I really wish I could report that I'm confident that the future is bright looking at the possibilities of who will oust the incumbant president and lead way to a conservative government. When President Obama won, I thought there was a silver lining in that he would mess up the country so that a real conservative could be preseident; just like how Jimmy Carter messed up the country to allow a conservative like Raegan to lead. Alas, it doesn't seem like that silver lining is correct.
As I look at the Republican candidates, I am once again finding myself drawn toward people who are getting destroyed in the polls. This, however, is an objective post therefore I will not take into accounts probability of success. Ideally I would like Sarah Palin to be the next leader of this nation simply because she has not been corrupted by politics. She's real, speaks from the heart, and I really couldn't care less if Roe vs. Wade is the only supreme court case she knows or if that's her baby or not (though if it wasn't, I think it would further add support that she is against abortion as she wouldn't let her own daughter get one when she was unmarried and the kid had Down's) or if she doesn't read any newspapers (actually, that furthers my belief that her mind hasn't been brain washed). But alas, she didn't even make it to the debates so let's pick one of them shall we? There is an entire chapter about Sarah Palin in my book if you want to read more.
I would have to choose Santorum who barely edges out Ron Paul. I do believe our country to be the best in the world ut I do like the European model of a VAT tax or consumption tax, which Santorum advocates. All of them want to repeal Obama-care and pull back the reigns on big government so Santorum has that going for him as well. He also is not a big fan of social security, which I like. Ron Paul I do believe has the firmest grasp on economics and finance, which is what this country needs but as far as nuts and bolts, and all around, I would cast my vote for Santorum.
As for Rick Perry and Mit Romney...well, I don't like Romney saying he wants to give the illegals that are already here full rights of Americans (or maybe just educate them) but there's nothing I really like about Perry either. It looks like one of them will win the nomination, which will put me in a position I found myself three years ago....voting for someone I don't like sinmply because I don't like Obama. It didn't work for McCain and I don't think it'll work for Romney or Perry so just as I had no hope for Obama's campaign, I'm losing hope for the Republicans to win as well.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Reflecting on Irene
I'm so happy I put things in writing. I predicted that I thought that it would downgrade to a tropical storm when it hit New York...She did. So I'm gloating a little.
Yes the beaches were bad but I mean are we THAT surprised that a massive storm left large waves? I mean 15 ft waves in the Atlantic Ocean isn't exactly impressive. Hell, bad storms on Lake Erie get to be 8-12 ft. and it's a lake! Anyone who has swam at Long Beach, Jersey shore etc, the waves are consistently pretty big. That's why I love swimming there, I love when waves take me out. This doesn't happen where I grew up on Lake Erie. We had break walls so the waves existed, but nothing like the ocean. When she hit Howard Beach, she was a hurricane (I think, it's pretty close it was right around there when it got downgraded), so you're telling me that that's only good for another 3 ft. to thunderstorms on Lake Erie? Sorry I'm not too impressed.
those of you who follow me on facebook know that I did say what would impress me. I felt that I should define what would be considered bad. I admit that I was a little worried my prediction would be wrong but alas it wasn't. So I was right, she was a tropical storm when she hit me in NYC. What I said on Facebook was that "If I lose power, I'll be impressed." Now, I thought she might knock out my power. Even everyone I asked of the 9 other people who weren't afraid that I spoke to said we would lose power. Granted, I think it was only like 2. I was skeptical...I didn't lose power as of yet. They say the storm passed but maybe a tail wind will kick up and take out the power. I'll write a retraction if that happens.
So, I'm not impressed. The storm passed while I was watching a TV show because I was told I had an hour. The Show lasted 45 minutes and when I turned the news back on, she was gone. I didn't hear her out the window. I didn't lose reception. I had no idea.
Now, for those of you who are impressed because of the millions of people who lost power. A) most of those were in the south, I gave her credit that she would be bad in the south...the one family I know in North Carolina wasn't too impressed with her, but they're 2 hours from the coast, so I don't think it's a very good example. Now hundreds of thousands in Long Island and Queens are without power, so you scream I should be impressed. Not so fast. The power company cut power to the evacuated areas in Howard Beach, the 5 Towns and elsewhere because they were worried the flooding would meet the electrical wires and if the electrical wires were hot, it could be very bad. So, it was precautionary. I don't know how many of the hundreds of thousands lost power from the Irene herself and not the electric company cutting off the power. So I'm not impressed with that either.
What about all the flooding you saw on TV? There was no beach at Howard Beach and Long beach (both in NY) and Longbranch (Jersey shore). Well my friend lives in the five towns (near Long Beach in Long Island) and I've had to drive to her house during downpours and massive showers. And I hydroplaned for most of the way to her house. One particular drive I remember, I was convinced my car wouldn't make it and ran stop signs because stopping I believed would guarantee my car wouldn't make it through....that was not during a tropical storm just a regular old thunderstorm. So, now the parking lot by the beach was flooded.... Again not too impressed. Fox News said, "It looks like Venice" I've been to Venice on at least three occasions. They don't have cars to go around, they have boats. In this "like Venice" place, cars were driving. Some turned around at an intersection because it was too bad...but emergency vehicles and garbage trucks blocked ways to the rockaways and other beaches. That couldn't happen in Venice, those cars would sink. So, A little hyperbolic there Fox News. Now I didn't drive to my friends house during Irene. She, like many others, heeded the evacuation notice. But I'm wondering how much worse it was than that time I drove to her house in a Thunderstorm. I saw cars and minivans hydroplaning through as they waved at the newscaster. I'm not too impressed. For me to give credit to flooding, those cars should have been being carried by the water down the street with the driver having 0 control.
For those who want to go upstate where they used rafts to get to people....fine, upstate may have gotten bad, but I didn't see that in Long Island, which still isn't New York City by the way. My comments were she wouldn't be too impressive in New York City and she wasn't by all my objective standards I put before. Sorry Irene. Now, it's not bad to be prepared in case shit does go down. But I still have never been in a Hurricane. I think this was my first tropical storm.
Yes the beaches were bad but I mean are we THAT surprised that a massive storm left large waves? I mean 15 ft waves in the Atlantic Ocean isn't exactly impressive. Hell, bad storms on Lake Erie get to be 8-12 ft. and it's a lake! Anyone who has swam at Long Beach, Jersey shore etc, the waves are consistently pretty big. That's why I love swimming there, I love when waves take me out. This doesn't happen where I grew up on Lake Erie. We had break walls so the waves existed, but nothing like the ocean. When she hit Howard Beach, she was a hurricane (I think, it's pretty close it was right around there when it got downgraded), so you're telling me that that's only good for another 3 ft. to thunderstorms on Lake Erie? Sorry I'm not too impressed.
those of you who follow me on facebook know that I did say what would impress me. I felt that I should define what would be considered bad. I admit that I was a little worried my prediction would be wrong but alas it wasn't. So I was right, she was a tropical storm when she hit me in NYC. What I said on Facebook was that "If I lose power, I'll be impressed." Now, I thought she might knock out my power. Even everyone I asked of the 9 other people who weren't afraid that I spoke to said we would lose power. Granted, I think it was only like 2. I was skeptical...I didn't lose power as of yet. They say the storm passed but maybe a tail wind will kick up and take out the power. I'll write a retraction if that happens.
So, I'm not impressed. The storm passed while I was watching a TV show because I was told I had an hour. The Show lasted 45 minutes and when I turned the news back on, she was gone. I didn't hear her out the window. I didn't lose reception. I had no idea.
Now, for those of you who are impressed because of the millions of people who lost power. A) most of those were in the south, I gave her credit that she would be bad in the south...the one family I know in North Carolina wasn't too impressed with her, but they're 2 hours from the coast, so I don't think it's a very good example. Now hundreds of thousands in Long Island and Queens are without power, so you scream I should be impressed. Not so fast. The power company cut power to the evacuated areas in Howard Beach, the 5 Towns and elsewhere because they were worried the flooding would meet the electrical wires and if the electrical wires were hot, it could be very bad. So, it was precautionary. I don't know how many of the hundreds of thousands lost power from the Irene herself and not the electric company cutting off the power. So I'm not impressed with that either.
What about all the flooding you saw on TV? There was no beach at Howard Beach and Long beach (both in NY) and Longbranch (Jersey shore). Well my friend lives in the five towns (near Long Beach in Long Island) and I've had to drive to her house during downpours and massive showers. And I hydroplaned for most of the way to her house. One particular drive I remember, I was convinced my car wouldn't make it and ran stop signs because stopping I believed would guarantee my car wouldn't make it through....that was not during a tropical storm just a regular old thunderstorm. So, now the parking lot by the beach was flooded.... Again not too impressed. Fox News said, "It looks like Venice" I've been to Venice on at least three occasions. They don't have cars to go around, they have boats. In this "like Venice" place, cars were driving. Some turned around at an intersection because it was too bad...but emergency vehicles and garbage trucks blocked ways to the rockaways and other beaches. That couldn't happen in Venice, those cars would sink. So, A little hyperbolic there Fox News. Now I didn't drive to my friends house during Irene. She, like many others, heeded the evacuation notice. But I'm wondering how much worse it was than that time I drove to her house in a Thunderstorm. I saw cars and minivans hydroplaning through as they waved at the newscaster. I'm not too impressed. For me to give credit to flooding, those cars should have been being carried by the water down the street with the driver having 0 control.
For those who want to go upstate where they used rafts to get to people....fine, upstate may have gotten bad, but I didn't see that in Long Island, which still isn't New York City by the way. My comments were she wouldn't be too impressive in New York City and she wasn't by all my objective standards I put before. Sorry Irene. Now, it's not bad to be prepared in case shit does go down. But I still have never been in a Hurricane. I think this was my first tropical storm.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Me and Irene
On the day before Hurricane Irene arrives, I remain unafraid of her wrath. Right now, she's in the outer banks chilling in North Carolina. She's probably causing havoc on places like topsail island, which is a very fine place to vacation. But by the time she makes her visit to New York, I don't think she's going to be a ferocious. According to the news, I'm dead wrong but they always overreact.
Now, sometimes they're correct. The December 26, 2010 snowstorm was every bit as bad as they said it would be as well as the one in February. I drove through both. Now the February one went unnoticed in New York, where temperatures were high enough to just be a downpour of rain, but driving through Pennsylvania, as I was, it was really bad. I'm guessing Irene will be like that snowstorm in February, really bad in the south (ok PA isn't the south but bare with me) but by the time it comes up here, not so bad.
This is New York City, my favorite place in the world. I'm sitting 190 ft above the ground two crosstown blocks away from the closest area deemed an evacuation area. I'm still not scared. I guess you could say that if the worst case happens and I don't live through this, I wouldn't be too concerned because I've lived a fulfilling life and I really can't think of a better place to die than in New York City.
Irene, however, most likely will not be my end. New Yorkers just panic really easily. Especially for something like this that we almost never experience. Some say there was one in '95 but I don't remember that one so it must not have been THAT big a deal. Others talk about a category 3 that hit in the 1930's. Well, I just read a long history of New York, named "New York the novel" where they go through the history and they failed to mention this horrendous hurricane. Maybe it happened, but it interests me that when I talk about how all the predictions from the 30s about air pollution and water levels and such were dead wrong, people tell me "Well the measuring technology back then was extremely inaccurate so we have no idea what it was really like." Fine, I'll turn that argument back on you, the measuring equipment for the hurricanes weren't accurate back then so we have no idea how bad that hurricane was.
This is NYC, we don't have horrible weather like earthquakes, massive tornadoes, and hurricanes. That's why a lot of us live here. The Earthquake that people TELL me we had earlier this week, I didn't even feel. They say that those in higher building did, so fine. Some say they felt it. Nobody was injured, my co-worker saw his monitor move. I'm not impressed. If you have to tell me we had an Earthquake, then it really wasn't that bad. I should have my own horror story. Even if the "experts" are right...it's a category 1; the weakest hurricane. Sure, our buildings aren't built hurricane proof like in the hurricane zones but still this is very minor and I think Florida, Mississippi, New Orleans and such are laughing at our panic. Hell I am. Now I've only found 9 other people who are just as unafraid as I am of Irene but as Mark Twain said, "If you ever find yourself in agreement with the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."
I'm also getting sick of everyone telling me that I'm making the same mistake as people in New Orleans for Katrina. Let's compare the two cities. New Orleans is in a hurricane zones, they have hurricanes all the time, they've had two in my lifetime. New York has had none. New Orleans is below sea level, New York is not. The problem in New Orleans were the dykes and levies failed, New York, doesn't have this problem. Therefore, this is nothing like Katrina.
When the dust settles, I believe New York will be left with minimal damage. Maybe some trash cans will be blown around and some branches will fall but that happens in most thunderstorms and won't impress me much. So, I say to Irene, I'm in the City, if you want to show up for our date, you can. But I have a feeling you're going to stand me up or at the very least, not be everything you're cracked up to be. Just another woman misrepresenting herself.
Now, sometimes they're correct. The December 26, 2010 snowstorm was every bit as bad as they said it would be as well as the one in February. I drove through both. Now the February one went unnoticed in New York, where temperatures were high enough to just be a downpour of rain, but driving through Pennsylvania, as I was, it was really bad. I'm guessing Irene will be like that snowstorm in February, really bad in the south (ok PA isn't the south but bare with me) but by the time it comes up here, not so bad.
This is New York City, my favorite place in the world. I'm sitting 190 ft above the ground two crosstown blocks away from the closest area deemed an evacuation area. I'm still not scared. I guess you could say that if the worst case happens and I don't live through this, I wouldn't be too concerned because I've lived a fulfilling life and I really can't think of a better place to die than in New York City.
Irene, however, most likely will not be my end. New Yorkers just panic really easily. Especially for something like this that we almost never experience. Some say there was one in '95 but I don't remember that one so it must not have been THAT big a deal. Others talk about a category 3 that hit in the 1930's. Well, I just read a long history of New York, named "New York the novel" where they go through the history and they failed to mention this horrendous hurricane. Maybe it happened, but it interests me that when I talk about how all the predictions from the 30s about air pollution and water levels and such were dead wrong, people tell me "Well the measuring technology back then was extremely inaccurate so we have no idea what it was really like." Fine, I'll turn that argument back on you, the measuring equipment for the hurricanes weren't accurate back then so we have no idea how bad that hurricane was.
This is NYC, we don't have horrible weather like earthquakes, massive tornadoes, and hurricanes. That's why a lot of us live here. The Earthquake that people TELL me we had earlier this week, I didn't even feel. They say that those in higher building did, so fine. Some say they felt it. Nobody was injured, my co-worker saw his monitor move. I'm not impressed. If you have to tell me we had an Earthquake, then it really wasn't that bad. I should have my own horror story. Even if the "experts" are right...it's a category 1; the weakest hurricane. Sure, our buildings aren't built hurricane proof like in the hurricane zones but still this is very minor and I think Florida, Mississippi, New Orleans and such are laughing at our panic. Hell I am. Now I've only found 9 other people who are just as unafraid as I am of Irene but as Mark Twain said, "If you ever find yourself in agreement with the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."
I'm also getting sick of everyone telling me that I'm making the same mistake as people in New Orleans for Katrina. Let's compare the two cities. New Orleans is in a hurricane zones, they have hurricanes all the time, they've had two in my lifetime. New York has had none. New Orleans is below sea level, New York is not. The problem in New Orleans were the dykes and levies failed, New York, doesn't have this problem. Therefore, this is nothing like Katrina.
When the dust settles, I believe New York will be left with minimal damage. Maybe some trash cans will be blown around and some branches will fall but that happens in most thunderstorms and won't impress me much. So, I say to Irene, I'm in the City, if you want to show up for our date, you can. But I have a feeling you're going to stand me up or at the very least, not be everything you're cracked up to be. Just another woman misrepresenting herself.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Anal Sex
A lot of guys love talking about Anal sex. I guess the most famous one is Howard Stern. Almost every time he had a girl in his studio, and had a sex conversation with her, he would always ask if they do anal. I never really got the point of it though. I mean, I can understand anal with a girl you don't care about but why would you do it with one you do? Most people when I pose this question to them, look at me like I'm crazy but they never give me an answer. The question is basically, As a heterosexual male, why would you want to perform an act that homosexuals commit, not because of desire, but as a necessity or lack of an alternative option? The best response I got to this question is, "Well, I think she has a nice ass, and the fact that I can fuck something that I find aesthetically pleasing, excites me."
This made sense at face value. When I was heterosexual, I never said, "Damn look at the vagina on that girl." When I see a naked female, I do not focus on the vagina, so this seemed to have merit. But, I think the real reason is a deep down understanding of what exactly anal sex is; the ultimate form of domination.
If you look at it historically, this immediately becomes self-evident. Inmates in prison, to break in a new inmate and "make them their bitch" will sodomize them. To those who say this is only done because they're horny and have no females around, I will point out that during Bill Clinton's Job Corp program, in which they took kids from the ghetto and put them in a school with the greatest facilities and material, yielded many cases of sodomy among the school kids, and it was a co-ed program. Anyone who has read the book the Kite Runner, knows that Ajab's ultimate revenge for taking a sling shot to the eye was to fuck the assailant in the ass. After establishing his dominance, he let him have the final kite that gave the main character the victory in the kite tournament. And the example that I'm most ashamed of, but alas it helps my point, in Ancient Greece, teachers, such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates would sodomize their students so they were not unruly and became receptive to their teachings. I believe fucking a girl in the ass is continuing this tradition in that when you do so, you are signaling that you are dominant over her...and that is never something you should do to a woman you care about. The final form is, there's a phrase "Bend over and take up the ass" meaning you got cheated or lost badly in a negotation. To the point that, you would do anything they told you do.
Now that the reasoning for why is out of the way, I'll get to why you would never do it to any woman you care about. If you've read my book, I am against homosexual lifestyles because it exponentionally increases your chances of an STD by up to 1,000% depending on which disease you're referring to. This is because the lines of the anus has very thin skin that is easily torn and highly infectious material is constantly coming out of there, which increases the risk of infection to the open wound. That and STD's are best transported through semen and blood, both of which, even with lubrication, is highly evident in anal sex. If you perform this on someone, you are increasing their risk of infection and/or an STD (now if you don't have one, the risk of the latter is obviously diminished, but the former applies).
So grab it, take a body shot off it, but do not fuck it. As for homosexuals, I fully understand that there really isn't an alternative to having sex. I guess the mouth is the closest thing, but it really isn't sufficient. So, I understand why you take the risk, but the statistics don't lie, it's a major health risk and if you do have an option, like you heterosexuals do, obstain for everyone is created equal and it's not healthy to believe you have someone completely dominated. The act, in and of itself, is extremely unhealthy as well. Some urges need to be repressed.
This made sense at face value. When I was heterosexual, I never said, "Damn look at the vagina on that girl." When I see a naked female, I do not focus on the vagina, so this seemed to have merit. But, I think the real reason is a deep down understanding of what exactly anal sex is; the ultimate form of domination.
If you look at it historically, this immediately becomes self-evident. Inmates in prison, to break in a new inmate and "make them their bitch" will sodomize them. To those who say this is only done because they're horny and have no females around, I will point out that during Bill Clinton's Job Corp program, in which they took kids from the ghetto and put them in a school with the greatest facilities and material, yielded many cases of sodomy among the school kids, and it was a co-ed program. Anyone who has read the book the Kite Runner, knows that Ajab's ultimate revenge for taking a sling shot to the eye was to fuck the assailant in the ass. After establishing his dominance, he let him have the final kite that gave the main character the victory in the kite tournament. And the example that I'm most ashamed of, but alas it helps my point, in Ancient Greece, teachers, such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates would sodomize their students so they were not unruly and became receptive to their teachings. I believe fucking a girl in the ass is continuing this tradition in that when you do so, you are signaling that you are dominant over her...and that is never something you should do to a woman you care about. The final form is, there's a phrase "Bend over and take up the ass" meaning you got cheated or lost badly in a negotation. To the point that, you would do anything they told you do.
Now that the reasoning for why is out of the way, I'll get to why you would never do it to any woman you care about. If you've read my book, I am against homosexual lifestyles because it exponentionally increases your chances of an STD by up to 1,000% depending on which disease you're referring to. This is because the lines of the anus has very thin skin that is easily torn and highly infectious material is constantly coming out of there, which increases the risk of infection to the open wound. That and STD's are best transported through semen and blood, both of which, even with lubrication, is highly evident in anal sex. If you perform this on someone, you are increasing their risk of infection and/or an STD (now if you don't have one, the risk of the latter is obviously diminished, but the former applies).
So grab it, take a body shot off it, but do not fuck it. As for homosexuals, I fully understand that there really isn't an alternative to having sex. I guess the mouth is the closest thing, but it really isn't sufficient. So, I understand why you take the risk, but the statistics don't lie, it's a major health risk and if you do have an option, like you heterosexuals do, obstain for everyone is created equal and it's not healthy to believe you have someone completely dominated. The act, in and of itself, is extremely unhealthy as well. Some urges need to be repressed.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Anti-civility
I always hear, "You gotta be civil" but I'm not very good at this. In fact, I don't even know why you have to be civil. I just ran into someone that I've known my entire life on the streets of New York. Now, her and I are no longer close and we both know this as I have made it extremely clear over the past few years. During our meeting, however, I was civil and I enterained her questions. She claims to be doing well for herself and I told her that I'm happy she's getting her life back in order, which is a true statement. Then, the conversation turned to the part I wanted to avoid. She spoke about wanting to be close again and yatta yatta yatta. This forced me to remind her that I hate her. Now, I was trying to avoid this part but what do you want me to do? lie in the name of being civil? She came out and asked "Do you really hate me?" Yes, I do. I'm not going to lie, I'm going to answer her question. It seems ridiculous to me that I need to somehow, in the name of some retarded rule to try to be civil, to lie to her. It's her fault for asking. This isn't even the first time, she continually asks me this and forces me to confirm again and again that I want nothing to do with her.
Why do people subject themselves to this masochistic behavior. Who gives a shit if I don't like you, why is it so important to people to be liked by everyone? Personally when I find someone that everyone likes, I become suspicious of them and accuse them of being fake. I keep hearing that if people were brutally honest all the time, the world would be a mean place (see the move The invention of lying). But at least you know where you stand with people. Not this constant guessing about duplicity, sincerity and the like. So fuck being civil, if I've told you I hate you chances are I still do. The more you ask, the more upset I'm going to be at you and the more ammo I have for my arsenal that is already large enough for me to come to the conclusion that I hate you, so really you're just fueling the fire. And if you hate me, tell me, I won't hold it against you...In fact, I will respect you for it.
And for you Hippies that hate the word hate, I will say that you cannot love if you can't hate.
Why do people subject themselves to this masochistic behavior. Who gives a shit if I don't like you, why is it so important to people to be liked by everyone? Personally when I find someone that everyone likes, I become suspicious of them and accuse them of being fake. I keep hearing that if people were brutally honest all the time, the world would be a mean place (see the move The invention of lying). But at least you know where you stand with people. Not this constant guessing about duplicity, sincerity and the like. So fuck being civil, if I've told you I hate you chances are I still do. The more you ask, the more upset I'm going to be at you and the more ammo I have for my arsenal that is already large enough for me to come to the conclusion that I hate you, so really you're just fueling the fire. And if you hate me, tell me, I won't hold it against you...In fact, I will respect you for it.
And for you Hippies that hate the word hate, I will say that you cannot love if you can't hate.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
What we value
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)