Why people don't like to open doors

First of all, if you're wondering what the picture's all about, it's Psyche opening the door into Cupid's garden. There ya go.

Anyway, I've noticed an interesting behaviour in students that attend the university I go to. Most of the time, it's in between classes, but what could I be talking about?

It would seem that people don't like to open doors.

I'll give an example to show what I'm talking about. Let's say Person A is walking somewhere, and Person B is about twenty feet behind them. Now, Person A opens the door to a building, and Person B runs to catch the door before it closes.

Yes, there are times when one wouldn't have to open the door because one is walking directly behind someone, but twenty feet away?

It leads me to believe that the students at my uni find opening doors an inconvenience and will do anything, including scrambling for a closing door, to avoid doing it. I mean, why else would this occur?

Now, I'll admit, opening doors is probably one of the most mundane activities one can perform, but when one actually thinks about it, doors are pretty much an amazing invention. I mean, you hear about people with special abilities that can walk through walls or look at a ghost going through the wall and think, "Man, I wish I could do that!" Well, you can. Just open a door. Perhaps if more people thought about this, opening a door would seem like a magical activity and bring back some of the wonder often lost in today's world.

I digress. In any case, it seems odd to me that people would rather run for a closing door to avoid having to open it, rather than not expending the extra effort to run and opening it? Maybe it's a warped version of laziness, maybe it's just people trying to get a small amount of exercise in this hectic world of ours; whatever the reason, I don't get it.

So, perhaps I'll peddle my wares around campus as a doorman; who knows? I might just make a killing.

Why So Weird was cancelled

Okay, so if you haven't heard of it, So Weird was a show that used to be on the Disney Channel back in the late 90's. It was about a girl named Fi Phillips that toured the country with her rockstar mom, brother, a roadie, a tour manager, and their kid. Not only that, but she encountered paranormal phenomena on an almost seemingly regular basis. From Will 'o the Wisps to banshees, she saw it all.

Then, Disney Channel proceeded to wreck the series because they thought it was getting "too dark." So, they brought in new producers, new writers, and the all-new, brighter, more colorful So Weird with blond, up-and-coming Canadian actress Alexz Johnson in place of Fi. Of course, paranormal stuff happened to her, too, but it wasn't as exciting.

Personally, I think Disney dropped the ball on that one, as the practice of cancelling programmes regardless of how popular they were was running rampant at the time. The once-awesome series went out with a clip show, and now there's not so much as a box set out to remember it by. Thank god for this saint of a person who uploaded the episodes to YouTube. Go to http://www.youtube.com/soweirdtv and check it out.

Anyway, I don't get why Disney decided to cancel the programme, as it was amazing the way it was. I guess Disney's neverending quest to be the premiere source of family entertainment got in the way. Whatever it was, it happened and now it's gone, save for YouTube.

I guess one has to take the changing tastes and times into consideration when debating this, as perhaps the swing toward the more boy-band-centric 2000 comes into play. It's a complicated business, as perhaps the "College Hippies" were right when they said that "the Corporations are taking over the world, man." It's odd that boy bands are created by corporations, but I digress.

Perhaps we'll never know why Disney cancelled So Weird, but thank god for YouTube.

Mall parking lots

Well, it seems like malls where I live are pretty cool. I mean, there are stores like Build-A-Bear, the cookie place, and pet shops, not to mention food courts with places that actually serve decent food (one mall has a restaurant with fish tacos that I absolutely love). Sure, the malls are great, but...

...well, it's pretty much the damn parking lots.

One of my friends and I decided to chance a visit to the local mall because she wanted to pick up her favorite hand sanitising spray (it's orange-vanilla scented, but I swear, it smells like the Orange Tylenol Cold & Flu). Anyway, as soon as we got into the outskirts of the parking lot, it was madness.

Apparently, the laws of traffic are lightly regarded, at best, and stop signs seem to be nothing more than decorative signs placed there for mall security's amusement. Disregard for parking lot speed limits runs rampant, and two types of people seem to be dominant: the "I've got to get to that sale in [such-and-such department store] RIGHT NOW," and "I've got to get out of here because I spent too much time looking for that top they advertised." Those kinds of people are hell to be around, even more hellish to drive around.

So, I guess what I don't get is why people, who seem to obey traffic laws for the most part outside of the parking lot, seem to deliberately flout those same laws within the confines of the parking lot? Is that top/pair of jeans/perfume/cologne/whatever REALLY worth almost killing you/your kids/your spouse/everyone around you? Apparently, as people seem to be in a hurry regardless of whether they're coming or going.

Apparently, this phenomenon is extremely bad on the weekends, when soccer moms and single dads have the opportunity to get the kids out of the house and tote them around at the mall, where they look in window displays, admire things they can't afford, and daydream that somehow, through some minute miracle, they aren't lugging around several screaming children who want nothing more than an ice cream cone or cinnamon bun.

Anyway, I wouldn't normally have a problem, except for when I'm almost killed trying to run in for hand sanitiser. I mean, come on people, it's the mall.

Why uncreative people copy creative people

In an age where one can access multitudes of information within seconds, one can also marvel at the creative works of others posted on the world wide web for all to see. This also means that, to an extent, one can copy or rip off those works with a certain degree of anonymity. I mean, who's going to know, right?

What I don't get is why uncreative people do what I've previously mentioned. I understand that in this day and age, there's not much room for originality, but ripping off someone's work, changing the layout/font colours/etc., slapping your name on it and posting it on the internet? Come on.

As far as I know, there isn't another "Things I Don't Get" blog on Blogspot, but I don't know; however, if I were to come across a blog like mine, I would either a) chide them for copying my blog if it was around after mine, or b) delete/alter my blog to make it original.

It's a completely different story, however, when something like the following happens:

Person A writes a blog about things that anger them. Now, Person B posts a blog about things THEY hate and advertises it in their sig on a forum that myself and the other two people I've mentioned frequent. Assuming that 1) Person A's blog has been around longer and 2) Person B willingly copied the idea from Person A's blog, it makes my point painfully obvious.

So why can't people just be original? I mean, is it really that hard?

Actually, I could spiral into a tangent of the percentage of people with below-normal intelligence, but I don't know that I'd like to sit at the computer for that long.

Anyway, I think a big part of it has to do with the shield of anonymity that computers provide. People can go, "MUAHAHA. I AM MONKEYMAN3656 AND I WILL STEAL THIS ARTWORK AND CALL IT MY OWN" simply because either they can or because it's a lot easier than it is in real life to steal things on the interwebz.

-sigh- Seriously, people. Despite the fact that it's so easy to steal other people's work and slap your name on it to post on the internet, don't. Just...don't. Otherwise, it prompts people like me to write blog entries like this.

Oh, and if you're reading this blog and happen to know of another like it, let me know, would you?

Why Spongebob can't get his driver's license

I'm sure everyone has at least heard of Spongebob Squarepants and, if you haven't, I wonder: where have you been for the last few years?

Anyway, if you've seen the show, you know that one of the main running gags behind the show is that Spongebob fails his driving test and has to go to boating school (as they drive boats underwater instead of cars) again and again and again. I love seeing the shenanigans involved with SPongebob crashing his boat, sending his driving instructor, Mrs. Puff, to hospital, and maiming spectators to said shenanigans, but I thought this was blog-worthy.

So, I wonder: why can't poor SPongebob get his driver's license?

He's been to boating school so many times that it's not funny, yet he constantly fails his driving test. In the episode "Boating School," we can see that even Patrick can help him pass, but finding out that what he did (put a walkie-talkie inside his head and had Patrick give him the answers) was cheating caused him to not only feel incredibly guilty, but crash...again.

What I don't get is that even Patrick managed to get his boating license; I mean, come on. Patrick. And he's retarded as all get out.

Now, there was an episode where Mrs. Puff got fired and a new boating instructor was brought in. Spongebob did learn how to drive, albeit blindfolded, but it turned out that he was unteachable.

So, as the driving test isn't that hard (Patrick passed it, for cripes sake), the problem must lie with Spongebob. -shrugs- I guess driving isn't for everyone, apparently, even though he can pedal a unicycle fast enough to keep up with a car.

-sigh- Well, I don't know that Spongebob will ever get his license (he got it once, but that was because Mrs. Puff gave it to him after he completed some "extra credit," which was only because she was so tired of having him in class that she gave him a ten-word essay called "What I learned in boating school is..." and accepted it anyway, despite the fact that Spongebob started to freak out under the pressure. She eventually revoked it, though). If he doesn't, it will make for some more hilarious driving hijinks involving Spongebob, a boat, and surely, massive destruction. If he does...well, the series will probably end.

Cheers.

Katy Perry

Imagine how intrigued I was to hear one day that there was a song called "I Kissed A Girl" by an artist that I'd never heard of before, by the name of Katy Perry. Surprisingly, I managed to avoid even hearing the song until a few weeks ago, when I bit the bullet and looked up the video on YouTube.

I really wish I hadn't, as I haven't been able to get the lyrics to that song out of my head since.

Apparently, Perry's relatively new to the music scene, and she took it by storm with "Kissed A Girl," then with subsequent hits like "Hot 'N' Cold" and "Ur So Gay."

Now, what I don't get is why she's so popular. Yes, her songs are irritatingly catchy, but when one actually listens to the lyrics, one will realize that most of the time, they're just poppy, AABB rhyme scheme lyrics with messages like "I have a boyfriend, but I kissed a girl because I wanted to experiment while drinking, so I hope he doesn't mind, tee hee!" and "Your so gay because of [these reasons] and you don't even like boys just because I said so." I mean, look at the chorus to "I Kissed A Girl:"

I kissed a girl

and I liked it

The taste of her cherry Chapstick

I kissed a girl

just to try it

I hope my boyfriend don't mind it

It felt so wrong

It felt so right

Don't mean I'm in love tonight

I kissed a girl

and I liked it

I liked it

I mean..."The taste of her cherry chapstick?" That doesn't really make sense, as it doesn't fit in with the chorus, and it sounds like, while she really liked kissing this girl, her ideas about "what good girls do" and "what [she's] used to" are interfering with her homosexual tendencies. But, I digress. This isn't a blog about homosexuality.

Oh, on a quick note, there's a part in the song where she praises tributes girls possess, like "skin so touchable" and whatnot. It sounds to me like she REALLY liked kissing this girl (whoever she was, as apparently, her name didn't matter to Perry), but who am I to judge? This is about Perry.

Anyway, I will admit that Perry is attractive, but there's something about her voice that throws me off. Could it be the husky contralto coming out of this skinny white girl's mouth? Perhaps, but I've heard that she can't really sing live, which is disappointing, for reasons that I've listed in my "Amy Lee" blog.

So, it looks to me like Perry's one of those pop singers who will either:

a) have a few more catchy, poppy hits and fade into oblivion like so many before her,

or,

b) have way more poppy, catchy hits and end up having a career akin to Britney Spears.

But, as I can't see the future, I guess we'll have to wait and see. I guess, for now, I'm stuck agonising over how to get that damn song out of my head.

The decline in the quality of Amy Lee's vocals

If you know my tastes in music at all, then you know that Evanescence is my favorite female-fronted band. I got hooked on them back in high school, and I've loved them ever since. I love the guitar riffs, the lyrics, the melodies, basically everything about them.

But...

Ever since Evanescence's latest album, The Open Door, came out, I've noticed a decline in the quality of the frontwoman's (Amy Lee) vocals. Not to say that she's can't sing anymore, but comapred to the vocals on their previous albums, the quality's gone downhill.

I mean, look at Bring Me To Life (Fallen). Amy holds the ending note for a good long while, and her voice sounds incredible the entire time. Then you look at a song like Sweet Sacrifice (The Open Door), and the soprano notes she holds are just...lacking. I recall reading reviews of Fallen that said Amy's vocals were "soaring," "beautiful," and "haunting." Why couldn't she have carried that over to The Open Door?

One main difference I noticed (besides the vocal quality) between The Open Door and Fallen was the change in musical style the band went through with the departure of one of the cofounders, Ben Moody. While he was the guitarist, the songs were more alternative hard rock. On The Open Door, where Lee had more creative control over what the songs sounded like, it progressed in a different direction that's more indicative of Lee's style as a musician. If you don't know what I'm talking about, listen to The Open Door and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I surmise that the decline in the quality of Lee's vocals is due to the change in their style. In The Open Door, she tends to put a lot more power behind her singing, which draws away from the quality. Come on, Amy, where are the sweeping, soaring vocals we heard and loved in Going Under and Bring Me To Life? They've been replaced by power soprano notes, sadly.

Another thing about Lee's vocals that I don't understand is why they sound so bad in concert. I had the pleasure of attending Family Values 2007 last year when it came to my town and, I must say, while I was overjoyed at getting to see one of my favorite bands perform live for the first time, I wasn't very impressed with Lee's singing. I have talked to many other Ev-heads (fans of Evanescence) and they've agreed with me: Amy sounds nowhere nearly as good live as she does on the albums. This makes me sad, as one of the biggest marks of a good band is the ability to sound good live. I must admit, though, during the early acoustic performances of songs from Fallen, her voice sounded amazing. It must be all that moving around on stage, as she sounds good in acoustic performances where she's just sitting at the piano.

So, to sum it up, although this doesn't put me off from liking Evanescence and won't prevent me from getting extremely excited when they finally put out another album, it still makes me wonder constantly.