rip, ting and i watched the interview on the 25th via youtube. it was surprisingly similar to the version i watched months ago! i only caught three changes: the franco/rogen party scene seemed much shorter, i think they added in a lot of the butthole stuff (esp at the end of the actual interview), and they definitely way changed the face on fire part.
all in all, reasonable changes. i was hoping they'd use the nicky minaj interview about superb ass / super bass (that was in the commercials) and cut off the rob lowe interview (that i saw the first time), but they kept lowe in. bah. i didn't think it was funny then, and it certainly didn't get any better.
overall, i stand by my original review in that the movie is hilarious. knowing what jokes were coming didn't change my reaction to any of them. i laughed probably almost as hard as i did the first time.
i'm glad sony decided to release the movie. i think they messed up quite a bit in their handling of this whole thing, but in the end, they did the right thing. i mean, i get that sony is a private company, and one not held in the united states, but i think it's fucking crazy that we would let some other govt tell us what we can and cannot makes movies about. our own government doesn't even censor us this way, so why would be give some other govt the power to?! especially when this movie is billed as an obvious work of fiction and comedy! i do think that the creators of the movie could have made some concessions to not offend real people. they could've called it north something, and not north korea. and it didn't have to be kim jong-un. they could've picked any name. most people would still know who you're talking about. but anyway.
one last thing: altho a lot of people illegally dled the movie, rip bought it, which i commend him for. he wanted to support sony's decision to release the movie. and there's no better way to say you approve than to monetarily back up your approval..
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Saturday, December 27, 2014
the interview
i signed a nda, but imma write this anyway since no one reads this website and since i only have positive things to say "the interview". i watched it a few months ago as a screener. (i get emails that invite me to these free movies. they're unfinished so sometimes the effects aren't done yet, or they ask for feedback about certain things. anyway. this movie) i didn't really know what to expect. it was billed as a comedy starring seth green and james franco. about 10 minutes into the movie i still wasn't that into it. it was kind of funny, but not that great. as the movie went on tho, it got better and better and as i was walking out of the theater later i was thinking that this was probably the best screener i'd ever seen. it was hilarious! i disliked a couple specific things about the movie, but overall, the acting, pacing, comedy, story, ending, action, everything was awesome.
so this sony hacking thing. honestly, i do think it's north korea. if only because their only demand is that sony not release the movie. i would never have thought a govt so petty as to hack a company because they don't like their product, but when the hackers asked for nothing except for stuff pertaining to this movie, well, who else would it be?
i'm interested to see what happens. i'm writing this post on the 16th but am waiting until after the planned release, just in case that nda (or the hackers) come back to bite me in the butt. but seriously, it was a hilarious movie. we'll see how much they change it. some parts, i know, have already been changed cause i watched the end helicopter explosion scene and that is MUCH "cleaner" now. the way it was before was surprisingly "detailed", even before any of this craziness happened!
i'm glad sony changed the release date, from some north korean holiday to christmas day. it did seem unnecessarily antagonistic. them changing a few scenes here and there is also okay. i just hope they didn't ruin the movie.
one more thing. while, yes, the movie does make fun of the north korean leader, i felt like it mostly made fun of americans. kim was portrayed as a lonely, misunderstood, hypocritical person. but any actual vip (esp leader of a something as big as a country) would be lonely and misunderstood! the movie makes you feel bad for him. i mean, yes, north koreans are brainwashed to believe some incredibly fantastical stuff about their leader, but every hero's background is exaggerated at least a little. but the americans in the movie were idiotic. i mean, even the cia looks ridiculous sending that can't-do-anything-right pair to do such important dirty work!
(follow up post romrow)
so this sony hacking thing. honestly, i do think it's north korea. if only because their only demand is that sony not release the movie. i would never have thought a govt so petty as to hack a company because they don't like their product, but when the hackers asked for nothing except for stuff pertaining to this movie, well, who else would it be?
i'm interested to see what happens. i'm writing this post on the 16th but am waiting until after the planned release, just in case that nda (or the hackers) come back to bite me in the butt. but seriously, it was a hilarious movie. we'll see how much they change it. some parts, i know, have already been changed cause i watched the end helicopter explosion scene and that is MUCH "cleaner" now. the way it was before was surprisingly "detailed", even before any of this craziness happened!
i'm glad sony changed the release date, from some north korean holiday to christmas day. it did seem unnecessarily antagonistic. them changing a few scenes here and there is also okay. i just hope they didn't ruin the movie.
one more thing. while, yes, the movie does make fun of the north korean leader, i felt like it mostly made fun of americans. kim was portrayed as a lonely, misunderstood, hypocritical person. but any actual vip (esp leader of a something as big as a country) would be lonely and misunderstood! the movie makes you feel bad for him. i mean, yes, north koreans are brainwashed to believe some incredibly fantastical stuff about their leader, but every hero's background is exaggerated at least a little. but the americans in the movie were idiotic. i mean, even the cia looks ridiculous sending that can't-do-anything-right pair to do such important dirty work!
(follow up post romrow)
Monday, December 22, 2014
dtf?
What Is Up With Random Dudes Emailing To Ask Me To Have Sex With Them?
this does happen. it hasn't happened to me, thank god, since no one assumes i'd want to cheat on my boyfriend of nearly a decade and half. but it has happened to a few of my girlfriends. one of whom, if you knew her even little bit, you would know that she is absolutely not be down to fuck. (that's what dtf stands for, btw. ...kids these days...)
"At the very least, get to know me first before you bring up such a request. Don’t assume all women are receptive to these sorts of comments."
i think it's weird that people would rather risk offending someone than taking the time to suss out the situation first. i mean, i guess that's reasonable, since you don't really care about that person anyway. so who cares if you offend them. but do you really want to be that person?
a year or two or something ago a guy i know, who knows i'm dating someone, asked me out. i was like. what?! it was so confusing! i've thought many a time that the best thing about facebook is that you can discreetly let people know that you're not available. not entirely sure what else it's good for, actually. in a later social media post he said that apparently he does this rather often, because, well, why not? if she's interested, she now knows he is open to the idea too. if she's not interested, no harm done.
except that there is harm done! i think differently of him now! in fact, i think less of him! we were never really friends. dragon boat acquaintances more like. and i now feel uncomfortable around him. i feel like he's disrespected me. if we had actually been friends, we might no longer be. i only see him a few times a year so i've done nothing to distance myself from him.
ugh. i honestly have no issues with the hook-up culture. if i were suddenly to become single i'd probably "make up for lost time," at least for a little bit. but i'm not single. so don't try to put that on me. and don't try to put that on people who clearly are not interested. in the movies, perseverance will get you the girl, or the job, or the whatever. but in real life, that amount of stubbornness will only get you a restraining order. i think it's better to err on the side of politeness and respect. READ HER SIGNS before you start sending her dick pics and random dtf inquiries. if she wants that stuff, she'll let you know.
this does happen. it hasn't happened to me, thank god, since no one assumes i'd want to cheat on my boyfriend of nearly a decade and half. but it has happened to a few of my girlfriends. one of whom, if you knew her even little bit, you would know that she is absolutely not be down to fuck. (that's what dtf stands for, btw. ...kids these days...)
"At the very least, get to know me first before you bring up such a request. Don’t assume all women are receptive to these sorts of comments."
i think it's weird that people would rather risk offending someone than taking the time to suss out the situation first. i mean, i guess that's reasonable, since you don't really care about that person anyway. so who cares if you offend them. but do you really want to be that person?
a year or two or something ago a guy i know, who knows i'm dating someone, asked me out. i was like. what?! it was so confusing! i've thought many a time that the best thing about facebook is that you can discreetly let people know that you're not available. not entirely sure what else it's good for, actually. in a later social media post he said that apparently he does this rather often, because, well, why not? if she's interested, she now knows he is open to the idea too. if she's not interested, no harm done.
except that there is harm done! i think differently of him now! in fact, i think less of him! we were never really friends. dragon boat acquaintances more like. and i now feel uncomfortable around him. i feel like he's disrespected me. if we had actually been friends, we might no longer be. i only see him a few times a year so i've done nothing to distance myself from him.
ugh. i honestly have no issues with the hook-up culture. if i were suddenly to become single i'd probably "make up for lost time," at least for a little bit. but i'm not single. so don't try to put that on me. and don't try to put that on people who clearly are not interested. in the movies, perseverance will get you the girl, or the job, or the whatever. but in real life, that amount of stubbornness will only get you a restraining order. i think it's better to err on the side of politeness and respect. READ HER SIGNS before you start sending her dick pics and random dtf inquiries. if she wants that stuff, she'll let you know.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
pig facts
couple things i learned from matt whyman's - oink: my life with mini-pigs
a female pig is called a gilt
farmer and man talking about raising pigs. farmer tells man he that they live for six months before slaughter. man is surprised. farmer explains that "Pigs grow quickly. You don't want them getting much bigger. With boys, the taste is rich and succulent around now. But if you leave it until they hit puberty the meat can get a bit whiffy. At least that's what women say. It's called boar taint. Something to do with the hormones, but apparently men aren't so troubled by it. Can you imagine that? Sitting down for Sunday dinner with your other half, only she's gagging as you carve and you can't see what the fuss is about?" (p30)
a female pig is called a gilt
farmer and man talking about raising pigs. farmer tells man he that they live for six months before slaughter. man is surprised. farmer explains that "Pigs grow quickly. You don't want them getting much bigger. With boys, the taste is rich and succulent around now. But if you leave it until they hit puberty the meat can get a bit whiffy. At least that's what women say. It's called boar taint. Something to do with the hormones, but apparently men aren't so troubled by it. Can you imagine that? Sitting down for Sunday dinner with your other half, only she's gagging as you carve and you can't see what the fuss is about?" (p30)
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
cia quotes
all quotations from evan thomas' the very best men: the daring early years of the cia
"But the difference between the two organizations represents a divide that ran through the CIA for decades, a fundamental conflict in the role and mission of an intelligence agency. Clandestine operations embrace two separate activities. One is covert action—seeking to influence or change the way a country is governed. The other is espionage—secretly gathering information about a friend or foe. The two missions attract different sorts of personalities. Covert action operatives, like the ones who worked for OPC, tend to be activists. Results are more important than process. Espionage operators, like the ones who worked for OSO, tend to be more passive. They are cautious, prudent, careful. The goals of covert action and espionage are often in direct conflict. Covert action is almost by definition noisy, since operatives plunge themselves into the struggle for power. Espionage must be quiet to be effective. It never announces itself,' writes Thomas Powers. The foreign government official who is on the payroll, feeding the CIA secrets, must never be identified as an agent. yet covert action is also risky--it tends to 'go wrong' and expose spying networks carefully laid by espionage operators." (p41-42)
Paul Nitze - "In history, everyone religion has greatly honored those members who destroyed the enemy... Doing in the enemy is the right thing to do. Of course, there are some restraints on ends and means. if you go back to Greek culture and read Thucydides, there are limits to what you can do to other Greeks, who are part of your culture. But there are no limits on what you can do to a Persian. He's a barbarian. The communists were barbarians." (p91)
[he] "could appreciate the idea of the leap of faith, but he could not make the jump himself." (p200)
"The CIA officials looked pained and exasperated; they were good soldiers, they weren't going to point any fingers, but really, how could the senators be so naive? The CIA executed policy; it did not make it. Of course, the CIA had obtained authorization. But such things are never written down, nor are they to be ever acknowledged. That is why presidents have secret intelligence services: to perform secret acts that are supposed to be kept secret." (p230)
"But the difference between the two organizations represents a divide that ran through the CIA for decades, a fundamental conflict in the role and mission of an intelligence agency. Clandestine operations embrace two separate activities. One is covert action—seeking to influence or change the way a country is governed. The other is espionage—secretly gathering information about a friend or foe. The two missions attract different sorts of personalities. Covert action operatives, like the ones who worked for OPC, tend to be activists. Results are more important than process. Espionage operators, like the ones who worked for OSO, tend to be more passive. They are cautious, prudent, careful. The goals of covert action and espionage are often in direct conflict. Covert action is almost by definition noisy, since operatives plunge themselves into the struggle for power. Espionage must be quiet to be effective. It never announces itself,' writes Thomas Powers. The foreign government official who is on the payroll, feeding the CIA secrets, must never be identified as an agent. yet covert action is also risky--it tends to 'go wrong' and expose spying networks carefully laid by espionage operators." (p41-42)
Paul Nitze - "In history, everyone religion has greatly honored those members who destroyed the enemy... Doing in the enemy is the right thing to do. Of course, there are some restraints on ends and means. if you go back to Greek culture and read Thucydides, there are limits to what you can do to other Greeks, who are part of your culture. But there are no limits on what you can do to a Persian. He's a barbarian. The communists were barbarians." (p91)
[he] "could appreciate the idea of the leap of faith, but he could not make the jump himself." (p200)
"The CIA officials looked pained and exasperated; they were good soldiers, they weren't going to point any fingers, but really, how could the senators be so naive? The CIA executed policy; it did not make it. Of course, the CIA had obtained authorization. But such things are never written down, nor are they to be ever acknowledged. That is why presidents have secret intelligence services: to perform secret acts that are supposed to be kept secret." (p230)
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
gift ideas
interesting and good gifts for christmas, birthdays, or whatever! for when you don't totally know someone's taste but like them well enough to not want to get something too generic. cause as much as everyone loves gift cards, they are super impersonal. also, if you're pretty close to the person, you might offend them with a gift card!
custom monopoly board
personalized bobblehead: mixee, mbobble, minime, likeness me
a diy kit! for food alone, people can make their own hot sauce, cheese, bacon, gin, kimchi, beer, the list goes on!
streaming stick like roku, chromecast, fire stick
specialty coffee or tea. cause most love it but can't justify buying themselves the expensive stuff
digital subscription service: netflix, hulu plus, spotify, kindle unlimited
real subscription service (there are TONS of boxes. guaranteed to find one for any person!!): birchbox (makeup), club w (wine), mistobox (coffee), love with food (snacks), loot crate (gamer stuff), skoshbox (japanese candy), jib gem (jewelry), bike loot (cyclist stuff), blacksocks (socks!)
food of the month clubs (similar to subscription services!): bacon, cookies, pizza, popcorn, potato chips, cake!
bluetooth speakers for their phone
if they have an iphone, extra long charging cable (6' is a good length [i bought a few for rip, his sister, and ting])
custom monopoly board
personalized bobblehead: mixee, mbobble, minime, likeness me
a diy kit! for food alone, people can make their own hot sauce, cheese, bacon, gin, kimchi, beer, the list goes on!
streaming stick like roku, chromecast, fire stick
specialty coffee or tea. cause most love it but can't justify buying themselves the expensive stuff
digital subscription service: netflix, hulu plus, spotify, kindle unlimited
real subscription service (there are TONS of boxes. guaranteed to find one for any person!!): birchbox (makeup), club w (wine), mistobox (coffee), love with food (snacks), loot crate (gamer stuff), skoshbox (japanese candy), jib gem (jewelry), bike loot (cyclist stuff), blacksocks (socks!)
food of the month clubs (similar to subscription services!): bacon, cookies, pizza, popcorn, potato chips, cake!
bluetooth speakers for their phone
if they have an iphone, extra long charging cable (6' is a good length [i bought a few for rip, his sister, and ting])
Thursday, November 27, 2014
antarctic quotes
all taken from dr jerri nielsen's book ice bound: a doctor's incredible battle for survival at the south pole
from a 35 year-old navy polar manual "which contends that motivation is the most important factor when selecting a crew for a polar expedition. The author divides the pool of applicants into five types: He likes men (there were no women at the Poles in those days) who 'go with a specific interest, to be professional explorers, for scientific research, or the adventurous.... type who has to go "just because it is there." Less desirable because they are easily disillusioned are the idealists, the ambitious, and the glory-seekers. His second category is the 'escape artist' who signs up to 'evade family troubles with sweethearts, wives, or in-laws.' Others go to escape financial or family responsibilities, or jobs they hate. This type 'is either a good man or almost totally useless on the Ice.' There are also the 'money savers,' and 'drifters' who go because they have nothing better to do at the moment. Either can be a good man 'because the charms of isolation and beauty of polar regions puts reason in his being.' 'Least desirable' and 'most dangerous to themselves and others' are 'martyrs, sadists, homosexuals' (this, again, was the early sixties), those with strong subconscious suicidal or masochistic complexes, 'to whom a rugged life of isolation sometimes appeals.' The author concludes that the happiest candidate for the ice is a type of escape artist--'the rugged individualist who finds modern urban life intolerable with its TV and newspapers,...world crisis and crime...Many men who have never met the almighty in church meet him occasionally at the operating or delivery table, but really get to know him at the ends of the earth." (p77-78)
"Our memories were all deteriorating as chronic hypoxia ate away at our brain cells. Studies done in Antarctica showed a decrease in short-term memory of 13 percent in those staying through the winter. And that study was done at sea level! The effects on long-term memory had not been studied." (p126-127)
James Evans - "Wood comes from forests. Styrofoam comes from hell."
"There are three kinds of twilight, Civil, Nautical, and Astronomical, which begin when the sun is 6, 12, and 18 degrees below the horizon (respectively). To give you a sense of how dark each one is: at the end of Civil twilight the brightest stars are visible and the horizon is clearly defined. At the end of Nautical twilight the horizon is no longer visible, and at the end of the Astronomical twilight the indirect illumination from the Sun is less bright than starlight." (p147)
from a 35 year-old navy polar manual "which contends that motivation is the most important factor when selecting a crew for a polar expedition. The author divides the pool of applicants into five types: He likes men (there were no women at the Poles in those days) who 'go with a specific interest, to be professional explorers, for scientific research, or the adventurous.... type who has to go "just because it is there." Less desirable because they are easily disillusioned are the idealists, the ambitious, and the glory-seekers. His second category is the 'escape artist' who signs up to 'evade family troubles with sweethearts, wives, or in-laws.' Others go to escape financial or family responsibilities, or jobs they hate. This type 'is either a good man or almost totally useless on the Ice.' There are also the 'money savers,' and 'drifters' who go because they have nothing better to do at the moment. Either can be a good man 'because the charms of isolation and beauty of polar regions puts reason in his being.' 'Least desirable' and 'most dangerous to themselves and others' are 'martyrs, sadists, homosexuals' (this, again, was the early sixties), those with strong subconscious suicidal or masochistic complexes, 'to whom a rugged life of isolation sometimes appeals.' The author concludes that the happiest candidate for the ice is a type of escape artist--'the rugged individualist who finds modern urban life intolerable with its TV and newspapers,...world crisis and crime...Many men who have never met the almighty in church meet him occasionally at the operating or delivery table, but really get to know him at the ends of the earth." (p77-78)
"Our memories were all deteriorating as chronic hypoxia ate away at our brain cells. Studies done in Antarctica showed a decrease in short-term memory of 13 percent in those staying through the winter. And that study was done at sea level! The effects on long-term memory had not been studied." (p126-127)
James Evans - "Wood comes from forests. Styrofoam comes from hell."
"There are three kinds of twilight, Civil, Nautical, and Astronomical, which begin when the sun is 6, 12, and 18 degrees below the horizon (respectively). To give you a sense of how dark each one is: at the end of Civil twilight the brightest stars are visible and the horizon is clearly defined. At the end of Nautical twilight the horizon is no longer visible, and at the end of the Astronomical twilight the indirect illumination from the Sun is less bright than starlight." (p147)
Thursday, November 20, 2014
big and tall
petition to old navy to stop up-charging for women's plus sized clothing:
https://www.change.org/p/gap-inc-stop-up-charging-for-women-s-plus-sized-clothing
video of the issue and gap inc's (gap owns old navy) response:
http://www.today.com/style/old-navy-defends-charging-more-plus-size-womens-clothes-1D80283144
it doesn't bother me that retailers charge more for plus sized clothing. it absolutely bothers me that they charge more for plus sized women's and not plus sized men's! but after watching the today show video, i wonder if there isn't some truth behind why they charge extra for women's than for men's. however! i think the main reason they charge women more is that they know women will pay it. in my life, the women all have way more clothes than their significant others. they all shop more than the men to do. so i think that it does come down to sexism. which is unfair and wrong, tho not entirely unexpected.
women routinely are up-charged for all sorts stuff. everything to shampoo to razors, lotion to deodorant, even hair cuts. you'll notice that salons prices differently for men or women. but no on the complexity of the cut! it's true that many men have simpler hair styles than women, but not all of them! some people refer to this as the "pink tax."
i don't like the color pink, or most pastel colors, so i don't at all mind buying men's products instead. i have before, actually. problem is that they don't sell the same. men's scents are musky and not my thing. i do like floral and citrus scents. which men's personal products don't smell like. bah. but anyway. the pink tax is bullshit.
https://www.change.org/p/gap-inc-stop-up-charging-for-women-s-plus-sized-clothing
video of the issue and gap inc's (gap owns old navy) response:
http://www.today.com/style/old-navy-defends-charging-more-plus-size-womens-clothes-1D80283144
it doesn't bother me that retailers charge more for plus sized clothing. it absolutely bothers me that they charge more for plus sized women's and not plus sized men's! but after watching the today show video, i wonder if there isn't some truth behind why they charge extra for women's than for men's. however! i think the main reason they charge women more is that they know women will pay it. in my life, the women all have way more clothes than their significant others. they all shop more than the men to do. so i think that it does come down to sexism. which is unfair and wrong, tho not entirely unexpected.
women routinely are up-charged for all sorts stuff. everything to shampoo to razors, lotion to deodorant, even hair cuts. you'll notice that salons prices differently for men or women. but no on the complexity of the cut! it's true that many men have simpler hair styles than women, but not all of them! some people refer to this as the "pink tax."
i don't like the color pink, or most pastel colors, so i don't at all mind buying men's products instead. i have before, actually. problem is that they don't sell the same. men's scents are musky and not my thing. i do like floral and citrus scents. which men's personal products don't smell like. bah. but anyway. the pink tax is bullshit.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
baader-meinhof
you know this occurrence, you just don't know the name of it. frequency illusion, also known as baader-meinhof phenomenon (not to be confused with the red army faction of kind of the same name!) is where once you notice / learn something, you see it EVERYWHERE.
wikipedia defines it as: the illusion in which a word, a name or other thing that has recently come to one's attention suddenly seems to appear with improbable frequency shortly afterwards
short article on why it happens and an even shorter article on how it go it's name.
the most recent time i remember this happening was a couple years ago when i finally committed to memory the term "rube goldberg machine." i'd learnt it before for always forgot it, so wanted to make a point of remembering it. and for a while it seemed like the universe was intent of me remember the term too! a rube goldberg device, btw, is where they have long and complicated contraptions meant to do a very simple thing. a video of it is as follows:
wikipedia defines it as: the illusion in which a word, a name or other thing that has recently come to one's attention suddenly seems to appear with improbable frequency shortly afterwards
short article on why it happens and an even shorter article on how it go it's name.
the most recent time i remember this happening was a couple years ago when i finally committed to memory the term "rube goldberg machine." i'd learnt it before for always forgot it, so wanted to make a point of remembering it. and for a while it seemed like the universe was intent of me remember the term too! a rube goldberg device, btw, is where they have long and complicated contraptions meant to do a very simple thing. a video of it is as follows:
Friday, November 7, 2014
bipartisanship
looking at politics today, apparently there's no honor in working together. today we laud loudest those those who stick to their guns and stand up for what they believe in. which *is* good stuff! you should stand your ground for your beliefs. but you should also know when to step back a little. i don't see how refusing to ever compromise is commendable.
today we'd rather shut down the government than give a little.
j: this is why democracy does not work. you can never have the executive and legislative on the same page. they're just blocking each other from doing anything.
me: well, i think we used to be better at working together. [insert basically the first paragraph of this post] you hear it all the time "i am who i am." ...fuck you. that's immature and stupid.
j: de. mo. cra. cy. in action. all this stand up for yourself. civil rights. it's counterproductive.
me: i don't know that stubbornnes is the cornerstone of democracy.
j: it's the cornerstone of old white men
today we'd rather shut down the government than give a little.
j: this is why democracy does not work. you can never have the executive and legislative on the same page. they're just blocking each other from doing anything.
me: well, i think we used to be better at working together. [insert basically the first paragraph of this post] you hear it all the time "i am who i am." ...fuck you. that's immature and stupid.
j: de. mo. cra. cy. in action. all this stand up for yourself. civil rights. it's counterproductive.
me: i don't know that stubbornnes is the cornerstone of democracy.
j: it's the cornerstone of old white men
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
voting
i've always thought that if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about the way the govt is running things. whether or not that's true, it's certainly true that voting is important!
a friend texted me today that she wasn't sure which was worse: not voting at all or voting without knowing what she was voting for. she'd somehow forgotten to study up before the election and didn't really have the time today to vote. ...you know what i think about that! but back to her issue. which do you think is worse?
i told her that i thought voting without knowing what she was voting on was worse because a mis-informed (or uniformed, in this case) vote could count towards a "bad" candidate. a non-vote counts towards no one.
i do know that many people think differently tho. i read an article earlier today about how many floridians were coming out of the polls having voted just to vote, and not because they knew or cared about what was going on. randomly checking off boxes, as it were.
a friend texted me today that she wasn't sure which was worse: not voting at all or voting without knowing what she was voting for. she'd somehow forgotten to study up before the election and didn't really have the time today to vote. ...you know what i think about that! but back to her issue. which do you think is worse?
i told her that i thought voting without knowing what she was voting on was worse because a mis-informed (or uniformed, in this case) vote could count towards a "bad" candidate. a non-vote counts towards no one.
i do know that many people think differently tho. i read an article earlier today about how many floridians were coming out of the polls having voted just to vote, and not because they knew or cared about what was going on. randomly checking off boxes, as it were.
Saturday, November 1, 2014
Sunday, October 26, 2014
animal tibits
all quotations take from the book by stacey o'brien - wesley the owl: the remarkable love story of an owl and his girl
"Owls are very sensitive and easily stressed... Tragic behavior wasn't unusual for owls, who are emotionally delicate, even in the wild. For example, owls mate for life, and when an owl's mate dies, he doesn't necessarily go out and find another partner. Instead, he might turn his head to face the tree on which he's sitting and stare fixedly in a deep depression until he dies. Such profound grief is indicative of how passionately owls feel and how devoted they are to their mates." (p3)
"When describing both the act of defecating and the substance of fecal matter itself, biologists prefer to use the scientific term “poop.” It’s both a noun and a verb. A popular field of biology called scatology is the study of scat, which is not to be confused with mere poop. Although technically they’re the same, we call it “scat” if we are studying it to learn something about the health and diet of an animal. When the animal has pooped on us or has ruined something with his pooping, we tend to use the term “shit,” as in, “Oh, man, he just shit down the back of my neck.” So if it’s on the ground, it’s poop. If it’s under your microscope, it’s scat. If it’s running down your neck, it’s shit." (p22-23)
"The evidence that all species of animals with a brain have emotions is overwhelming. I've observed that all intelligent animals have emotions, including reptiles, brains are less complex than those of mammals. People who work with reptiles are well aware of the risk of depression in captive snakes and lizards of all kinds. Turtles and tortoises are especially prone to it. If a snake gets depressed, his life is immediately in danger, as he will stop eating. I once rescued a snake that had to be tube fed for a year before he began to eat on his own again, after having an owner that did not provide proper stimulation for him. Snakes will also stop eating if they have a traumatic event with a mouse. Reptiles are cold blooded, meaning that they cannot control their own body temperature and are dependent upon their environment to provide a heat source. If they can't raise their temperature, their metabolism becomes so sluggish that they cannot defend themselves against even a mouse. Careless snake owners have been known to toss a mouse in with the snake and not supervise. If the snake is cold, the mouse can eat the snake alive and the snake can't respond. If the snake survives such an episode, it will have such a fear of mice that it will no longer eat. It can take up to a year of tube feeding before the snake gains the courage to face another mouse. If an animal of such low intelligence is this emotional, how much more does a highly intelligent animal feel? Even a reptile needs an “enriched” environment — and it's vital for more intelligent creatures. Animal keepers try to enrich the captive animal's life — make it more interesting — to prevent disorders like obsession/compulsion (incessant pacing in a cage is a good example) and depression." (p47-48)
"Some people feed their cats a vegetarian diet, but then let the cat outdoors (which they shouldn't, since cats are a leading cause of the decline in songbirds, after habitat loss and the continual poisoning of the environment), so that the cat hunts... to compensate for its dietary deficiency. If the "vegetarian" cat is kept indoors, he first goes blind, then dies of complications due to malnutrition." (p85)
"Most people get their appendix out before going into remote areas... What would happen if you were six weeks away from help and you got appendicitis? You'd die. It's not worth the risk, so most people just have it out." (p125)
"The most impressive experience, to me, was one involving an African gray parrot who had a large vocabulary and chattered to himself constantly. The owner was set up in a completely separate building, far from the parrot, and given a series of cards that neither she nor the parrot had ever seen. There were two cameras -- one on the parrot and one on the owner, with a timer running. Then the owner picked up a card and looked at the picture on it. It was a blue flower. The parrot, at that same time, began to talk to himself about blue flowers, pretty flowers. Then the owner picked up a picture of a boy looking out a car window and the parrot's chatter changed to “Do you want to go for a ride in the car? Watch out. The window is down. Look out the window. I am paraphrasing, but the conclusion of the experiments was that animals and humans were using telepathy." (p202)
"Owls are very sensitive and easily stressed... Tragic behavior wasn't unusual for owls, who are emotionally delicate, even in the wild. For example, owls mate for life, and when an owl's mate dies, he doesn't necessarily go out and find another partner. Instead, he might turn his head to face the tree on which he's sitting and stare fixedly in a deep depression until he dies. Such profound grief is indicative of how passionately owls feel and how devoted they are to their mates." (p3)
"When describing both the act of defecating and the substance of fecal matter itself, biologists prefer to use the scientific term “poop.” It’s both a noun and a verb. A popular field of biology called scatology is the study of scat, which is not to be confused with mere poop. Although technically they’re the same, we call it “scat” if we are studying it to learn something about the health and diet of an animal. When the animal has pooped on us or has ruined something with his pooping, we tend to use the term “shit,” as in, “Oh, man, he just shit down the back of my neck.” So if it’s on the ground, it’s poop. If it’s under your microscope, it’s scat. If it’s running down your neck, it’s shit." (p22-23)
"The evidence that all species of animals with a brain have emotions is overwhelming. I've observed that all intelligent animals have emotions, including reptiles, brains are less complex than those of mammals. People who work with reptiles are well aware of the risk of depression in captive snakes and lizards of all kinds. Turtles and tortoises are especially prone to it. If a snake gets depressed, his life is immediately in danger, as he will stop eating. I once rescued a snake that had to be tube fed for a year before he began to eat on his own again, after having an owner that did not provide proper stimulation for him. Snakes will also stop eating if they have a traumatic event with a mouse. Reptiles are cold blooded, meaning that they cannot control their own body temperature and are dependent upon their environment to provide a heat source. If they can't raise their temperature, their metabolism becomes so sluggish that they cannot defend themselves against even a mouse. Careless snake owners have been known to toss a mouse in with the snake and not supervise. If the snake is cold, the mouse can eat the snake alive and the snake can't respond. If the snake survives such an episode, it will have such a fear of mice that it will no longer eat. It can take up to a year of tube feeding before the snake gains the courage to face another mouse. If an animal of such low intelligence is this emotional, how much more does a highly intelligent animal feel? Even a reptile needs an “enriched” environment — and it's vital for more intelligent creatures. Animal keepers try to enrich the captive animal's life — make it more interesting — to prevent disorders like obsession/compulsion (incessant pacing in a cage is a good example) and depression." (p47-48)
"Some people feed their cats a vegetarian diet, but then let the cat outdoors (which they shouldn't, since cats are a leading cause of the decline in songbirds, after habitat loss and the continual poisoning of the environment), so that the cat hunts... to compensate for its dietary deficiency. If the "vegetarian" cat is kept indoors, he first goes blind, then dies of complications due to malnutrition." (p85)
"Most people get their appendix out before going into remote areas... What would happen if you were six weeks away from help and you got appendicitis? You'd die. It's not worth the risk, so most people just have it out." (p125)
"The most impressive experience, to me, was one involving an African gray parrot who had a large vocabulary and chattered to himself constantly. The owner was set up in a completely separate building, far from the parrot, and given a series of cards that neither she nor the parrot had ever seen. There were two cameras -- one on the parrot and one on the owner, with a timer running. Then the owner picked up a card and looked at the picture on it. It was a blue flower. The parrot, at that same time, began to talk to himself about blue flowers, pretty flowers. Then the owner picked up a picture of a boy looking out a car window and the parrot's chatter changed to “Do you want to go for a ride in the car? Watch out. The window is down. Look out the window. I am paraphrasing, but the conclusion of the experiments was that animals and humans were using telepathy." (p202)
Saturday, October 18, 2014
leadership styles
what kind of leader are you?
i was asked this in an interview once and didn't have a good answer. :( but anyway, there are a ton of classification systems, so here are a couple that i like:
kurt lewin - authoritarian (autocratic), participative (democratic), delegative (laissez-faire)
i'm mostly democratic with a bit of laissez-faire thrown in. people also refer to the laissez-faire as free-reign, which is more obviously descriptive, i think. i tend to believe that you should tell people what to do, but not how to do it. everyone works differently, which is fine, so making them do it the way you would could be counter-productive. tell them what results you're looking for and they should be able to get it done. but, of course, this type of leadership does not work well with people who are un-confident, un-knowledgeable, or dislike making their own decisions. a lot of people like structure (which i tend to think of as hand-holding [which gives you a pretty good idea of why i tend towards this style, ha!], which i need to remember. i'm getting better at it tho, tho my first inclination is for you to figure it out on your own.
not sure who came up with this categorization but i think it's pretty good (broad, but not too much so): charismatic (like oprah), innovative (like richard branson), command and control (like tom coughlin), laissez-faire (like donna karan), pace setter (like jeff bezos and steve jobs), servant (like herb kelleher), situational (like pat summit), and transformational (like ben and jerry).
i'm definitely not charismatic, innovative, or a pace setter.
i'm less of a servant than i'd like to be. but some situations, i think, don't allow you to be a servant. i'd also like to be situational but i think i'm not flexible enough for that. i think i'd like to be transformational, but i'm not sure i understand it enough to say.
i was asked this in an interview once and didn't have a good answer. :( but anyway, there are a ton of classification systems, so here are a couple that i like:
kurt lewin - authoritarian (autocratic), participative (democratic), delegative (laissez-faire)
i'm mostly democratic with a bit of laissez-faire thrown in. people also refer to the laissez-faire as free-reign, which is more obviously descriptive, i think. i tend to believe that you should tell people what to do, but not how to do it. everyone works differently, which is fine, so making them do it the way you would could be counter-productive. tell them what results you're looking for and they should be able to get it done. but, of course, this type of leadership does not work well with people who are un-confident, un-knowledgeable, or dislike making their own decisions. a lot of people like structure (which i tend to think of as hand-holding [which gives you a pretty good idea of why i tend towards this style, ha!], which i need to remember. i'm getting better at it tho, tho my first inclination is for you to figure it out on your own.
not sure who came up with this categorization but i think it's pretty good (broad, but not too much so): charismatic (like oprah), innovative (like richard branson), command and control (like tom coughlin), laissez-faire (like donna karan), pace setter (like jeff bezos and steve jobs), servant (like herb kelleher), situational (like pat summit), and transformational (like ben and jerry).
i'm definitely not charismatic, innovative, or a pace setter.
i'm less of a servant than i'd like to be. but some situations, i think, don't allow you to be a servant. i'd also like to be situational but i think i'm not flexible enough for that. i think i'd like to be transformational, but i'm not sure i understand it enough to say.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
x-gen bio
i did my x-gen paddler bio thing, and here are some of the more interesting questions and answers but you can watch the video too. answers are the same, explanations are not since i didn't prepare explanations when writing out my answers so they're a little all over the place, hahah.
If you had to do one form of exercise, which would you choose… strength training or cardio? Why? - NONE! i hate exercise. i literally did not know how to spell the word correctly until just a couple years ago. even now i always have to sound that word out. idiotic. ...exercise, that is, not me :)
If you could be any animal, what would it be and why? - a predatory bird. because predators are way better than prey and cause who wouldn't want to be able to fly?!
What is one of the things you would put on your bucket list? - go to petra!
Describe yourself in three words. - volunteering, precise, curious
If you were famous, what would you be famous for? - would love to be known for philanthropy
What was your favorite cartoon growing up? - chip and dale rescue ranges, batman animated
What is the thing you are most afraid of? - falling down stairs. seriously. you will likely never catch me running up or down stairs. and skipping steps? mwaahahaha, no way! that's way too advanced for a klutz like me! (esp at sports stadiums with those aluminum benches? FUCK NO. i have visual flashes getting amputated mid-shin from falling up or down those damn things. legs going one way, me going the other. it's not pretty.)
If you were a super hero, what would your powers be? - time manipulation
Who do you admire and why? - jeannette rankin and melinda gates. jeannette rankin was the first female congressman, and she was voted in even before women had national right to vote!! melinda gates because she's an amazing woman and because her husband (bill gates) said she's the reason he's so philanthropic. she opened his mind and heart towards giving and given they have!
Saturday, October 4, 2014
good advice!
Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you. Hebrews 13:17
[haha, i've never quoted the bible before. i don't actually know how to do it! pretty sure i'm not supposed to use quotation marks. and i think the verse numbers thing is supposed to be after, not before the quotation. but is it supposed to be in parenthesis or something? hard to look up when you don't even know what these things are called!]
i like this quotation. i think very often we don't have confidence in our leaders. we double guess them and think we know better when we generally don't know the whole story! and, unless they are corrupt, i think they generally try to do well by us.
speaking of which. this isn't just leaders like bosses or team captains. it's our president, cops, parents, doctors, anyone in charge, anyone who is responsible for someone else. it's good to keep in mind. we should respect our leaders more. (i'm not at all saying that we should trust them blindly.)
the second half of the verse is just as good as the first. it's important to be a JOY to work with, and to work for. i feel this way a lot. it may be my job to serve you or whatever, but it is not my job to take your shit. and the more annoying you are, the less likely i will do a good job for you. i'm not so petty that i will purposely do a bad job, but you best believe i will not go out of my way to do you any favors. and yeah, i will drag my feet, and not do as good of a job. because i'm a human and you're an asshole.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
paying for sex?
interesting read! It's 2014: Why Are Men Still Paying for First Dates?
i've ALWAYS said that whoever does the asking should pay for the first date. and i can't think of any common exception to that. i've written about this subject before (twice, actually!), so i'm not going to rehash that again since my views haven't changed. so i will instead write about the other interesting stuff in the article.
"A 1985 study... presented subjects with a variety of fictional dating scenarios—mixing up who invited whom, who paid, and the venue—and asked them to evaluate the acceptability of the sexual encounter that followed. Disturbingly, they found that money contorted men’s opinions of sexual consent. “Rape was rated as more justifiable ...when the man paid all the dating expenses...” A more recent study, from 2010, found that men were more likely than women to think that sex should be expected when a man pays for an expensive date."
this is wrong. obviously. but it's also understandable. people naturally have the expectation that when they pay money, they should get something in return. in this case, they are paying for your food and expecting, well, more than good conversation!
"Almost half of the men surveyed in the study he co-authored said that they would break up with a woman if she never offered to help pay the bill on a date."
good for them! tho i wonder how many dates it would take for them to get fed up? also wonder if a man would date a womn longer regardless of her not paying but if she slept with him? probably.
i've ALWAYS said that whoever does the asking should pay for the first date. and i can't think of any common exception to that. i've written about this subject before (twice, actually!), so i'm not going to rehash that again since my views haven't changed. so i will instead write about the other interesting stuff in the article.
"A 1985 study... presented subjects with a variety of fictional dating scenarios—mixing up who invited whom, who paid, and the venue—and asked them to evaluate the acceptability of the sexual encounter that followed. Disturbingly, they found that money contorted men’s opinions of sexual consent. “Rape was rated as more justifiable ...when the man paid all the dating expenses...” A more recent study, from 2010, found that men were more likely than women to think that sex should be expected when a man pays for an expensive date."
this is wrong. obviously. but it's also understandable. people naturally have the expectation that when they pay money, they should get something in return. in this case, they are paying for your food and expecting, well, more than good conversation!
"Almost half of the men surveyed in the study he co-authored said that they would break up with a woman if she never offered to help pay the bill on a date."
good for them! tho i wonder how many dates it would take for them to get fed up? also wonder if a man would date a womn longer regardless of her not paying but if she slept with him? probably.
Saturday, September 20, 2014
child abuse?
the adrian peterson case basically asks us to define child abuse. is it any kind of physical punishment towards a child? or is "light" physical discipline okay, but nothing "excessive"? [i'm only focusing on physical punishment in this post]
my parents didn't beat me. i don't remember ever being spanked, whipped, or hit, though i probably was at some point. (let's call this type active physical punishment [app]). the worst thing i remember is that my mom would use a wooden ruler with a metal edge and hit my open palms with it. she hit pretty hard, but i can say with near certainty that i never bled from it. i think it was more of a shame thing. i do not feel traumatized.
my friends told me some of what they went thru: kneeling in the corner, pulling their own earlobes, holding their arms straight forward for extended periods of time (this sounds easy; it isn't!). this type of physical punishment doesn't leave scars (tho apparently kneeling a lot causes your knees to become hairy?) let's call this passive physical punishment [ppp].
i don't know which is worse, or which is more effective, or if any type of physical punishment is effective at all. app is probably more traumatic, but it's usually over faster. i don't know what the average duration of ppp is, but i would think that forcing a kid to keep their arms out for half an hour would hurt a lot more than a spanking that doesn't leave bruises!
personally, i think physical punishment is permissible, and yes, even app. so where do i draw the line? i think that if you ever leave bruises, welts, or break skin, you are doing it too damn hard. you're trying to teach a lesson, not mentally or physically scar your child. you are an adult; you are very strong compared to your kids. you should not ever purposely semi-permanently hurt them physically. it is unacceptable.
and that's how i judge adrian peterson. his kid was bleeding from multiple wounds. peterson should have stopped as soon as his kid started bleeding. he should never have gone on to further inflict that amount of physical abuse. if you wouldn't let another adult put you thru that much, you should never put your kid thru that.
my parents didn't beat me. i don't remember ever being spanked, whipped, or hit, though i probably was at some point. (let's call this type active physical punishment [app]). the worst thing i remember is that my mom would use a wooden ruler with a metal edge and hit my open palms with it. she hit pretty hard, but i can say with near certainty that i never bled from it. i think it was more of a shame thing. i do not feel traumatized.
my friends told me some of what they went thru: kneeling in the corner, pulling their own earlobes, holding their arms straight forward for extended periods of time (this sounds easy; it isn't!). this type of physical punishment doesn't leave scars (tho apparently kneeling a lot causes your knees to become hairy?) let's call this passive physical punishment [ppp].
i don't know which is worse, or which is more effective, or if any type of physical punishment is effective at all. app is probably more traumatic, but it's usually over faster. i don't know what the average duration of ppp is, but i would think that forcing a kid to keep their arms out for half an hour would hurt a lot more than a spanking that doesn't leave bruises!
personally, i think physical punishment is permissible, and yes, even app. so where do i draw the line? i think that if you ever leave bruises, welts, or break skin, you are doing it too damn hard. you're trying to teach a lesson, not mentally or physically scar your child. you are an adult; you are very strong compared to your kids. you should not ever purposely semi-permanently hurt them physically. it is unacceptable.
and that's how i judge adrian peterson. his kid was bleeding from multiple wounds. peterson should have stopped as soon as his kid started bleeding. he should never have gone on to further inflict that amount of physical abuse. if you wouldn't let another adult put you thru that much, you should never put your kid thru that.
Friday, September 12, 2014
ray rice
this ray rice thing. i'm not going to link any articles since i don't want to color your opinion if you haven't seen the video yet. so here's the video.
i absolutely think ray rice should be cut from the ravens and suspended by the nfl. if he doesn't admit to any wrongdoing then he should probably be cut from the nfl entirely.
i think that accidents to happen. he could have accidentally knocked her unconscious. she rushed at him, he deflected her, she then fell head first into the handrail. so the fall could have knocked her out. EXCEPT that if he didn't mean to hit her unconscious he would've checked on her once she hit the floor! but he doesn't move to check on her. he doesn't even shift her body so she's a little more comfortable. when he drags her out of the elevator he isn't careful with her. he doesn't even make sure that she's completely out of the elevator. and psychically, he is able to. he just does not care to. and all that, to me, shows that this is not a one time accident. this is domestic abuse.
they both need to go to counseling. go separately. we can't make her press charges against him, but hopefully, through counseling they'll both realize that he was wrong. if the govt can charge him with aggregated assault or battery, they should. she is currently in denial about what happened. she has defended him, and has said she didn't agree with the nfl suspension. but she is wrong. i mean, sheesh, has she watched the video?
i also think there should be a criminal investigation about how the nfl commissioner roger goodell handled the case before tmz published the elevator video. but that's a different discussion.
i absolutely think ray rice should be cut from the ravens and suspended by the nfl. if he doesn't admit to any wrongdoing then he should probably be cut from the nfl entirely.
i think that accidents to happen. he could have accidentally knocked her unconscious. she rushed at him, he deflected her, she then fell head first into the handrail. so the fall could have knocked her out. EXCEPT that if he didn't mean to hit her unconscious he would've checked on her once she hit the floor! but he doesn't move to check on her. he doesn't even shift her body so she's a little more comfortable. when he drags her out of the elevator he isn't careful with her. he doesn't even make sure that she's completely out of the elevator. and psychically, he is able to. he just does not care to. and all that, to me, shows that this is not a one time accident. this is domestic abuse.
they both need to go to counseling. go separately. we can't make her press charges against him, but hopefully, through counseling they'll both realize that he was wrong. if the govt can charge him with aggregated assault or battery, they should. she is currently in denial about what happened. she has defended him, and has said she didn't agree with the nfl suspension. but she is wrong. i mean, sheesh, has she watched the video?
i also think there should be a criminal investigation about how the nfl commissioner roger goodell handled the case before tmz published the elevator video. but that's a different discussion.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
god is dead. maybe.
there's a saying (which i cannot find online since i don't remember the wording) that "god needs us as much as we need him." another is that "without us, god wouldn't exist." i think they're both true. if god does exist, he wouldn't "physically" cease to if people stopped believing in him. but in a very real way, he would no longer exist. ...until he convinced people to believe again that he did.
it's a little like the old "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" yes, of course it makes a sound. it fell, so it would because that's how gravity, sound, and reality work. but no, it doesn't really make a sound because there is no "observer."
ha, mixing existentialism and god. it's practically meta!
sartre wrote in his Existentialism and Human Emotions that "Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, is more coherent. It states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence. Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism."
it's a little like the old "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" yes, of course it makes a sound. it fell, so it would because that's how gravity, sound, and reality work. but no, it doesn't really make a sound because there is no "observer."
ha, mixing existentialism and god. it's practically meta!
sartre wrote in his Existentialism and Human Emotions that "Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, is more coherent. It states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence. Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism."
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
sd steering clinic
thanks to mike, i was referred to teaching a steering clinic for the new san diego dragon boat alliance. they've been holding tournies for a few years, but have been borrowing the sd team's boats and staff for them. they finally bought four of their own boats this year, but at their annual tournament in april, all the boats were involved in capsizes or swamping. :( mike, who was helping to run the tourney, suggested that in order to avoid capsizes and such, the steers should be better trained, and told linda to contact me about teaching a clinic down there.
scdbc had a bit of a relationship with the alliance already. a few years ago they sent a steer up here to attend a clinic, and two years ago ucsd sent two steers to be tested. i was pretty surprised they would want to drive that far for a couple hours of instruction (or for testing, which takes even less time), but hey, if they don't mind, we certainly don't either. but for a large group, it of course makes more sense for me to go down there, rather than having them all come up here.
anyway, mike said that i should teach the clinic myself, rather than sending someone else like we did for an NAC steer training session a few years ago. he also said that i should charge. i was definitely nervous, since i've never taught a clinic before (altho i have sat in on tons), but i figured that this was a good opportunity. a lot of the steers were going to newbies, so i figured i could handle that. and i've tested many an advanced steer, so i figured why not.
i won't bore you with the details of the clinic, except that i think it went well. turns out i know more than i thought i knew! and their most experienced steer has only been steering for 1.5 years and i've been steering years longer than that. i think it was a great experience for everyone involved. everyone learned something, including me. i also got to spend time with annie g, went to dan kim's wedding bbq/pool party, met his new wife, and i made a couple hundred bucks too.
also, i think in the grand scheme of things it was really good. dr chen helped the alliance get the boats and mike and gary helped them with their earlier race (and the three of us are going to help with another race in a couple weeks). and i think it'll be "useful" for the socal dragon boat clubs to be friendly with each other. steering wise, scdbc is on pretty good terms with all the other groups here in socal, but the sd alliance will probably be the 2nd largest in just a couple seasons. i don't at all mind helping them during their infancy so they don't waste time reinventing the wheel. also, an sf steering board member and i talk and have been thinking of more closely aligning our programs, so maybe cali will kind of unite as a whole (even tho scdbc will probably never be under the cdba).
scdbc had a bit of a relationship with the alliance already. a few years ago they sent a steer up here to attend a clinic, and two years ago ucsd sent two steers to be tested. i was pretty surprised they would want to drive that far for a couple hours of instruction (or for testing, which takes even less time), but hey, if they don't mind, we certainly don't either. but for a large group, it of course makes more sense for me to go down there, rather than having them all come up here.
anyway, mike said that i should teach the clinic myself, rather than sending someone else like we did for an NAC steer training session a few years ago. he also said that i should charge. i was definitely nervous, since i've never taught a clinic before (altho i have sat in on tons), but i figured that this was a good opportunity. a lot of the steers were going to newbies, so i figured i could handle that. and i've tested many an advanced steer, so i figured why not.
i won't bore you with the details of the clinic, except that i think it went well. turns out i know more than i thought i knew! and their most experienced steer has only been steering for 1.5 years and i've been steering years longer than that. i think it was a great experience for everyone involved. everyone learned something, including me. i also got to spend time with annie g, went to dan kim's wedding bbq/pool party, met his new wife, and i made a couple hundred bucks too.
also, i think in the grand scheme of things it was really good. dr chen helped the alliance get the boats and mike and gary helped them with their earlier race (and the three of us are going to help with another race in a couple weeks). and i think it'll be "useful" for the socal dragon boat clubs to be friendly with each other. steering wise, scdbc is on pretty good terms with all the other groups here in socal, but the sd alliance will probably be the 2nd largest in just a couple seasons. i don't at all mind helping them during their infancy so they don't waste time reinventing the wheel. also, an sf steering board member and i talk and have been thinking of more closely aligning our programs, so maybe cali will kind of unite as a whole (even tho scdbc will probably never be under the cdba).
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
my rider
a (backstage or hospitality) rider is a list that performers give to venues of the things they'd like prepared for them. it's like a wish list of the stuff you want in your room. common requests are for specific foods or beverages, towels, flowers, and that sort of stuff. there's also kind of wacky stuff like a brand new toilet seat, m&m's with all the brown ones taken out, a mud wrestling ring with wrestlers (no joke!).
so anyway, what would be on my rider for a multi-day event? well, this is hard since i've never been backstage so i have no idea what the dressing rooms actually look like, so i'm going to say a few things that are probably a given.
a couch
a coffee table
a non-wool blanket
cold juice! (i love oj, esp fresh squeezed)
cold vitamin water (xxx, energy, power-c, focus, or squeezed)
prefer cold filtered tap water, but if bottled, no arrowhead!
chips and salsa (not too spicy!)
fresh fruit (no papaya, prefer no cantaloupe)
(fruit does not need to be cut, like stone fruit, but if not, i want a knife)
cheese, olives, and charcuterie plate
no plastic utensils
and... i guess that's it. hahahaha. i wanted to type this out to see what kind of ridiculous shit i'd request. but i honestly can't think of much. i mean, i'd basically want drinks, snacks, and a blanket for if i want to take a nap. nothing crazy at all, except the non-arrowhead bottled water thing. but honestly, i prefer filtered tap water, since plastic bottles are terrible for the environment and all. ...which is also why i'd request no plastic utensils. ...which may be a little crazy.
actually... if they put ice in my water, i love the crushed ice stuff. i don't like cubes too much, but that slushy crushed ice (not the chips). oh man, that's my favorite type of ice. but honestly, a refrigerated brita is good enough for me. if they gave me ice cubes i wouldn't throw them at people screaming why the fuck you give such large fucking ice hard enough to break my damn teeth! no. i'd just drink the water, cause, sheesh, who even cares?
for a list of of riders from a bunch of music peoples, visit here.
so anyway, what would be on my rider for a multi-day event? well, this is hard since i've never been backstage so i have no idea what the dressing rooms actually look like, so i'm going to say a few things that are probably a given.
a couch
a coffee table
a non-wool blanket
cold juice! (i love oj, esp fresh squeezed)
cold vitamin water (xxx, energy, power-c, focus, or squeezed)
prefer cold filtered tap water, but if bottled, no arrowhead!
chips and salsa (not too spicy!)
fresh fruit (no papaya, prefer no cantaloupe)
(fruit does not need to be cut, like stone fruit, but if not, i want a knife)
cheese, olives, and charcuterie plate
no plastic utensils
and... i guess that's it. hahahaha. i wanted to type this out to see what kind of ridiculous shit i'd request. but i honestly can't think of much. i mean, i'd basically want drinks, snacks, and a blanket for if i want to take a nap. nothing crazy at all, except the non-arrowhead bottled water thing. but honestly, i prefer filtered tap water, since plastic bottles are terrible for the environment and all. ...which is also why i'd request no plastic utensils. ...which may be a little crazy.
actually... if they put ice in my water, i love the crushed ice stuff. i don't like cubes too much, but that slushy crushed ice (not the chips). oh man, that's my favorite type of ice. but honestly, a refrigerated brita is good enough for me. if they gave me ice cubes i wouldn't throw them at people screaming why the fuck you give such large fucking ice hard enough to break my damn teeth! no. i'd just drink the water, cause, sheesh, who even cares?
for a list of of riders from a bunch of music peoples, visit here.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
kind vs nice
piggybacking off my last post, i felt like some people objected to my choice of kind. however, i think they were getting it confused with nice. i felt like there's a marked difference between kind and nice. but i couldn't quite put my finger on what the difference was, so i looked it up, and there is actually a whole thing on it. seriously, google kind vs nice and you'll see what i mean.
most people agree that kindness has to do with empathy and benevolence and that niceness has to do with being friendly, agreeable, and likeable.
yeah, i'm not nice. hahaha, i mean, i'm not unfriendly, disagreeable, and unlikeable, but i don't think those are quite the words that come to mind when thinking of me. i am, however, kind. you may not immediately agree since kindness is also associated with tenderness and gentleness, which i'm not particularly. but i'm also the person who yells this at random asshole drivers: "you fucker! i hope your car explodes! ...but only if no one is in it, or around it, and you can afford it!" see, i'm compassionate all the way!
it seems like some people are really against nice. a huffpost article says that "At the root of extreme niceness, however, are feelings of inadequacy and the need to get approval and validation from others. Overly-nice people try to please so that they can feel good about themselves." ...that's not a very nice thing to say. others go even further: "Kindness is rooted in GOOD, niceness is rooted in EVIL." the same post goes on to say that "Nice behavior is inherently dishonest." um... okay... but if you actually read the post, you can definitely see the point, and maybe even agree with the writer, at least a little bit. nice people do seem to be nice because they want people to like them, or to ease the situation. kind people are kind because they feel badly about stuff. and it's not just like, i'm much richer than you so here's a dollar, since truly kind people will give to others even when they've not much themselves.
i mean, obviously, you should be both kind and nice. there's certainly no rule saying you can't be both! but in choosing between the two, i'd much rather be kind.
most people agree that kindness has to do with empathy and benevolence and that niceness has to do with being friendly, agreeable, and likeable.
yeah, i'm not nice. hahaha, i mean, i'm not unfriendly, disagreeable, and unlikeable, but i don't think those are quite the words that come to mind when thinking of me. i am, however, kind. you may not immediately agree since kindness is also associated with tenderness and gentleness, which i'm not particularly. but i'm also the person who yells this at random asshole drivers: "you fucker! i hope your car explodes! ...but only if no one is in it, or around it, and you can afford it!" see, i'm compassionate all the way!
it seems like some people are really against nice. a huffpost article says that "At the root of extreme niceness, however, are feelings of inadequacy and the need to get approval and validation from others. Overly-nice people try to please so that they can feel good about themselves." ...that's not a very nice thing to say. others go even further: "Kindness is rooted in GOOD, niceness is rooted in EVIL." the same post goes on to say that "Nice behavior is inherently dishonest." um... okay... but if you actually read the post, you can definitely see the point, and maybe even agree with the writer, at least a little bit. nice people do seem to be nice because they want people to like them, or to ease the situation. kind people are kind because they feel badly about stuff. and it's not just like, i'm much richer than you so here's a dollar, since truly kind people will give to others even when they've not much themselves.
i mean, obviously, you should be both kind and nice. there's certainly no rule saying you can't be both! but in choosing between the two, i'd much rather be kind.
Monday, July 14, 2014
3 words
i recently joined a new year-round paddling team, x-generals. they have each new member do a little video thing talking about themselves. to help you prep, they send you a list of questions beforehand. one of the questions was: describe yourself in three words. ...okay, not a question, but anyway.
i spent some time thinking about this and decided on kind, precise, and contradictory. but i think those are rather weak, especially contradictory, because, honestly, who isn't? so i asked a few friends what they thought. well, actually, i asked them what three words they would use to describe themselves. (i'm more interested to hear what others think about themselves than what they think of me, haha).
reepal: tall, funny, smart
th: declined to state
jl: tenacious, clever, loyal
ac: simple, honest, curious
ac then asked me why i was asking him and i told him. we then spent the next like 20 minutes talking about what he would choose for me. first he said community, assertive, honest. eventually he settled on community, assertive, brash. not as complimentary, lol.
in the end i think i'm going with volunteering, precise, curious. why volunteering and not community? because it's an adjective, whereas community is a noun. see, i am absolutely precise. hahahah. (btw, rip seemed a little confused when i said precise. partly i chose it because i can't use the word anal. but also because i am precise. i try to be careful when using my words and i like things to be done a certain way. rip seemed to get precise a little confused with accurate, which i am not as much.) currently i still like volunteering and precise, but am less satisfied with curious. maybe inquisitiveness or questioning?
what would you choose for you? or for me?
i spent some time thinking about this and decided on kind, precise, and contradictory. but i think those are rather weak, especially contradictory, because, honestly, who isn't? so i asked a few friends what they thought. well, actually, i asked them what three words they would use to describe themselves. (i'm more interested to hear what others think about themselves than what they think of me, haha).
reepal: tall, funny, smart
th: declined to state
jl: tenacious, clever, loyal
ac: simple, honest, curious
ac then asked me why i was asking him and i told him. we then spent the next like 20 minutes talking about what he would choose for me. first he said community, assertive, honest. eventually he settled on community, assertive, brash. not as complimentary, lol.
in the end i think i'm going with volunteering, precise, curious. why volunteering and not community? because it's an adjective, whereas community is a noun. see, i am absolutely precise. hahahah. (btw, rip seemed a little confused when i said precise. partly i chose it because i can't use the word anal. but also because i am precise. i try to be careful when using my words and i like things to be done a certain way. rip seemed to get precise a little confused with accurate, which i am not as much.) currently i still like volunteering and precise, but am less satisfied with curious. maybe inquisitiveness or questioning?
what would you choose for you? or for me?
Saturday, July 5, 2014
transgender law
i'm confused. for a transgendered man (i think this means was a woman is now a man), if the US military starts drafting people, will he get drafted? or if the US doesn't change the laws and "continues" to only draft men, will a transgendered woman be drafted?
...see this is one of the reasons the govt should not draft based on sex. made no freaking sense to begin with, makes even less sense now!
...see this is one of the reasons the govt should not draft based on sex. made no freaking sense to begin with, makes even less sense now!
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
no offense
rip and i were talking about about transgenders recently. about how awkward it can be during the transition period. if people don't know you very well, how to people refer to you? i certainly don't want to offend you in anyway. but i guess i couldn't really offend you if i'm talking about you rather than to you (that sounds rude, but just something like "oh, i ran into jesse the other day. s/he was wearing the coolest shoes!")
since we were actually talking about a person rip knows, i asked how s/he dressed: more feminine or masculine? whichever you identify with more i'd refer to you as. rip said that he now wears earrings, but wore gender neutral clothes. ...well that's no help. rip said that he thinks he's on hormones, but he hadn't changed his name. but ricky can be a female's name too, ricki lake, for instance. (we don't know how he spells it)
rip said that another male to female he knows uses to women's restroom. i said that made sense since she identifies as a female, and, i guess in some way more importantly, dresses as a female. rip said that he thinks she hasn't had bottom surgery tho, so would i, as a woman, be uncomfortable with her in my restroom? i said only if she came in, whipped her penis out, and started peeing in the sink. i have no idea what she's doing in the stall so i don't care. tho it would weird me out a little if i looked over and saw feet facing the toilet while hearing peeing sounds. but as long as woman (a person looking female anyway) walked out, i'd be okay with that. i said that it seemed much easier that she use a women's bathroom than men's bathroom because it would take basically no explaining at all. even if she used a urinal in a men's room, there'd still be the awkward moment when she walks in and no one knows what to think.
i emphasized "identifying as" rather than already fully transitioned, since transitioning can take a lot of time and money. also, i have no idea what's in your pants, even if you did get surgery to change it, so it would seem a little weird to refer to you by whatever is in there.
rip said the "identifying as" thing bothered him. what if he identified as a little person? what if he was tired of everyone thinking of him as tall so he decided to live life as a much shorter person? i feel that analogy is a very poor one, since, well, you're either short or tall, you can't really "fake" it. it's not like gender, where you can change your name, wear another style of clothing, and have people refer to you as another pronoun.
anyway, i think it's weird that rip seems to have more of a "problem" with transgenders when he personally knows a few. i thought it was more of the "gay friend effect," where the more gay people you know, the more likely you are to feel that there's nothing wrong with being gay. EDIT: to be clear, he doesn't actually have a problem. the identifying thing bothers him. though i'm not entirely sure why?
altho, both of us think it's a little weird when a transgendered person is gay. like if you were born a female, but identify as a male (whether or not your transitioning i don't think that matters), and like men. so you're gay, but you're also straight. hahah, this stuff is confusing. i'm glad i never questioned my gender or my sexual preferences. makes life a lot easier! i mean, sheesh, i imagine it's less confusing for a person actually going thru this stuff, but it can't be much easier, right? then you got ignorant people like me and rip wondering about stuff but are too embarrassed to ask questions! (since neither of us knows anyone in this position exceptionally well, and it's certainly none of our business anyway!)
since we were actually talking about a person rip knows, i asked how s/he dressed: more feminine or masculine? whichever you identify with more i'd refer to you as. rip said that he now wears earrings, but wore gender neutral clothes. ...well that's no help. rip said that he thinks he's on hormones, but he hadn't changed his name. but ricky can be a female's name too, ricki lake, for instance. (we don't know how he spells it)
rip said that another male to female he knows uses to women's restroom. i said that made sense since she identifies as a female, and, i guess in some way more importantly, dresses as a female. rip said that he thinks she hasn't had bottom surgery tho, so would i, as a woman, be uncomfortable with her in my restroom? i said only if she came in, whipped her penis out, and started peeing in the sink. i have no idea what she's doing in the stall so i don't care. tho it would weird me out a little if i looked over and saw feet facing the toilet while hearing peeing sounds. but as long as woman (a person looking female anyway) walked out, i'd be okay with that. i said that it seemed much easier that she use a women's bathroom than men's bathroom because it would take basically no explaining at all. even if she used a urinal in a men's room, there'd still be the awkward moment when she walks in and no one knows what to think.
i emphasized "identifying as" rather than already fully transitioned, since transitioning can take a lot of time and money. also, i have no idea what's in your pants, even if you did get surgery to change it, so it would seem a little weird to refer to you by whatever is in there.
rip said the "identifying as" thing bothered him. what if he identified as a little person? what if he was tired of everyone thinking of him as tall so he decided to live life as a much shorter person? i feel that analogy is a very poor one, since, well, you're either short or tall, you can't really "fake" it. it's not like gender, where you can change your name, wear another style of clothing, and have people refer to you as another pronoun.
anyway, i think it's weird that rip seems to have more of a "problem" with transgenders when he personally knows a few. i thought it was more of the "gay friend effect," where the more gay people you know, the more likely you are to feel that there's nothing wrong with being gay. EDIT: to be clear, he doesn't actually have a problem. the identifying thing bothers him. though i'm not entirely sure why?
altho, both of us think it's a little weird when a transgendered person is gay. like if you were born a female, but identify as a male (whether or not your transitioning i don't think that matters), and like men. so you're gay, but you're also straight. hahah, this stuff is confusing. i'm glad i never questioned my gender or my sexual preferences. makes life a lot easier! i mean, sheesh, i imagine it's less confusing for a person actually going thru this stuff, but it can't be much easier, right? then you got ignorant people like me and rip wondering about stuff but are too embarrassed to ask questions! (since neither of us knows anyone in this position exceptionally well, and it's certainly none of our business anyway!)
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
religious prosecution
ugh, this hobby lobby scotus thing. i'm not going to say much about it because, well, i think you can probably guess how i feel about it. but i absolutely agree with ginsburg saying that scotus "has ventured into a minefield." (the rest of the dissent is pretty good also, but here are a few highlights)
this video tho, lol:
i feel like america is getting stupider. most countries, certainly first world ones, seem to be getting smarter. but we're stuck quibbling about dumb shit like whether we should allow guns in bars (we should NOT), teaching religion in science class (we should NOT), and whether or not we should let people drink extra large sodas. ugh. seriously. as much as i love america, i really hate americans (well, not all of us. i'm pretty fucking awesome, afterall, ha!). i'm know that there are stupid people all over. and that every country hates the majority of it's politicians, but seriously. we're among the worst. almost makes you feel like democracy is just as stupid of an idea as communism.
this video tho, lol:
i feel like america is getting stupider. most countries, certainly first world ones, seem to be getting smarter. but we're stuck quibbling about dumb shit like whether we should allow guns in bars (we should NOT), teaching religion in science class (we should NOT), and whether or not we should let people drink extra large sodas. ugh. seriously. as much as i love america, i really hate americans (well, not all of us. i'm pretty fucking awesome, afterall, ha!). i'm know that there are stupid people all over. and that every country hates the majority of it's politicians, but seriously. we're among the worst. almost makes you feel like democracy is just as stupid of an idea as communism.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
#100daysofhappiness
if you follow me on twitter, you'll know that i've been doing the #100daysofhappiness, which is from this 100 happy days thing. i didn't bother to sign up thru the website and do it "correctly" because there were too many "rules". you were supposed to take a photo with every post, and well, i didn't want to. i did it on twitter so a photo plus the crazily long #100days... hashtag would take up way too many of my precious 140 characters.
100 happy days site says that 71% of people don't complete the endeavor because they "don't have time" or some bullshit like that. if you know me well, you'll also know that i HATE that fucking excuse. because most of the time (nearly all of the time) it simply isn't true! i figured i would finish it and i did. t had some problems with the project and really came to resent it from like even day 30 so i'm proud of her that she finished it up. i guess. ...i mean, why bother, i suppose? it's supposed to teach you something, or make you feel better, but if you're grumpy having to do it, you'd probably be better off just quitting.
anyway. so. did i learn anything from this 100days business? no. not really. haha. the last couple years i've been working on being more positive anyway, so #100days was just an extension of that. you'll notice that even before i started it, most of tweets were already positive. i generally only tweet once a day, and i use twitter as a microblog so it's generally a quick summary or highlight of my day. or it's the big emotional freakout when i get really fucking pissed at someone (generally that someone is dragon boat related).
if anything at all, i'd say that gretchen rubin's the happiness project had a bit more of a positive impact on my life. tho that too, was rather minimal, since i didn't do the project as i read the book. so what was the "turning point" of me deciding to be more positive? nothing particularly. i just noticed that i like it when people are kind, supportive, and positive. it sucks to be with a debbie downer. but it's also so easy to look on the negative side of things. so i decided to change. hopefully this lasts. :)
100 happy days site says that 71% of people don't complete the endeavor because they "don't have time" or some bullshit like that. if you know me well, you'll also know that i HATE that fucking excuse. because most of the time (nearly all of the time) it simply isn't true! i figured i would finish it and i did. t had some problems with the project and really came to resent it from like even day 30 so i'm proud of her that she finished it up. i guess. ...i mean, why bother, i suppose? it's supposed to teach you something, or make you feel better, but if you're grumpy having to do it, you'd probably be better off just quitting.
anyway. so. did i learn anything from this 100days business? no. not really. haha. the last couple years i've been working on being more positive anyway, so #100days was just an extension of that. you'll notice that even before i started it, most of tweets were already positive. i generally only tweet once a day, and i use twitter as a microblog so it's generally a quick summary or highlight of my day. or it's the big emotional freakout when i get really fucking pissed at someone (generally that someone is dragon boat related).
if anything at all, i'd say that gretchen rubin's the happiness project had a bit more of a positive impact on my life. tho that too, was rather minimal, since i didn't do the project as i read the book. so what was the "turning point" of me deciding to be more positive? nothing particularly. i just noticed that i like it when people are kind, supportive, and positive. it sucks to be with a debbie downer. but it's also so easy to look on the negative side of things. so i decided to change. hopefully this lasts. :)
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
polygamy
i recently finished jon krakauer's under the banner of heaven and it was really interesting! i hadn't known much about mormonism except for the "magic underwear," no caffeine, and what i gleaned from the book of mormon, lol. so, basically, nothing. a couple months ago i did finally visit the very beautiful mormon temple in san diego where outside two mornon girls with a binder showed us pictures of the inside of the temple (non-mormons are not allowed into their special rooms [altho for the record, i would love to get in, the inside of the temple is even more beautiful than the outside!]).
anyway, back to some of the most interesting things i learned from the book. apparently mormons are latter day saints. this whole time i thought they were different sects! ting even dated an lds for a couple weeks last year, haha. the other super interesting thing i learned is that the big difference between regular mormons and fundamentalist mormons is that fundamentalist mormons believe in polygamy. and that's about it. seriously. that's why they split. couldn't agree on the number of wives.
but the reason this post is titled "polygamy" is because that after reading the book, i'm now pro-polygamy. i didn't have strong feelings about it one way or another before, but now i'm definitely pro. i feel like krakauer was pretty unbiased in his book, and i certainly don't feel like he was trying to sway readers towards polygamy, but here i am. but of course i only approve of it between consenting adults. adults!! (apparently a number of mormon marriages are assigned marriages between a much older man and a girl child. disgusting, illegal, and wrong!)
one more thing i randomly thought was interesting. apparently divorce is not uncommon in mormon marriages. wives seem to leave their husbands with some regularity. part of it, i guess, is that many of these couples don't choose each other, but are assigned to marry. oh! one question i have tho. if this society only does polygamy and not polyandry, like... where are all these women coming from? do they not run out? or are there a lot of single, unmarried men since all the women are taken? (i should probably remind you about elizabeth smart who was kidnapped by a mormon fundamentalist family and subsequently made to wed the kidnapper. however, cases like hers are very rare!)
anyway, back to some of the most interesting things i learned from the book. apparently mormons are latter day saints. this whole time i thought they were different sects! ting even dated an lds for a couple weeks last year, haha. the other super interesting thing i learned is that the big difference between regular mormons and fundamentalist mormons is that fundamentalist mormons believe in polygamy. and that's about it. seriously. that's why they split. couldn't agree on the number of wives.
but the reason this post is titled "polygamy" is because that after reading the book, i'm now pro-polygamy. i didn't have strong feelings about it one way or another before, but now i'm definitely pro. i feel like krakauer was pretty unbiased in his book, and i certainly don't feel like he was trying to sway readers towards polygamy, but here i am. but of course i only approve of it between consenting adults. adults!! (apparently a number of mormon marriages are assigned marriages between a much older man and a girl child. disgusting, illegal, and wrong!)
one more thing i randomly thought was interesting. apparently divorce is not uncommon in mormon marriages. wives seem to leave their husbands with some regularity. part of it, i guess, is that many of these couples don't choose each other, but are assigned to marry. oh! one question i have tho. if this society only does polygamy and not polyandry, like... where are all these women coming from? do they not run out? or are there a lot of single, unmarried men since all the women are taken? (i should probably remind you about elizabeth smart who was kidnapped by a mormon fundamentalist family and subsequently made to wed the kidnapper. however, cases like hers are very rare!)
Saturday, May 10, 2014
lost heart of asia
quotations from colin thurbron - the lost heart of asia: an intimate portrait of uzbekistan, tajikistan, turkmenistan, kazakhstan, and kirghizstan, the five central asian republics
"I found myself launching a plea for tolerance. Why should one religion hold a monopoly on truth, I asked? Faith was a matter of private conscience... My evangelism for tolerance began to sound fanatic."
"'Islam is the last revelation... Fist came the Jews' book, then the Christians' book, and fainlly the Koran. The Koran is the last word of God. It was right at the time for Jews and Christians to believe as they did. They had nothing else. But now it is our way which his right...'
"I said pedantically: 'The Communist doctrine came later than Islam, but didn't disprove it. The last book isn't necessarily the right one. Your own Traditions come later than the Koran, but they don't superseded it... The Jews believe that the first is best... because it's the original.'"
both from page 74
"I found myself launching a plea for tolerance. Why should one religion hold a monopoly on truth, I asked? Faith was a matter of private conscience... My evangelism for tolerance began to sound fanatic."
"'Islam is the last revelation... Fist came the Jews' book, then the Christians' book, and fainlly the Koran. The Koran is the last word of God. It was right at the time for Jews and Christians to believe as they did. They had nothing else. But now it is our way which his right...'
"I said pedantically: 'The Communist doctrine came later than Islam, but didn't disprove it. The last book isn't necessarily the right one. Your own Traditions come later than the Koran, but they don't superseded it... The Jews believe that the first is best... because it's the original.'"
both from page 74
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
small world!!
i was at mike's house the other week and for some reason i thought to mention that i was entering the 5 gyres contest. he perked up a bit and went to another room and came back with the book plastic ocean asking if i'd read it. coincidentally i hadn't read it, but did own it, and in fact had even held up the book in my video, haha! here's the crazy part. mike's neighbor wrote the book. and mike is mentioned in it. and the reason mike knows much about gyres in general is cause he was with the author when he first like "discovered" the "garbage patch."
amazing cool!
since then mike has been EXTRA amazing. he wrote the nicest things on fb reminding people to vote. and he even talked to author captain moore about me to see if he had room for me on his next trip with his own organization: algalita marine research institute. the last few years i've really come to love mike. he's is always supportive and i have always so appreciated his giving me the chance to run the steering program all those years ago. he's taught me so much and i've really come to think of him as my mentor. :) so lucky to know him!
amazing cool!
since then mike has been EXTRA amazing. he wrote the nicest things on fb reminding people to vote. and he even talked to author captain moore about me to see if he had room for me on his next trip with his own organization: algalita marine research institute. the last few years i've really come to love mike. he's is always supportive and i have always so appreciated his giving me the chance to run the steering program all those years ago. he's taught me so much and i've really come to think of him as my mentor. :) so lucky to know him!
Saturday, April 26, 2014
5 gyres expedition
earlier this month i entered the 5 gyres expedition contest. person with the most facebook votes won an expedition with 5 gyres to learn more about the issue of plastic pollution in our oceans. important stuff! i didn't win the contest (did reasonably well tho, placing in the upper middle) but so many people were so supportive! there was the usual voting and commenting, but people even shared, reposted, and reminded their friends to vote. it was really sweet.
for me, the contest wasn't even close. the day i put up my video the first place guy already had 1.9k votes. and the gap got even wider as time progressed. but apparently there was all kinds of controversy about the winner. turns out the both first and second place had bots voting for them, but for some reason 5 gyres only disqualified one of the guys. weird stuff! but anyway, the guy who gets to go is a nature photographer so that's pretty great since i'm sure his reach is much bigger than most.
special mention goes out to rip for helping with the video. i had my ideas, but rip made the video much funnier and made it about a million times better than what i could've done, so thanks!
another mention goes to mike whom i'll talk about in my next post.
Friday, February 28, 2014
the weight of nothing
quotations from steven gillis - the weight of nothing
this is apparently a quotation from a book called "the rebel":
"The logic of the rebel is to want to serve justice so as not to add to the injustice of the human condition, to insist on plain language so as not to increase the universal falsehood, and to wager, in spite of human misery, for happiness. [page 219]"
"Love is a kite on a string... Always tugging and ready to take off. [page 236]"
this is apparently a quotation from a book called "the rebel":
"The logic of the rebel is to want to serve justice so as not to add to the injustice of the human condition, to insist on plain language so as not to increase the universal falsehood, and to wager, in spite of human misery, for happiness. [page 219]"
"Love is a kite on a string... Always tugging and ready to take off. [page 236]"
Monday, February 24, 2014
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Saturday, January 25, 2014
advanced genius
jason hartley - the advanced genius theory: are they out of their minds or ahead of their time?
the wikipedia entry on the advanced genius theory
a few years ago rip and i "argued" about how metallica was no longer good and how their saint anger cd was proof of that. i said that the band had maybe progressed past the level that rip was at. people evolve, obviously, and so do bands. problem is that maybe the fans and the band don't evolve together. music is a pretty person experience, after all.
so imagine my surprise upon reading "the advanced genius" theory to see that apparently this was actually a theory! btw, i do NOT think that metallica is genius. and the book itself wasn't all that awesome either. the wikipedia entry sums up the book pretty well.
the wikipedia entry on the advanced genius theory
a few years ago rip and i "argued" about how metallica was no longer good and how their saint anger cd was proof of that. i said that the band had maybe progressed past the level that rip was at. people evolve, obviously, and so do bands. problem is that maybe the fans and the band don't evolve together. music is a pretty person experience, after all.
so imagine my surprise upon reading "the advanced genius" theory to see that apparently this was actually a theory! btw, i do NOT think that metallica is genius. and the book itself wasn't all that awesome either. the wikipedia entry sums up the book pretty well.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Thursday, January 16, 2014
sacrifice
quotation from frank dikotter - mao's great famine: the history of china's most devastating catastrophe, 1958-1962
mao believed that during a famine "it is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill." i know that a lot of people who disagree with this statement, but really, isn't this the best way? why share meager and much needed resources just so everyone will suffer? isn't it, in some ways, more humane to kill the weakest so that the strongest can live longer? i guess that a big problem with this type of thinking is that it eliminates the possibility of unexpected change in the situation: donated food, reversal of bad weather, whatever... you can't unkill someone now that an hour after their murder, help arrives.
there's also the huge problem of who to kill first. the sick and feeble (of body) would probably be the first since their bodies are already compromised. the really old (especially women who are post-menopausal) would probably go next since they are of less "physical value" to society (they may be the keepers of our history but they sure can't do heavy lifting). next should probably be the mentally challenged who aren't good with physical labor. and of course, you should at some point start eliminating children. as long as the adults aren't permanently sterile, they can also produce more kids. men should probably also be eliminated more than women since most women can only have one kid a year while men have no such limitations. in the very end you should be left with a handful of youngish men and a larger group of women.
it's easy for mao, in his nice house with plenty of food and blankets and family secure, to say that to sacrifice half a nation so the other half can prosper is the right thing to do. but who could ever be so cold? the "best" solution would be for volunteers. and before you scoff at that, remember that seniors in japan did it as did the inuits (maybe). of course, no infant or mentally infirm would volunteer themselves so we really are left to murder, not suicide.
and on another topic, tho certainly related, if you're interested in learning a bit about cannibalism, this was a pretty good read.
mao believed that during a famine "it is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill." i know that a lot of people who disagree with this statement, but really, isn't this the best way? why share meager and much needed resources just so everyone will suffer? isn't it, in some ways, more humane to kill the weakest so that the strongest can live longer? i guess that a big problem with this type of thinking is that it eliminates the possibility of unexpected change in the situation: donated food, reversal of bad weather, whatever... you can't unkill someone now that an hour after their murder, help arrives.
there's also the huge problem of who to kill first. the sick and feeble (of body) would probably be the first since their bodies are already compromised. the really old (especially women who are post-menopausal) would probably go next since they are of less "physical value" to society (they may be the keepers of our history but they sure can't do heavy lifting). next should probably be the mentally challenged who aren't good with physical labor. and of course, you should at some point start eliminating children. as long as the adults aren't permanently sterile, they can also produce more kids. men should probably also be eliminated more than women since most women can only have one kid a year while men have no such limitations. in the very end you should be left with a handful of youngish men and a larger group of women.
it's easy for mao, in his nice house with plenty of food and blankets and family secure, to say that to sacrifice half a nation so the other half can prosper is the right thing to do. but who could ever be so cold? the "best" solution would be for volunteers. and before you scoff at that, remember that seniors in japan did it as did the inuits (maybe). of course, no infant or mentally infirm would volunteer themselves so we really are left to murder, not suicide.
and on another topic, tho certainly related, if you're interested in learning a bit about cannibalism, this was a pretty good read.
Monday, January 13, 2014
quotations
frank dikotter - mao's great famine: the history of china's most devastating catastrophe, 1958-1962
"...this book shows that at least 45 million people died unnecessarily between 1958 and 1962."
"when there is not enough to eat people starve to death. it is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill."
"in russian there is a distinction between liudoedstvo, literally 'people eating', and trupoedstvo, or 'corpse eating'. it is a very useful distinction, one which introduces much-needed nuance..."
"...this book shows that at least 45 million people died unnecessarily between 1958 and 1962."
"when there is not enough to eat people starve to death. it is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill."
"in russian there is a distinction between liudoedstvo, literally 'people eating', and trupoedstvo, or 'corpse eating'. it is a very useful distinction, one which introduces much-needed nuance..."
Friday, January 10, 2014
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
not a word
i knew that space cuts out past members really quickly. and i knew it would happen. but i was stull surprised by how completely i dropped off their radar. on fb, anyway. i put up hawaii photos (cause g was in them too) and i didn't get a single like from anyone on space. it was... wow. lol. i dunno. i mean, i haven't even officially switched teams yet!
k, my neighbor, is also with space. sorta. he's thinking of retiring because competitive paddling simply takes too much time. he's missing out on his daughter's childhood, he says. so, in other words, he's not leaving because of drama. anyway, so the other day he was at the beach paddle boarding and oc1-ing with his family and he runs into space. a few of them ignore him completely. he hasn't even decided if he's leaving the team yet! i wonder if other teams are like this too? hahah, maybe i'll find out in another five years when i leave guppies for i-don't-know-what-team!
i'm really glad i took a year off between space and guppies but man oh man am i not looking forward to march when i show up at my first guppies practice. they're the practice slot after space, so i'll definitely be running into them. i haven't checked the schedule yet, but it was would be even more awkward if we end up taking their boat. ::shudder::
k, my neighbor, is also with space. sorta. he's thinking of retiring because competitive paddling simply takes too much time. he's missing out on his daughter's childhood, he says. so, in other words, he's not leaving because of drama. anyway, so the other day he was at the beach paddle boarding and oc1-ing with his family and he runs into space. a few of them ignore him completely. he hasn't even decided if he's leaving the team yet! i wonder if other teams are like this too? hahah, maybe i'll find out in another five years when i leave guppies for i-don't-know-what-team!
i'm really glad i took a year off between space and guppies but man oh man am i not looking forward to march when i show up at my first guppies practice. they're the practice slot after space, so i'll definitely be running into them. i haven't checked the schedule yet, but it was would be even more awkward if we end up taking their boat. ::shudder::
Saturday, January 4, 2014
love you more
i can't believe i've never blogged about this (i did several searches and couldn't find anything. but i did find this vaguely related post)! but i've long heard (and agree with) the statement that in an ideal relationship, a man loves a woman more than she loves him back.
i've always thought it was because "men get better with age. women just get older." or something to that effect. in other words, it's easier for a man to start over in mid-life than a woman. ...thinking about that now, i guess it doesn't really follow that therefore a man should love a woman more than she loves him back. ...but anyway!
l and i were talking about it the other day and she said that it's because women seem more willing to overlook a man's faults. and they're more willing to live in unhappiness. i guess that means that it's easier for a man to fall out of love with a woman. which is why, from the beginning, he should love her more. that seems to make a lot of sense, honestly. this plus that she can't start over anyway. ...sounds like all women are unhappy in their relationships but are too scared to leave their man because she'll be jealous he'll find happiness before her.
i've always thought it was because "men get better with age. women just get older." or something to that effect. in other words, it's easier for a man to start over in mid-life than a woman. ...thinking about that now, i guess it doesn't really follow that therefore a man should love a woman more than she loves him back. ...but anyway!
l and i were talking about it the other day and she said that it's because women seem more willing to overlook a man's faults. and they're more willing to live in unhappiness. i guess that means that it's easier for a man to fall out of love with a woman. which is why, from the beginning, he should love her more. that seems to make a lot of sense, honestly. this plus that she can't start over anyway. ...sounds like all women are unhappy in their relationships but are too scared to leave their man because she'll be jealous he'll find happiness before her.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)