Education, Shmeducation

So I just keep doing this thinking thing, and it makes me want to keep on doing this posting thing...

Today (or maybe yesterday), I was doing it and I came across the problem of the teacher student relationship, when I was talking to my neighbor, who happened to be my 6th grade art teacher (she moved in a few years after that). The aloof and entirely inhuman relationship between teacher and student in contemporary America may be a large contributor to the mass disrespect of knowledge and education among the youth. I have a normal relationship as I would with any other neighbor with this woman, but thats what got me thinking, it didn't seem to be like that when I was a student. This is partialy becasue as a teacher, and also the person responsible for the children during the time alotted, one needs to maintain a certain amount of order in a classroom so that it doesn't get out of hand. To me though, if a love of education is naturally presented as one of the more honorable human pursuits to children, and the teachers can be more humane throughout the educational process, allowing freedom of choice to the children, and presenting mature ideas to them, all while promoting their own intellectual independence, and never teaching anything as truths, keeping things 'in hand' wouldn't be an issue; we all work on the same general brain chemistry, thats what makes us human, so if we can all be presented with these easy thoughts and opportunities, then this may be possible. I think now my mind strays to the young human minds want to cling to something as truth or reality so that in its perceptions of whatever this reality we all seem to see is it doesn't go insane and die - could this be a result of evolution, our mind keeping us from going insane - or is this not even an issue? Do we only kcling to certain meanings as children because that is what our society dictates to us? Is the young human mind able to understand and handle the concept of philisophical ambiguity of truth and reality?

Pick it apart, do what you want with it, stream of consciousness usually doesn't work out to well for me, but I keep tryin anyway...

J this is a topic I'm sure you're well versed in, lets hear it....

Remembrance of Posts Past

I was just thinking about the post I made a few days ago about being what oneself feels is an ideal and good human or being what will lead to the bettering of humans as a whole even if that compromises your morals and contradicts how you want those people to act if they were to listen to you when I saw that commercial about the ballet kid and the dad that was bored; these two questions are intertwined, if not, they are the same question, one simply being a physical example of the problem I've tried to describe. The strange thing is that I seemed to get more diverse and less precise answers to the latter of the posts because it was a more general statement - I got more of a 'you need to be both' vibe for the more recent post, but it really comes back to the same question, and I think that in things like these you can laugh with yourself if you know that you yourself are confident in why it is funny to you - in the end I don't really think the lack of appreciation for what his daughter chose to do with her time is acceptable or funny, except if the parents forced the child into it, but that is an unfair assumption, so I didn't think it was funny in the end in case anyone was wondering.

Before I dive back into this subject I just wanted to mentin Cal Ripken Jr.'s Hall of Fame induction speech where he took his time to thank the "mothers and policemen', etc, for making the world a better place - this rubbed me the wrong way; I don't like when people who do nothing different or don't change anything get credit for making the world better (is this possible?). Mothers are called mothers - and the idea of a housewife unfortunately pops into my head as I'm sure it does with so many other media-brainwashed people - because they are of a certain archetype and adhere to that, therefore changing nothing and making no difference in the world. The same goes for police, they help other people accept other peoples morals and laws, or else. Cal, stick to baseball - oh, you're retired, huh? - then shut up and stop making all the people who listen to what you have to say even more of idiots then they already are.

Anyway. The first thought I had reminded me of something else I was thinking of before that I think deserves a post. I was thinking about how drinking (alchohol) is such a cultural staple - it becomes all people think, talk about, and do (it seems to be that a beer and a woman are interchangable it an adolescents mind) - and how it becomes such a narsicisstic activity - people do it because they want to chill out if they've had a bad day or whatever, they drink for themselves, not others - but is still seen as a social activity. Somewhere in that possibly nonsensical thought process the thought came to me that it connected with acting for the peole and acting for oneself (acting as you see fit for a person to act vs. acting towards the masses to be as you see fit for a person to act even if it causes contradictions with your very same morals). It ended up that I've added another reason why the consumption of alchohol by humans is wrong to me; it promotes the validity of the "group intelligence", sort of like Americans who think that cops make the world a better place because they push one set of morals and MAKE them right (or else), drinking is another social activity that puts the opinion of our culture (which ends up being the companies who want you to buy their alchohol) as the correct thing to think, so that what others say becomes what is right - therefore it is further burying the concepts of intellectual individuality, e.g. it is excellent to get drunk with other people (if others say it's right, it's right), but it's wrong to get drunk by oneself, it makes you anti-social and un-respected (if you want to go off by yourself, or think for yourself, or act for yourself, it is wrong) - BUT it is still an activity for the self, despite the seeming sociality of the situations; people seem to be having fun, but they are drinking and joking on safe terms, safe gay-bashing jokes, and safe fun games like beer pong; these people have their own thoughts, but they are afraid to share them. All of them. It's a disaster created by the group social mentality of our culture and capitalism as a whole, which breeds companies who create advertisements of a hyper social reality. These people drink for their own feeling of sociality because these advertisements tell them that that is what sociality is. So my conclusion is that drinking has yet another mark on it's record, it is yet another thing barring the youth from thinking for themselves.

For Francis...

Hmph, this is quite an endeavor; what does Jasper think of the Tour De France? I think that cycling is a a legitimate athletic activity and that the way in which they are trying to milk the most respected of events in this sport for cash. It may be a stretch, but it seems as if they are using things like hitting dogs or steroid scandals for publicity since Lance left. But the state of of the sport is pathetic - I hate to say it, but I think Jim Rome was right when he said that it needs to take time off then come back in a few years whe maybe we've forgotten.

Now, inevitably, the conversation of th Tour leads into the conversation of doping in sports in general, and as you can imagine, I am entirely against it. If an athlete is meant to push the physical limits of the human body he is doing something that is literally not human by taking steroids and therefore is no longer an athlete, but an all out moron. My response to doping is probably predictable, but in certain scenarios it takes on different roles. In baseball with Barry Bonds, I could care less, all the power to him; with baseball being of a contrived nature, as opposed to running, with rules and regulations that happened to permit the use of the steroids which Bonds, McGwire, and others were accused of using then it is the unfortunate blunder of proffesional baseball. They are presented with two options that will actually resolve the situation - one, accept that Hank Aarron, as well as many others COULD have taken these steroids and hit 850, but they didn't think of it, it wasn't cheating yet, and unfortunatly that sort of morality that Aaron may have had was not appropriate for a game that did not call for it (whereas a runner has always had and always will have a place for that morality because the rules of running are simple, be a human and move your legs quickly) - or two, ban any use of steroids and apply the rule in retrospect as well, removing the records of Bonds and McGwire, and eliminating the significance of the steroid age, and admitting their folly in not banning the substances earlier, when they damn well should've been banned; in this case, the League is being stupid, no two ways about it, the steroid age is a construct of the officials who are too lazy to shake it up and actually end it once and for all. But in other situations it is much more of a grim story, as in professional wrestling. Chris Benoit was just one of the average four steroid related deaths per year for proffesional wrestlers, not to mention how ever many people they take with them. Here I must obviously take a much firmer stance on these people being absolute fuck-heads - combat sports are meant for an intelligent audience, one that can comprehend the concept of the strongest man and strongest will winning in a battle of flesh and muscle, not for people who want to see others injured, this only leads to (surprise!) a further lack of respect for humanity, especially when the suicide of one of it's stars and his killing of his own wife and child are accompanied by glorified images of his obviously steroid pumped physique. This makes me sick that so many people are so deeply involved and entertained by one of the worst showings that people on this planet are capable of. Moronic, violent with no reason, it screams destruction of these childrens minds. It scares me to think of the crowds of people who would probably kill me if I were to try and convince them of their own ignorance, or even if I got one to listen how adamantly they would deny what I had to say. To think of how brainwashed the majority of our country is is terrifying. The most popular sport in the world isn't even a physical activity, it consists of watching machines going around in circles hundreds of times in different cities - machines that intelligent and reasonable people like myself (ones with considerably higher IQ and technical ability) invented and perfected. Ignorance sucks, let's stop it...


I forgot to add this in the original post, but now here it is...

The discussion after steroids must turn to technology in sport in modern times. Like aluminum bats in baseball, although they managed to ban those, many other things are coming between sports and actual human athletic ability. Shoes in running, isticky gloves in football, etc, but the one with which I have the closest experience and possibly the most problem is the high-tech bathing suits used by swimmers today. Speedo - who, it turns out, doesn't just make the little suits referred to as "speedos" - has just released a new racing suit that was described to me as feeling like it lifts your legs out of the water. I'm sure you can guess what I have to say about this; Swimming is one of those sports which are inherent to the human being - like running or jumping or fighting - and should not be swayed or changed, as it is the most base form of human athleticism of its type (as opposed to water polo, for example). But instead of considering that it is a human activity, and that humans are in fact not any part nylon (or whatever the suits are made of) and that including such things in this kind of athletic display is in fact inhuman; it soon comes to the realm of a spectator sport like football - people watch because they want to see things of a different reality (a hyper-reality perhaps?) in which humans can achieve feets impassoble to the actual human, feets that require steroid-enhanced muscles, sticky gloves, 1/4 inch cleets, and 4 inch thick pads so that they become inhumanly durable as well. I love to watch football, and there is no doubt that there are amazing athletes on the field, but like I said in one of the first posts, it isn't worthy of the praise that the core sports are worthy of, these sports, and swimming is quickly becoming one of them (especially so since the coming of Michael Phelps), are principally commercial displays for entertainment, the athletic ability takes a back seat to the viewers inability to accept the limitations of the human body and the reality in which they live.

Archie probably doesn't care anymore

I gather here tonight in my efforts to get people thinking in intelligent ways again, as was the purpose of this blog; unfortunatly, though, the people who do read this blog, or at least the ones who take their time to participate in my blog and post, are not the people I am worried about, they are what I'd want other people to be like - so first of all whoever posts I thank you for participating in my blog and being a part of my life, and furthermore giving me a tiny shred of hope that people can be open minded and intelligent.

Now to the point; I have another thought sparker, or so I hope. I want to satisfy, or at least consider in an intelligent manner in a place where my argument and thought can be criticized by knowledgable friends, something that has been bugging me for a while. This problem is that of the New Orleans Saints and their sucess story last season being a huge inspiration for all faithful New Orleans inhabitants - Warner you'll probably be able to help with the political and economic issues because I don't know that much about that and my mindset is not often in consideration of those things, I'll just look at humanity and morality. My first reaction to the whole thing was that it's bullshit, but I didn't really have a reason, I just didn't like it. Now that football is rolling around the thought came to my mind again and a few reasons for believing that it's still crap came to me. The main thing is simply the concept of football "inspiring" life; how can something so contrived inspire people to live one - they were essentially facing life vs. death in that they could 'keep going' and rebuild, or not rebuild and starve and freeze to death, this is something that life itself inspires us to stay away from, we don't need to see that some people who once sucked at playing a game got really good so that we should keep living, our bodies tell us that, they may not have understood this themselves because they were caught up in being told that it's inspirational instead of thinking for themselves (an ongoing theme in my posts?) , but they just needed to get over themselves. My other tought was less human, and more for people who argue on a much less intelligent level, but seems none-the-less valid to bring up; all of those people who spent a gross of who knows how many millions on tickets and the city (or state?) spending however much on rebuilding the Superdome collectively could've rebuilt thousands of homes and donated millions to animal rescue and hospital charoties in order to actually help the city of New Orleans on its feet again, instead of spending it on something that was said to be "inspirational" to the citizens, who we've already established could only need inspiration towards one thing, which is to keep living, and that inspiration is an inherent quality of life - and, I hope I wouldn't hear such an argument, if someone was to say that it was for distraction from all that has happened, all that has happened could've been largely mended by all of the money wasted in the football team, if our government had any sense it would've banned the team from the city until it was sufficiently rebuilt to the point where it had hundreds of millions of dollars to waste on an entertainment sports stadium. I mean who could've had that much of a stake in the Saints before the 2006-07 season?

I was just thinkin' I shoulda thought

Today I had a thought. It was one of those thoughts that I was sorta embarassed to not have had much earlier. I thought how I was so involved in criticizing the world that I live in and the way in which people operate within it, but still seek to be somewhat objective and not dogmatic in how I deal with those people, and in thinking in these ways, I've neglected to even think of how I'd actually act in the ideal world which I would like to see. It may be that I don't have a real vision of a perfect world, it may be that I don't strive toward anything in particular, I just try to see what is not working for the human community and analyze how life can be changed and improved upon. The question has also come up in my mind about whether it is appropriate to act in a way that you see fit in an ideal time and place for human beings, or whether it is better to be more concerned with fixing the problems at hand. My vision of an ideal world may be a time where people can all act in the way that they see fit for human beings to act and still cooperate, so in that case all I can do is act as I see fit, rather than devoting my attention to solving problems outside of myself, and influence people as they come into my life and share with them my vision. Peanut gallery, speak...

A sad(der) day for Falcons fans...

Not only do the Falcons have the worst human ever to put on a football uniform - so far as the public knows - who is also their starting quarterback that may well never play on their team again, leaving them with Joey Harrington, but also on their roster is first string running back Warrick Dunn, the most charitable player in the league, who just had back surgery wednsday and will be out for 3-4 weeks. Goodbye Falcons 2007-08 season. Well I still got the Niners and the Jets. No, not the Giants. Not 'til Eli and Coughlin are long gone. In short there's only one thing to look forward too. AFC Championship game, Colts Pats. Soon to be known as a classic football rivalry, and is probably the most entertaining and well played all around football I've seen played in my football watching lifetime.

Eurydice

I'm just back from seeing Eurydice, a contemporary adaptation of the Greek myth of Orpheus and Eurydice, which moves it's focus from Orpheus' struggle, to Eurydice's experience in the 'underworld'; it was written by Sarah Ruhl, and directed by Les Waters. Now I haven't had much time to think it all over, so there won't be a well written and coherent analysis of the play, I'm just gonna write what I'm thinking about it as it comes to me. First off, I very much recommend that you go and see this play, it's beautifully done; the acting is wonderful, Orpheus and Euridice have a sort of strange and akward chemistry rarely encountered in a love story, and the Chorus is a riot. The first thing that struck me in the structure of the play is the difference in Orpheus and Eurydice's natures; Orpheus is a distracted artist with his mind always on music and song, Eurydice, it is made apparent, loves books and reading, but to Orpheus it seems that she's fallen into the trap of not thinking for herself and letting her books think for her. So at the beggining of the play I am led to think about the differences in philisophical validity of educating oneself, but possibly to a fault where one cannot think for oneself - something I am obviously very opposed to in todays culture - and living and thinking in such a lofty manor as Orpheus does and in no way considering other opinions or sides of thought, which in ways is inhibiting to the mind, because one may not reach the full potential of his own mind if he cannot consider things from different ways of thought than his own. Once the first scene ended, I sort of lost that thoughtful vibe, and the emotional aspect of the performace kicked in. The play was visually and emotionally enthralling, and the casting was just perfect. In the end, whereas I thought that the play may hav been more surrounded with the ideas I mentioned before, it seems that the biggest question was that of consciousness. Eurydice, in this adaptation, chooses to take Orpheus' attention in order to go back to see her father, who both - her and her father - decide to free themselves of their own memories and consciousness by dipping themselves in the lake of the underworld - which wipes the memoris of the dead. In essence, they choose to part from their consiousness - not an advocate for suicide, they were already dead, but more an advocate for the necessity for the acceptance of our own mortality and the ways in which it is what we ultimately want. The play also deals with the difficulty of the first issues I mentioned and how people who think as people and conscious beings can get along and accept what life is and where it takes them and their minds. Those are just my initial thoughts, just writting down what I think, but I figured I'd get it out there tonight while it was fresh in my mind.

Sportsnation makes me want to cry

If any of you watch ESPN First Take, you probably saw this thismorning the "Sportsnation" Poll - an online poll they have every day. The question was asking which incident was more distubing for sports fans - the word they used WAS disturbing - Michael Vick fighting dogs or Tim Donaghy being invoved in the whole gambling thing. People answered almost unanimously, with the exception of two states, that the Donaghy situation was worse. I am really speachless, like I don't know what to say. And don't anyone try to tell me that it was asking what was more disruptive to the actual sport, the question was which was more disturbing to sports fans, who are people, being a fan doesn't give people an excuse to be immoral and ignorant. This is appaling and truly a horrible and sad day in American, and human history.

We all stupid, dumb ditty dumb?

As a sports related thing I'm doing here I suppose this issue is unavoidable; and I'm actually sort of surprised that I haven't mentioned this yet. But this time, in hopes that people actually do read this, I'm going to offer up an idea without any opinion at all, and ask the readers to analyze and answer...Given the status of college sports, and the dormant status of the minds of a majority of people in our country, what do you think about the hype of College sports versus the value of actual education and learning (this includes the overall idea of learning and being intelligent and its place in culture)?

A man is judged by the company he keeps...

I would like to ask anyone who reads this to comply, and relay this message to any friends or relatives, and ask them to keep the chain going by passing the message on... As some of you may know, Arthur Blank, owner of the Atlanta Falcons, founded Home Depot, and since no one would listen to what we actually have to say, we'll let our money talk for us - we need to get as may people as we can involved in a boycott of Home Depot, I'm not asking you to protest - although I'm looking into it and will invite anyone who wants to join - and there's Lowe's and other shit, but it's got some buzz and seems like a legitimate way to supplement the protesting of Michael Vick remaining in the National Football League. And for those of you who want to adhere to the law, I'm frankly surprised you even read this site; besides the legal issues that we've set up for ourselves, and the almost definit players union grievance, fuck due process of law - for intelligent people like the ones open minded enough to participate in the kind of thought I promote here it is not hard to use reason in determining the immorality or morality of a certain situation; the evidence seems to be substantial and quite overwhelmingly against Vick, and with four people willing to directly link him to dog fights I've heard enough. Boycott Home depot, tell your friends tell your family, tell them to tell their friends and family, etc., if you see someone in a Michael Vick jersey you have my permission to drown, electricute, and hang them, and then proceed to ask them how they liked it. (If you didn't read the indictment, those were a few of the things he has been accused of doing to the dogs.)

On Men and Morals

Ive recently been faced with a moral dilemma of sorts, however let me give some background first. At my graduation party last month i got into a fight with my Uncle and dad's cousin regaurding some rather ignorant comments they made regaurding Islam, Israel, and economics. I argued that their ignorance and racism were morally wrong and indefensible (whereas even the "Well its just an opinon" did not apply). After the dust settled and some some days past my father began hassle me with hard moral dilemmas. After driving a friend to a party (so as he could get drunk) then driving home, my father asked me "Is it moral to facilitate his incapacity, when you yourself are opposed to drinking?" I still wonder today whether I am being a responcible individual by being a (permanent) designated driver (thus putting the kabosh on drinking and driving) or am I myself being irresponcible and immoral by faciliating behavior which I myself am morally opposed to?

Aint nobody love me 'less Im broke niggas, lord fogive me if I smoke niggas...

That has nothing to do with this post the songs just in my head.

Apparently Yao Ming was reprimanded by the Chinese Government for showing up to the Chinese National Teams practice late because he was planning his wedding and visiting the special olympics. They were reported to have said:

"No matter how sweet personal life is, it can't be compared to the exultation of capturing glory for one's nation"

"The hottest places is in hell are reserved for those involved in activities like this..."

In light of Michael Vick's indictment I want to celebrate by asking anyone who's readong their opinion, as is the MO of this blog...In the context of Vick's dog fighting; should we as conscious beings be considerate of other living things - does their lack of ability to analyze their environment as well as we do somehow put them below us? And for those of you who can see what an assinine question that is I pose another; waht justification could a person like Vick have for their actions, and furthermore, what argument would you use to convince one of these people otherwise. Keep in mind the nature of the people who would be fighting dogs, probably avid nonsensical patriots because their daddy beat it into them, drive a pick up truck because it means they have big testicles, which they use every once in a while when they have violent drunken intercourse with their significant others - who's daddy beat them into the marriage. You're dealing with the most dogmatic of the dogmatic assholes in America; so how do you make a that kind of asshole see?

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/124723
>you can get the indictment in a pdf file on the left side of that article, its long, but you can get the idea of how appalling a crim this is, whether you love dogs or not...

The lessons you read are not your own, she taught you them.

So I've been hearing some hype about this show 'Human Weapon' where two guys go around the world and learn ancient and modern hand-to-hand combat teqniques and disciplines. I found myself thinking that it would be cool to do that, but I'm not the kind of meat head who sees that as a worth while venture for my life, so it's a good thing that someone else is doing it and putting it on t.v so that I can just see and learn. So it got me thinking - after scolding myself - that part of the inherent problems of television, along with the constant claim of absolute knowledge of certain things, is the way in which it sort of says "you don't need to live, we'll do it for you." Incidentally, literature has also been portrayed as such a real life adventure replacing adventure in the recent past. But I watch television and I read. I seem to have come to the conclusion that as long as I am aware of the issues with these things, than I can be somewhat mentally resistent to their allure. So the question is: is it okay to partake in such detrimental (to culture and society ) activities if one knows what the problems are with them, or at least has considered and is aware of these opinions about them, or should people who agree boycott these things, whether it's comfortable or not?

While I was writing Sports Centers 'Whos Now' thing came on and as a guest Judge Jessica Biel was on, and her part in it was so appaling that I couldn't not mention it. Kevin James says how tough the Tiger D-Wade Match up is, Mike Greenburg says that D-Wade had an unfair seed, and Jessica Biel said that Tiger woods is a dad and that's sexy. This is how women are treated, this is what people not thinking for their goddam selves comes to.

I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish.

Ta da! Everyone's favorite Mr. Fuzzy-Towels himself applied for the rights to own the Chicago Cubs, and despite nothing but praise from his Mavericks and positive analysis from ESPN experts, is very unlikely to get the job. The problem is the traditionally dogmatic ownership and administration of Major League Baseball. Cuban is known to be a mover-and-a-shaker in basketball and would inevitably continue his behavior as an owner in MLB, which seems to be very much of a deterrent for the other owners in the league, who's approval he will need to actually purchase the team. I'm not here to argue the validity of Cuban's offer to become an owner - I don't think many people can really argue against it, especially for the cubs - I have a problem with the idea that a man like Cuban might not be accepted. The initial idea that this puts across to people is that a real person, a man who wants to change things and has ideas of his own and the money to back it, cannot become a leader of something because of his nature as a boat-rocker. Apart from adding to the far too universal idea of not being to 'change the world', I think that the rejection of cuban is the rejection of a platonic idea that has never been put to use, and now that such micro polis' as sports franchises exist, it is a perfect time and place to test such an idea. Not verbatim, Plato postulates that, among other things, a sound polis has as a key component a Philosopher Ruler. Cuban, as translated into modern times and sports franchise terminology, is the philosopher ruler who may not be allowed to rise. Cuban is the closest to this as I can find in sports, he is, as I said, a very free thinking and progressive individual - he has seen all sides of wealth and poverty, seen a losing franchise and turned it into the best team in the league in just a few years, he is in sports terms, enlightened. I know it's a somewhat lofty claim, but I like the parrallel. And it's easy to admit the negative impact on the minds of our people having a person like Cuban be denied a chance to change a franchise.

Goin dumb like we're in special ed...

I'm not too clear on black african history outside of America, nor am I very clear on the extent to which female opression has extended through time and through the world, so excuse me if I am historically out of line.

It seems that every time I turn on the t/v there's someone patting America and it's inhabitants on the back for their progress in racial tolerance and gender equality - do people really need to feel good about themselves for (doing a very shitty job of) correcting a problem that is so obvious. Last time I checked genetics still provide the blueprints for life, and barring the quantum properties of the chemical proponents of the DNA, have given life and undoubtably egalitarian nature - so why do we, as a life form so evolved that we can consciously fuck something so intrinsic to life as equlity of beaing of the same species, congradulate ourselves for unbearably slowly fixing our mistakes. The people who we praise for breaking through these "barriers" are the ones who, for the most part, realize what a stupid fucking deal racism and sexism are and how they should just be realized and forgotten and human life can move on. This may be an American thing, I don't really know because I've never been anywhere else to hear what their sports shows have to say about it, but either way as a species we need to realize our huge fuck up and get over it. Instead of honoring the people who have actually realized what needs to be done and transcended the way shit happens, we should take our time to say wake the fuck up to everyone who is to lazy to think about how stupid the whole thing is and just take whatever is spoon fed to them, and especially time to remember who it was who first started slavery, who first placed women under men in our species' hierarchy, and the men who came up with the ideas that colors of skin other than white, and humans without dicks were inferior. Is this to say that, in particular, sports' efforts to transcend racial and sexual 'barriers' are useless? Yes, absolutely. We all know that the problem is retarded - stop picking the damn scab, you idiots.

To laugh, or not to laugh?

There's a commercial running for an espn cell phone sports updater at the moment that poses to me a tough question. If you aren't familiar with the commercial the gist is: a man is being interviewed as if he had just finished some sort of professional sport, when in actuality he was at his daughters ballet recital watching sports updates on his cell phone - when asked if experience played a part in his performance he responds "Yea, we've been to two dance recitals this year; you really learn from that kind of boredom". The question it poses - which I may myself have an answer for, but nonetheless think it's a topic worth discussing - is whether this commercial is cementing bad ideas in the minds of the people who see it, or if the the commedy should be appreciated - it is pretty well done, i just don't know if I should laugh. On the one hand, I don't care much for ballet, so it does bore me and I wouldn't much want my daughter participating in such an activity unless she had a full appreciation of the process and evolution of the art of dancing and how ballet came to be and still wanted to do it, but she would be six and not have nearly the brain capacity for that. On the other hand at face value, which is what the subconscious of the morons of the world will absorb, it is teaching people not to appreciate the actions of our fellow human beings, the creations and the doings of our children; teaching us to write them off as boring unless it fits into our own slim and dogmatic perspective. Is it good, or bad?

Give it up for the dead guy knowing what he's talking about after all

The general topic of the last few posts has reminded me of a book. A book I quite liked. It's called Breakfast of Champions and it was written by the late Kurt Vonnegut - Posthumous appreciation is the only kind of appreciation for the arts! Breakfast of Champions deals with many of the issues I argue in contemporary America -60 years or so since he's written has only been time to exacerbate the problems he confronts. The correspondence to the topic of the past few posts is this: He specifically says, in plain, in your face Vonnegut style, that he's sick of litterature these days using characters as a means to an end in the story and that that style of writting is only conducive to that type of behavior in the lives of the readers, and the same readers learning to have no respect for the next man's humanity.

We love money...and narcissism!

There really wasn't anything worth talking about in sports news today (A-Rod wants 40 Mil per and part ownership?), and I'd like to at least stick to that for a while - but there was a commercial during the Yankees game that caught my attention. It was a commercail for Sloman's Shield - some kind of home security system - where there are three guys in a truck who are obviously intending on robbing this particular house for some reason when they realize that there's a great security system and that they cannot rob that house; whence (ya damn right I said whence) one of the outlaws says that 'next door doesn't have a Sloman's - back up'. A wonderful contribution to classic democratic narcissism (for a better explanation read Plato's Republic). American culture is somewhat epicureanized and extroadinarily narcissized (yea, I make my own words) by the institutions of capitalism and democracy; essentially, without going into too much detail because I'm tired, these foundations of our society are conducive to narcissism and lack of worth for one's humanity because of the calue placed on the external world and things in it. It seems to be just more of what I was saying yesterday, in a different form; Don't rob me or hurt me, but it's perfectly allright to rob and hurt my neighbor, it's their own job to worry about that. Practically, no i shouldn't have to watch my neighbors back every other second, nor should I not secure my own home in order to protect him; and I don't believe this is Sloman's intention, either. The problem here is more of a subconscious one; the lack of regard for that phantom neighbor is appaling, they clearly disregard his humanity, while playing up the humanity of the individual with the Sloman's (not to say that one is more human with a security system), who is meant to be the viewers house; you are more human and more worth protecting while you're neighbor - any other person - is not worth the same. This is just one thing in a long list of constant cultural reinforcements being made in every commercial thing you see. Which is almost everything now-a-days. These commercial assumptions feed the mind reassurance that others humanity is lesser than ones own and ignorable, only by being conscious of these things can we overcome them in our minds.

On another note in this new mighty dog movie's commercial I just saw some kid is talking to mighty dog and mighty dog says hey you never see dogs fighting over money - hey! money (and in turn power and greed) not being essential to forms of life often thought to be less intelligent and ignorable for that reason, now still unimportant to a dog that is just as intelligent as a human - and the kid reverts to the argument that people don't sniff each other's asses. Just another re-affirmation of the importance of fiscal pursuits in ones life - "Hey man money isn't that important, get over yourselves, use your mind, use your body, do something as real as you can" "Hey dog, as a far less evolved and far less mentally capable being, stop acting on instinct; you're proposal is so ludicrous that I won't even entertain it with a real response". Just pounded it into our heads. Make us complacent. People don't know what they're doing to the minds of others and what they're doing to the entire conception of humanity in America, if there is even one left...

Todays News

The time is upon us when American sports fans and the objects of their attentions alike can indulge fully in our colective detachment from our own humanity. It's nearing training camp time in the National Footbal League, which means it's hold out time, the time for the a few of the most elite athletes on the planet to define themselves in terms of money and commodities, and the owners and GM's get to egg them on. Oh, and we get to GM as well, fantasy football ads are popping up, and that means that we the sports fans get to enjoy the undeniable pleasure, that was once reserved only for the real GM's, of treating real people as playing cards and measuring them in numbers rather than appreciating them as human beings with tremendous athletic ability and skill. Football's not the only major sport to partake, oh no, Baseball is nearing it's trade deadline and they, more than any other sport, trade players like, well, baseball cards. Basketballs free agency signing period starts today. And even in soccer David Beckham is arriving on friday to be introduced as the newest member of the Los Angeles Galaxy.

Now what, you ask, is so wrong with the manipulation of people with money, if money is exactly what they're after. The answer lies in the total mental health of the people of America; when we are exposed to such dehumanizing treatment of individuals it only helps to separate ourselves from our own humanity and more importantly in a highly populated social society, from the humanity of others and in turn from others all together. Besides this sort of simultaneous dehumanization of 'entertainer' and 'entertained' there are the rare cases, like the one of Antoine Walker of the Miami Heat who was robbed at gunpoint late monday night, where the people who have been overexposed to capitalist enterprises such as, but not limited to, the appaling treatment of human beings, which inevitably leads to peoples ignorance of each others humanity to the point that they can't sit next to each other in Harry Potter and leave single seats in the middle of rows and on the isles so that I have to sit on the floor in an imax theater.

Now last but not least...Steve McNair's DUI charges were dropped yesterday. This DUI quite like s LaRussa bumble that will be highly forgivable - well, it probably will be, but it shouldn't - and what should NOT be forgiven is the way in which the American legal system has treated this issue. In some states, possibly federally, it is considered a DUI when a person lets someone else drive a vehilcle while inebriated, in this case, it was Steve's brother and Steve's car. I used to like McNair, he seemed like an okay guy - as okay as these people can get - but if theres one thing that pisses me off beyond all others its blatant disrespect for the life of oneself and the lives of others, because no matter what life IS or ISN'T or what truth IS or ISN'T or what the true nature of RIGHT or WRONG we are all alive - or at least I am - and that is all that we can KNOW, and when someone disrespects the life that somehow he IS I can't stand it. Steve McNair willingly let someone else drive while intoxicated - and no you cannot operate a 2000 pound machine moving at an excess of sixty miles per hour, most people can't do it responsibly sober - that is to say he put his brothers life, his own life, and who knows how many other lives in danger that night for what can only be a silly reason. The reason that his charge was dropped is that his brothers charge was changed in a plea bargan to reckless driving, so he could not be charged, it would only be valid if it remained a DUI. So here it is, our legal system directly disrespecting life - letting not one, but two people off scott free for what could easily have become a manslaughter case (which would probably have been reduced to something minor anyway) - should it be more rigid? Do you agree that the neglecting of the consequences to ones own life, let alone others lives, is dispicable and inexcusable and that the law need be reformed to match these opinions? This is an easily tenable statement - driving drunk IS endangering your life and countless others lives and that is unacceptable from any perspective.

""I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."
-Aristotle

Permissions

post your email adress here and ill add you in permissions so you can post subjects and shit

My Purpose

I want this blog to be for intelligent discussion in the context of sport - because it is an easily accessible genre for conversation - but there will be open discussion on philisophical concepts and social issues, whatever you want; I can give you my password and shit if you want so you can post. My ultimate goal is simply to create real conversation about things that I love, with things that I love(hint:people).

I was inspired to start this blog by Mike & Mike in the Morning when thismorning they had a poll concerning the SECOND greatest sports record of all time, claiming Henry Aaron's 755 Home Runs as the greates record in sports. This may not have made me as angry had they not brought to light, in their alterate 5 vying for the second spot, the last candidate, Mark Spitz with his 7 Olympic Gold Medals (The others being: Wilt's 100, DiMaggio's 56, Emmit's 18355, Jack Nicklaus 18 PGA Major Wins). Now, please try to let the fact that I myself swam for years, and stay with my argument. It struck me as incredibly ignorant, and a classic example of American dogmatism - most often seen in our professional sports championships of Baseball, Football, and Basketball when we name our winners "World" Champions. Here's my problem; The Olympic games, as we all know, have been the preeminent athletic competitions since, quite literaly, the beggining of the Historical Era of human history - How can the man who has clearly achieved human athletic supremacy as many times as he did in one Olympic games be second to anyone in modern sports? Not only are the Olympic Games a tradition streching back to the 8th century B.C., but the athletic abilites they originally showcased were those intrinsic to the human body (Running, Swimming, etc.), or essential to human survival (hunting), q.e.d. these core and universal human athletic competitions should be the most revered of all...Baseball itself is a contrived activity, hitting a ball with a piece of wood over a fence 755 times, no matter how hard it is, should not be posited as a greater athletic achievement than that of the winningest athlete in the most revered athletic games in human history. This is not to demean baseball, because to demean an activity created by the human mind is to demean human social and intellectual evolution, as well as the value of the consciousness of humans, and humanity alltogether.