I love trivia, I love knowledge, and I love random pieces of information. Many weekends, my friend and I spend my evenings catching up on the Jeopardy episodes he saves on his Comcast. He, like me, is a lover of all things random-knowledge. We stay up many a late night, Coors Lights-a-plenty, viewing episode after episode of Jeopardy or even Wheel of Fortune, even after our girlfriends have gone to bed.
One such episode of Jeopardy brought the most amazing moment for me. Usually, both my friend and I can answer a whole category or a few answers here and there and rarely are we able to come up with the answer to Final Jeopardy. If you are familiar with Jeopardy, than you know how it works. Alex Trebek introduces the category and the contestants are than supposed to write down how much they wager while those of us at home wait around through the commercial break. Up return, the question is asked and the contestants write down their answers. I need to back up, however, as before the commercial break even happened, right after Trebek introduced the category, I shouted out an answer. My answer was “Paul Bunyan” and the category was American Legends. When we fast forwarded back to the game, the question was read and none of us officially knew the answer. It turned out, though, that I was right with my answer of Paul Bunyan, answered even before the question was read. It felt amazing.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Anarchy?
an•archos: (Latin) no masters
For anyone who is curious about anarchy and what it is, you must rid youselves of any preconceived ideas or anything you may have heard and come at it with a new outlook. Many have used it to imply chaos, and if you believe that humanity needs an authority figure (be it a leader, president, prime minister, legislative body) to keep it from falling into chaos, then yes, no leaders would be chaos. However, if you do not believe in the legitimacy of anyone ruling over anyone else, than any leader would be tyranny.
Anarchy, today, has taken on many different shapes, such as the for-image title taken on by many within the punk scene or the libertarian-socialist perspective which is more a true political philosophy, since that is what anarchy truly is: a political philosophy. However, it is simply that, a philosophy, and not an answer, but we can also agree with Chomsky in that we do not know what would work and what would not, so it is also too early on to discredit it. What anarchy implies, basically, is no government and no rulers. It is utopian in the idea that people will coexist relatively peacefully and settle all disputes themselves as well as helping out their fellow humans. Because of the idea of no masters, it also has an inherent belief that their can be no private property. Property is a common, public good, and therefore, should not and can not be truly owned, bought, or sold. We can use it to our advantage and place our houses upon it, but to own land, something which one has not created, is sacrilegious.
Within true anarchy, there is also an idea of non-violence; violence being a rule/ruler imposed upon someone else. It is upon these basic tenants that anarchy is built and if you want more, research the various books on the subject, they are, for the most part, very good.
For anyone who is curious about anarchy and what it is, you must rid youselves of any preconceived ideas or anything you may have heard and come at it with a new outlook. Many have used it to imply chaos, and if you believe that humanity needs an authority figure (be it a leader, president, prime minister, legislative body) to keep it from falling into chaos, then yes, no leaders would be chaos. However, if you do not believe in the legitimacy of anyone ruling over anyone else, than any leader would be tyranny.
Anarchy, today, has taken on many different shapes, such as the for-image title taken on by many within the punk scene or the libertarian-socialist perspective which is more a true political philosophy, since that is what anarchy truly is: a political philosophy. However, it is simply that, a philosophy, and not an answer, but we can also agree with Chomsky in that we do not know what would work and what would not, so it is also too early on to discredit it. What anarchy implies, basically, is no government and no rulers. It is utopian in the idea that people will coexist relatively peacefully and settle all disputes themselves as well as helping out their fellow humans. Because of the idea of no masters, it also has an inherent belief that their can be no private property. Property is a common, public good, and therefore, should not and can not be truly owned, bought, or sold. We can use it to our advantage and place our houses upon it, but to own land, something which one has not created, is sacrilegious.
Within true anarchy, there is also an idea of non-violence; violence being a rule/ruler imposed upon someone else. It is upon these basic tenants that anarchy is built and if you want more, research the various books on the subject, they are, for the most part, very good.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Punk Rock
For every 10 self-inflated punks out there is only 1 real punk, unfortunately. The punk scene itself has practically cannibalized itself, leaving only its rotting entrails.
Nowadays it seems most punks feel the need to be not-“posers,” whatever that means. Being a punk, in itself, I would claim is being a poser. Punk music, to me, only means music that is staying true to itself, considering that even early hip-hop artists considered themselves punk musicians.
Punks don’t stand for anarchy, they don’t stand for anything. If they did stand for something, it would be the idea that who one is IS who one is.
If anyone wants to know what this short venting is in response to, feel free to email me, as it does not Copy+Paste well in this Blogger program.
Nowadays it seems most punks feel the need to be not-“posers,” whatever that means. Being a punk, in itself, I would claim is being a poser. Punk music, to me, only means music that is staying true to itself, considering that even early hip-hop artists considered themselves punk musicians.
Punks don’t stand for anarchy, they don’t stand for anything. If they did stand for something, it would be the idea that who one is IS who one is.
If anyone wants to know what this short venting is in response to, feel free to email me, as it does not Copy+Paste well in this Blogger program.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Democracy
For any readers out there who might still hold the idea that America is a democracy, I urge you to defenestrate (how about that, Prof. Wood?) that idea and reconsider.
Democracy comes from the joining of two words from ancient Greece, demos and –kratia.
If you choose not to follow the links, demos refers to the general public or the common people. In ancient times this was also considered the general “mob.” Meanwhile, -kratia refers to a form of government. Combined, democracy now means rule by the people, and while this may be thought of as a good thing, it is ultimately wrong.
Evidence of democracy being a wrong thing lies simply in the ideas that the forefathers of history held. For example, the majority, in the past, held that women could not vote, blacks were to be slaves, and the Earth was flat. While entertaining the idea that the Earth is flat apparently does not hurt nor impede anyone, people were considered heretics by the Church if they believed otherwise and were sentenced to death unless they recanted their position.
The authors of the Constitution attempted to answer the problems of democracy when they wrote the Constitution by introducing representatives and judges. Representatives do all the voting to ensure that those who are ignorant or uninformed do not vote. The judges act to ensure that anything that is voted upon or placed into law is not infringing on a minority of people. It is the job of both the representative and the judge to ensure that a misinformed majority is restrained and unable to inflict tyranny on a minority of people.
Democracy comes from the joining of two words from ancient Greece, demos and –kratia.
If you choose not to follow the links, demos refers to the general public or the common people. In ancient times this was also considered the general “mob.” Meanwhile, -kratia refers to a form of government. Combined, democracy now means rule by the people, and while this may be thought of as a good thing, it is ultimately wrong.
Evidence of democracy being a wrong thing lies simply in the ideas that the forefathers of history held. For example, the majority, in the past, held that women could not vote, blacks were to be slaves, and the Earth was flat. While entertaining the idea that the Earth is flat apparently does not hurt nor impede anyone, people were considered heretics by the Church if they believed otherwise and were sentenced to death unless they recanted their position.
The authors of the Constitution attempted to answer the problems of democracy when they wrote the Constitution by introducing representatives and judges. Representatives do all the voting to ensure that those who are ignorant or uninformed do not vote. The judges act to ensure that anything that is voted upon or placed into law is not infringing on a minority of people. It is the job of both the representative and the judge to ensure that a misinformed majority is restrained and unable to inflict tyranny on a minority of people.
Monday, March 30, 2009
A Spring Break Hangover
It seems to be a good time to do some flagellation/understanding as a means of redemption, especially when one takes into account the fact that spring break is now over even though I personally did not do anything near regretful.
In an effort to make this more interesting (or more annoying, depending on one’s preference) I will be writing this following a minimalist pattern, it is up to you, the reader, to take these sentences however you would like…
I am a God-fearing atheist.
I hate being wrong.
Blood is thicker than water.
I still can’t believe it’s not butter.
Happiness is overrated but in a few years the pharmaceutical industry will have a pill to solve that as well.
I am a resentful son.
Rodents and reptiles creep me out.
I am an idealist.
I wish my band had more of a drive to succeed, myself included.
Nobody speaks for me.
I am a huge nerd.
My room is perpetually messy, even when it is in the middle of being cleaned.
Drinking is a habit that is too affordable.
I enjoy reading.
My ability to play guitar and my years of playing guitar are not correlated in the way they should be.
I am nobody’s fool but my own.
Music will never be as good as it used to be and it is constantly getting better.
I always lie.
I am me.
I hope what you just read was as fun, interesting, and thought provoking for you as it was for me. Many were contradictions and conundrums within themselves and I hope you enjoy breaking them down.
In an effort to make this more interesting (or more annoying, depending on one’s preference) I will be writing this following a minimalist pattern, it is up to you, the reader, to take these sentences however you would like…
I am a God-fearing atheist.
I hate being wrong.
Blood is thicker than water.
I still can’t believe it’s not butter.
Happiness is overrated but in a few years the pharmaceutical industry will have a pill to solve that as well.
I am a resentful son.
Rodents and reptiles creep me out.
I am an idealist.
I wish my band had more of a drive to succeed, myself included.
Nobody speaks for me.
I am a huge nerd.
My room is perpetually messy, even when it is in the middle of being cleaned.
Drinking is a habit that is too affordable.
I enjoy reading.
My ability to play guitar and my years of playing guitar are not correlated in the way they should be.
I am nobody’s fool but my own.
Music will never be as good as it used to be and it is constantly getting better.
I always lie.
I am me.
I hope what you just read was as fun, interesting, and thought provoking for you as it was for me. Many were contradictions and conundrums within themselves and I hope you enjoy breaking them down.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Feminism Isn’t Just for the Ladies
In completing my general education (at a Community College) I took an introductory women’s studies course and it was one of the most rewarding classes I took. It helped me to see the subconscious or implicit messages all around. The class I took did not just focus on women, but the views and portrayals of men as well. For this blog, however, I chose to narrow it down to a short critique on Disney movies and their efforts to marginalize and brainwash thousand of girls, whether they intended to or not.
The Little Mermaid
The Little Mermaid tells the story of a single father raising 7 daughters, the youngest of whom, Ariel, is the most ambitious and rambunctious. This all takes place under the sea and they are, in fact, “merpeople.”
The main character of the story, Ariel, witnesses a handsome human man on a boat. She lusts for him but her father forbids her from ever going on land. Instead, she seeks out Ursula, the evil sea witch, who makes a deal with her: if Ariel gives up her voice Ursula will grant her legs, giving her the opportunity to find this man and woo him.
What this implies to the thousands of little girls who grew up watching this is that they do not need their voice, their ability to showcase their personality and language, but should, instead, use only their “physical mannerisms and dress,” as that is all they need. Giving up her ability to speak is giving up her ability to say “I am woman; hear me roar.” Instead, Ariel is forced to say something more to the effect of, “I am woman; I hope I look okay.”
The ending of the movie does not get any better. While she does gain back her ability to speak, to be with the man she desires she has to give up all ties to her former life. Most women would find it atrocious to lose the connection to their family, even more so if the man she was with did not allow it. While this is not what the man did in this movie, it is essentially the choice Ariel had to make to be with him: the man she likes or her family, she cannot have both.
Hercules
The film Hercules commits the usual horrors in regards to its portrayal of women. The female in this story, Megara, is a lonely woman without friends who sold her soul to Hades to save the life of her ex, who paid her in kind by running off with another woman.
As her soul is now in possession of the Greek devil, Meg, as she claims her would-be friends call her, utilizes her feminine charm to lead Hercules right into Hades’ trap. This character has no individuality. She is a seductress who is no more than a pawn in Hades’ plans. Meg “sashays her hips and [wears a] dress [that] clings to her body like a second skin.”
The character of Meg is no more than an evil seductress who is turned, or saved, by the man of the story, implicitly stating that without him she would be doomed. She in no way teaches young girls to assert their individually and strength, rather, she teaches them that they cannot be saved without the help of a man.
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is Walt Disney’s “first full-length production” and a great example of Disney’s poor portrayal of women. In the story, Snow White is forced to leave the safety of the castle when an evil woman, her step-mother, believes Snow White to be the fairest in the land, with fair representing purity or virginity, beauty, and innocence, much like her last name: White. Fortunately for Snow White, she is spared from dying, thanks to a man, and makes her way into the scary woods wherein she is fortunate enough to find a small and dirty house.
After being spared by a man, Snow White cleans and washes the house of the Seven Dwarfs, who are all men who lust over and immediately take a liking to Snow White. As if she were a lost puppy, they decide to keep her, thus ensuring she is again spared by men only to end up doing all the cooking and cleaning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Little Mermaid
The Little Mermaid tells the story of a single father raising 7 daughters, the youngest of whom, Ariel, is the most ambitious and rambunctious. This all takes place under the sea and they are, in fact, “merpeople.”
The main character of the story, Ariel, witnesses a handsome human man on a boat. She lusts for him but her father forbids her from ever going on land. Instead, she seeks out Ursula, the evil sea witch, who makes a deal with her: if Ariel gives up her voice Ursula will grant her legs, giving her the opportunity to find this man and woo him.
What this implies to the thousands of little girls who grew up watching this is that they do not need their voice, their ability to showcase their personality and language, but should, instead, use only their “physical mannerisms and dress,” as that is all they need. Giving up her ability to speak is giving up her ability to say “I am woman; hear me roar.” Instead, Ariel is forced to say something more to the effect of, “I am woman; I hope I look okay.”
The ending of the movie does not get any better. While she does gain back her ability to speak, to be with the man she desires she has to give up all ties to her former life. Most women would find it atrocious to lose the connection to their family, even more so if the man she was with did not allow it. While this is not what the man did in this movie, it is essentially the choice Ariel had to make to be with him: the man she likes or her family, she cannot have both.
Hercules
The film Hercules commits the usual horrors in regards to its portrayal of women. The female in this story, Megara, is a lonely woman without friends who sold her soul to Hades to save the life of her ex, who paid her in kind by running off with another woman.
As her soul is now in possession of the Greek devil, Meg, as she claims her would-be friends call her, utilizes her feminine charm to lead Hercules right into Hades’ trap. This character has no individuality. She is a seductress who is no more than a pawn in Hades’ plans. Meg “sashays her hips and [wears a] dress [that] clings to her body like a second skin.”
The character of Meg is no more than an evil seductress who is turned, or saved, by the man of the story, implicitly stating that without him she would be doomed. She in no way teaches young girls to assert their individually and strength, rather, she teaches them that they cannot be saved without the help of a man.
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is Walt Disney’s “first full-length production” and a great example of Disney’s poor portrayal of women. In the story, Snow White is forced to leave the safety of the castle when an evil woman, her step-mother, believes Snow White to be the fairest in the land, with fair representing purity or virginity, beauty, and innocence, much like her last name: White. Fortunately for Snow White, she is spared from dying, thanks to a man, and makes her way into the scary woods wherein she is fortunate enough to find a small and dirty house.
After being spared by a man, Snow White cleans and washes the house of the Seven Dwarfs, who are all men who lust over and immediately take a liking to Snow White. As if she were a lost puppy, they decide to keep her, thus ensuring she is again spared by men only to end up doing all the cooking and cleaning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disney movies are filled with numerous examples of the vilification of women and all three of the previous examples attest to that; Ursula, Megara, and the Evil Step-Mother are all portrayed as having ulterior or evil motives. It appears the most equal portrayal in the movies are the ones which showcase animals, where the relationships between, say, Simba and Nala are built on friendship while the relationships of the Disney Princesses and their respective Princes are built on physical attraction, thus “relegating a view of equality to the animal kingdom” that is not reciprocated in the human one. I encourage everyone to watch movies with some of these ideas in mind; try to see what they are telling us the perfect man or perfect woman is like.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Major Legal Baseball
All of the recent talk of performance enhancers in baseball has brought up some very interesting points. What only a few seem to notice, however, is that money can be a performance enhancer as well.
With trading, contracts, and virtually no limits on a player’s movements, it seems to be that the longer one is playing major league baseball, the more likely one is to not play for one’s home team. As much as fans would hate to admit it, players have no team loyalty higher than they have loyalty to getting paid.
Using www.baseball-almanac.com, I found that, of all the players in Major League Baseball for the 2008 season, California had the highest number of players listing California as their birthplace; 225 to be exact. To simplify my further inquiries, I looked at every 15th person on the list to see what team they are currently for:
Geoff Blum – born in Redwood City, plays for the Houston Astros
Brooks Conrad – born in San Diego, plays for the Oakland Athletics
Jim Edmonds – born in Fullerton, plays for the Chicago Cubs
Kevin Frandsen – born in Los Gatos, plays for the San Francisco Giants
Eddie Guardado – born in Stockton, plays for the Minnesota Twins
Phil Hughes – born in Mission Viejo, plays for the New York Yankees
Jeff Karstens – born in San Diego, plays for the Pittsburgh Pirates
Derrek Lee – born in Sacramento, plays for the Chicago Cubs
Scott McClain – born in Simi Valley, plays for the San Francisco Giants
Xavier Nady – born in Salinas, plays for the New York Yankees
Carlos Quentin – born in Bellflower, plays for the Chicago White Sox
Kirk Saarloos – born in Long Beach, plays for the Oakland Athletics
Mike Sweeney – born in Orange, plays for the Oakland Athletics
Jered Weaver – born in Northridge, plays for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Joel Zumaya – born in Chula Vista, plays for the Detroit Tigers
Of these 15, six players currently play in their home state. Looking into it, however, I found that…
Brooks Conrad has never played a season with his hometown team, the San Diego Padres, but has played his 2 seasons with a California team.
Scott McClain has played four seasons in all but only 2 with a California team.
Kirk Saarloos has only played 4 out of 7 seasons with a California team.
Mike Sweeney has only played 1 season out of 14 with a California team.
Only Jered Weaver and Kevin Frandsen have played all three of their season with their respective teams.
How much money does it take to buy loyalty?
The New York Yankees, one of the richest teams in baseball, has the top three highest paid players: Alex Rodriguez, Jason Giambi, and. Derek Jeter, in that order. However, the highest paid player, Alex Rodriguez, has stated his favorite team growing up was, in fact, the New York Mets. In all, the Yankees spend a total of $209,081,577, whereas the poorest team, the Florida Marlins, spends only about 10% of that, $21,811,500, about 6,000,000 less than the Yankees spend on Rodriguez alone (here). The second richest team, the New York Mets, only spends $137,793,376; a bit over half of what the New York Yankees are able to spend.
Money has become the performance enhancer baseball officials should be most worried about. It is no surprise that the top spending team tends to be one of the most formidable teams in baseball; and what about the best player? Well, he has recently admitted to using performance enhancers as well.
With trading, contracts, and virtually no limits on a player’s movements, it seems to be that the longer one is playing major league baseball, the more likely one is to not play for one’s home team. As much as fans would hate to admit it, players have no team loyalty higher than they have loyalty to getting paid.
Using www.baseball-almanac.com, I found that, of all the players in Major League Baseball for the 2008 season, California had the highest number of players listing California as their birthplace; 225 to be exact. To simplify my further inquiries, I looked at every 15th person on the list to see what team they are currently for:
Geoff Blum – born in Redwood City, plays for the Houston Astros
Brooks Conrad – born in San Diego, plays for the Oakland Athletics
Jim Edmonds – born in Fullerton, plays for the Chicago Cubs
Kevin Frandsen – born in Los Gatos, plays for the San Francisco Giants
Eddie Guardado – born in Stockton, plays for the Minnesota Twins
Phil Hughes – born in Mission Viejo, plays for the New York Yankees
Jeff Karstens – born in San Diego, plays for the Pittsburgh Pirates
Derrek Lee – born in Sacramento, plays for the Chicago Cubs
Scott McClain – born in Simi Valley, plays for the San Francisco Giants
Xavier Nady – born in Salinas, plays for the New York Yankees
Carlos Quentin – born in Bellflower, plays for the Chicago White Sox
Kirk Saarloos – born in Long Beach, plays for the Oakland Athletics
Mike Sweeney – born in Orange, plays for the Oakland Athletics
Jered Weaver – born in Northridge, plays for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Joel Zumaya – born in Chula Vista, plays for the Detroit Tigers
Of these 15, six players currently play in their home state. Looking into it, however, I found that…
Brooks Conrad has never played a season with his hometown team, the San Diego Padres, but has played his 2 seasons with a California team.
Scott McClain has played four seasons in all but only 2 with a California team.
Kirk Saarloos has only played 4 out of 7 seasons with a California team.
Mike Sweeney has only played 1 season out of 14 with a California team.
Only Jered Weaver and Kevin Frandsen have played all three of their season with their respective teams.
How much money does it take to buy loyalty?
The New York Yankees, one of the richest teams in baseball, has the top three highest paid players: Alex Rodriguez, Jason Giambi, and. Derek Jeter, in that order. However, the highest paid player, Alex Rodriguez, has stated his favorite team growing up was, in fact, the New York Mets. In all, the Yankees spend a total of $209,081,577, whereas the poorest team, the Florida Marlins, spends only about 10% of that, $21,811,500, about 6,000,000 less than the Yankees spend on Rodriguez alone (here). The second richest team, the New York Mets, only spends $137,793,376; a bit over half of what the New York Yankees are able to spend.
Money has become the performance enhancer baseball officials should be most worried about. It is no surprise that the top spending team tends to be one of the most formidable teams in baseball; and what about the best player? Well, he has recently admitted to using performance enhancers as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)