April 18, 2011
I hate my fucking job
I have been asking for programming work for now no less than nine months. Last week I was finally given a programming project which I got quite far into on Friday. Then today, I come into work and my computer is hosed. Can't work! I put in the request to get it fixed, but how fast do they get here? They don't. So the only programming work I've had in forever is immediately passed on to another programmer. And it turns out that the information I was given to complete this task was actually wrong. So even if I had finished the stupid programming job, it wouldn't have been right and I would have taken shit for that, despite the fact that I would have been doing what I was told in the first fucking place. Fuck my life.
April 17, 2011
Breaking up is hard to do
I just ended a relationship with a young lady I had met on the Internet. The attraction was there and while I did like her, I knew that long term potential wasn't there, so I broke it off with her. I did the best I could, I was honest and clear, tried to blunt the hurt as much as possible. She really liked me and she didn't take the news too well, and I hate giving good people bad news. I don't know if it speaks well of me or makes me a wuss, but I really feel like a jerk right now. I made the right choice, that I'm sure of, and I made it very clear to her that she did nothing wrong, but she was shocked and hurt and I hate that I had to make her feel that way.
In a way it's almost better when relationships explode in a fiery conflagration that makes everyone involved angry and screamy. That kind of pain is easy to deal with, or it is for me. This quiet, sad, and drama-free breakup just sucks. I wish there had been something I could have done differently to make it better, but short of staying in the relationship till something better came along which is a most dick of dick moves, there was no way to avoid this.
Stupid emotions. I should, like, be a robot. Or something.
In a way it's almost better when relationships explode in a fiery conflagration that makes everyone involved angry and screamy. That kind of pain is easy to deal with, or it is for me. This quiet, sad, and drama-free breakup just sucks. I wish there had been something I could have done differently to make it better, but short of staying in the relationship till something better came along which is a most dick of dick moves, there was no way to avoid this.
Stupid emotions. I should, like, be a robot. Or something.
April 15, 2011
Admitting weakness...
Pull ups, chin ups, you name it, I couldn't do them. I've taken many martial arts, but the ability to pull oneself up was never really called upon. As such I never actually did any pull ups or chin ups. So when my Capoeira instructor brought in a chin up bar, I expected to have a poor showing. Well, worse than that, I couldn't do a single chin up, much less a pull up. I felt appropriately shamed. Though Capoeira is lotsa legs, having appropriate upper body strength is also important, so resolved to start training towards pull ups. I suppose it's worth mentioning that if I cheat, that is I don't start and end at a dead hang, I can muddle out a few chin ups, but do it right or don't do it at all, so my goal was a full pull: from a dead hang all the way up and all the way back down to a dead hang.
After a few weeks of being a cheap bastard and not buying the really expensive bars you hang in a doorway, I eventually found one for a reasonable price and started trying to do what I call L ups because the part of the bar I'm holding are parallel bits that stick out, a nice in between setting of chin up and pull up. Since I couldn't even do one up I decided the best was was to start with dead drops, that is to hop up into position and then very slowly lower all the way down to a dead hang. I found out the next day, with screamingly painful arms, that this kind of workout, while effective, is the most painful way to start. OUCH. So I looked at the other options for people who can't do any ups and found that if I put my feet behind me on a box or something that I could do slightly assisted L ups, so there I started.
It's been a few weeks and I was showing small amounts of improvement but I still couldn't do a single anything up. I had been concentrating on chin ups as my unassisted attempts as they are the easiest to do, but no luck. It was like I was pulling, and could get my shoulders to move a bit, but nothing after that. I was missing an entire muscle group or something. It was depressing, but I soldiered on as I usually do. Then, yesterday, before my full workout, I successfully struggled through a single chin up! I was totally psyched. I tried for a second one, failed, and went back to my normal workout, but I managed it!
With one down now it's just a matter of time before I get to my goal. It may be a long time, but patience is a virtue I have when it comes to strength training. My goal is going to be hard to get to but it is as follows: ten chin ups, ten L ups, and then twenty pull ups alternating pulling up to chest and up to back. From one chin up to forty assorted ups. This ain't gonna be easy, but it will definitely be worth it.
After a few weeks of being a cheap bastard and not buying the really expensive bars you hang in a doorway, I eventually found one for a reasonable price and started trying to do what I call L ups because the part of the bar I'm holding are parallel bits that stick out, a nice in between setting of chin up and pull up. Since I couldn't even do one up I decided the best was was to start with dead drops, that is to hop up into position and then very slowly lower all the way down to a dead hang. I found out the next day, with screamingly painful arms, that this kind of workout, while effective, is the most painful way to start. OUCH. So I looked at the other options for people who can't do any ups and found that if I put my feet behind me on a box or something that I could do slightly assisted L ups, so there I started.
It's been a few weeks and I was showing small amounts of improvement but I still couldn't do a single anything up. I had been concentrating on chin ups as my unassisted attempts as they are the easiest to do, but no luck. It was like I was pulling, and could get my shoulders to move a bit, but nothing after that. I was missing an entire muscle group or something. It was depressing, but I soldiered on as I usually do. Then, yesterday, before my full workout, I successfully struggled through a single chin up! I was totally psyched. I tried for a second one, failed, and went back to my normal workout, but I managed it!
With one down now it's just a matter of time before I get to my goal. It may be a long time, but patience is a virtue I have when it comes to strength training. My goal is going to be hard to get to but it is as follows: ten chin ups, ten L ups, and then twenty pull ups alternating pulling up to chest and up to back. From one chin up to forty assorted ups. This ain't gonna be easy, but it will definitely be worth it.
April 12, 2011
The Pledge...
The Pledge of Allegiance was, originally:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
In 1923 the pledge was changed so that new immigrants wouldn't confuse loyalties with their country of origin. It was:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
In 1954, after years of pressure from religious influences, the words "under god" were added, bringing the Pledge to the wording we have today.
Why is this not ok? Because "under god" is an insult to every American who doesn't believe in this nebulous "god". Atheists, obviously, are the first people that pop to mind for who's being insulted, but let's not forget Apatheists, Secularists, Humanists, Wiccans, and anyone else who isn't Christian. Oh, yes, the non-specific "god" is supposedly intended to include other religions, but the words were added by Christians for Christians. This is where the bullshit of "we are a Christian nation" began, and here it must end.
We are not a Christian nation. That's what the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state are all about. We are a nation of all religions and none, or at least we're supposed to be. So every time someone posts their little "say the pledge like we always did" bullshit on Facebook or sends on a forwarded email chain of the same crap I get pissed. This isn't a little deal. It's a big deal. I thought the "under god" line should be removed when I was active at my parents church, I thought the same when I flirted with atheism, the same when I went Buddhist, and the same now that I'm an apatheist. It has nothing to do with my religion and everything to do with believing in liberty and justice for all, because there are no exceptions listed after "for all", and until 1954 there weren't any exceptions in the Pledge either.
To put it in terms that might resonate with you more, imagine if instead of "one nation under god" the pledge read "one white nation". Would that be just as ok? No! It would be unimaginably racist and wouldn't even be considered to be added to the pledge. So how is "under god" any better? It isn't. If you'd like to see this horrible and apt comparison thoroughly examined, read this. It gets the point across more eloquently than I could.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: If the pledge is to be spoken in schools, in government buildings, or in the public square, it must be representative of ALL Americans. Excise two inappropriate words, and no one in the country would ever complain about the Pledge again. That way we truly could get back to being, "one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
In 1923 the pledge was changed so that new immigrants wouldn't confuse loyalties with their country of origin. It was:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
In 1954, after years of pressure from religious influences, the words "under god" were added, bringing the Pledge to the wording we have today.
Why is this not ok? Because "under god" is an insult to every American who doesn't believe in this nebulous "god". Atheists, obviously, are the first people that pop to mind for who's being insulted, but let's not forget Apatheists, Secularists, Humanists, Wiccans, and anyone else who isn't Christian. Oh, yes, the non-specific "god" is supposedly intended to include other religions, but the words were added by Christians for Christians. This is where the bullshit of "we are a Christian nation" began, and here it must end.
We are not a Christian nation. That's what the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state are all about. We are a nation of all religions and none, or at least we're supposed to be. So every time someone posts their little "say the pledge like we always did" bullshit on Facebook or sends on a forwarded email chain of the same crap I get pissed. This isn't a little deal. It's a big deal. I thought the "under god" line should be removed when I was active at my parents church, I thought the same when I flirted with atheism, the same when I went Buddhist, and the same now that I'm an apatheist. It has nothing to do with my religion and everything to do with believing in liberty and justice for all, because there are no exceptions listed after "for all", and until 1954 there weren't any exceptions in the Pledge either.
To put it in terms that might resonate with you more, imagine if instead of "one nation under god" the pledge read "one white nation". Would that be just as ok? No! It would be unimaginably racist and wouldn't even be considered to be added to the pledge. So how is "under god" any better? It isn't. If you'd like to see this horrible and apt comparison thoroughly examined, read this. It gets the point across more eloquently than I could.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: If the pledge is to be spoken in schools, in government buildings, or in the public square, it must be representative of ALL Americans. Excise two inappropriate words, and no one in the country would ever complain about the Pledge again. That way we truly could get back to being, "one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
April 11, 2011
Why I'm pro-atheist.
I still haven't yet figured out how to write my religion/atheism/etc post, but I do have a number of examples as to why I am very pro-atheist when it comes to politics. This probably won't surprise you, but these examples come from republicans.
Newt Gingrich:
"I have two grandchildren: Maggie is 11; Robert is 9. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."
Me:
This horrifying secular atheist country will be dominated by radical Islamists? What?
Mitt Romney:
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone....[I]n recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning....It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
Me:
Separation of church and state is pretty clear just from the name itself. Stating that religion is a prerequisite for freedom is mind-bogglingly stupid, only beaten by calling secularism a religion.
Sarah Palin:
"...hearing any leader declare that America isn't a Christian nation and poking an ally like Israel in the eye, it's mind-boggling...."
Me:
America isn't a Christian nation. Fish in a barrel. Moving on.
Mike Huckabee:
"If integrity and character are divorced from God, they don't make sense."
"I almost wish that there would be, like, a simultaneous telecast, and all Americans would be forced — forced at gunpoint no less — to listen to every David Barton message, and I think our country would be better for it. I wish it’d happen."
Me:
I know people of integrity and character who don't need a God to tell them that rape, slavery, and murder are wrong. I bet you do too.
Forcing people at gunpoint to listen to David Barton is in what possible way acceptable in your mind?
Tim Pawlenty:
"We need to be a country that turns toward God. Not a country that turns away from God."
"We have, as a country, a founding perspective that we’re founded under God; our founding documents reference and acknowledge God, and acknowledge that our rights and privileges come from our Creator."
Me:
We do? Why?
No, actually, that's a bold faced lie, as God isn't mentioned in the Constitution. It's like the founders, men I might add, were deliberately separating church and state. Shocking.
This is the kind of shit that gets me so angry I can't think straight. How are these people supposed to lead a country when they're busy denying and vilifying an estimated 10% of the population based on a bigoted belief that is expressly forbidden by our founding documents? If we did have a leader who was saying things about atheists, I wish it would be something more like this:
"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers."
Oh, wait, that one was President Obama. Looks like someone might get it! And he's not a republican. Shocking.
Newt Gingrich:
"I have two grandchildren: Maggie is 11; Robert is 9. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."
Me:
This horrifying secular atheist country will be dominated by radical Islamists? What?
Mitt Romney:
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone....[I]n recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning....It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
Me:
Separation of church and state is pretty clear just from the name itself. Stating that religion is a prerequisite for freedom is mind-bogglingly stupid, only beaten by calling secularism a religion.
Sarah Palin:
"...hearing any leader declare that America isn't a Christian nation and poking an ally like Israel in the eye, it's mind-boggling...."
Me:
America isn't a Christian nation. Fish in a barrel. Moving on.
Mike Huckabee:
"If integrity and character are divorced from God, they don't make sense."
"I almost wish that there would be, like, a simultaneous telecast, and all Americans would be forced — forced at gunpoint no less — to listen to every David Barton message, and I think our country would be better for it. I wish it’d happen."
Me:
I know people of integrity and character who don't need a God to tell them that rape, slavery, and murder are wrong. I bet you do too.
Forcing people at gunpoint to listen to David Barton is in what possible way acceptable in your mind?
Tim Pawlenty:
"We need to be a country that turns toward God. Not a country that turns away from God."
"We have, as a country, a founding perspective that we’re founded under God; our founding documents reference and acknowledge God, and acknowledge that our rights and privileges come from our Creator."
Me:
We do? Why?
No, actually, that's a bold faced lie, as God isn't mentioned in the Constitution. It's like the founders, men I might add, were deliberately separating church and state. Shocking.
This is the kind of shit that gets me so angry I can't think straight. How are these people supposed to lead a country when they're busy denying and vilifying an estimated 10% of the population based on a bigoted belief that is expressly forbidden by our founding documents? If we did have a leader who was saying things about atheists, I wish it would be something more like this:
"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers."
Oh, wait, that one was President Obama. Looks like someone might get it! And he's not a republican. Shocking.
March 29, 2011
What a difference an inch makes...
.
So I've been taking Capoeira for just over two years and you'd think that, in this time, I'd have made some serious progress. Yet despite all my work and effort, even the simplest things it turns out I still have room to improve on. The ginga, the basic step or stance of Capoeira, I had been doing wrong until just recently, maybe three weeks ago. My legs have hurt ever since, as I'm trying to start doing it right, which is good. It's not necessarily that I was going ginga completely wrong, it's that some of the finer details of the technique were eluding me. Just one class with a different instructor and bam, I'm learning new things.
As for why I'm talking about this now, last night I learned something equally mind-blowing. Cartwheels, called au by Capoeristas, are a basic thing. I was taught them either my first or second night of class. I've been doing them ever since. I thought I was getting pretty good at them. Turns out that during that time I had been placing my hand ever so slightly wrong all this time. The difference in hand placement is at most a couple of inches, and is probably just an inch, but it has such an impact on not only all my au, but handstands, back bends, and other stuff that it's incredible. Honestly, if I showed you the difference, you might not even see it. I wouldn't have until last night.
I'm often awed not by how much I've learned, but how much more I have to learn even about things I thought I knew. Sometimes, like last night, I got this by asking an insightful question that led to a sudden realization. Other times I learn things through instruction. I'm not sure which is more but I definitely believe one thing:
Never stop asking questions. Sometimes the answers will astound you.
So I've been taking Capoeira for just over two years and you'd think that, in this time, I'd have made some serious progress. Yet despite all my work and effort, even the simplest things it turns out I still have room to improve on. The ginga, the basic step or stance of Capoeira, I had been doing wrong until just recently, maybe three weeks ago. My legs have hurt ever since, as I'm trying to start doing it right, which is good. It's not necessarily that I was going ginga completely wrong, it's that some of the finer details of the technique were eluding me. Just one class with a different instructor and bam, I'm learning new things.
As for why I'm talking about this now, last night I learned something equally mind-blowing. Cartwheels, called au by Capoeristas, are a basic thing. I was taught them either my first or second night of class. I've been doing them ever since. I thought I was getting pretty good at them. Turns out that during that time I had been placing my hand ever so slightly wrong all this time. The difference in hand placement is at most a couple of inches, and is probably just an inch, but it has such an impact on not only all my au, but handstands, back bends, and other stuff that it's incredible. Honestly, if I showed you the difference, you might not even see it. I wouldn't have until last night.
I'm often awed not by how much I've learned, but how much more I have to learn even about things I thought I knew. Sometimes, like last night, I got this by asking an insightful question that led to a sudden realization. Other times I learn things through instruction. I'm not sure which is more but I definitely believe one thing:
Never stop asking questions. Sometimes the answers will astound you.
March 24, 2011
Technique vs. Strength in Capoeira
One of the most commonly repeated comments I hear while reading about Capoeira or watching videos is that Capoeira moves are more about technique than they are about strength.
Bullshit.
Yes, absolutely, if you do the move with incorrect technique, it is harder. But ALL Capoeira moves require a certain level of strength and flexibility. Even the most basic step, the ginga, takes strength to do right. Practically anyone can do a half-assed or incorrect ginga, not that hard. To do it right, however, requires a lot of leg strength. I only recently started doing ginga right, and I'm on my 2nd year of training! I'm pretty good at back bends, but it wasn't learning the technique of the move that was hard, I didn't have the upper body strength or back flexibility to do the move in the first place! I imagine most people can't do a back bend, and they certainly can't roll into a back bend from the side.
Specifically the Macaco is the move that I've heard this nonsense the most about. It's essentially a back handspring from a crouch. Technique is important, but if you don't have the leg and back strength to kick up, technique won't mean squat to you.
I'm not sure why people like to spout this nonsense, though perhaps it's some attempt to make Capoeira seem more accessible to people. Technique or not, you gonna take Capoeira, you gonna work and you gonna work hard if you're ever going to get past ginga and some kicks. I'm just sayin'.
Bullshit.
Yes, absolutely, if you do the move with incorrect technique, it is harder. But ALL Capoeira moves require a certain level of strength and flexibility. Even the most basic step, the ginga, takes strength to do right. Practically anyone can do a half-assed or incorrect ginga, not that hard. To do it right, however, requires a lot of leg strength. I only recently started doing ginga right, and I'm on my 2nd year of training! I'm pretty good at back bends, but it wasn't learning the technique of the move that was hard, I didn't have the upper body strength or back flexibility to do the move in the first place! I imagine most people can't do a back bend, and they certainly can't roll into a back bend from the side.
Specifically the Macaco is the move that I've heard this nonsense the most about. It's essentially a back handspring from a crouch. Technique is important, but if you don't have the leg and back strength to kick up, technique won't mean squat to you.
I'm not sure why people like to spout this nonsense, though perhaps it's some attempt to make Capoeira seem more accessible to people. Technique or not, you gonna take Capoeira, you gonna work and you gonna work hard if you're ever going to get past ginga and some kicks. I'm just sayin'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)