31 DAYS...

1/12 of 2006 is over...

PROUD OF:
Getting regular physical activity back into my life. I love Capoeira. It's exactly what I needed. Exactly what I was looking for. 2005 with barely any excerise and no martial arts was killing me. Yet, I know it's so easy to be lazy when it comes to working out. When the end of the work day comes (and I'm feeling especially tired), it's so easy to skip a workout and say: "I'll go next time". Luckily, I haven't fallen into that trap. Sure, there are days when I have to DRAG myself to Capoeira. But once I get there and the blood and endorphens start flowing, I'm in the zone. Even if I'm exhausted from all the spinning kicks and cartwheels, I always feel good after class. I know I'll stick with it for awhile.

Keeping up daily in my Moleskine (more on that later).

NEED TO WORK ON:
My diet is not as good as it could be. I love rice. I NEED my rice. I NEED MY WHITE RICE. Brown rice. UGH!! I love chicken skin and despise the chicken breast. Bacon seems to be creeping back into my life. I pretty much restrict my liquid intake to milk, orange juice, water, vitamin water, and sometimes diet coke/pepsi/7-Up. Must eat more fruit and veggies.

Losing touch with BSG. Shame on Ronin... Missed last week's episode, and the one before, my attention was divided between computer and TV.

So long January 2006. I'm off to Capoeira. It's my game...

THE EYES HAVE IT...

------------------------------------------------------

[This blog was inspired by TofU's "Look Into My Eye" Blog. It started off as a comment to his blog, but it just got longer and longer and longer and...]

I haven't had my eyes checked in years...

Believe it or not, I do wear glasses, but oh so rarely...

I'm near-sighted (things that are near are clearer, but things far away are blurry).

I know my left eye is weaker than my right eye.

(Hmmmmm.... I am reminded of one of my creative writing instructors. In the sentence before this paragraph, I ended by saying: "...than my right eye". How many of you feel it was redundant for me to say that? Wouldn't it read just as well if I said: "I know my left eye is weaker." I mean, I wouldn't say: "My left eye is weaker than my right ear... or my left foot... right? This was one of my instructor's pet peeves in creative writing. He felt it was redundant in the grand scheme of things. Kinda like saying "She blinked her eyes" or "She looked at him with her eyes". My instructor would then state that there was no need to tell the reader that the eyes were being used, as it should already be understood. "What else is she going to blink with?" he would ask. "Her ears? She blinked with her ears? She looked at him with her armpit?" "She blinked" or "She looked at him" was his preference. Just a passing recollection...)

Does anybody know if this is actually true? I'd heard (many years ago) that if you need glasses, your eyes will get worse quicker if you wear your glasses constantly, as opposed to not wearing them often. Seems to make sense, that your eyes would become "dependent" on the glasses. That's why I've always refrained from using my glasses on a regular basis. However, if my eyes weren't going to be perfect, I guess I'm lucky I am near-sighted. I can see how one might have little choice if everything near is blurry (far-sighted). There's not much of a choice if you need reading glasses, etc. I should make a clarification. Technically, I do need glasses. I just don't wear them. I don't even know where they are at the moment. (I'm sure if I set my mind to it and did a "search & destroy" thru my home, I'd eventually find them.) The truth is, though, I really only need them if I'm driving in an unfamiliar area. When I need to read street names and signs. Otherwise, I get along fine without them.

Another bit of trivia. According to my brother, it's not possible just to "pop" your eye out. It's too "snug". The bone that houses the eye would have to be broken. Can anyone verify that? Anybody out there who is studying the human body?

Another thing that comes to mind. I recently finished listening to an audio book recording of "The Invisible Man". I really liked the story. However, I recall a friend "bursting" the concept of an invisible man. Perhaps invisibility is possible. I mean, wind is invisible, right? We know it's there, we just can't see it. Well, years ago, a friend pointed out that an invisible man would technically be blind. "How so?" I asked. And, of course, he went on to explain. [Anyone who knows the mechanics of the eye should agree.] In a nutshell, light passes through the eye, an image is formed (upside-down) at the back of the eye, then the image is turned right side up by our brain. So, if there's no visible eyeball for light to pass into, an invisible man would be blind. Ah well... I suspended my disbelief and enjoyed the story nonetheless. And I highly recommend it to any sci-fi/fantasy fan out there.

Another thing that comes to mind. Are the eyes windows to our souls? If you're lying, will you really have the tendency to look towards the left (or is it the right?) because you're accessing the creative center of your brain? Do we romanticize too much on body parts? Take the heart. The heart is a pump, people. It is a pump. If you look at the real heart, do images of love and cupid and Valentine's Day and loved ones come to mind? And has anybody out there seen a heart that was covered in cholesterol? UGH!! A lot of people out there couldn't look at a real heart. They'd be too grossed out. And yet, it's been romanticized. How about romanticizing the brain or the belly button or the middle knuckle on a fist?

"I love you with all my brain..."

"She dumped me. She broke my belly button..."

"My middle knuckle is aching for you..." (Perhaps this would fit into "fisting".)

On surgery. [NOTE: My fears are completely "layman's" fears. I have done absolutely no research into eye surgery, the pros and cons, etc. This is just an off-the-cuff fear I have.] I would hope I never need any kind of surgery. Especially on my eyes. I know my brother has had the laser surgery on his eyes, and he said the improvement was incredible. That's great. This is my fear, however. With any surgery, there is always some risk. (Yeah, yeah... you could argue there's risk just getting into your car and going from point A to point B... LOOK OUT FOR THE DRUNK DRIVER!!) But these are my eyes we're talking about here. I hate the idea of going blind if the laser is off by the tiniest fraction of a micrometer. Like I said, I would hope my eyes would never need surgery. Otherwise, my quandry would be: Do I want to live in a blurry world that will just keep getting more blurry, or do I want to take that leap... that chance... and go through some corrective surgery? Hopefully, I'll never be faced with that question.

Contacts. Never had them. Never wanted them. Just can't imagine putting something against my eyeball.

I know my eyes aren't perfect. But they've worked for me for the past 36 years...

I'll let you know how my eyes are doing after my physical later this year...

THE RARE... THE RAW...

[This blog is dedicated to Clark & Mulysa (Linesteppa the Second)...]

Ladies and gentlemen, fellow bloggers, and anybody else who has stumbled onto [or into] this insignificant section of the World Wide Web...

I have said this many times, and I will say it again: There is nothing too trivial... There is nothing too trivial for the Internet. I believe that anything, whether fact or fiction, truth or lie, degenerate or uplifting, horrifying or beautiful, can be found somewhere on the Internet. I MEAN ANYTHING...

That being said, the case before us today is the RAW VS RARE issue.

RAW VS RARE...

For those of you could care less about this topic, stop reading now, for this is trivia and the trivial at its best. The inane at its finest. If your curiousity has been piqued, then read on...

------------------------------------------

Some Background
I love a rare steak. I LOVE A RARE STEAK!!. [Not sirloin, though...BLEH!!] A New York strip, a rib-eye, or prime rib, with just the right amount of seasoning... still reddish-pink on the inside... perhaps with some fried onions and mushrooms and aujoir sauce or horseradish. To me, it's a beautiful sight. To my eyes, my nose, my stomach... To me, a rare steak is a work of art.

My love of rare is relative. Not everybody loves rare. I don't expect everybody to love rare. All I ask is that the concept be acknowledged as a separate stage of cooking.

But there are those who are repulsed by any pinkish or reddish hue within a steak. There are those who gag, scoff, ridicule, jeer, scorn, scowl, or roll their eyes at rare steak lovers like me.

There are those who believe that RARE = RAW.

RARE = RAW
RARE EQUALS RAW
RARE IS RAW
RARE IS THE SAME AS RAW
RARE IS EQUAL TO RAW

I say HRRMPH!! This debate has gone on long enough.

Ladies and Gentlemen, my goal is to convince you that there is enough difference between raw and rare that they are not the same. I will attempt to disprove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, this equation: RAW = RARE.

--------------------------------------

Argument #1
A thesaurus is basically a dictionary of synonyms. A synonym is a word that has a meaning identical or very similar to that of another word in the same language. I looked up the words RAW and RARE in three different thesauruses. Neither of them cross-referenced each other. If RAW = RARE, wouldn't RARE be a synonym for RAW and vice versa? This does not appear to be the case.

--------------------------------------

Argument #2
I looked in several dictionaries and came up with the following definitions:

• 
  RAW - Not cooked; uncooked.
• 
  RARE - Cooked so that the inside is still red; having a portion relatively uncooked; not cooked through; cooked a short time to retain juice and redness.
• 
  COOK - To prepare food for eating by means of heat; prepare food.

Now, you may believe I have lost the argument because the word "uncooked" appears in the definition of RARE. Taken out of context, you might be able to make a case, but taking things out of context is a cheap way to try to make a point. However, if you look at the spirit of the definitions, you will see a distinct difference between RARE and RAW. RAW is NOT COOKED. The definition of RARE contains the word "cooked". Even though the words "uncooked" and "not cooked through" appear, these are relative. The definition of RARE implies that some cooking has already taken place. Perhaps not all the way through, but the fact that the outer parts of the steak have been cooked means the steak can no longer be considered RAW. For something to be RAW, it must be uncooked. For something to be RARE, it must be cooked to some degree.

-----------------------------------------------

Argument #3
Whenever I order a steak at a restaurant, I am always asked: "How would you like your steak?" My obvious answer is: "As rare as you can legally make it." By definition, I am not asking for a raw steak. And in all my years of eating out, I have never been to a restaurant where the choices for steak were: RAW, RARE, MEDIUM, WELL. The fact that RAW is excluded from the choices shows that it is not the same as RARE. If you try to argue that RAW is not included because it is the same as RARE, then I challenge you to order a steak and ask for it RAW. Not RARE, but RAW. I would be interested in the outcome of such a transaction. I would also hope you take a picture of the server's facial expression(s). Actually, I should mention a certain incident that took place at a restaurant. I was with HotFudge, Mulysa (Linesteppa II), and Lotus. When I tried to order a rare New York Strip steak, the waitress told me I'd have to sign something stating I would not hold the restaurant responsible if I got sick. As unique as the situation was, it has no bearing on the issue at hand. But I felt it worth mentioning nonetheless.

--------------------------------------------------

Is it possible for a steak to be part cooked and part raw? Sure. Of course. But once that steak touches that heated pan or grill, and that first (thin) layer of meat gets cooked, that steak can no longer be called raw. Even if most of the steak is still raw, the fact that part of it is already cooked negates the raw argument. It might not be edible. It might not be safe to eat, but a partially cooked steak cannot be considered raw anymore.

Now, my arguments assume a certain amount of logic and reason. For example, I assume that any steak I order will be cooked on a grill or stove or some other device that is meant to cook. I would not expect my steak to be cooked in someone's armpit, or on the hood of a car with the engine running, or on the sidewalk in direct sunlight. No, one must assume a certain amount of sanity and rationale.

-----------------------------------------------

If you agree, excellent. If you found my arguments sound, outstanding.

If you are still not persuaded, if you found my position weak, then the debate is on...


Let the good fight begin.....

 

COMING SOON...

THE RAW... AND THE RARE...

SOAPBOX SCREGMAN...

SNARK SQUARED: Part the First

[This blog was inspired by Lotus's SNARK blog...]

First of all, I don't know what SNARK means. I tried looking it up in the dictionary to see if it was part of the lexicon, but couldn't find it. Anyway...

I wholeheartedly agree with Lotus on this one...

I consider sports commentators to be nothing but feeble-minded wind-bags, capable of stating only the obvious (as if someone watching a football game or a boxing match can't make out what's happening. Isn't it obvious that most sports can be watched just fine without any volume? I make an exception for the radio since it is an auditory medium.)

For those of you who know me, you know I cannot stand sports. These people get paid way too much to play a game. Millions of dollars to play a game... that is absolutely disgusting to me... and some of those players feel that even millions is not enough for their so-called talent. Sure, our educational system is comparable to a Third World's ed system, but let's pump billions of dollars into sports and get rid of the arts while we're at it... But I digress... the topic of where our society's values truly lie is another blog entirely.

Omniscient windbags. Saying nothing of substance or consequence. I never realized how many sportscasters could read minds and tell the future. Do you know how many times I've heard some idiot say: "The quarterback is going to do this" or "He was thinking that... that's why he ran the play the way he did..." Utter nonsense. If these commentators could truly read minds or foretell the future, I'd think they'd be in some other business. Perhaps creating their own religion. My gosh, if they obviously know the outcome of the game... if they know the players so intimately (maybe too intimately)... if they know exactly how a team is going to play, why not put that power to better use, like saving lives around the world, or helping others in need, or creating better laws and public policy? Or are they just bullshitting the viewer?

I'm going to take this a little further... Should the news be exciting? Should it be told like an intense drama? I rarely watch the news, and when I do, there are things about how the news stories are written that annoy the hell out of me. For example, I recall seeing a news story some time ago about a man rescuing another person who was trapped in a burning car. For me, it would have been perfectly fine if that was all that was said. But, the newscaster said things like "...quick thinking..." and "...with only seconds to spare..." I realized that these additional expressions were used to make the story more exciting. Why? Can anyone give me a reason why just being informed about the rescue of a person from a burning car isn't "exciting" or "intense" in and of itself? Why did the writer feel the need to add words such as "quick thinking" and "with only seconds to spare"? Wouldn't it be obvious to whoever's watching?

As a follow-up, I hate when the following question is asked: "What were you thinking when...?" Sure, go ahead and ask the question because, apparently, it seems to be the one question that's on everybody's mind when some intense drama unfolds.

For example:

Question: "What were you thinking as you were running towards the burning car?"

Correct, newsworthy answer: "All I wanted to do was get the man out of the car..."

WELL... DUH!!!

How about an alternative answer, just for the shock value: "I was thinking 'There has got to be a better way to tie my shoelaces so they don't come undone every 5 minutes'"

Question (to a fireman): "What were you thinking when you ran into the burning building?"

Expected newsworthy answer: "Just doing my job... Just had to get in there and get as many people out as I could..."

WELL... DUH!!!

Alternative answer: "I'm tired of this shite... I need a career change. I almost fucking died this last time... Maybe I could work in a bookstore or coffee shop. I'm just tired of this shite..."

Question: "What were you thinking when you realized your son (or daughter) had been kidnapped?"

(Dear God... WHAT AN ASININE QUESTION TO ASK!!)

Expected answer: -No Answer- Grieving parents just sob uncontrollably.

WELL... DUH!!!

Alternative answer: "With big smiles on their faces, the parents, in an upbeat tone, respond in unison "We'll just have another. Kids are a dime a dozen. We're as fertile as rabbits, y'know..."

Newscasters also have the habit of trying to transition smoothly from story to story. Or to try to add their own comment. They really shouldn't because they just end up sounding foolish.

The level of stupidity astounds me...

A Slight Digression...

Lookiloo traffic that delays me getting to my destination annoys me. I wonder who these lookliloos are. If there wasn't some accident to attract lookiloos, wouldn't they be on their way to work, or home, or a coffee shop? In other words, they'd be going about their business. But, oh, look out if there's an accident to ogle at. All of a sudden, that accident becomes important enough to slow down to try and get a good look at.

Another Slight Digression...

Spectators who applaud when someone has been rescued from a burning car or a burning building or a caved-in roof or some other disaster. To me, a burning car or a burning building or a caved-in roof is not a show. It's not a movie where special effects and stunt people were used. It's a horrifying situation, yet spectators feel the need to applaud when a bad situation turns out good in the end. I'm all for the happy ending, but I find the clapping to be highly inappropriate. It's not a show. It's not a play. It's not a movie. Applaud at the end of a show, play, or movie. If I were rescued from a burning building, the LAST thing I want to hear is applause and cheers. In a situation like that, I would not be performing. Don't you get it? I WOULD NOT BE PERFORMING! The happy ending is a good thing, but clapping and cheering at the end is utterly degrading to the situation itself. How dare these spectators turn it into a show. You can clap and cheer when you score 300 in bowling, or when you win that first place trophy, or when you really enjoyed a play or movie... But clapping at the end of something that's not a show or performance? Please... show some respect for the victims... Not everything is a performance. Not everything is entertainment.

AND... What's with some people's curiousity being so strong and morbid that they actually have to stop and watch a building burn? Or a building explode. Or watch paramedics pull out the bloody remains of a car crash victim? Why would anyone want to watch these things?

One Last Digression...

The paparazzi. It's a vicious circle. If there's enough of a demand for something, someone will find a way to fill it. It drives me nuts that there are enough people out there who give a damn about who's fucking who, who's marrying who, who's divorcing who, who's pregnant, who's on drugs, what they wore here and there, where they went over the weekend, etc. I could care less about that kind of stuff. I wonder about people who follow the lives of celebrities so closely. Are their lives so empty? Do they really have nothing better to do than to keep the paparazzi employed?

WHEEEEEW.... Okay, now that I got all that off my chest, I'll just sit quietly (for now). On TV, there's a couple trying to find the perfect home. Right before a commercial break (as if I'm sitting on the edge of my seat), I hear the house hunter ask: "Will they find their perfect home?"

"Dear God", ScregMan asks himself. "Do you think your viewers are that stupid? You know the fucking answer is 'yes'. So why even ask?"