Top 13 Disney Princesses

Currently the Disney princess line up consists of eleven princesses plus Anna and Elsa who will be added next year. I decided to rank them based on their personalities and their actions in their movies. I will list them from bottom to top.

13. Aurora

She is asleep for half of her movie and is the definition of the princess stereotype.

12. Snow White

She is dead for half of her movie. The reason I ranked her above Aurora is because of her kindness towards the dwarves. She is a nice motherly figure.

11. Pocahontas

 I give her credit that she does do things in her movie, but I just do not find her interesting.

10. Cinderella

It is true that in her movie all the good things come to her. However, I do find myself satisfied that she is rewarded for her suffering. I like the way she does pull through the torment brought onto her by her evil stepmother.

9. Ariel

Ariel is adventurous and does what ever it takes to get what she wants, but her decisions are pretty stupid. To risk your life for a guy, who does not even know you exist is not worth it. Also she does not really learn anything. Eric is the one that solves her problems by killing Ursula.

8, Merida 

I give Pixar credit for making an independent princess, but she could have been a lot better. My main problem with her is that she comes off as whiny and unnecessarily mean to her mother. She also does not use her bow and arrow skills that much. However, she does become a better person at the end of her movie by learning to appreciate her mother. 

7. Jasmine

She is probably the most down to Earth princess out of all the princesses. She has a great chemistry with the male lead. I like how in the beginning she is rebellious and does not fall for Prince Ali at first sight. However, she does have to be saved at the end like any stereotypical princess.

6. Rapunzel

She is Ariel done right. She is adventurous, funny, and likable. She also has good chemistry with the male lead.

5. Tiana

It is nice to see a princess who works 24/7. She teaches girls that they have to work hard in order to make their dreams come true. She also is one of the very few princesses who actually defeat the villain at the end.

4. Elsa

Actually she is a queen, but Disney put her in the princess line up anyway. She is the most complex and has the darkest past. She does play an antihero role for a bit, which is unique to her. In the beginning of the movie she is repressed by society and then is finally free, so she does not want to come back. Her song, “Let It Go” is one of the best Disney songs. I also like the relationship between her and her sister, Anna because she loves her sister.

3. Anna

While she is not as complex as her sister, Elsa she has more likable character traits. The relationship between her and Elsa is done really well. Especially when she sacrifices herself to save Elsa at the end of the film as an act of true love. In the beginning of the movie she is more like a parody of a Disney princess, which makes her funny. As the movie goes on her character becomes more defined. I like how in the end she is the one that solves the problems, not the male lead.

2. Belle

She is perfect; the girl that every guy wishes to have. While she does not have any faults, she does have several character traits that prevent her from being boring. She is an example of how strong female characters do not have to be physically strong. They just have to be well written.

1. Mulan

Mulan has all the qualities of a good character and she kicks ass. She controls her destiny through out the entire movie. She does not have to rely on a man at any point. As the movie progresses she becomes a stronger character. She teaches us that society cannot tell people where their place is. You can do anything if you work hard enough.

Is Beyonce Using An Audio Clip From The Challenger Disaster Insensitive?

By now you have all probably heard of the criticism Beyonce is receiving for using an audio clip from the Challenger disaster in her new song "XO". Some people say it is insensitive, others say it is fine.

This raises a good question. Should artists be considerate of other people when they express themselves? In controversies like this people say that the artist has their right to express themselves in anyway they choose. Art can be provocative. I agree that artists no matter what they believe should be able to express themselves, however they can still cross the line. There was no reason to have the Challenger audio clip in "XO". The clip does not relate to the song. You could take out the audio clip and the song would not be effected at all. The reason that clip is there is so people will complain and the song will get attention, which is clearly working. Beyonce claims the song is supposed to be in on honor of the Challenger victims, but that is clearly not the case. The song is about a relationship. There is no reference to the Challenger disaster in the lyrics or video. I question if she even knew the audio clip was from the Challenger disaster. It should also be noted that the families of the victims of the Challenger disaster and the NASA people connected to it are greatly offended, but that is expected.

Artists have power in this world. By being provocative some artists can raise awareness to important issues. However, in cases like this the artist is only seeking attention, which makes them insensitive to those effected by the tragedy.

Is Lip-Syncing A Big Deal?

Recently Britney Spears has gotten criticized by accusations that she lip-synced during her recent show. I remember when Beyonce received the same criticism when she sang the national anthem in January. Personally, I do not think lip syncing is a big deal.

I want to start by pointing out that a lot of modern artists do this. It is the same with auto tune. I understand people feeling cheated by lip-syncing because they pay to see the artist perform and the artist is not really giving their all into it. However, artists in some cases might be too exhausted to give a proper performance. People used this arguement to defend Beyonce. No one wants  to pay an expensive fee to hear their artist sing lousily. People are satisfied as long as they hear the songs they want and the show is entertaining.

If people are willing to forgive a guy who beat his girlfriend, then people should also be willing to forgive a singer for lip-syncing one or two performances. However, if you are offended by lip-syncing then I can see where you are coming from.

Will The New RoboCop Movie Fail?

Recently I watched the original RoboCop movie. It was great. Naturally, I watched the trailers for the upcoming 2014 movie to see how it compared to the original. In the trailers I definitely noticed some changes they have made from the original story.

First of all I have no problem with a RoboCop remake. RoboCop is a superhero like Batman, so it makes sense for Hollywood to create another movie. I do like the updated effects and how they will connect the movie to current issues such as drones and terrorists.

The first significant change people have noticed is RoboCop's new appearance. He is now black instead of the classic silver color. I do not hate the new look, but I question the change. The new look does not make RoboCop look better. I would have preferred him to look more like he originally did.

The second significant change is how Alex Murphy gets injured. In the original Murphy is brutally shot multiple times by the villains, but in the new movie he is it by a car bomb. The change probably has to due with the fact they were going for a PG-13 rating, which I will discuss later. The new scene definitely is weak compared to the original scene, but the movie is not ruined because of it.

The third significant change is that Murphy's family is still around. In the original his family leaves after the funeral. I will not say it was a terrible decision to keep the family around, but I would prefer if his family was not. In the original when Murphy finds out about his past and that his wife has moved on is a powerful scene. You feel sorry for the guy. To have the family around could work for the man vs machine internal struggle the new movie is going for. Or it could make it cliched.

The fourth significant change is the rating. The original movie was rated R and this movie is rated PG-13. To me this means the actions scenes will be unimaginative. Just explosions and gun shots. The action in the original movie was awesome. I thought the blood and gore added to the movie's comic book feel. An R rating also allows for more gruesome and creative ways for the villains to die.

Overall I am looking forward to this movie despite the changes that have been made so far. I like how they are not just remaking the original, but adding a modern spin to it. I appreciate that they are going a different direction. However, I do question some of the changes. If they made the changes they made because they thought it would make a better movie then that is fine, but if they made those changes to make RoboCop look like other movies then that is not okay. RoboCop was its own thing and it should stay that way. Some people are already saying this movie sucks, but they should give it a chance.

Why Chinatown's Ending is Brilliant

"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown." That's the famous closing line of the movie, Chinatown. As I watched the ending I felt empty inside. The movie just ends. There is no satisfying resolution. The bad guy wins, the end. The ending is especially disturbing because earlier in the movie you find out the villain raped his daughter. His daughter had a baby as a result. In the end the bad guy steals away the child (possibly planning to rape her) and the daughter he raped is shot as she tries to escape.

As the credits rolled I thought about what I had just seen. Then I realized why the ending was so brilliant. It was because it made me think about the its themes. Chinatown is based around the corruption of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, so some of the characters are based on actual people. The bad guy is based on a real person, however he is fictionalized heavily. Point being that in real life the bad guys won. Why have a happy ending in the movie if the bad guys won in real life?  The sad ending is necessary because it raises awareness.

Corruption from government and corporations happens daily and they win. Most movies have them lose, so in a way it ignores those issues. Almost to say corruption does not exist anymore. However, Chinatown is brutally honest and says in real life the bad guys win. That's why the line, "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown", is so effective. It provokes an emotion out of you. You do not want to forget about it. You care about the two leads and you want them to succeed. You want the bad guy to be punished. However, the movie does not satisfy you with that. Which is why it has the perfect ending.

Is Die Hard the Best Christmas Movie Ever?

The answer is yes! There is no Christmas movie like Die Hard out there. The hero, John McClane risks his life to save his wife and other people from terrorists. Is Christmas not about putting others before yourself? Hans Gruber, the villain of the film represents greed. His death in the end symbolizes that those who are greedy will be punished. Die Hard is one of the best action movies of all time and the best Christmas action movie of all time. How many Christmas movies have this much ass kicking in them? "Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker" should become the common holiday saying instead of "happy holidays".

So, Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers! I hope you have had a merry Christmas and will have a happy New Year!

Top 10 Male Disney Songs

Disney has so many great songs. The most famous ones are from the females or duets, but I decided to focus on the songs sung by the males. Here is my list of the top ten Disney songs sung by males.

10. In Summer from Frozen

This song is funny. It is sung by a snowman named Olaf, who wants to experience summer. I cannot help, but giggle every time I hear the lyrics; I’ll finally see a summer breeze, blow away a winter storm. And find out what happens to solid water when it gets warm! The melody is also very nice and Josh Gad's delivery is perfect.

9. Out There from The Hunchback of Notredame

I like the dynamics of this song. The song starts off with Frollo's cruel, soothing voice. He tells Quasimodo to stay inside because the outside world will never accept him. However, the second half of the song that is sung by Quasimodo is completely opposite in tone and style. Quasimodo's booming voice of hope creates a cheery and upbeat mood. I actually like how the appealing aspect of the song is not Quasimodo's singing ability, but the emotion behind it.

8. Gaston from Beauty and the Beast

I wish the people in my town sung about me like this. What better way to cheer up a man than to tell him he is the best thing ever?

7. Be Prepared from The Lion King

A great villain song. A song sung by a jealous and enraged villain named Scar. The song has a tango like beat to it, which makes it upbeat. I like how the song builds up and intensifies into a great war chant.

6. Prince Ali from Aladdin

Robin Williams is awesome. This is an upbeat party song. Williams can flawlessly weave in several impressions so fluently. He also has a nice, booming voice.

5. Under the Sea from The Little Mermaid

It was a tough choice between this one and the last song. However, I chose this song over Prince Ali because it is more upbeat overall and catchy. I always get this song stuck in my head all day even if I just listen to part of it.

4. Friend Like Me from Aladdin

All I can say is this song is Robin Williams at his best.

3. Friends on the Other Side from The Princess and the Frog

Keith David has one of the most bad ass voices ever. This villain song is dark, groovy, and catchy. The ending gives me goose bumps.

2. Why Should I Worry from Oliver and Company

Many people probably do not know this song. It is from one of Disney's least known films. However, it is very memorable. The song is sung by Billy Joel. When ever I play this song when I walk through town I feel like a boss. My favorite part of the song is when Joel sings, The rhythm of the city. Boy, once you get it down. Then you can own this town. You can wear the crown.

1. I'll Make a Man Out of You from Mulan

No one should be surprised this is the number one song. What else could it be? This is the manliest song on Earth. Nothing beats the chorus. (Be a man) We must be swift as the coursing river.
(Be a man) With all the force of a great typhoon. (Be a man)
With all the strength of a raging fire. Mysterious as the dark side of the moon!

Percy Jackson Needs A Reboot. Now!

Why did Hollywood have to kill Percy Jackson? They took this book series that was fresh and turned it into mediocrity. The films are trying to be Harry Potter with Greek mythology. I admit the series does have similarities to Harry Potter. The main trio in both series is filled with one boy who has to fulfill a prophecy, a smart girl, and a doofus. However, Rick Riordan told the story in a unique and funny way that made it different from Harry Potter.

The movies do not try to utilize the creativity of the series at all. Looking at the trailers the movies do not feel special. They look generic. I cannot believe how badly Hollywood messed up the basics. I understand that movies will be different from the books they are based on. Directors need to make cuts and changes. What makes a good book, does not necessarily make a good movie. They are too different forms of entertainment. Changes are expected, but I also expect that the basic concepts will be there.

Why did they not put Ares in the first movie? Why did they not hire a younger actor to play Percy so the prophecy could stay at sixteen? Why do the campers use technology? Hollywood messed up the plot to both movies so bad. I just do not get why they made these awful changes. Imagine if I made my own version of The Lord of the Rings that did not have Saruman, Legolas, Gollum, none of the major battles, and the ring gave Frodo the ability to breath fire.

I cannot express how important it is for a movie based on a book to be good. Americans are reading less and less, so they are not going to take the time to read something like Percy Jackson. They will most likely be introduced to the series through the movie. If the movie is bad and not true to the book, then the viewer will have a false conception of the original source material and judge that the books must be bad since the movie is bad. It is no wonder why the second movie did so poorly. Not only did the fans of the series did not want to see it, but people who saw and heard about the first movie lost interest as well.

I do not think there is anyone out there that wants the current movie series to continue. The Percy Jackson series needs a complete reboot like what Sony did to Spider-Man.

Why I Hate Hercules and Frankenstein

                

I hate Hercules and Frankenstein. Not the characters, but the movies that will be released next year under the title of those names. There will actually be two Hercules movies in 2014. Both of these movies will not even follow the original myth. Hollywood made up a story and slapped Hercules' name on to it. The Legend of Hercules movie should actually be called the The Legend of Heracles because they are basing it (very loosely) of the Greek story. It looks like the Disney movie will remain as the most accurate film adaption of Hercules. Why does Hollywood not make a movie based on the actual story? Why completely make one up? I think a movie based on the actual myth would be really good. The Frankenstein movie has nothing to do with the book at all. Frankenstein is not even the actual name of the monster. Hollywood is going to have him fight these gargoyle creatures.

Why did Hollywood have to use the names of Frankenstein and Hercules for their movies? I realize it is to attract audiences, but in reality it makes audiences not want to see the movie. The movie becomes a box office bomb before it is released. Why not create a new character? The character could be inspired by Frankenstein or Hercules, but are given traits that make them unique. It would actually benefit the movie more. The movies look generic enough already. Now they look stupid because they stole the name of a famous character. The fact they were too lazy to come up with an original name for their character is a bad sign.

I understand Hollywood wanting to adapt timeless characters. That practice has been around since the beginning of the movie industry. The original Frankenstein movie was different from the book. However, the difference is that the original movie had the basic concept of the book and told it in a new way. Yes, the story is not the same, but the main themes are there and explored. Disney does the same in their movies. However, these new Hollywood movies do not give a crap about the original source material at all. They just want money.

Has Obama Been A Let Down This Year?

In 2007, Barack Obama was elected as the nation's first black president, who in the future will probably known as the first biracial president. I remember Democrats treated Obama as their Ronald Reagan. People in my liberal town saw him as a savior. Obama had huge goals for this country. However, once Obama found out he could not shut down Guantanamo Bay, it became clear that his promises were a little too grand. He did make progress, but he fell short. In the beginning of his presidency people were blaming George W. Bush for leaving Obama in a tight spot. By the election people were beginning to see his flaws. Fortunately for Obama, he was up against what had to be the worst selection of Republican nominees in history. He was reelected, but this time he is being watched more carefully by the public. Some people have said, "it is like people have finally realized Bush is not in office anymore".

This was the roughest year for Obama. Republicans were bashing him for Benghazi. Then Republicans had him on the IRS scandal. However, that was really just the Republicans bashing him.

The first big scandal was the NSA leaks. I do not think anyone was surprised the NSA was spying on Americans, but Edward Snowden gave an official confirmation. Snowden's story is a classic rebel vs government. Obama came across as a bad guy because people did not see Snowden as a Benedict Arnold. The government was the one lying to us. It was the Benedict Arnold. Now it has been revealed that the government is looking at people's web history and the NSA agents have been using their technology to spy on their crushes. At a recent White House press conference, a reporter asked Obama to name one time the NSA stopped a terrorist attack with their tactics. Obama completely dodged the question. Instead he answered by saying what the NSA is supposed to be doing with people's information. This scandal has made people lose trust in the government. Especially since Obama expanded the NSA program when he had promised to end it during his campaign.

Then Obama threatened to go to war with Syria. That was a stupid move. No one wanted to go to war. The war campaign completely failed. This high lighted how America's mission of democratic peace was becoming more of a military movement in the Middle East. It was Russia's Vladimir Putin that made peace, not America. Syria proved that America should not try to solve conflicts in the Middle East by itself. Problems should be solved in a diplomatic solution, contributed by all parties. The recent talks with Iran are a step in the right direction.

Finally we have the disastrous Obama Care website roll out. The whole scenario seemed comedic like a joke you see in a South Park episode. This was Obama's big mark as a president and he blew it. It is like if Usain Bolt tripped and fell over at the start of an Olympic race. Maybe Obama rushed the website because he wanted to do something good this year.

This year was not a good start for Obama, but he still has three more years ago. I think he has showed signs that he learned from his mistakes, but I will not get my hopes too high up.

Why Is It Bad To Be Naked?

According to the FCC and The Rating Board, seeing a girl's breast is too inappropriate for children, but seeing Mufassa's dead corpse is fine? In real life would you rather see a girl's breast or a dead lion's corpse? Death is way more scarring to children. My uncle died when I was in third grade and that changed me forever. Violence is also apparently less scarring to children than seeing a naked body according to the rating system. Lets expose our children to watching people punch, kick, slash, and even shoot each other. Why does the media always blame video games and not movies when violent acts happen? In movies violence is glorified. So why is it that nakedness is so bad? Everyone already knows what both genders look like naked. We are taught about sex education in elementary school.

It is funny when you think about it. When man was first created, we had no clothes. Everyone walked around naked. No one was ashamed of their nakedness. Humans did where clothes, but the reason they wore them was to stay warm, not because they were embarrassed of their nudity. Over time nakedness became shameful. Maybe it is because people wore clothes more and more, so seeing a naked body became uncommon and uncomfortable. 

The real source comes from the Puritan values that serve as the basis of philosophy for Americans. I am sure the other parts of the world has something similar. Puritans were very strict about sexual behavior. Two books that do a good job of covering Puritanism are The Scarlett Letter and Tess of the D'urbervilles. In those books the women are held to a standard. In Tess of the D'urbervilles, Angel immediately abandons Tess when he finds out she is not a virgin. Point being that reproductive organs are bad to be seen because they imply sex. If everyone walked around naked would sex rates go up? I would not be surprised if they did. I think it is interesting how humans start off carefree and naked, but overtime become strict and embarrassed.  

I am not saying everybody should be naked all the time. By now society has beaten into us that nakedness is bad for so long. It might seem hypocritical, but I would defiantly not strip naked publicly. However, for movies I think it should be different. I can understand not wanting kids to reenact sexual behavior, but flashing a breast for two seconds will not make children perverted. It is human nature to think about sex anyway. Our main priorities as a species is to survive and reproduce. The rating system should either give equally strict ratings to violence or become less strict with nudity, so it balances out.  

How to Fix Congress

Recently John Boehner made a compromise with Democrats. While he did not get what the Republicans wanted, he did keep our government functioning. However, his party refuses to see past what they did not get and insult him. Republicans call him weak. There were similar complaints when Boehner was seeking reelection as Speaker of the House. However, despite their complaints, the Republicans chose to reelect him again.

Recently it was announced that this congress was the worst congress in American History. Some politicians defend themselves by arguing that people should focus on what they have stopped the country from doing. I do not think Congress should just blindly pass legislation, but it seems that they do not plan on passing any legislation.

In order for a democracy to work there has to be compromise. No party is ever going to completely get what they want. In Congress a person is seen as a traitor if they agree with the other side on even just one issue. New comers to Congress must be pressured to not compromise. It is a bad lesson that is being passed down.

The truth is there is no person out there who is 100% liberal or conservative. Human nature is inconsistent. If everyone thought one way then we would not have made the progress which makes America great. We still have a lot of work to do to fix this country and we will not solve anything being stubborn.

What congress needs is a generation of new, younger politicians. People who understand the difficulties of our generation. These current, old congressmen have no idea how people really feel. There are younger politicians out there, but none of them want to enter Congress because they feel like they will not accomplish anything. I understand Congress must be like Hell, but those people need to get in there and fix things.

It is time for the American people to have their voices heard. So have peaceful protests, march on Washington, convince people to contact your representative, or even better, threaten to not reelect your current representative. Politicians care about their power and image more than anything. If you apply enough pressure on them, they will give in. Take a good look at your current representative and ask yourself if they have done what you wanted. If the answer is no, then do not reelect them. Americans need to start a new movement. However, lets not get crazy like the 70s.

I will end this blog with the lyrics from the Bob Dylan song; The Times They Are A-Changin.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Do We Hate On Teen Pop Stars Too Much?

Since I was born, I have witnessed the world's hatred for teen pop stars. I remember hearing about Britney Spears' break down in elementary school. I joined in with the crowd and called Spears a psychopath. Middle School was when the hatred for teen stars really rose. Those years were spent bashing bashing Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus, and the Jonas Brothers. Other teen pop stars have become main stream since then and now with One Direction's popularity, we could see the rise of boy bands again. However, I have to question why people hate teen pop stars. Is the hate justified or is just unnecessary bullying?

I am not going to say teen pop star songs are good. I have never heard one I would buy on my iPod. However, these singers win over the younger crowds for a few reasons. The first is that teen pop songs are catchy. One Direction songs are perfectly composed to ensure that a person will never forget them. Teens are attracted to these songs like moths to a light. They do not pay attention to the actual lyrics. I remember when the song, Low, came out. It was not a teen pop song, but it had the same effect. These days in order to achieve instant success in the music industry you just need to write a catchy chorus to make millions.

Another reason teen pop stars are appealing to their audience is because they represent what girls want to have. It is no secret girls are 99% of the fan base for teen stars. Selena Gomez has what girls see in a Disney princess. Beauty, money, and success. As a kid almost everyone I knew at one point talked about how they wanted to be rich. I did. Boy pop stars always appeal to the romantic fantasy of girls. Telling girls they are their dream guy and telling girls they are the perfect girl for that boy singer.

What I want to call into question is the message these stars put out for young girls. When Bieber's song, Baby, came out I remember people saying "that kid should get shot" and "that guy is such a faggot". I am not trying to say the song was good, but I do not think the message behind the song was bad. It was just a silly love song. The Beatles wrote similar songs when they started out. Everyone wanted Rebcca Black dead when she released, Friday. That was just meant to be fun party song.  I do not see why some people are willing to forgive Chris Brown, but hate on One Direction.

I do feel like people hate on stars too much sometimes. As long as the pop star is not teaching bad morals to kids then they should not be hated on. There are people in this world, who are more deserving of hate. Especially since some stars do not know better. They are being manipulated behind the scenes by their producers. They are behaving like they are told to. Some stars are forced to take over a false identity and struggle being held to that image. I am not saying stars should blame their actions on others, but it is something to consider.

Everyone predicted Beiber and Cyrus' downward spiral into drugs and public stunts. However, I wonder if society had doomed them from the start. Maybe they felt like they had to go downhill in order to have their names recognized again. In the pop world the path to adulthood is to do become a druggie and be provocative. Some of the most famous musicians that are considered the best of all time like John Lennon, Kurt Cobain, and Jimi Hendrix were famous for their drug use. They made drug use more cool. Younger teen stars are pressured by society to follow their paths and all of them fail because they are reckless. They cannot control their drug use and end up destroying themselves. What makes it worse is that society will give these stars attention, which encourages them to become more extreme.

Another question is how much to teen stars actually influence kids. A lot of mothers pressured Britney to be a "pure virgin" because their daughters looked up to her. While I do believe that if a pop star is aware of their influence to young teens, they should be positive, at the same time I feel like they should not be held responsible for young teens' behavior overall. Parents should take control of their kids and steer them in the right direction.

It is natural for society to hate on something that is innocent. While I will not call teen pop stars good artists, I will not go as far as to say they are horrible people that deserve to be harmed in anyway. Yes, there are a few teen pop stars that have become assholes like Bieber, but I feel like society to a certain extent created them to turn out that way. They are horrible people out there in this world that deserve to be hated, but teen pop stars are not those people.





 

Is "The Catcher in the Rye" Terrible?

Holden Caulfield is one of the most hated characters in literature. His book is banned in several schools, parents do not want their kids to be influenced by him, and kids do not like him. Yes, I know there are kids in this world that do like Holden, but I have not met one that does yet. The only person I know that does is myself. I am writing this to analyze The Catcher in the Rye and examine why people love or hate this book.

The Cather in the Rye is not a book for everyone. The tone is depressing and dark, which already does not appeal to people. The book is more of a character study rather than an actual story. The author puts Holden in different scenarios and writes his reactions to them. It is completely understandable why people do not like Holden or the material covered in it. Ironically the main problem is Holden alienates himself from the reader because an average person cannot relate to him. I would never do most of the things he does in the book and the same goes for other people I know. Parents do not want kids to read about someone their age smoking, swearing, drinking, running away, thinking about sex constantly, and paying for a hooker. Also Holden's language is foul. In a book like To Kill A Mockingbird, the harsh language fits with the harsh themes and times the author wants to represent. However, Holden can come off as an asshole at certain points in the book. Many readers have pointed out that Holden is a hypocrite because he calls people phonies for being deceptive, but he acts like a phony because he deceives himself by thinking he is not like the people he labels as phonies.

Obviously I have admitted that the book is not perfect, but the philosophy is. I am not referring to the philosophy Holden is trying to get across, but the philosophy Salinger is. Holden is supposed to be phony. A lot of people think Salinger created Holden to be this perfect deity for young adults, but he did not. Readers are supposed to learn how not to be like Holden, but at the same time they should realize they are like Holden. It is complicated to explain, but basically everyone is a phony. We all at one point or another deceive people or ourselves. Holden points this out, but fails to recognize that he is a phony himself. The point Salinger is trying to get across is that you should not judge other people because you are no better than them. Pointing out someone's flaws does not make you flawless. However, in society people judge each other constantly and convince themselves that they are superior. This creates a society where we hold people up to a standard that not everyone meets. This creates alienation.

As a teenager reading this book Holden taught me how to face my fears. Holden runs away from his future trying to prevent it. He even tries to prevent other kids from growing up. Holden represents the loss of innocence. Not only does he realize the world is a mean spirited place, but also requires him to grow up. Holden wants to be treated as an adult, but at the same time he refuses to accept responsibility the world requires an adult to have. He does not want to follow the system. His sister, Phoebe is the person who ends up making Holden realize he needs to grow up. She sees through his flaws and calls him out, similar to how the reader does. Watching Phoebe on the carousel, Holden finally understands kids need to fall through the rye field in order to evolve. Being at the age where I am applying to college I can relate to Holden's resistance to change. The adult world does put a lot of pressure on kids to follow a path. It almost makes me wish I could stay the same age forever. However, I realize that I do not have to become what society wants me to. I can follow my own path. Also I am encouraged not to be the loser Holden ends up becoming.

Overall The Catcher in the Rye, is a book you can love or hate for equally good reasons. I believe every teenager should read this book because it does encourage thought. You do not have to like Holden, but just listen to what Salinger is trying to teach. It is ironic because schools are behaving like Holden by trying to prevent kids from reading the book. They are trying to preserve kids' innocence. However, like Holden, they need to learn that in order to become a better person, one needs to lose their innocence. As long as teachers properly educate kids on the book, there should be no problem.    

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Review/Rant

This is a review/rant of The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug. I will review the movie in its entirety. I will tell you when I am about to discuss spoilers, so I will not spoil the ending for you.

I will start off with what I liked about the movie. Watching these movies I do feel like I am in the world of Tolkien. The sets and environments are beautiful. The acting is also good. In this movie Thorin's character gets more development as he become more greedy. Gandalf is bad ass as always, but he does not appear that much in this movie. Bilbo Baggins is great. He is my favorite character in these movies because I have always seen a bit of myself in him. I think any person that was thrown into Bilbo's position would have the same reactions and character evolution. A lot of the fight scenes are awesome too. The fight when the group is fighting the orcs down the river is the best because they do a lot of creative sequences.

Smaug is the best part of the movie. He is the most bad ass dragon in not just movie, but fantasy history as well. They captured his character perfectly. I need to give credit to the animation department. The details on Smaug are wonderful and they made him appear arrogant, old, and fierce. He also moves like how a ginormous dragon would move. It must have been a nightmare to animate him. Smaug's voice is like a threatening version of Mufassa's voice from The Lion King. It is intimidating. The interaction between him an Bilbo was the high light of the movie.

Now I will go into what I hated about the movie. Three major things damaged this movie. The first is Tauriel. She has no reason to exist. I have no idea why they thought it was a good idea to put her in this story. Did feminists demand a female character? In this movie Tauriel's story is that she falls in love with Kili the dwarf, but Legolas also has a crush on her. That means they added an unnecessary love story that just wastes time and makes the movie longer than it needs to be. What makes it worse is that it is a love-triangle. Love-triangles NEVER work! Who thought of that stupid idea? I understand putting Legolas in the movie, but Tauriel was a terrible idea. Also if you have read the book and know that Tauriel was created for the film franchise then it is obvious what will happen to her in the next movie.

Secondly, the pacing gets too slow in the last act of the movie. The movie has Bilbo and the dwarves running away from Smaug for like half-an-hour. It lost all of its excitement. Other scenes could have been shorter or cut entirely.

Before I go on to what I hated about the movie the most I will warn you that this section contains spoilers because I will talk about the ending to the movie. So you should skip this next paragraph if you do not want to be spoiled.

I hated where the movie left off. It should have ended after Bard kills Smaug. The title of the movie is called, The Hobbit: The DESOLATION of Smaug, but there is NO desolation of Smaug. This movie should have been called, The Hobbit: Before The Desolation of Smaug or The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Will Take Place in the Next Film. The film ends with Smaug heading to Esgaroth. If they had cut out all that crap of Tauriel and shortened some scenes we would have had gotten to the part where Bard kills Smaug. I had the same problem in the last movie too. All the scenes that were created to connect The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings should have been left out and put in the extended addition. Tolkien himself once tried to connect The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings, but realized he could not because The Hobbit was not supposed to be connected to The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is supposed to be a children's fairy tale. In the beginning of the movie Bilbo already showed signs of being obsessed with the ring, even though he does not in the book.

Overall this movie just confirmed to me that the reason they stretched the movie series into a trilogy was to make more money. The story suffers for it. The movie itself is okay. If they had cut out Tauriel and shorten some scenes, this movie could have been good. It could have ended with an action packed scene. However, those blunders almost ruined the movie for me. The last film in this trilogy will be purely action. Maybe it will make up for this.  

Disney Does Not Market To Guys

I enjoy Disney films. I think Beauty and the Beast is one of the best animated films, if not one of the best films ever. However, most guys, especially in this generation would not admit or actually say that. I cannot blame them. Disney has built its empire on the Disney Princess franchise. They just added the two new princesses from Frozen, so it is no secret they plan on expanding the Disney princess line up. The more I thought about, the more I realize how Disney does not market to guys to the same extent.

Disney's last three recent films that stuck with the traditional Disney musical were The Princess and the Frog, Tangled, and Frozen. All three of these films have a female lead. All three of these heroines are active and progress their own story. No more princesses like Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty. These princess sat around and had things happen to them. Their princes came in and solved the conflicts of the movies from them. Sleeping Beauty did not kill Maleficent. Snow White did not wake up herself. Now that society has allowed women to have more active roles, Disney is creating a network of princesses around the strong, independent woman picture.

Ariel was the first "modern" Disney princess. While it is true that Eric kills Ursala and saves the day in the end, Ariel took action upon herself to make her dream come true. Yes, selling her voice to an obvious villain was stupid, but at least she brought herself there. She is adventurous to a fault. The movie does teach girls that in order to achieve their goals they cannot sit around and do nothing. They have to go out there themselves. Since The Little Mermaid we have had similar females such as Mulan, Belle, Pocahontas,  Tiana, Rapunzel, Anna, and Elsa, play similar roles in their films. Some females like Jasmine and Megara are given a personality to not make them bland, but they do not do anything in their movies to make them active. They are a damsels in distress.

The reason why I brought that background up is because we are going to look at the relationship between Disney and guys. We have already established that Disney's main market is the princess line. Now there are Disney movies with male protagonists such as Peter Pan, Hercules, Aladdin, The Lion King, Tarzan, and The Hunchback of Notredame. However, looking at the elements of some of these films, it has the same style as a Disney princess movie.

Girls might dream of becoming princesses, but I have never heard a man say he wants to be a prince. When you look at how the Disney males are drawn, they are drawn in an attractive way. They appeal to girls. Look at Hercules for example. If a regular guy were to draw what he thought Hercules would look like, he would draw Hercules with huge muscles, rigid lines, a scar, hair; something like the Hulk. However, Disney draws Hercules as an attractive young teen. Point being that even in their guy movies, Disney still markets more towards the females.

Love is not what guys want to see in a movie. Yes, there are popular guy films like Iron Man, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings, that have a love plot line in the movie, but guys do not care about that. No guy cared about Aragorn's love to Eowin or Han Solo's love to Princess Lea. Guys like action. Disney's Aladdin, is centered around love. Aladdin is trying to have Jasmine fall for him. Yes, there are elements such as the fight at the end to appeal to guys, but the romance is the main theme of the movie. For instance the most famous song in the movie, A Whole New World, is a love song. Aladdin is who girls want guys to be like, not who guys want to be like.

There are always exceptions though. Tarzan and The Hunchback of Notredame also have love as a major theme, but those movies have protagonists who are not the feminine prince. The leads are rough, and tough. Tarzan is more of the brawny figure guys look up to and The Hunchback of Notredame has a serious adult tone to it, which separates it from other Disney films.

The reason The Lion King was the highest grossing animated film at the time was because it had the right balance. The main theme of the movie was not love, but personal growth. Simba's relationship with Nala is a side thing while the movie focuses on Simba's return to become a king. It had comedy, tragedy, family morals, and an intense villain. It was not targeted towards a specific gender.

Disney has primarily marketed itself towards a female audience. This has led to the reputation of guys find it too girly. This has led guys to move away from Disney and as a result, Disney makes more movies with female protagonists. While in recent movies such as Tangled and Frozen contain a male and female protagonist, for example Rapunzel and Flynn, both figures are made to attract females. The girl is a beautiful princess and the guy is a handsome prince figure. The main theme of love in those movies does not appeal to guys. Keep in mind that I am mostly looking at the films that are the traditional Disney musical, so I excluded films like Bolt and Wreck-it Ralph.   

Did The Iron Man Series Fall Flat?

Iron Man 3 gave me mixed feelings. On the one hand I had fun watching it, but there was something about it that irritated me. After I saw the first Iron Man again I realized what about Iron Man 3 irritated me. It was too silly. After re-watching all the Iron Man movies I see a gradual decline after each installment.

The first Iron Man had funny moments. Tony Stark is supposed to be one of those funny asshole figures that is self absorbed. However, in the third movie he loses that charm. The only moments I found him funny was when he was interacting with the kid. They made Tony too paranoid. He always freaks out, remembering the events of The Avengers. However, it is forced and comes off as weird. 

The main problem of the movie was that Tony was separating himself from Iron Man, but the audience likes him because he is Iron Man. When Tony blows up his suits at the end of the movie a lot of people including myself thought it was stupid. What was the point? Especially since he is returning as Iron Man in the second Avengers movie.

The logic behind the decision was the idea that Tony could be Iron Man without the suit. However, the audience wants to see him kick ass in his suit. In the movie he barely wears the suit. The message itself is not bad, but it was handled poorly. Mainly because the second movie was not good. The second movie was just filler to introduce Nick Fury, Black Widow, and Shield. Stuff to tie the Iron Man franchise to the Avengers movie. Iron Man 2 had a good start, but after the fight with War Machine, it went downhill.

The third movie decided to make up for the lack of action in the second movie, by being over top and action packed. However, the story suffers from it. I thought the Mandarin plot twist was funny, but the movie's real Mandarin was lame and generic. The story itself was not well put together. Tony seriously did not prepare for a terrorist attack after he told the terrorists his address? Also the comedy at times was unnecessary. For example the scene where Tony is captured and counts to three several times until his glove comes to him. That disrupted the pace of the movie. This is the same problem I had with another Marvel movie; Thor: The Dark World.

The first Iron Man movie is one of my top five favorite comic book movies of all time, but the sequels to it are lack luster. Iron Man 3 is like The Dark Knight Rises. The first time you watch it, it's entertaining, but soon after you see it, you realize how flawed it was.

What do you guys think?

Internet Profanity

I think we have all seen an exchange on the internet that has went something along the lines of this:

• "Obama is the best!"
• "No, he's a Muslim terrorist, faggot."
•  "You Conservativ bastards ruin the world! You don't kow a fuck!"
• "Lern how to spell, retard!"
• "Fuck you!"

I used politics as an example, but on the internet people will shout profanity at each other over anything. I am always open to conversation, but only when it is constructive. The sad truth is it is not just little kids who are behaving this way, but teens and even adults.

The psychology around this is simple. In real life those people probably would not respond this way if talking to an actual person. However, because they are on the internet, they feel safe. They are in no danger, so they say whatever they want. Swearing at someone does not make you look superior or make your argument better. It is embarrassing. Try to respect other people's opinions. If you see an opinion you think is stupid, do not respond to it. You are entering a battle you can not win. Do something better with your time.

P.S. I am not a Grammar Nazi, but if you are trying to be intelligent at least proof read your work.

Funny Letter to the NSA

Dear NSA,
If you are reading this I would like to thank you for all the effort you guys put into invading people's personal space. It must be so hard listening to other people's phone calls or keeping info on that girl you are stalking. It must be especially rough to play World of War Craft and find terrorists by completing quests. We all know real terrorists set up their evil schemes through video games. You guys should also check out Borderlands 2 and Call of Duty. A lot of people play those games. Maybe even terrorists. I can safely say that I do not have any info that will link me to terrorists. So please call back that drone you have sent to my house.

Whenever I hear your name I am always reminded of that joke in The Simpsons Movie where the people are listening into stupid phone conversations. "The government actually found someone we are looking for!" I love that line. Who can argue with all the successes you guys have had that no one has heard about? I am sure that real terrorists are careless enough to use open media to talk about their secretive plans. You guys should check out movies. There must be some terrorist propaganda in their. There is a new Hobbit movie coming out. Gandalf looks suspiciously like a white, old Bin Laden. Think about it. Gandalf recruits a bunch of dwarves to take back their "home" land. The dragon Smaug clearly must be the symbol of infidels. Disney's Frozen had a song called "Let It Go". "I don't care what they are going to say. Let the storm rage on. The cold never bothered me anyway." That line sounds suspicious in a different context.

Also thank President Obama for me. I am so glad he lied about his promise to not continue the NSA program. No word could possibly express the joy I felt when I heard he actually expanded it even more. He defiantly made the right decision to try to arrest Snowden. How dare Snowden inform the public of government dishonesty. I am sure our founding father's would want him dead. The Bill of Rights clearly supports the government invading our privacy. It says so in the 4th Amendment, I believe. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.

Keep up the good work,
A Man Who Is Not Guilty At All







 

Should We Have Kids Believe in Santa Claus?

To be honest the only reason I would ever look forward to Christmas as a kid was because of the presents. However, now as an older man I have learned to enjoy giving people presents and recently have been involved with charity events. This year all I'm asking for is a few One Piece and Naruto comics. I am not asking for the new PlayStation or Xbox. However, lots of little kids are.

When I was young I would see those Christmas specials that would try to teach kids the real meaning of Christmas, but that message never got across to me. Kids just want toys. To make it worse we have commercials all over the place that put pressure on people to want and buy things. How can a kid even believe in Santa when all these commercials show people buying presents. Some have turned Santa into this corporate mascot. This man is supposed to symbolize giving not buying.

So I ask, should we have kids believe in Santa Claus? The main reason children fail to see the true message of the holiday is because their parents tell them Christmas is about this magical figure who will give them what ever their heart desires. Of course kids will easily fall into the pit of greed if they believe in that. Christmas is supposed to celebrate Jesus' birthday, but 9/10 people I know do not even believe in Jesus. I never bought into that. I was all about the toys.

How The Grinch Stole Christmas and A Christmas Carol are the best Christmas books because they effectively get across the true meaning of Christmas. I will be telling my children those stories instead of Santa Claus. If family's tell their kids the true meaning of Christmas from the beginning then the world would be a better place. At least around Christmas time.

What do you guys think? Will you tell your children about Santa Claus? Why or why not?

The Hunger Games (1st Movie) Review

Since Catching Fire has gotten great reviews declaring the movie "outstanding" from critics, web surfers, and my piers, I figured that I would check out the first movie. When The Hunger Games came out last year it did not make a huge impact. While it was definitely popular, it was not like a Harry Potter movie where you had to see it when it came out in order to fit in. The Hunger Games was ignorable. That is why I did not see it.

However, now that the second movie has been super successful and is said to be hundreds of times better than the first movie, I decided to watch the first movie. It was good, but not great.

The set up is nice. I know a lot of people claim it rips off Battle Royal, but I have never heard off it before, so it does not effect my opinion. The movie does a good job of introducing this cruel world. I like how the rich people dress up in these ridiculous costumes. It is serial. The lady reminds me of Depp's Mad Hatter. The games themselves were done nice to. I felt the impact of the kids dying. When the Hunger Games start and it shows the older kids killing the younger children, the movie did not hold back. Granted more blood could have been shown, but the movie still gave us the sense of savageness the games represent. Rue's death was powerful in my opinion. The riot scene after it made it even better. The Hunger Games showed how humans can destroy each other and even come together in tough times. Rue helps Katniss and develops a strong bond even though they will have to kill each other and the alliance only supports one another for their own selfish gain.

I was rooting for Katniss the whole way. She is a good heroine, however she can be a little bland at times. Her boyfriend was not interesting. Also I wish they showed more of society's cruelty, but it looks like that is covered in the second movie.

If you have not seen The Hunger Games, I recommend you see it. I cannot say everybody will love it, but it is worth a watch. Especially since the fan base for it is growing exponentially.

Are the New Video Game Consoles Worth it?

I remember when the DS, PSP, Wii, Xbox 360, and PS3 came out. Everyone was dying to get one. I was cool for being one of the few people that got a Wii right away. A new era of video gaming arrived and it felt like it. Now we have the next era of video gaming arriving, but no one seems to really care. The 3DS and Wii U have sold poorly, PS4 while it has been publicly received the best still does not have that real excitement as past consoles, and everyone is hating on the Xbox One.

At first I thought it was because I was older that I did not care. I do not play video games as much as I used too. I only really play on weekends. The main reason is because I am busy with school work, but also because I web surf a lot. Since I'm going to be in college next year I do not feel like it is worth buying a new console. Especially since developers will still be making games for Xbox 360 before I leave to college. It is a good thing Microsoft realizes that people will not automatically buy their new system, so they still making games for the 360. Unlike Nintendo, who completely abandoned the Wii the minute the Wii U hit the market.

So the people around me and I have grown up since the Wii's release. We have put video games low on the list of our priorities, but I do not think it is just my community. Lots of people on the internet do not seem super interested either. There defiantly people who are super excited (mostly fan boys), but the majority of people are not.

One reason is because the new consoles are not revolutionary in terms of game play. The Wii U is different from the Wii, but it does not introduce a new concept. It is like playing a console game with an iPad or a DS with the screens separated. Even the commercials do not make it look like a big deal. The Xbox One and PS4 are just upgrades to what they currently have now. Also the Wii U and Xbox One have pretty stupid names. At least the PS4  has a name that makes sense and is consistent. More people have been using PCs lately. A computer is more convenient than a console, especially for those who live alone and do not want to pay for a TV. You can do anything on a computer.

Game developers, Microsoft in particular are forgetting the main reason people buy consoles is to play games. Internet, movies, Netflix, and all that other junk does not matter. They are nice bonus features, but not the main point of owning a gaming console. All that stuff like paying for internet fees just makes gaming less enjoyable and overcomplicated.

I suspect that it will not be until a year or two from now when the consoles actually become popular. People usually wait for the prices to go down anyway. However, their still will not be as much enthusiasm as before.

Wonder Woman in Superman vs Batman Movie

DC needs to slow down. They are trying to cram all these super heroes into one movie. Superman and Batman already had the spot light? How will Wonder Woman fit into all of this? How are they going to explain her back story and develop her character?

It's obvious to everybody that DC is trying to repeat Marvel's success with the Avengers, but DC is not repeating how Marvel did it right. Marvel took time to develop its characters through films. That way they could focus on the story and not have to develop all these characters that are completely different from each other. Can you imagine what it would have been like if the Avengers was the first film Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man, and Thor were in? It would have been a mess.

One thing I liked about the Avengers was that I actually felt like all the heroes were from the same universe. When I watch the Captain America movie it feels different from an Iron Man movie, but both movies feel like Marvel movies. If the Nolan Batman movie trilogy took place in the same universe as Man of Steel I would have a hard time buying that. It's ironic because in Man of Steel, the route they took with Superman was the same route they took with Batman. They did a darker, more realistic comic book movie. However, both movies don't feel connected the same way Marvel movies were. Yes, in Man of Steel they did have a Wayne satellite, but they need to do more than that to make the franchises connected. If the Batman they are using is a new Batman and not the same Batman from the Nolan trilogy then I will be okay with it. I think they can easily reintroduce Batman into the DC universe.

Wonder Woman is a different story. The reason Batman can be easily put into the Man of Steel universe is because he is a normal guy. He is just a rich billionaire who fights crime. However, Wonder Woman is an Amazon created by Greek Gods. The concept of Wonder Woman doesn't really fit the DC universe they have created in the movies. The concept of a man fighting crime is easy for a viewer to buy, but Amazons and Greek Gods? A concept like that needs to be introduced through its own movie first, especially if it wants to connect with an already established universe. Avengers would not have worked out as well if Thor and Loki had been introduced for the first time in it.

DC needs to take its time with its franchises and create several good movies rather than just cram everything into one movie. They run the risk of alienating regular movie goers.

Thor: The Dark World (Movie Review)

This is one of those movies you rent over a weekend to kill off some time. I enjoyed the movie, but I don't feel like telling people they should see it. If you're looking for a fun superhero movie then you'll probably like it.
 
The plot was generic. The plot of survivors from a war trying to restore their race isn't new. The main bad guy is just an evil, old version of Legolas. He leads the dark elves against Odin. Their character design is ripped straight from the elves in Lord of the Rings. To be fair I think Tolkien based his elves on the same mythology, but they could have been more creative.

They had an interesting idea of having Odin behave like a bad guy to show that even "good" can actually be evil. However, the focus on it is not as big as it should have been.

The best part of this movie is Loki. I'm a Loki fan now. I won't say anything else about him because it would give away the ending, which is awesome by the way. The fight scene at they end where they play around with portals is creative and fun.

I can see why the Thor movies are not considered Marvel's best. I can't say I was into the first movie at all. I do not like Natale Portman and the comedic relief. They are not awful, but they are annoying. Thor himself is not that interesting, but he does have the potential to be. He is supposed to be this God figure that is in love with mortals. In the beginning the movie address this, but then it ends up being ignored.

Overall I like it, but there are a lot better movies out there right now.

Response to "Worthless" College Majors

As a kid in his senior year I feel the pressure of college. However, I have been focused on my life after college. I want to get a History major and minor in things related to it, but after reading articles from various sites such as Forbes, I found out that my major is considered one of the top ten "worthless" degrees. The reason it is considered "worthless" is because of the high unemployment rate of around ten percent and the annual salary a person receives. Pretty much any social science and anything that is not match, science, or technology, is considered "worthless". 

I can't say I'm surprised. Math, science, and technology fields require a great amount of work and skill. To major in any of those fields would make a person stand out over the majority of the population. The reason being is that Americans are horrible in those fields. It's no secret the US is 25th in math and 17th in science among developed nations. All of the Employers in the country are looking for mathematicians to do the math for them. The country is looking for new medicines to fight against cancer, viruses and diseases. Also people are investing in the innovators that will change the world like Steve Jobs. I admit that building a Mars rover or developing new touch screen technology is extremely harder than reading and analyzing books and documents. 

Any "successful" job is going to be tough. I'm not saying people who major in history, language, or English have it easy. Those studies are very time consuming. Since unemployment rates are higher, competition is fierce. I read that if you go to grad-school the unemployment rate cuts in half, but I doubt I will do that. 

Admittedly at first I was intimidated by these findings, but after several hours of thought and research I'm fired up to succeed more than ever.

You shouldn't do a major because of money, but because you are good at it. You get money by being good at something. People might say it is a much smarter move to do computer science rather than history if the intention is getting money and having a better chance of getting a job. While that is true from a statistics standpoint it should be pointed out that just because you have one of those math, science, and technology degrees doesn't mean you are guaranteed a job. Also if you naturally struggle with math then you probably won't get the major anyway.

Life is unpredictable. You can succeed or fail. It's scary because you never know. I don't know if I will succeed or fail. However, "failure" is a word that people define differently. People who define success by what they want will never be satisfied. However, those who define success by what they actually have will be satisfied.

I’m looking forward to the future and seeing what I can do with my passions. All I hope for is that I will be happy.