Saturday, October 23, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Art of the Beholder
I like art.
I particularly enjoy the works of Bruegel the Elder, Rene Magritte, and Jack Vittriano. "Landscape with a Bird Trap", "The Fall of Icarus", and "L'Empire des Lumieres" are perhaps my three favorite individual pieces. Outside of the weight room one of my most favorite places is the art gallery. Sure, I suppose a modern art gallery could suffice here and there, but I'm talking about a real art gallery- like this one.
I understand and appreciate that art can be...subjective. I remember when people were shocked over Damien Hirst's diamond encrusted skull. Seriously? A diamond covered cranium is considered "art"? If you can display it, and people will see it, I suppose it fits the bill. And I don't mind- so long as it isn't intended to offend.
Here is an instance where "art" is not truly art, but rather an attempt to insult in the name of art. This time, though, a portrait of Christ going down on a guy is not "art". It's blatant disrespect. Though I probably wouldn't have used a crowbar, I applaud the woman for standing up to people who pushed Christian bashing too far. In today's culture you can make fun of Christianity all you want- that's free speech, and if it's done in the name of "art", well, no harm no foul. The Christians will take it in stride.
Any other religion though is off limits- in the names of toleration and respect. Anybody remember Molly Noris? She tried to get lots of people to just draw Muhammed (something people apparently used to do quite a bit). Death threats and unpleasantries ensued; she ended up moving into the witness protection program. So much for "in the name of art".
The above article caught my attention not because of the offensively insensitive picture of Christ, but because of a reference to de Sade.
The Marquis de Sade was a French revolutionary who lived at the turn of the 19th century. He's remembered today as the author of novels and short stories that involve coprophagia, genital mutilation, sodomy, pedophilia, incest, rape, torture, nymphomania, abduction, disembowelment, mutilation, and sexual slavery. His name is the basis for the word "sadism". Among his writings were 120 Days of Sodom and Juliette. He is also a chief inspiration for the Anne Desclos (pennamed Pauline Reage) Story of O, which became an inspiration for entire genres of mainstream (if one can use such a term) BDSM groups. Note that while O is supposedly about female sexual liberation, it involves genital mutilation, humiliation, rape, sexual slavery, physical abuse, and mental dominance; all hallmark themes in a de Sade story.
And now the National Endowment for the Arts, with taxpayer money, is paying John Galbraith Simmons $12500 to translate the de Sade story Aline and Valcour.
Never mind that Aline and Valcour was translated in a collection of de Sade writings by Leonard de Saint-Yves in 1954. We already have an English copy of de Sade's story. And now the government is paying for another one.
Sparkling skulls are one thing, but this....how is this art?
I particularly enjoy the works of Bruegel the Elder, Rene Magritte, and Jack Vittriano. "Landscape with a Bird Trap", "The Fall of Icarus", and "L'Empire des Lumieres" are perhaps my three favorite individual pieces. Outside of the weight room one of my most favorite places is the art gallery. Sure, I suppose a modern art gallery could suffice here and there, but I'm talking about a real art gallery- like this one.
I understand and appreciate that art can be...subjective. I remember when people were shocked over Damien Hirst's diamond encrusted skull. Seriously? A diamond covered cranium is considered "art"? If you can display it, and people will see it, I suppose it fits the bill. And I don't mind- so long as it isn't intended to offend.
Here is an instance where "art" is not truly art, but rather an attempt to insult in the name of art. This time, though, a portrait of Christ going down on a guy is not "art". It's blatant disrespect. Though I probably wouldn't have used a crowbar, I applaud the woman for standing up to people who pushed Christian bashing too far. In today's culture you can make fun of Christianity all you want- that's free speech, and if it's done in the name of "art", well, no harm no foul. The Christians will take it in stride.
Any other religion though is off limits- in the names of toleration and respect. Anybody remember Molly Noris? She tried to get lots of people to just draw Muhammed (something people apparently used to do quite a bit). Death threats and unpleasantries ensued; she ended up moving into the witness protection program. So much for "in the name of art".
The above article caught my attention not because of the offensively insensitive picture of Christ, but because of a reference to de Sade.
The Marquis de Sade was a French revolutionary who lived at the turn of the 19th century. He's remembered today as the author of novels and short stories that involve coprophagia, genital mutilation, sodomy, pedophilia, incest, rape, torture, nymphomania, abduction, disembowelment, mutilation, and sexual slavery. His name is the basis for the word "sadism". Among his writings were 120 Days of Sodom and Juliette. He is also a chief inspiration for the Anne Desclos (pennamed Pauline Reage) Story of O, which became an inspiration for entire genres of mainstream (if one can use such a term) BDSM groups. Note that while O is supposedly about female sexual liberation, it involves genital mutilation, humiliation, rape, sexual slavery, physical abuse, and mental dominance; all hallmark themes in a de Sade story.
And now the National Endowment for the Arts, with taxpayer money, is paying John Galbraith Simmons $12500 to translate the de Sade story Aline and Valcour.
Never mind that Aline and Valcour was translated in a collection of de Sade writings by Leonard de Saint-Yves in 1954. We already have an English copy of de Sade's story. And now the government is paying for another one.
Sparkling skulls are one thing, but this....how is this art?
When In Rome...
I remember a trip to the Louvre I was supposed to take back in the early 2000's that was cancelled because the highways around Paris were shut down. Too many protesters, they said. Apparently enough people thought an increase in the work week to 35 hours was worth shutting down the highways. Let's do the math on this:
35hrs/wk / 5days/wk = 7hrs/day
That's seven hours of work per day- or 9-5, with an hour lunch break. Nine to five. Americans today (and many even back then) would kill for a 9-5 job, and the French thought that was an outrageous demand. This was such an insult to them that they shut down major portions of their road system. When your citizens are protesting that 9-5 is too harsh a work schedule, you have bigger and deadlier problems than you thought.
Which is why Europe is failing. France is an especially bad case. The population is aging. The birth rate within the past 7 years is roughly 0.08%. Immigrants are offsetting the nearly non-existent birth rate, but are using the French welfare system while choosing to remain as foreign as they can.
Thousands of people rioted in the streets as the French government considers raising the legal age for retirement from 60...to 62.
"Presently, a worker who has paid into social security for 40.5 years is eligible for a full pension at the age of 60. Workers in the public sector receive 75% of their last-six-month's salary, and private sector workers, 50% of their earnings in the best 25 years.
The French Labor Ministry says there are 15.5 million retirees in France, which will grow to 18 million in 2030. The Pension Council estimates that this will have a devastating effect on the annual pension deficit, bringing it from $44 billion as of 2010 to $111 billion in 2030."
France is so heavily socialized that people riot and protest when the job market isn't as open as they believe it should be. The 2006 labor protests against the First Employment Contract bill were almost unbelievable.
If you were to get a job in France, it's yours for as long as you want it. The FEC bill would allow companies and employers the ability to fire an employee within the first two years of service if they felt the employee was not benefiting the company. The problem with being unable to fire someone is that it dries up the job market; instead of being able to take a job someone was fired for (say, due to incompetence or lack of skill) you could only compete for jobs that weren't already taken...and once a job was taken, that employment opportunity was essentially lost. To have students protest in the streets because their "right" to employment was threatened was both utterly inane and completely beyond selfish.
What's happening in Europe is an amazing chance for America to realize that a welfare state is not a viable option for survival. To foster an atmosphere where people are so dependent on the government for everything that they burn busses in the streets when the government realizes that it can no longer afford to support everyone is dangerous, foolish, and stupid.
When the federal government takes over the majority of the auto industry, our top banking corporations, and health care, looks to raise taxes, and then proceeds to run our deficit over $1T (that's T for Trillion) how on earth can the Chief Executive, in good conscience, expect people to turn to him and say "thank you"?
We're not in Rome, and we shouldn't be going down the same road the Europeans are on. Our leadership needs to realize that they are part of something bigger and more important than themselves and their opinions. A wise man once said "Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself." Perhaps we should sit up, pay attention, and learn from France and the UK.
And no, I don't want my cake. You can keep the stupid cake. What I want is my nation to not end up in history's welfare waste bin.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
...didn't I, my dear?
I've noticed over the years that certain music genres tend to repetitively focus on the same theme. With classic rock it's a caterwauling cacophony of sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll. Rap is usually about money, power, women, and flaunting all three (when you're not fighting someone). Hard rock has the angry monologue market cornered; this is great for activities that require adrenaline boosts, but after a while it can be repetitions and a little monotonous. Hip hop is about physical relationships...take one part "shawty", one part "baby", one part infidelity, and a dose of begging for forgiveness and you have the ingredients for another run of the mill song. I'm not quite sure what country sings about anymore. The twangy guitar and nasaly whining has me changing the station too fast.
What has interested me lately is the indie/alt rock scene. While indie rock has gained notoriety and a bit of fame for housing hundreds of little known or completely unknown bands, the alt rock scene has created a few hits that have transitioned over to the pop/contemporary stage. Neon Trees' "Animal" and anything by the Black Keys or OK GO! would be good examples.
I love bands that use imagery in their lyrics; that's why I count the Killers, Death Cab for Cutie, Hurt, and The Tossers among my favorites. Killers' "Human", Death Cab's "Your New Twin Sized Bed", and Hurt's "Rapture" are amazing, as is The Tossers' "Siobhan"- if you can understand what they're saying.
I've recently become a fan of the new English folk rock band Mumford & Sons. Their first single, "Little Lion Man", is the perfect mix of folk, Irish, indie, and alt rock. It also has a bit of sad poignancy to the lyrics...something I'm also a fan of. Nothing touches a listener like emotionality in the words, right?
C'mon- Paul Spatola using a cello bow on his guitar was mind blowing, sure, but Mumford has an electric banjo. How can you resist that?
On Coolidge
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0830/opinions-amity-shlaes-current-events-great-refresher.html
There's a difference between sitting still and doing nothing.
Sadly, today's government- and the President in particular -are the complete opposite of Silent Cal. "When possible, intervene" would be an appropriate mantra for the over-sized and over-burdened Federal whale we have beached on the East Coast right now.
As the story goes, for those of you who haven't heard it, a woman named Dorothy Parker had a bet with a friend that she could get Pres. Coolidge to say more than two words to her. When she mentioned the bet to him at a dinner party, he simply said-
"You lose."
It's no surprise that a man who favored minimal involvement would be as fond of efficiency in his interactions as he was in his policies.
For those of you looking for a historic Libertarian political model, here's an excellent one.
There's a difference between sitting still and doing nothing.
Sadly, today's government- and the President in particular -are the complete opposite of Silent Cal. "When possible, intervene" would be an appropriate mantra for the over-sized and over-burdened Federal whale we have beached on the East Coast right now.
As the story goes, for those of you who haven't heard it, a woman named Dorothy Parker had a bet with a friend that she could get Pres. Coolidge to say more than two words to her. When she mentioned the bet to him at a dinner party, he simply said-
"You lose."
It's no surprise that a man who favored minimal involvement would be as fond of efficiency in his interactions as he was in his policies.
For those of you looking for a historic Libertarian political model, here's an excellent one.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Immigration, Assimilation, and Linguistics
"We should not be a country, either, which gives the impression to the outside world that those who don't speak English immediately, or who weren't raised speaking English, are not welcome here. That would do great damage to our country. Companies will go elsewhere because they won't find the people to work here anymore...that means the demand for integration is one of our key tasks for times to come."
The demand for integration. The call for immigrants to learn the native language. Imagine if the President of the US, or any other high ranking political figure, were to say that. Would people nod their heads in agreement? Hardly. Instead, we would have at best millions of protesters and at worse immigrant riots in the streets. The last time the government considered making illegal immigration a federal offense (being, oh, an illegal activity and all) we had massive immigrant "rights" protests. Anybody remember how well the "hispanic community" took Proposition 187? The bill blocked illegal immigrants from using California taxpayer funded programs like public schooling, cash assistance, and non-emergency health care. Thousands and thousands of people marched in the streets in protest, waving Mexican flags, carrying signs in Spanish, crying out that they had "rights". Why should we take them seriously? When you break a nation's laws, when you enter it illegally, when you remain outside the system by not being a legal member of it and still demand the "right" to that system's benefits, why should we listen to you?
Replace all the word "English" in the above quotation with the word "German", and you'll have part of an official address given by German Chancellor Angela Merckel. Germany, one of the strongest economies and most liberal societies in Western Europe, has tried for decades to have a "multikulti" system. Such a system, which evolved out of the German progressive movement in the 1970-80's, attempts to foster a public policy approach that seamlessly blends domestic and foreign cultures into one multicultural entity. Despite the appeal of the idea, multikulti has failed, and it has failed miserably.
Sweden is both the poster child for blatant socialism in Western Europe and the failure of its own multikulti attempts. Immigration is hurting the once proud welfare state because the people it attracts refuse to integrate. There are parts of Sweden, like parts of the US, where the residents speak Arabic (or Spanish) instead of Swedish (or English). Unemployment in heavily immigrant sections of the country have reached nearly 50%. Public schools teach Arabic so the natives can speak with the immigrants. The city of Malmo, Sweden's third largest, has the most immigrants per capita (over 30%). Violent crime, rape, assault, and robbery are everyday occurrences for the residents. Immigrant gangs have even openly admitted to waging war on native Swedes.
The Muslim factor is a glaring one here, but I'm going to forgo it for a more important angle. The situation Europe is facing with its immigration problem is, in some ways, similar to the one the United States is beginning to face.
The problem with both immigration situations is twofold. First, the majority of immigrants are crossing the borders illegally. Here in America if you are against illegal immigration you are immediately branded as someone who is against immigration. You're probably then very loudly reminded that we are a "nation of immigrants" and that America was built by immigrants. Not only is this a terribly false accusation, but the two ensuing statements are inaccurate. You can be pro-immigration while being anti-illegal immigration. Immigration and illegal immigration are not mutually inclusive. We are also not a nation of immigrants; we are a nation of Americans, most of whom are native born. Our country was not built by immigrants; while the vast majority of our expansion and growth was done during periods of high immigration, the foundation and framework of our nation was created by people who were born here on American soil.
Second, and perhaps most important, the vast majority of immigrants refuse to either integrate or assimilate. In Europe, Arabic/Muslim immigrants will move to Western Europe nations, enjoy the benefits of the socialist welfare systems, and demand jobs (especially in places like France, where jobs are all but guaranteed for life)...but they keep their old customs, resist learning the native language, and refuse to accept native dress, customs, and courtesies. These immigrants want all the benefits of their new social infrastructure while maintaining their old image. The same thing is happening in the US. Hispanics, not Muslims, are flooding across the porous border and refusing to assimilate. They keep Hispanic culture alive. They send money back home. They commit identity theft (using other people's social security number) to get jobs. They replace the American flag with the Mexican flag or fly the Mexican flag over the American flag. And, most visibly of all, they continue to speak and teach their children Spanish because they can do so without obstacle. Count the number of pure Spanish (and even pure Hispanic) television channels, radio stations, and books you can find. Ever notice just how many places, businesses, and companies with interactive services include the phrase "Se habla Espanol"? Even children's shows, like Dora the Explorer, feature Hispanic characters who teach our newest generation the basics of Spanish phrases.
Language is the make-or-break factor when it comes to immigration and assimilation. It's is the hallmark aspect of a people and the defining characteristic of a culture. When you learn a language in college, what good are your studies if you don't experience the culture? When learning about a culture, how far can you get without learning a bit of or about the language?
27 states have made English their official language. Among them, surprisingly, is California. Article III, Section 6, of the Constitution of the State of California says that
"English is the common language of the people of the United States of America and the State of California. This section is intended to preserve, protect, and strengthen the English language..."
As of May 11, 2010, 87% of Americans believe English should be made the official language of our country. I agree with them. The English language is an incredibly important component of not only our American identity, but our American culture. True, we have a history of massive and generally positive immigration, but those immigrants came to our shores because they wanted to become American- not simply because they wanted to come to America. Ever wonder why the Irish, and not the Italians or the Germans, became the quickest group integrated into the police forces in New England? It's because they already spoke the language.
To allow the numbers of illegal immigrants to continue to rise is both dangerous to our future and disrespectful to our culture. We're told by society's elites to accept other cultures, and more importantly, to tolerate and respect them. Where's the tolerance for the American culture? Where's the respect for the English language heritage? Where's the acceptance of the the idea that the native language should reign supreme within our borders? Why is it that to decry the spread of Spanish in America, Turkish in Germany, or Arabic in Sweden will illicit cries of "racism!" and "intolerance!" from the liberals and multikulti supporters?
To those who want to immigrate to America, I remind you that our nation is always open- I just ask that you leave your hypocrisy at the door. Come here the right way. Do things legally. Honor the legacy of those who have come before you and the hard work of those who are here of the proper accord. Don't come here for the free meal and the free education and refuse to truly become an American. Why should I respect your cultural heritage, your customs, and your language when you refuse to respect mine?
To those who are already here, and are Americans, I ask that you stop empowering the people who ignore our laws and defile our culture. Don't fall for the arguments that illegal immigrants have the "right" to vote, receive drivers' licenses, enroll in our public schools, receive public benefits, steal social security numbers to lie their way to employment, or to fly their flag in protest of our laws.
And if it's "too hard" to immigrate legally, and that is a valid complaint, then let's work on fixing our immigration system instead of simply turning a blind eye to people who flagrantly disobey it. Joining the greatest club in the history of the world has only one real requirement- that membership be granted the right way. Once that's accomplished, the sky really is the limit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnTus_i2aZI
The demand for integration. The call for immigrants to learn the native language. Imagine if the President of the US, or any other high ranking political figure, were to say that. Would people nod their heads in agreement? Hardly. Instead, we would have at best millions of protesters and at worse immigrant riots in the streets. The last time the government considered making illegal immigration a federal offense (being, oh, an illegal activity and all) we had massive immigrant "rights" protests. Anybody remember how well the "hispanic community" took Proposition 187? The bill blocked illegal immigrants from using California taxpayer funded programs like public schooling, cash assistance, and non-emergency health care. Thousands and thousands of people marched in the streets in protest, waving Mexican flags, carrying signs in Spanish, crying out that they had "rights". Why should we take them seriously? When you break a nation's laws, when you enter it illegally, when you remain outside the system by not being a legal member of it and still demand the "right" to that system's benefits, why should we listen to you?
Replace all the word "English" in the above quotation with the word "German", and you'll have part of an official address given by German Chancellor Angela Merckel. Germany, one of the strongest economies and most liberal societies in Western Europe, has tried for decades to have a "multikulti" system. Such a system, which evolved out of the German progressive movement in the 1970-80's, attempts to foster a public policy approach that seamlessly blends domestic and foreign cultures into one multicultural entity. Despite the appeal of the idea, multikulti has failed, and it has failed miserably.
Sweden is both the poster child for blatant socialism in Western Europe and the failure of its own multikulti attempts. Immigration is hurting the once proud welfare state because the people it attracts refuse to integrate. There are parts of Sweden, like parts of the US, where the residents speak Arabic (or Spanish) instead of Swedish (or English). Unemployment in heavily immigrant sections of the country have reached nearly 50%. Public schools teach Arabic so the natives can speak with the immigrants. The city of Malmo, Sweden's third largest, has the most immigrants per capita (over 30%). Violent crime, rape, assault, and robbery are everyday occurrences for the residents. Immigrant gangs have even openly admitted to waging war on native Swedes.
The Muslim factor is a glaring one here, but I'm going to forgo it for a more important angle. The situation Europe is facing with its immigration problem is, in some ways, similar to the one the United States is beginning to face.
The problem with both immigration situations is twofold. First, the majority of immigrants are crossing the borders illegally. Here in America if you are against illegal immigration you are immediately branded as someone who is against immigration. You're probably then very loudly reminded that we are a "nation of immigrants" and that America was built by immigrants. Not only is this a terribly false accusation, but the two ensuing statements are inaccurate. You can be pro-immigration while being anti-illegal immigration. Immigration and illegal immigration are not mutually inclusive. We are also not a nation of immigrants; we are a nation of Americans, most of whom are native born. Our country was not built by immigrants; while the vast majority of our expansion and growth was done during periods of high immigration, the foundation and framework of our nation was created by people who were born here on American soil.
Second, and perhaps most important, the vast majority of immigrants refuse to either integrate or assimilate. In Europe, Arabic/Muslim immigrants will move to Western Europe nations, enjoy the benefits of the socialist welfare systems, and demand jobs (especially in places like France, where jobs are all but guaranteed for life)...but they keep their old customs, resist learning the native language, and refuse to accept native dress, customs, and courtesies. These immigrants want all the benefits of their new social infrastructure while maintaining their old image. The same thing is happening in the US. Hispanics, not Muslims, are flooding across the porous border and refusing to assimilate. They keep Hispanic culture alive. They send money back home. They commit identity theft (using other people's social security number) to get jobs. They replace the American flag with the Mexican flag or fly the Mexican flag over the American flag. And, most visibly of all, they continue to speak and teach their children Spanish because they can do so without obstacle. Count the number of pure Spanish (and even pure Hispanic) television channels, radio stations, and books you can find. Ever notice just how many places, businesses, and companies with interactive services include the phrase "Se habla Espanol"? Even children's shows, like Dora the Explorer, feature Hispanic characters who teach our newest generation the basics of Spanish phrases.
Language is the make-or-break factor when it comes to immigration and assimilation. It's is the hallmark aspect of a people and the defining characteristic of a culture. When you learn a language in college, what good are your studies if you don't experience the culture? When learning about a culture, how far can you get without learning a bit of or about the language?
27 states have made English their official language. Among them, surprisingly, is California. Article III, Section 6, of the Constitution of the State of California says that
"English is the common language of the people of the United States of America and the State of California. This section is intended to preserve, protect, and strengthen the English language..."
As of May 11, 2010, 87% of Americans believe English should be made the official language of our country. I agree with them. The English language is an incredibly important component of not only our American identity, but our American culture. True, we have a history of massive and generally positive immigration, but those immigrants came to our shores because they wanted to become American- not simply because they wanted to come to America. Ever wonder why the Irish, and not the Italians or the Germans, became the quickest group integrated into the police forces in New England? It's because they already spoke the language.
To allow the numbers of illegal immigrants to continue to rise is both dangerous to our future and disrespectful to our culture. We're told by society's elites to accept other cultures, and more importantly, to tolerate and respect them. Where's the tolerance for the American culture? Where's the respect for the English language heritage? Where's the acceptance of the the idea that the native language should reign supreme within our borders? Why is it that to decry the spread of Spanish in America, Turkish in Germany, or Arabic in Sweden will illicit cries of "racism!" and "intolerance!" from the liberals and multikulti supporters?
To those who want to immigrate to America, I remind you that our nation is always open- I just ask that you leave your hypocrisy at the door. Come here the right way. Do things legally. Honor the legacy of those who have come before you and the hard work of those who are here of the proper accord. Don't come here for the free meal and the free education and refuse to truly become an American. Why should I respect your cultural heritage, your customs, and your language when you refuse to respect mine?
To those who are already here, and are Americans, I ask that you stop empowering the people who ignore our laws and defile our culture. Don't fall for the arguments that illegal immigrants have the "right" to vote, receive drivers' licenses, enroll in our public schools, receive public benefits, steal social security numbers to lie their way to employment, or to fly their flag in protest of our laws.
And if it's "too hard" to immigrate legally, and that is a valid complaint, then let's work on fixing our immigration system instead of simply turning a blind eye to people who flagrantly disobey it. Joining the greatest club in the history of the world has only one real requirement- that membership be granted the right way. Once that's accomplished, the sky really is the limit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnTus_i2aZI
Friday, October 15, 2010
Random Thoughts
Does anyone else find it depressing when you stop and realize that our civilization will one day be considered incredibly primitive?
I still find myself momentarily thrown off-track when I go somewhere like McDonalds or a hotel and the service folks actually speak unaccented English. It's as if I'm mentally prepared to not be able to understand them, and yet I can. I don't think this makes me racist- I think it means Southern California has a problem.
When I see fat people at the gym, I find myself fighting conflicting opinions. On one hand, I'm thrilled they decided to do something to become more healthy. On the other, I'm frustrated because I go to the gym for a specific purpose and I know exactly what I need to do and how to do it. They often don't. When you see a woman who is clearly over 250lbs just laying on the ground in the only sit up station listening to her iPod (and she stays there for 20 minutes) or an overweight guy just sits on the only leg extension machine for 15 minutes reading a book it's hard to feel anything but frustration. This is not your couch, nor is this your bed or your foyer. Don't socialize while sitting on a machine. Don't read a book when someone is clearly waiting to use what you're hogging. Don't just lay there like a whale. Be productive and you'd be amazed at the results.
Additionally, why do fat people work non-problematic areas? I understand the need for variety, but when an overweight person walks into the weight room, does curls, and then leaves, what good is that doing them? They're (hopefully) at the gym to lose weight, to tone down, or to increase their health. What good are 5lb curls going to do for your 40in waist, your man boobs, or your poor cardiovascular condition?
I hate people who think "workout" means just cardio. I've seen Colonels who talk constantly about their workouts and how much they exercise, yet have embarrassing form when doing bodyweight squats and wheeze after 10 push ups. You can tell who the officers are in the weight room because they're the ones with scrawny legs, tiny arms, short shorts, and some random shirt from some marathon or 5K that they once ran. I do believe in cardio, but I believe more in the well rounded person. That means cardio AND weight training. I wouldn't trust some 130lb distance runner in full gear to drag my 210lb butt (also assumedly in full gear) out of a firefight.
As someone who will find something interesting and then research it to death, I refuse to learn anything about classical music, opera, or jazz. Every time I watch the Catholic Channel or a documentary on religion, I immediately start analyzing it. Every time I watch someone perform a lift or an exercise, I mentally critique or dissect their form. But every time I hear the notes of an orchestra or the voice of an operatic singer I marvel at the beauty and the emotionality of the music. To remain ignorant of the genre pains me a little, but to lose the wonder and awe I feel every time I listen would be a price I'm not willing to pay. My mortal fear is one day finding myself in a jazz lounge or at an after-opera dinner and not being able to keep up with the conversations.
It's a pity you can't train hamsters. Sometimes I wish they'd just sit still and watch TV with you.
To me, alcohol tastes like turpentine. All beer has the flavor of carbonation and bitter plants. White wine has a dry taste with hints of oil and acetone...red wine is just as dry but more often bitter. I will patiently and politely listen to what you have to say about the wonders and types of alcohol, because I want to learn about the subject too, but I'll never believe you when you say "There's a wine/beer/liquor out there for everyone. You just have to find it." I've tried over 4 dozen types of beer and 2 dozen types of wine, and I've hated every single one.
Sometimes when you're feeling depressed, it's not that you're looking at life wrong. You're just looking at the wrong parts of life.
If I'm going to pay $15 for a military barber to butcher my hair, I might as well go to a civilian shop. At least there the staff is young and friendly (usually) and they know more than just "Skin on the sides, short on top".
I find three types of standards in the military: standards of performance (doing your job, showing up on time, being trained and proficient, etc), standards of professionalism (wearing a uniform, using the right terminology, following orders, etc), and standards of preference (shirt tucked/untucked when exercising, what kind of socks you can wear, the color and style du jour of the allowed backpacks, etc). I firmly believe in the first two. The third one is completely contingent on the moods and personal opinions of leadership, and I say that kind can shove off. It changes so often, why should I bother with it?
I am probably the most cynical, low key, casual officer I know (or one of them, at any rate). That being said, I worked my ass off for 5 years to earn a commission as an officer and a gentleman by an act of our Congress. While I don't usually enforce customs and courtesies as much as I should, it genuinely irritates me that when I enter a base belonging to the Armed Forces of the United States the best I expect to get is a wave through from a hired security guard. A commissioned officer entering a federal installation, and the civilian rent-a-cop just waves me in. That shouldn't be acceptable.
For all the heavy and technical reading that I find myself doing, I greatly enjoy poetry from time to time. I personally like Langston Hughes for his dramatic imagery and the power of his short verses. I detest E.E. Cummings for his "creative" inability to grasp basic sentence and grammatical structure. Above all though, my favorite author is Emily Dickinson. Why? Because she rhymes.
I need to learn to write shorter posts so your eyes don't give out reading what I publish. That was my goal for this one- short and simple.
Maybe next time I'll just post a picture without commentary. I hear those are worth a thousand words.
I still find myself momentarily thrown off-track when I go somewhere like McDonalds or a hotel and the service folks actually speak unaccented English. It's as if I'm mentally prepared to not be able to understand them, and yet I can. I don't think this makes me racist- I think it means Southern California has a problem.
When I see fat people at the gym, I find myself fighting conflicting opinions. On one hand, I'm thrilled they decided to do something to become more healthy. On the other, I'm frustrated because I go to the gym for a specific purpose and I know exactly what I need to do and how to do it. They often don't. When you see a woman who is clearly over 250lbs just laying on the ground in the only sit up station listening to her iPod (and she stays there for 20 minutes) or an overweight guy just sits on the only leg extension machine for 15 minutes reading a book it's hard to feel anything but frustration. This is not your couch, nor is this your bed or your foyer. Don't socialize while sitting on a machine. Don't read a book when someone is clearly waiting to use what you're hogging. Don't just lay there like a whale. Be productive and you'd be amazed at the results.
Additionally, why do fat people work non-problematic areas? I understand the need for variety, but when an overweight person walks into the weight room, does curls, and then leaves, what good is that doing them? They're (hopefully) at the gym to lose weight, to tone down, or to increase their health. What good are 5lb curls going to do for your 40in waist, your man boobs, or your poor cardiovascular condition?
I hate people who think "workout" means just cardio. I've seen Colonels who talk constantly about their workouts and how much they exercise, yet have embarrassing form when doing bodyweight squats and wheeze after 10 push ups. You can tell who the officers are in the weight room because they're the ones with scrawny legs, tiny arms, short shorts, and some random shirt from some marathon or 5K that they once ran. I do believe in cardio, but I believe more in the well rounded person. That means cardio AND weight training. I wouldn't trust some 130lb distance runner in full gear to drag my 210lb butt (also assumedly in full gear) out of a firefight.
As someone who will find something interesting and then research it to death, I refuse to learn anything about classical music, opera, or jazz. Every time I watch the Catholic Channel or a documentary on religion, I immediately start analyzing it. Every time I watch someone perform a lift or an exercise, I mentally critique or dissect their form. But every time I hear the notes of an orchestra or the voice of an operatic singer I marvel at the beauty and the emotionality of the music. To remain ignorant of the genre pains me a little, but to lose the wonder and awe I feel every time I listen would be a price I'm not willing to pay. My mortal fear is one day finding myself in a jazz lounge or at an after-opera dinner and not being able to keep up with the conversations.
It's a pity you can't train hamsters. Sometimes I wish they'd just sit still and watch TV with you.
To me, alcohol tastes like turpentine. All beer has the flavor of carbonation and bitter plants. White wine has a dry taste with hints of oil and acetone...red wine is just as dry but more often bitter. I will patiently and politely listen to what you have to say about the wonders and types of alcohol, because I want to learn about the subject too, but I'll never believe you when you say "There's a wine/beer/liquor out there for everyone. You just have to find it." I've tried over 4 dozen types of beer and 2 dozen types of wine, and I've hated every single one.
Sometimes when you're feeling depressed, it's not that you're looking at life wrong. You're just looking at the wrong parts of life.
If I'm going to pay $15 for a military barber to butcher my hair, I might as well go to a civilian shop. At least there the staff is young and friendly (usually) and they know more than just "Skin on the sides, short on top".
I find three types of standards in the military: standards of performance (doing your job, showing up on time, being trained and proficient, etc), standards of professionalism (wearing a uniform, using the right terminology, following orders, etc), and standards of preference (shirt tucked/untucked when exercising, what kind of socks you can wear, the color and style du jour of the allowed backpacks, etc). I firmly believe in the first two. The third one is completely contingent on the moods and personal opinions of leadership, and I say that kind can shove off. It changes so often, why should I bother with it?
I am probably the most cynical, low key, casual officer I know (or one of them, at any rate). That being said, I worked my ass off for 5 years to earn a commission as an officer and a gentleman by an act of our Congress. While I don't usually enforce customs and courtesies as much as I should, it genuinely irritates me that when I enter a base belonging to the Armed Forces of the United States the best I expect to get is a wave through from a hired security guard. A commissioned officer entering a federal installation, and the civilian rent-a-cop just waves me in. That shouldn't be acceptable.
For all the heavy and technical reading that I find myself doing, I greatly enjoy poetry from time to time. I personally like Langston Hughes for his dramatic imagery and the power of his short verses. I detest E.E. Cummings for his "creative" inability to grasp basic sentence and grammatical structure. Above all though, my favorite author is Emily Dickinson. Why? Because she rhymes.
I need to learn to write shorter posts so your eyes don't give out reading what I publish. That was my goal for this one- short and simple.
Maybe next time I'll just post a picture without commentary. I hear those are worth a thousand words.
What Comeback?
I'm not a fan of the movie 'Patton'. I think George C. Scott played the general magnificently, but I find the film hard to enjoy and the main character harder to respect. That being said, one of my all-time favorite quotes actually comes from his performance. When the general is watching the battle rage below he laughs to himself and yells that perfect one-liner on strategy-
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!"
If you ever want to know how or what someone else thinks, and this someone else is in any way your opponent or opposite, don't read material written by your friends, compatriots, or allies for you. Instead, take a serious look at material by or for your opponent. Listen to what they listen to. Watch what they watch. Don't fall into the habit of becoming part of the choir that gets preached to- get out and spend some time in the other side's shoes.
I've noticed over the years that conservatives and liberals tend to treat each other differently when they butt heads. Conservatives tend to treat liberals as if they were stupid. Spend a good amount of time on sites like Real Clear Politics, Townhall, or Right Brothers and you'll see article after article referencing figures, quotations, interviews, ideas, sources, and other generally useful information one would load an argument with if one views his or her opponent as being ignorant of the facts. Go watch Glenn Beck and see how many dozen books, articles, interviews, speeches, web pages, blogs, and phone calls he quotes and cites per episode. It's like watching a 400 level political science course on the "news".
Conversely, liberals tend to treat conservatives as if they were evil (here's a column by Charles Krauthammer explaining the evil vs stupid comparison). Instead of Real Clear Politics, Townhall, or Fox News, spend any amount of time watching Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman, or read The Huffington Post or blogs like Gus DiZerega's and you'll see vilification of folks who don't agree with the liberal strand of thought. Mr. DiZerega especially likes ad-hominems and demonization. Anyone who blatantly refers to conservatives as "evil" and Christians as "Sauronic demon worshippers" falls squarely in the camp that views opponents as more than just ignorant. Now, I'm not saying conservatives don't slander and liberals don't use facts; I'm just pointing out an observation that each side tends to favor one tactic over the other.
It's easy to compete against someone who thinks you're stupid. Come armed to a discussion (or be quick on your feet) with facts, figures, and quotes and be able to synthesize information as it flows through the discussion while thinking critically and you'll not only hold your own, you'll probably win.
But how do you handle someone who is so quick to use character attacks, especially unfounded ones, and has no qualms about name calling and baseless demonization?
I got into a debate/argument with an acquaintance the other day over Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT). I posed 5 hypothetical scenarios/questions that the military would face, in a specific setting, if it were to revoke DADT. The 5 questions all dealt with close quarters living.
The woman with whom I was debating (quite the liberal) asked me why I was afraid of gay people. When I responded that I said no such thing, she quoted my own questions back to me and then accused me of "gay fear mongering".
My jaw actually dropped. That doesn't happen often.
She then went on to play the female/ethnic minority card and made a few more comments about people like me who engage in spreading the unfounded fears. I was shocked. My questions were not only not intended to offend, they were genuine scenarios I bring up in every DADT conversation I have because I'd like to know how they would be handled. Instead of giving me logical answers, this woman labeled me as someone who engages in said fear mongering because I was clearly "afraid" of gay people.
Look at bumper stickers before California's Proposition 8 went to ballot (and even after). Stickers for the proposition (against gay marriage) had a picture of a stick man man and stick woman and read "Yes on 8" or "Vote for 8". Stickers against the proposition read "Stop the H8" or "NO H8"...a slogan so poignantly referenced in images of people whose mouths have been taped shut (these people are clearly the epitome of kind, caring individuals). Even here the conservatives stickers were simply saying vote yes, and the liberal stickers were labeling conservatives as people who were guilty of discrimination. Are you for traditional marriage? Then you're a hater. Are you for progressive redefinition of marriage? Then you're a tolerant free-thinker. Makes sense, right?
Why bother persuading either your opponent or your audience? Just vilify. It's a much more desirable option to make your opponent hated than it is to make your position attractive. Why? Because it's easier to fuel anger than it is to logically get behind something.
How do you counteract this? What comeback can you give someone who blindsides you or counters your argument with statements or slogans like this?
Here's a video of Bill O'Reilly on The View talking about 9/11. I've personally never seen the show- the thought of half a dozen loud, liberal women preaching to each other's choir is not my cup of tea.
When O'Reilly said he believes the Ground Zero Mosque would be a bad idea, due to insensitivity, he was asked why. He responded by saying that Muslims committed the 9/11 hijackings/attacks.
"This is bullshit!" Goldberg said. "Extremists did that!" She and Joy Behar then walked off stage a moment later. The other women then attacked O'Reilly for slandering an entire religion by making the factual statement that extremist Muslims committed the 9/11 suicide flights and proceeded to demand his apology for offending them.
I was again floored by this response. These women believed that Muslim extremists, not extremist Muslims, committed the attacks; and because the two words are in that order Islam had nothing to do with the killings.
Syntax is important here- if they were Muslim extremists, then they would be first and foremost extremists who happen to be Muslims. That is not the case. They were first and foremost Muslims, who did what they did BECAUSE they were extremists.
How do you answer such a statement? Someone minces words so finely, then argues something so absurd that perhaps the only possible way to counter would be to say something just as ridiculous- or, in the case of my DADT story, to come back with my own absurd ad-hominem.
No matter the case, you can't let yourself slip. Resist the urge to give in to the name calling, the personal slandering, the negative absurdities, or the emotional rhetoric. Not only will you walk away with your personal integrity and honor intact (assuming you had some to begin with) you'll be able to let history show that you relied more on reason than gut reactions and emotional hype to carry your message.
Does this mean you'll lose the argument? In some cases, from the standpoint of the audience, yes. Our society, and our generation, seem to favor catchy phrases, eloquent blurbs, and emotional speakers. What does it matter if you push the nation trillions of dollars in debt or create programs bound for failure that our children will have to pay for? As long as what you preach brings emotional comfort and is backed by the logic of morality, even if one uses twisted logic and twisted morals, people will follow you. With so much emphasis on data and so little push for true understanding, it's easier to feel than it is to think nowadays. Why should we actually take the time turn that data into information and that information into knowledge? It's quicker, less difficult, and more satisfying to attach an emotion to a snippet we heard somewhere and use that as the basis for our preferences and the foundations for our arguments.
And hey- if you lose face or lose ground, just make the opponent seem more dangerously full of bias or hate and less caring than you. It works, doesn't it?
If anybody can come up with a way to fight the down and dirty emotionality that people today are so apt to use, I'd love to hear it. Until then, I'll just sit quietly and hope that somewhere out there exist Americans who still think from their heads before they scream from their hearts.
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!"
If you ever want to know how or what someone else thinks, and this someone else is in any way your opponent or opposite, don't read material written by your friends, compatriots, or allies for you. Instead, take a serious look at material by or for your opponent. Listen to what they listen to. Watch what they watch. Don't fall into the habit of becoming part of the choir that gets preached to- get out and spend some time in the other side's shoes.
I've noticed over the years that conservatives and liberals tend to treat each other differently when they butt heads. Conservatives tend to treat liberals as if they were stupid. Spend a good amount of time on sites like Real Clear Politics, Townhall, or Right Brothers and you'll see article after article referencing figures, quotations, interviews, ideas, sources, and other generally useful information one would load an argument with if one views his or her opponent as being ignorant of the facts. Go watch Glenn Beck and see how many dozen books, articles, interviews, speeches, web pages, blogs, and phone calls he quotes and cites per episode. It's like watching a 400 level political science course on the "news".
Conversely, liberals tend to treat conservatives as if they were evil (here's a column by Charles Krauthammer explaining the evil vs stupid comparison). Instead of Real Clear Politics, Townhall, or Fox News, spend any amount of time watching Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman, or read The Huffington Post or blogs like Gus DiZerega's and you'll see vilification of folks who don't agree with the liberal strand of thought. Mr. DiZerega especially likes ad-hominems and demonization. Anyone who blatantly refers to conservatives as "evil" and Christians as "Sauronic demon worshippers" falls squarely in the camp that views opponents as more than just ignorant. Now, I'm not saying conservatives don't slander and liberals don't use facts; I'm just pointing out an observation that each side tends to favor one tactic over the other.
It's easy to compete against someone who thinks you're stupid. Come armed to a discussion (or be quick on your feet) with facts, figures, and quotes and be able to synthesize information as it flows through the discussion while thinking critically and you'll not only hold your own, you'll probably win.
But how do you handle someone who is so quick to use character attacks, especially unfounded ones, and has no qualms about name calling and baseless demonization?
I got into a debate/argument with an acquaintance the other day over Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT). I posed 5 hypothetical scenarios/questions that the military would face, in a specific setting, if it were to revoke DADT. The 5 questions all dealt with close quarters living.
The woman with whom I was debating (quite the liberal) asked me why I was afraid of gay people. When I responded that I said no such thing, she quoted my own questions back to me and then accused me of "gay fear mongering".
My jaw actually dropped. That doesn't happen often.
She then went on to play the female/ethnic minority card and made a few more comments about people like me who engage in spreading the unfounded fears. I was shocked. My questions were not only not intended to offend, they were genuine scenarios I bring up in every DADT conversation I have because I'd like to know how they would be handled. Instead of giving me logical answers, this woman labeled me as someone who engages in said fear mongering because I was clearly "afraid" of gay people.
Look at bumper stickers before California's Proposition 8 went to ballot (and even after). Stickers for the proposition (against gay marriage) had a picture of a stick man man and stick woman and read "Yes on 8" or "Vote for 8". Stickers against the proposition read "Stop the H8" or "NO H8"...a slogan so poignantly referenced in images of people whose mouths have been taped shut (these people are clearly the epitome of kind, caring individuals). Even here the conservatives stickers were simply saying vote yes, and the liberal stickers were labeling conservatives as people who were guilty of discrimination. Are you for traditional marriage? Then you're a hater. Are you for progressive redefinition of marriage? Then you're a tolerant free-thinker. Makes sense, right?
Why bother persuading either your opponent or your audience? Just vilify. It's a much more desirable option to make your opponent hated than it is to make your position attractive. Why? Because it's easier to fuel anger than it is to logically get behind something.
How do you counteract this? What comeback can you give someone who blindsides you or counters your argument with statements or slogans like this?
Here's a video of Bill O'Reilly on The View talking about 9/11. I've personally never seen the show- the thought of half a dozen loud, liberal women preaching to each other's choir is not my cup of tea.
When O'Reilly said he believes the Ground Zero Mosque would be a bad idea, due to insensitivity, he was asked why. He responded by saying that Muslims committed the 9/11 hijackings/attacks.
"This is bullshit!" Goldberg said. "Extremists did that!" She and Joy Behar then walked off stage a moment later. The other women then attacked O'Reilly for slandering an entire religion by making the factual statement that extremist Muslims committed the 9/11 suicide flights and proceeded to demand his apology for offending them.
I was again floored by this response. These women believed that Muslim extremists, not extremist Muslims, committed the attacks; and because the two words are in that order Islam had nothing to do with the killings.
Syntax is important here- if they were Muslim extremists, then they would be first and foremost extremists who happen to be Muslims. That is not the case. They were first and foremost Muslims, who did what they did BECAUSE they were extremists.
How do you answer such a statement? Someone minces words so finely, then argues something so absurd that perhaps the only possible way to counter would be to say something just as ridiculous- or, in the case of my DADT story, to come back with my own absurd ad-hominem.
No matter the case, you can't let yourself slip. Resist the urge to give in to the name calling, the personal slandering, the negative absurdities, or the emotional rhetoric. Not only will you walk away with your personal integrity and honor intact (assuming you had some to begin with) you'll be able to let history show that you relied more on reason than gut reactions and emotional hype to carry your message.
Does this mean you'll lose the argument? In some cases, from the standpoint of the audience, yes. Our society, and our generation, seem to favor catchy phrases, eloquent blurbs, and emotional speakers. What does it matter if you push the nation trillions of dollars in debt or create programs bound for failure that our children will have to pay for? As long as what you preach brings emotional comfort and is backed by the logic of morality, even if one uses twisted logic and twisted morals, people will follow you. With so much emphasis on data and so little push for true understanding, it's easier to feel than it is to think nowadays. Why should we actually take the time turn that data into information and that information into knowledge? It's quicker, less difficult, and more satisfying to attach an emotion to a snippet we heard somewhere and use that as the basis for our preferences and the foundations for our arguments.
And hey- if you lose face or lose ground, just make the opponent seem more dangerously full of bias or hate and less caring than you. It works, doesn't it?
If anybody can come up with a way to fight the down and dirty emotionality that people today are so apt to use, I'd love to hear it. Until then, I'll just sit quietly and hope that somewhere out there exist Americans who still think from their heads before they scream from their hearts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)