A few days ago, a trainer at Orlando's Sea World was killed by one of the orcas they use in their Shamu shows. The whale allegedly grabbed the trainer, Dawn Brancheau, by her ponytail and pulled her into the water. It is unclear whether her death was caused by drowning or by the whale's assault. There has been public outcry since the incident, with people calling for the whale's freedom...and the whale's death.
Let's look at some facts here, shall we? Orcas, in their natural habitat, prefer to hunt for their food, not be fed dead fish by human hands. "Killer whales often hunt cooperatively in pods for food. They work together to encircle and herd prey into a small area before attacking." So how fun for them to not be able to do what comes naturally for them. Orcas can also swim up to 100 miles a day. Tilikum, the whale in question, weighs 12,000 lbs and is 22 feet long. His tank is 35 feet deep. Does that sound comfortable to you? "Day-to-day behavior generally divides into four activities: foraging, traveling, resting and socializing." So they pretty much get to do one of those every day - resting.
Listen, I'm all for entertainment. I love animals, love going to the zoo and the aquarium. But when people start blaming wild animals for attacks on humans, it's going too far. Tilikum was only doing what came naturally to him. It's possible that he thought the ponytail floating in the water was a fish. It's possible he was playing with the trainer and his strength overpowered her. Or, it's possible that Tilikum was simply having a bad day and was fed up and anxious because of his surroundings. That's why they're called wild animals, people. That's why you're not allowed to have tigers or bears as pets - no matter what, you can't take away their animalistic urges.
Look at Sigfried and Roy. We all saw what happened there. Those men had raised those tigers from cubs, yet Roy was still attacked. Do I think the animal wanted to cause him harm? Probably not - but his instincts still kicked in.
Look at "Rocky the Bear," a 700 pound grizzly who has been trained to appear in films. He killed his trainer a few years back. Now, the habitat which houses Rocky is "trying to decide his fate." So because they decided to pull this bear out of his home and force him, for 5 years, to train and act, he finally lashes out and now may be killed for it?
And how about that genius, Timothy Treadwell? For 13 years, he spent the warm months in Katmai National Park in Alaska. Armed with the bare essentials, plus a video camera, Treadwell would follow and even interact with the wild grizzly bears that roam the area. He even named a few of them. The night before he was to board a helicopter out of the park at the end of his 13th season with the bears, he and his girlfriend were attacked and eaten by the very bears he called by name. What happened to the bears? Killed, immediately. Why? Because the bears were fed up with this dude following them around for 13 years?! Because they're predatory animals by nature and if you mess with their territory, they're probably going to attack you?
Please don't misunderstand me - I am not saying that any of the people I mentioned above deserved what they got. But it shouldn't be such a shock to people when these things happen. Remember Steve Irwin? His death was a tragedy, but did you see a public outcry for the execution of the sting ray that killed him? No, because Steve was in unpredictable, dangerous water at the time of his death, and knew he was putting himself at risk. He was always very realistic about how dangerous his job was - he was under no false assumptions that these animals trusted him.
That being said, I certainly don't think wild animals should go around killing off every human who mistakenly (or purposefully) stumbles upon them. But do I think the animals should be killed so that humans can go camping safely? Or so humans can watch a movie with a cute bear in it? Or so we can see a good show at an amusement park? Absolutely not.
This is interesting: I did a little research, and could not come up with any stories about killer whales in the wild being involved in human deaths. Not one. In fact, I came up with this quote instead: "There have been very few confirmed attacks on humans by wild killer whales, none of which has been fatal." So what does that tell you? That tells you that Tilikum was agitated and pushed to the breaking point. That means that, no matter how much these trainers think they have control, or have bonded with these animals, there's no telling what could happen. I say we go Free Willy on Tilikum's ass. Who's with me?
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
"The Lighthouse"- Lost recap 2/23
You probably shouldn't read this if you don't watch Lost or aren't yet caught up to the most recent episode. Spoilers abound...
Tonight's episode of Lost didn't do much in the way of propelling the story forward. I don't know about you, but with T-minus 13 episodes left in the series, I want every episode to be action packed and full of answers. Of course there has to be a story - but do we really have to meet an entire cast of newcomers, plus learn about a whole other life the castaways are leading in an alternate reality? (See, I told you you shouldn't read this if you don't watch the show or aren't caught up.) The characters we've come to love are completely different in the "flash-sideways," and I haven't come to terms with these new stories yet. Jack is a loving father? Ethan is a kindly doctor? Locke is a jovial, happy man? Ben is a quippy, (seemingly) friendly teacher? No, that's not the show I've invested in for 6 years. Jack is supposed to be a broken, drug addicted, suicidal jerk. Ethan is a bad guy. Locke is a bitter, obsessed man of faith. Ben is a psychotic compulsive liar and manipulator. Which of these characters am I supposed to root for: the island castaways that we've come to love over the past years, or the flash-sideways strangers with completely different lives?
Anyways, tonight's episode, "The Lighthouse," felt like one of those transitional episodes where they're setting up for more action to go down next week. (Which, judging by the lack of a real preview for the next episode, just may be the case.) Jack was the focus of this episode, and in his flash sideways, we see that he has an appendectomy scar. Remember that Juliet and Kate had to perform emergency surgery on Jack to remove his appendix in the season 4 episode "Something Nice Back Home." Upon calling his mother and asking her when he had his appendix out, his mother reminds him that it was when he was 7 or 8 years old - doesn't he remember? Jack doesn't seem sure. How would he not remember something like that? We come to find out that Jack has a son, David. We go through yet another daddy-issues subplot about David not being a big fan of Jack's, although I don't quite understand why, as Jack seems to be a very loving father. When Jack goes to his mother's house to help her find his father's will, we are led to believe that his mother tells him about Claire being his half sister. Any kind of reaction from Jack is left to our imagination. Also, she mentions that David was broken up "at the funeral." Who died? It wasn't Christian's funeral, because they still hadn't located his coffin. It wasn't David's mother, because we heard later that she is "out of town."
So, now we know that Claire and Jack are both in LA, and Jack knows about their relation - will this lead to a meeting between the destined Jack and Kate? Another question - are we to assume that Sarah, Jack's ex wife in the old timeline, is David's mother? I'm guessing maybe not, because if she were, why not just tell us? Yet another mystery to add to the ever growing and ever frustrating list...
Fun side note that my neighbor and I noticed: In the first scene, when Jack returns home from the airport (I think), we are shown several pictures on a table. In one of them, he is standing between his parents - his father is wearing white, his mother, black. "One is light, one is dark..." and Jack is in the middle. Symbolism?
Now on to suddenly alive and badass mama Claire. Listen, Rousseau was on that island alone for 16 years, and she managed to look halfway decent. Did Claire's hair really have to be that crazy? I digress...this whole Claire storyline seemed a bit forced to me. Emilie De Ravin can be quite the over-actor at times, and this side to her character is a little unbelievable. Important things of note: I know we're supposed to make the connection between Claire and mother-scorned Roussaeu, but they were definitely pushing it on us - Claire had dynamite from the Black Rock in her tent, and apparently had been setting booby traps all over the island. Veeery Danielle of her. Also, the whole time Jin was in her tent, I was yelling at my tv screen "Why the eff aren't you telling her where Aaron is?! You KNOW where he is!!" When he finally did, I felt vindicated. (And the vein that had been popping out of my neck stopped.) Why would Claire kill Kate if she was raising Aaron? Claire disappeared to go hang with Christian/Smokey (?) and abandoned Aaron in the jungle. I mean, obviously she's been branded (literally) by the Temple-Others as "infected." Any thoughts as to what this infection actually means for the characters? I mean, we already know that Fake Locke (FLocke) is the Man In Black/Smokey - so are there other evil forces at play on the island that can inhabit dead people on the island? Because that seems to be a prerequisite for being infected - you've gotta die first. Sayid did. And Claire was presumed dead...I mean, she was in the house that exploded. Sawyer pulled her out, remember? Hmm...
Onto the whole Jacob/Hurley/Jack story. I like this new, confident Hurley. Dead Jacob appeared to him once again and asked for a favor...but he had to bring Jack. Jacob used Jack's daddy issues to get him to tag along; telling Hurley to say "you have what it takes" (the exact opposite of what daddy Christian had been telling Jack since he was a child) did the trick. They trekked, once again, through the jungle, and ran into rogue Kate along the way. Kate and Jack shared another dreamy-eyed moment, then Kate decided to go off on her own to find Claire. (Jin! Start trying to send her telepathic signals to stay quiet about being Aaron's fake mommy! Bird's-nest-haired Claire will axe her too!) I found it very telling that Kate didn't insist on going with Jack and Hurley; in fact she didn't even demand to know where they were going. Growth? Perhaps.
Upon finding the Lighthouse (which is another thing I find ridiculous...first a huge temple filled with people that our castaways never knew about, and now a lighthouse? How big is this island?), Jack kicked in the door and he and Hurley went to the top to activate the light. This was supposed to help whoever Jacob says is "coming to the island" find it. It was an old lighthouse, with big mirrors to reflect light instead of an actual revolving light. Of course, they have to turn the lighthouse wheel thingy to 108 degrees. Did you expect any other number? (And why doesn't anyone else notice this numbers thing other than Hurley?) While Hurley was pulling the chains to turn the wheel, Jack began to notice names written next to each number, or degree. He also noticed that, for each number Hurley passed, an image of what looked to be houses would appear on the mirrors. Jack saw his friends' names...and then his own.
He turned the wheel to his number- 23. His childhood house showed up on the mirror. What the hell? This reminded me alot of the Wizard of Oz for some reason...when the Wicked Witch is up in her tower, using her crystal ball to see Dorothy. Jack understandably flips out and demands to see Jacob. When Hurley explains that it doesn't work that way (sounding eerily reminiscent of Ben in past seasons when asked about Jacob, only in a less creepy way), Jack smashes all of the mirrors in a fit of rage. "He's been watching us this whole time." What I still can't figure out is if Jacob was, indeed, watching them all since they were children...or he traveled back in time after they crashed to learn more about them. I'm thinking the latter.
Of course, amiable Jacob doesn't seem bothered when he shows up and Hurley tells him that Jack destroyed the lighthouse. "They'll find some other way" to get there. Jacob explains that he needed Jack to see how important he was...and that he has to figure out his purpose on the island for himself. He then says that someone bad was going to the temple, which was why he had to get Hurley and Jack out of there. Hurley wanted to go warn the Temple Folk, but Jacob stated that it was too late. So Jacob doesn't care about Miles? What about Sayid? Jacob was so concerned about getting a dying Sayid to the temple to save him...did he not expect the outcome? Did Jacob not know the water would be dark, and that Sayid would come back...infected? Perhaps Sayid is no longer a "candidate" now. And what about Miles? Was he ever a candidate? He was, afterall, born on the island. And the "someone bad" going to the Temple...is it Claire? Or is it her "that's not John" friend, FLocke? ooooh...
Few more thoughts:
-When Hurley asks what happened between Jack and Kate, why they didn't have a dozen babies, Jack anwers, "I'd make a terrible dad." But in his flash-sideways, we see that Jack is a good father, loving and supportive.
-Re-discovering the Adam and Eve skeletons, Hurley voiced a thought that fans have had for years- "What if these skeletons are US?" (So, Rose and Bernard? Kate and Jack? Sawyer and Juliet? Sun and Jin??)
-Claire to Jin: "One thing that'll kill you out here is infection." Tee-hee
-Perceptive viewers will notice that next to number 108 on the lighthouse wheel was the name Wallace. Who is Wallace?
-Why in God's name was Dogan at David's try outs? Listen producers - I don't care about Dogan! Yeah, he's cool sometimes - but I don't need him to be more involved than getting our castaways from point A to point B. No more new characters!!! I want answers!!! You have 13 more episodes to prove to me that I didn't waste 6 years of my life dissecting and obsessing over Lost. Go!
Tonight's episode of Lost didn't do much in the way of propelling the story forward. I don't know about you, but with T-minus 13 episodes left in the series, I want every episode to be action packed and full of answers. Of course there has to be a story - but do we really have to meet an entire cast of newcomers, plus learn about a whole other life the castaways are leading in an alternate reality? (See, I told you you shouldn't read this if you don't watch the show or aren't caught up.) The characters we've come to love are completely different in the "flash-sideways," and I haven't come to terms with these new stories yet. Jack is a loving father? Ethan is a kindly doctor? Locke is a jovial, happy man? Ben is a quippy, (seemingly) friendly teacher? No, that's not the show I've invested in for 6 years. Jack is supposed to be a broken, drug addicted, suicidal jerk. Ethan is a bad guy. Locke is a bitter, obsessed man of faith. Ben is a psychotic compulsive liar and manipulator. Which of these characters am I supposed to root for: the island castaways that we've come to love over the past years, or the flash-sideways strangers with completely different lives?
Anyways, tonight's episode, "The Lighthouse," felt like one of those transitional episodes where they're setting up for more action to go down next week. (Which, judging by the lack of a real preview for the next episode, just may be the case.) Jack was the focus of this episode, and in his flash sideways, we see that he has an appendectomy scar. Remember that Juliet and Kate had to perform emergency surgery on Jack to remove his appendix in the season 4 episode "Something Nice Back Home." Upon calling his mother and asking her when he had his appendix out, his mother reminds him that it was when he was 7 or 8 years old - doesn't he remember? Jack doesn't seem sure. How would he not remember something like that? We come to find out that Jack has a son, David. We go through yet another daddy-issues subplot about David not being a big fan of Jack's, although I don't quite understand why, as Jack seems to be a very loving father. When Jack goes to his mother's house to help her find his father's will, we are led to believe that his mother tells him about Claire being his half sister. Any kind of reaction from Jack is left to our imagination. Also, she mentions that David was broken up "at the funeral." Who died? It wasn't Christian's funeral, because they still hadn't located his coffin. It wasn't David's mother, because we heard later that she is "out of town."
So, now we know that Claire and Jack are both in LA, and Jack knows about their relation - will this lead to a meeting between the destined Jack and Kate? Another question - are we to assume that Sarah, Jack's ex wife in the old timeline, is David's mother? I'm guessing maybe not, because if she were, why not just tell us? Yet another mystery to add to the ever growing and ever frustrating list...
Fun side note that my neighbor and I noticed: In the first scene, when Jack returns home from the airport (I think), we are shown several pictures on a table. In one of them, he is standing between his parents - his father is wearing white, his mother, black. "One is light, one is dark..." and Jack is in the middle. Symbolism?
Now on to suddenly alive and badass mama Claire. Listen, Rousseau was on that island alone for 16 years, and she managed to look halfway decent. Did Claire's hair really have to be that crazy? I digress...this whole Claire storyline seemed a bit forced to me. Emilie De Ravin can be quite the over-actor at times, and this side to her character is a little unbelievable. Important things of note: I know we're supposed to make the connection between Claire and mother-scorned Roussaeu, but they were definitely pushing it on us - Claire had dynamite from the Black Rock in her tent, and apparently had been setting booby traps all over the island. Veeery Danielle of her. Also, the whole time Jin was in her tent, I was yelling at my tv screen "Why the eff aren't you telling her where Aaron is?! You KNOW where he is!!" When he finally did, I felt vindicated. (And the vein that had been popping out of my neck stopped.) Why would Claire kill Kate if she was raising Aaron? Claire disappeared to go hang with Christian/Smokey (?) and abandoned Aaron in the jungle. I mean, obviously she's been branded (literally) by the Temple-Others as "infected." Any thoughts as to what this infection actually means for the characters? I mean, we already know that Fake Locke (FLocke) is the Man In Black/Smokey - so are there other evil forces at play on the island that can inhabit dead people on the island? Because that seems to be a prerequisite for being infected - you've gotta die first. Sayid did. And Claire was presumed dead...I mean, she was in the house that exploded. Sawyer pulled her out, remember? Hmm...
Onto the whole Jacob/Hurley/Jack story. I like this new, confident Hurley. Dead Jacob appeared to him once again and asked for a favor...but he had to bring Jack. Jacob used Jack's daddy issues to get him to tag along; telling Hurley to say "you have what it takes" (the exact opposite of what daddy Christian had been telling Jack since he was a child) did the trick. They trekked, once again, through the jungle, and ran into rogue Kate along the way. Kate and Jack shared another dreamy-eyed moment, then Kate decided to go off on her own to find Claire. (Jin! Start trying to send her telepathic signals to stay quiet about being Aaron's fake mommy! Bird's-nest-haired Claire will axe her too!) I found it very telling that Kate didn't insist on going with Jack and Hurley; in fact she didn't even demand to know where they were going. Growth? Perhaps.
Upon finding the Lighthouse (which is another thing I find ridiculous...first a huge temple filled with people that our castaways never knew about, and now a lighthouse? How big is this island?), Jack kicked in the door and he and Hurley went to the top to activate the light. This was supposed to help whoever Jacob says is "coming to the island" find it. It was an old lighthouse, with big mirrors to reflect light instead of an actual revolving light. Of course, they have to turn the lighthouse wheel thingy to 108 degrees. Did you expect any other number? (And why doesn't anyone else notice this numbers thing other than Hurley?) While Hurley was pulling the chains to turn the wheel, Jack began to notice names written next to each number, or degree. He also noticed that, for each number Hurley passed, an image of what looked to be houses would appear on the mirrors. Jack saw his friends' names...and then his own.
He turned the wheel to his number- 23. His childhood house showed up on the mirror. What the hell? This reminded me alot of the Wizard of Oz for some reason...when the Wicked Witch is up in her tower, using her crystal ball to see Dorothy. Jack understandably flips out and demands to see Jacob. When Hurley explains that it doesn't work that way (sounding eerily reminiscent of Ben in past seasons when asked about Jacob, only in a less creepy way), Jack smashes all of the mirrors in a fit of rage. "He's been watching us this whole time." What I still can't figure out is if Jacob was, indeed, watching them all since they were children...or he traveled back in time after they crashed to learn more about them. I'm thinking the latter.
Of course, amiable Jacob doesn't seem bothered when he shows up and Hurley tells him that Jack destroyed the lighthouse. "They'll find some other way" to get there. Jacob explains that he needed Jack to see how important he was...and that he has to figure out his purpose on the island for himself. He then says that someone bad was going to the temple, which was why he had to get Hurley and Jack out of there. Hurley wanted to go warn the Temple Folk, but Jacob stated that it was too late. So Jacob doesn't care about Miles? What about Sayid? Jacob was so concerned about getting a dying Sayid to the temple to save him...did he not expect the outcome? Did Jacob not know the water would be dark, and that Sayid would come back...infected? Perhaps Sayid is no longer a "candidate" now. And what about Miles? Was he ever a candidate? He was, afterall, born on the island. And the "someone bad" going to the Temple...is it Claire? Or is it her "that's not John" friend, FLocke? ooooh...
Few more thoughts:
-When Hurley asks what happened between Jack and Kate, why they didn't have a dozen babies, Jack anwers, "I'd make a terrible dad." But in his flash-sideways, we see that Jack is a good father, loving and supportive.
-Re-discovering the Adam and Eve skeletons, Hurley voiced a thought that fans have had for years- "What if these skeletons are US?" (So, Rose and Bernard? Kate and Jack? Sawyer and Juliet? Sun and Jin??)
-Claire to Jin: "One thing that'll kill you out here is infection." Tee-hee
-Perceptive viewers will notice that next to number 108 on the lighthouse wheel was the name Wallace. Who is Wallace?
-Why in God's name was Dogan at David's try outs? Listen producers - I don't care about Dogan! Yeah, he's cool sometimes - but I don't need him to be more involved than getting our castaways from point A to point B. No more new characters!!! I want answers!!! You have 13 more episodes to prove to me that I didn't waste 6 years of my life dissecting and obsessing over Lost. Go!
Monday, February 22, 2010
LA Story
Let's try this again.
I think I'm moving to LA. As in Los Angeles, home of sun, taut bikini bodies, and celebrities. My brother and his soon-to-be husband are moving in July and have invited me to tag along. At first, I laughed at the idea. Me? In sunny LA? I'm a New York kind of person; I like gritty, snowy, cars honking, four seasons, emo-boy, carbohydrate-friendly New York. The thought of moving to a place that's always warm, where everyone's perpetually tan and blonde and thin, is quite daunting. Not to mention the fact that, as a person who hates to fly, I'll be a long 5+ hour flight away from home. But then...
I gave it some thought. Why not? The situation is really ideal - I'd be with my brother. I'd be able to bring George. It would be fun. It would be different. It could potentially open up doors for me with writing. At the very least, it would be an experience, a concept I've become unfamiliar with as of late. Buffalo, for all of its charms, can be quite dull. I'm sure part of it is due to my sedentary life. I never try anything new or exciting. I'm all talk, no action. And, let's face it - none of us are getting any younger. This could be it for me. No, I'm not getting melodramatic and saying my life is over. But how many opportunties like this come up in a person's life? I'm unattached. No children. Why not?
While I've always seen myself living in New York City if I ever left Buffalo, the more I think about it, the more I see that LA would be better for me. In an ideal world, I'd be able to blog about things I love...and somehow get paid for it. Celebrity blogging is a potentially lucrative business to be in, if you handle it correctly and get your name out there. As cheesy and far fetched as it may sound, I feel like I have to try. I mean hey, he may be a complete douche, but wouldn't you love to have Perez Hilton's life? The point is, LA is where celebrities are. So, if I really want to make a go of this, LA is where I have to be.
I'm not sure how I'd fit in to the LA lifestyle. I couldn't care less about the latest trends or fashions. I get my roots done every 5 months, not every 6 weeks. I have never had a "mani-pedi." My dog does not travel by purse, but by his own legs. I don't care for organic wheatgrass fruit smoothie nonfat sushi tofu rolls. I'm not tall, nor am I particularly thin. But still...why the hell not?
I won't make any final decisions until I acually see the place. I've never been to California, but I'm going out with Max and his fiance in April to check it out. I'm trusting them to find us an apartment, as I don't know the neighborhoods. I'm planning on researching schools and serving jobs in our area when we go. It feels really good to be excited about something for the first time in a long time. I'm going to try to focus on the positives and push any negatives to the back of my mind. Anything is better than what I'm doing now. Floating from job to job, stuck in an apartment I don't like, going to the same three bars weekend after weekend, never even attempting to try something new and different. So yes, I may be adverse to change, but anything is better than wasting my life on my futon, watching Frasier reruns every night. And if "anything" means moving to the other side of the country, so be it.
I'm up to the challenge. I'm up for bettering myself and potentially starting a new and exciting chapter to my life, (almost) on my own. This could be great. My life could change drastically over the next year.
And if it doesn't...there's always Buffalo.
I think I'm moving to LA. As in Los Angeles, home of sun, taut bikini bodies, and celebrities. My brother and his soon-to-be husband are moving in July and have invited me to tag along. At first, I laughed at the idea. Me? In sunny LA? I'm a New York kind of person; I like gritty, snowy, cars honking, four seasons, emo-boy, carbohydrate-friendly New York. The thought of moving to a place that's always warm, where everyone's perpetually tan and blonde and thin, is quite daunting. Not to mention the fact that, as a person who hates to fly, I'll be a long 5+ hour flight away from home. But then...
I gave it some thought. Why not? The situation is really ideal - I'd be with my brother. I'd be able to bring George. It would be fun. It would be different. It could potentially open up doors for me with writing. At the very least, it would be an experience, a concept I've become unfamiliar with as of late. Buffalo, for all of its charms, can be quite dull. I'm sure part of it is due to my sedentary life. I never try anything new or exciting. I'm all talk, no action. And, let's face it - none of us are getting any younger. This could be it for me. No, I'm not getting melodramatic and saying my life is over. But how many opportunties like this come up in a person's life? I'm unattached. No children. Why not?
While I've always seen myself living in New York City if I ever left Buffalo, the more I think about it, the more I see that LA would be better for me. In an ideal world, I'd be able to blog about things I love...and somehow get paid for it. Celebrity blogging is a potentially lucrative business to be in, if you handle it correctly and get your name out there. As cheesy and far fetched as it may sound, I feel like I have to try. I mean hey, he may be a complete douche, but wouldn't you love to have Perez Hilton's life? The point is, LA is where celebrities are. So, if I really want to make a go of this, LA is where I have to be.
I'm not sure how I'd fit in to the LA lifestyle. I couldn't care less about the latest trends or fashions. I get my roots done every 5 months, not every 6 weeks. I have never had a "mani-pedi." My dog does not travel by purse, but by his own legs. I don't care for organic wheatgrass fruit smoothie nonfat sushi tofu rolls. I'm not tall, nor am I particularly thin. But still...why the hell not?
I won't make any final decisions until I acually see the place. I've never been to California, but I'm going out with Max and his fiance in April to check it out. I'm trusting them to find us an apartment, as I don't know the neighborhoods. I'm planning on researching schools and serving jobs in our area when we go. It feels really good to be excited about something for the first time in a long time. I'm going to try to focus on the positives and push any negatives to the back of my mind. Anything is better than what I'm doing now. Floating from job to job, stuck in an apartment I don't like, going to the same three bars weekend after weekend, never even attempting to try something new and different. So yes, I may be adverse to change, but anything is better than wasting my life on my futon, watching Frasier reruns every night. And if "anything" means moving to the other side of the country, so be it.
I'm up to the challenge. I'm up for bettering myself and potentially starting a new and exciting chapter to my life, (almost) on my own. This could be great. My life could change drastically over the next year.
And if it doesn't...there's always Buffalo.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)