I don't really want to bring up a certain basketball player because everyone seems to jump on that and they never see the bigger issue. But, I realized by those that defend him that people value mediocrity and low integrity now a days. People love liars. People loved Bill Clinton because he lied unapologetically. In schools, people get rewarded for ratting out their classmates.
Now adays, if you work hard to make something of yourself by going down the long hard road, you're a fool. If you strive to always tell the truth and beat yourself up if you ever go against yourself, you are criticized. People do not value integrity, they value mediocrity. You are considered the greatest if you join people you can't beat. Tennis and boxing is the only thing I can think of where you are not praised for being mediocre, for refusing to beat the best. You don't see Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic play doubles tennis, because that would be stupid. A couple years ago you didin't see Rafael Nadal join Federer to play doubles. They were always against each other. The two best battling one on one.
I get criticized often because I hold people accountable to their word. If they say they are a certain way, I judge them on that standard. If they say they're going to do something I expect them to do it, and if they don't, I expect them to feel some remorse, some contrition or be sorry they didn't. I will be the first to admit, I don't always do what I say I'm going to do. I do not always tell the truth, but I do get mad at myself every time I go against my word. I'm ashamed every time I chicken out of something I said I was going to do. Nobody ever blames me when I show so much self-anger and criticism for not doing what I said I was going to do...I thought originally that it was because since I condemn myself, they don't want to pile on. Now, I'm beginning to think that people are too scared to hold themselves to their own standards. People praise dishonesty. People come to expect dishonesty. And that is truly sad.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Rescued Damsel in Distress
I don't claim to speak for all guys on this one. I believe that men could potentially have a different motive for the classic damsel in distress scenario, but I believe that objectively the woman should run.
If I saw someone roughing up a girl, I'd like to think that I would step in and help her out. This is especially true if I care about the girl in that she's someone I know. When I step in, however, I would want to girl to run. The only reason I'm engaged in a fight is so that she can be okay. If she sticks around, that's added pressure to win the fight. If I lose, the assailant goes right back to what he was doing. In fact, now he believes he earned it. If the girl runs, and our fight is merely a distraction, even if I get my ass kicked, the girl is safe. People do not need that much of a head start while running away to get away. Thus, even if I get my ass kicked and the girl is safe, I accomplished the goal....for her to be safe.
Some guys will argue that if you do this for a girl you don't know, though noble, she has no way of contacting you to thank you in any way she deems fit. Though, I don't see too much of a problem with this, if your sole goal is to get laid, well then I don't think your intentions are too honorable. An honorable, chivalrous, old-fashioned guy is doing it so the girl can be safe...if that leads to relation than so be it, but it should be a side effect or goal of your actual intent....the girl's safety. So women, if a guy stops an assailant that is trying to hurt you...run.
If I saw someone roughing up a girl, I'd like to think that I would step in and help her out. This is especially true if I care about the girl in that she's someone I know. When I step in, however, I would want to girl to run. The only reason I'm engaged in a fight is so that she can be okay. If she sticks around, that's added pressure to win the fight. If I lose, the assailant goes right back to what he was doing. In fact, now he believes he earned it. If the girl runs, and our fight is merely a distraction, even if I get my ass kicked, the girl is safe. People do not need that much of a head start while running away to get away. Thus, even if I get my ass kicked and the girl is safe, I accomplished the goal....for her to be safe.
Some guys will argue that if you do this for a girl you don't know, though noble, she has no way of contacting you to thank you in any way she deems fit. Though, I don't see too much of a problem with this, if your sole goal is to get laid, well then I don't think your intentions are too honorable. An honorable, chivalrous, old-fashioned guy is doing it so the girl can be safe...if that leads to relation than so be it, but it should be a side effect or goal of your actual intent....the girl's safety. So women, if a guy stops an assailant that is trying to hurt you...run.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
NBA playoffs over March madness
This is not a prisoner of the moment opinion. Granted these playoffs have been exciting in that they've been unpredictable, a trait that is normally placed on March Madness but even if it ended up being Lakers vs. Boston for the third time in four years, I would still pick the NBA playoffs over the NCAA March Madness for a variety of reasons other than the superior talent in the NBA.
Most people criticize the playoffs because it takes over two months to annoint a winner. I never realized why this is a bad thing. I'm obsessed with basketball, therefore I have no problem watching for two months. Hell, I'd watch all year round. One thing that disappoints me is March Madness is only three weeks, so if you love basketball, the fact that you get it for over two months should be a plus not a minus.
When I watch an exciting game in the NCAA tournament, there's always a let down because what would have happened if they got to play again? Who would win? You don't have this problem with the NBA because you get to watch it 3-6 more times. When I see two great shooters answer each other back to back as the second half is coming to a close, I'd love to see that multiple times. Think how less memorable the Chicago/Boston series a couple years ago would have been if it was just one game. I can't even remember any shootout in March Madness but I vividly remember 6 out of 7 Ben Gordon vs. Ray Allen for who is more clutch, multiple overtimes among seven riviting games. Only the playoffs give me that. Sure when it's lopsided it's good to get it over with in one game, but when a team gets blown out in the playoffs, I wait to see if they can do it again.
The previous reason is why non-basketball fans should enjoy the playoffs more. As I am a basketball fan, I take it one step further. There is a game within the game of a series. Coaches are forced to make adjustments from game to game. Like right now, will Erik Spoelstra activate Z given that in game 1 the Bulls destroyed the Heat in second chance points? How will Miami answer back? Will they? What changes will Thibidou make...he didn't seem happy with the Bulls' performance. Will Derek Rose continue what he did in the previous round of one game hot, the next game cold? The coaching battle is much more prevalant in an NBA series because you can see how the players and coaches adjust to what happened. In the NCAA Tournament, you can see it between the two halves, but that's so much less intriguing and gives you such a shorter amount of time to ponder.
With all this said, I really don't understand why people like March Madness better. Even the classic argument "Anyone can win" isn't even true. No mid-major team has ever won the NCAA tournament...ever. Yea Butler got close two years in a row, and George Mason and VCU made it to the final four, but only in March Madness is the final four cosidered a great accomplishment. If truly Cinderella could win, wouldn't we have one example of Cinderella winning? NCAA still has yet to show this. But when the Detroit Pistons with no stars beat a team of four cinch hall of famers that could make an olympic team (Karl Malone, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, Gary Payton) in 2004...that was much more impressive than anything VCU, George Mason, Butler or any other mid-major can boast.
Most people criticize the playoffs because it takes over two months to annoint a winner. I never realized why this is a bad thing. I'm obsessed with basketball, therefore I have no problem watching for two months. Hell, I'd watch all year round. One thing that disappoints me is March Madness is only three weeks, so if you love basketball, the fact that you get it for over two months should be a plus not a minus.
When I watch an exciting game in the NCAA tournament, there's always a let down because what would have happened if they got to play again? Who would win? You don't have this problem with the NBA because you get to watch it 3-6 more times. When I see two great shooters answer each other back to back as the second half is coming to a close, I'd love to see that multiple times. Think how less memorable the Chicago/Boston series a couple years ago would have been if it was just one game. I can't even remember any shootout in March Madness but I vividly remember 6 out of 7 Ben Gordon vs. Ray Allen for who is more clutch, multiple overtimes among seven riviting games. Only the playoffs give me that. Sure when it's lopsided it's good to get it over with in one game, but when a team gets blown out in the playoffs, I wait to see if they can do it again.
The previous reason is why non-basketball fans should enjoy the playoffs more. As I am a basketball fan, I take it one step further. There is a game within the game of a series. Coaches are forced to make adjustments from game to game. Like right now, will Erik Spoelstra activate Z given that in game 1 the Bulls destroyed the Heat in second chance points? How will Miami answer back? Will they? What changes will Thibidou make...he didn't seem happy with the Bulls' performance. Will Derek Rose continue what he did in the previous round of one game hot, the next game cold? The coaching battle is much more prevalant in an NBA series because you can see how the players and coaches adjust to what happened. In the NCAA Tournament, you can see it between the two halves, but that's so much less intriguing and gives you such a shorter amount of time to ponder.
With all this said, I really don't understand why people like March Madness better. Even the classic argument "Anyone can win" isn't even true. No mid-major team has ever won the NCAA tournament...ever. Yea Butler got close two years in a row, and George Mason and VCU made it to the final four, but only in March Madness is the final four cosidered a great accomplishment. If truly Cinderella could win, wouldn't we have one example of Cinderella winning? NCAA still has yet to show this. But when the Detroit Pistons with no stars beat a team of four cinch hall of famers that could make an olympic team (Karl Malone, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, Gary Payton) in 2004...that was much more impressive than anything VCU, George Mason, Butler or any other mid-major can boast.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Longer life is not a sign of how far we've come
I hear ad nauseum that a vast majority of every person that ever lived past 70 is still alive today (last I heard 67%). This is vomited out to somehow prove at how great our medicine is. I document in my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 Years how I'm unimpressed with medical advancements, but now I'm going to attack these "longer lives."
Is it true that in the old days they didn't live longer? Yes. but also in the old days, people didn't take multiple pills every day just to maintain their life. Is that really a life? Any time you necessitate a pill box marked by each day of the week, you're cheating. I know this is true for pretty much everyone over the age of 50, but there in lies my point, look how many pills you have to take a day to maintain your health. You want me to be impressed by that? That's like getting yourself cryognically frozen for 200 years and demanding praise for living so much longer than everyone else. Scientists and doctors will tell you that these pills have no effect, but all drugs have effects, and these are drugs. A drug is defined as any substance other than food that affect the way your mind and body work....these pills you're taking every day, is it food? No, Does it affect the way your body works? Yes, you would be decrepid and extremely unhealthy without it, therefore, it is drugs you're taking and all drugs have effects. These drugs take on a variety of euphemisms such as Bio-identical hormones, vitamins, supplements, replacement therapy, hormones etc etc. If it looks like a pill, is taken like a pill and performs like a pill, it's a pill. Critically injured people living on machines could live for a very long time on that machine, but guess what, their quality of life sucks so much, that sometimes their family chooses to unhook the machine. This little 10 different pills a day to maintain your health, is just a lesser form of this.
So, I choose to live a natural life. I don't go to the doctor when I'm sick, I don't take medication, I don't take pills. I constantly give my immue system a lot of practice, and guess what, I do much better than the vast majority of people that take these supplements/drugs/medication etc. etc. etc. And if I have to choose between having a yearly colonoscopy or death, I choose death.
Is it true that in the old days they didn't live longer? Yes. but also in the old days, people didn't take multiple pills every day just to maintain their life. Is that really a life? Any time you necessitate a pill box marked by each day of the week, you're cheating. I know this is true for pretty much everyone over the age of 50, but there in lies my point, look how many pills you have to take a day to maintain your health. You want me to be impressed by that? That's like getting yourself cryognically frozen for 200 years and demanding praise for living so much longer than everyone else. Scientists and doctors will tell you that these pills have no effect, but all drugs have effects, and these are drugs. A drug is defined as any substance other than food that affect the way your mind and body work....these pills you're taking every day, is it food? No, Does it affect the way your body works? Yes, you would be decrepid and extremely unhealthy without it, therefore, it is drugs you're taking and all drugs have effects. These drugs take on a variety of euphemisms such as Bio-identical hormones, vitamins, supplements, replacement therapy, hormones etc etc. If it looks like a pill, is taken like a pill and performs like a pill, it's a pill. Critically injured people living on machines could live for a very long time on that machine, but guess what, their quality of life sucks so much, that sometimes their family chooses to unhook the machine. This little 10 different pills a day to maintain your health, is just a lesser form of this.
So, I choose to live a natural life. I don't go to the doctor when I'm sick, I don't take medication, I don't take pills. I constantly give my immue system a lot of practice, and guess what, I do much better than the vast majority of people that take these supplements/drugs/medication etc. etc. etc. And if I have to choose between having a yearly colonoscopy or death, I choose death.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
New age women and relationships
As I look around, I see a vast change in what women want in a man. Men haven't changed much in what we want, which is interesting but women seem to no longer like strong men. I'm not talking about confident men, as that is still consistent but they no longer like a man to fight for them. They much rather prefer passive, non-aggressive men, unless of course they're aggressive toward them, because then they're assholes and chics love assholes.
This came to me when someone close to me was telling me the story of how he met his fiancee. During that story, he said that after pursuing her, he found her talking with a bunch of guys. He backed off and observed her get hit on by his cousin's friends. Now, obviously since I told you that he is talking about his fiancee, you know how the story ends. But, here the interesting part...he got the girl by not fighting for her. He got the girl by standing back as others moved in. In the old days, if guys are hitting on the girl you like, you step in. You fight for her. But now, you get the girl by not fighting and being passive. How did this happen?
The other example I saw of this is when I watched a fight break out over a girl. If you think I'm going to say the girl liked the winner, thus contradicting what I"ve already said, you are wrong. When the fight was over, the woman came rushing to the loser to take care of him and villified the victor. Only in the human species does a woman value the loser of a fight over the winner. Now, there are a couple scenarios where this is acceptable. For one, if the guy is fighting to defend the girl because she's in trouble, winning or losing is acceptable because you are getting hurt for her. But, if there is just a fight for who the better man is, objectively the woman should go to the victor...yet this is not the case.
Now, the femininst movement is probably to blame for this. Women have always taken care of men in the home, and now they've extended it to all aspects of life, work, home, confrontation. What exactly is left for the man to do?
This came to me when someone close to me was telling me the story of how he met his fiancee. During that story, he said that after pursuing her, he found her talking with a bunch of guys. He backed off and observed her get hit on by his cousin's friends. Now, obviously since I told you that he is talking about his fiancee, you know how the story ends. But, here the interesting part...he got the girl by not fighting for her. He got the girl by standing back as others moved in. In the old days, if guys are hitting on the girl you like, you step in. You fight for her. But now, you get the girl by not fighting and being passive. How did this happen?
The other example I saw of this is when I watched a fight break out over a girl. If you think I'm going to say the girl liked the winner, thus contradicting what I"ve already said, you are wrong. When the fight was over, the woman came rushing to the loser to take care of him and villified the victor. Only in the human species does a woman value the loser of a fight over the winner. Now, there are a couple scenarios where this is acceptable. For one, if the guy is fighting to defend the girl because she's in trouble, winning or losing is acceptable because you are getting hurt for her. But, if there is just a fight for who the better man is, objectively the woman should go to the victor...yet this is not the case.
Now, the femininst movement is probably to blame for this. Women have always taken care of men in the home, and now they've extended it to all aspects of life, work, home, confrontation. What exactly is left for the man to do?
Friday, May 13, 2011
Why I don't forgive Lebron
Lebron James apologized to Cleveland for the way he left. Finally he gets it...we weren't mad that he left, we were mad at the way he did it with no remorse. He then flat out admitted that he couldn't beat Boston by himself. Now, I don't think he was, Mo Williams and Zyldrunas Illgauskas were both all-stars and Boobie Gibson, Delonte West etc. etc. were good role players. But alas, at least he sort of admitted he is not Jordan.
So why do I not forgive him? Well that comes from an integrity standpoint. Ohioans are brought up to believe that someone's word is their bond. Lebron said, "I will not rest, I will not tire, until I bring Cleveland a championship." That didn't happen. He tapped out and quit with no mention of his lying or going back on that solemn promise. In my adopted and current city, New York, they don't have this mentality. Someone's word isn't binding here, instead everything needs to be in writing and even then they waver. Lebron is from Ohio, I grew up in Ohio, I know how important keeping your word is, and Lebron doesn't seem to have any care for it. And besides, he didn't apologize to Cleveland, he apologized to his teammates in Cleveland...so he still resents us after hardcore supporting him for 7 years. This, I can't really blame him because the visceral hate cominig from Cleveland fans the past 10 months understandably may lead to some resentment on his part. I would argue it's just a testimony of how great the fans are in Cleveland but you can be the judge of that.
Maybe now that Lebron's team has had their path to the championship open up considerably, he's hedging his bets. The Cavs owner Dan Gilbert says that Lebron will be cursed till he does right by Cleveland. Maybe that's why he finally apologized to his Cleveland teammates. As for me, I don't forgive.
So why do I not forgive him? Well that comes from an integrity standpoint. Ohioans are brought up to believe that someone's word is their bond. Lebron said, "I will not rest, I will not tire, until I bring Cleveland a championship." That didn't happen. He tapped out and quit with no mention of his lying or going back on that solemn promise. In my adopted and current city, New York, they don't have this mentality. Someone's word isn't binding here, instead everything needs to be in writing and even then they waver. Lebron is from Ohio, I grew up in Ohio, I know how important keeping your word is, and Lebron doesn't seem to have any care for it. And besides, he didn't apologize to Cleveland, he apologized to his teammates in Cleveland...so he still resents us after hardcore supporting him for 7 years. This, I can't really blame him because the visceral hate cominig from Cleveland fans the past 10 months understandably may lead to some resentment on his part. I would argue it's just a testimony of how great the fans are in Cleveland but you can be the judge of that.
Maybe now that Lebron's team has had their path to the championship open up considerably, he's hedging his bets. The Cavs owner Dan Gilbert says that Lebron will be cursed till he does right by Cleveland. Maybe that's why he finally apologized to his Cleveland teammates. As for me, I don't forgive.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Obama's speech about the death of Osama Bin Laden
First off, the good news. I will credit President Obama for succeeding where Bush Jr. failed. I believe it to be a horrendous indictment on our nation's competency that it took almost 10 years to find and kill Osama Bin Laden. Thank you President Obama.
I also have to admit that I was wrong about something. I said that I believed Osama Bin Laden to be in Saudi Arabia because everyone was looking for him in Pakistan so he would go where Muslims would be and the last place we'd look. I was wrong in that assessment.
President Obama sent a covert mission into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden, he did it in his own way with the support of Pakistan, although I'm not always behind American presidents asking permission to do something in defense of our nation, on this point, I'm glad he tried but I hope that he would have the courage to have done the same even if Pakistan said no. The final praise I will give him about his speech is that he clearly laid out that Bin Laden is a mass murderer of all religions including Muslims. Most pay lip service to that we're not at war with Islam and Islam is a religion of peace and that nonsense, but Obama added substance to that to those who don't know of the world atrocities committed by Al Queda and I commend him for that.
Now that I have praised Obama, I need to critique something about his speech. He found out in August where Bin Laden was....It took nine months for him to put together a mission. This is the problem with the American military, there's so much red tape. Bin Laden could have moved in nine months. I consider us very lucky that in the nine months it took to put this plan together we didn't miss out on yet another opportunity to lose him just as how we did when Clinton was president.
I also have to admit that I was wrong about something. I said that I believed Osama Bin Laden to be in Saudi Arabia because everyone was looking for him in Pakistan so he would go where Muslims would be and the last place we'd look. I was wrong in that assessment.
President Obama sent a covert mission into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden, he did it in his own way with the support of Pakistan, although I'm not always behind American presidents asking permission to do something in defense of our nation, on this point, I'm glad he tried but I hope that he would have the courage to have done the same even if Pakistan said no. The final praise I will give him about his speech is that he clearly laid out that Bin Laden is a mass murderer of all religions including Muslims. Most pay lip service to that we're not at war with Islam and Islam is a religion of peace and that nonsense, but Obama added substance to that to those who don't know of the world atrocities committed by Al Queda and I commend him for that.
Now that I have praised Obama, I need to critique something about his speech. He found out in August where Bin Laden was....It took nine months for him to put together a mission. This is the problem with the American military, there's so much red tape. Bin Laden could have moved in nine months. I consider us very lucky that in the nine months it took to put this plan together we didn't miss out on yet another opportunity to lose him just as how we did when Clinton was president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)