Uncouth PerspectivesNot on the rug, man.

So I helped a friend move today.

Actually, I really helped a friend of a friend move today because I have only met the person I moved once before and that was last Monday.

Between being a fairly large (6’5″), “oh, he looks like he’d like to carry my solid oak desk by himself” person (of course the irony being I sit behind a computer all day) and the fact that I drove a truck for several years, I have moved a lot of people. I am not here to complain about moving people, though that might be different if I still had a truck (Note: someone with a truck does not automagically make them an interested moving service).

One of the things that moving day always highlights for me is how people utilize tools. Typically when you move, there is always at least a dolly or some other mechanical device designed to make moving things from point A to B easier. When you use them right. There is always an adventure when someone looks at something large and ungainly and says “You know, I bet we can put that on the dolly.” It’s been my experience that those words are definitely listed under “Famous Last Words.”

Sometimes it is just easier to carry the things. Yeah, while I made the crack about sitting behind a computer, I am a pretty big guy and carrying things is easier for me. For people who are injured or some other way disabled, I am with ya. But there’s a point when using tools, in this case perhaps a dolly, it becomes not only a crutch but is actually a hindrance.

Perhaps not quite similar, but it also reminds me of a busy parking lot. What I typically see is a lot of people running around in circles trying desperately to get a spot up front. Me, I just drive towards the back, find an easy space to park in and walk to where I am going. No stress, easy parking, and I get exercise so Nyaaaah!

It is way too easy for a tool to become a crutch. Just look at calculators (I’m guilty). But it is also easy for tools to become hindrances. Hopefully you’ve noted that I am not really talking just about moving here. One of the wonderful things about the human mind is our ability to create and use tools to our advantage. Laziness, however, is also one of our claims to genetic fame. And I think it is such a shame when people hold themselves back by trying to take the “easy” way which turns out to be a dead-end.

So, I didn’t shave the whole weekend I played hockey and I decided to play around with growing a full beard in. Mainly I wanted to see how much grey I had.

This is a conversation I was having with my friend
about it:

Me: There’s so much freaking grey in my coming-in beard.

Friend: Better for you. get the chicks easier.

Me: Yeah, cause you know the babes, they love beards.

Friend: young chicks do because it makes you look older

Me: Can I tell you something you don’t want to hear?

Friend: sure

Me: Porn is not demonstrative of how the world works.

Enjoy the pictures, because it is not going to stay.

I spent this weekend in Las Vegas at an international (Canadians and Americans) street hockey tournament. There were two divisions: the “open” (read: skilled) and the “rec” (read: me). The open division had somewhere between 15-20 teams from across the U.S. and Canada and was great to watch. The rec division had six excellent teams (also from across the U.S. and Canada) and while they did not have the overall skill level of the open divisions teams, I have to say that the play was surprisingly equal among the teams which lead to some really amazing games.

My team, the SoCal Misfits, got second place, with the final game being 3-2 and decided in a shoot-out, after a full game plus overtime. It was a blast.

Here are a few extra highlights from the trip–at least what I caught while I still had battery power…

Driving

The obligatory Zzyzx sign

The Hotel Room

Ironing boards are for drying your hockey gear on, right?

Tired, tired feet

The only action shot I got…

All of the awards on display

And, lastly, for those of you who felt the need to remind me to not break anything–I did not listen…

Let me tell you a little story.

So to Pope decides to visit an Italian University and give a speech.  This is not a churchy event, but is  the opening of the academic year and, in my opinion, a pretty big win for the University.  Say what you will about the Pope, it is a big deal for him to come give a speech, whether you agree or not, which, really, is what this story is about.

What is the response from the school, do you think?  Why for the students and faculty members to protest so loud that the Pope cancels the visit.

Here’s the story: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pope16jan16,0,296931.story?coll=la-home-center

And some choice quotes:

More than 60 professors signed a letter to the public school’s rector saying the pope’s appearance, which had been scheduled for the opening of the academic year Thursday, was an affront to people of science and to the “secular” nature of the institution.

…

The students who led the protests celebrated their “victory for laicism,” whereas the rector of La Sapienza, Renato Guarini, said he was dismayed that a “small publicity-seeking minority” had managed to derail a papal visit to an institution founded, as it happens, by one of Benedict’s predecessors, Pope Boniface VIII — 700 years ago.

Let me start by getting my feelings out in the open:  screw you.

One of the challenges the students and faculty put forward is legitimate:  the Pope was going to give a speech but was not open to a question and answer session.  Although, if I were the Pope (Oh, how I dream about it!  Where’s my hat?!), I think I would be disinclined to play hardball with people so determined to hate me on principle that they’ll cancel my appearance anyways.

But, seriously, I believe strongly in the Academic mission and, question and answer session or not, I think that having the Pope come speak is valuable and useful part of that mission.  When people are critical of Universities as “liberal brain washing” institutes, it’s this kind of asshat actions that they are talking about.  I am not saying that people should not be vocal against the Pope, or whoever, if they feel like it–I am certainly do not support the Catholic church–but let the man talk!  And use it as an opportunity to hold more sessions about the Science vs. Religion debate, or on the issue of morality in atheism, or whatever you want!  But do not silence a voice because they say things you do not like.  That, to me, goes against the entire idea of Academia.  Especially when that voice is the selected leader of a major world religion.

I just get so angry when I read or see this kind of hypocricy.   This is one of those ultimate opportunities for education, learning, and growth.  I mean, if the Dali Lama came, would these same people have protested… or is he western and modern enough?  What if the next one isn’t so interested in constitutions and has takes a hard line.  Well, too bad, same guy, just reincarnated.  Haha!  You fail!

Seriously, though, I expected in Academia, of all places, for any civilized voice to have a platform and opportunity to speak.  It’s not a victory to celebrate–you did not win a skirmish in the great war against religion;  you did not even fight.  Walk around with all the pride and prejudice you want.  It is not for me.

Editor’s Note:  It has been pointed out that this article is from 1970, so I suppose that changes things a little bit.  I preserve the original entry nonetheless.

Apparently not in New Jersey.

According to this Time article, a New Jersey couple has been denied the ability to adopt a child because they are not religious. Let us just cut to the chase–here is what the judge who ruled this says it is all about:

Inestimable Privilege. In an extraordinary decision, Judge Camarata denied the Burkes’ right to the child because of their lack of belief in a Supreme Being. Despite the Burkes’ “high moral and ethical standards,” he said, the New Jersey state constitution declares that “no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.” . . . he continued, “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being.”

Here is the argument in a nutshell: 1) the law says no one shall be denied the ability to worship God, 2) the parents do not worship God, 3) therefore the child is being denied the ability to worship God.

First, if nothing else, I am simply offended at this, even if the logic was not flawed. If I may be frank, this judge can suck my left nut. I think this kind of rough-shod abuse of authority is absolutely asinine. The judge obviously is simply making a point and, I would guess, knows that this bullshit will never stand up over time. I am a big fan of the idea of the judiciary, but any asshat who uses the bench as a pulpit (or other type of soapbox) deserves to be stripped down and run out of town.

Now that is out of the way, let’s take a moment to look at the logic. First, to make this work, the judge is taking a narrow definition of the word “worship.” I.e. the law only protects the actual worship (positive), not lack there of. While there are those who would agree with him (and may even define the “freedom to worship however they like” to mean “the freedom to be Christian and, oh, by Christian, I mean my denomination”), legal precedence (and perhaps just using you head) tells us that “freedom to worship” has a much broader definition which happens to include the option of not doing so.

Second, the judge is appealing to all kinds of logical bullshit. You wouldn’t want to deprive the child of her right to make her own decision, would you? This poor, innocent, little child, depraved and left to shallow ignorance by her, while highly moral and ethical, adopted atheist parents. There’s no other way to put it. It’s bullshit.

Third, the logic is incomplete. The assumption being presented here is twofold: 1) parental influence necessarily defines a child’s ideological framework and 2) the parents would necessarily only present the child with the option of atheism. The judge tried to lighten the blow by talking about the “influence” of the parents, but he’s basically saying the above. Neither of these statements are axiomatic and it is wrong to simply present them as assumed fact.

Lastly, and most ironically, the flawed logic allows for some interesting thinking. I mean, if the judge is correct (and I’ll look to his own words, where he says “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit”), I would that we should not allow Catholics to adopt, as they parents may influence the child to believe in, of all things, Catholicism and not give the child the freedom to worship “as she sees fit.” For that matter, Jews are out too. In fact, maybe we shouldn’t let anyone adopt. Well, really, that’s a bit of a slippery slope, but seeing as the logic is gone from the judge’s argument already, might as well!

Can a forced ideology be called morality?

What I am concerned with here when I say “forced ideology” is when an individual accepts an ideology because they were told to do so, whether this is from a personal authority figure, such as a parent, or something or someone more systemic, such as the military commander for drafted soldiers.  This should be contrasted to an ideology one rationally accepts, based on knowledge and self-reflection.  There is, of course, a very grey area here which is not easy to define, but I am currently most interested in a strong understanding of forced ideology.

If a person does a “good” act based on a belief system which they have not rationally accepted, is the act really good?  Or is the person good/moral?  If a child makes a conscience effort to not lie on Christmas Eve for fear of not getting presents from Santa (assuming the child has something to gain from lieing), has the child done good?

My instinct tells me no, the act is not necessarily morally good.  One may argue that refraining from lieing is an objective moral good and the intent plays no part.  I, however, cannot agree with this.  Discarding the objective/subjective arguments of morality for another day, I cannot believe actions should be divorced so coldly from intent.

At issue for me is “good” actions which are more based on routine or dogma as opposed to rational choice or desire.  However, it seems that this thought has implications on “evil” actions as well.  If blind acceptance to an ideology devalues the “good” of an action, then it must devalue the “evil” of an action.
If giving to the poor because you are told to do so is not a morally good action, then what about a solider who kills because he is told to do so?  Or perhaps to make it even more stark, what about a man who rapes a virgin for purification?

I have too strong an emotional response to such evil deeds and too strong a belief in individual responsibility to accept that.  But I have to admit that I do feel that the good acts are devalued because of this.   Perhaps this is just faulty thinking on my part, but I think it simply leads to a better conclusion.

It is blind acceptance that is the problem.  I believe that blind acceptance is intellectually criminal.  Individuals must have a personal and reasoned system of beliefs or they do not really have a belief system.  One of the real tests of a person’s character is how they act compared to what they believe in.  Those with a void for a true belief system (or an understood belief system) often find themselves doing things or acting in ways contrary to their ideology.  Or they act accordingly to their ideology but are miserable in the process.

Blind acceptance is an individual choice.  You might even say (in fact, I do) that it is a moral choice.  Not accepting responsibility for your beliefs or your actions does not make those beliefs or actions justifiable.

It just makes them stupid.

So I have been trolling internet dating sites trying to get an idea of what people “out there” are looking for and how they sell themselves. It has been quite an interesting adventure.

For the most part, it is what I assumed. A lot of people, men and women, have very bland, shallow, and non-descriptive profiles. “Gosh, I’m just a down to earth [gender], who takes it easy and likes to have a good time! I’m looking for someone who is honest, funny, and no drama!” Tell me, really, who is not looking for these things? To me, that is one of the things that gets me every time I read this stuff. Do you really think it’s going to make a difference or, perhaps, net someone who you really want to meet?

The impression I get that people seem to go off the idea that pictures will sell everything. At least, that is the assumption I am making off of: 1) the lack of depth to profiles and 2) my cynical view of the unwashed masses. And I am sure that people go hunting profiles based off of this. Now, do not get me wrong. Physical attraction IS important–I mean, it is not really a relationship without that. But unless you really do want to just party and/or have sex, there really should be more to it than that

Trying to play devil’s advocate, the process of selling yourself like a piece of meat online is not necessarily comfortable or easy. If you commit to the process, you have to open yourself up a little bit (and, perhaps, have an understanding of yourself). And I think there can be a lot of better matching coming from something like that process . . . but so many people seem to move the club/bar/etc hook up to this arena and I think it shows. I do not think there is anything wrong with meeting people at the bar or club… I mean, it’s one reason to go to those places and, frankly, it is fun. But, at least from my perspective, meeting the “right” person in that setting takes a shit ton of luck.

Anyways, the thing that got me down this line of thought is that as I’ve read profiles, I have noticed a lot of women have added “good hygiene” to their list of qualities in the people they would like to meet.

Really?

And not really as in “you like hygiene?!” but really as in “you have to say that?” I really have to wonder what the guys out there are doing to make this an issue. It actually makes me wonder if I’ve got something going on I do not know about. I also wonder what this means. Is this like a “how often do you brush your teeth, ugh!” or a “could you shower after the game?” I play hockey and, honestly, that’s a gross sport. You sweat like crazy and you’ve got all kinds of padding to soak it up and keep it close to home for all time. I’m sure other sports are bad, too. But, yeah, I keep my stuff clean and I shower. Often.

It just really makes me wonder . . .

Britney’s Teen Sister Jamie Lynn Spears is Pregnant!

Okay. Let’s stop for a second.

Really? This is what is important?

When this “news” broke, it was the headline on most American news outlets. I was literally beat upside the head about it and I try to avoid “entertainment” news as much as I can, but this story seemed to be inescapable (and continues to be).

So a 16 year old girl got pregnant. Weeeeird. That never happens. Oh, wait, no, that’s right: it happens ALL the time. The shock and surprise is… really amazing. What I do not understand is what the shock is really about. I mean, is it because she a star? A “role” model? She meets the cookie cutter definition of attractive? Because her sister is falling apart and it is fun to watch the house continue to burn down?

It just makes me livid that it is such a big deal when it happens to this one person (they are talking about making a show about it already!). People need to open their eyes and wake up–our kids are having kids and the way we are dealing with it is only making it grow. We have a culture that has one part of it’s foundation in selling sex and another in repressing it. Kids are smart enough to realize how stupid the repression part is, too naive to understand the commercialization of sex, and rebellious enough not to listen by the time anyone starts talking to them (perhaps talking to them as a real person, too). A very fertile mix, it turns out.

With this and other such stories, I just get so angry when something which highlights the normal state of things happens and suddenly it’s a big deal–but instead of actually dealing with the problem, there is a knee jerk reaction to dealing with it which never works and no long term thinking happens. And, of course, it is then quickly forgotten. I already can not wait to be tired of seeing stories about how to deal with teenage pregnancy, and I already can not wait to be suddenly surprised when I stop seeing the stories.

I wrote this as an exercise in self exploration and have been butchering it to put in different profiles.  Enjoy: 

Does the turbulence ever upset you?

Life is a bumpy ride and I’m one cantankerous passenger.

I am thinker, leader, ranter, writer, actor. I am not interested in the status quo, I am interested in making things better. I struggle with the definition of normality, but what I know for sure that is it should not be complacency, laziness, or ignorance. I despise those who do not understand this. Individualism is being lost in a sea of selfish hedonism and the irony is almost too much to handle at times.

I have strong views which I enjoy sharing with anyone who will listen, but I do not believe on forcing those views on anyone. One of the best things in life is a good conversation. Or maybe a good debate. I am highly empathetic and other’s emotions can bowl me over like a steam roller. There are very few characteristics I appreciate more than a person who thinks.

I am not a fan of either/or, black/white type of thinking. I believe that one of the great things about life is the shades of grey which makes up the bulk of the human experience. It seems to be a natural process for the human mind to attempt to categorize things to make them better understandable–I will not attempt to deny that–but I think this can be overdone. My normal philosophical punching bag on this topic is stereotypes. I hate stereotypes. I think people can and should be judged as individuals.

I have been told in the past that I am “brutally honest.” I do not know if I agree with that, but I aim to be honest and straight forward. No time in life for playing games with people or being passive-aggressive. To that end, I can come off as arrogant and a know-it-all. I always have an answer and I am frustratingly right most of the time. I try to remember those can be bad things (but generally fail).

I’m a tech geek and a fantasy dork. I love technology in real life and play with it often. I love fantasy in my mindless reading and like to quietly pretend I would enjoy the life of a medieval assassin.

I typically dislike sports, but I discovered I really enjoy hockey. Not because there is fighting (there is not as much as you think). Not because it is brutal (it is not as brutal as you think it is). I enjoy hockey because it is: fast, highly skilled, and the true embodiment of a team effort. And, yeah, there is fighting and it is brutal.

I work, and work hard, but there is more to life than work. I play hockey. I have performed in a regular-running “Whose line is it anyways?” style improv show. I have a blog that I have been writing on for longer than some people have used the internet. I have owned my own business. I read more books on philosophy and religion than is probably healthy.

I find that the best way to approach life is a combination of humor, honesty, passion, just-enough-cynicism, and a level of intellectual analysis that would cause a psychologist to blush.

Are you ready to think?

When Scott announced he was coming back, I looked around and said “Beauchemin or McDonald are the most at risk.”

Sadly, how true I was.

Andy McDonald was traded to the Blues today for Doug Weight (not a bad pick up), a minor leaguer, and a 7th round pick. In addition, Doug Weight is a UFA at the end of the year, so the stupid salary cap stuff is not an issue.

Read more: http://ducks.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=NewsPage&articleid=346678