Sex and Fighting

I'm a fan of Planned Parenthood on Facebook. I appreciate the liberal, slightly biased, open-minded approach to sexuality, sexual health, and sexual freedoms. PPH's views mesh well with mine and I appreciate what they do. However, I find that some of the followers that post comments to the articles that Planned Parenthood posts can be as bigoted and close-minded as any.

Now I know that liberalism does not equate to open-mindedness but I would hope that those that profess a more liberal viewpoint would also be hesitant to make snap judgments.

A specific comment sparked this rant, I'll reproduce it below, names removed to protect the "innocent"

"After letting my kids know that porn is, in no way, "real" sex, I would much rather them see boobs than cage fighting. I think what we consider taboo, in the US, is a little backwards. Violence, and the depiction of it, should be the taboo subject, while the beauty of sexuality should be freely expressed."

The discussion was on when, and how, to talk to children about pornography, as well as some of the good talking points when it comes to pornography. Frankly, I found the article enlightening. It touched on points I had never really thought about.

I'll link to the article here

The question in particular, in case it gets moved if the one asking for advice when a 14 year old girl and 16 year old boy found some porn online.

Anyway, I digress. The comment posted above got to me. My views on fighting are hardly a secret. My views on sex are hardly a secret. I don't see the issue with either as long as it's two CONSENTING adults.

Hell, if you want to step into a ring, onto the mat, or into a cage then do so. If you find someone who wants to get in there with you, good for them. Fighting is the single most difficult pursuit a man, or woman, can engage in. Fighting requires a degree of stamina, of fitness, not seen in other pursuits. Why should we as a society demonize violence? Why should we as a society demonize sex, sexuality, or really any act between two consenting adults.

It just upsets me when people speak about a topic they have no knowledge of. I'm of the mind that if you want to try and ban fighting they you should have at least fought. Get on the mat, train, work out, cross hands with a fighter and if afterwards you still want to ban fighting then at least you can speak from a position of knowledge as opposed to ignorance.

The Modern Gym

I hate the modern gym.

Gyms should smell like sweat, metal, and bleach. Anything more and something is wrong.

Gyms should be composed of nothing more then a few benches, a few racks, a few bars, and a pile of weight. Add in some chin-up bars, boxes, and dip bars and you are 90% of the way there.

Walk into any gym and what do you see? Machines. Fixed motion, easy to use, low risk, useless crap. Wall to wall. Modern gyms smell like potpourri and new carpet. They advertise massage services, and holistic training approaches.

Bull-Shit.

You go to a gym to get stronger. You only need a mirror to check your squat form. You don't go to a gym to network, or watch TV. If you walk into a gym and your first thought is anything even close to "Oh, they have a juice bar" turn around and leave. Unless of course you don't really want to get stronger.

Modern gyms are factories, they keep people clueless and so day after day, week after week, month after month people go back to the gym because they feel they need the gym. They feel they need the four walls, the endless lines of machines, to "get fit".

Bull-Shit.

Why are modern gyms like this? It's simple. Money. Keep people paying those dues month after month.

Bull-Shit.

A gym is a place you go to get stronger. If you want to get fit, run. If you want to get strong then find a gym that smells of sweat, metal, and bleach. Especially the bleach. Bleach is good.

That gym, should you find it, will be anything but bullshit.

"As I've said for years, condoms are a hell of a lot cheaper then kids."

As I age my views shift, my beliefs solidify and I seem to be moving more towards the conservative side of the isle, not the Republican side, just conservative. I may have to write a post on it, but anyway.

I was arguing with a friend on Facebook, a masturbatory exercise I know but I couldn't help it. She was upset that she had been turned down for Medicaid, despite being pregnant, because she makes too much money.

Tough.

You make too much money, your husband can get insurance, sure it sucks but that's life. I'm not against people getting help when they needs it, but as I've always said condoms are a hell of a lot cheaper then kids. In fact any birth control up to and including a full hysterectomy is cheaper then a kid. If you do not have insurance, and if you do not have the financial means to raise a kid, do not get pregnant.

It was made even more frustrating because she knew she did not have insurance and got pregnant anyway. Just upsetting. I see far too much of this behavior, why the hell should I, and my taxes, pay for your bad decision? You chose to get pregnant, you should have to live with the consequences of that decision. Is it elitist of me? If I was poor would I have a different view of the situation? Maybe, I don't know, all I know is how I feel.

Family Dinner

I've been sitting on the link below for a long time, and I think it's finally time that I talk about it, and what I'm thinking about my family.

http://www.ncparkour.com/blog/275-mmx

The article itself has nothing to do with my family, in any sense of the word. Yet there is one line that stuck with me: "A family may not enjoy the presence of a particular member but he is still invited to the table for dinner at the end of the day."

I train with a lot of people, I have a Judo family, and there are members of that family I simply cannot stand, yet at the end of the day they are family, they have put in the sweat, the time, the energy, taken the falls, and been there offering me a hand up when I took my falls. I may dislike them as a person, but as a family member I'd stand shoulder to shoulder with them. I am able to distance them as a person, and their behavior from the simple fact that they are family.

I have a biological family, and in a way the biological family is, if anything, more prone to issues, more prone to fracturing yet there should be a stronger tie between the members. Yet I've found that work binds closer then any blood, any relation. I respect and love the people I sweat with, the people I fight with, next-to, and against more then most of the people I have a blood relationship to but at the end of the day they are still welcome at my table. I do not like my father, I love him, he is my father, but I do not like him. He and I have a very strained relationship, we play nice, and we get along for short periods but on most things we do not agree, however my father is welcome at my table. Any of my family, irregardless of whether I like them or not are welcome at my table. That, and that alone is family.

I just wish more of my family felt the same way.

Bad Denim

A friend posted the following link to Facebook.

America's Bad Jeans

In and of itself the article is an interesting read. The author, one George F. Will is a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. For those not willing to read the article Mr. Will's points boil down to Jeans are bad, Jeans were made for tough men not suburbanites. However, it is not his point that I take offense to but several comments made in the article. Let's go paragraph by paragraph.

"On any American street, or in any airport or mall, you see the same sad tableau: A 10-year-old boy is walking with his father, whose development was evidently arrested when he was that age, judging by his clothes. Father and son are dressed identically -- running shoes, T-shirts. And jeans, always jeans. If mother is there, she, too, is draped in denim."

Mr. Will states that this tableau is seen in malls or in airports. Neither of these places require a terribly formal dress. While I can agree if the person was going on a business trip the simple fact that a father and son, most likely headed on vacation, end up dressed the same is hardly cause for scorn.

"Writer Daniel Akst has noticed and has had a constructive conniption. He should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He has earned it by identifying an obnoxious misuse of freedom. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he has denounced denim, summoning Americans to soul-searching and repentance about the plague of that ubiquitous fabric, which is symptomatic of deep disorders in the national psyche."

According to Mr. Will a man should be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the countries highest civilian honor, just for denouncing denim. Let's put this in perspective. Mr. Akst deserves the same medal given to Mother Theresa, or Ronald Reagan simply for denouncing denim.

"It is, he says, a manifestation of "the modern trend toward undifferentiated dressing, in which we all strive to look equally shabby." Denim reflects "our most nostalgic and destructive agrarian longings -- the ones that prompted all those exurban McMansions now sliding off their manicured lawns and into foreclosure." Jeans come prewashed and acid-treated to make them look like what they are not -- authentic work clothes for horny-handed sons of toil and the soil. Denim on the bourgeoisie is, Akst says, the wardrobe equivalent of driving a Hummer to a Whole Foods store -- discordant."

exurban McMansions... what a phrase, though I doubt that denim has the slightest tie to foreclosure rates, or the rising unemployment. Nor do I feel that anyone would mistake the acid washed Sean Jean's of the young urban crowd to be even the palest representations of the dirt stained Levi's of a blue collar worker. Denim on the bourgeoisie is a matter of comfort, and function. Not a matter of trying to be what we, I, am not. I wear jeans, most middle class America wears jeans, why? They are cheap, and they last. Seems like good financial sense to me.

"Long ago, when James Dean and Marlon Brando wore it, denim was, Akst says, "a symbol of youthful defiance." Today, Silicon Valley billionaires are rebels without causes beyond poses, wearing jeans when introducing new products. Akst's summa contra denim is grand as far as it goes, but it only scratches the surface of this blight on Americans' surfaces. Denim is the infantile uniform of a nation in which entertainment frequently features childlike adults ("Seinfeld," "Two and a Half Men") and cartoons for adults ("King of the Hill"). Seventy-five percent of American "gamers" -- people who play video games -- are older than 18 and nevertheless are allowed to vote. In their undifferentiated dress, children and their childish parents become undifferentiated audiences for juvenilized movies (the six -- so far -- "Batman" adventures and "Indiana Jones and the Credit-Default Swaps," coming soon to a cineplex near you). Denim is the clerical vestment for the priesthood of all believers in democracy's catechism of leveling -- thou shalt not dress better than society's most slovenly. To do so would be to commit the sin of lookism -- of believing that appearance matters. That heresy leads to denying the universal appropriateness of everything, and then to the elitist assertion that there is good and bad taste."

The above, almost unapproachable wall of text screams out a desire to be hear oneself talk, or read oneself in print far more then it conveys a notion of righteous indignation. Yes, rockers and rebels wear denim, they also wear leopard print spandex, but I hope to god that doesn't catch on. Silicon Valley billionaires wear denim for the same reasons I wear denim. It's comfortable, it lasts, and as anyone who has ever worn a pair of jeans to tatters can attest, after a few hundred washings there is no softer material then well worn, well loved, denim. He goes on to equate wearing denim to being childish or infantile, a correlation that simply lacks merit. In truth this article is littered with unfounded accusations and statements that are not only baseless but at times insulting. Let me pluck a particular gem from the miasma above.

"Seventy-five percent of American "gamers" -- people who play video games -- are older than 18 and nevertheless are allowed to vote."

Why yes, gamers are allowed to vote, in fact all persons over the ago of 18 are allowed to vote. I see no point in mentioning the fact that this subset of people, those over the age of 18, are in part composed of those who play video games. We could just as easily have said X% of fast food workers, those who serve fast food, are over the age of 18 and nevertheless allowed to vote. Your point being? Let's look at another gem.

"In their undifferentiated dress, children and their childish parents become undifferentiated audiences for juvenilized movies"

Juvenalized moves? Again, an attempted correlation between dress and personal taste. By this reasoning if I were to wear a suit into Batman begins I would immediatly not enjoy the movie? Yet another...

"To do so would be to commit the sin of lookism -- of believing that appearance matters. That heresy leads to denying the universal appropriateness of everything, and then to the elitist assertion that there is good and bad taste."

Lookism? Yes appearance matters. But when does appearance matter? Does appearance at the movies, a dark and almost light-less venue, really matter? Does anyone care if I wear Dockers or Armani when the lights go down? No! A job interview? yes, dress to impress, but the mall? the movies? please.... Let us continue.

"Denim is the carefully calculated costume of people eager to communicate indifference to appearances. But the appearances that people choose to present in public are cues from which we make inferences about their maturity and respect for those to whom they are presenting themselves. "

His argument in this paragraph simply falls flat. There is again little to no correlation between denim and the wearers projected appearance. Take for example a clean, pressed dark pair of jeans, clean shoes, and a three button polo. Add a dark belt and a decent haircut and you have a very acceptably dressed individual. Now, can slovenly dress give a negative opinion, sure. But denim does not directly equate to slovenly, in fact I would argue that a wrinkled suit says far more then a clean pair of jeans.

"Do not blame Levi Strauss for the misuse of Levi's. When the Gold Rush began, Strauss moved to San Francisco planning to sell strong fabric for the 49ers' tents and wagon covers. Eventually, however, he made tough pants, reinforced by copper rivets, for the tough men who knelt on the muddy, stony banks of Northern California creeks, panning for gold. Today it is silly for Americans whose closest approximation of physical labor consists of loading their bags of clubs into golf carts to go around in public dressed for driving steers up the Chisholm Trail to the railhead in Abilene."

This paragraph lumps all Americans into golf bag slinging lay-abouts. What about those who still work blue collar? or white collar who have to actually get down on the production floor? Or out in the field? Or scientists who go out and do hands on field work? Are they not Americans? Do they not deserve the "right" to wear denim? Does one have to be a cattle herder to wear denim? What about the fact that most cattle is herded by four wheeler and most gold dug from the earth by machines. How does this factor into Mr. Will's argument?

"This is not complicated. For men, sartorial good taste can be reduced to one rule: If Fred Astaire would not have worn it, don't wear it. For women, substitute Grace Kelly."

Mr. Astaire lived a lifestyle far removed from suburban middle class America. he wore suits, tux's, jackets with coat tails and the like. His dress echoes both his station and the era in which he lived. He was well off, and dressed accordingly. However let's look at his modern day analogues. Actors, Actresses, Singers and the like all dressed in denim, designer denim, but denim none the less. For women, take my above paragraph and sub in Grace Kelly.

"Edmund Burke -- what he would have thought of the denimization of America can be inferred from his lament that the French Revolution assaulted "the decent drapery of life"; it is a straight line from the fall of the Bastille to the rise of denim -- said: "To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely." Ours would be much more so if supposed grown-ups would heed St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, and St. Barack's inaugural sermon to the Americans, by putting away childish things, starting with denim."

Who the hell is Edmund Burke? Let's ask Google. Again Mr. Will makes several baseless arguments the most damming is again calling denim childish without ever establishing this as fact. Mr. Will speaks of denim's childishness as if it were fact and not his limited opinion.

I guess at the end of the day it is simply the close minded conservatism that upsets me about this article. It is as if Mr. Will has taken the view that anything but his way is inherently wrong. He holds a view for American society that is simply, black and white, and devoid of denim. In Mr. Will's world the men all wear tails, the women wear evening gowns and if you don't then you are wrong, plain and simple. Mr. Will lives in a world so detached from the day to day reality of middle class America I can't help but question his ability, and the validity, of any opinion he posts in regards to middle class life.

But, to follow his form I too will admit to owning several pairs of jeans, in a variety of colors, from a dark blue to a lighter hue, to several pairs of tan jeans from L. L. Bean. I wear them to work, to the mall, on cross country flights, just about daily. I plan on continuing to do so, because as an American I am free to do whatever I want to with my jeans.

Musing on my Waistline

I've been overweight my entire life. I've always known how to loose weight, the mechanics of it, yet every time something just got in the way. Loosing weight is not complicated and it's certainly not rocket science. Loosing weight is as simply as making sure that you eat fewer calories then you use. I would be shocked if anyone did not know this.

Yet as I walk through the grocery store what do I find? Isles filled with weight loss aides, pills, bottles, shakes, any product under the sun to try and circumvent that simple mathematical truth. Calories in < Calories out = Weight loss.

I've tried to loose weight at least a dozen times. I've tried Weight Watchers, I've tried food replacement, I've tried a medically managed wight loss program and I'm tried to just "eat better". I'm still fat. I'm currently using FitDay and It's slowly working.

Let's look at our options shall we?

Weight Watchers: When I was on Weight Watchers I lost weight. However, once I was off weight watchers I gained it right back. Weight Watchers programs run off Points, these Points add a layer of abstraction on what should be a trivial subject. Points hide the fact that fiber and protein are good, carbs and sugars not so good. Weight Watchers doesn't really teach you to be cognizant of what your eating and why. However, Weight Watchers works for some people, a lot of people, just not me.

Weight Watchers makes that simple equation above more complicated then it needs to be.

Food Replacement/Medically Managed Weight loss: I'm going to keep this section brief as in a lot of ways it mirrors my concerns with Weight Watchers adding of course the huge cost of involving a doctor in anything. Food replacement is worse then Weight Watchers as it doesn't even give you the understanding of the protein/fiber good carbs/sugar bad that Weight Watchers gives you. Medically managed weight loss is a scam.

Just "eating better": this diet, also known as the "Watching what I'm eating" and "I'm exercising more" diet is the most common. It also simply does not work. Without a fundamental understanding of what is going in your mouth you can not eat better. It's just not possible. Eating five chicken nuggets instead of ten is a start but it's hardly going to turn you into the hard bodied god you so long to be.

So what do we do? What, in my opinion, works?

Simple, uncomplicated, calorie counting.

I first started to go down this route when The Missus was diagnosed with high blood pressure. She had to start watching her sodium. Everything I picked up off the store shelves had to be scrutinized, every label, every can, bag, parcel, Everything. It was not a quick process. We slowly adapted to a low sodium lifestyle. But something more important had occurred. I had begun looking, really looking, at what I was eating. What I saw bothered me. I did not think I was eating poorly, I was exercising, yet I was still slowly gaining weight.

So, I looked for help. What help I found was FitDay.com it's nothing fancy, and best of all it's free. All the site does is count calories. I was forced to look at what I was eating, impartially, as a column of numbers. If that column of numbers added up to a higher total then I was burning in a day I knew I was going to gain weight. if that column added up to less then what I burned I knew I was going to loose weight. It wasn't complicated, no points to track, just the simple uncomplicated mathematical truth of calories in calories out = weight loss.

Now, it doesn't have to be FitDay. The Missus is using a journal, simple pen and paper, and for her that works. I prefer the website. At the end of the day were both loosing weight, and as opposed to Weight Watchers, Medical programs, food replacement, and all the rest I know know what is going into my mouth. I'm looking for alternatives and day by day I'm loosing weight.

Aliveness, or Why I Keep Thinking About Guns

Aliveness, it's a strange term. It's even more difficult to explain in the context of Martial Arts. A art should be alive, it should be changing, evolving, and growing. However an art that grows, changes, and evolves may not subscribe to the principle of Aliveness.

matt Thornton of Straight Blast Gym (SBG/SBGi) is the godfather of this term, and has done much to bring it to the forefront. His own words can be found here.

So, what does this have to do with me? Simple. I began my martial training in earnest in Wing Chun. A system espousing deadly efficiency. As I spent more time in the club, and more time sparring I realized that when I fought (badly) I used very little of my training. So I began to look at what I was doing wrong. Around this time I was introduced to the concept of Aliveness. I was shown that in order to use something it had to be practiced and not just in forms. I was introduced to the three I's. Introduction, Isolate, Incorporate.

Take a subject dear to my heart, programming. I wish to learn a new language, I am Introduced to it. This introduction is most likely dead, as in there is no resistance. I read, I ponder but I do not do any coding.

Next I begin looking at same code, writing toy examples, playing around. I debug bits of code, deal with errors and push a little bit. I want to learn the control structures, so I work with just control structures. This is the Isolate stage. I'm writing code, I'm playing, but it's still on a toy scale.

Lastly is the Incorporate phase. In this phase I begin writing code. I begin internalizing the language, making comparisons with what I already know, making it "work" for me. At this point I know the language, or at least parts of it, and can build from there.

So, back to Martial Arts. Wing Chun was stuck in the Introduce and Isolate stages. A technique was shown, and drilled in a non-resisting fashion but it was never tested, it never because an intrinsic part of my game.

I then switched to BJJ, and in doing so found the way things "should" be done. A technique is shown, drilled with increasing resistance then I would attempt to use the technique in free sparring against a resisting opponent. I would fail, get feedback, adjust and try again. My current art, Judo, works the same way.

So, why guns?

Because in training Alive, in competing, and fighting it is eventually natural to realize that there are limits. There are situations that no matter how good I am, no matter how conditioned I am I simply will not be fast enough, strong enough, good enough. So, I look for tools to improve my chances. At first I looked at Kali, and thought that a blade would be the natural equalizer. However, even good Kali is mostly dead. There are few groups willing to train a weapon based art in an Alive manner simply because it hurts!

So why would I carry a blade if I'm not 100% sure that when I need it I will know how to use it? I wouldn't.

So I looked elsewhere. Time and time again I came back to IPSEC and firearms. IPSEC is a competition format where a shooter moves through a course with preset targets, both good targets, and "bad" targets. The shooter is scored based on speed and accuracy, with penalties for shooting the "bad" targets.

It is as close to an Alive weapon art that I have found and frankly, it just sounds like fun!

I don't plan on pursuing a pistol permit any time soon, but it keeps bouncing around the back of my mind and like an itch will one day have to be scratched.

Nothing Says Family Like 14 Kids

It's true!

A welfare mother, single, on food stamps and receiving disability money for some of her kids goes to a fertility doctor. She already has six kids. This doctor then decides to impregnate her with no fewer then eight more. They all take. She gives birth to eight premature babies. This runs up a million dollar hospital bill. Remember she has no job, no husband, and not no fewer then fourteen kids.

Now I'm torn. As a libertarian I don't feel the government should regulate the number of children a person can have. Yet, I can't help but feel upset as my tax dollars are going to support this woman.

I have to now ask myself who do we blame, if anyone, for this debacle. Can we deny this woman governmental aid? Can we deny her children aid for her follies? Can we strip the doctor of his license? At what point do we say that the individuals need to take responsibility for their own actions?

Let's look at the facts.
* This woman, has six children, I'm assuming to multiple fathers. She is unemployed and unmarried living at home.
* She then goes to a fertility doctor because she wants to have more children, the doctor either a) does not check and therefore does not know she has six other children, or b) knows and chooses not to care.
* All eight eggs take, she refuses to abort any of them.
* She gives birth on the taxpayer dime, a million dollar hospital bill.
* Even with modern medicine some of those eight premature babies will most likely require some sort of governmental assistance.

So, who is at fault and can we as a society punish them?

The woman clearly acted irrationally. Yet some people just like kids. yet I can not help but wonder what sort of life will her children now lead. It's expensive to feed fourteen.

The doctor was negligent in checking if she had other kids and/or reckless in impregnating her with eight eggs, and/or insane for giving a woman with no means to pay fertility drugs. Of everyone in this mess he should have known better.

The government is negligent to the point of criminal waste in supplying this woman with aid for the fourteen children she now has.

I am all for liberties, and making ones own choices, yet as a society we must act in the best interest in pruning those who are unable or unwilling to make intelligent choices. My only suggestion is take the kids, foster them out, deny the mother any and all aid, and promptly forcibly sterilize her because I guarantee she's not done.

Legislated Atheism

It sounds idiotic just reading it, doesn't it?

I had a debate with a friend of mine the other day. He's a good guy, we just don't agree on some things. We were discussing the inauguration as I'm sure were a lot of people. Yet what we disagreed on was not the President, the policies, the future by the Pastor.

Now, for those of you who did not watch the inauguration a Pastor spoke, evoking the usually symbols of God and Jesus while leading the assembled masses in prayer.

Now, when asked what religion I follow I usually answer Unitarian Universalist, though I don't necessarily approve of the way the faith as a whole behaves. But that's for another time. I also identify as Agnostic, sometimes Atheist, and generally disregard religion as a whole.

Now what my friend and I were arguing was whether or not it is appropriate to have prayer in our official ceremonies. My point was this: We live in a country with no official religion, a firm stance on the separation of church and state and yet we have a Christian prayer at our Inauguration. I went on further to argue that seeing as we have a wide array of faiths represented in the American public why not have a varied prayer, if a prayer at all? Why do we consistently evoke the same Christian imagery?

I see it as unofficially endorsing a Christian faith through the evocation of that faiths symbols and norms. I went on to say as we are unable to accurately represent every faith, why represent any at all? Why not just do away with prayer in official ceremonies?

His response was that to do that would be legislating atheism.

I honestly did not know what to say.

Atheism, is the lack of a belief in a deity. Legislating something like that would be so ridiculously unenforceable to be laughable. Not to mention my point was to remove prayer, not religion. I don't care if you believe in God. It simply does not matter to me. Yet why do I, as a person who does not believe in God, have to constantly encounter the symbols, and icons of religion? It seems to fly in the face of our constitutional mandate of a separation of church and state, but what do I know. I'm just legislating Atheism.

Shopping List....

I've always been fascinated by cars. I like the complexity, the parts, the bits. I always wanted to learn how to maintain, tune, rebuild a car from the frame up. However other pursuits and a general lack of tools, a car to work on, time, and a teacher all kept me from perusing a desire to learn. However, these past few months I resolved to begin learning and I have learned, I've done my brakes, front and back, my exhaust, oil changes, and a variety of other odds and ends. However, until very recently I still had no tools. So I asked for them for Christmas.

I got some of what I asked for.

I figured I would make do, that I would add to my collection as I found holes and would eventually have everything I would need. So, here's a rough list of things I want, or need, and why.

16mm Socket.



Why? Because the oil pan plug on both a '96 Honda Civic and a '99 Subaru is a 16mm bolt. What does my set NOT have? a 16mm Socket. It has a 15mm, it has a 17mm but no 16mm.

Floor Jack, Jack Stands and Creeper



Why? Because it's cold and I dislike laying on the dirty garage floor, and I dislike using the piddly tire change jack to do anything useful and I fear for my life when crawling under my vehicle if it isn't on jack stands. An alternative of course would be a set of ramps. Either would work.

Lastly, a shop light.



Why? Because it get's dark under a Civic. My garage has no lights, and it's usually dark by the time I get home.

That's more or less it right now. I know it's just a start but it's what I need right now. Everything else is a luxury and can wait. I guess I'm going shopping tomorrow!

I'm Never Having Kids. Ever

I've often said this, and at times have even wavered from this stance but I must admit that there is no finer birth control then dealing with a seven year old for a week. I do not ever want, nor will I ever want one of my own.

Some background is in order here.

Due to some family issues the Missus's parents do not feel comfortable leaving their youngest Denise with their next youngest, Kaylee, while both girls are on break. They were looking into daycare options and found them to be rater expensive, though how a family that makes over $200K annually deems something in the realm of $300 expensive is beyond me but anyway. My Missus volunteered to take Denise for the week. So she retrieved Denise, and $20, I figure for our trouble from her mother and now we have Denise for a week.

Now, I have nothing against Denise. She's loud, annoying, and attention starved but that's hardly her fault nor unique to her. I've been told most seven year old kids are loud. But it wouldn't be half as bad if she wasn't so attention starved. I know she's used to dealing with parents who are indifferent at best and an older sister who is even more attention starved and makes sure she gets all the attention she can, usually by negative and destructive means. Anyway, it's just so frustrating. Denise would have probably been a great kid accept her parents are turning her into an attention starved materialistic thing and they just don't see it, or don't care.

Just frustrating. I'm just not having kids and then I won't have to worry about it! No noise, no parenting, nada. Seems like a good deal in my mind.

Martial Decisions

I've tried writing this post a few times and it never seems to come out well. This is a sentiment, a topic, that has come to me based on a few bad decisions and years of being dissatisfied and not knowing why.

I always wanted to be a martial artist. I always knew I was not an athlete. I've always been heavy, I've always been a little slow on my feet, and I've had bad joints for as long as I can remember.

I always believed that an athlete was not a martial artist, that there was somehow this divide between the two. I's seen it referred to as the Ring v. Street debate and in a large way that was the issue in my mind. I was unwilling to believe that what I was practicing, the martial art I was practicing, was less martial and more art, then I would like to believe. I refused to make the correlation between physical conditioning and hard sparring and martial applicability. I was stuck in a street mentality. I did not have to spar, did not have to compete because my art did not have rules, I refused to limit myself to what could be used in a ring and therefore my art was better, in spite of the lack of sparring and conditioning.

Then something shifted, I began to really think about what I was practicing, I began to really think about my training and most importantly I began to try and use my training and I kept coming back to one conclusion. What I was doing simply did not work. I wanted to be a fighter, and in order to be a fighter I had to stop thinking like a martial artists and start thinking like an athlete.

So the pendulum swung the other way. I enrolled first in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu then in Judo. I began to look to compete, I began to run and lift weights outside of class to improve my performance in class. I stopped thinking of myself as a martial artist and began to think of myself as an athlete.

However I have found out one interesting truth. It's a truth that should have been self evident and it was brought to light by a comment the Missus made. Her younger sister began to take Aikido, an art that I have little respect for for many reasons none of which are important at this time. She said that I "talked crap about any art I didn't practice" and this made me pause. She is partially right and it was something that I had partially realized years earlier but had not internalized. That truth is this: Not everyone is me. It seems crazy but it was really a tough pill to swallow. I look at Aikido, most Kung Fu, most Karate, most Tae Kwon Do and I see arts that are a waste. I see people training in styles that have no sparring, no conditioning and minimal applicability to a combative situation. When I first made the transition from a martial art to a combat sport I thought it was the most logical of transitions and wondered why everyone didn't have the same epiphany I had just had. Then once the Missus made her comment it clicked. Everyone isn't me. Most people don't want to sweat, want to fall, want to get hurt, want to get hit and thrown and bruised and come back for more. Most people don't wake up in the middle of the night thinking about competing. It's a sad truth, but it's the truth. So now when I hear about the Missus sister's Aikido I simply smile and remind myself that I have years to show her the error of her ways when she's just a little bit older.

Until then I'm going to keep competing and training and hoping that all the people I see streaming out of the Karate dojos never need to use what they feel they are learning.

Black Friday

I sat on this topic for awhile mainly because I couldn't think of anything I truly wanted to say about it and like most tragedies everyone has a "fix" and if they were there, had they been in charge, or more likely, had those in charge done a, b, or c the tragedy would not have happened.

Bullshit.

I finally decided what I had to say about the death in Long Island this past Friday and what I have to say has absolutely nothing to do with the death. That has been covered a million times over and beat to death. if you want an armchair general's take on the situation just do a Google search, they are not hard to find. yet to a man, woman, child, blogger, writer, all the opinions in the world don't do a bit of good. A man is dead, and it's not his fault, nor is it the fault of Wal-Mart for not providing adequate security it's the fault of America. Shoppers tore the doors from their hinges and rushed the store for what? Electronics gadgets? Trinkets? Stuff? Bullshit.

We teach our children from the moment of birth that stuff matters. I have friends who can't pay their bills, but they have Sirius radio. I have seen college students so far in debt they can't see the sun yet they still go shopping every weekend. Stuff does not matter. He who dies with the most toys, is still dead.

When will we as a culture realize what we are doing? Were teaching our children it's alright to trample a man to death and keep on shopping. When will we start to teach our kids that they don't need all their possessions? When will reduce apply not only to our consumption but our materialism?

I've never been poor. I've had times when money has been tight, when I've had to say no to things, make choices, and occasionally do without. But at no point have I ever been seriously poor. I'm lucky, I come from a middle class household with educated parents are the assumption that I would go to college. Yet I differ from a lot of the people around me in one simple, fundamental way. I don't want stuff. I can count of one hand the things I truly NEED. If we were to truly be that granular I could even list my bare minimum possessions, and I would be surprised if the list exceeded thirty items.

I might just do that.

Anyway, materialism is ruining our society, and the only way to stop it is to make a conscious decision to say no. Don't get up at 4am to shop, don't camp out the night before and when your kid asks for the hot new "it" toy. Tell them no, or better yet, ask them to trade one for one. They want a new toy, then have them give up an old toy, an old game. Keep things in check. helps with clutter too.

In this case a man would still be alive if a group of people had just stopped and thought for a second. No one offered a hand, nobody stopped to help him to his feet. Were all to blame for this, and if there is a God, and for Jdimytai Damour's sake there is, every shopper in that place deserves to relive his last moments, from his perspective, for all eternity.

Reaffirming My Hatred of My Fellow Man

My bike was stolen over the Thanksgiving holiday.

It makes me wonder that whenever I start to like people, whenever I start to believe that all man kind is in fact not made up of cheap bastards something like this happens and reminds me why I really should hate people first and ask questions later.

Well, wherever the bike is, and whoever stole it I hope it brings you joy, and if I ever find you I will kill you. It will not be quick, it will not be pretty and I will enjoy every minute.

My Uncle May Go to Jail....

My uncle Glen may end up in jail for possession of marijuana. Now I usually am against laws that criminalize victimless crimes. Drug possession, without the intent to sell, is as far as I'm concerned a victimless crime. So why do my views differ for this instance?

Because, Glen refuses to stay under the radar. I've spent most of my life trying to stay off the radar, I don't break the law, play loud music, harass cops, and have never been in court with the exception of a college criminal justice course. In fact one of the only things that makes me pause when considering applying for a pistol and/or concealed carry permit is that I would be on file. Just bothers me I could be tracked. As far as I know it's not so much paranoia as a healthy dose of suspicion.

How does this all relate to Glen? If you refuse to play the game the system will find a way to bring you black in line. He has flaunted the system for years, he has upset practically everyone in the family at one point or another, he is a very visible persona. Now, on their own none of this is a bad thing but when you give a very visible persona the ability to concealed carry, and a marijuana card that's just asking for trouble. Legally he can have marijuana, it's for pain control from a bad fracture sustained from a down hill skiing accident. But if your going to have a privilege like that why would you make a point of it? Keep it under wraps, grow your plants, but make sure your shit is air tight. No slip ups, no screw ups, no half measures. He screwed up and the cops knew him by first name and were more then willing to make a point of making his life miserable.

I wish him the best, he is still family, but at the end of the day I hope he cools his heels for a few years and calms down. Oh well, I guess we can all hope.

Sponge Candy is Crack Rock

That's right, sponge candy is to me what crack rock would be if I did drugs. I can not resist the little chocolate covered squares. So good, so sweet, they sit there eroding my will power, destroying my focus and making me lust for more!

I love the holidays!

Why I Love Automated Testing

I love automated testing. I love Extreme Programming(XP) and I love agile programming and the agile methodologies. So why does it seem like every company I work for does not share my love?

The reason is simple. XP is hard. As an organization you have to trust your developers and your developers have to adhere to a rigid and unrelenting standard of repeated testing and quality controls at every level of the software process. In an agile environment customers are directly involved in decisions about the software despite their usual lack of technical knowledge. This poses it's own set of problems as customers need to be kept informed, and need to make good decisions but they also need to be held accountable for their decisions and made aware of the ramifications of their decisions in terms of coding effort and cost. That above all else is the core of agile programming, accountability, and nobody likes to be held accountable. But god I love XP. It's just better, it's a better way to write software, it's a better way to run a software team and at the end of the day it's just better.

Oh well, I'm slowly converting followers, one step at a time.

Prop. 8

Is ridiculous.

I don't think there needs to be much more said on the issue so I won't spend more time addressing the proposition itself and instead I'll discuss a few of the comments I heard and read about Proposition 8.

"Were a Democracy and the majority has spoken"

The "Majority" spoke by 52.2% to 47.8% that's a difference of 4.4%, to put that in perspective of the roughly 12,000 votes cast the "majority" was a majority by roughly 500 votes. Why is this important? The majority spoke, therefore the majority voice should carry right? Well, if the majority voice is all that matters then this country is in for some dark times. Some of our best decisions have been against the incumbent majority! Desegregation comes to mind as a prime example.

I found this.... gem... on Syracuse.com, granted a site whose comment section often descends into the stinking cesspool of the lowest common denominator. But I digress. The comment below was in response to an article asking for the opinion of Syracusains on the passing of Proposition 8. The article was written by Maureen Sieh.

"Maureen;

Congrats on another attention grabber with little actual significance. It strikes me as a bit oblique to ask folks in NY what they think of the actions of voters in California. Why didn't you write a guest editorial in the LA Times and ask the folks in California? But where are my manners, that would make sense.

The sacrament of marriage was codified by the church as a way to legitimize the intergenrational transfer of wealth to heirs. This is where the words legitimate and inheritance spring from.

As gays cannot of their own actions reproduce, referring to their living arrangement a "marriage" is patently absurd. Furthermore as the inheiritance laws have been liberalized to where anybody can leave $$$ to anyone they designate, the entire concept of "gay marriage" has no meaning.

As they comprise by some estimates perhaps 5% of the population, granting homosexuals the same social recognition as a true marriage between a man and a woman simply aids in the illusion that their abberant behavior is somehow normal.

IT AIN'T NORMAL!

Think about this, if the human race was comprised of just homosexuals, it would have died out already. Man + Man = no baby. Woman + woman = no baby. Man + woman = baby.

It's a fairly simple equation Maureen.

Or as Tommy Smothers once said; "If your parents never had any children, chances are you won't either".

I honestly don't know who I feel sorrier for. You with your inane questions, or the paper that blissfully pays your salary."

Let's look at the comment piece by piece.

"Congrats on another attention grabber with little actual significance. It strikes me as a bit oblique to ask folks in NY what they think of the actions of voters in California. Why didn't you write a guest editorial in the LA Times and ask the folks in California? But where are my manners, that would make sense."

The poster begins by berating the author of the article, he, I assume it's a he, feels that the author has no call in asking New Yorkers their opinion on a proposition that occurs on the other side of the nation. This strikes me as simply ridiculous. I do not need to live in a poor community to know we have need for social welfare programs, I do not need to live in a manufacturing town that is watching the manufacturing all pack up for cheaper berths overseas to know we need to stop outsourcing. I do not need to loose my job to know we need unemployment insurance. So why should I need to live in California to know how I feel and how we should handle Proposition 8?

"The sacrament of marriage was codified by the church as a way to legitimize the intergenrational transfer of wealth to heirs. This is where the words legitimate and inheritance spring from."

Legitimate, coming from the Latin legitimus legitimate, from leg-, lex law. Not marriage, law. While the common use may be in regards to a child born in wedlock, or having full filial rights and obligations by birth the original meaning had more to do with an act in accordance with the law rather then with any idea or marriage.

Inheritance, coming to us from the 14th century and meaning to inherit property. Inherit, coming to us again from the Latin, meaning to receive from an ancestor as a right or title descendible by law at the ancestor's death. Again, no mention of marriage.

Now, let's look at marriage from a Sociological context. In social grouping theory a diad, or two person grouping, is the least stable. Yet monogamous pairings are inherently diads. So, knowing that this grouping is inherently unstable we as a society have tried our best to shore up this inherently weak arrangement. Marriage, the vows, the ceremony etc. is nothing more then a way to bring as many people into the relationship as possible as a support network for an inherently unstable pairing! The act of marriage has no Sociological context for property or reproduction. It is simply a way to help a couple build a support network in the community.

Back to the comment....

"As gays cannot of their own actions reproduce, referring to their living arrangement a "marriage" is patently absurd. Furthermore as the inheiritance laws have been liberalized to where anybody can leave $$$ to anyone they designate, the entire concept of "gay marriage" has no meaning."

Marriage as a living arrangement is only patently absurd if you assume that the only purpose of marriage is to have children. Given the legal ramifications of marriage in many cases having children is not even a thought. Insurance will cover your spouse, not your significant other. Your spouse can make medical decisions for you in the event your incapacitated without a designated health care proxy, your significant other can't. This is just the tip of the iceberg. In this day marriage is a legal institution, religion hardly has a place in marriage anymore. The posters comment on inheritance also makes little to no sense. Inheritance can be designated to any recipient, yet this can be challenged by family unless your beneficiary is your spouse! Legal ties of marriage are incredibly powerful in this society and reproduction, or the ability to reproduce has absolutely nothing to do with it.

"As they comprise by some estimates perhaps 5% of the population, granting homosexuals the same social recognition as a true marriage between a man and a woman simply aids in the illusion that their abberant behavior is somehow normal."

How can behavior that is exhibited in all mammals be aberrant? How does allowing two people, irregardless of gender, the ability to legally marry somehow effect their behavior? This segment is simply a logical fallacy. It just doesn't make sense.

"IT AIN'T NORMAL!"

But, it is. Homosexual behavior has been documented in all mammalian species. If everybody does it, how is it abnormal?

"Think about this, if the human race was comprised of just homosexuals, it would have died out already. Man + Man = no baby. Woman + woman = no baby. Man + woman = baby."

This is true, homosexuals by themselves are unable to reproduce. However, marriage is not about reproduction. Marriage is a legally binding contract with far reaching implications in our modern society. Not allowing two people to marry based simply on their inability to reproduce is ridiculous.

"It's a fairly simple equation Maureen."

Only if we assume your fallacious arguments above are in fact true.

"Or as Tommy Smothers once said; "If your parents never had any children, chances are you won't either"...."

Tommy Smothers also said: "There's nothing more scary than watching ignorance in action."

Article, and comments can be found here.

Thoughts on the 2nd Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is the 2nd amendment as passed by the House and the Senate. Given the current political climate I've been reading a lot of debate about the place of the second amendment, is it still valid in a modern context? What did the founding fathers truly intend when they drafted the second? What rights does the second guarantee an individual citizen? Etc.

Now, it seems to me that there are two very distinct interpretations of the second amendment.

1) The second let's citizens of the United States keep and bear arms, period. This is an absolute right and should not be infringed.

2) The second let's citizens of the United States keep and bear arms, as part of a militia, and as we no longer require a militia the second is no longer an absolute right and therefore can be regulated by acts of Congress and by local law.

These views hinge on whether you view the first part of the amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." or the second part "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." as gospel.

Let's look at the first view point. people in this camp feel that the second line in the amendment is most important. They feel that the right to bear arms should not be regulated, in other words any "Arms" they want they should be able to purchase, keep, carry, etc.

Persons ascribing to the second view point look at the right to bear arms as anything from antiquated to dangerous to a nuisance. often this camp feels that strong gun control is the only way to curtail gun violence and that there are certain classes of weapons that no citizen should own.

I find myself stuck in the middle. I strongly believe that gun control does no good, and the only way to control violence is with violence. I firmly believe that if students could have carried concealed then the school shootings of recent years would be mere footnotes in the paper as opposed to national tragedies. Yet I can see little to no need for a citizen to carry a fully automatic weapon. Yet I also see no need to regulate single shot, or even semi-automatic firearms be they pistols or rifles. I could even see a rigorous screening process enabling a citizen to purchase fully automatic weapons, I just see little need.

So, I find myself torn. I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an important one and one that should be carefully preserved. I feel that gun control is ridiculous with a proven track record of failure. Yet I find that voicing these same opinions is unpopular at best. I guess all I can say at this time is I'm going to keep watching and hope that the politicians realize the same truths that seem so plain to me.

On Gnomes

I lost my rings the other day. My class ring and my promise ring. It was my own dumb fault I took them off in the bathroom at RIT and forgot them sitting on the sink.

Hours later when I realized I didn't have them they, of course, were gone. I ran to the Cage, the office in the Gordon Field House at RIT and they told me that they had not only been turned in to the office, but the office had turned them over to Public Safety for safe keeping. So off I went to Public Safety who had no record of any rings being turned over to them. Zip. Nada. Zero.

Suffice to say I was getting worried. So, I kept at it I made phone calls I talked to Public Safety a half dozen times over four days, I called the Cage, I spoke to the supervisor of the Cage, he talked to all the student managers and nobody knew anything.

Suddenly out of the blue they reappeared at the Cage. They had in fact not been turned over and had been sitting in the lost jewelry bin for days.

I got a phone call and they were returned to me.

How do Gnomes fit into this you ask? It's quite simple.

Everything we see is painted in frames. One frame at a time, by Gnomes. Small hairy Gnomes, with hats and jackets. Now, these Gnomes are not perfect and sometimes they forget things. Every notice how once you buy a replacement thing the old thing shows up? Well, it's not because you lost the old thing it's because the Gnomes forgot to paint in the old thing and when you went and got a new thing they remembered the old thing and then had to "paint it back in" this happens quite frequently. So, when my rings did not turn up the Gnomes had to paint them back in, yet they couldn't just paint them back somewhere out in the open, it had to make sense. So, they painted them back into the lost jewelry box so nobody would suspect they forgot. They keep their job this way.

So remember, when something goes missing... Blame the Gnomes!