9th day now, though, so I'll just have to tough it out some more. I haven't slept well for about the last five or six days which explains why I'm up at 1:30am typing this up even though I have to work tomorrow.

Don't start smoking. If you do, you'll want to quit some day and it might kill ya!!!

For some reason, that's funny to me. Go figure.

Cheers to all y'all!

--Wag--

What's the difference?

What's the difference between Muslim terrorists and Christian or other fanatical religious terrorists?

I've been told, though I haven't read it myself, that the Quran directs its followers (Muslims) to kill all infidels.

But the Bible, especially the Old Testament, preaches the same thing, really. Read, the following (For this reference, thank you to The Dark Bible, found at http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/)

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6)

"Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9)

Of course, the Old Testament is full of stories of how the followers of Moses spent a great deal of energy engaging in fierce genocide against those were were considered unbelievers.

Of course, Christians like to say that Jesus did away with such things when he brought forth a new way of life, a better belief. If that's the case, why is the Old Testament still attached to the New Testament?

Christianity at heart is not that much different from Islam.

o-Both would like to kill you for not believing as they do, at least historically
o-Both would like to force you to believe as they do
o-Both would like you to give up your life for their particular god
o-Both look down on believers of other faiths as inferior peoples (infidels and heretics)
o-Both are uninterested in your opinion
o-Both would like to prohibit you from even expressing or thinking your opinion

The list could go on, of course. I'll give Judaism credit, though. They aren't promoting the deaths of others because of differing beliefs any more insofar as I've heard lately. Frankly, they don't seem to be saying a lot about what to do with unbelievers at all these days. Good on them.

Soooooo, what's the difference? Not much, really. What I mean is, when you strip away the professed litanies of doctrine and their teachings, the activities of both are geared toward one thing only: They look forward to the sterilization of the world in order to make it 100% Christian. Or 100% Islam.

Come to think of it, I get the idea that they are the only two major world religions who still believe in such a thing.

--Wag--

Saying goodbye

How much do you love someone?
Is it hard to say goodbye?
But you know you'll see them again,
You just don't know when.

How about when you know,
It's the last goodbye?
When you know you'll never
See them again. Ever.

She had cancer and she had had it
For quite a while.
You could tell; and it had done its evil
Something you could feel.

We said goodbye. She knew and I knew
This was going to be the last time
We looked into each others' eyes and cried
We laughed with each other at our happier memories.

We hoped things were going to turn around but,
We both knew the end was in sight.
It wasn't possible to deny.
I looked deep into her eyes, those eyes had taught me,

The meaning of the literary term,
"A twinkle in the eye."
I knew I'd never see it again.
I held her close as we prepared to part for the last time.

Tears from from her eyes to my chest and
From my eyes to her skin
Our bodies shook together with sobbing
We became one in our sorrow

But we were one in our happy memories of the
Beauty of our friendship, the happiness we had had
For all those years and for all those smiles.
As we parted ways, we cried.

We knew each others' sorrow, felt each others' pain
Suffered each others' suffering
But we smiled as we knew the other smiled
And our hearts began to share with one another.

She still lives in me. My memories of her will endure
Forever and ever.

--Wag--

The Farmer

Story

One spring, a farmer went out and plowed his fields and planted his corn. The rain came; he fertilized and irrigated. The corn sprouted and grew. It was doing well, growing and flourishing. A few weeks later, though, the farmer began to become impatient. He wanted his corn now. RIGHT now.

Impatient beyond belief, he plowed the cornfield under and the next day, planted wheat. Again, the rains were sufficient and the farmer cared for his new crop. It was doing very well but again, impatience set in. A few days later, the farmer plowed under his newly-sprouted wheat and planted potatoes.

Over the rest of the summer and fall, the farmer repeatedly planted and plowed and planted and plowed until the end of the summer when his last crop, his tomato plants, died in the cold of the frost. The farmer had nothing. In spite of his hard work, in spite of doing nearly everything right and despite the perfect weather of the perfect summer, he had nothing to show for it all.

It was a long, cold, and very hungry winter.

Moral

If you have everything under the sun going perfectly for you, you still need patience.

Discussion

How many times have you worked for a company which had good policies but kept changing them over and over again? How many times have you seen your friends or family change jobs over and over and over again? Each time, they have to start over and begin with nothing again.

My father was that kind of man. The rate of changes for his jobs became so numerous that by the end, he was changing jobs nearly every month or even faster. He attempted to start several businesses in succession but never worked any of them to fruition. He signed up for several MLM's only to abandon them shortly afterward. Over time, he destroyed his ability to accumulate money, to acquire knowledge, to gain experience, to retire well.

Instead, he died penniless and without self-respect.

But he was a brilliant man, intellectually. Competent and capable in many areas. There is some evidence which suggests that he may have had ADHD and possibly, that interfered with his ability to remain pointed toward a goal's achievement.

Regardless of why, the object lesson is that it takes time to accomplish things. If something is planned and set into motion it will not happen overnight. But it will happen if it is given the proper time along with all other good things.

I realize there are other variables in real life but the thought experiment succeeds in a fashion which illustrates the need for focus on an end result.

After the planning is done, the growth begins.

Any comments?

--Wag--

Mr. Deity

Okay, you have to check this guy out!

Mr. Deity

--Wag--

Load yourself up!

As a kind of corollary to the post below about efficiencies of organizations with lots of people, I was thinking back on the days when I was most efficient.

Simply put, the more shit I have to do, the more I can get done and the better I get it done.

It's about focus and intensity, I think. When I was working 50 hours a week and taking 18 units in school, I got straight A's and got great reviews at the office. I got everything done, too. That's the amazing part of it.

At times when I didn't have the workload, I got less done. Free time, for some reason, doesn't have the impact on me that lack of time does. Don't get me wrong; I've overloaded from time to time and done poorly. Likewise, there have been times when I had a lot of free time and got a lot done.

There's just something about the urgency of several pressing needs drawing your attention and forcing you to be efficient, organized and to prioritize effectively.

--Wag--

Pessimism

Is pessimism a defense mechanism? The HR director at my new job asserted that it is.

People who are pessimists don't run the risk of getting hurt by plans gone awry. I suppose that if they believe things will go badly and then things DO go badly, they are not disappointed. They may fear that if they hope for something good to happen and it does not, they have to deal with the problem of how to confront the disappointment. Of course, that requires effort. It requires thought and work.

Are pessmists just too lazy to confront their disappointments in a productive way? I leave that to others more intelligent than I to decide.

Pessimists and optimists are born, not created. Look around you. There are those who are optimists in spite of any string of bad luck or in spite of their circumstances. Maybe it's the optimists who are lazy 'cause they don't take the time to review the real horror of their situation! Figure THAT one out, eh?! There are plenty of people who are in dire straits but they're still smiley and still happy. A pessimist would say, "What the hell for? There's no point to it." An optimist would say the same thing about a pessimist, of course!

Still, the pessimist has a good defense mechanism. Just assume everything is fucked and you'll be right quite a bit of the time.

On the other hand, an optimist can look at all the same problems in their lives and assume that everything is still pretty good, okay, and all right and better yet, they're going to improve at any moment!

Gotta love that!

Now and then, you'll see an optimist who has lived with let-downs for an exceptionally long time and they start to exhibit some of the behaviors of the pessimist for a while. But as soon as circumstances improve, they are right back to their usual optimistic self. The pessimist, on the other hand, waits for things to go to hell in a handbasket, of course.

I was born an optimist and raised in a pessimistic envrionment. I learned all the right behaviors of a pessimist. Over the last few years as I've gotten out of that environment, I've been able to realize that maybe I'm an optimist after all. I should rephrase though. I THINK I'm an optimist. The jury is still out on it! We'll see what the verdict is if my life goes to shit for some reason!

--Wag--

New Job

Started a new job on Monday. Nice company, lots of opportunity and potential. I'm looking forward to how it develops in the near and long-term future.

It's a lot bigger company than what I'm used to working in. They have 50 employees and I've been in the habit of working in companies with less than 20 employees. With me, it was always, "The smaller, the better."

After a week at it, I have several observations. One of them is this: With all of the people working there, I find that I and others are hugely burdened with the interruptions of people coming and going and starting extraneous conversations, etc. etc. I find that I have about half as much time to get things done. So far. Also, the burden of communications is increased a great deal which also impairs my ability to get things done.

Here's how it has worked for me in the past. I've always worn several hats due to the small size of the companies I've worked for. I love doing that. I have a lot of power and that translates into an ability to get a lot of things done and get them done quickly. If I put a task on my to do list, it generally only lasts a moment or two because I'm the head of several departments and instead of asking other people questions, I simply answer them myself, tie up the loose ends and move on.

In this larger company, I've discovered that because I have fewer hats to wear, it's more time-consuming to get things answered and resolve the issue at hand. My task list gets a LOT of churning because each task needs to be updated every time something happens to affect that task. Finally, after several trips through the list, a task here and there will pop out which has enough info to finally wrap it up.

Incredible. Different. A learning experience. A challenge in the extreme.

People running around here and there is a problem. Impromptu conversations happen a lot more often and socialization takes up a significant amount of time. Interruptions, both business related and non-business related occur regularly. I'm not 100% sure about others but for myself, if I'm working up to my elbows in a project and I get interrupted, even if it's for a business item, it takes me quite a while to regroup and return to the project when I'm done dealing with the interruption.

So, it got me to thinking: Do business owners and company HR departments attempt to calculate the cost of having MORE employees added to their personnel lists? Is there a cost to having too many employees? Every time you add an employee to your company, are you increasing the amount of time lost to them? What are the costs of more communication interactions between employees?

Are these costs mitigated by narrowly defining the scope of each person's position? If you have a guy whose job is sticking tab A into slot B over and over and over again all day and he only has to interface with one boss, is he going to be the most efficient and effective employee in the company?

Just some basic thoughts. I dont' have a lot of reason to complain about anything just because it's too early in the game to tell. These are just observations generated due to the culture shock I'm experiencing! The reality could just as easily be that I'm having to learn new skills and it's going to just take a little time.

With any luck, I'll come back to this in a year and readdress the questions and the conclusions. I like the long experiments, I just have to remember to follow up!

--Wag--