cJinL

The Meaning Behind Every Holiday

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Sat, 09 May 2015 20:51:00 +0000

Holidays are culture. They allow us to celebrate the important aspects of our lives that we oft take for granted. In a way, they're what remind us throughout the year that we're human beings who live for each other.

Each and every holiday has a rich history and a very special message behind it, so I'm going to run down some of the reasons why we celebrate. Let's start with the beginning of the year...

New Year's...

Is an excuse for people to pretend like they're ready to set goals and change for the better, even though they're going to live just like they did last year.

Valentine's Day...

Is an excuse for insecure couples to post about how awesome their relationship is on Facebook.

St. Patrick's Day...

Is an excuse for vaguely Irish and non-Irish people to drink copious amounts of alcohol for absolutely no reason at all.

April Fool's Day...

Is an excuse for people to play terrible pranks on others, as if the holiday makes it completely okay.

Mother's Day...

Is an excuse for Hallmark to sell cards.

Father's Day...

Is an excuse for Hallmark to sell cards.

Halloween...

Is an excuse for young women to dress up like prostitutes and go clubbing. Because you know, it's Halloween. I'm not really a slut.

Thanksgiving Day...

Is an excuse for people who hate each other to get together and eat exorbitant amounts of food in the name of...thanks? I don't fucking know.

Christmas...

Is an excuse for commercialism. Consumerism. Showing how much you love people with the power of your credit card. Putting lights up on everything and leaving them up til March. Getting together with people you hate again. Getting drunk off eggnog cause it's a Christmas drink and that's okay. And...Jesus? Is that his name?

When Authors' Names Are Bigger Than The Book's Title

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 00:12:00 +0000

Whenever I walk into a bookstore like Barnes & Noble, I look around at the piles of books in the "best-selling authors" section and I notice the same thing every time:

The authors' god damn names are always bigger than the book's title.

Seriously, every cover just looks like:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DAN BROWN. I'M DAN BROWN.

I'M A FAMOUS AUTHOR PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE ME

By the way my book is called Angels and Demons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I mean, I get that it's about self-promotion, but come on. Have some integrity. It makes novel writing as a whole look like a gigantic jerking contest.

We Are Not Being Microchipped

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 04:02:00 +0000

I normally like to write my posts in a calm and neutral tone, but I'm honestly just frustrated, sick, and tired of this tin-foil hat conspiracy nonsense. I've been hearing for YEARS that we're going to be microchipped by the government and that it's a sign of the coming of the anti-christ, and it just frustrates me to no end that perfectly rational and intelligent people are confusing their beliefs with this madness.

Let me just make this clear: there are NO microchips being implanted into our hands. This is a ridiculous conspiracy theory that has been floating around for over fifty years via fear-mongering and spam mail. Its origins and validity are so transparent that bloody snopes.com was able to put a big, red stamp on it, with all of its blatant falsities carefully laid out. And yet, this conspiracy has managed to recirculate constantly due to exploitable new situations like the implementation of Obamacare. So, in the interest of halting all this ignorance, I'd like to address some of the misinformation surrounding this age-old microchip conspiracy.

"Big Brother" theories have been around for as long as microchips as been a thing.

First of all, there are no references to a microchip of any kind in Obama's Affordable Care Act. Not a one. The aforementioned spam emails contain quotes from an earlier version of the health care bill that never passed, and these irrelevant quotes are actually referring to the idea of a medical registry for people with devices such as pacemakers or hip replacements. Nowhere does it state that anything will be required or government-mandated, and nowhere does it even mention an implantable device of any sort. Fearmongers are simply misconstruing sections of the bill and using out-of-context language to create an elaborate hoax.

While we're at it, let me also address a related video that's been circulating around the internet. Apparently, there's a video that shows NBC News reporting about a microchip that's going to be government-mandated in 2017. Convincing as it may seem, this is also hilariously out-of-context. The news clip is from 2007, and it's actually just speculation about the possibility of an optional device that could provide medical professionals with your medical history in case of an emergency. It never once states that it's mandatory (or even real), and it's once again an example of fearmongers using transparently out-of-context sources to continue circulating their nonsense.

Pictured here is a glucose-monitoring chip for diabetics.

Interestingly enough, it's actually illegal to implant microchips into people in about 5 different states. The laws were mostly proposed by right-wingers who were worried about RFID tagging, and state governments likely allowed the laws to pass because they figured "eh, whatever makes them happy." But in all seriousness, it just made sense for them to outlaw something that clearly infringes on our rights, and it's reasonable to believe that other states will follow suit. It would appear that this myth is so meritless that it's not even realistically plausible anymore.

These conspiracy can be so easily debunked with a bit of research, and yet, people seem to persist in ignoring plain evidence. I'm convinced that this is the result of willful ignorance. People disregard indisputable facts because of their unwillingness to accept change, so it's purely by choice that they keep circulating false information. It's scary to think that a large percentage of society is being dictated by what they want to believe, but I guess it shouldn't be too surprising either.

Honestly though, my problem with all this fear-mongering is that it's taking our attention away from actual issues. People are forgoing opportunities and wasting time because they're too busy waving their swords at imaginary villains. Meanwhile, the real villains are sitting in their offices counting our money. We have got to stop perpetuating these crazy theories so able-bodied people can contribute to real-life situations. The last thing I would want is for my loved ones to get hurt because I was busy trying to catch the monster under my bed.

Should Tipping Be Necessary?

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:32:00 +0000

Tipping at restaurants is a practice that involves rewarding a server for their excellent service. Here in the U.S., it's a social convention you get crucified for not following. So, at the risk of being judged, I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm not a huge fan of the gratuity system. Now, when I say that, I am in no way claiming that waiters shouldn't be paid for their services. I'm critical of the current system, which is to say that waiters should not have to rely on public charity to earn a living.

Waiters rely on tips because minimum wage works differently for servers and tipped workers in general. Their specialized "minimum wage for workers who receive tips" is a putrid $2.13. The law states that their wages combined with tips has to equal at least the federal minimum wage, which is currently $7.25, so employers only need to pay their workers a minuscule amount of money while their customers make up the difference.

Do you see the problem here? Waiters have to work so desperately for tips because their employers are not legally obligated to pay them more than a few bucks. Workers stress and anger whenever a customer leaves them a bad tip, but is it even ideal (or fair) for the customer to have this responsibility? Perhaps we should be more concerned with raising the minimum wage so that the people who should be paying the workers are required to do so?

One could argue that the gratuity system serves as an incentive for workers to provide better service (a la bribery) but that logic is inconsistent. There are hundreds of jobs that require people to provide service, and most of them do not involve getting rewarded for doing your job well. People simply do their jobs because it's their job. It's nonsensical to imply that waiting tables is somehow unique.

It seems that tipping is customary in just a handful of countries. Most cultures do not practice it, and some even find it offensive. It's clearly just a social custom; there's never an instance where it is economically necessary. If there is a legitimate economical or political purpose, I'd like to be enlightened. Otherwise, we should all just agree to have our waiters get paid a regular wage so paying customers don't have to pick up the government's slack.

Examining Asian Stereotypes

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 07:19:00 +0000

As an Asian American living in the United States, I find myself dealing with prejudice and stereotyping on a near-constant basis. It's a weird thing with Asian people; despite my being completely American in terms of culture, I'm still viewed as a foreigner. I've learned to tolerate it over the years, but there's the occasional person who just doesn't seem to have a care about being ignorant.

We can't just tell these people to stop generalizing, but what we can do is feed them the knowledge they need to stop assuming the wrong things. In order to shed some light on the origins of Asian America's most prominent stereotypes, I thought I'd try my hand at explaining them one by one. By doing so, I hope to help people understand why certain stereotypes exist, and why they couldn't possibly apply to everybody.

Don't expect anything too in-depth; these are just my thoughts. If you are a fellow Asian American, feel free to contribute. Also, note that I'll mostly be discussing stereotypes associated with East Asians. Now, to begin with...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All Asians Are Smart/Good at Math

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is probably the premier Asian stereotype. Asians in the U.S. have an unshakable reputation for being studious, hard-working people. They're typically seen as being straight-A students, and they're often thought to have a natural inclination towards mathematics. This is all very flattering, but is any of it true? Well, let's look at the numbers.

Believe it or not, Asian Americans are actually the most successful racial group in the United States. According to research from the Pew Research Center, Asian Americans were the most highly educated and financially successful racial group in 2010. They also have such a large presence in the Ivy Leagues that the admissions offices may have started discriminating against them in order to curb the number of Asian students.

So clearly, the myth is somewhat substantiated. Still, that doesn't stop a stereotype from being a stereotype. A good portion of the Asian American population doesn't fit the stereotype, so it would be inappropriate to assume so. I'm actually a good example of the exception; I was a pretty underachieving student throughout most of my life, and math was my worst subject (my best was English).

This obviously didn't sit too well with my parents, which brings us to the other important question: What is it that makes so many Asian Americans such studious individuals? Well, to start with: no, Asians are not naturally more intelligent/good at math. That idea is called racism.

There are actually a few reasons, and they all have to do with culture. To begin with, many of us either came here as immigrants or have parents who are immigrants. Being an immigrant means having to battle a host of inequalities whilst working incredibly hard in order to make anything of oneself. This typically leads to the "work hard and make money" mentality that many Asian American parents seem to have. They simply want their children to succeed in the new world, often to the point where they can inadvertently push their children too hard.

"But there are a lot of ethnic groups that immigrate to the U.S., and not all of them have found the kind of success that Asian Americans have found". True, which brings us to the next point. Many Asian cultures place an exorbitant amount of value on superficial measurements of self-worth such as name and status. Going to a recognizable school (usually medical) is basically a given, as most Asian parents would likely fall into a deep depression if their child wanted to major in something that doesn't have practicality or the potential for a high salary. This should explain why the Asian American community is so hell-bent on invading the Ivy League.

Ultimately, it's the previous generation's insistence on wealth over happiness that drives many students (willing or unwilling) toward academic and financial success. It's a culture that they've grown up with and fostered, and it's the culture that dictates how many of us fall under Asian America's most prominent stereotype.

As for the mathematics, there's no complicated answer for that. In South Korea, children learn math at a much faster pace than American students, so naturally, recent Korean immigrants will be a few steps ahead of their American classmates. I'm not entirely sure of the reason for this, but I believe it's related to the emphasis on practicality that highly modernized countries like South Korea place on future workers. I can't speak for the other nations, but I'm fairly certain they follow a similar system.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Asians Are Bad Drivers

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's the stereotype you've probably heard in joke form during some run-of-the-mill comedy movie. There's a very persistent belief that Asians are bad at driving. Immediately, it's easy to see that this is a rather silly myth that couldn't possibly be rooted in truth. I mean, what part of our genetic makeup is supposed to dictate how well we drive automobiles?

But, just to be sure, I went and did some research to see if there was any numerical data that supports the myth. Sure enough, I couldn't find a damn thing, besides some data from the NHTSA that shows that it's difficult to see how "accident-prone" each race/ethnicity is when their population numbers are so vastly different. Non-Hispanic Whites were involved in the most traffic accidents, and that's because they're the majority in the U.S.

Without any real evidence to support or debunk the myth, we're left to discuss it using our own knowledge. So, how did this stereotype get started? I couldn't find any reliable information on it, but I believe it's related to the difficulty certain immigrant groups have with adjusting to the ways of the road in the U.S. You see, it's different here. American roads aren't hopelessly chaotic. Let me elaborate...

Countries like China, Taiwan, and South Korea have been industrializing and modernizing at an alarming rate. China, in particular, has seen an absolutely ridiculous growth in vehicle ownership. There were 5.54 million vehicles in China in 1990; that number has since skyrocketed to 62 million in 2009, with analysts expecting that figure to further increase to over 200 million by 2020. To accommodate the increasing amount of cars, China has been building highways at a similar rate.

So imagine an enormous nation of people suddenly increasing its number of roads, cars, and motorists ten-fold within a couple of years; imagine the chaos. These circumstances have led to the development of a rather reckless road culture in Asia, and it's my theory that some people might be bringing their reckless driving habits over to the states.

What this theory doesn't account for, however, are the Asian Americans that have never driven on foreign soil. They've learned under the same conditions as other American drivers, and we concluded earlier that there's no way to prove that they are actually lesser drivers, so the only question we really have to ask is: "What keeps perpetuating this stereotype?" What is it that makes so many people believe in a completely baseless assumption?

The answer is actually pretty clean-cut: It's confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is described as "the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses." So, if one were to run into a bad driver, and that driver just happened to be Asian, they would confirm their preconceived notion that all Asians are bad drivers. However, if the bad driver turned out to be white, they would likely just dismiss the situation and not think about race at all.

It sounds simple, but confirmation bias is the reason unfounded stereotypes like this circulate constantly. It's basically the reason for all stereotypes. Next time, if you ever come across a bad driver who happens to be Asian, use your head. Don't perpetuate the stereotype.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All Asians Look Alike

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This one can be explained with a bit of logic. Humans naturally generalize what they see, so it's difficult for them to pin-point specific differences between similar objects. Asian people don't actually have a tendency to look alike, but they do share a single set of features. Basically, almost all (East) Asians are born with black hair, dark eyes, and light skin. Barring any hair dyes or extreme tans, most Asians share the same basic features. That is why a group of Asian people might "look alike" in the eyes of a foreigner.

Now, keep in mind that this explanation is absolutely no excuse to believe the stereotype at face value. Asians are just like the rest of the human race in that they're varied and discernibly different from one another. Those who choose to ignore this fact are simply electing to stay ignorant of an entire group of people. It's akin to saying, "I don't want to bother seeing you people as individuals. You're all the same to me". One may think their observations are harmless, but alas, they're anything but.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All Asians Do Martial Arts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's safe to assume that people associate Asians with martial arts because a lot of martial arts come from Asia, but I'd say the emergence of this stereotype is owed mainly to the massive success of action stars like Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and Jet Li. They made such household names of themselves that American media just started lumping Asians and martial arts together. For decades afterwards, one couldn't even dream of being an Asian American actor without having to settle for some kung fu master stereotype.

Those big name stars have since left the spotlight due to age, and Asian Americans have actually been making some progress towards playing actual people in Hollywood. Albeit, it's still an incredibly slow progress, but any sign of moving forward is a good one. I mean, look at Steven Yeun. He plays a major character on an extremely popular television show (The Walking Dead), and he's not even a nerd/martial artist stereotype. He's just a guy (and he gets the white girl!). That's absolutely amazing.

And that concludes my list. Like I said in the introduction, if you have anything to add, please let me know in the comments and I'd be glad to consider it. Also, if you would like to give your input as a fellow Asian American, that would be greatly appreciated as well.

Pokemon: Old Gen vs. New Gen

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 02:27:00 +0000

I grew up with Pokemon, just like every other human being from my generation. At its peak, it was just about the biggest thing ever. Everybody with a Gameboy played the games, and everybody with hands and feet had a collection of Pokemon cards. It got so ridiculous that by the second year of the craze, my elementary school banned Pokemon cards from school property. Nowadays, most people look back with extremely fond memories of the early days of Pokemon. Then there are people like me, who never lost their childhood spirit and still play the games.

Now, as an adult Pokemon player, there's one thing that never ceases to bug me.
Whenever I mention the new games to someone who doesn't play them anymore, they almost never fail to respond with: "Oh the new games are terrible. Look at these new Pokemon, they look so stupid! The old stuff, now that was the good stuff. It'll never get better than the first gen."

This opinion is almost universal (among older fans); I've hardly ever met anyone who hasn't said something along those lines. But sure, people are allowed to have opinions, right? Well, I don't consider an opinion valid if it's formed under the influence of something powerful and mind-warping. If someone was discussing politics under the influence of alcohol, I wouldn't take them seriously. But these people, they're on something different. They're under the influence of something called Nostalgia.

How else would they be able to know how bad the new games are without actually playing them. And trust me, this is almost always the case. I mention Platinum or Black & White, and they tell me they hate the new games. Then I ask them, "Have you played them?", to which they respond: "What the heck is Platinum?" Their rose-tinted glasses are causing them to reject whatever they aren't familiar with, which shouldn't be surprising considering it happens all the time in just about every aspect of life.

Another thing that tells me they're under the influence of nostalgia is the simple fact that the new games are actually great. As games, they continued to improve and improve, adding dozens of new elements and polishing the Pokemon world overall. At this point, it's practically impossible to compare a game like Pokemon Platinum to the original Red & Blue. That would be like comparing a space shuttle to a steam-powered train.

Don't get me wrong; I still love Red & Blue and I still have fun whenever I play them. But, as a gamer, I've got to admit that they have aged miserably. They're an absolute mess, to be honest. Fortunately, they've been remade into Fire Red and Leaf Green, and those games are amazing.

Now then, the designs. Ask anyone, and they'll tell you that the newer generations of Pokemon are infinitely uglier than the first generation. This seems like a matter of taste, but it's (once again) a result of intense nostalgia. They'll cite examples like Vanilluxe (an ice cream Pokemon), but seriously, what about the first generation? What was Voltorb, a pokeball with eyes? What about that bundle of eggs we call Exeggcute? And don't even get me started on Jynx.

In truth, every generation has its share of good and bad designs. At the top of my head, I can actually think of better designs from the 4th and 5th generations; the first gen is a bit dull in my opinion. I absolutely guarantee you that if we were introduced to Pokemon through Pokemon Emerald and Red/Blue came later, we would all be complaining about how terrible the Red/Blue Pokemon are. That's just what nostalgia does to you.

People need to either embrace the new games or shut up about them completely. It's not proper to talk about something you have no clue about, after all. There are obviously people who have followed the games for years that don't like the newer generations, and that's fine. It's the people that have never even bothered with the new games that bug me. Face it guy; you're blinded by nostalgia. I know it hurts, but trust me, the things you loved from your childhood...aren't really that great.

Axe Commercial is Beyond Ridiculous

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Sat, 27 Jul 2013 20:57:00 +0000

This is a recent commercial for Axe body products that has been on TV lately. Go ahead and watch it if you haven't already. Done? If you didn't find anything wrong with that, consider yourself a simpleton.

Axe commercials have always been known for being a bit sexist, but this commercial is just a step beyond ridiculous. For me, it's not even that it's blatantly misogynistic. What really drives me over the edge is just how idiotic and misinformed this commercial is.

The views we have right here, right now are going to be true forever. Right guys?!

"Girls are getting hotter"? Seriously? How about, society's perception of women has changed over the years? People used to value a different type of woman back then. Just look around for pictures of models from around a century ago. Or perhaps some Ancient Greek statues of women. What we consider "hot" now has only been the status quo for a few decades. Beautiful women from the past would be considered "fat" in modern society.

But to the people at Axe, none of this obvious information even exists. Honestly, I find it hard to believe that the people who make these commercials are even human adults. I wouldn't be surprised if they were teenagers, or monkeys.

Does Batman Need a Robin?

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Wed, 29 May 2013 08:26:00 +0000

I'm no long-time fan, but I absolutely love Batman. I love the comics, the animated series, the games, and the movies. There's a lot to like about Batman, from his dark, psychological inner-battles to his enormously intriguing gallery of rogues. But mainly, it's his humanity that sets him apart from other heroes. The fact that he accomplishes what other superheroes can't without actual superpowers just appeals to me. But...this post isn't about Batman.

It's about his trusted sidekick, Robin. Out of all the aspects of the Batman universe, I've always found myself slightly uncomfortable with the idea of a boy wonder. There are obviously times when I either love certain versions of Robin or don't give it a second thought, but then there are times like today when I feel that the Batman character is better without a Robin. I'll run down a few reasons why.

First of all, I see Batman as a character defined by his solitude and loneliness. He's a brooding character whose primary method of crime fighting is lurking in the shadows and striking fear into his foes. All of that falls apart when you add a flamboyantly dressed child into the picture. Suddenly, the usual "stalk the prey in the darkness" tactic becomes "let this acrobatic circus boy go wild". For me, it just breaks the illusion of what makes Batman so cool, which is his acclimation to darkness and his willingness to wage a solitary war on crime.

The other thing I'm uncomfortable with is the implication that Batman is willing to send a child out to fight some of the most dangerous individuals in the world. I respect the Batman character because of his inhuman intelligence and his unwavering sense of justice...but then you bring Robin into the picture, and suddenly Bruce Wayne seems like an irresponsible wreck of a man. There's just no reasonable justification for sending a preteen out to fight street thugs and mob leaders; it doesn't matter how trained or talented he is.

Now, to be fair, there are plenty of things that justify the existence of Robin. First of all, it's important to note that Robin was introduced in 1940 to appeal to younger audiences. This was a time when Batman wasn't quite the dark and troubled hero he is today, and Robin has since become such an iconic character that it's almost impossible to exclude him in any Batman-related work.

Story-wise, Robin has been a vital part of keeping Bruce Wayne's mental and emotional health in check. He serves as a surrogate son of sorts to appease Wayne's longing for a family, and he was always there to give a second opinion when Batman was willing to do something uncharacteristic or drastic. In this regard, Robin is an essential aspect of Bruce Wayne's life.

So, to be clear, I don't deny the impact Robin has had. I actually consider Dick Grayson and Tim Drake to be among my favorite Batman characters, and I've thoroughly enjoyed their appearances. I simply feel that overall, Batman works better as a character in the absence of Robin. I prefer the stoic, brooding Batman who drags himself through a constantly losing battle with the strength of his convictions alone.

The opinions will always vary, so I ask you: Does Batman need a Robin?

5 Technology Myths (We Have Got To Stop Believing)

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Thu, 02 May 2013 22:51:00 +0000

I've already done a post about some popular old wive's tales, so I thought I would go over some of the most popular myths about technology that are completely untrue. Modern technology like laptops and smartphones are a common part of our daily lives, so we're bound to have handfuls of misconceptions flying around. I'm writing this post primarily because too many people seem to be misinformed about certain technology "facts". I can't stand watching people do completely unnecessary things, so let's put some of that to rest.

--------------------------------------------
5. Macs are immune to viruses
--------------------------------------------

Let's start with a classic. When comparing Macs to PC's, Mac users will often cite an Apple computer's immunity to viruses as one of its strong points. Now, is this true? Apple sure thought it was, until they found out that is wasn't. Apple used to boast that Macs don't get viruses, but they eventually changed that to "It's built to be safe". This was mainly because of the "Flashback" trojan that affected nearly 600,000 Macs. Clearly, Macs are plenty susceptible to viruses, and this has been true even before the Flashback trojan.

---------------------------------------------------
4. Expensive HDMI cables are better
---------------------------------------------------

You've probably gone to a store, like Best Buy for example, and seen brand-name HDMI cables selling for nearly $80 a piece. Must be worth it, right? No, kill yourself. This is one of the biggest scams in the history of anything. If you've ever bought an HDMI cable for more than $2, consider yourself an epic-scale moron. The $1.50 HDMI cables on Amazon are the exact same quality as the $80 ones at Best Buy. They trick you with fancy words like "gold-copper coated", but this is all nonsense. The cheapest cables have been compared to the most expensive numerous times, and the results have always shown that the difference is negligible. Remember this the next time you're about to waste ridiculous amounts of money.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Keeping your laptop on your lap will kill sperm
--------------------------------------------------------------------

This ones pretty silly, but people will occasionally tell you that keeping a hot laptop on your lap will make you sterile. Makes sense right? I mean, it's so close to your central situation. There has even been research done about this particular myth, with some rather inconclusive results. Current knowledge will tell us that this myth is unsubstantiated and currently undetermined. Researchers found that the main worry, which is the radio frequency coming from a laptop's Wi-Fi, has no effect on sperm whatsoever. Until they find more solid evidence, consider this myth a non-factor in your life.

------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Fully drain your battery to make it last longer
------------------------------------------------------------------

This is one of the many battery myths out there. The myth goes that every battery has a certain number of "cycles", so the proper way to keep it in good condition is to drain the battery all the way down before recharging. While this technique has its roots in truth, it simply isn't true anymore. This technique was meant for older batteries like nickel-cadmium batteries. At this point in time, almost every modern device has a lithium-ion battery, which has been around for so long that I'll bet many of you have never even used a device with any other type of battery.

Lithium-ion batteries can be used and charged whenever you feel like, and its been noted that fully draining your battery can actually put a strain on it. This means that it's actually bad for its overall performance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Keeping your device plugged in overnight will kill its battery
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And finally, here's the reason I made this post. I constantly deal with people who warn me about overcharging my laptop or phone. It's especially frustrating for me because I know that overcharging is not a thing anymore, and nobody wants to believe that.

The truth behind this myth is the exact same as the previous myth: it used to be true for older batteries but it's irrelevant now. Lithium-ion batteries are designed to cut off any additional charge once it's fully charged. "Overcharging" does not exist, and it hasn't been a worry for years. Please help stop the misinformation and keep your laptop plugged in whenever you feel like. I've been doing this for years and my devices have lasted just as long as they should.

The MSG Allergy Myth

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:31:00 +0000

Chances are, if you've ever had MSG come up in a discussion, it was about how bad it is for your health. It really gets a bad rap, especially in the U.S. This reputation is completely undeserved, however. Next time, take a moment to question whoever thinks MSG is bad for you; can they even name any specific reasons for why it's unhealthy? Most likely, the answer is no.

MSG's bad reputation is all a result of false myths and pseudoscience being spread to the point where it has become fact for most people. The truth is, Monosodium Glutamate is a naturally occuring, flavor-enhancing salt that has no proven ill-effects whatsoever. Even the supposed allergy to MSG that so many people claim to suffer from is a result of misinformation and hypochondria.

A 2009 review of decades-worth of MSG-allergy research found that there was no evidence to support any of the beliefs surrounding MSG-related reactions. It did mention that a specific reaction could be related to excessive amounts of MSG ingestion on an empty stomach, but this is neither surprising nor conclusive. Everything has the potential for harm when taken in excess, and none of their findings could appropriately connect MSG to any symptoms when "consumed as part of a typical western diet".

Note that this was in 2009. Even at that point, there were dozens of studies that had already debunked the MSG myth. It was considered silly to even question such an outdated bit of pseudoscience. Still, the question remains: what exactly is going on with the people who claim to suffer from an allergy to MSG? Ultimately, it all comes down to the placebo-effect. Symptoms are actually brought on from the imagination alone. If you find that hard to believe, consider this: "If MSG is so bad for you, why doesn't everyone in Asia have a headache?"

Ramen, a Japanese noodle dish that almost always contains MSG

Alex Renton, author of the article above, brings up an amazingly valid question. If so many Americans are suffering from MSG allergies, shouldn't Asia be rampant with MSG-related illnesses? After all, MSG is basically a staple in almost all of East Asian cuisine. It is an ingredient that occurs just as frequently as salt and sugar. Millions of healthy Chinese, Japanese, and Korean citizens consume MSG on an almost daily basis, and yet, the concept of an MSG allergy is almost non-existent.

And that's the key: the concept is non-existent in their minds. They don't have an adequate, culturally ingrained placebo. Americans, on the other hand, have such a firmly established placebo that it is practically truth. Education has simply been inadequate in dispelling such misinformation. Just to put the final nail on the coffin, Renton conducted a test where he fed a friend (who claimed to be allergic to MSG) a meal containing plenty of MSG. The result: his friend enjoyed the meal, and no symptoms were felt whatsoever. The kicker is that he didn't know there was MSG in it. This experiment is likely to duplicate with any test subject.

As is the case with a lot of the things I write about, the MSG allergy myth is something that is so obviously false, yet so strongly believed. I made this article particularly because I can't stand watching people fussing about something that doesn't even exist. Perhaps in a few more years, the situation will get better and proper knowledge will spread. For now, just take solace in the fact that MSG won't do anything to you as long as you keep it in moderate doses. If a customer ever tries to tell you that they're allergic to MSG, just smile, nod, and proceed to do nothing about it. At all.

Sweden: Socialist Paradise

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:25:00 +0000

Some of you may shake in fear at the sight of the word "socialist", but no worries: Sweden's economic system is not entirely socialist. Just like every other country on Earth, it is a mix of everything. However, many cite Sweden as being the ideal socialist paradise. Before you start pointing your patriotic missiles at me, let me tell you a little about life in Sweden.

Swedish citizens pay a 49% income tax. This may seem incredibly high to you, but the money is put to very good use. Here is a list of the benefits that citizens get in Sweden:

1) Cradle to the grave healthcare - Healthcare is universal from birth to death. If you have an issue, the government pays for it. There are no exceptions.

2) K-College education - Education is provided, from kindergarten to college. Private universities are paid for, but this is completely optional. State schools are completely free.

3) 2 year paid maternity leave - Mothers in Sweden get 2 full years of paid maternity leave. If the mother chooses to work for whatever reason, the father gets 2 years of paid leave instead. Do you know what mothers get in the U.S? At maximum, they get 8 weeks of unpaid leave.

4) Unlimited unemployment - The unemployed get paid the salary of their last job for as long as it takes for them to get a new job. Your first thought will obviously be: "then people would just sit around all day". This does not happen for two reasons. First, people are wary of the fact that if they do not work and pay an income tax, there would no unemployment benefits. Second, it is considered a massive social shame for people to be unemployed. People are often mocked on the streets for reaping the benefits of other people's hard work. This is often enough for people to look for a job immediately.

5) Free day care from birth to 5 years - Day care is provided for free; there is no need to pay private institutions while you are away.

6) Military force - Self-explanatory.

7) Subsidized housing and energy - Basic needs are taken care of.

8) Mandatory 5-week vacation - Employees are required by law to take a 5 week vacation. This is well needed and deserved because Sweden has incredibly dark and depressing winters.

9) 35 hour maximum work week - Swedish workers are not allowed to be subjected to excessive work hours. This is beneficial because it is clear that workers are more productive when they are well-rested. If a worker chooses to work extra hours, they must be paid double over-time.

10) Unlimited sick days - No discrepancies about sick days, because if you're sick...you're sick.

11) $25/month unlimited metro pass - Sweden has a great transportation system. For $25 a month, you are given unlimited access to the metro system. This dissuades people from buying cars, saving them from the ridiculous gas prices.

Now, am I trying to say that Sweden is better than America? ~~Yes~~ No. Every culture has its set of values, so I'm not going to try and argue about the superiority of one country over another. I am, however, a bit resentful. The obvious question of "why can't we have all these things?" comes to mind. Though, Swedes do pay an incredible 49% income tax. That's not something we would want, right?

Well, let's compare. Americans pay federal tax (25%), state tax (7%), FICA (2%), Unemployment (2%), Medicare/Medicaid (6%), and social security (4%). In total, that is 46%; only 3% lower than Sweden. What exactly is going on then? If we pay equally high taxes, why aren't we getting all of these benefits? To put it simply, it's because it's mostly a matter of allocation. It's not about how much money we have, it's about how it is spent. The U.S. government simply chooses to put its resources elsewhere (mostly military).

Americans should not be wasting time raging about higher taxes. The real issue is how our tax money is being spent. Like I said, you may be inclined to reject socialism, but think about it. Our social security? Our medicare/medicaid? Our K-12 education, police, and fire fighters? These are all examples of socialism in America. If we're already a blend of capitalist and socialist ideals, why not use our tax dollars to provide the way Sweden, or any other Scandinavian country does?

And don't say you'd rather just move to Sweden; they honestly don't want you there. Their system works so well because their population is like-minded and small. Bringing in a bunch of Americans would likely tear the system apart. So instead of taking the typical "I want out" route, advocate your opinions and concentrate on your own country first. God knows the U.S. needs some help.

Don't Take Things for Granted

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:38:00 +0000

I'm still pretty young, so there's a lot about life that I don't know about. I've yet to experience anything beyond an education, and I've never had to worry about the essentials like food, shelter, or even money. My family has had plenty of financial issues stemming from our immigration status, but I was always too young to understand the struggle my parents were going through.

In the end, it seems I was spoon-fed through most of my life. I guess it was good parenting on my mom's part for loving me and caring for me so much that I didn't even realize how much my family was suffering. Though, at the same time, I never learned how to appreciate what I have. Even as a young adult, I find myself having trouble doing the simplest tasks.

My point is, if there's any lesson I can share with the world, it's that you should never take things for granted. Just because people love you and care for you, doesn't mean they'll always be there to hold your hand. People come and go. It's up to you to take care of yourself.

If there's anything I'm good at, it's taking things for granted. I take my terrific home life for granted, my education and opportunities, and even my loved ones for granted. Keep sitting back and letting others live life for you, and you'll end up confused and miserable. Trust me, good things never last.

Today is Valentine's Day, so even if you're single, just take the time to think about what your loved ones have done for you, and how your behavior might impact them. The problem with most people is that they don't do this quite enough. Don't regret growing old and finding out that in the end, they were the only parts of your life that really mattered.

Phones are Terrible

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 07:41:00 +0000

I don't know about you, but I'm a little ticked about the state of the modern telephone. It's just god awful. Before you say "What?! The telephone is one of the greatest inventions in human history!", just hear me out. I'm not talking about the telephone as an invention in general. I'm talking about the state of voice quality in modern phones.

How many times have you had to say "What?" because your friend's voice sounded too fuzzy? I find myself missing half the things I hear during a phone conversation. It's not my phone; I currently have a Samsung Galaxy S3, one of the latest smartphones on the market. It's not my reception; it's perfectly fine. The telephone just isn't good enough at doing its job.

Two phones. Exact same sound quality.

I know this is an incredibly strange thing to hear, but that's merely because people don't question it enough. How long as the phone been around? A little over a hundred years? Why is it still in such a sorry state? In my short life, I've seen televisions go from being fuzzy, radioactive bricks to flat, high-resolution behemoths. Video games have transformed from being a mess of black dots to high-powered, computer generated works of art.

But the telephone? It's exactly the same. It still breaks up when it rains, and it's still too fuzzy for me to hear mumbling assholes. It just astounds me that we still suffer issues like this whilst technology advances at breakneck speed. Note that I'm only talking about the voice quality here. I realize that cellphones have improved dramatically, but think about it. They've improved on everything but the phone call.

I'm just so dumbfounded by all this. Compare a regular phone conversation to an internet-based voice chat (Skype). As long as the connection is good, you'll find that the difference is ridiculous. Shouldn't all of our conversations be this crisp? I have read that a new phone technology is slowly taking over, but the key word here is slowly. Have you even heard of this new tech? Why isn't it the standard already? Someone please enlighten me.

"It's up to you"

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 02:26:00 +0000

Everybody should be familiar with this one. You're with a friend or a group of friends, and you ask "what do you guys want to eat?" At that moment, there will undoubtedly be a person that says "I don't mind anything, it's up to you". At first, it might seem like they're just being open-minded and polite, but that's just wishful thinking on their part. In truth, "it's up to you" basically translates to "Don't ask me, I don't feel like deciding". It's dismissive; an avoidance of responsibility. It contributes nothing to the situation; if anything, it makes everything more frustrating.

It doesn't just stop there, either. There are people who say "anything is fine", only to shoot down every suggestion you give. It makes absolutely no sense. If you have a preference, just say it! I've actually seen people get mad about a decision after specifically stating that "ANYTHING is FINE". Please, just try and help make a decision. Don't try to hide your indecisiveness with this pretentious bullshit. You're basically just dead-weight in a survival situation...or an asshole.

Not Dressed for Winter

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 00:03:00 +0000

It's currently 20 degrees Fahrenheit. My college campus is up on pretty high hills, so it feels closer to 10 degrees. It's so cold that my face hurts. It...it just freaking hurts. A lot. No amount of bundling up seems to be enough to stop this blistering pain.

So I'm walking, and everybody is covered in parkas, scarves, and hats. Then there's that one guy who's wearing a T-SHIRT. I see this constantly. My question is, what is wrong with these people? Do they have super-human abilities? Are they poor? Is that why they don't have a jacket on? It's a college campus, these kids have parents. There is no way that money is an issue.

Therefore, the question is still in the air. Why do these people choose not to dress appropriately for winter? It's really just beyond me, and I haven't been able to understand for years...

Paparazzi are Shameless

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:19:00 +0000

I don't think I need to explain to you why paparazzi are garbage, so just watch this video. If you're particularly stupid, you'll be thinking: "Wow! Leonardo DiCaprio is a douchebag." See, this is what paparazzi do. They harass celebrities in order to incite (hopefully) a violent response, and if they succeed, they get to post videos with titles like "Alec Baldwin is crazy, breaks camera".

This is how shameless their profession is. Their job revolves around smearing famous people and reaping the benefits of negative attention. Are angry celebrities really assholes? Of course not; how would you feel if you were greeted with flashing lights and cameras every time you walked outside? I think any sort of response is an acceptable one.

They think they're "exposing" the ugly sides of celebrities when the truth is, they're just being human. Even the most patient people would eventually break from the frustration. As I said, paparazzi are shameless people with a shameless profession. They're no better than criminals, as far as I'm concerned.

What Causes School Shootings?

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 06:36:00 +0000

School shootings are a topic of much fascination in the U.S. They invoke such an impetuous media circus of 'why's' and 'what's' that there's often little time to even mourn for the victims. Perhaps it's the immense shock that comes from the idea of our youth shooting up their peers indiscriminately, but it is a fair question nonetheless. What causes school shootings?

Well, a variety of things. But the discussions that follow are often along the lines of: "did they play too many violent video games?" and "were they fans of death metal?" Superfluous questioning like this wastes so much time and diverts so much attention away from the more pressing issues that it becomes increasingly difficult for people to understand the circumstances behind each tragedy. What one must do is separate the facts from mere conjecture, and that starts with eliminating the more irrelevant points of conversation. Like, for instance, the topic of "violent entertainment" and its effect on children.

Youth violence dropped drastically as the game industry skyrocketed

The fact of the matter is, there is no evidence to prove that violent media causes violent behavior. None. There are various (outdated) studies that claim they have found a "link" between violent video games and aggression, but these studies are inconclusive and dubious at best. Chris Ferguson, a professor of psychology at Texas A&M, published a comprehensive study in 2014 that analyzed the connection between violent media and violent behavior.

Through two studies that examined violent media consumption against youth violence rates, Ferguson was able to conclude that "societal consumption of media violence is not predictive of increased societal violence rates" and that video game consumption is in fact associated with a decline in youth crime rates. Although the aforementioned correlation doesn't necessarily equate to causation, it's certainly clear that violent media isn't contributing to any alleged "rise" in youth violence.

This image makes me want to...knit sweaters.

But if this readily available information is true, why is the gaming industry such a constant target for blame? As Ferguson noted, its a "confirmation bias". If the shooter is a young man, people tend to buy into the assumption that video games had a role. Notice that when the shooter is older, video games are never mentioned. This bias makes it seem like violent media is always an issue among young perpetrators, when the reality is that they almost never turn out to be overt consumers of violent media. Politicians and news media consistently use this bias to blame irrelevant things, despite having no data to support their claims.

The question must then be asked: "What really causes school shootings?" Obviously, there's no one answer, as each tragedy was the result of a culmination of various factors, but I'll start by pointing out the most important aspect: the clear mental instability that seems to be so commonly exhibited by mass murderers like Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold, and Seung Hui Cho.

Seung Hui Cho (Virginia Tech)

Seung Hui Cho (the Virginia Tech shooter) had a long, recorded history of mental illness that plagued him and those around him for almost his entire life. During his formative years, he suffered from a crippling social anxiety that made it nearly impossible for his teachers and loved ones to communicate with him, and in the 8th grade he was diagnosed as having "full-blown depression" and suicidal thoughts. This followed him into his years at Virginia Tech, where he was once involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility for sending a message to one of his suite-mates that read: "I might as well kill myself."

Much of his time at Virginia Tech was marked by run-ins with fellow students and professors. He was reported by two different female students for stalking, and his professors frequently noted how they were disturbed by his "angry writings and oddness". Lucinda Roy, the head of the English department, once tried to tutor Cho privately, but she was forced to alert the school's counseling service and police after being "unnerved" by his behavior. She thought he was "so miserable he might kill himself."

Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris (Columbine)

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not as closely monitored throughout their lives as Cho, but the FBI and it's team of psychologists have been able to decipher the shooters' mental profiles rather conclusively after two decades of extensive research. Eric Harris was a classic psychopath who displayed "prominent antisocial, narcissistic, and sadistic traits." His hateful journal entries, which were once thought to have been influenced by bullying, show that he had extreme contempt for other people. He pitied them, and viewed them as "inferior" beings who deserved to be punished. He once stated that he wanted to "wage a war" on society and "outdo" the Oklahoma City bombing, so it's apparent that he had grander, more sadistic goals than mere vengeance.

Dylan Klebold, on the other hand, had a much weaker personality and was actually a major depressive who showed no signs of being psychotic. He was "profoundly religious", and his journal entries show that he was constantly fighting suicidal thoughts with his spirituality, although his anger and self-disgust would eventually win him over. Klebold likely felt that he had little to live for, and it's reasonable to believe that his participation in the Columbine shooting was the result of him being influenced by the megalomaniac Harris.

With problems so deeply rooted in their disturbed personalities, how could anyone assume that trivial influences like music and video games were responsible for their actions? They were mentally and emotionally volatile people, and their desperate acts were ultimately the result of their being unable to exist in the midst of a toxic environment that has an utter lack of care for the sick. What they needed was for others to take notice before the inevitable happened, but this seems to be how our society deals with "troubled" individuals. We dismiss them, and hope they crawl into a corner somewhere.

It's honestly such an enormous shame how we tend to glide over people with clear psychological issues. Oftentimes, we disregard their struggles because of the lack of any definite consensus, but I believe there's also an intentional avoidance that is committed out of a fear of responsibility. What we have to do is approach each problem individually instead of constantly trying to place the blame on some misguided assumption. Every tragedy has a unique set of circumstances surrounding very complicated individuals, and it's simple ignorance to think that answers can be found out in plain sight.

Ironically, Marilyn Manson said it best in an interview from Bowling for Columbine:

Michael Moore: "If you were to talk directly to the kids at Columbine, what would you say to them?"

Marilyn Manson: "I wouldn't say a single word to them. I would listen to what they have to say, and that's what no one did."

"Finish Your Food", or Overeat?

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 10:41:00 +0000

I'm not sure if this varies from culture to culture, but the general rule at the dinner table seems to be "finish your food". Your parents encouraged (or strictly enforced) it from an early age so it's likely been ingrained into your eating habits like a tumor. As a result, you've probably had numerous meals where you forcibly shoved food down your throat just to clear your plate. The main reason behind this form of parenting is obvious: wasting food is inconsiderate to those who are less fortunate. This is a perfectly acceptable cause, but being who I am, I couldn't help but question it a bit.

First, I want to address the issue of who the blame goes to in the case of wasted food. Traditionally, parents will chastise a child for leaving an unfinished plate. There might obviously be some disciplinary reasons behind it, but more often than not, the child is merely unable to eat beyond his/her capacity. So what is the child guilty of? Perhaps the parents should reconsider their portioning. It is ridiculous that we as a society buy excessive amounts of food, only to realize that we do not need all of it. By the end of the week, it is suddenly the child's fault for not over-indulging.

That is really all it comes down to. Parents are not teaching a valuable lesson; they are merely teaching children to overeat. A person should not have to feel sick instead of full. This is a sign of overeating, and it is incredibly dangerous and unhealthy.

Let's bring restaurants into the picture. If you've ever been to an American restaurant, you'll know that their portions are enormous. I often have trouble finishing my plate. Now, is that my fault? I certainly chose the dish, but is it within my power to choose the exact portion of that particular dish? If I had the right to tell the chef how to do his job, I would. Unfortunately, that's idiotic. I simply choose not to overeat.

I will subsequently hear the ever-so-common "that's a waste of money". Thank you for your opinion, but it's my money. I decide whether or not it's been wasted. My goal was to alleviate my hunger, not finish a plate of food. If I accomplish my goal, I consider my money well-spent no matter how much food is left. After I leave, it's the restaurant's problem. But do they care? Why should they? I've already given them the full price of the food. They should have been well-prepared to let go of whatever food is sent out.

Now, you're likely thinking: "You can say these things because you live well and have lots of food!" Yes, this is true, but what is with society's insistence that we feel guilty for living well? Is it morally unjust to not be starving and miserable? If I lived in poverty, I would viciously devour a full plate of food without some goon telling me to. But that is not our worry, is it? Our worry is over-indulgence, and we need to address this issue sensibly.

I choose not to feel morally obligated to eat because I accept the reality that we do not care. The people reminding you about the starving children in Africa are the same people who do nothing about it on a daily basis. Let's face it: a starving child does not care that you are finishing your plate. If anything, they would hate you for stuffing your fat face in chicken pasta. If we really cared, we would be sending aid and building schools every day instead of judgmentally telling each other that wasting food is wrong. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I admit that I don't care, and I won't chastise anyone else for it. Think about this the next time you ready your pitch fork and point accusingly.

5 Popular Misconceptions (We Have Got to Stop Believing)

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 04:13:00 +0000

Lists about common misconceptions and myths are so overdone, but I'm making one anyway because I honestly can't believe people still have to be told about some of the most common urban myths. I'm going to run through the myths I still hear on a daily basis. Hopefully, this will stop at least one person from saying stupid shit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. "Hair grows back darker and thicker if you shave it"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever the topic of shaving comes up, someone in the room will almost certainly say: "Oh but you shouldn't shave cause it'll just come back thicker". This may be the most reasonable belief because technically, the hair does look a bit darker. However, the act of shaving does not cause hair to magically grow thicker every time. I always ask people, "then wouldn't hair eventually become like an inch thick?", to which they have no rebuttal.

In reality, the hair that grows back simply appears darker because it is new and healthy. The hair we have hanging around wears out and splits over time, similar to how our favorite dark wash jeans fade after battling the elements and being washed. Basically, it's all an illusion. Our hair stays exactly the same. Now stop worrying about shaving that leg hair, its fine.

------------------------------------------------------
4. "Knuckle cracking causes arthritis"
------------------------------------------------------

I usually can't get away with obnoxiously cracking my joints without someone nearby yelling: "Stop! Don't you know you're gonna get arthritis?" Well, maybe I will get arthritis one day, but it definitely won't be from cracking my joints. This is a ridiculous myth. Click the link to learn about knuckle cracking in detail. Basically, the popping noise is produced by applying pressure to the "joint capsule", which stores dissolved gasses. That's all it is: a noise. Studies have already shown that joint cracking has no connection to arthritis whatsoever.

-----------------------------------------------
3. "Don't drink that! I have a cold"
-----------------------------------------------

Everyone should be familiar with this one. Someone amongst the group has a cold, and you're eating and drinking. You want to take a sip of the sick person's drink, but he stops you and says: "Wait! I have a cold remember?" Obviously, the worry here is that the cold is going to spread through the saliva on his cup. Fortunately, the cold virus is not transmitted through saliva. It actually exists only in mucus from the respiratory system. People think the cold is so dangerously contagious, but you would literally have to cough into someone's throat to infect them. No more worries about sharing drinks, or even kissing (*nudge nudge*)

------------------------------------------------
2. "Drink 8 glasses of water a day"
------------------------------------------------

Some people carry around giant bottles of water with exactly eight cups of water due to this misconception. Unfortunately, the claim "You have to drink 8 cups of water a day" makes about as much sense as "You need to wear an extra large to fit your body perfectly". There is no universal number you can put on people because everybody requires a different number depending on every variable that exists (physical activity, weight, age, diet, etc). You get fluids from the food you eat, and if you drink coffee every morning, that counts too. To say that you need exactly 8 cups is absolutely ridiculous.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. "Too much candy will give you a sugar rush"
-------------------------------------------------------------------

This myth is normally intended for children, but adults continue to spew this stupid claim on a daily basis. This is the myth that influenced me to create this post. In truth, sugar does not cause highs because a sugar high does not exist at all. Some sugar highs may have been associated with the caffeine in chocolate. Countless studies have been performed to the point where it should now be painfully obvious that sugar is not some sort of stimulant. I feel that sometimes, people choose to believe things they already know aren't true. It's a strange phenomenon, but it's really the only explanation I can think of.

"I'll Pray For You"

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 01:56:00 +0000

"I'll pray for you". If you are surrounded by enough Christians (or go to church), you've probably heard this sentence uttered countless times. Now, this isn't a post about religion. Rather, it's a post about people and their social habits. You see, whenever someone claims that they'll pray for you, they're really just trying to avoid the situation altogether. It's kind of the equivalent of saying "Alright....well good luck with that!" The picture really explains it all. Whoever bothers saying "I'll pray for you" simply doesn't care. They don't care enough to actually do something to help, so they just try to get away with pretending like they care.

Obviously, there might be an occasional person that actually does end up keeping you in their thoughts, but how often does this actually happen? I'd rather have them put some actual effort into helping me. I guess this is what you would call an empty promise. It's like when someone says, "Just let me know if you ever need something". They don't actually want you to bother them, and they definitely don't want to do anything for you. It's an empty gesture.

Maybe it's just simple etiquette and I shouldn't be complaining, but I find the whole thing completely disingenuous. Nothing bothers me more than people who are fake, so obviously it irks me when someone says "I'll pray for you", only to do absolutely nothing forever. If you're going to say anything, just say "I hope it works out". Say something meaningless rather than lie. Trust me, it's the right thing to do. Maybe... What. Hot dogs.

Gun Advocates are Delusional

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 08:12:00 +0000

The U.S. is still shaken by the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings, which took place on December 14, 2012. It involved a lone gunman who shot and killed 20 elementary-aged children and 6 staff members at a Connecticut elementary school. The impact of this incident was enormous, which is why the nation is still shocked and confused. The main thing that this tragedy stirred up was the inevitable gun-control debate. Quite frankly, I find it amazing that we're still having this debate as a nation. We've faced nothing but senseless innocent death day after day, yet we still feel inclined to give people the right to own guns. It's ridiculous.

But you know what left me absolutely speechless?

The NRA's suggestion to station armed guards at every school. Because that's what our children need, right? A military presence at their fun-filled schools! Honestly, I don't see the NRA as a legitimate organization anymore, and I don't think they take themselves seriously either. I think they've faced so much opposition that they've gone insane. That's whats making them spew ignorant crap like this.

Here is the sad truth about the NRA and gun supporters in general. They simply do not care about public safety. Every time they suggest that guns could help protect people, they are merely giving excuses to maintain their public image. They know that guns do more harm than good, but they are too concerned with their own interests to care. Ultimately, it is all about their hopeless love for firearms. It's a culturally rooted, unconditional love, which is why gun lovers are so persistent despite the murders that occur too often in this country. The Second Amendment has its roots in the American Revolution, when every colonist was still fighting for independence. Is it, thus, relevant in this day and age, when the U.S. is unmatched in military dominance? Is it so worthy of protecting when our children are unsafe at their own schools?

People can argue and defend their right to bear arms all day, but nothing can change the fact that gun-related incidents happen way too often. It's true that many gun enthusiasts never end up harming anyone with their weapons. However, while they are enjoying their "hobby", people like Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech Shooter) are getting ridiculously easy access to firearms. That's the issue here. Can gun lovers just sacrifice a little bit of their freedom to shoot things so twenty 6 year old's can live? Is that such a problem?

The final thing I want to discuss is the various arguments gun lovers use to support firearms. First of all, the ever common "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument makes absolutely no sense. Yes, guns don't magically pull their own triggers, but they sure do make it easy for murderers to kill A LOT of people. An incident in China occurred around the same time as the Sandy Hook school shooting. A man wielding a knife slashed and injured 22 children at an elementary school. Both incidents are eerily similar, but the big difference is that no one was killed in the incident in China. Can you still argue that guns aren't a problem at this point? Do you really believe that the Aurora movie theater shooter could have killed nearly as many people, waving a knife around? Of course not; it's absolutely idiotic to think so.

Some people defend the right to protect their families with guns. Hey, how about we get rid of guns entirely so we don't have to fend off gun wielders with guns. Why create the vicious cycle? I just can't get myself to understand it. In the end, we can't stop people from killing other people. However, we can significantly reduce the damage done by getting rid of these incredibly efficient murder weapons. When you think about it, the Second Amendment only helps NRA card-holders enjoy their hobby. It's criminal that we are allowing innocent people to die so that a small group of people can have fun.

The U.S. seriously needs to initiate some sort of reform, to either limit or ban firearms entirely. I really don't enjoy being afraid to get shot while watching a movie. I really, really don't.

Aging Japan and the Herbivore Male

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 06:02:00 +0000

Japan has been at the forefront of technological advancement and wacky creativity for decades. Their feats are made doubly impressive by the fact that they transformed themselves from a war-torn nation into what is now the third largest economy in the world. What all their modern flair hides, however, is the pervasive aging crisis that's slated to lower Japan's population by 38 million. They're aging faster than any country in history, and it's reported that by the year 2050, four out of ten Japanese people will be 65 or over.

Ridiculous, isn't it? That's 30% of the entire population! For as long as I've been a fan of everything from Japan, I've been under the impression that everything was just fine and dandy over there. Apparently not, considering how they are still in a recession; this population issue will only serve to worsen their situation. There are numerous reasons for the aging crisis, with one being how Japanese people live forever. Japanese people are some of the healthiest people on Earth, and considering the kind of care elderly people receive, a lot of them end up being 80 and still active. They just hang around forever, and refuse to die.

The elderly are projected to outnumber the young.

Another, more pressing reason for Japan's population crisis is the unusually low birthrate. Women just aren't having enough kids. The reasons for why are unclear, but there are a few solid theories. First of all, it seems that in general, lower class families tend to have more children. This phenomenon is clearly seen in the poorer areas of developed nations, and in countries with a high level of poverty. We don't see this too often in Japan, however, considering how highly educated their population is.

This isn't to say Japan doesn't have poor people; of course they do. But in general, Japan is a highly developed nation with an incredibly high literacy and education rate. Because of this enormous percentage of healthy, educated workers, there are hardly any families that try to get larger than four members. Cramped living spaces, easy access to birth-control, and a desire to raise a limited number of highly educated children contribute to this trend. So, it all makes sense now, right?

Well, here is where it gets interesting...

There has been talk about "herbivore men" in Japan. A herbivore male is basically a man who shys away from competition, choosing instead to lead a safe, comfortable life filled with hobbies and devoid of social interaction. To put it simply, herbivore men are the "nerds" of society. Now, I find this slightly humorous but mostly disturbing. According to Lifenet, a Japanese insurance company, a poll of 1000 men in their 20's and 30's revealed that 75% of men identify themselves as herbivore men. Really? 75 percent? And herein lies the problem. There is genuine concern that this rise in antisocial men is contributing to Japan's birthrate crisis.

It may sound silly, but this has been a very real discussion for some time. These "herbivore men" are seen as contributing very little to society because of their refusal to participate in "the game". They recede into their own noncompetitive worlds with justifications involving a "lack of interest", but I believe this to be a very powerful example of denial. It seems that they are simply so far beyond trying to live up to society's expectations that they just give up. What results is the woman's struggle to find an attractive mate. Attractiveness may be subjective, but one undeniable reality is that women biologically seek men who demonstrate assertiveness and power. It would seem that they're failing to do so because of this startling lack of meat-eaters.

Sal 9000, the man who married his Love Plus character

Again, it may sound far-fetched and insignificant, but there are actually a handful of other countries (South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan) that also exhibit this exact phenomenon, and it's just alarming to me because I've been oblivious to all of the troubles that have come from Japan's widespread otaku culture. As much as I am of a fan of all things virtual and Japanese, I can't say that I agree with how "herbivore males" are leading their lives. A subject that should normally be none of our concern is actually contributing to a national crisis, so I believe that it's probably in everybody's best interest to note the possible harm that this new escapist culture is doing. It may just save a country.

Jeremy Lin: Linsanity

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:01:00 +0000

Unless you're a basement shut-in with no interest in sports, you've probably heard about the biggest thing in basketball right now. Jeremy Lin, a relative nobody who was undrafted, booted off two teams, and benched for the majority of his career, came exploding onto the scene as he helped the Knicks win 7 games in a row. Remember how the Knicks kind of sucked? Lin has single-handedly made them a relevant team again, and has increased NBA viewership like no one has ever done before. Anyway, what is so special about him, you ask?

Well first of all, Lin is the first ever to score at least 20 points and 7 assists in their first five starting games since the NBA we know today came into existence. He was averaging 27.3 points and 8.3 assists when he was named the Eastern Conference Player of the Week; those are almost all-star numbers. He outscored Kobe Bryant (38) in the Knicks' meeting with the Lakers, and scored a game-winning 3-pointer against the Raptors with less than a second left in the game. So far, they've won 9 out of their last 11 games.

This sort of phenomenon has seriously never happened before. Demand for his shirt is through the roof, and the NBA store's sales increased by 3000%. He has graced the cover of Sports Illustrated two times in a row, and has brought so much life back to Madison Square Garden that it has been stimulating the stock market. It's not just about his stats however. When you compare him to veteran stars like Kobe and Lebron, he may not seem like a big deal. This is not what has masses of people captivated, however. It's his amazing rags to riches story; the fact that he was given virtually no chance to show what he was capable until now. Everybody loves an underdog, and his story is truly entertaining.

Now, obviously I need to bring in my opinion and discuss the hottest aspect of Linsanity: race. He is the first Chinese-American to play in the league, and the first player of Asian descent to ever make such an impact on the NBA. Now, the big question is: "is race a factor in his fame?" Basically, its yes and no. Yes, it is a factor. Asians are so under-represented in sports in general, so its a huge deal when an Asian-American is the headliner in absolutely everything. But is it the only reason? Absolutely not. Remember, the record he set (20 points and 7 assists as a rookie) is out of every player in history, not just among Asians or undrafted players. Like I said, people love him for his underdog story.

I really love this guy, mainly because he is doing so much for the Asian community. He is really breaking barriers, and I have the utmost respect for him because of that. He's incredibly humble, and apparently a dedicated Christian. Also, he's a Harvard grad; he's pretty much the perfect Asian. Let's not forget his skills with the ball as well. I've become a huge Knicks fan ever since he made it big, and I really hope for the best, not just because I want the Knicks to win, but mostly because I want him to prove himself out there as a representative of all Asians.

And by the way, to the haters that can't help but try to put him down at every turn: shove it up your ass. It's true that the media is hyping him to death (he's making people incredible money), but he really deserves everything. He's been influential to so many people, so putting him down just for the sake of doing so is just a scumbag move. People keep trying to compare him to all-star players and take every chance to kill the hype whenever he makes a mistake. He's a god damn ROOKIE, give the guy a full season first. The media hype makes it seem like he has to be superman in every game, its obviously not fair in that sense. And it's not like he's the one throwing his face all over the media. He's a basketball player, and a great one at that.

Dog Meat is Not Korean Traditional Food

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 00:45:00 +0000

If you don't know by now, I'm Korean. If there is any negative stereotype Koreans are known for, it is that they eat dog meat. Now, is this some sort of elaborate lie? Of course not; it's absolutely true. I remember walking through a street market when I was a kid, and there were slaughtered dogs ready to be sold. What you have to understand though, is that dog meat is NOT a common food. Just because it exists, doesn't mean people consume it regularly. Saying "all Koreans eat dogs" is like saying "all Americans are Latino gang members". Nowadays, it's just as unpopular in Korea as it is in any country in the world, mostly due to the younger generation being used to keeping dogs as pets.

Anyway, the only reason I'm bringing this up is because I am sick and tired of hearing ignorant, narrow-minded people complaining about how people consume dog meat. There is simply no valid reason for why anyone would be against it. I don't care what your beliefs are; nothing is "right" if it's completely clouded in bias. Let me explain to you why it's foolish to chastise people for eating dogs.

In the past, meat (and food in general) was incredibly scarce in Korea. My parents and most of my friend's parents grew up poor and starving. When you live in that sort of condition, how can you possibly afford to be picky? Most families were lucky to have a piece of meat each year. That is why Koreans started eating dogs. It wasn't present-day USA; cows and pigs weren't everywhere. They had to eat whatever they could find. This also explains why Chinese people are known for eating all sorts of "weird" things. Do you really think starving people get to choose what they eat? If that's the case, then you are in desperate need of a reality check.

If you're one of those people that look down on others simply because you don't like the idea of eating dog, then you are also incredibly ignorant (a huge majority of people hate dog consumption for this reason, sadly). "Oh my god, how can you eat dogs? That's so cruel", they say, as they munch on their chicken salad. You really have to ask yourself: what sets dogs apart from other animals? What makes dogs so much more deserving of compassion? People eat pigs and cows and chickens all day every day, but when it's a dog, suddenly it's the worst thing in the world.

Do you know why you hate the idea of eating dogs? Because they're cute, and you're used to petting them and keeping them as companions. That is the ONLY reason. It's a personal and cultural bias. If it was normal for society to keep chickens as household pets, we would all be grossed out about eating chickens. It's as simple as that. Western society has this horrible habit of thinking they are the pinnacle of humanity, so it is only natural for them to look down on other cultures for doing things that they are not used to. "But some things are just morally wrong!" Really? I'm not even going to explain why that is an idiotic thing to say.

You might be thinking, "Alright, maybe it was okay a long time ago because people were starving, but why continue to eat them?" Well, I answered that question earlier. People DON'T eat dogs these days. You'd have to look really hard, in very particular areas of South Korea to find any sellers of dog meat. So please, enough with the ignorance. There is simply no excuse for speaking out against something you don't understand.

The Bystander Effect

noreply@blogger.com (C.Jin) — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 04:27:00 +0000

So I was just surfing youtube, and I stumbled upon the video above. The video itself isn't interesting, but the comments below it got me a bit riled up. Almost every user was complaining about how the onlookers just stood there and did nothing. They called it disgusting, and cowardly. I used to think like this when I was immature too, but I don't bullshit anymore.

It's called the bystander effect. Everybody expects someone else in the crowd to act, and when this sort of mindset is the natural psychological response, nobody ends up acting. You can talk and judge people all you want, but if you were in that sort of situation, I almost guarantee that you would do the exact same thing. Not everybody is a military combat expert with the experience necessary to safely incapacitate a criminal willing to assault or rob someone in public. Nobody that isn't a cop should be expected to put themselves in danger like that.

Sure, it's bad that someone's becoming a victim of crime in public, but its incredibly hypocritical to judge people for not acting. Besides, its plain impulsive and stupid to risk your life by involving yourself in something that has nothing to do with you. Call it cowardice all you want, but its just idiotic.