There are only three places where I go nearly every day. These three consist of my room, my work, and the gym. Since these are the places I frequent, I thought I should do a quick head count to see what I could come up with in regards to demographics. And this is what I found:
My place - just me
My work - 9 males, 2 females
Cardio room - 20 males, 4 females
Weight room - 26 males, 2 females
So altogether, we have a male:female ratio of exactly 8:1. And, I would like to add, the total number of females that meet the two criteria of a) being under 40 years old; and b) likely weighing less than me (at 80kg) equalled exactly one. That brings the ratio to 56:1.
Sure, there might be interesting or even pressing current events going on in the outside world right now. But I couldn't help but write this post about myself. Because with odds like that, I should have a long long future of posting here, with no female to interfere with my time.
Note: Yes I DO have a girlfriend, and yes it is all going great. Just observations, that's all. And everyone is always wondering why I have a long-distance girlfriend...
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Fans in the east
Well, I figure Winnipeg is east, anyway. And that is where I gathered with several other Eskimo fans and one person cheering for Montreal just to spite us, to watch the 93rd Grey Cup game in Vancouver.
After a low-scoring start, this turned into one of the best CFL games I have ever seen. There was much yelling and pizza-eating and beer-drinking and hugging and anguish and joy among us fans. In the end, our Eskies came through 38-35 in OT. I knew you had it in you.
After a low-scoring start, this turned into one of the best CFL games I have ever seen. There was much yelling and pizza-eating and beer-drinking and hugging and anguish and joy among us fans. In the end, our Eskies came through 38-35 in OT. I knew you had it in you.
Monday, November 21, 2005
A penny of motivation buys a pound of pain
Sometimes all it takes is the smallest bit of motivation to cause me to regret motivation for several days. On Saturday, I had this motivation, and it was in the form of an exercise program. I have never really had an exercise program before. I have had ones that I have designed myself, and seeing as I studied that kind of crap in university you might think I would be able to create a good program. But the thing about that is, designing one's own program is the best excuse for changing/shortening it mid-workout. "Oh yeah, I know I said I have 2 more exercises, but I don't feel like it. And since I am the designer, what I decide will be what happens." But the program I just started was designed for a friend's brother. And it is crazy.
So on Saturday I went for Day 4 of the program. After the usual slack warm-up on the bike and ineffectual stretching, I got into shoulder exercises. There is very little rest time, and I am already tired after the first 3 exercises.
After that, it was straight on to legs. Now I have just finished 3 sets of squats. Lowering myself down so slowly and taking no rest at the top makes for a very empty-looking bar compared to my usual poorly performed reps, yet I am sweating hard and getting worn out. My legs are trembling slightly. And after that, I have 3 more sets of squats with my feet set wide apart. At the end of each set I can feel my own muscles pulling on me, and my sight becomes ever-so-slightly blurred as I crash the bar back down off of a bent-over back onto its supports.
I feel like I am going to be sick.
On to lunges on the Smith machine, one leg at a time. Now I don't just want to leave the gym, I want to lay down right there and die. As I make a trip to the water fountain after a set, my knee buckles and almost lets me fall. If I had made this same crazy program myself, I would definitely conclude it was foolish at this point and call it off. But I have that little piece of paper telling me I have to do more.
So I load up the leg press with what little weight I can do at this point. After every set, I writhe for a few moments in the agony of the acid overwhelming my legs and the fact that I am destroying my own muscles. My eyes cringe shut and my teeth clench. I think that there are others in the gym, those who are going half-speed, who think I look ridiculous. But I barely even notice anyone around me, preoccupied by shaking legs and Rise Against screaming in my ear.
After a painful finish, I take on the hamstring curl machine. The backs of my legs had been left somewhat unscathed; now, they are taking an equal beating. I finish that and find myself hoping that there is someone on the squat rack so I can't do my next exercise. Despite all odds, it is still free so I move on to deadlifts to further destroy my hamstrings. I put almost no weight on the bar, but find that I can barely stabilize my back. Time to move on before I do some long-term damage.
Now I get to target those same stabilizers. I walk as upright as my legs will allow to the stretching room, pulling out the abs ball to start on crunches. When I can't do any more, I slide off the ball onto my ass, hitting lightly against the wall. I close my eyes for a second. My legs still burn. When I reopen my eyes, I look at my legs and they aren't where I thought they were. My left leg is bent with my knee up close to my head while my right leg is sprawled out and to the side. I can feel them so accutely, but I can't even really tell where they are? I wonder for a moment if that is what it would be like to have them amputated. And I think that's probably not the first thing I should ask someone with no legs.
Now reverse crunches. V-sits. I am certainly not feeling very good. Why am I still doing this? Because that little piece of paper says "V sits. 2 sets. Failure."? Because if I leave it just means I will have to do homework earlier? Why am I really here? What the..? How do I start contemplating life and death laying sprawled out on a gym mat? I think I can get up...yeah, I'm up. Hobbling tentatively toward the locker room. Walking home through the snow drifts is not going to be fun. Thank goodness for little mercies...Tomorrow is a day off.
So on Saturday I went for Day 4 of the program. After the usual slack warm-up on the bike and ineffectual stretching, I got into shoulder exercises. There is very little rest time, and I am already tired after the first 3 exercises.
After that, it was straight on to legs. Now I have just finished 3 sets of squats. Lowering myself down so slowly and taking no rest at the top makes for a very empty-looking bar compared to my usual poorly performed reps, yet I am sweating hard and getting worn out. My legs are trembling slightly. And after that, I have 3 more sets of squats with my feet set wide apart. At the end of each set I can feel my own muscles pulling on me, and my sight becomes ever-so-slightly blurred as I crash the bar back down off of a bent-over back onto its supports.
I feel like I am going to be sick.
On to lunges on the Smith machine, one leg at a time. Now I don't just want to leave the gym, I want to lay down right there and die. As I make a trip to the water fountain after a set, my knee buckles and almost lets me fall. If I had made this same crazy program myself, I would definitely conclude it was foolish at this point and call it off. But I have that little piece of paper telling me I have to do more.
So I load up the leg press with what little weight I can do at this point. After every set, I writhe for a few moments in the agony of the acid overwhelming my legs and the fact that I am destroying my own muscles. My eyes cringe shut and my teeth clench. I think that there are others in the gym, those who are going half-speed, who think I look ridiculous. But I barely even notice anyone around me, preoccupied by shaking legs and Rise Against screaming in my ear.
After a painful finish, I take on the hamstring curl machine. The backs of my legs had been left somewhat unscathed; now, they are taking an equal beating. I finish that and find myself hoping that there is someone on the squat rack so I can't do my next exercise. Despite all odds, it is still free so I move on to deadlifts to further destroy my hamstrings. I put almost no weight on the bar, but find that I can barely stabilize my back. Time to move on before I do some long-term damage.
Now I get to target those same stabilizers. I walk as upright as my legs will allow to the stretching room, pulling out the abs ball to start on crunches. When I can't do any more, I slide off the ball onto my ass, hitting lightly against the wall. I close my eyes for a second. My legs still burn. When I reopen my eyes, I look at my legs and they aren't where I thought they were. My left leg is bent with my knee up close to my head while my right leg is sprawled out and to the side. I can feel them so accutely, but I can't even really tell where they are? I wonder for a moment if that is what it would be like to have them amputated. And I think that's probably not the first thing I should ask someone with no legs.
Now reverse crunches. V-sits. I am certainly not feeling very good. Why am I still doing this? Because that little piece of paper says "V sits. 2 sets. Failure."? Because if I leave it just means I will have to do homework earlier? Why am I really here? What the..? How do I start contemplating life and death laying sprawled out on a gym mat? I think I can get up...yeah, I'm up. Hobbling tentatively toward the locker room. Walking home through the snow drifts is not going to be fun. Thank goodness for little mercies...Tomorrow is a day off.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
The Public...Works?
Check out this article. It is on the subject of the federal Department of Public Works, which has essentially just issued a moratorium on the hiring of white, able-bodied males. Discrimination with the goal of eliminating discrimination? Doesn't sound like a solution to me. Hopefully they don't do the same with my department, we wouldn't have anyone left.
Thank you Justin for the link.
Thank you Justin for the link.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Team Update
An important update on the Superfriends of JC Brown:
Starting players "T-Money" Taylor and "Strakattack" Strachan will not be facing criminal prosecution for their role in the events on the eve of the dodgeball tournament.
Just to remind you, the two players were apprehended by hotel security in the hotel pool after-hours, having crawled down the waterslide (since no water was running down it) and having sunk several empty beer cans to the bottom of the pool. They espcaped from security after a brief encounter, and fled into the area surrounding the hotel (at approximately 3am). They then called Yours Truly for assistance, including bringing them shoes and a shirt. They returned to the hotel room, but we were awakened an hour later by four members of the city police department. The young and slightly inebriated men were finally persuaded to wake up after some physical prodding by the officers, and taken away in 'cuffs. The police listened to their story and decided that charges were not necessary. The security guard insisted, so the case was passed to the Crown for review. News came today that the Crown has thrown out the case.
All friends of the Superfriends, rejoice!
Starting players "T-Money" Taylor and "Strakattack" Strachan will not be facing criminal prosecution for their role in the events on the eve of the dodgeball tournament.
Just to remind you, the two players were apprehended by hotel security in the hotel pool after-hours, having crawled down the waterslide (since no water was running down it) and having sunk several empty beer cans to the bottom of the pool. They espcaped from security after a brief encounter, and fled into the area surrounding the hotel (at approximately 3am). They then called Yours Truly for assistance, including bringing them shoes and a shirt. They returned to the hotel room, but we were awakened an hour later by four members of the city police department. The young and slightly inebriated men were finally persuaded to wake up after some physical prodding by the officers, and taken away in 'cuffs. The police listened to their story and decided that charges were not necessary. The security guard insisted, so the case was passed to the Crown for review. News came today that the Crown has thrown out the case.
All friends of the Superfriends, rejoice!
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
America is funny
This was found at www.satirewire.com. It may contradict any support for the US that I may or may not have been perceived as showing in the previous post. And it is awesome. And hopefully I am allowed to show it to you.
AMERICANS ANNOYED BY "ALL THIS
INTERNATIONAL SHIT" ON INTERNET
Web's Increasingly Worldly Flavor Threatens Americans' Worldview
PULLMAN, WASH. (SatireWire.com) — The profusion of international news available on the Internet has made it increasingly difficult for the average American to ignore the rest of the world, a trend researchers say threatens Americans' long, proud history of disregarding anything not about them.
"With all the foreign newspapers and multi-cultural sites, the Internet is making it almost impossible for the average American to remain uninformed and apathetic," said Samantha Lessborn of Washington State University, which conducted the survey. "Americans can still do it. But it now takes effort, whereas before it was as easy as turning off Tom Brokaw whenever he said 'In South Korea today...'"
According to survey participant Danny Grisham, a 22-year-old from Cheyenne, Wyoming, it's not just the plethora of international news on the Web that is irritating. "Look, I can get around the news. I just turn off Reuters headlines in MyYahoo," he said. "But even some of the search sites like Yahoo and Alta Vista are available in different languages. Like everybody in the world doesn't speak English. Yeah, right."
"I can see where it's important if we're, like, beating some country in the Olympics or bombing them or, ideally, both," Grisham added. "But if some Colombian drug lord sinks a ferry full of Israeli soldiers in North Latvoania or Serbo-Malaysia, or wherever, and Americans aren't involved, what has that got to do with me?"
Other respondents said they were appalled, not just by the availability of non-U.S. news, but by the way important U.S. news is reported by some of these foreign sites. "Yesterday, for instance, the St. Louis Rams beat the Atlanta Falcons, OK, and I go to the London Times site and it's not even there," said Chip Pernadge of Kansas City, Mo. "Jesus, no wonder those guys lost the war and had to give Hong Kong back to Canada."
Sensing a market opportunity, Net Nanny, makers of Net Nanny filtering software, announced this week it will introduce NetNarrow, an English-only product that automatically filters out content that appears to be international. Specifically, the software looks for world datelines and keywords indicative of irrelevant foreign stories, including "Shiite," "post-Apartheid," and "Bob Geldof."
Survey-taker Craig Barker of Brooklyn, New York, said he will be among the first to get NetNarrow. "On the Web, there are so many ways to get news from so many different places, I could really get some fresh insights into what's going on in other countries if I wanted to," he said.. "But I don't want to."
"You'd think these Internet people would know that," Barker added. "I mean, that's why the Internet is called America Online, right? It's supposed to be about America."
Editor's Note: It seems that after reading this entirely fictional story, some investors/customers of Net Nanny believed the company actually was going to produce NetNarrow software. As a result, Net Nanny asked SatireWire to please assure people that this is not the case. No, really.
Copyright © 2000-2001, SatireWire.Sunday, November 13, 2005
Southern Neighbours
This is a very interesting article in today's National Post, entitled, "Sometimes, making peace means making war," by well-known Canadian author J.L. Granatstein. This is the first in a five-part series that will explore myths that Canadians have about The United States, and focuses on the general Candian-held belief that Americans are big bullies who use violent force and never achieve anything, while we go out and use hugs and kisses and blue berets to solve the rest of the world's problems. While I certainly don't claim to support American foreign policy, this article certainly helps to put a more historical perspective on relative success and failure in peacekeeping vs. peacemaking. Perhaps our world achievements aren't all we try to make them out to be.
On a side note, due to the minority government, a major foreign policy review which could have addressed these issues (and which would have led to a review of how our military is used as a foreign policy tool) turned into a small paper hardly worthy of mention.
On a side note, due to the minority government, a major foreign policy review which could have addressed these issues (and which would have led to a review of how our military is used as a foreign policy tool) turned into a small paper hardly worthy of mention.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Remembrance
For those who would trade time with their family for distant lands. Who would knowingly give up comfort for agony. They would trade their happiness for fear. Give up the years of their youth to conditions no man should have to bear. And to those who would rather die than have us live in a wold without family, friends, happiness and freedom. You are not forgotten.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Some light reading
Is it necessary, if one claims or wants to be a member of a religion, to accept all the doctrine of that religion?
Holy crap. I have no idea, really. I was raised as a Roman Catholic, but clearly there are parts of the Catechism that I don't agree with and which seem counter to the morals I have ingrained in me, whether by birth or upbringing. But then, as I read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, I am confused. Mr. Lewis, author of The Chronicles of Narnia and many other books, was a very respected author and professor and was an atheist until he went about trying to disprove Christianity and instead because Christian himself. He says that one must totally accept the religion in all its aspects in order to be true, not only to the religion, but to oneself and to God.
The problem is as follows: He says that man's sense of morality can only come from God, and it is in fact in this way that the existence of a superior being is proven. Every civilization has had similar morals throughout history (though widely varying rules accompanying them). Morals that don't agree with these standards are said to be "perverted." For example, a man who enjoys kicking a dog has a perverted sense of pleasure. It also says a man's love of another man is perverted. Basically, the doctrine of a religion is to support and possibly even enforce these mores. So if I disagree with them, does that make me perverted? But isn't it God who gave me my sense of morality? Did I just screw it up? Or does it just mean that I am lazy? There are only 4 Cardinal Virtues - those of prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. Does adhering to those seem so difficult? Why this "doctrine" around them? Clearly "Do to others as you would have done to you" is nothing new. But then, ss drunkeness really a roadblock on a path in pursuit of perfection, as the doctrine would claim? Does indulging an appetite, whether for drink or for sexuality, really lead away from God?
I recently read a book on Buddhism. That author also said that in order to achieve the aims of the religion it is necessary to fully embody everything it says. While it is possible to go halfway, you will not get anything out of it. Is this why so many young people are disenchanted with Christianity and organized religion in general these days? Is it because we do not have the motivation or desire to follow it to its ends? Or do we prefer science and what can be proven? Or perhaps we can only see taking a stand against religion as taking a stand, while defending religion is old-fashioned or close-minded or just plain wrong.
So what if I don't want to follow a specific religion? They all claim great things, such as eternal life or nirvana, etc, and their purpose seems to be to show the meaning of life to their followers. But maybe I don't believe it. Or maybe it's just that I don't feel like abiding by all these pesky rules that are required. Maybe I could live "just to be happy," and that would be enough. But probably not. Einstein once called that outlook, "The pigsty mentality," and I am inclined to agree. Should I only experience love so I feel good about it? Should I only serve others so that I can further my own interests? What about beauty and truth and everything else I have a chance to experience - is that just to make me happy? If I determine my standards, the point where I will make a stand, on a piecemeal basis, is that going to make my world better or worse? Or do I even care?
Though books and preachers and bibles and rabbis and monks will tell you what you must do, it all means nothing. Each one of us must decide for ourselves what to believe and how to embody these beliefs, and I don't think these choice can be proven right or wrong. Yet despite never being proven wrong, "what do I believe" still seems to be the most difficult question I can ever put an answer to.
Holy crap. I have no idea, really. I was raised as a Roman Catholic, but clearly there are parts of the Catechism that I don't agree with and which seem counter to the morals I have ingrained in me, whether by birth or upbringing. But then, as I read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, I am confused. Mr. Lewis, author of The Chronicles of Narnia and many other books, was a very respected author and professor and was an atheist until he went about trying to disprove Christianity and instead because Christian himself. He says that one must totally accept the religion in all its aspects in order to be true, not only to the religion, but to oneself and to God.
The problem is as follows: He says that man's sense of morality can only come from God, and it is in fact in this way that the existence of a superior being is proven. Every civilization has had similar morals throughout history (though widely varying rules accompanying them). Morals that don't agree with these standards are said to be "perverted." For example, a man who enjoys kicking a dog has a perverted sense of pleasure. It also says a man's love of another man is perverted. Basically, the doctrine of a religion is to support and possibly even enforce these mores. So if I disagree with them, does that make me perverted? But isn't it God who gave me my sense of morality? Did I just screw it up? Or does it just mean that I am lazy? There are only 4 Cardinal Virtues - those of prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. Does adhering to those seem so difficult? Why this "doctrine" around them? Clearly "Do to others as you would have done to you" is nothing new. But then, ss drunkeness really a roadblock on a path in pursuit of perfection, as the doctrine would claim? Does indulging an appetite, whether for drink or for sexuality, really lead away from God?
I recently read a book on Buddhism. That author also said that in order to achieve the aims of the religion it is necessary to fully embody everything it says. While it is possible to go halfway, you will not get anything out of it. Is this why so many young people are disenchanted with Christianity and organized religion in general these days? Is it because we do not have the motivation or desire to follow it to its ends? Or do we prefer science and what can be proven? Or perhaps we can only see taking a stand against religion as taking a stand, while defending religion is old-fashioned or close-minded or just plain wrong.
So what if I don't want to follow a specific religion? They all claim great things, such as eternal life or nirvana, etc, and their purpose seems to be to show the meaning of life to their followers. But maybe I don't believe it. Or maybe it's just that I don't feel like abiding by all these pesky rules that are required. Maybe I could live "just to be happy," and that would be enough. But probably not. Einstein once called that outlook, "The pigsty mentality," and I am inclined to agree. Should I only experience love so I feel good about it? Should I only serve others so that I can further my own interests? What about beauty and truth and everything else I have a chance to experience - is that just to make me happy? If I determine my standards, the point where I will make a stand, on a piecemeal basis, is that going to make my world better or worse? Or do I even care?
Though books and preachers and bibles and rabbis and monks will tell you what you must do, it all means nothing. Each one of us must decide for ourselves what to believe and how to embody these beliefs, and I don't think these choice can be proven right or wrong. Yet despite never being proven wrong, "what do I believe" still seems to be the most difficult question I can ever put an answer to.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
My sensitivity training
SPOILER ALERT
I'm talking about a movie here, so though I doubt I will ruin it for you...you've been warned.
I watched Jarhead last night. The major question that arises for me out of that is, not about war or foreign politics, but, "Why are people in the theatre laughing at parts of the movie that really aren't funny?" I had this same feeling after watching Farenheit 9/11. Clearly there are parts designed to be funny. And I agree it could be considered funny that a bunch of Marines have to build a 5m tall pyramid of sandbags in the rain, and as soon as they finish they have to take it down. Or maybe you may even think it is funny when a young recruit gets his head smashed into a chalkboard. But it a guy snapping from stress and threatening to kill his buddy really funny? Or a guy vomiting because he is surrounded by death - that makes you laugh?
Maybe it is just because these situations just seem so far-fetched, so unbelievable to us living in Canada because we only see that sort of crap on TV. Maybe I am just bitter because I am too comfortable. I am quite sure that people get immune to seeing that stuff, but I didn't think it would bring on laughter. There were a few kids, maybe 10 or 12 years old, leaving the movie theatre in front of me. One was saying to the others that this movie should have been considered a comedy because it was so damn funny. Really? A movie about a war is funny? A bunch of 18-25 year-old Americans sucking on sand and oil for six months while their enemies are fried by bombs and their wives sleep with their neighbours should be a comedy? I'm no psychologist, but are we supposed to laugh at the plight of other people, especially when clearly it is a true story?
I don't know. Maybe I'm just too sensitive.
I'm talking about a movie here, so though I doubt I will ruin it for you...you've been warned.
I watched Jarhead last night. The major question that arises for me out of that is, not about war or foreign politics, but, "Why are people in the theatre laughing at parts of the movie that really aren't funny?" I had this same feeling after watching Farenheit 9/11. Clearly there are parts designed to be funny. And I agree it could be considered funny that a bunch of Marines have to build a 5m tall pyramid of sandbags in the rain, and as soon as they finish they have to take it down. Or maybe you may even think it is funny when a young recruit gets his head smashed into a chalkboard. But it a guy snapping from stress and threatening to kill his buddy really funny? Or a guy vomiting because he is surrounded by death - that makes you laugh?
Maybe it is just because these situations just seem so far-fetched, so unbelievable to us living in Canada because we only see that sort of crap on TV. Maybe I am just bitter because I am too comfortable. I am quite sure that people get immune to seeing that stuff, but I didn't think it would bring on laughter. There were a few kids, maybe 10 or 12 years old, leaving the movie theatre in front of me. One was saying to the others that this movie should have been considered a comedy because it was so damn funny. Really? A movie about a war is funny? A bunch of 18-25 year-old Americans sucking on sand and oil for six months while their enemies are fried by bombs and their wives sleep with their neighbours should be a comedy? I'm no psychologist, but are we supposed to laugh at the plight of other people, especially when clearly it is a true story?
I don't know. Maybe I'm just too sensitive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
