Hiatusisms

For no one that will read this (as I'm sure you've all gotten very bored of looking at Mexican Nikes)...I seem to have lost that extra edge that makes me so frustrated everyday. Perhaps this blog really has been cathartic, or perhaps I'm just tired. Either way, we'll see if I'm inspired anytime soon to write. But for now, check back in about 3 months.

Good day.

Check out these kicks.....

Edition especial!

another question of definition?

What makes good music? Or, for that matter, what makes a good movie?

Sure, sure, it sounds like a fluffy, mundane and cliche question, but think about it. In topics of personal choice and preference, can a universal criteria be applied to what makes something 'good'?

Of course, the word 'good' in itself is rather ambiguous, but I think you get the gist.

I was thinking about my taste is music, and how polarized it is from two of my other friends. Folk versus Funk. Blues versus Alt Country. Or, for example, how someone I know is a die hard Neil Young fan, one of those plaid wearing Northern Ontario kinda guys, but I don't breath his music. I like it, love it even, but don't fit into the category of Younghead.

So why not? I think most people would say that Neil Young is considered 'good' music, but why? does he reach a larger audience? So does shitty Pop music? But perhaps he reaches a larger audience because each aspect of his music is able to speak to different people. Some might like his lyrics, others his melody, some his harmony and some his rhythm. The same applies to movies.

Could this be the answer?

Another lesson learned.

When you wear your heart on your sleeve, its bound to get a little bruised sometimes.

It's no secret, I am outspoken, stubborn and passionate about most things in life. I also have a short fuse, which is easily lit. I also love to argue. This makes for a lethal combination apparently.

I guess this entry is a reflection on a life lesson learned. Just be prepared that when you put yourself out there, self-indulgent and self-absorbed individuals will take advantage of that for their own malicious pleasure. And that bothers me. Nothing else to say about it.

Envy and Ego

There is a new topic chapping my ass these days, and it encompasses two concepts: People's ability to lie to themselves about a particular motivation to do something, and their envious response to their lack of participation in another task of the same nature.

This might be confusing. Let me explain. Often, I run into people who claim they want to become a doctor to "help society", and that money/power/prestige has nothing to do with their true motivations. I run into people who join some benign, useless and utterly pretentious society for no other reason than to slap it on their CV to impress some other idiot cut from the same cloth who will determine their future on some application to become that doctor. And yet they will fight to the death to argue they do it for some morally proper reason.

It could be something as simple as when I show surprise that I'm not into work before they are. But they have convinced themselves they have always been the first to work, so they take offense when you are surprised. It makes them feel better about themselves, and massages that ego that has been stifled, but is begging to come out and play. Why is our world so full of fucking idiots? They either actively suppress their "immoral" motivation, or they subconsciously do it. The end result is the same: they fucking lie to themselves. And it fucking pisses me off.

Call me judgmental, but the difference is I don't talk about it behind their backs. If I hear it out of their mouth, I challenge them on it. And it pisses them off, because it forces them realize the truth they worked so hard to suppress.

And finally, when you yourself do something "moral" (irrespective of your motivations for doing so) and these dingbats are jealous that they can't be a part of it, that they can't put THAT on their precious CV, their envious little devil rears his ugly face. They put you down, call you a suckup, or find some other way to justify it to themselves that they didn't do it for the right reasons.

You want to call me a hypocrite don't you? Tell me that this whole rant is nothing more than my own envious devil rearing his ugly head? You couldn't be more wrong.

Sure I want to be a doctor to "help people". And I love science and medicine and their interaction with human emotions. But I don't want to be a nurse (who does the same thing) because they don't make enough money, and I don't want to be bossed around by some fuckhead who thinks he's a doctor to help people, but really just enjoys bossing me around and getting me to clean the bedpans. And I volunteer to help me get into med school. I enjoy it now that I do it, teaching is fun, but I only signed up in the first place for the CV.

So stop lying to yourself. Its OK to want to make money and be called 'Dr' and to have your decision as final. You get the perks of helping people and all of that at the same time. But just fucking admit it to yourself, and our world will be so much more honest.

That being said, I love Maker's Mark Bourbon for both the taste AND the red drippy wax all over their sexy bottle.

And that's OK.

A Little "Heavy"

Perhaps the discussion topics have been too "heavy" these past few weeks, so readership is down. Players Poll:

How many fat chicks would be hot if they actually weren't fat? I want percentages here.

New Perspectives on Argument

So I was given a new perspective on discussions. In fact, I am learning a very new thing about other people's perspective these days. Apparently, I approach an argument in a very "empirical" way. That is to say that I read someone's argument, dissect it point by point and respond accordingly, ensuring to address the others' points in my response. Then I may present a new argument, if one is appropriate.

However, I learned that this is not the only approach people take to engaging in a discussion. I am told that some choose to read an argument, and respond on their own, but it may not relate to, or directly address the points made in my argument to them. It may simply stay within the thread of the theme. I think this is perhaps why people find my argumentative style frustrating, in that I restrict the argument to my point alone and leave no room for breathing. But I believe we move down this path because I am trying to get people to at least directly acknowledge what I have said.

Let me just say this: I do not feel this is an effective way to have a discussion (i.e. no to directly address the others' point of view). It is as if two people are talking "at" each other, without acknowledging what the other has said. Is this not inordinately frustrating?

To engage in a discussion is to listen and respond. You are not arguing if you simply present your own point of view. You are just talking out loud.

This has shed an important light on my arguments with many of my friends. I often feel as if no one has listened to, or read what I have presented to them. And this curtails into an out of control spiral into trying to get them to acknowledge (note: this does NOT mean to agree) with what I have said. And I often charge them with a lack of respect for considering my point of view.

But perhaps they have read my argument, they simply choose not to address it in their response: it is not their argumentative style. So what to do?

I can't fault someone for having a different style of argument, but I can argue that it is an ineffective style to adopt. Which I have done here.

If anyone still reads this, how do I bridge this frustrating gap?