I'm going to Columbus, Ohio on Saturday to see UFC 82 and I'm psyched. Some friends and family might be confused that I'm driving 12-14 hours round-trip to watch a 3-4 hour fight event. Here's my point of view:
Rocky encouraged us to think of boxing as a contest of bloody-mindedness where two guys stood toe-to-toe bludgeoning each other until one fell down. Visceral, but also kind of mindless and barbaric.
That's how I thought of it until I got in the ring and started training and sparring (I've never fought a real fight thank Christ). As with many sports, and frankly other things too, you don't really appreciate what's going on until you start doing it yourself. Boxing requires strategy and brains as well as "heart" and muscles.
When you throw in grappling, kicking and trapping, well now it's calculus. The UFC is trying more and more to appeal to everyone, which I feel is a bit of a shame. The average Joe off the street who's going to watch this stuff isn't training in it. He wants to see the human cockfight, complete with stunning knockout. I'm not against knockouts, but I hate to hear boo-ing when the fighters go to the mat for grappling. Ju-jitsu is like chess more than any other part of the game, after all.
Anyway, I'm going to watch grown men beat each other up in friendly, regulated competition and it's going to be fantastic.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Thank you mom.
Shut up, I'm awesome!
"Well, I guess there's one in every family."
I believe I'm wearing a funnel as a hat. This is why children always run around. They intuit that you want to take embarrassing photos of them for later. Thanks Mom!
I think she's decided that as long as I'm not bringing home girlfriends she can show these pics to directly, I'd better show them around.
I had some coffee. It was the same.
Starbucks shut down yesterday for a couple of hours to take it offline and get their heads together (or whatever people do in business these days). They took the time to put up some signs about how important espresso is.
I just had a coffee today and it was the same as the coffee I got a few days ago. Well done.
Was anyone blown away by the sweeping winds of change? Did they do this in Europe as well?
I just had a coffee today and it was the same as the coffee I got a few days ago. Well done.
Was anyone blown away by the sweeping winds of change? Did they do this in Europe as well?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
God loves a black woman president
I'm getting tired of the on-again-off-again debate about whether race or gender is more astonishing in the democratic primary. The only upside to it will be if the thrill of voting in a potentially "history making" election gets democrats out to vote.
Here are my arguments against:
And if it's frightening to some people that the president might not have naughty bits the same shape or color as their own, it should be catastrophically terror-inducing that he or she might make policy based on dicta handed down by an imaginary being in the sky.
By comparison with that, race or gender shouldn't matter a damn, but you notice we don't hear a lot about that.
Here are my arguments against:
- It's only historic because we're backwards. Blacks and women have been elected to leadership positions for years abroad. We're not forging new ground; we're (as usual) showing up to the party late, drunk, and announcing that the party can now begin. Utterly bloody heedless.
- It's irrelevant. If you're voting based on race or gender, you're a fucking nitwit. If I were hiring someone and the HR rep who's supposed to be researching the candidates came and said, "we've got these two candidates. One's Black and the other's a woman. Which one do you want?", I'd fire my HR rep on the spot. The press is the HR rep in this labored analogy. Anyway, point is, I'm not voting for McCain, despite being male and white. It's racist and insulting for the media to keep presuming that Blacks and women are tunnel-vision, single-issue voters.
And if it's frightening to some people that the president might not have naughty bits the same shape or color as their own, it should be catastrophically terror-inducing that he or she might make policy based on dicta handed down by an imaginary being in the sky.
By comparison with that, race or gender shouldn't matter a damn, but you notice we don't hear a lot about that.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Will this week never end? (plus, Art)
This week's gone on for-bloody-ever. Mostly it's been work. I keep trying to get out of the office at lunch or before 5 to post packages at the post office. If you're expecting a package from me and you're reading this, I got it in the mail today. Finally.
Work this week has been a goddamn doldrum as well. Today was a lot better, but it's a constant struggle to find a reason to try these days. Every decision is countermanded or belayed and morale is low. We'll fight through it, but good lord.
In related news, I think I'm going to start posting theories (I'll start with a management theory I got distracted by something shiny and went with my theory on art). I'd love anyone reading this to do either or both of the following:
So, here's my first one (some of you may have heard it):
What is good art?
Stupid War. Now we can't enjoy art (but can we still profit?)
Although it may be impossible to measure, I think there's a simple formula for deciding if one piece of art is better than another. Art quality = (transmitted information)/(amount of signal).
So, if you can increase the information you transmit while keeping the effort of doing so the same, or reduce the effort while keeping the meaning, you've produced better art. An example:
Say I write 300 words trying to describe a flower. If I do a good job, you'll get a solid understanding of that flower. Now, if I can do the same in 150 words, it's a better piece of writing. What if I write a haiku that evokes a picture of the same flower along with the same emotions conjured in my 150 words? Better yet right? Even if I lose some of the ideas, that's a hell of a haiku.
So far, we're talking about fairly prosaic communication. The better you communicate, the better the art. But I didn't study Comparative Literature in college for naught (I don't want to hear it Mom). Let's take a look at post-modern deconstructionalist literary theory and phenomenology (like one does).
I reread Catcher in the Rye recently, and like most people who do that, I found the second reading to be a wholly different experience from the first. First time through it's about a hip guy who said goddamn and sonovabtich a lot. Awesome!
Second time, it's about the anguish of a kind of pathetic kid who's largely unable to reconcile the way he's been lead to believe the world should operate with the facts he's coming face to face with. Also, if you've taken a lit class in between you start to notice literary structures where none were before. You appreciate that his epiphany in the museum (where he's face to face with the ancient artifacts of a people who were obsessed with age) represents a coming-to-grips with growing up.
Look, up in the sky, an overt reference to Jesus!This is where art becomes interesting. With good art, there's plenty hiding under the surface to add meaning if the audience knows to look for it and catches the allusions.
For instance, if you've never heard of Christ, you're going to miss a lot of what's going on in Children of Men, Return of Superman, Hamlet, and on and on. So, the strength of the art isn't realized until the artist creates it and the audience opens it up and receives the meaning from it.
I don't like a lot of modern art because someone pooping in a box in the middle of an austere room doesn't do much for me. Some avenues of art are only accessible to people who are able to appreciate that art as a piece in an ongoing conversation. Drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa, for instance (as the Dadaists did) only has meaning if you know the Mona Lisa is a cherished and vaunted work of art from the old academy and can appreciate the nihilism hiding behind the absurd mask of that pomp. I don't like it, precisely because it only really works at the rarefied conceptual level (i.e. it's smart, but it sacrifices message by adding signal - as you're encouraged not to appreciate the beauty of the original).
So, to restate: Good art works at a lot of different levels of meaning without spelling each message out for you separately. And one piece of art is better than another if the same amount of signal (lines, words, notes, etc.) connects with you (intellectually, emotionally, viscerally) in more ways and with more effect.
Thoughts? Theories? Please do tell.
Work this week has been a goddamn doldrum as well. Today was a lot better, but it's a constant struggle to find a reason to try these days. Every decision is countermanded or belayed and morale is low. We'll fight through it, but good lord.
In related news, I think I'm going to start posting theories (
- Tell me what you think of the theories I post
- Send me your theories to post as well (to here). [my rules are that 1) you have to back your theory up with some observations/facts, 2) it's got to be interesting, 3) it's got to be insightful (none of this, I think water is wet or doing heroin is a bad idea), 4) if it's about God it better be fucking outstanding because I don't believe God exists.
So, here's my first one (some of you may have heard it):
What is good art?
Stupid War. Now we can't enjoy art (but can we still profit?)Although it may be impossible to measure, I think there's a simple formula for deciding if one piece of art is better than another. Art quality = (transmitted information)/(amount of signal).
So, if you can increase the information you transmit while keeping the effort of doing so the same, or reduce the effort while keeping the meaning, you've produced better art. An example:
Say I write 300 words trying to describe a flower. If I do a good job, you'll get a solid understanding of that flower. Now, if I can do the same in 150 words, it's a better piece of writing. What if I write a haiku that evokes a picture of the same flower along with the same emotions conjured in my 150 words? Better yet right? Even if I lose some of the ideas, that's a hell of a haiku.
So far, we're talking about fairly prosaic communication. The better you communicate, the better the art. But I didn't study Comparative Literature in college for naught (I don't want to hear it Mom). Let's take a look at post-modern deconstructionalist literary theory and phenomenology (like one does).
I reread Catcher in the Rye recently, and like most people who do that, I found the second reading to be a wholly different experience from the first. First time through it's about a hip guy who said goddamn and sonovabtich a lot. Awesome!
Second time, it's about the anguish of a kind of pathetic kid who's largely unable to reconcile the way he's been lead to believe the world should operate with the facts he's coming face to face with. Also, if you've taken a lit class in between you start to notice literary structures where none were before. You appreciate that his epiphany in the museum (where he's face to face with the ancient artifacts of a people who were obsessed with age) represents a coming-to-grips with growing up.
Look, up in the sky, an overt reference to Jesus!
For instance, if you've never heard of Christ, you're going to miss a lot of what's going on in Children of Men, Return of Superman, Hamlet, and on and on. So, the strength of the art isn't realized until the artist creates it and the audience opens it up and receives the meaning from it.
I don't like a lot of modern art because someone pooping in a box in the middle of an austere room doesn't do much for me. Some avenues of art are only accessible to people who are able to appreciate that art as a piece in an ongoing conversation. Drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa, for instance (as the Dadaists did) only has meaning if you know the Mona Lisa is a cherished and vaunted work of art from the old academy and can appreciate the nihilism hiding behind the absurd mask of that pomp. I don't like it, precisely because it only really works at the rarefied conceptual level (i.e. it's smart, but it sacrifices message by adding signal - as you're encouraged not to appreciate the beauty of the original).
So, to restate: Good art works at a lot of different levels of meaning without spelling each message out for you separately. And one piece of art is better than another if the same amount of signal (lines, words, notes, etc.) connects with you (intellectually, emotionally, viscerally) in more ways and with more effect.
Thoughts? Theories? Please do tell.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Links for Laura . . .
who has a whack job and needs amusement.
- B3ta.com - often funny, also often puerile
- Pictures of walls - Do you like graffiti? This site seems to.
- Important safety tips - Not actually
- Fighting techniques - This is digging way back, but if you haven't seen it, it's hilarious.
- Ditto the Filing Technique ones
- Ditto Get Your War On
- An anti-USA amuse bouche
- Dinosaurs - It turns out I like stupid clip-art comics
- Lol - stupid
- A classic research source for all things wrong - The uncyclopedia (this is my favorite article)
- Red meat - as seen at the Onion
Monday, February 11, 2008
Whacked
The observant browser will have noticed that I have no idea what purpose this blog serves any longer. It started as a means for keeping friends and family up to date on what the heck I'm doing here in faraway D.C./Reston. Along the way it morphed into sort of a clumsy effort to practice posting my opinions about things and stuff in anticipation of freelance gigs writing for MSNBC (which, thank God, hasn't managed to scarf up Yahoo! just yet).
However, I think we can all agree that no matter what the purpose of a blog is, it's always entertaining to learn about how completely and thoroughly I've been whacked in the arm during a kali class. We were practicing a particular drill that includes throwing an elbow at your partner's head. They evade/block and meanwhile bust up the arm you're throwing the elbow with.
In retrospect, I should have tried harder earlier in the class to keep from banging my partner's hand with a stick. Turnabout's fair play, I guess.
However, it was the practicing with the instructor that really beat me up.
I don't know why I like getting whacked during martial arts classes, but boy it gets the blood pumping (interstitially that is). Perhaps it's like when Samuel Johnson's responded to Bishop Berkeley's solipsistic view of the universe. Berkeley suggested that empiricism was fundamentally problematic because all you could know of the world was through your perceptions and so nothing existed but in your mind. Johnson gamely kicked a stone and cried, "I refute it thus."
The same sentiment was echoed more recently toward the end of Drugstore Cowboy when Matt Dillon announces that "there's nothing more life affirming than getting the shit kicked out of you". Perhaps it's true.
However, I think we can all agree that no matter what the purpose of a blog is, it's always entertaining to learn about how completely and thoroughly I've been whacked in the arm during a kali class. We were practicing a particular drill that includes throwing an elbow at your partner's head. They evade/block and meanwhile bust up the arm you're throwing the elbow with.
In retrospect, I should have tried harder earlier in the class to keep from banging my partner's hand with a stick. Turnabout's fair play, I guess.
However, it was the practicing with the instructor that really beat me up.
I don't know why I like getting whacked during martial arts classes, but boy it gets the blood pumping (interstitially that is). Perhaps it's like when Samuel Johnson's responded to Bishop Berkeley's solipsistic view of the universe. Berkeley suggested that empiricism was fundamentally problematic because all you could know of the world was through your perceptions and so nothing existed but in your mind. Johnson gamely kicked a stone and cried, "I refute it thus."
The same sentiment was echoed more recently toward the end of Drugstore Cowboy when Matt Dillon announces that "there's nothing more life affirming than getting the shit kicked out of you". Perhaps it's true.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Stupid weather!
The wise and humble King Canute once dragged his throne out to the shore to command the tide not to come in. He did this to demonstrate the limits of his kingly powers to his courtiers, showing that God's power greatly outmatched that of any king.
Not being religious, I'm just pissed at Jesus for screwing up the weather this weekend for skiing. Wait, that doesn't make any sense.
Not being religious, I'm just pissed at Jesus for screwing up the weather this weekend for skiing. Wait, that doesn't make any sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
