Jason Harris

My Response to "the Response"

2011-08-07T00:19:44Z

http://www.fitz-claridge.com/Articles/MotherTeresa.htmlFirst of all, people have the right to an assembly... so, let them assemble. I'd say the same thing to a bunch of Christians protesting a Freedom From Religion conference. While I do feel that "the response" was not biblical, they had every right to assemble. It's the U.S.A. for Pete's sake.

Below are my responses to some of the (ridiculous) posters held by protesters at the event.

1. "We Demand Equality Now" - I'm assuming from the rainbow drawn on the poster that this was in reference to Gay Rights.

2. "Texas GOP: Serving the Rich, Screwing Everyone Else" -

3. "The BIBLE, taken literally, is a HORROR."

4. "Didn't a Governor Execute Jesus" - No. He gave the authority to the Sanhedrin.

5. "Support Diversity" - What I'm afraid this amounts to is, "We're all correct, about what we believe, so we should all accept what everyone else believes." I would ask those people, is that right, because it isn't for me, and if it's not for me but it is for you... wait...

6. "Hate is NOT Holy" - Yes. I agree. Did some Christian say hate was holy? Well, that guy is an idiot, and if you think all Christians subscribe to this doctrine, you are too. I don't assume all atheists think mother Teresa was an evil hate machine, so don't assume that I subscribe to every foolish brew of politics and shitty theology spewed out by the GOP. IF I HAVE TO TELL ONE MORE PERSON THAT I DON'T HATE GAY PEOPLE I'M GONNA FLIP OUT.

Natural Things - Part 1

2011-07-06T17:51:35Z

Currently, there seems to be an obsession with what is natural. I have no problem with this. What I do have a problem with, is this silly notion that everything natural should be completely and carelessly embraced.

Many people choose not to have sex before they're married. Many oppose such an action on the grounds that it is an act of repression on one's natural sexuality. Concealed within the opposition's alarmingly simple argument is a blundering assumption. By making the above statement, the opposition is ignorant of the fact that they are also arguing that everything that exists within any natural system is safe for interaction.

Please recall for a moment, a tiger. A tiger happens to be a very natural thing. Were you to embrace it, it might embrace back, but not with the same inviting warmth of a hug. Like sex, a tiger is a beautiful creature. When I see a tiger at the zoo, I often think to myself, "How cool would it be to have my own pet tiger? It looks so cuddly from this distance! I'm sure I could domesticate it and teach it to love me and not eat my face." Then, using my brain, I rationalize that this in fact would not be a good idea. It wouldn't be good for me, and it wouldn't be good for the tiger. I consider myself; I consider the tiger.

It's Laaaate

2011-03-29T11:43:42Z

If you haven't heard the song "It's Late" by Queen, you should download it immediately. Speaking of being late, it's 4:43 AM right now. I'm not going to go to bed, because I need to move my car before 8AM so I don't get a ticket from the lovely people over at the Buena Park Police Department.

Something has been on my mind lately. The other day, I was listening to "Gotta Serve Somebody" by Bob Dylan. The song is based on the idea that no person on earth goes about their lives without giving precedence to one object over all others. The more I think about it, the more clearly I can see how Dylan's theory holds true. By examining my own life, and quietly observing the lives of others, it's very clear to me that we all worship something, and that our lives depend on serving somebody, or something. The question is, why do we have this deep set longing to give recognition to the things that we love? I thought humanity was supposed to be inherently selfish?

The Show Ponies

2011-02-08T21:56:02Z

For the millions of people that read this blog (sarcasm):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcG4-SOS_dA&feature=player_embedded

They're called the show ponies, and I'm predicting a worldwide take over for them. Anyways, I'll be producing their debut album and we're trying to get a buzz going, so if you like it, repost it!

Goodbye for now.

Attn: Mr. Liam Neeson and Mark Johnson

2011-01-21T07:15:32Z

It's not about you, Mr. Neeson; it's about honoring the creator. It doesn't matter what the piece means to you, it only matters what the author meant when he wrote it.

It is your job to act responsibly when interpreting a character meant for a certain purpose. What that means, is that you don't have your own interpretation that fits with your own worldview, but that you demonstrate artistic integrity by interpreting the character as it was intended by the originator. The creator is king.

If an interpreter of any work of art feels that he is any more than the bottle in which the message is sent, he has a monumental issue, and zero integrity.

Talk to Old People.

2010-12-19T19:54:09Z

You can only learn so much from people your age. Talk to old people, they know more than you.

About this facebook movie...

2010-10-10T05:46:04Z

We used to wait until people were dead to do bio-flicks about them. It seems this way of thinking has become old fashion.

On thursday night I saw The Social Network, a film which tells the story of Facebook founders Mark Zuckerburg and Eduardo Saverin. It was very well done, and because of that, I think it's fairly safe to assume that it's going to be a pretty big hit amongst both avid movie goers and Facebook users. Upon finishing the movie and exiting the theater, I began to wonder how accurate the movie actually was and in my own research, using highly credible sources like wikipedia, and a fairly lengthy Vanity Fair article regarding Sean Parker, I found that taking Aaron Sorkin's script as one would an objective reporters column, would be one hell of a mistake.

In doing my independent 'research' I learned two things that caused me to question the Social Networks motives: 1) no members of the Facebook staff were interviewed by anyone involved in the movie and 2) the script is roughly based on a book by Ben Mezrich entitled The Accidental Billionaires, a book which the New York Times labeled as being more 'juicy gossip' than actual reporting. It's also interesting to note that the one consultant to Mezrich when he was writing the book which the movie is based on, was Eduardo Saverin, who most would say is the protagonist in the film. He is portrayed as virtuous, honest and wholesome, all attributes which bare a stark contrast to the characteristics of screenwriter Aaron Sorkin's versions of Zuckerburg and Parker, both of whom are represented as people who seem to be motivated more by fame, greed and power than anything else.

Here's what's troubling me: It's very likely that Sorkin's version of the story is equal parts rubbish and truth, and that an entire generation of people, who don't bother to or don't care to do some individual research will grow up thinking that this is how events truly transpired, and the reputations of two people (Parker and Zuckerburg) will forever be tarnished because of it. I cannot say I know if this is a truly objective representation of what happened, or if it's complete crap, but what I can say, is that when dealing with someone's reputation, one should be as careful as possible. A damaged reputation, especially one damaged by false accusations, can ruin lives. Mark Zuckerburg, Eduardo Saverin and Sean Parker are all people. Yes, they have more money than most people will ever make if they lived their lives ten times, but as we all know, money doesn't fix everything.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes people need to get their feelings hurt. I'm not a pacifist. But why can't we count on our close friends to do that for us in private when we need it? Why can't we just wait until people die before we make movies about them like we did in the old days?

Wisdom from the Duke.

2010-10-05T01:08:15Z

"If it sounds good it is good."

Taste is a funny thing. If it fits your taste, does that mean it is good? If you don't think it sounds good, but someone else does, is it bad? Or is it good because at least one person thinks it sounds good?

It's widely accepted that just because someone likes something, does not mean that something is a good thing. For example, some people like killing people, does that make it good? This brings up an interesting question: Is there some music that we like, that we shouldn't like because it is not good? If so, what are the parameters that establish whether or not music is good or bad? Are 'good' and 'bad' moral terms in this conversation, or are they just standards applied to music by individuals?

Tweets about religion or politics

2010-08-10T16:33:09Z

I made a brief note in my last post about religion and politics and how micro-blogging is not the best medium to express such opinions on these two very important subjects. I wanted to clarify that I do not believe that these topics should not be discussed in cyberspace at all, I only meant to say that there are better mediums for discussing them than a medium that requires that you only use 140 characters at a time. I'd like to take this chance to elaborate on why Twitter is not the best service for discussing these two delicate subjects.

140 characters are simply not enough to convey any substantial sort of political or religious point. Conversations regarding religion and politics are already difficult in person, especially if you're discussing them with someone whose views differ from your own. Why make them so much more difficult by putting such limitations on the discussion? During the Lincoln Presidency, Frederick Douglas and Lincoln would have political debates lasting entire work days, and they still felt that they needed more time to discuss the depths of what they wanted to say.

No idea is simple enough to justifiably defended in 140 characters. Imagine how unsuccessful Pascal's argument for the divine wager would been had he attempted to explain it in only 140 characters or how inconclusive Einstein's theory of relativity would have seemed in only 140 characters. On simpler terms, ask yourself the question, 'Do I believe in God' answer the question, then try to put into 140 characters why you do or do not believe in God. Show some close friends (particularly the ones who oppose your view) and ask them how many objections they have to your reasons for believing in God. I think you'll find that they'll have plenty of objections that you could've answered with a better medium.

I'm not saying we should try not to offend people. Sometimes people need to be offended. I'm saying that we should look to discuss things such as religion and politics using less limited mediums for doing so.

That's my two cents.

My Three Least Favorite Things About Southern California

2010-07-13T05:24:29Z

Don't worry I'll include a "favorite things about southern california" list later. I'll just need a LOT more time to think about it.

1. Too much sun - Any of the infamous leathery-skinned cougars that occupy the region would tell you that the sun is the best thing about Southern California, as would any one who has some sort of seasonal depression disorder. However, my skin is healthy and the rain makes me happy. I'm not even asking for flash-flooding (which can be just as annoying as too much sunshine) I'd just like to see a little bit more contrast in the weather. The sun can't be beautiful every day, you need the rain to remind you that it's beautiful.

2. Congestion - I would say traffic, but to be honest, it really doesn't bother me as much as it does some people. However, I do find myself being annoyed by it at sometimes, so I'll include it in a broader category: Congestion. Being from Houston, I'm used to being able to drive about 15 minutes to open spaces (fields, trees, nature in general). This is something I wish I would have taken more advantage of when I lived there. Since everyone and their mother wants to live in Southern California, such luxuries cannot be afforded around here. Even if you don't utilize these luxuries, it's nice to know that you can go somewhere else at a reasonably close distance besides your room when you just want to get away from people.

3. Douche bags - There is an alarming amount of douche-bagery committed in this region. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of douche-bags in Texas, but this area is saturated with them. Most californians refer to them as "bros" rather than douche-bags, but don't let the name fool you, they're douche-bags. Here are the characteristics that make up what a southern california douche-bag or "bro" is: 1) Crippling insecurities which lead to a need for validation in all the aspects of life that don't matter (clothing, automobile, the appearance of being tough), 2) Huge biceps and skinny legs (countless hours spent on sculpting the money muscles and ignoring all others. In other words, if you find yourself having to fight one, kick 'em in the knees.), 3) a strong belief in their innate ability to compete in the Ultimate Fighting Championships, and 4) a tendency to act like an idiot, regardless of their actual IQ (although I would imagine it's usually pretty low).

Of course I'm missing some popular ones (rude people, USC football fans, pollution, soap-boxery, the lakers, name-dropping etc.) but these are my three least favorite things about Southern California.

Don't stone me.

2010-07-08T19:42:02Z

This post will offend a significant portion of the people that I know and love. If you like Bob Dylan, and don't like getting riled up, stop reading.

This morning, I went to Borders to look for a book about basic electronics (as of late I've become interested in such things). I bought no such book. Instead, I bought four items having nothing to do with electronics. As I perused the music section, I noticed a very annoying thing. There was a grand total of ONE queen album and FIFTEEN separate Bob Dylan records (including that abysmal excuse for a christmas album he released last year). I'm not at all slamming Borders. It doesn't take an MBA to know that as a business, you should stock what sells. Rather, my criticism is directed towards the consumer. It seems that an overwhelming majority prefer Bob Dylan to Queen, and that is a travesty.

Before you Dylan disciples begin to angrily hurl insults at me, let me clarify one thing. This is not a discussion about finding more books by Freddy Mercury than Bob Dylan in the poetry section. You'd have to be crazy to give the nod to Mercury over Dylan in that regard. This is a discussion regarding one question in particular: How is Bob Dylan, with his mediocre skills as a musician and frankly terrible voice and equally terrible harmonica playing selling more records than Queen, arguably the most musically advanced rock group of their time as well as ours?

At another time, I'll give my own explanation, but for now, I'd like to hear yours. For my money, I'd much rather hear actual musicians covering Bob Dylan songs than hear Bob Dylan play them himself.

One more clarification: I'm not saying that there's not an appeal to Dylan's music. There certainly is. I just don't think he holds a candle to Queen's music.