tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54313104881866660332024-02-19T11:01:40.263-05:00Desultory Dialogue - A Delightfully Disjointed DiaryAnthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-56241858478521073672020-01-18T20:26:00.000-05:002020-01-18T20:26:54.231-05:00Guys: Friend Zone YourselvesAh the "friend zone". I have to be honest: I've had a lot of thoughts on everything I want to write <i>after</i> this intro paragraph, but I've struggled to start this piece off. I think at its core, there's an obvious message: kindness is a gift, not a debt transaction. If you're kind only because you expect something in return, you're not kind. At all. And that's not to say that people shouldn't want to try and impress or woo someone they're interested in, but if that's all you want, then there needs to be explicit communication. If you don't want to be "friend zoned", ask someone out on a date. Explicitly. A real invite with communicated intent. It's a simple concept, but one that is all too often ignored in a world full of male entitlement that commoditizes kindness for a relationship (or in many cases, just sex). But it's not exactly what I want to get at. I want to use the term to sort of re-contextualize what motives, goals, and desires could (should?) be.<br />
<br />
Imagine an approach where you pre-friend zone your self going into a relationship (used to communicate an ongoing interaction, not a romantic relationship). It could be for any number of reasons: life circumstances, distance, age, being a coworker, incompatible goals, whatever. So what does pre-friend zoning yourself look like? Well, you've set boundaries for yourself: you're just going to be friends. That's the goal. And what is the appropriate way to act? Well, like you would with someone you aim to show someone that they're special to you. That they're worth extra attention and that your aim is to see them smile and feel valued. Now, I think it's desirable to have all our friends feel that way, but we know that a significant other does bring out a little extra degree of motivation. Do this all, and do this all not only without any expectation of something in return, but <i>not wanting</i> anything in return.<br />
<br />
I happen to really like the idea of platonic love being more popular in today's society. Once a friend asked me if I have ever been just a little in love with a friend, to which I replied "I'd like to hope I am just a little in love with all my friends". And maybe there is some blurry area between platonic and romantic love, either in whole or in part. I know I have started to develop stronger feelings for people I know I can't or won't ever be anything more than friends with. Maybe this is where friend zoning yourself should take you, to that grey area. I'll admit, it might not be the easiest place to sit with your emotions sometimes, but overall, I feel like it should be an aspiration to place yourself in this state and master the emotions you feel. Forging a friendship where you become just a bit more invested in someone's happiness, success, and fulfillment, maybe having a few butterflies every time you speak with them, maintaining an excitement level when socializing or doing activities together, it's not a bad state to be in. Imagine a world in which you can <i>make another person feel great for being the person they are, nothing more</i>. Why <i>shouldn't</i> that be a goal?<br />
<br />
When you enter a romantic relationship with someone, you never have any clue if it's going to work out. And here is where I think people miss the mark with dating, romance, and relationships: so many people go into relationships with a <b>goal</b> of it lasting forever. It's not the case all the time, but certainly as people age, there's more of a desire to have something long term to permanent, particularly in the case where a person is monogamous. I never date with the intention of "I hope this only lasts a few months", but my goal is to be the best boyfriend that I can be, and that if the relationship doesn't work out, that my partner values herself, knows her worth, and will never allow anyone henceforth to treat her with anything less than she deserves. And if being that best boyfriend I can possibly be leads to a lifetime partner, which I would consider an ideal <b>outcome</b>, then that's fantastic. I think there's a subtle nuance between a relationship lasting forever being a goal or an outcome. As a goal, it's a vague endpoint without a plan and many ways to get there. In contrast, it being an outcome means you're focused on something else, something more concrete and actionable. If the relationship doesn't last, for one person the goal failed, and for the other person, you set out doing the things you wanted to do and perhaps that ideal state outcome didn't surface, but that feels a lot better. To use an analogy, it's sort of like saying "I want to get an A" instead of "I want to learn a lot in this class". If you learn a lot in the class, you're really focused on doing the right things to end up getting an A. If your only goal is to get an A, you haven't stated anything you're actually acting on. And there are honest and dishonest ways to get an A...just like there are good and really awful, toxic ways to make relationships last longer.<br />
<br />
So to lean back into the friend zone aspect of this, instead of giving a partner an expectation of kindness, positive interactions, feelings of worth and happiness, and all for no other reason than for being who they are, give that to a friend. I never set out in any of my interactions with people with this concept of friend zoning myself in mind, per se. Quite honestly, I think my codependent tendencies make this sort of my natural behavior. I primarily feel good when I am making other people feel good, and quite often I want to go the extra mile to make friends and coworkers feel cared about. And while I am not saying codependence is a good thing, or that I act purely out of codependence in my actions, I think there are probably some behaviors that I am taking and utilizing in this concept of "friend zoning yourself". It pains me to see friends end up with partners that don't treat them well. And if they happen to be of the opposite sex, it's never from a place of "<i>I</i> would treat her so much better", but of "<i>she </i>deserves so much better". Look at the differences in those sentences (pro tip: watch out for how other people communicate. If someone speaks like the former and not the latter, watch out!) It should be a goal for all of us to be such good friends to others (in my case as a heterosexual man, to women) that they will end up with a great partner and don't settle for less. If more and more men adopt this mentality, then the overall quality of the populace improves! Seems like a good outcome to me. Even if you're self-centered and wonder what's in it for you, well, here's what's in it for you. You are conditioning yourself to be a better person. Now, if that isn't enough of a reward in and of itself, then realize that, in general, being a better person, learning about interacting with people, learning about yourself, just becoming more emotionally aware, that's all going to help lead to better relationships in the future. Chances are your friendships will also be more fulfilling, too.<br />
<br />
So there you have it; let's take this term that's endemic amongst entitled males and turn it into something that we can drive positive intentions and behaviors out of.Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-18927823158375432922019-11-13T21:08:00.003-05:002019-11-13T21:11:41.976-05:00Love and celebrity crushes: a personal history<br />
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-size: 1.00em;">From a young age, I've had tunnel vision with respect to the person I've been interested in. I never understood being attracted to anyone else if I was in love with someone. I'm not just saying that; I've had numerous other friends and girlfriends even remark about it. I've gotten the "where were you on that!?" line from a (married) co-worker when an attractive woman walked by our booth at dinner, and another co-worker replied "Anthony doesn't pay attention to women like that." I've gotten from one ex-girlfriend, "you really don't show a lot of interest in other women at all, do you?" and from another, before I was even dating her but after I was already enamored with her, she would always exclaim when she'd point out a nice butt, and I'd never know what she was talking about or who she was even looking at. I've always just been so in love and perfectly content with the person I'm with and never quite understood celebrity crushes.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 1.00em;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-size: 1.00em;">Well, fast forward to my 30s. The dating pool is smaller, I'm not exactly optimistic about my relationship prospects, intellectually I conceptually don't think monogamy makes sense (though emotionally it is still what I desire), and I have been critical of my previous tunnel vision anyhow. It doesn't seem as though this sort of complete disinterest in any sort of attraction is either healthy or unhealthy. People routinely have celebrity crushes and don't seem any worse for the wear from it in relationships (anecdotally). For the first time in my life, I'm dating. Before I sort of just ended up in relationships. There wasn't much intentional about it. Despite being highly analytical and passionate about data, my emotions for the first 30 years of my life tended to win out when it came to romantic interests. I'd even say that two of my relationships were explicitly not logical to me from the beginning, but when you can't get someone out of your head, you feel like it's probably better to just give in and hope for the best than to endure the torture of someone permeating your thoughts constantly and not doing anything about it.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-size: 1.00em;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 1.00em;">Dating is VERY different. If you're intentionally dating, it's not organic. It's purpose driven. I'd even argue it's not really fun, at least for me. What happened, though, for the first time in my life I am in a period where it actually seems okay to indulge in a celebrity crush. Now, I use the term "celebrity" lightly because I'm so far removed from pop culture that I don't know who people reference whenever they talk about actors and actresses. A celebrity for me is an obscure musician nine times out of ten. Now, there's actually some other underlying issue with celebrity crushes and me. A celebrity crush is easy; it's highly unrealistic. It's so far outside of the realm of normal possibility that it's safe. There's no emotional attachment (at least in theory). You're not putting yourself out there. There's no rejection, nothing that can hurt you. It's a low risk and fun exercise, even sharing across sexes. When going to Wacken Winter Nights, I encouraged our group to each have a list of three crushes in the bands. As a man and with women being scarce among the bands playing, my options were more limited, so I was more doing it to egg on my female friends, but I made mine as well.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-size: 1.00em;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-size: 1.00em;">But here is the funny thing: most of these things are usually done on a superficial level, right? I'm sure that there are people who like Angelina Jolie (sorry I legitimately don't know who the current hot actress is) or Jason Momoa for their personalities, but if we're honest with ourselves, we know the majority of the people attracted to them source that</span><span style="font-size: 1.00em;"> attraction from their physical appearance. Now I would say that all of my three were physically attractive, but they weren't really the hottest women there. No, my crushes were because of following them or their path to music and knowing some of their backstory. The blind singer and woodwind player with a voice of an angel who posts her favorite places to go for serenity, the hurdy gurdy player who got added into a band she did song covers of when learning to play the instrument. The woman who I deemed straight out of a Danish fairy tale with an alluring voice and an enchanting energy. If the point of a celebrity crush is to have it be purely superficial without any sort of other form of attachment, I was failing.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-size: 1.00em;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-size: 1.00em;">Enter my latest "celebrity" crush. And this crush was what prompted this entire post because it's an amalgamation of my old and new interests and values. It all flooded my thoughts last night (several nights ago when I actually wrote this). I didn't feel strongly until I did, and that was when all these separate pieces collided into each other like the people in the mosh pit at the show I was at. The crush? Marion from Aephanemer. I'm not quite sure the best way to present all the colliding thoughts, so I'm just going to throw it all out there and hope it seems cogent. When I was younger, all I ever wanted was a family. </span><span style="font-size: 1.00em;">Today</span><span style="font-size: 1.00em;"> I'm not sure if that's true. I'm not sure if I have any interest in kids now that I've progressed to this stage in my life and am not remotely close to having a life partner. Putting aside the "monogamy doesn't seem logical" part of my brain, I'm not close to having a significant other either. But that younger desire was still there. And while I know most men dream of having a son, I definitely wanted daddy's little girl. That led me to the revelation I had: if I had a daughter who would I want her to look up to? Who would I be beaming with pride if she grew up to be (and I'd be proud of the person she became from her own experiences and decisions and being her own person, of course)? I don't know Marion personally at all, but from a surface level, she checked that box in addition to possessing the qualities that I find very attractive.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-size: 1.00em;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-size: 1.00em;">Marion does vocals and rhythm guitars for Aephanemer in addition to being the writer behind the lyrics. Women are becoming more prevalent in the metal scene and very slowly becoming more populous as being recording artists. When present in a band, they do tend to be vocalists more often than not. In folk metal, you do see a number playing traditional folk instruments, and there are plenty of women who are the sole mastermind behind an entire band and do all the writing and recording. But in general, the Tarjas and the Floors and the Simones and the Nooras of the world outnumber the Amelie Bruuns (Myrkur) and the Chelsea Wolfes of the world. All that to say, it's uncommon to see a woman guitarist, particularly in a genre like melodic death metal compared to something more folky or atmospheric. So you have her, a prominent member front and center, unleashing piercing screams and gutteral growls while playing away on guitar, singing about stoicism. Further, she seems comfortable in her own skin, which is incredibly attractive. I would never criticize any woman for her choice in clothing, makeup, hair color, etc. Women dressed to the nines certainly do target a certain audience, but I always tell people they should shut the hell up until they try singing opera in a corset. Nevertheless, Marion comes on stage like the metalhead you'd meet at a bar: jeans, t-shirt, wristbands. She has long beautiful hair that is only just beginning to grey, and she lacks visible tattoos. On every point above, I admire her. She is a phenomenal musician, wears what she wants, looks how she likes, and doesn't cave into any of the pressure or expectations pushed upon women by society. I can certainly find appeal in women with a ton of tattoos, but I don't have any myself right now, and in my younger years, I sort of saw it as the body in it's purest, unadulterated form. The lack of need or desire to outwardly want that expression of art to show anyone, or even yourself, could be seen as total self assuredness and taking meaning from within. The horrible double standard of grey hair on women being undesirable and sexy on men should fuck right </span><span style="font-size: 1em;">off. But that aside, I've told several exes that I loved the idea of my partner having grey hair and not dying it. When you love someone so fully and you share life with them, every grey hair represents an experience, a shared moment, a sign of the impermanence of life but a reminder that we're still here. I've seen absolutely stunning women and stunning hair once it's partially or fully greyed or silvered. And sure, being the age I am now, I'm probably not going to see my partner's hair go silver from the beginning, so they're not ALL shared experiences, but I think it's a reminder that we all have our stories, and I'd love to share those stories and memories and lessons learned. So the fact that she has hair that has begun to grey (and she may very well dye it, I can't know for sure, but the fact that it doesn't seem such a heavy priority to her is still relevant, in my estimation) is a huge positive in my interpretation of her beliefs and philosophy. Finally, her smile. The joy she conveys on stage. There's an authenticity in her eyes and her smile when she performs. I think there's a spectrum of smiles from purely for show to one that is fully genuine. Some performers live on the inauthentic end of the spectrum, probably most are somewhere in the middle. I truly got the sense that Marion's smile was </span><span style="font-size: 1em;">100</span><span style="font-size: 1em;">% authentic. All of her words and actions seemed so genuine; her gratitude for the support and appreciation for the experience she was having was conveyed with such sincerity. Oh, and maybe on a purely superficial level, her accent, annunciation, and word cadence are enough to make me get a stupid grin because I find it really attractive. French accents aren't usually at the top of my list, but hers is 😅</span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-size: 1em;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-size: 1em;">But to bring it back around, the sum of all these parts, the musical talent, the intelligence and introspection behind her lyrical topics, her authenticity, standing up in the face of musical and societal norms, her gratitude and humility, when I look at all that combined, then you throw the physical characteristics I find beautiful and my affinity for her accent on top, that's the anatomy of a celebrity crush. She is thriving in an art that present me has such extreme respect and admiration for, she appeals to the sensibilities that past me had that have stuck with me even after all this time. She's someone who seems, on the surface, to be someone that little girls everywhere could look up to. I'd love for her to inspire girls, pre-teens, and teens everywhere, for them to watch a video of her perform and say "I want to growl and play guitar like the pretty lady!" To pick up a guitar and practice and have the determination in the face of a male dominated scene to succeed. To feel comfortable in their own bodies and skins and clothes no matter what anyone else says. To rise above any negativity and show genuine appreciation for those who show their love and support. I can only hope she is already having this impact on young women all over the world. And if you happen to be reading, Marion, I hope this post shows you that you're really a treasure in this world, and that someone who really doesn't know you at all can still have a very deep appreciation for what he has seen in what you've shared with the world.</span></div>
<br />Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-50082039027156180622017-12-23T01:18:00.000-05:002017-12-23T01:19:31.815-05:00The Age Conundrum: How Does Age Impact Our Mentalities Towards Relationships?As an aging individual who is no closer to marriage than the day he came out of the womb, this is something that, as much as I try not to think about it too much, is more and more in my consciousness. I know I have talked about there not being "The One" in the past, but it doesn't change the fact that we are sort of conditioned to think about having a partner, and I am still a hopeless romantic at heart. Aside from this, though, I do have fascination with psychology and behavior, and as I have aged, naturally both my friends and the people I have dated have aged as well (I am definitely not the type to date much younger than I am). I'll tell you what I expected to see: I expected to see relationships lasting longer because, well, we're not getting any younger, and the fear of being alone begins to outweigh the desire to be in the relationship we want. I expected folks to settle, to put up with more and get less in return, to encounter severe problems with resignation and just continue on in a an unfulfilling relationship.<br />
<br />
Much to my surprise, I believe I have found the opposite. Relationships seem to fizzle out more quickly. In hindsight, I do feel this does make just as much, if not more, sense than my original hypothesis. I think there are probably three contributing factors. The first I think speaks to "young love". Younger individuals may feel more inclined to stick in a relationship because it's a first love or unfamiliar territory. Without having experienced heartbreak or negative aspects of relationships, it does make it conducive to continuing on for a longer period of time due to lack of experience and wherewithal to identify problem areas or red flags. Younger individuals are also still developing into the people they'll grow up to be; certainly as teenagers we do have aspects of ourselves that are fairly firmly cemented into our makeup that won't change, but there are many other areas in which we will continue to change in. As we age, those aspects are a bit less likely to change, and therefore "we know what we want" and can identify if a relationship will satisfy those desires or not. That increased level of certainty along with the experience to enable identifying positives and negatives in relationships lend to older individuals having shorter relationships.<br />
<br />
The second item, and this is perhaps what both makes sense and surprises me at the same time, is the desire to invest effort to making a relationship work. I really and truly believe that all relationships require effort, no matter how "right" people are for each other. A couple really should never be at the point of stagnation; much like we should always strive to grow and better ourselves, our relationships should continue to grow and find new ways to thrive as well. Now, with youth there may come a propensity to not be able to recognize incompatibility or significant issues that will make a relationship unfeasible. When we are younger, however, there is also probably a subconscious reassurance that even if the relationship fails, we're still young, and there is still plenty of time to find love anew. The older we get, the more doubt that resides there will be opportunities later. The longer we continue in a relationship that we have any sort of doubt about, the more time we've "wasted". I truly feel I have witnessed this very thing. And it is logical: the longer we spend in unsuccessful relationships, the more time we spent out of the dating pool, and the more time that others in our age range in the dating pool become unavailable (and at an older age, perhaps it is reasonable to make the assumption that more people exit the dating pool than enter the dating pool, but it certainly is not a one way flow of people). The flip side to this is does it make folks lazy? Does it make people more likely to nitpick items that are easily resolved or that are non-issues as a means to move on? There are a number of ways where this phenomenon results in folks demonstrating an unwillingness to put forth the requisite effort to make a relationship work. As someone is wired to give an immense amount of himself to others, due in part to a difficulty in finding the ability to love himself, this is a harshreality to encounter. In many instances it may be the right thing to cut short a relationship because it wasn't the right one, but in many other instances a relationship that does have a natural fit and legitimate promise may be cut short due to the anxiety of spending too long in a relationship and it not working out at an older age.<br />
<br />
Now, one item that I think, at a minimum, facilitates the above, and perhaps is more responsible than either of the two reasons above, is the progression of technology and the ease with which people can find potential partners. This impacts us two ways. One is the actual ability to find more people more quickly than ever before with loads of information available at our fingertips. A second, less obvious outcome is perhaps a byproduct of the availability. Due to the technology, people may have developed a mentality to date around more and not invest as much regardless of if they use the technology to do so. Now, this could very well be an age independent variable as well, but to the extent it adds fuel to the fear of time commitment fire outlined above, it cannot be understated the role that technology and dating services play in how relationship behavior has changed. And, anecdotally, since this was not nearly as prevalent in my younger years, I have a difficult time comparing my younger years to my older years due to an inability to adequately correct for this variable. I do still believe that the other explanations provided are compelling enough to think there's merit to the hypothesis that relationships are shorter the older we get (when removing the relationships that end in marriage, that is).<br />
<br />
At the end of the day, we're still individuals with our own tendencies and different inclinations on how to treat relationships. I don't know that my mentality will change that much for any of the reasons I listed above; if anything, I treat each failed relationship as just that: a failure, and it makes me try that much harder next time. It's probably a somewhat destructive mentality, as even now I am left wondering what more I can possibly do, and I fear that I won't be adequate for future potential partners because I will have set expectations of myself that I won't be able to continue to surpass. Being able to frame how others may perceive relationships as they age, though, has been a valuable dedication of my time as it makes me more aware of what I may encounter in the future.Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-2871251777431242362017-04-02T21:44:00.000-04:002017-04-02T21:44:07.582-04:00Why Your Employees Don't Like Your Offsite MeetingsHi-di-ho! Lately I have felt more and more like writing, so perhaps you'll see a few blog posts. It was actually interesting going back and reading some half to nearly complete drafts from a couple of years ago. Not sure if I will finish those as well or just start with fresh writing. In any case, this was a piece that I felt like publishing on Linkedin, but due to obvious ramifications with employers and that it would be perceived quite negatively (despite companies insisting they want honest feedback so they can improve), I figured I would just write it here.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Anyone who has worked in corporate America has been to one: the annual offsite meeting. For those unfamiliar, it is common for companies to host a meeting at a venue, typically a hotel conference room, hire a speaker to come in and talk to the company about something the company leaders find pertinent to, and perhaps lacking for, the company and/or the employees. It's part motivational speech, part educational lecture, sometimes part team building, and rarely very influential. Now, leaders will typically place the blame for the lack of impact squarely on the shoulders of the employees. It is assumed that folks who don't take the meeting seriously are negative influence on the environment, and sometimes there is truth to that. There are feelings that the company is doing something valuable for employees and that they should reward the employer by taking everything to heart, putting whatever the topic of discussion was into practice in the workplace, and that it should yield the desired outcome the employer had in mind when they picked the speaker.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Nothing stated above is really outlandish, and I am sure that managers and non-managers alike can think of the cancerous employees in their workplaces. They are only a small fraction of the problem, though, and I feel there is a much bigger issue that often goes lost on the company leadership. There is a reason that there is widespread disinterest and lack of enthusiasm at such events, and it is not because a cancerous few have permeated the atmosphere of the company and influenced everyone in a negative manner. Employees don't go into these meetings expecting not to get anything out of them. Quite the opposite actually; I believe most employees look forward to seeing a speaker come in to share some insight and value with the organization, and they hope to get something out of the event. The skepticism comes from the fact that the people who need to heed the words are the ones least likely to listen, and those people are <i>the company leaders</i>. To illustrate, I will give a couple of examples.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Take an insurance company whose profitability has suffered for several years running. The company employs at least a good number of smart, competent people who have not managed to fix the issues causing the lack of profitability, but the reason for that comes from IT resource bottlenecks and dated sophistication relative to the competition. For this offsite meeting, a speaker is brought in who speaks about Progressive Insurance and their innovation in motorcycle pricing segmentation. The speaker goes on about how they created a positive risk selection mechanism for their company and forced their competitors into an adverse selection downward spiral. The speech is very well articulated and insightful. The leaders of the company picked someone who addressed the issues at hand quite well, and the problem is not that the employees did not hear or understand the message. The management did not live into the lessons and takeaways. What message does it send to your employees when you have someone lecture on segmentation when you then turn around and tell them they can only take a flat base rate increase (in laymen's terms, the most unsophisticated, broad, across the board change you can make that only serves to throw a company further into the aforementioned adverse selection downward spiral)? What does it communicate to the pricing actuaries who developed a by-peril rating algorithm years earlier and were not allowed to implement it? The end result is you have a group of employees that feel like management not only does not trust their talents enough to solve issues by bringing in someone to highlight issues they are already aware of and have not been enabled to try to fix, but that the message that is being preached falls on deaf ears.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Further, let's look at another example. A company brings in a speaker to discuss workplace behaviors and leadership styles and meshes it with the company culture and goals. The exercise is engaging, encourages participation and contemplation. It is designed to make people fit in and make the company seem like a very employee environment-centric company. The speaker talks about how companies that succeed tend to employee a workforce whose styles and attributes align with the types of goals the company sets, and proceeds to unveil his view of the company's artifacts, that is, the explicitly communicated objectives from the company's website or other materials highlighting what the company strives to be. What does the exercise show? Well, that the work force does not align at all with their communicated objectives. Instead of learning from this and either changing the goals and external messages, or working to emphasize shifting the environment to better suit the established objectives, they continue down the path of executing on a strategy that runs contrary to the values set forth in their messaging, persist with the clash in what is asked and what is expected, and seemingly ignore everything that the speaker highlighted in his presentation. Again, what does this communicate to the employees?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
At the end of the day, there is responsibility held by each individual to put in the effort to learn from and incorporate the knowledge acquired into his/her work. That much should not be disputed. To what extent an employee can do that, however, is largely dictated by factors outside of his/her control, and that is where the leadership of a company is so important. All too often, when middle and upper management demonstrate time and time again that they are blind to the damage they do to employee morale by hosting offsite meetings and not living into the message communicated. At best, it is disappointing to employees, at worst, it is patronizing. One thing is for certain, though, in order to truly get the utility desired from such meetings, companies need to have buy in at all levels of the company, and that means the leaders at the company most of all.</div>
Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-82251881004144954522015-05-04T22:05:00.000-04:002015-05-04T22:22:54.074-04:00Rape CultureFirst post in quite some time. This post may or may not be a return to somewhat more regular writing. I have need for catharsis and lack of motivation playing tug of war right now, so it's anyone's guess which of those two will win on any given day.<br />
<br />
This next topic is a sensitive one, one that I think really creates an adversarial response between individuals. In this day and age, it's easier and easier to lack empathy when so many communications are not done in person. The lack of interpersonal body language, the lack of any real consequences from our communications when we are speaking over a screen, and the ever increasing selfish mentality of your average 21st century individual all contribute to topics becoming verbal war zones instead of mediums for progress. As such, it's easy to avoid these discussions entirely for many people; it feels like a fruitless effort that will only result verbal tirades and harassment, because, you know, God forbid anyone have an opinion. Well, I am jumping into the fray, albeit in a manner where the reach will be virtually nonexistent. Still, I feel the need to get some things off my chest; this post is going to be a blend of reason and emotion, so bear with me.<br />
<br />
By coincidence, I seem to have really been in a heightened number of situations where some of the typical gender roles, stereotypes, or judgments have come into play of late, and while I suppose nothing is new or unique about any of these occurrences, the fact that they've come in a compressed timeline is what has elicited an even stronger response than normal from me. One has been the nice guy/safe guy role. This is upsetting to me, not because I feel that it negatively impacts the quality of my life being such or being labeled as such, but because of the broader implications of it. Many will say I don't give myself credit for things, but my counter is that it's not a reflection of me, it's just that our culture has set the bar so low that it's unfair to feel any sort of validation for the praise. Here's the thing: maybe in some ways I am a more compassionate person than the average individual on the street. I don't know, I cannot be the judge of that, but that doesn't negate the fact that there are some things that <i style="font-weight: bold;">all</i> human beings should think or behave like by default, and they don't. The mere implication that there <b><i>is </i></b>such a term as "safe friend" is really all that needs to be said. How utterly disappointing is it that people are so generally untrustworthy, selfish, or both, that there are designated people to fit this role in another's life? Shouldn't not taking advantage of a situation be it physically or emotionally be a display of basic human decency, not something to be lauded (or even in some instances used as a derogatory term)? I'm not going to sit here and pat myself on the back for doing things such as not actively taking advantage of an intoxicated or distressed person who is not thinking clearly or <i style="font-weight: bold;">passively</i> taking advantage of a situation either (<i>she </i>kissed <i>me </i>is NOT an excuse). Whether you're the person that a same sex friend trusts his/her significant other with knowing you're not going to do anything to betray him/her, or whether an opposite sex friend feels comfortable putting him/herself in maybe more of a compromising situation knowing you're going to look out for him/her, not exploit him/her, you're really only being asked to not do anything morally reprehensible. This, to me, is a clear indicator of "rape culture".<br />
<br />
Now, to clarify something, I don't necessarily agree with all elements of how some people portray this term. Like any movement, things will be dramatized or just looked at through too narrow of a lens to appropriately assess some of the other elements applicable to the situation. I completely agree with the sentiment that we need to educate people not to rape. There needs to be more discussion about consent, behavior, accountability, etc. I don't, however, agree that we as a society "don't teach people not to rape, we teach how not to get raped" in the strictest sense of that remark. Growing up, no one teaches you it's okay to rape someone. You do get taught that you cannot and should not rape someone, that it is illegal, a heinous act, etc. Is it to the degree that is appropriate or necessary? No, but to suggest that we neglect to teach not to rape and put the sole responsibility on people not to get raped I think is not quite correct. Along the same lines, I completely agree what a horrible and insensitive question "well what were you doing there that time of night anyway?" is. I don't, however, think that this is something exclusive to rape cases or part of an active way to single rape women out in a sort of "war on women". I think this is a response common to any sort of action where someone is located in an unsafe area at an unsafe time. If I was walking through a high crime area wearing an expensive watch late at night and got mugged and had my watch stolen, I guarantee I would be questioned why I was walking there at that time in the first place. It's very insensitive, and I think being raped is a more traumatic experience than being mugged (speculation on my part, and of course is subjective) which would sort of amplify the insensitivity that much more. To say that it is a specifically targeted statement is not something I agree with, though. Also, just as a brief tangent, I think psychologically there is a component here that while the person asking this question (and it's not just people commenting on a situation who had nothing to do with it, this applies to friends and family who may also ask the same insensitive question, possibly for the reason I am suggesting) does not feel that the victim is the primary culprit or driver of the event, these sorts of situations occur without the aggressor present. Specifically from the friend/relative perspective, emotions such as anger will accompany ones of sadness or concern because there should be some anger when a crime is committed against a loved one. Because the criminal is absent, though, that frustration can be expressed and misdirected in an inappropriate manner unintentionally in the form of a "why didn't you do more to prevent this?" sort of question. Does it excuse it? No, but I think differentiating between the action being active or passive helps determine how to best address that sort of response. After all, there is not one solution that would best address both apathy and ignorance.<br />
<br />
The problem is, though, that oftentimes the focus gets shifted to a battle of semantics, extremes, and personal attacks, and we don't focus on what is important: the issue itself. Seriously, why is every little detail more important than the overall problem to many people? And look, I'm the first one to say that there are bad people in the world, there always have been, and there always will be. People have been raping, murdering, and stealing since the beginning of time. Nothing is going to change that. But that, like arguing semantics, is not a reason to not try to do better.<br />
<br />
It is <b>bad</b> that people see me as an exception, not a rule, when it comes to being a "safe friend".<br />
<br />
It is <b>bad</b> that I have had to pretend to be a boyfriend at a bar or club because of the actions of other men there.<br />
<br />
It is <b>bad</b> that I have had to accompany a girlfriend walking back from a store through a parking lot because of the catcalls and aggressive behavior towards her.<br />
<br />
It is <b>bad</b> that men back off drastically more often only when a man is also present with a woman, and it's also bad the mentality that men have to defend this. The best way I can describe it is this: if your response to women getting catcalled or harassed is along the lines of it just being innocent flirting or what not, what would be your response to the same thing happening when you are walking down the street holding hands with your girlfriend? If your retort is along the lines of "that's different because I am there with her", you are the problem.<br />
<br />
And you know what? I understand where some of the feminism blow back comes from, but men, you have to get over it. Yes men can get raped. Yes, men suffer from domestic violence. Yes, men get objectified. At the end of the day, the average man is 5'8" and the average woman is 5'3". Average weights are a bit harder to come by, but the average man probably weighs somewhere between 170 and 190 pounds, and the average female weight varies much more by age, where younger women average between 120 and 140 pounds, and older women between 130 and 160 pounds. The average man has 30-40% more muscle mass than the average female. The fact of the matter is yes, victims come in all packages, but from a sheer biological perspective, which sex has more to fear? I've heard the argument that if a woman hits a man, it's a bad double standard to say that the man cannot hit her back and using the term "equality" to justify it. I'm not saying that a man is supposed to just stand there and be assaulted, but a man hitting a woman is not equal to a woman hitting a man. You have more muscle driving the punch and longer arms that will generate more angular momentum. Unless that woman is a well trained martial artist or boxer, there's nothing equal about a punch for a punch in that scenario.<br />
<br />
One of the things that a band that I like and respect very much, The Courtesans, said in an interview that they consider themselves "humanists", not feminists. They said they often get told that the terms mean the same thing, but their reply is and that the word feminist is a "sexist expression in itself", and their sentiment is that the focus needs to be on equality, not on females. They focus more on the connotation that comes along with the terminology, and by focusing on the issue of equality, and perhaps distancing themselves from what negative criticism goes against sort of the very extreme "feminists", that it is a more constructive and positive way to make progress. I already loved them prior to seeing that interview, but afterwards, I admired them that much more because they get it. In fighting against sexism that is culturally systemic, a lot of the responsibility falls on males. Make no mistake about it: preconceived notions about gender roles hurts men, too, and men need to realize this and help change it. The more we combat sexism and help women obtain the equality that they deserve, the more it also liberates males from having to be judged as well. The double standards in what is expected between the different sexes are terribly unfair, more so to women, but also to men. Women are looked at in a negative manner in many circles for being more sexually open, and conversely, men are seen as less masculine if they aren't going around trying to sleep with as many women as possible. Women should not have to hide their sexuality in order to avoid shaming, and men shouldn't have to give into this sort of "conquest" mentality to avoid being shamed.<br />
<br />
As someone who falls into the latter category, I can empathize with the situation females probably have to deal with far more frequently than many males do. Any sort of "flattery" a person is supposed to feel from being physically desired doesn't make up for the frustration or disappointment in knowing that there are people that desire that alone when it's not something you're interested in. You also end up running into situations where women are innately distrustful (and who can blame them?), which ends up hurting the nice guys who truly are doing things out of genuine altruism and not with any ulterior motives. It's sad to see friendships or relationships fail to form or stall out simply because a guy is "too nice". A problem I know that I have, too, is that the combination of really just liking to give to others, being comfortable enough financially to do so, and at times having the tendency to want to help others more and more the worse and worse I mentally feel as a flight mechanism of dealing with my own problems (others' issues are always easier to fix than your own) all converging, making me particularly vulnerable to this. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to compare my experiences to those of the average female, but the point is that failing to recognize our inherent gender biases, roles, and stereotypes hurts everyone, and even if your problems are worse than someone else's, it doesn't invalidate the other person's feelings. No one's suffering is good regardless of how severe or minor it is.<br />
<br />
If I can have people take something away from reading this, it's to be empathetic and have courage. Guys, put yourselves in a woman's shoes. Think about what it's like to have a bunch of creeps pursuing you with dishonest intentions. Before you go thinking about how unfair it is for females to criticize men or to discredit their opinions or emotions, stop and think what it must feel like, what experiences they've had to make them feel that way. Think as though every woman is a woman you care about who you'd be extremely upset if another man was inappropriate in his interactions. Don't let other guys get away with being crass and disrespectful in the way the speak to or about women. In these sorts of scenarios, there are many times where a lot of people are afraid to speak up, but once someone does, either others chime in, or people say after the fact "I was thinking the same thing, I am glad you spoke up". Being willing to do this can inspire others to do the same. Even if you're not part of the problem, per se, be part of the solution. Ladies, guys don't have it as tough as you do, no, but it doesn't mean they are free from issues or that they somehow don't get hurt over things too. Focusing on how men being part of the solution is a far more constructive and less confrontational approach that focusing on them being problem. Operating under the premise that guys cannot be sensitive or that their emotions are invalid just plays into the same gender role issue that we're trying to escape. There's too much work to be done, progress to be made, to have a divided, adversarial front, and both sides need to work together. We don't seem to like to do that on most fronts here, so, ladies and gents, why don't we mix things up and give it a try?Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-31126445509753915512014-10-24T00:09:00.001-04:002014-10-24T00:09:22.145-04:00Hybrid Post - The OneThe other night (more like a week ago now, but I fell asleep when I originally started writing and never finished) I got to pondering, as I often do, and on this particular night I was thinking about the concept of "the one" or "the girl/guy of someone's dreams". I opted not to go down the logic brain "that's such a futile pursuit, statistically" path, and instead pondered the human element of it. The why of it isn't hard to figure out. People are dreamers, by and large. We have these ideals, these conceptualizations of what each of us defines as perfect. No matter how unrealistic, we often cling to these as though life could not continue without them. What I was more thinking about was how those desires change over time. How would you characterize it? As my mid twenties will be turning to my late twenties sooner rather than later, it's easy to succumb to anxiety over such matters from time to time. While I am at a good place in my life right now, and I firmly believe that if nothing in my life changed that I could continue on with the status quo and still be quite content, there's still the white elephant in the room, the "don't you want a Bonnie for your Clyde?" Sure, wouldn't we all? But what I think varies from individual to individual is how strong that desire to find "the one" is, how shaken one's belief becomes that the person exists, and, ultimately, how much is a person going to temper his/her expectations and standards to satiate that desire and to fill whatever void feels like it needs to be filled?<br />
<br />
The biggest element to this is, of course, time. We all are steadily inching closer to our deaths with each passing second. We all have aspirations and things we want to experience and achieve before that moment comes. For many folks, whether it be a true desire or simply a biological instinct, that includes having and rearing offspring. That, of course, has the greatest time element to it of all things. Taking that out of the equation, though, life really isn't so short. In fact, it's quite long, and we have a tremendous amount of time to pursue all of our desires with far fewer restrictions than we think have, as I believe many of those are self-imposed. Yes, we change as we age, but to say that "things won't be the same" or "I won't feel the same way" are really just weak excuses. Of course things would be different; we exist in an environment that is constantly evolving around us. That does not mean that different is bad or that it prohibits continued enjoyment out of one's pursuits just because some arbitrary age milestone was attained. Even as physical limitations begin to play a role, we have the flexibility to shape how our lives change and mold that change in a manner that best suits what we feel is optimal. The more you really start to assess where these time constraints come from and where the barriers are forged, the more you tend to discover they come from within.<br />
<br />
Now, the above is probably almost universally applicable, but it doesn't mean that it solves anything for most people. That's why people ultimately do temper their expectations with what they look for in a partner. Perhaps at the beginning of this crusade "the one" looks a certain way, shares from a list of interests, has certain personality characteristics, is at a certain point in his/her academic or professional career, etc. In time, maybe the suitable age range to date widens a little bit, and that PhD in particle physics who also competes in triathlons, shares the same favorite movies, and also wants to retire to the Swiss Alps morphs into someone who merely has a job and is pleasant. It's a bit different for everyone on how much they will compromise on and how long they are willing to stare father time in the face without blinking. Is it worse to be alone or to settle? Where's the balance? What's the best shade of grey?<br />
<br />
Well, let's go completely outside of the box and throw away "the one" and replace it with "the all". The answer to the "either or" question is not the "either" nor the "or". It's impossible to meet one person that fulfills every single aspect of perfection through one's self's eyes. Knowing that, why try? Why set yourself up for disappointment? Why project impossible expectations onto the people you come into contact with? What good reason is there for doing that? It can't be found in one person, but I believe it can be found in all people. It can be found in a lifetime. It can be found <b>if</b> we are willing to open our eyes, but more importantly, open our minds to the possibility. Learning to love globally, to cherish the best in folks, to not project one person's characteristics onto another, to find the good qualities, the qualities we feel are best in a person, and to store it and take it to heart, that is where the ability to do this lies. It's a state of pure appreciation, unhindered by jealousy, immune to so many of the other pitfalls associated the more conventional approach of singular passion. My feeling is it is a much more positive approach to living, not only in the manner it can help foster positive relationships with others, but also in the sense of fulfillment and appreciation within. I think it's a wonderful thing to be able to admire individual characteristics in all sorts of different individuals without looking for all of those things in one person. While I'd never name names in this, you can believe there are people's characteristics that I deeply love or admire, and I could rattle them off. I can sit here and say "Jane Doe has absolutely beautiful lips", "Sarah Doe has the most wonderful and inspiring outlook on life", "John Doe has remarkable artistic ability", "Doris Doe is a truly wonderful parent", "I love Debra Doe's hair", "Joseph Doe's work ethic and dedication is admirable", etc. I can do that and honestly feel very fortunate that I have shared pieces of my life with these people, and I can collect all of those things that I love and commit them to that lifetime collection. It's something that I don't think I would have ever imagined myself doing, but now that I look at it like that, I find it an interesting exercise.<br />
<br />
Here's the thing that I realized, though. I was not the first person to think this in some sort of incarnation. In the car, it dawned on me that another individual did something like this in a song. When Justin Pierre of Motion City Soundtrack was asked about his song Antonia, he revealed that the song was not about a person, but a collection of people, although many of the items were inspired by then drummer Tony (appropriate given the name of the song). That Pierre takes these quirks, traits, and interests of actual people, attributes them to one individual, and then presents it in a manner such that listeners probably believe that the song is based on an actual person goes to show that the exercise that I discussed above is one that is not out of the realm of possibility. This is why Motion City Soundtrack is a band that has kept me a fan over the past 10 years, despite me not necessarily listening to them much anymore or enjoying their latest album. Justin manages to capture a lot of beauty and emotion in unconventional ways. Below is the song Antonia, which is off their third full length album, Even If It Kills Me, which I think is easily their most underappreciated album. I think you could make a pretty strong argument that it's the best album of their discography lyrically, and the music is still in line enough with their signature sound from their first two albums. Ultimately, it's my second favorite album of theirs, which it probably took me three or four years to get to that point. I'm glad I did develop a further and further appreciation for the album and for Justin Pierre on EIIKM, and perhaps you could say I may have even filed away something for my own personal Antonia in the process.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/teljAGRL3UI?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-81295746385462677432014-10-05T23:35:00.001-04:002014-10-05T23:35:27.603-04:00Season of ChangeWhile I need to finish off some work this evening, my need for catharsis has trumped my need for finishing the task at hand and getting a good night's sleep. Autumn is upon us, evidenced by the abundance of pumpkin everything and myriad of comments about the weather. It's the most polarizing season for me - I very much feel it is the greatest time of year while simultaneously fighting off the psychological ghosts and ghouls that accompany me this time of the year. By definition, one would call this seasonal affective disorder, but this... this is different (as most people with seasonal affective disorder would probably claim, I am well aware). I assert this is not a case of denial because I am so forthright with my emotions, and over the past couple of years, I have developed a far greater awareness as it relates to my moods and how they are connected with the feeling side of me instead of the thinking side of me. For years I have known why autumn impacts me so; the problem extends far beyond five years ago, but five autumns ago saw the catalyst that brought everything to the forefront, and each subsequent autumn has further contributed to the difficulty waiting to confront me anew each September.<br />
<br />
Why is it that autumn impacts me so? Well, it's the season that evokes the most emotion from me by far, which is always very trying for me. It is the time of year that coincides with all of my most vivid memories. Very nearly all of my greatest emotional occurrences fall within this timeframe, both positive and negative, and when you combine that with the changing weather and very distinct imagery, it's a sensory assault only further accelerating the journey into yet another period of days turning to weeks turning to months trying to stave off negativity and subscribe to the "this year will be different" line of thinking. In an attempt to condense the explosion of emotions into a nice, succinct package to at least partially explain the background psychology of the season for me, I'll say that all of my best and worst memories call autumn its home. This starts from childhood, where the memories more center around unadulterated joy - tag in the backyard was most fun in the cooler weather, the World Series was the height of my sports excitement each year as I rooted on my Yankees, and as I got a bit older, my own baseball season commenced this time of year. Halloween was the time of year you could be anyone in the whole world, a truly wondrous proposition for a child. And while we feel sorrow as children, I believe we don't have the intellectual capacity to have comprehend the depth of sorrow in our youthful years. It's actually quite interesting to think about: joy is often associated with something that is pure and simple, whereas sadness is one of the most complex emotions we can try to describe.<br />
<br />
Later on in life is where the complexity came along, and all the notable timestamps fall within this pesky three month time period of the year. The numbers on the calendar could be any numbers, but we're wired to notice trends, and when the trend is that these experiences all occur within a certain window, it can be difficult to try and convince the brain that the window is not to blame. It was autumn where I found out what was wrong with me had a name, the day that I could no longer run away from the fact that the way I felt wasn't going away on its own. Relationships in my life have been few and far between, but they have commenced and ceased in or very very close to autumn. The greatest joy and the most excruciating pain have occurred in these months. Having your heart become consumed by the deluge of love violently cascading without any regard to what is in its path is unlike any other feeling, as is the feeling when that tide sweeps back out to sea, taking far more back with it in the process. I have seen my identity lost and found in this season. I have had my hope renewed, my confidence shattered, my emotions boil and freeze, I've hurt so badly because of things that I've had happen, things that I've seen, and perhaps most of all because of decisions I had to make. I've had my heart broken and I have broken someone else's heart. I've fought and fought, and I've also been so exhausted that I felt like giving up. I've found some of my greatest friends in the entire world in this time of year, including my dearest friend of all. I've discovered the music that has shaped much of the more recent past of my life. These memories all come rushing back along with the cool air. They force their ways to the forefront of my awareness with the playback of a song or the sound of a child's gleeful scream. As humans, we all have to deal with these sensations, but it's each individual's ability to cope with the sensations that define how much of an impact and what sort of impact they have on us, and unfortunately, for me, I was never endowed with much of a mechanism for tackling such issues.<br />
<br />
I think heading into this autumn I had more conviction around the belief that this year would be different. Things in my life have been going pretty well, and I am happier than I have been in years, all things considered. Now, whether it be coincidence or if there's truly something to this "season of change", it of course has to happen that life would just throw some curveballs out there just to get me thinking. I think I have maneuvered that path okay so far, but that seed of doubt has been planted, the cool weather has rolled back in, and I have felt the anxiety rising within me, particularly having spent a week out of town from work in a place that houses some of the most vivid memories of mine (as fate would have it, the route from the hotel I was staying at to the office took me down a road that was the same route taken to go to a Halloween bonfire back on someone's farmland back in 2008). In contemplating this all, though, and thinking about my desire to try and make this autumn a great one to "break the cycle", it occurred to me that maybe that wasn't the best course of action, and perhaps a futile one, in all actuality. The more I thought, and the more I listened to some music, the more I felt that I had it all wrong. So often I think we have such black and white approaches to dealing with sorrow: either run from it or embrace it as our identity. Now, maybe what I was proposing was not to run from it, more to try and shove it aside and replace it with something else. Other times we wallow in our gloom because it identifies us. What I thought about, though, is to try and do neither of those things, to just try to see and understand the beauty in sorrow. I don't know that there is ever any "conquering" it, but some form of coexistence where it makes you appreciate and understand the role sorrow plays in the broader gamut of all human emotion is perhaps the best way to try and approach it. We don't try to appreciate that we feel sad, but we appreciate that we feel, period.<br />
<br />
All in all, I don't know if this approach will be a beneficial one or not. It's certainly well-intentioned, and it seems to make sense to me (now), but I could just be digging myself a hole and no one would ever think to tell me as I could be just any other grave digger this spooky time of year, right? I do believe it's worth a shot, though. I cannot run from the seasons, rather than trying to run against the current, perhaps this is a way of riding with the current. Autumn is the season of change, so I may as well try something new!Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-88592353676989952382014-09-06T12:05:00.000-04:002014-09-06T12:05:56.528-04:00Sabaton Open Air 2014I'm back posting yet another music related entry in what's been a pretty good string of few weeks for me as it pertains to music. While I've been following along with the U.S. Open on the sports side of things and edited a few photos from Europe, music has been the topic I am most driven to write about (along with some really long, philosophical e-mails, but you don't get to see those). Sabaton Open Air, otherwise known as Rockstad: Falun, is a metal festival held in the hometown of Sabaton, a small city of less than 40,000 in Sweden. This was my third festival in Europe, smaller than Amphi festival, and about the same size, perhaps marginally larger than Mittelalterlich Phantasie Spectaculum. I actually quite enjoyed the size of the festival: it was big enough so that there was enough energy pulsing around the festival grounds later in the day and into the evening, but it was small enough that you would leave one day, then come back the next day and run into the new friends you made the day prior. This is probably the greatest aspect of the event for me, personally, as I met some absolutely wonderful people, and had I only talked to them for several minutes only to never see them again, I would have missed out on some friendships and social interaction.<br />
<br />
The festival is a three day event primarily focused on power metal, although there were other genres represented at the event. Admittedly, this was a festival that, band-wise, probably could have been consolidated into a two day event; there are other festivals out there with a much deeper ticket in two days than this festival had in all three. The positive element to this is it was less pressure to constantly be trying to see one band or another on different stages or running around the grounds constantly; it allowed you to socialize a bit more freely, which I think was definitely positive. The festival grounds were very easy to navigate, and I can say that the event definitely sort of built up with each day. All three days had spectacular headlining performances, but the lineups just got a bit deeper later in the week. I would say there is probably a small bit of bias resulting from the particular type of metal I enjoy most, but my sentiments were generally echoed by the folks I met at the event, so I don't feel like I am stepping too far out of line.<br />
<br />
In terms of the actual performances, I'll go over the bands that were the highlights for me by day. While it's becoming nearly impossible to rank live performances I've seen given the ever increasing list of bands I've seen and the different elements said bands bring to the table in different settings, I think if I was forced to pick a top 10, 3 of them would be from this festival, and Arkona is already cemented in my top 5, so they're a fourth that performed at this event.<br />
<br />
Day 1: Eternal of Sweden got the event off to a good start; I was pleased with their performance as an opening band. These guys were heavy metal throwback, like they'd been playing for a couple of decades, or they wanted to recapture the glory days of yesteryear and formed a band playing that style of music. Probably not something I'd listen to all of the time, but I thought they were just fine for the beginning of the event. After what I felt was a bit of lull, I got re-engaged once Revamp came on. Unfortunately, there were some technical difficulties and a long delay that set their start time back a good 20 minutes, which maybe killed the atmosphere in the crowd a bit, but after a somewhat flat first couple of songs, they really brought the energy back in a big way as they progressed through the set. Floor Jansen sounded great, and the band was pretty nice when I saw them signing autographs, too. I actually got to chat with Henk a little bit after the festivities were done for the evening, too. He's a funny guy. Following Revamp was Arkona, whom I never have enough good things to say about. Arkona had never performed in Sweden before, and leading up to the event, I was quite surprised to hear how many people had never heard of them. I was wearing the shirt I purchased on their 2011 North American tour and talking them up the entire day. Some might say this is a bad move, because in the event others don't like them as much as I do, you make your recommendations look bad, but this is Arkona, and they never disappoint. Surely enough, the crowd went wild for them. They played a great mix of songs, starting of with some new material from Yav and throwing in many of their popular staples such as "Slavsia, Rus", "Stenka na Stenku", and "Yarilo". You haven't really lived until you've participated in a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5fm11JueAc" target="_blank">Wall of Death</a> to Stenka na Stenku, to be quite honest. I'll cut short gushing about my favorite Russians and their amazing music, though. I was thrilled to see them make the front page of the local Swedish newspaper, though, and was quick to post it online for all to see. I'll write an artist spotlight on them some day, I'm sure. Finntroll was the last big highlight of the evening for me. I was pleasantly surprised with their performance, as I was underwhelmed when I saw them in the U.S. It seems to me that was more a reflection of some poor sound that night, though, as they sounded great at Rockstad. They definitely had the most raucous fans of the entire festival, too, which was a bit annoying in the 30 minutes leading up to the show, as I literally could not hear people next to me, but made for a fun show while they were playing. The last band of the night, Amaranthe, was not my thing, but they were decent, catchy, and I met two friends that I spent the most time with in Falun before that show, so they were a highlight due to that, if not the music.<br />
<br />
Day 2: Admittedly, I spent a good chunk of the afternoon up at the beer tent socializing and staying out of the rain, as it rained quite a bit the first two days, but I can definitely say that as background music went, the opening few bands definitely surpassed the opening few bands from Thursday. The three highlights of the day for me, though, were definitely Amorphis, Masterplan, and Rhapsody of Fire. Amorphis I had never really listened to prior to coming to Rockstad, as I don't listen to a whole lot of progressive, but they definitely put on a good performance and made me interested in listening to them more following the festival. Masterplan is a band that I listened to sparingly in the past, admittedly. I do enjoy their music, but the vocals are just underwhelming to me. I just always felt I'd rather listen to other power metal bands where I thought the vocals added more, other things equal. That said, I do love me some Crimson Rider, and their live performance was definitely enjoyable. I left Amorphis on the mainstage early to be up front for Masterplan, which was really more just to be very proactive to ensure I'd be up front for Rhapsody of Fire. Ironically enough, after waiting through almost all of Testament's 90 minute set, which I wasn't too disappointed in not seeing since I'm not a fan of thrash, it was just too cold and wet, and I was too hungry, so I relinquished my front and center spot for food and temporary warmth. The outcome suited me just fine, as I both filled my belly and ran into my friends, so we shared a beer and still got a good spot for Rhapsody of Fire. Now, if you haven't listened to Rhapsody of Fire, prepare for an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GES4BzBwjeY&index=6&list=RD8SKqqKjW0aU" target="_blank">epic journey</a> (don't worry, I didn't go too hard on this one). As symphonic power metal goes, it doesn't get much better than these Italian metal gods. Fabio Lione is on the short list of best male vocalists I have seen. He sounds great on their albums and was even better live. The atmosphere was electric during their performance. The crowd engagement was good with Fabio pulling a page out of Freddie Mercury's book to see if the crowd could hang with him on vocals. We got everything from the most fast, melodic, epic songs all the way down to a sweet ballad. Top 10 band performance + awesome friends = perfect night cap.<br />
<br />
Day 3: The big day got off to an auspicious start by virtue of the fact that it wasn't overcast from the get-go. Similar to day 2, the first few bands were spent more socializing and less being attentive to the actual music, but I had to ensure that we saw Twilight Force. I had listened to them in advance of coming to Europe and was looking forward to seeing them live. There's no such thing as too much cheesy power metal, after all. Complete with tales of adventure, abundant chorus, melodic riffs, the good old high range metal vocals (although sometimes far too forced to the point they don't come off well at all), and nifty elf outfits, Twilight Force was definitely higher at the top of the list of my favorites of the entire festival. You could tell they were having fun up there, too. They're a local act from Borlänge, just 20 minutes away by train, so it had to be a great moment for them. Following Twilight Force was Battle Beast, another band I hadn't listened to prior to arriving. I really enjoyed their set. Noora Louhimo has a bit of a throwback, raspy heavy metal vocal style, but as a female vocalist, it served as a very nice contrast to the more prevalent operatic type vocals in the power and symphonic metal scenes. That's not to say she doesn't have the voice for the cleaner vocals, because she flaunts those as well. Her variety and uniqueness complement an excellent instrumental group to create a great band overall. Later in the evening, I had to make a decision; ultimately I decided to hold my spot on the rail for Van Canto and forego being able to watch Týr and having a less than optimal spot for Sabaton. I knew that I may never see Van Canto again, and no one out there is like Van Canto whatsoever. I'll see Týr open for Eluveitie, and Sabaton, while not having seen them at their grandest event, I have seen twice already and will again in October, so I decided to stay up front for the a capella metal band from Germany. It's almost hard to even try and comment on their set because it is so one of a kind. Anything you try to come up with words for to relate to other folks is almost futile because unless they've seen Van Canto, there's nothing else in their bank of experience you can tap into to try and relate it to. What I enjoyed about their set was that they played a lot of original material; obviously their cover songs are what people probably discover and know them for, but for them to come up with original material and go through the creative process like any other band, only without any actual instruments (drums aside), that's pretty neat. Like just think about a jam session with these guys just getting creative with their vocal chords. It's an interesting prospect to ponder on. So, truly, this was a great performance, and I managed to catch a Red Bull can that was thrown into the crowd at the conclusion of their set, which I still have presently (need to decide what to do with it).<br />
<br />
Following Van Canto was the apex of the show, and the second of three new performances to make it into my top 10 all time performances I have seen. Of course, because it's their event, Sabaton are going to pull out all the stops and have resources that the other bands won't have access to. I wouldn't try to slight other bands simply because they didn't have fancy firework turrets, pyrotechnics, Caroleans, and the works, but I can't dismiss what Sabaton has done with this event overall. Like I mentioned in the opening, Falun is a very small town, so the fact that Sabaton is a world famous band that came from the tiny, historically mining town, and the fact that they return to their roots every single year and put on their best performance is positively wonderful. It is just one of many ways that Sabaton show what thoughtful, high character guys they really are. As a band that composes lyrics primarily in English, as do many bands because of the ability to reach out to a much wider audience, for Sabaton to be able to come home, interact with the home crowd in Swedish, and to play Carolus Rex, considered by many to be the crown jewel in their discography, entirely in Swedish was a beautiful thing to witness. The Swedes deserve that moment, and it is incredible for Sabaton to give it to them while also accommodating all of the non-Swedish speaking individuals as well. It's all done in true Joakim style, too, good humored, humble, and ever so generous to the fans. They always give back to the fans in some way: bringing folks on stage, Joakim trading his vest with another in the crowd, fan interaction, it's all so kind, and more importantly, it's genuine. I truly do believe there are no nicer guys in all of music. To me, what truly, above all, made this set were the events that transpired in this video:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="https://ytimg.googleusercontent.com/vi/c_9gGRBozfg/0.jpg"><param name="movie" value="https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/c_9gGRBozfg&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/c_9gGRBozfg&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<br />
To witness this was so touching. I have seen so many incredible shows, bands, and performances in the past five years, but there are far, far fewer in number the times where an event is so moving on a much deeper, more profound level. This was one of those select moments for me, something I will never forget, something that will be just as powerful each time I watch it. To me, watching an incredible music performance is second to watching an incredible human performance, which is what I saw that wonderful evening. Furthermore, I really feel that Sabaton are really a good representation and embodiment of Sweden as a whole. I have made the remark, "the only person nicer than a Swede is a drunk Swede". It's a joke, but there is certainly some truth in the statement. Sweden and the folks there were so incredibly friendly, welcoming, and provided such an absolutely incredible environment for me that is beyond words. This is an event, a band, and a country full of people that I will forever cherish.<br />
<br />
Ending the blog post on that note seems like a logical stopping point, but the numbers folks in the group have noticed that there's still a third top ten performance I haven't mentioned. Well, Brothers of Metal had the tall order of following Sabaton. People might wonder why Sabaton isn't the last to perform. Well, if they were, they'd never be able to get off the stage. No one expects the last band to top Sabaton, of course, but the only downside is that the lion's share (use of lion in the context of Sweden was intentional) of the crowd leave after Sabaton. That didn't stop Brothers of Metal from putting on a positively killer show. I do want to save a blog post for them, as for a local band to put on the performance they did, it was positively remarkable, and they deserve additional recognition for that. It's unfathomable for me to think about walking down the street to a bar and seeing a band put on the type of performance they did, yet they did it despite having only a fraction of the number of followers as the majority of the bands performing this event. So stay tuned for a post on them in the near future.<br />
<br />
To close, I really just have to once more emphasize what an incredible event and experience this was. The music, the atmosphere, the new friends from all over the world, there's nothing else in the world like going to a festival like this, and I am eternally grateful that I had this opportunity and hat Sabaton make an event like this happen. The world is such a vast place with so much to see, I can't say that I know I will ever return to this particular event again because there are only so many vacations one can take in a lifetime, but Sweden is absolutely a country I would love to return to again to be able to see some of the truly lovely people I have met both there and elsewhere in Europe. Jag älskar Sverige!Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-81753743016753443462014-08-31T12:13:00.002-04:002014-08-31T12:17:57.966-04:00Local Artist Spotlight: The ReturnersFor this spotlight, I am going to detail a group that I alluded to in my previous post on Orlando Nerd Fest, <a href="http://the-returners.com/">The Returners</a>. The Returners are a five piece group from Austin that positively blew me away; this was due in part to many factors. To organize my thoughts, I feel it will be more interesting to convey my chronological thought process rather than structure by topic.<br /><br /> My initial reaction right from sound check was that this band was going to bring something big to the table. I was instantly filled with anticipation sheerly by virtue of keyboards and a flute! Given my music tastes, this should come as no surprise. The next thing that caught my eye was the double bass drums. This is where I really started to get excited. Keys and flute suggest some sort of folk or orchestral type arrangements, but double bass can only mean one thing: metal. Following that, I noticed the fretless bass, so my assumption there is that the bassist is going to be quite talented. And, to cap it all off, the guitarist is wielding a seven string guitar. For those of you counting at home, that's five out of five on band members that have me amped up for the performance, and this all before even a single note has emanated from any of the speakers.<br /><br /> After all of this initial anticipation, the event itself didn't disappoint, in fact, it met and exceeded any and all expectations I could have had. If you were to take this band out of this convention room and drop them onto a stage with thousands of people watching, they'd fit perfectly. It was unbelievable. I thought they excelled in so many aspects of their performance, particularly for a group that just formed last year. The musical talent is evident; they can flat out shred. It's the little things, though, the attention to detail, that I felt really made them stand out and created that much more of a lasting impression. There are many bands with a great deal of talent and who can perform in front of an audience, but creating a cohesive setlist with a good flow so that it guides the crowd through a vast gamut of experience and emotion is something that is not quite as easy to do, but the The Returners did a very good job of that, in my estimation. They went loud, they went soft, they picked up the pace and brought it back down, they mixed in vocals with instrumentals, and they did it all with transitions that produced a very good ebb and flow for the entire set (and also within their songs and medleys given the arrangements they created). Staying on the subject of the setlist, too, it was a very diverse, well thought out, and well executed blend of tracks. They hit on crowd favorites, but they really went with some less widely known tracks that I definitely appreciated, Ecco being one of the games that I was really pleasantly surprised to hear. My second favorite song of the set (I'll get to the favorite in a second) was their <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UK1XTvYLBQ#t=1142">Star Ocean 2 Medley</a>. I think this song really summarizes all I've commented on quite well, both in terms of musical talent and the thoughtful arrangements. The video doesn't do them justice, as the sound really mutes the bass, but you get the general idea of what they bring to the table.<br /><br /> So, back to my favorite song. All this time I have spoken very little about the vocals of this band, which are perhaps the greatest of their many strengths. Lauren, "The Flute", in addition to being a talented flutist and knowledgable video game enthusiast is a phenomenal opera vocalist. This surprise was spoiled given she opened with a vocal intro for Random Encounter earlier in the day, which is probably a good thing because if I had discovered that along with all of the other astounding revelations about this band all at once, I'd probably have to watch the show from the floor because I wouldn't be able to pick my jaw up off of it. While much of their performance is purely instrumental, Lauren definitely has her moments where she puts the pipes on display, none more so than their cover of Phantom of the Opera. Now, here's the thing, right from the instant I heard the first organ note, my thought is "you don't do Phantom of the Opera unless you know you're going to nail it". I knew Lauren could nail it from her vocals in other songs, but here's where they left the crowd in awe: John, the drummer, absolutely killed it on male vocals. His vocals alone are incredible, but the fact that he can sing like that while playing drums is pretty remarkable. Here's a guy who could never pick up a drumstick again and focus solely on singing if he wanted to, and he'd probably be very successful doing it. If I had to guess, though, he's probably in like 10 different bands because he's a drummer, and that's what drummers do, right? Supply and demand :) Don't take my word for it, though, below is a video. While the song is also in the video of their set linked above, the vocals are barely audible in that video, and in this video you can hear them pretty clearly (albeit with video from the opposite side of the room).<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/3PHsaKnFqHA?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div>
<br /> Music aside, the band members were all so incredibly friendly. While I didn't spend an incredibly long time talking to everyone, it was long enough to see how humble they were and very gracious of the support they'd received. I also don't think it would be a stretch to declare Lauren as the nicest person ever. She really is so sweet. So here's a proposition for everyone (yes, all my legions of readers, haha): go to the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/TheReturnersVGM">Facebook Page</a> of The Returners and "Like" them. Let me know in the comments, and I will do a drawing at random for one person that I will give a digital download pre-order for their upcoming album, Immune to Silence (what an awesome name, by the way). Who can argue with free music? Plus, when you factor in the lack of readers, poor distribution of posts on Facebook, and the general laziness of people, you're probably going to end up with like a 50/50 shot to win, so take advantage of the easy numbers game you'll be getting into. Worth a shot, right? The Returners, to me, are a band with limitless potential. They already have talent and performance beyond that of so many acts, and as they spend more and more time together, they will only continue to become more polished, have tighter performances, and expand their repertoire of songs. I am very excited to see what the next chapter holds in their story.</div>
Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-32345550532742167112014-08-30T17:11:00.000-04:002014-08-30T17:11:31.374-04:00Orlando Nerd FestThis post comes far too late after the 2014 Orlando Nerd Fest, but I have been traveling and taking care of other pressing issues. I want to take a moment to overview the event and some of the particular high points and reflections on the event and its significance.<br />
<br />
To begin, I should probably explain what Orlando Nerd Fest is more explicitly. It is a multi-day event centering mostly around video game music (VGM), while also having some artists, indie game developers, gaming rooms, and vendors at the event. This event is new, and it differs from other conventions in that there is constant music; it is the primary focus rather than just a minor element such as in large conventions like Dragon*Con. I attended two days of the festival, so those are the ones I will be commenting on.<br />
<br />
The performers range from rap and nerdcore to metal and many things in between. There were bands big and small, those who were local, those who traveled across the country, and a special group that traveled across the world! The band, you ask? Well, it was Nobuo Uematsu and the Earthbound Papas. For those of you unfamiliar with Uematsu, the man is a legendary composer in the video game world responsible for most of the iconic music.in the Final Fantasy series, among other games. If you want to see an RPG gamer fawn over someone, put that person in a room with Uematsu. His band performed and also did a signing session, where I had my PS2 copy of Final Fantasy X signed by the band. Seeing them really have fun and laugh about how they could have all of the adoring fans do anything they wanted was very entertaining. So yeah, that was a cool experience, and anyone with an appreciation for video game music will understand the influence Uematsu has had in the gaming world.<br />
<br />
The following bands were my highlights of the convention, in no particular order (excluding Uematsu, since I mentioned him above):<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/EightBitDisaster?fref=photo" target="_blank">Eight Bit Disaster</a>: Video game music in the form of a funk rock band from North Carolina. Their music was good, the band members fun and entertaining, and they had a good mix of songs, including some less highly celebrated ones from games such as Dr. Mario. Musically, I thought they definitely deserved a better time slot, for sure. My only question: how can a funk rock band cover video game music and not do something from Toejam and Earl???<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/UrizenOnline" target="_blank">Urizen</a>: It's hard to really say enough about this band, as they were a fantastic group to cap off the festivities. Their stage presence without all of the extra-curricular items was very good, and then when you factor in the entire story that they play out with props, machines, and crowd involvement, you've got a heck of a show. Their music is somewhere between electro-rock and electro-metal, as some songs can get a bit harder and feature some aggressive double bass, but all in all, I think they can be diverse and cater to whichever type of crowd they play for. What they also did wonderfully was incorporate other acts from the festival into the performance, having other musicians come and help battle space aliens, for example. The crowd engagement was perhaps the best of the entire event, and fun was had by all.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://criticalhitband.com/" target="_blank">Critical Hit</a>: Critical Hit is the brainchild of Andrew Gluck (Piano Squall) and Jason Hayes (of Blizzard music acclaim, most notably) and features Hayes along with a host of numerous other professional musicians performing very well done arrangements of video game music. Their sets tend to blend Eastern and Western gaming along with different genres of games and play songs that both appeal to casual gamers and more dedicated fans. With the musical talent they've amassed, it's impossible not to put on an impressive show. While their lineup features some musicians with serious chops, including an award winning concert pianist from the time she was 14, Tina Guo on cello stole this show. Her charisma while playing reigns supreme, and her talent on the cello is just <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5GkX70hrzo" target="_blank">absurd</a>. Expect them to be touring in a city near you next year!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bitbrigade.com/" target="_blank">Bit Brigade</a>: A lot of bands play video game music. Bit Brigade plays video games, music. If you want to see a speed run of old favorites such as Legend of Zelda, Megaman, or Castlevania and have it accompanied by some sweet metal music, Bit Brigade is the band for you. Now if we could all only have our own band accompanying us in our gaming sessions. The did Legend of Zelda at the event, and it was a great performance. One of the most impressive things when you actually see them perform is just how little time they get to take it easy through the whole set. It's basically a nonstop dose of gaming and metal for 55 minutes.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.themegas.com/" target="_blank">The Megas</a>: The Megas are an electro rock band that are unique in that they take the Megaman series music to a new level by borrowing the musical style and adding lyrics pertaining to the game, which is pretty neat. On stage, they sounded great, have spiffy outfits and a good color scheme, and they just came across all around as very polished. If I had to nominate best looking musicians at the event, Tina Guo takes it on the female side and Eric, who does guitars and vocals (who looked like Lleyton Hewitt at the event), takes it for the males. I really enjoyed them, and they reminded me a little bit of a softer, slightly more poppy version of Attention System, one of my favorite local bands from Atlanta.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.schafferthedarklord.com/" target="_blank">Schaffer the Darklord</a>: Schaffer the Darklord (or STD, as he is also called) was one of the funniest and most entertaining performers at the event, in my opinion. I am not a fan of rap, or even nerdcore for that matter, but he was funny and engaging enough to win me over. He throws a few more words from the dictionary out there than most other performers I've seen doing nerdcore (which, admittedly, isn't a whole lot), and he really does a great job creating a villainous persona while still coming across as a likable person under the persona.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://killerrobots.tv/" target="_blank">Killer Robots!</a>: Really, the best thing you can do is click the link. Killer Robots! are the robot version of GWAR. In terms of which set had the most pure fun and insanity, Killer Robots! take the cake. In all honesty, the music, which is surf rock, takes such a back seat solely because the performance itself is so entertaining. The band comes on after a live action movie intro, and pool noodles cut into thirds are distributed into the crowd for the ensuing <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jthpf2bDBQc" target="_blank">battle</a> against all sorts of monster, aliens, lobster creatures, and I couldn't even tell you what else. Oh, and your friends...especially your friends.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://music.randomencounterband.com/" target="_blank">Random Encounter</a>: The local group featuring one of my favorite instruments, the accordion, put on a great, high energy show. Any group that features Chrono Trigger music in its set list is a winner in my book, and their cover of Frog's theme is one of my favorite covers of a video game song. I had been waiting to see them for a while and just happened to keep missing them when they played a local event, so I was tremendously excited to finally see them, and they didn't disappoint.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://the-returners.com/" target="_blank">The Returners</a>: These folks get their own blog post, so more on them later. Yes, I liked them that much.<br />
<br />
Well, there you have it. I can emphatically say that the Orlando Nerd Fest 2014 was a great success, and I can definitely see this as one that continuously grows over the years in both attendance and prestige, because it seems to me the folks putting this on did a good job and the attendees had a real blast.Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-86226968904003458772014-08-11T21:26:00.001-04:002014-08-31T15:36:37.206-04:00RIPWhile I have a seemingly endless amount of things I have still yet to do today and other thoughts and pieces I have been yearning to write but have not done it because of said things, I had to make time for this post. At age 63, Robin Williams is dead, and that is simply something I cannot postpone my thoughts on for another time.<br />
<br />
Admittedly, I am not typically one that pays much attention to celebrity deaths. A lot of that is due to being removed from pop culture in general, and there is a component where perhaps I feel the death of a celebrity can be talked about in a manner that is somewhat inappropriate to me. It's obvious why so many people care when a celebrity dies, but it wouldn't be innately right to place a celebrity death above the death of an "average" person. I also don't know how it would feel to be a family member of a deceased celebrity, but I imagine the whole situation being run on the news and talked about by the general public does not make it easy to go through the grieving process. I by no means feel indifferent to celebrity death; a loss of life, no matter who it was nor what the cause, is always a painful thing to someone else, and while as individuals we may never share contact, experiences, or the like, we as people all experience the same emotions. We know what it is to laugh, to cry, the joy of life and the pain of loss. So death, by and large, is a sad event, but one that I don't drastically differentiate based on the person who dies, aside from people close to me in my own life. So what makes the death of Robin Williams different? Why did I drop everything to write about his death and not that of others?<br />
<br />
Undeniably, celebrities have touched the lives of so, so, so many people. If they hadn't, they wouldn't be called celebrities. I can't say that Robin Williams moved me on a deeper level than other celebrities or that he has any extraordinarily profound significance on me, personally Of course, it is obvious to say that he touched, many, many lives all over the world, but that does not make him unique relative to other superstars. After seeing the initial reaction of those around me, though, it really accentuated just how loved and just how much of an impact this man had on so many people, and that was primarily due to his ability to make us laugh, and laugh in the purest way. What I mean by that is that to laugh, truly laugh, is an unfiltered expression of joy. To laugh is to, at least momentarily, remove one's self from any negativity and sorrow, to enter a state where everything melts away into happiness, even if only for a second or two. Even in the darkest of times, there is solace in laughter, and though it may be hard to come by in those times, being given the gift of laughter is perhaps the greatest gift one can receive. Indeed, there may be times where when engulfed in a bleak reality, one of unrelenting darkness and misery, that laughter may be all we have, our only reprieve. That is the gift Williams so regularly gave to us all, and all the while, his life may have well been in the blackest of places, illuminated only with his desire to hang on to the laughter, to give this gift to the world, to smile and spread the elation that he may himself never possess again. If this is the case, and only he knew for sure, that desire burned brightly for so many years, but even the brightest flame will dull to a flicker before becoming extinguished, and much to the dismay of all of us, that flame finally burned out.<br />
<br />
It may come as a surprise to so many that the man once titled "The Funniest Man Alive" could be possess such sadness that he would take his own life. There are many people with depression, myself included, that know all too well how unsurprising this is, though. The routine putting on a skin that is not your own to fool the world just enough to make it through another day is all too common. And here's what's interesting: there's a key word in that previous sentence. It's "fool". The word fool, as a noun, is used interchangeably with the word jester. As a verb it obviously is used a bit differently, but the job of a fool or a jester is to entertain and to make laugh. Obviously as a verb, to fool is to trick or confuse, but depending on the context, it can also have the entertainment element to it, typically because the manner in which an individual is "fooled" is to the bemusement of onlookers. So when those of us who have depression decide to take on the world again for at least one more day, many times we arm ourselves with humor to fool the world. Perhaps Williams was the best of us all in this regard. And in his death, hopefully Williams gave us yet another gift, maybe almost as valuable as the gift of laughter he gave us in his life provided we as a population are attentive enough to see it, and that is the gift of awareness.<br />
<br />
The fact that suicide as the cause of death for the funniest man alive is such a terrible and ironic fate, one most never could have imagined, <b>should</b> draw people's attention to the seriousness of the problem that is mental illness. "If this man, of all people, took his life, then this may be more serious than we imagined". It might be too soon for people to open this dialogue up for discussion, but when a beloved man such as he dies with that affliction being the primary cause, it's hard to imagine this issue going unnoticed. It's my hope that there is awareness generated and that the topic of mental illness does not get pushed to the background. It would be a small bit of solace and great continuing legacy for this incident to go on and become the impetus for change, for more open discussion about the prevalence and severity of mental illness all over and the resources available to help remove the very real and very painful barriers that range from preventing someone from operating at the fullest extent of his/her abilities to being a completely debilitating and crushing weight on a person's daily life. I don't know that this may come out of this all, but I'd like to think I can play some small part by being someone to talk about it. Rest in peace Mr. Williams, and may your death be a means to help save the lives of others.Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-58271697720639084602014-08-03T21:18:00.000-04:002014-08-03T21:18:25.685-04:00Artist Spotlight: AlestormThe time has come, the time for a drink... and a new Alestorm album, and with it, I wanted to write a piece on Alestorm. I have not listened to Sunset on the Golden Age in its entirety yet; it's out in Europe and comes out in two days in the United States. Needless to say, with my enthusiasm for pagan metal combined with my love for pirates and innately pirate-like looks, I am looking forward to sitting down and taking a good listen to the album. For now, though, I am more interested in speaking to both the band in general, and their latest video, a cover of the song Hangover, which I had never heard of before their rendition of it.<br />
<br />
First off, let me say this right up front: I don't care if you say the music is all a gimmick. Perhaps it is, but if it was easy, more people would do it. To call it a gimmick is not appropriate, to me, because it diminishes the value of the actual quality of their music; it's awesome, plain and simple. No, the lyrics aren't going to be mistaken for poetry, and there are musicians that can shred better, but don't for one second suggest that these guys aren't talented. The tales Christopher Bowes delivers are fun, and not at all poorly written. In fact, I would say that some of the lyrics are actually pretty clever and make for some good pirate lore. The musicians are all very competent, you have some good guitar solos, and perhaps more importantly, some great keytar solos. Above all else, though, the band is flat out entertaining. Whether it be a concert, the lyrics, a video, or Christopher's various posts, pictures, music side projects (do yourself a favor and look up "Christopher Bowes at the Organ", you'll either think it's ridiculously funny or that I am out of my mind, and in either case, you'd be right), the band never ceases to bring anywhere from amusement to utter hilarity. Quite frankly, I'd say the majority of people who criticize Alestorm are just upset that they can't be highly successful making music that is one of the farthest things from serious possible (make no mistake about it, while the band themselves are a bunch of jokesters and don't take life too seriously, they are very good and dedicated with what they do).<br />
<br />
As an extension of the above, I could honestly say that if Alestorm simply continued to replicate their same formula and never tried to do anything remotely different with their music, I would be totally fine with that and love them all the same. While I can appreciate musicians evolving over time, I also think it's absolutely fine to take an approach of "if it's not broken, don't fix it". They have not done that, however, as is evident with their latest album. While they are still the same at their core, Alestorm introduces some guest musicians to the studio for laying down other folk instruments such as violin and flute. From what I have heard of the album, so far too, there is some more variety in the vocals as well. What people are slow to recognize, too, is that innovation with bands is not restricted to just how the music sounds. Alestorm still find new ways to entertain. It's not always the same songs, the same schtick, the same old commentary at concerts. There's always some fun cover or new item being worked on, such as a cover of "In the Navy" by the Village People, or playing a metal cover of the Rugrats theme upon returning for their encore, something that fans will instantly find entertaining and be able to identify with.<br />
<br />
This is a good segue into their rendition of Hangover:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/d5P5Tz3VH94?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
When I heard this song for the first time, I couldn't help but spam various people trumpeting the song as my favorite cover ever. From my vantage point, this is a perfect cover. They take a song that the majority of their fans either would not have even heard of or would ordinarily hate, and they make it their own. Now, there has been a fair bit of criticism in the Youtube comments of the video, which, of course, is frequented by a very diverse and well versed group of experts when it comes to music (dripping with sarcasm, in case that didn't come across). To me, this is absurd, and it makes me fear for the upcoming generation of metalheads, as any time I come across a "not brutal enough" comment for music in general, it makes me roll my eyes so hard my vision is blurry for a good 30 minutes. Pertaining to this song, Alestorm shows off some versatility and makes a really catchy, somewhat commercially viable yet still true to metal roots version of a song that loosely fits in the same vein as their general subject matter. My opinion is if you like metal and don't like this song, you're basically trying too hard to be pretentious and not have fun.</div>
<br />
Alestorm has been, and remains one of my favorite metal bands. They're one of the first metal bands I really got into; as I mentioned a while back, I am relatively new as it comes to be a metal fan. To me, they are such a great, refreshing mix of characteristics for a band to have in terms of balancing their music, performance, and overall attitude. They're also a good band to get non-metal fans to listen to because, well, who doesn't like pirates? The sad reality is that people are more open minded to something if there is some other socially acceptable or fun reason to entertain something non-mainstream.<br />
<br />
July 31st: "Goth things? Nope, too weird for me."<br />
October 31st: "I <i>love</i> this!!!"<br />
<br />
Metal: "This is horrible."<br />
Pirate metal: "Pirates!? This is awesome!"<br />
<br />
So now, I propose you all raise your tankards to the sky and toast to Alestorm. Long live the heavy metal pirates!Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-18029655872703829082014-07-27T14:58:00.001-04:002014-08-31T12:20:35.528-04:00Two Roads Diverged in a Wood<div class="MsoNormal">
Building. Progress. Growth. Achievement. Humans driven by
ambition identify with these items; they're goals, ideals to achieve. And why
not? Surely it’s better than stagnation, right? Well, let’s go outside of the
box for a moment. Dedication to a pursuit is admirable, absolutely. The desire
to continue to hone one’s talents, to find the motivation to persist no matter
what obstacles interfere, is one that characteristic of many, if not all, of
the people who achieve an elevated level of excellence possess. Some of us are
contrarian, though. Or at least I hope the word is “us”, or else it’s just me. This
is not to say that dedication is a trait I lack, necessarily, but holding it as an ideal is
contrary to the manner in which I think. Let me explain.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Each passing year, there is a greater resignation that life
isn't quite the fairy tale it is made out to be in our younger years. Now, that
is not necessarily a bad thing; there are multiple ways to look at it. Some may
look at the process and consider aging the loss of whimsy and wonder of youth.
Others may consider it not aging, but maturation, and it’s not resignation to a
less than fantastical existence, rather, an appreciation for the little things,
an appreciation that we could not posses in our youth. The reality is somewhere
in between those two, in my estimation. I can recognize this process taking
place, but my thought process is a combatant one. Consequently, the greater
this aging/maturation phenomenon occurs, the greater this contrarian backlash
is for me. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If nothing else, I can fairly say I embrace new experiences.
It’s almost as though I have this list with the goal of checking off as many
unique things as possible, not even because the items on the list seem
particularly enjoyable, but because I can look back on my life and say, “look
at all the things I did”. I can truthfully say that I have enjoyed just about
all of them, and even if I cannot say I enjoyed the experience itself, I enjoy
and appreciate the fact that I had the experience after the fact rather than in
the moment itself. But what does this have to do with everything I wrote before
this? Well, the pursuit of these different experiences can often get in the way
of the building mentality, the tendency to focus in on fewer goals. It’s in
conflict with the notion of settling down a bit and focusing more on the
ordinary beauty of life than the extraordinary beauty of life. One ventures
into the world of practical knowledge and not the world of new sensations or
philosophical knowledge. This is what I fight against more and more the older I
get; the more I feel it would be wiser to plant roots, to cherish the friends
and family I have and the experiences we share, and to focus on that part of my
life, the more I adamantly insist that this is not any sort of way to live
life. I fight back harder and harder. Anyone can do that, but far fewer welcome
the opportunity to develop a greater awareness and understanding of the world,
the entire world, around us. This is where I struggle. This is where I can’t
manage these two very conflicting components of my personality.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here’s the thing. It’s not as though my ideas are simply to
travel abroad, see the world, and to acquire a greater awareness for the
diversity of this planet. That’s great, but for me, it is not enough, not as
far out there. The learning is great, but not comprehensive. This process
allows for learning of culture, but I feel like I seek something further
beneath the surface. I have these ideas, ideas that previously I found
interesting, but now increasingly seem more and more desirable to pursue. Sure,
I could spend my life building up one person, the person I am and the life I
have today, but how would that compare to experiencing many different lives? At
this point, the key is that traveling is not enough. Moving is not enough,
either. What if one completely changed his/her identity? What if I moved to
Europe, but I was not myself, I did not take my name, and I left my entire past
behind me. It’s not a clean slate, as erasing a white board still tends to
leave marks on the board; this is a new, unadultered slate. Who I am, what I
like, what I am good at, who I knew, they are all part of that last life, not
the new one. What would it be like to live many short lives instead of one long
one? It’s an intriguing notion, to say the least. In this case, I think one
sacrifices depth of learning for breadth of learning.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Likewise, another idea is to live life on the streets. It’s
not just forfeiting the comforts of daily life, it's forfeiting the necessities
of daily life. “You never really understand a person until you consider things
from his point of view … until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”
Homelessness is something no one ever wants to experience. Well, maybe I just
shot a hole in that statement, but how much of a better understanding of the
world could I achieve? The insights I could gain, the observations I could
make, being able to experience the world in a lens that many others don't, this
is fascinating to me. In contrast to the taking a new identity and leaving 100%
of a prior life behind, this process would be slightly different to me, as I envision
it. Here I would want to retain the characteristics that make me, me. I’d want
to see how people treat the “functioning member of society me” relative to the “homeless
me”. At the core, I’d be the same person. On the outside, I would look
different, my perceived worth and use to society would be different, but I’d be
the same. How would people treat me? Would I be met with compassion? Disgust?
Would people be interested in talking to me? How would they look at me? We all
get a sense of how this would go already, because we have all walked by people
living on the streets before. It’s a different story when you're on the
opposite side of the fence, though. File this experiment under the category of
not enjoying an experience while it is occurring, but enjoying the fact that I
did it after the fact.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
These are just two of the many thoughts that intrude on my
ability to lead what would be an easier more conventional life. Let me be
clear: I don't want the typical, conventional life. I still cling to the notion
that there is some balance between stability and spontaneity; somehow, some way, it has to be possible, right? I don't feel these ideas are unique. I’d bet
others have thought, and done, some of these things before, maybe for the same
reasons, maybe stemming from an entirely different impetus. It does make me a
bit of a rarity, though. I cannot say if any of these ideas will come to pass,
if the impulses will become any more or less muted than today, if something
even more peculiar transpires, or if this will all become a fleeting memory.
After all, we can never be truly sure if we will even live to see the next day.
The analogy that is often used is taking the worn road or the road less
traveled, and as I sit here, looking at the two, the ever strengthening desire
is to take no road at all and find a new path entirely. There may be others who
also elect not to take a road, but the beauty is that in this case, no two off
road approaches will ever be the same.</div>
Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-39390928776839888902014-06-13T02:24:00.002-04:002014-06-13T02:24:48.292-04:00Off the GridThat’s right, I am removing myself from the World Wide Web (and Deep Web, for that matter) to nearly the greatest extent I possibly can. I am limiting myself to five minutes online a day for leisure once I find a suitable printer for canvas prints (I cannot find a suitable one of these in the five minute timeframe, of course). In these five minutes, the only thing I am going to allow myself to do is to check the scores of tennis matches, baseball games, and the Stanley Cup Finals, and occasionally to check my e-mails once a day. That’s it, nothing else. I’ll outline the rationale for this below, as there are a number of reasons for it.<br />
<br />
First off, this all came to a head with the recent events in dealing with my internet situation. Bright House Networks is my internet provider, and they take the cake when it comes to incompetent internet providers. I have wasted dozens of hours of my life trying to get them to get my service correct, have techs correctly set up equipment, get a static IP configuration, and still it has never worked like I needed it to. I finally got to a point where I was closing in on getting everything set up to meet my I needs. I’ve learned a lot along the way on configuring things myself since no one in their entire company nor my internal IT department know how to do it, and the admin that works remotely is so busy that he’s just not had the time reconfigure his Watchguard since Bright House gave the wrong configuration information in the first place (and I am not allowed to have admin privileges to the equipment; while I could reset it with everything I know, I am not going to do that and possibly get in trouble with them). I spent about three hours the other night tinkering on my own, and as of today, I felt I was going to be able to have everything except my Watchguard set up and actually have wireless internet again. Then, sure enough, Zeus had other plans, and lightning fried my equipment that was plugged into my brand new Tripp surge protection device (screw you, Tripp). Upon further messing around, it appeared that the modem wasn’t fried somehow, rather, just the power cable ceased working. So I went on a trek to get bent over and forced to pay 2000% of the actual cost of a power adapter for the unit. Ordinarily I’d make this purchase online, but given I needed it today, I didn’t have much choice. I finally ended up getting one at Radioshack, or so I thought. I showed the guy exactly what I needed: 2 amps. He “tests one out” and said it lit up, so I was in a hurry and didn’t think much of looking at it myself. I just wanted to get back home and continue another miserable day of work. Well, first off, I left the modem at the store, so I had to drive back, pick it up, and at this point I ordered some Chinese food since I was in no mood to cook. Upon getting home, I ate, and then I was so agitated about everything, the internet, work, and personal life things, that I didn’t even bother getting set back up, I just went to bed for a nap. Three hours later, I wake up around 11:30 and figure I’ll get set up again, and lo and behold, the power adapter is 2.5 amps, not 2, so of course it doesn’t work. It lights up to acknowledge a power source going in, but it will not power the modem correctly. Of course, this is too late to go back to Radioshack, so my only choice is to go to Walmart to buy a temporary modem before Bright House can get me a new one by coming out to the house (I need to lease equipment for them to enable static IP – it’s a Bright House thing, not an actual thing, just one of the many reasons they are a horrible company). I get my router, come home, and then spend the usual 30 minutes on hold before I reach a person at Bright House to give my new MAC address on this modem to, and, sure enough, “the department that can do that is closed”. They open at 8 tomorrow. How convenient, looks like I won’t be able to begin working at 8:00.<br />
<br />
So that details my frustration of late. I hate having to work a second job just to get my internet set up the way it needs to be for working from home. I’m over it, and while I don’t have a choice because I need the static IP, it has been the series of events that makes my stomach churn so much that I cannot take it anymore. This is on top of already being sick of not having WiFi. I’m the first to admit I waste entirely too much time online (more on that in a second), but having WiFi enabled me to do two things: access the internet from my laptop, and watch Game of Thrones on my PS3 (this is really the big reason I wanted to get my WiFi set up). Without WiFi, I am limited to working from my desktop in my little home office. Now, you can say, “the internet’s the internet”, and you’d be right, but it’s a psychological thing. I spend my whole day in front of the computer in that room, in that chair, and at a desk. Before, it was enough for me to be able to be online on my laptop in another room and lay on my bed or the couch in a different set of scenery for me to be okay with being in front of a different glowing, soul sucking screen. Not so much anymore, though. I’ve just about had it with being on the computer altogether. This is another contributing factor as to why I haven’t edited my photos of late; I have my personal desktop with my photo editing software, 8 core processor, and IPS monitor in my office, along with my crappy work desktop that is maybe 15% as good as my personal computer. They’re both hooked up at the same desk, as both have wired internet connections and utilize the same dual monitors, so my photo workstation now shares my business workstation, and that has been a psychological deterrent on top of the other psychological deterrents I outlined in a previous entry. But I’m beyond even that now; now I just don’t want to be on the internet at all.<br />
<br />
Here’s the other reason for it; I know that I allow it to suck the life out of me. It’s a problem, I don’t manage it well, and I need to cut it out entirely. I resort to the internet to deal with anxiety. I resort to the internet when I am depressed. I resort to the internet when I am bored. I resort to the internet when I want social interaction. I resort to the internet when I want to avoid social interaction. I’m not as bad as many people, but I am far worse off than I want to be, and enough is enough. I thought back to what I did when I wasn’t online so much. There’s been an ebb and flow to my time spent on the internet. Back when I would have considered myself a highly functioning human being, I still spent time online. Prior to 2011, though, I was not even on Facebook. Time spent on the internet was mostly on Reverbnation or other such music sites looking for new, underground music. The only reason I even joined Facebook was that I was going to more and more shows, and people typically don’t like communicating with you via Youtube, last.fm, Reverbnation, or any other source simply to get pictures from a show. So I did it for the convenience, and while I can’t say I regret it, I’d like to get back to the point where the internet is not a means for me to waste my life away. It’s not the internet’s fault, and there’s no guarantee I won’t continue to waste my life away, but I’ll be damned if I keep doing it online. I live in a new city now, and I am reaching the stage of my life where people my age are less interested in doing things with new people and are more focused on spending time with their existing networks of friends and acquaintances. I completely get it, but it doesn’t help me. As such, I resort back to going online to whatever paltry social interaction I can get there, but I’ve reached the point where I would rather be alone and keep myself busy than have such distant social interaction. And you know what? There’s nothing wrong with that. I actually think I will be well served to go out into nature and be alone with my thoughts. I felt as though I was making good psychological progress not too long ago, and I’m seeing it unravel before my very eyes. Anyone knows me knows that I am a fighter, though. I don’t go down easily, and I don’t go down without a fight. I want to get my punches in, and maybe I took a few lately, but it’s my turn to send a few back. One of many analogies for depression I have come up with over the years is being taken down a river in the current. You have to tread water to stay alive and wait for a branch to try and grab onto when the moment is right. When you get that moment, though, you have to take it, and you have to time it right. Lunge for the branch too early or too late, and you just spent all of your energy to miss after biding your time for so long. You have to know when to make that lunge and time it right for you to be successful. I’ve been treading water, and now it’s time to make that lunge. I want to live life again, truly live life, not just live it enough to allow me to drudge through the monotony, and I am going to do it whether people want to do it with me or not.<br />
<br />
Despite my 2:00 a.m. drowsiness, I am a bit excited to be taking this step. I hope that people join me, not in giving up the internet, but in staying connected with me through more intimate outlets than the internet. I miss phone calls and texts. I don’t want to make it difficult to get a hold of me, but that’s going to be the only way to do it other than perhaps sending an e-mail. I likely won’t respond to the e-mail, or if I do, it will be a response that takes a minute to type and will likely consist of “what’s your phone number?” as a reply. So, that’s that, and apologies in advance to anyone I upset to the people who will inevitably try to contact me via Facebook at some point only to not get a response because I won’t be on the site any longer. At least there’s documentation here saying that I am doing this, not doing it to ignore you, so please, take your BS internet drama elsewhere :)<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-23577149928620646292014-06-08T12:09:00.000-04:002014-06-08T12:09:43.610-04:00Tennis Blasphemy - I Don't Like Nadal vs. Djokovic MatchesWell, no real need for an introduction - the title says it all. I dread Nadal/Djokovic finals. I don't deny the rivalry. I don't deny that they have some scintillating rallies and that they go through spurts where the level of play is remarkable. What I do deny is that they have so many "epic" finals with some of the highest quality matches you'll ever see. That's simply not the case no matter what the sensationalist announcers who have no memory beyond the most recent five matches they've seen as to what is the greatest match they have ever seen.<br />
<br />
Here's my biggest qualm: the length of a match does not translate to the caliber of a match. There are a number of reasons for this. One, long rallies do not always equate to good rallies, and two, the length of time for a match does not mean that the entire duration was spent playing. To touch on the first point, long rallies do speak to consistency and endurance. There's no doubt that these men are the two fittest players on tour, and to have these prolonged rallies without making errors is certainly not something to be overlooked. Sometimes there are spectacular points, but other times the points may just be defensive, with no one wanting to take an offensive chance in the rally, so it just keeps going. While each of these players are certainly capable of some good offensive tennis, their primary styles are trying to make the opponent break by playing relentless defense from the back of the court. When you have two guys who won't make as many unforced errors as the rest of the tour quite as quickly, it does lead to longer points. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it isn't, but it's simply repetitive. I completely understand how some may not like watching big servers like John Isner or Ivo Karlovic where the point is typically over in three shots or less. Neither type of match is particularly diverse. The matches with baseline rallies have more tactical elements to them, but by and large, when you have two players whose styles both default back to defensive baseline play by nature, it's still not as exciting as people seem to portray it. Matches between Djokovic and Federer have been far more entertaining with Federer more of an offensive, precision style baseline attack, and both players are more prone to employing change of pace tactics like coming into the net to catch an opponent off guard. Likewise, when you have a power player versus a finesse player, it makes for more compelling tennis, in my opinion.<br />
<br />
When watching a Djokovic and Nadal match, there's almost always a constant ebb and flow in the level of play. I have long felt this sentiment about there matches, but typing this while watching the French Open final really is a prime example. You have moments where each can look completely disengaged in some of their matches. You have moments today where Djokovic gifts away five straight games with a slew of unforced errors that aren't even close to the lines. For every brilliant rally, there are three average to underwhelming ones. The matches' unforced errors outnumber winners, and those don't even contemplate forced errors that could easily be considered shots the player would ordinarily make. The periods of significant drop off in play are accentuated due to the fact that there is less variety in other potential matchups. Somehow, it seems a little more bearable if a player hits a blistering forehand wide down the line when going for an outright winner than seeing a shot that was pushed long on a ball that was right in the center of the court.<br />
<br />
The other element, as I mentioned, is that the length of time of the match does not translate to the amount of time played. These two players take some of the most time between points of any two men on tour. I believe it was their longest ever Australian Open final that hey played where the average amount of time between points was above the legally permitted amount of time by ten seconds. When you subtract all of the time that should never have occurred in the first place from the total match time, it shaves about an hour off of the total match time. That's an hour of us watching Nadal fix his wedgie or Djokovic bounce a ball before a serve an inordinate number of times. I completely get that after a particularly long rally that the chair umpire has good reason to overlook a time violation, but I've watched points during this match in particular where there is a serve, a return unforced error, and a length of time between points that exceeded 20 seconds. Certainly these men are not cut in the mold of Roger Federer or Andy Roddick, both of whom would ordinarily take well under the allocated amount of time to return to the service line for another serve. A match with the same number of points between those two pairings will have a 60-90 minute difference over the span of five sets solely from the amount of time spent between points, not the points themselves. That's a staggering difference. Assuming the level of tennis is the same between the two matches, wouldn't you want to have all of that tennis packed into a shorter period of time? I certainly would!<br />
<br />
Undeniably, these are the two greatest in the sport of tennis right now. As such, we can fully expect more finals between the two in their already most contested of all time rivalry. They absolutely deserve to contest these matches, and I am not taking that away from them. Still, you'll have to excuse me if you see me rooting for some Djokovic vs. Wawrinka or Nadal vs. Tsonga finals instead of this matchup, which has lost its luster in my eyes.Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-58164315549240316072014-05-25T12:08:00.001-04:002014-05-25T12:08:45.386-04:00French Open PredictionsOkay, so I am a little late, as matches started today, but I just didn't get to writing about the French Open yesterday. Historically I have filled out brackets much like how most people do for the NCAA basketball tournament. I haven't done so in a while, but I still formulate outcomes and scenarios in my head. Let's take a look at what's in store:<br />
<br />
<b><u>Rafa's quarter:</u></b><br />
Rafa has been tabbed with having a difficult draw, and it's true that it isn't exactly a cakewalk. He's the king of clay, though, and the greatest ever at Roland Garros. That said, he's as vulnerable as he's ever been on this surface coming into the event, having a run of some surprising losses this clay court season. He should destroy Ginepri in the first round, followed by a potential second round matchup with Dominic Thiem, a very nice young player. He doesn't have what it takes at this point to trouble Nadal, though. He has a potentially dangerous fourth round competitor in Nicolas Almagro, a great clay court player who actually defeated Nadal this year on the surface. I don't believe he has what it takes to do that in a best of five setting, but it makes for some interesting intrigue. Waiting for him in the quarters should be David Ferrer, so Nadal has likely the most difficult quarterfinal match of the top four seeds. Grigor Dimitrov is in this part of the draw as well, but he's got a tricky road that he just won't be able to maneuver. Ivo Karlovic is probably the worst first round opponent a person can draw for a non-seed, so he had that misfortune, and Ferrer is simply a bull on clay that he's not quite going to be able to take down, should he make it that far. No upsets here, Nadal comes through.<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Stanimal's Quarter:</u></b><br />
Stanislas Wawrinka has followed up his incredible Australian Open run with a very lackluster set of results. Historically a very good clay court player, Stan did not have a good spring on the dirt, and he draws a tough quarter, one I don't think he makes it through. It's always tough to play a Spaniard in the first round, and Garcia-Lopez is no slouch on clay. He could have another Spaniard in Feliciano Lopez followed by a very difficult fourth round match. The match I am looking forward to is a potential third round clash between Gael Monfils and the enigma that is Fabio Fognini, probably the most hated player on tour. The two played an incredible match several years back that went five sets and was mired in a little bit of controversy. In what may have been the match ending the latest ever at the French Open, Fognini clamored for play to be halted in the fifth set. Monfils wanted to continue on, and eventually the match was suspended at 5-5 in the fifth due to lack of light. Fognini ended up claiming the match 9-7 the following day. He followed this up in 2011 with a controversial win in which he was accused of inappropriately getting treatment for cramps. Barely able to move, he pulled out the victory and received a chorus of boos after the match. He withdrew from the quarterfinals due to injury in what may have been a more political than physical move. Needless to say, the huge fan favorite Monfils will be taking on the villain Fognini. I really felt like Monfils could make a huge run here; he always plays his absolute best in front of the home crowd, as he <b>loves</b> the attention of the grand stage and the home crowd. His ankle and his fitness are a question mark, though. He was in good form early in the year, but is a not 100% Monfils able to take on the likes of people like Fognini and Wawrinka? Probably not, but what fun are predictions if you don't call a few upsets? The bottom of the quarter feature a slew of clay courters, the unfulfilled promise of Richard Gasquet, and Andy Murray, who has not been the same since his back surgery. As far as I'm concerned, this eighth of the draw is wide open, with Kohlschreiber having as good a chance as any to escape. Coming off a clay court title last week, he could carry that momentum into the French. This is a strange quarter in that there's a ton of talent but a real lack of results for the group on clay in 2014. This is as wide open as it gets, and I'm just going to go with Monfils as a fun pick to advance. He looked okay in his <a href="http://deadspin.com/gael-monfils-and-laurent-lokoli-engage-in-dance-off-bef-1581123309" target="_blank">dance off</a>, after all.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Federer's Quarter:</u></b><br />
The draw gods were smiling on Federer this year. You don't get a much easier draw than the one he had. The only person that could even trouble him before the quarterfinals is a firing on all cylinders Ernests Gulbis. On the top half, you have Tomas Berdych as the highest seed, certainly a very capable clay court player. The Robredo is a very intriguing player in this portion of the draw. Age seems to not play a role in his ability. Truly a great competitor, he's capable of beating anyone in the quarter. Roberto Bautista Agut is another guy who could muddy the waters in this quarter, but I don't see it happening. Ultimately, I like Federer to come through this quarter with a victory over Berdych in the quarters, although it wouldn't at all surprise me to see Robredo make a quarterfinal run and even beat Federer, as he did last year at the US Open.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Novak's Quarter:</u></b><br />
Fresh off of a victory in Rome over Nadal, Djokovic will be tested in this tournament. Let's see, clay courters in the first two rounds, constant under-achieving yet still dangerous Marin Cilic potentially in the third round, Tsonga on home turf who can beat anybody on any given day potentially in the fourth round, and his quarterfinal match is a bit of a question mark. I don't like Raonic's chances here. I think Gilles Simon knocks him off in the third round. Were Kei Nishikori 100% healthy, I'd certainly pick him, hands down, to be Djokovic's quarterfinal opponent, and while I still think he has a shot, I am not so confident in his health to hold up over the course of some potentially grueling matches against guys who will make him work. I like Simon to make a run to the quarters before he ultimately bows out to Djokovic.<br />
<br />
In the semis, Rafa should easily dismiss my fun underdog in Monfils, and a semifinal between Federer and Djokovic should prove a bit more competitive. I see Federer jumping out to an early lead before his level of play falling like he is very prone to, and Novak wins in four sets. In the finals, we have another "epic" match between two players who commit a time violation between every single point. It's not that I don't enjoy their matches, but over the course of five sets, you can only tolerate so much ball bouncing, shorts adjusting, hair touching activity and long baseline rallies with relatively few winners before it grows a little stale. Previously I had calculated if you took all the time the two spend above the time violation mark over the course of their five set French Open final, it added about another hour to the total match time. That's a lot of wasted time. But I digress, these two will battle it out, and I think that this time, someone finally solves Nadal in a French Open final, giving Djokovic a career Slam of his own. Now there's nothing left to do but to sit back, watch some tennis, and see all my predictions go wrong!Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-40714865204349466922014-05-24T11:53:00.000-04:002014-05-24T11:53:00.907-04:00Surviving SoloThis is purely anecdotal, but society, we have a problem. Well, we have many problems, but socially we have a particular problem. There's a fear of being alone. It may make sense, but there's a distinction to make. Being lonely and being alone are not the same. One can be alone without being lonely, and actually one can be lonely without being alone with the type of social and emotional detachment that is possible even between people familiar with each other. In the smartphone age, everyone is connected. Everyone wants to be doing something with someone they know because they can and because it's comfortable. If no one's available, why do it? Or what you can do is go out but then spend the entire night on the phone online. The way I see it, it's a trend, and an alarming one at that. Now that I finally have a smartphone, I can't claim to be completely immune to that all of the time, but I feel I at least do better than many, partly due to mentality and partly due to lack of a smartphone until last year.<br />
<br />
What's happening is we are cultivating a society that is not independent. I would venture to say that there are a lot of "independent" folks out there that really don't fit that definition. A key characteristic that I see is that people intertwining being lonely and being alone. "I can't be alone, or else I will be lonely", or something to that degree. That sort of mentality can be very counterproductive. In the past several months I have seen people either ask if others would go to a concert alone, or I have seen people stay in rather than go out due to lack of a person to go out with. Here's the thing: I am a timid person. I have some anxiety issues. When I struggled with them more, I used to get sick to my stomach going down the stairs from the apartment out to the car about going to a show where I didn't know anyone. And you know what? I forced myself to do it anyway, and more often than not, it worked out great. Even when it didn't work out great, it worked out well enough. I can count on one hand the number of times I have gone out alone and felt as though I would have been happier staying in. The more I did it, the easier it became. I don't know that it ever becomes truly easy, but it transforms from a production to a minor trifle. It seems fewer people are willing to do that, even amongst the "social" people.<br />
<br />
The mentality is that people want a wingman/wingwoman. They want the safety net, the reassurance that they can go out, mingle, and if things go wrong, they have a person in the back pocket to tend to their wounded egos. And why not? Everyone likes a safety net, or at least most people. It becomes a crutch, though, and it leads us to a situation where people are unwilling to take risks. Being solo results in one of two things, being alone the entire night, or meeting new people. In the case of the former, if you are doing something you enjoy, being alone shouldn't be a problem anyhow. For the latter, even if you are not social, meeting people is partially out of your control because others can initiate contact with you. In many circumstances, that is the case with me. I will go to a show, keep to myself, and inevitably someone will begin talking to me. Once there's that icebreaker, I am fine. As it happens more and more often, then you become able to do the initiating. It's a very beneficial exercise. The biggest example in my life was travelling overseas by myself. It's a little intimidating to think about going to a place with a language you cannot speak and not knowing anyone, but that's what being independent and adventurous is all about. Had I gone with a pal, it's very likely I would not have forged all of the friendships in Europe that I did. Instead of turning to my right to talk to a friend, I turned to my left and talked to a stranger. And it worked out.<br />
<br />
But why is this important? Who cares if people are able to go out alone and be content? Well, here's my concern. People are already susceptible to herd mentality. With the advent of technology, it provides an even greater opportunity for that when there is a reluctance to be alone, to do something independently of a familiar crowd. Herd mentality is obviously dangerous. Are people with social herd mentality more prone to herd mentality in sociopolitical and economic issues? I don't know, maybe. But that aside, herd mentality stifles creativity and creates a more homogenous society. I don't want to live in a boring world. I don't think that's going to happen in my lifetime. Even if it did, I think I'd be okay due to the fact that I can be alone and do things I like and be content with it (not always, but often enough).<br />
<br />
So here's what I'd encourage. Try and go outside of your comfort zone. When you're at a bar or venue or wherever, and you're alone, don't reach for the phone. Don't just exist in a bar and scroll through your Facebook feed or send a "pay attention to me" text to 30 friends hoping you get a few responses. Talk to someone, or wait for someone to talk to you. Exist within your own thoughts, your own universe. Think about what made you go to that place and why you enjoy it, not that you're there without people you know. Earlier I mentioned that if you are doing something you enjoy, it shouldn't matter if you are alone. On the flip side, if you require other people to do an activity (and not something that literally requires multiple people to do), how much do you really enjoy it? If you find you're not enjoying yourself, that you cannot enjoy yourself, perhaps you don't like what you are doing as much as you think you do. Maybe it is something that is made much more enjoyable by company, and that's fine, but maybe not; take a moment to stop and think about it. It's a good opportunity to be introspective. There is no such thing as failure provided you learn something from an experience, so I encourage everyone to take the opportunity to learn.Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-12016028657457166342014-05-20T21:02:00.000-04:002014-05-20T21:02:44.683-04:00Men's Tennis: Greatest of All Time DebateOne of the often discussed/argued sports topics of discussion revolve around which player is the greatest to ever play a particular sport. First off, I want to remove one group of participants from the discussion. There are those who state there is no point in discussing the greatest player of all time. You can't ever compare players across eras, and we'll never have a definitive answer on who is best. That's 100% correct, but who cares? Part of the beauty of sports is not the sporting events themselves, but the discussion surrounding them. We'll never know how Babe Ruth would hit against Randy Johnson. We'll never know how Wilt Chamberlain would fare in today's hyper athletic NBA. Part of the fun is speculating, taking relevant facts and tidbits into consideration, and making an assertion that others can support or refute. No, we'll never know the actual truth, but it's fun to discuss it, so that's just what I am going to do.<br />
<br />
With Roger Federer's reign of supreme dominance in the mid 2000s, the talk of tennis greatest of all time appeared it was going to be an easier and easier argument to make. Roger was less man and more machine in those days, easily dismissing the players he faced in nearly every match, making many look foolish in the process. "The Maestro", as he was called for his beautiful precision game and graceful movement on court, is largely responsible for the elevation of the sport; his reign of supremacy forced oncoming players to elevate their levels of play, and yet Federer always seemed to have a switch he could flip to take his game to a level no one else possessed. Or no one until a man named Rafael Nadal came around, at least. Rafa was the first of a number of supremely talented and driven young guns ready to burst onto the scene, followed shortly thereafter by Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray. These three men have significantly muddied the waters in the greatest of all time discussion, not necessarily staking a claim for themselves yet, quite so early in their careers, but due to their results against Federer. Nadal is the obvious one, as he has by and large owned Federer due to a game that is Roger's kryptonite, a stubbornness by Federer to change his style of play early on in the rivalry when Nadal's game was far less developed and well rounded than it is today, and a preponderance of matches on clay, where it is very difficult to argue against Rafa for being the greatest of all time on that surface.<br />
<br />
So let's take a step back from these four men and talk about the argument of the GOAT as a whole. What makes someone the greatest? Is it purely in the numbers? If so, which numbers? Total titles? Major titles? Wins overall? Is it measured by dominance over the field? Weeks at number one in the world? Does one have to excel on all surfaces? Is it better to have a short term level of supreme success or a long term level of great success? These are all questions that people have varying opinions on, which inevitably lead to differences in opinion on who is the greatest of all time. What also muddies the water is crossing of eras, as is the case in all sports. Tennis went from a game that was played with wooden racquets entirely on grass courts to one with graphite racquets, all sorts of new string technology, and a myriad of court surfaces including multiple types of clay, multiple types of hard, grass, and previously even carpet, and surfaces are found both indoors and outdoors. The game is also more globalized than ever, with players coming out of more and more countries than ever before. The game evolved from on where the goal was to try and move forward towards the net more often than not to one where players rarely stray from the baseline due to the evolution of racquet technology. Tennis is perhaps one of the harder sports to compare across eras because of the technology changes, surface changes, and the fact that it is an individual sport with one on one matches and ever fluctuating levels of competition.<br />
<br />
So who are the names that regularly find their way into the discussion? Well, there are more than I am going to list, but the main culprits that seem to come up repeatedly are Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal is creeping in on the discussion as well.<br />
<br />
Laver has won two calendar year Grand Slams, an unmatched feat. He is considered by many, not all, to be the best player of his time. What makes evaluating this hard is he played both before and after the Open Era and at a time when tennis was mixed between amateur and professional ranks, complicating matters on participation in tournaments. Tournaments had fewer matches and not nearly the same level of competition back then, and in my personal opinion, I don't see how he makes the cut due to these facts.<br />
<br />
Bjorn Borg was as relentless as of a competitor as they came. His superior athleticism and grit won him a total of 11 Grand Slam events, all at the French Open and Wimbledon. Borg retired young at the age of 26 due to burnout (more mental than physical, although he lived a fast lifestyle), and he often didn't make the trip down to Australia for the Australian Open (as was common in his time). Borg is statistically the most dominant Grand Slam player in terms of winning percentage, and had he played a longer career and more events, he certainly would have had several more titles to his name. He was a baseline player in a time when there were not really baseline players, and this alone makes him a very compelling argument that he was a revolutionary talent and very well could be the greatest to ever play. How much does he get knocked for not having a lengthy career to continue to amass titles, though?<br />
<br />
Pete Sampras, before Roger Federer came along, was the leader in Grand Slam titles, and probably the single most dominant force Wimbledon has ever seen. His weeks spent ranked number one and his overall number of Grand Slam titles cemented him as the greatest in the eyes of many. Sampras really had no rivals that were largely successful against him, either. He's got probably the greatest second serve of all time, and he probably could have continued his success had he abandoned his 85 sq. inch racquet when the rest of the tour went to 90-100 sq. inch racquets (many players never elect to make a big transition in racquets like this due to the difficulty). The argument against him is that he was not a great player on clay, and he never had good success at the French Open. To be lacking in one area of the game when there are other well rounded players at similar levels of greatness diminish his standing a bit. Additionally, with Federer stealing away a number of his records, including Grand Slam titles, and Nadal poised to tie and then overtake the Grand Slam mark himself, his biggest arguing point is gone.<br />
<br />
Moving forward to the current era, Roger Federer is now considered by many to be the greatest ever. The reasons listed at the opening of the analysis only partially tell the story. When looking at the list of records and marks Federer holds, it's dumbfounding. If not the greatest of all time, he is certainly the most consistently great of all time. His marks of consecutive finals, semifinals, and quarterfinals in Grand Slam events demonstrate a remarkable run of simply not ever having a bad day. All great players have that bad day where they lose to someone they'd beat 19 times out of 20, but for years in the events that mattered most, Federer didn't. The semifinals mark in particular is one I simply cannot imagine falling. The knock on Federer is twofold: he dominated during a "weak" era of competition, and how can you be the greatest ever when your main rival owned you? First of all, the notion that he dominated a weak era is a bit unfair. The game is more global than ever before and is deeper than ever before, making it more likely to get knocked out in the earlier rounds, something Federer rarely ever did. I also don't think that gives players like Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin, among others, their due. When you look at some of the players Federer toppled en route to a Grand Slam title and compare to some of the people Sampras knocked off, there are many cases where Sampras probably had an easier path. Certainly, the accomplishments of Nadal and Djokovic winning their titles over the past few years are more impressive a task, as there is a glut of top end talent in the years around the turn of the decade.<br />
<br />
As for Nadal's dominance of Federer, that one becomes harder and harder for me to dismiss. I initially stood by there not being any shame in the lopsided record against the greatest of all time on clay, and it's not Roger's fault Rafa couldn't advance to hard court finals earlier in his career when Fed would always be waiting for him. That only carries so much merit, though. What really stands out in my mind is that Federer was always perceived as a supreme mental player, and Nadal single handedly ruined that. Not only did Federer lose his edge, but it became a weakness. When you look at the leads he has blown, the break point opportunities missed, the inexplicable errors, and a stubborn determination to not change his game in order to try and prove no one could beat him from the baseline, it really is staggering to think how many <i style="font-weight: bold;">more</i> titles he could have. Had he pulled out that epic five setter in Rome, maybe the entire fabric of tennis is different. Maybe his confidence has that extra little boost he needed to not crumble under pressure. But that didn't happen, and when you compare Federer's record against Nadal, a lopsided record, Murray, a slight edge to Murray and one that figures to grow as Federer ages, and Djokovic, a slight edge to Federer with Djokovic in his prime and Federer in the twilight of his career, the head to head numbers really don't suggest Federer being as dominant as his overall numbers. Now, I want to say, this is extremely harsh nitpicking. Anyone who denies Federer's greatness is either bitter or delusional. Still, these results leave just enough doubt to make someone hesitant crowning him the all time greatest.<br />
<br />
Finally, and the jury is still largely out on him, is Rafael Nadal. Nadal is no slouch with 13 Grand Slam titles, can claim to be the greatest of all time on clay, and also has multiple Slams on both grass and hard courts. Easily one of the fiercest competitors of all time, the question with him has never been the results, but the health. Having already missed significant time due to injury, the question is how many more titles does he realistically have in him with Djokovic being a top rival now, Murray coming into his own (or at least he was before his back surgery), and some of the next wave of young talent starting to figure things out and making their way towards and into the top 10. Suppose he cannot stay healthy, though, look at where he ends up even today! All the Grand Slams, the myriad of Masters Series titles, well more than Federer. His greatness started at a much younger age, and despite playing second fiddle to Federer for years, his stranglehold over their head to head careers gives him a little bit of a boost in his all time standing. Do his career accolades, when you dig deeper into the list, stack up against Federer's? Maybe not in all categories, but when you look at his winning percentages, his titles, and his all surface game that he never quite gets enough credit for, he's at least within shouting distance. As of right now, I don't think he quite gets the nod to be the greatest of all time. I do think, however, that he still has at least a couple of more Slams in him and some more fight in him yet; the man has never stopped finding ways to improve his game. He used to be a purely relentless defensive baseline player. No serve, no net game, just ridiculous range and a loopy topspin forehand. Now his serve is respectable, he is solid at net, can play a more offensive style game, and he's still as fit and relentless as ever. I think he is the type of player that can reinvent himself to suit his declining physical abilities to add some additional longevity to his career.<br />
<br />
So, did I leave the picture hazy enough for everyone? I didn't even mention a lot of others who could be thrown in the mix, either. Now, I did say that part of the fun is going out and making a case for one person. I don't want to back off of that. My feeling is I really have to give it to Federer at this point, with the sense that Nadal will overtake him in the coming years, and that Borg probably would hold the spot had he continued his career. Feel free to make a case for someone else; I am all ears!<br />
<br />Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-54098797413535527322014-05-19T22:17:00.000-04:002014-05-19T22:17:06.980-04:00Escaping MaliceMost people will tell you that, after spending about 15 minutes with me, I am a genuinely nice guy. Whatever that means, anyhow. It's a reasonable assessment. I put others before myself, I try very hard to do the right thing, I have a very strong conscience and sense of responsibility to hold myself to a higher standard, I really try to go the extra mile to show people I care, and I enjoy random acts of kindness. People tell me I am a good guy, a good man. Here's the thing: I'm not a good man, I <i>work</i> to be a good man. People think that it's something innate, that I was just graced from the heavens with the "nice gene". It isn't that people take it for granted - people appreciate the things I do and the way I act, they really, really do. What I think goes lost is that it's <i><u>really</u> </i>difficult to be that guy, to fill that role all the time. It's part of me, it's who I want to be, how I want to act, and how I want to be remembered - to be a gentleman in a world gradually forgetting what that means, to turn the other cheek no matter how badly it stings, and to rise above the destructive emotions we all feel as humans.<br />
<br />
The problem is, there are times where it is difficult to be this way, and when you've been this way so long, when it's part of your identity, even when you may not want to, you have to. And it's painful - it's really painful. It's a catch-22: if you remain resolute, your emotions overcome you. You become so angry you want to vomit. You curse what/who you're mad at, but more importantly, you curse yourself for being the way you are, because you have emotions you can never act on. It's a remarkable display of both strength and helplessness at the same time. Yet if you act the other way, you let yourself down. It's the old "I'm not mad, I'm disappointed" line, and that line always makes you feel so much worse. You understand lashing out. It's normal. It's human. And it's still sinking to a lower level, one that you'd like to hope you're above. It becomes a very dangerous occurrence when the act of being human, being innately imperfect, becomes one that breeds self-resentment. I know the feeling, know it all too well. Why cut myself a break? It shouldn't matter that it's normal; don't you want to be better than normal?<br />
<br />
Over the years, it's been something that hasn't always been easy, but I always managed to bounce back from. Lately, though, it's become much more difficult. I don't know if it's due to more stress in a shorter period of time than I've experienced, the experience of dealing with some particularly spiteful, malevolent, negative people, or just that one can only sustain the pressure of holding one's self to a higher, probably entirely unrealistic, standard for so long. In any case, it has changed my behavior. Some might not see it, in fact, many may not see it, but it has. More than anything, I've become more blunt and more prone to speaking without a filter. On the whole, it doesn't matter too much to people, as when I more generally have positive things to say and mostly surround myself with people whom I respect and admire, and whose outlooks are open-minded and whose attitudes are respectful, candor tends not to upset people too much. Sometimes a sensitive person or a sensitive situation will turn a statement or position with no ill intent into one that is hurtful. But there are times where deep down you wish ill intent, not out of some evil desire to harm someone, but because you've been wronged. Not that you feel you've been wronged, but when you truly have been wronged, when you've been treated in an entirely unfair manner that was completely undeserved. These are the times when on the scale of mercy to justice, you're Batman telling Gandhi to get the hell out of your way. It's not a unique circumstance, but at the end of the day, we still have a choice. We always have a choice.<br />
<br />
What can happen when anger and resentment consume you is that you become blinded to what makes you feel good. Revenge might feel good temporarily, but it doesn't accomplish anything, truly. I'm not even trying to portray vengeance in a negative manner, rather, it's like an annual flower. It's great, but it dies in a year. Instead, there's the option for a perennial. We lose sight of this at times, but sometimes we can do a better job of looking for those perennials, and sometimes they come to us. The flower is no less pretty, and it has a longer lasting positive impact in the end. I had one such example today, and when it happened, it took me aback a little bit. I was fuming, conceding myself to malice and contempt and thinking about how continuing to harbor that emotion is worth it in order to harness it and return the spite and venom back to the original source, both to give some gratification and to teach a lesson: you reap what you sow. But then something happened: I had an opportunity present itself to do something nice for another person, and I took advantage of it. In a matter of seconds, all of the bitterness and frustration completely dissolved. I have been reinforcing to myself that I have to focus on the positive people in my life and remove those who don't fit that bill. Doing something good for those who deserve it is infinitely more productive the doing something bad to those who deserve it. That good deed done for no particular reason can only serve to make a positive difference in someone's life. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. It's not going to be destructive, though, which is all you accomplish by fighting back in anger and frustrations. The thought that it will "teach someone a lesson" is pretty misguided; change comes from within, so the likelihood that retaliation, a negative action, is going to inspire someone making a positive change, is slim. It's not impossible, but I'd say it's far more likely to create more harm than good.<br />
<br />
So there you have it. I sit here, writing this, feeling so much happier and more at peace than I could have in the other alternate scenario where I did something that ultimately would have made me feel disappointed in myself later on. Learning that surrounding myself with good people is more important than surrounding myself with people with the most common interests has been a long process for me. Seeing the good in people and overlooking their flaws is a good quality to have, but it's one that needs to be utilized with caution, as there are times when giving someone the benefit of the doubt is worthwhile, and there are times where discretion should dictate that it is better to just move along. I really look forward to conscientiously putting this into practice in my life and hopefully reaping the benefits of this slightly different philosophy. I'd like to think that there are people out there that have many common interests and are good people; you can't always have your cake and eat it too, but I'd like to think you can some of the time! All this said, I propose that the next time you have the inclination to seek retribution against someone else, take a step back, find someone else to appreciate, and reward that person with an act of kindness. See how it works out. I'd be willing to bet you'll be pleased with the outcome.Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-38094507045623284632014-05-11T22:34:00.000-04:002014-05-11T22:39:51.237-04:00Hybrid Post - Approaching NormalSo in my prior post, I alluded to perhaps composing a separate entry as to why photography has been a particular topic of neglect on the blog. I'll get to that here with a bit of an exposition on the past few years of my life, how it's impacted me, and where I am headed. In the process, though, there's also a music tie to this, which I'll address first.<br />
<br />
In a <a href="http://desultorydialogue.blogspot.com/2014/04/put-away-your-map.html" target="_blank">post</a> last month, I mentioned that happiness is the journey, not the destination. I wasn't born with that knowledge, nor was it a sudden epiphany; it came over many years of both personal experience and hearing it externally. Hearing it or thinking about it is one thing, but truly believing it and hammering it into your stream of consciousness is another. Along this quest, there's a band that I have listened to quite bit, though not much in the past couple of years. That band is Blue October. Blue October isn't so much a band as it is a journal set to music and a haven for so many people who have, know someone, or can relate to mental illness. The lead singer, Justin Furstenfeld, is bipolar, and his songs deal with topics related to both his own struggles with and the general subject matters of mental illness, addiction, self-destructive behaviors, loneliness, and heartbreak. It doesn't stop there, though, as the flip side to it is song about recovery, goals, and moving on with life. About four years ago I reminded myself daily of my goal which came from a song of theirs off of the Consent to Treatment album, and that song was Independently Happy. For a while I had been either independent or happy, but not both at the same time. There was a lot of self-evaluation I needed to do, time that I needed to be even more introspective than normal. I forced myself to try and put priority on the right things, to find balance in my life.<br />
<br />
For a while, it mostly worked. I never quite had a feeling of inner peace, but I was staying active, working on bettering myself, and forcing myself to focus on activities and events, not whom I could do them with. I opened up myself to a whole plethora of new experiences. At the time I still had my lows - I'd refer to my life at times as a gilded existence, as on the surface everything looked wonderful, but it was only a facade for the emptiness beneath the surface. There was still something I hadn't come to terms with yet, and it's ultimately what both kept me going full speed, which made life worthwhile, as well as made me crash, from which I am still sort of recovering from. That something was my profession. After high school, I took one year to get my AA, then I transferred schools with a declared math major. After one semester, I switched to economics, as I wanted something that was more application and less pure theory. It wasn't until my final semester that I had my Healthcare Economics class, at which point I really started to truly think about how I enjoyed what I studied, departing from my previous state of being burned out from school more so because I thought it was stupid, and it would be much quicker for an employer to simply teach me how to do a job without wasting several more years of my life (the signalling theory - college doesn't prepare you for your job, but the piece of paper is a method of signalling to an employer that you can go through the motions and graduate). At that point, I had already committed myself to the workforce after graduation, and due to a reluctance to relocate because of my long term relationship at that time, I landed in an industry I knew nothing about and cared little for. Insurance is not a bad industry, on the contrary, I think what I do is a lot better than many things I could be doing right now. But back then, all it served as was a job in an industry I didn't want to be a part of all because I made a decision based on a relationship that ended. Regardless of if I was upset about my job being miserable, and rest assured, there were periods of time when it was miserable, or just how I got there, it weighed on me.<br />
<br />
Now here's where I suppose I'll really turn on the candor - no reason to stop now, right? Somewhere along the way my mentality changed. It went from wanting to improve my life by bettering myself in new ways, and using this as a "I may not like what I do for a living, but it enables me to do other things when I'm not working", to "I need to use these things to escape this hell I exist in 40-60 hours a week in". At that point, the things I did took on a different purpose. Initially I worked out because I enjoyed being healthy, and I wanted to have good fitness for playing tennis (or after experiencing knee troubles, just to be fit in general). I took up photography as a means to replace the hole left where tennis was. I enjoyed doing it at concerts and escaping into nature. I started dieting to try and better shape my physique. I decided to go to Europe and took up learning French. I also participated in making a movie as a fun project and learning experience. Then it all got twisted. The working out and dieting became extreme; I didn't necessarily do it because I enjoyed it, but because I had to to keep looking better. Someone had suggested I could go into modeling. Hey! Modeling is an escape from office work! All the while I could keep up with my photography. I know full well making money doing photography is more business than it is the quality of your photos, which is where I felt I had a leg up. And I was learning a lot about film, too.<br />
<br />
"Surely I could throw all these things against the wall and see what sticks, right? Just do it all! Oh, and keep taking those exams at work; no use in stopping halfway through your certification, but hurry up, you have to finish quickly because the sooner you finish, the sooner you can sit out 12 months so you don't have to pay back any of the test fees. You've got to learn French by the time you go to Europe, hurry up! Besides, what if you want to live in Europe? You should be multi-lingual. Europe is better than the U.S., and it could make you forget about your job here..."<br />
<br />
And that's how it went. It all became needing to use the things I did as a way out of the life I had convinced myself I hated instead of doing them for enjoyment. I'll acknowledge here that people <i>can</i> go out and change things should they set their minds to it. I am no different. In order to do so, though, it requires a tremendous deal of determination, and you have to be willing to take risks. I wasn't willing to take a risk; I wasn't going to quit my full time job that provided the standard of living I was accustomed to to try and dedicate myself completely and entirely to another pursuit. Instead, I just tried to do a little of everything and hope I got lucky...or at least that's what I told myself. By that time, who knows what my mind really wanted. The constant juggling, the pressure, the stress, eventually it all blew up in my face, and I am still today recovering from it several years later. A lot has happened in that period of time. I've definitely become wiser and more self aware, but there are still lingering impacts. You see, the series of events I just mentioned are why I now have an aversion to photography. My mind still today shies away from the things I did back then. I sparingly do photography, I end up throwing out spinach salad if I buy it because I cannot bring myself to eat it after eating it so much for that period of years. I haven't worked out in over two years. I've not resumed learning French (or even decided that it still makes sense to). And for a while, it upset me that I shy away from all these things. I've come to find, though, that it shouldn't. I'm still finding my way and learning about myself each day, and I know that the self-loathing, no matter how hard it may be to escape sometimes, is not healthy, and I am not going to do it anymore. I've resolved to it. If that means not pushing myself to do things before I am ready, so be it. I am confident that I will find the path that makes sense for me. I've been slow to do it, but it's going to happen. I can feel myself approaching normal.<br />
<br />
Approaching Normal is the name of a Blue October album - it's probably the start of the decline in their musical quality (although the last album is more mellow and is a departure from the more raw sound of previous albums. I don't want to come across as a "they changed they sound" complainer; it's prior to this album that I felt their music started declining, not just that I didn't like the new sound as much), but there are definitely some good songs off of the album, ones that I, and many others, can relate to. It's the little things that I notice improving. Part of getting a new place has helped, as it's a fresh start, and I now I have a strong incentive to make the place nice. I'm back to immediately doing dishes after eating or spending extra time to put items away. I'm determined to not let myself fall into complacency with the upkeep of the unit, and in time I think that's going to translate more and more into other aspects of my behavior. A little confidence and motivation goes a long way. I know I have to get back to the point where I push myself more than I do now, and finding the balance between not pushing enough and pushing too much is going to be a delicate process, but I have more belief in myself to accomplish that than I have for a long time. With that, I'll end with a song that is actually off their latest album.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/bZVQoWUY97s?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>The beauty is</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>I'm learning how to face my beast</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Starting now to find some peace</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Set myself free</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Today</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>I don't have to fall apart</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>I don't have to be afraid</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>I don't have to let the damage consume me</i></div>
Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-78147987497544792462014-05-10T21:06:00.000-04:002014-05-10T21:06:17.632-04:00I Got my First DSLR...Now What?Ah, the ever neglected photo portion of the blog. Well, they've all been a bit neglected of late, but none more than photography. Why? Well, I think I may end up writing another entry to explain why. For now, though, I think I'll actually write a photo related post.<br />
<br />
Congratulations, you got your first DSLR (or camera with manual options, but for the purpose of this post, I'm going to say DSLR). Now, maybe you know something about photography, maybe you don't. All you know is you've now got a camera with all these settings and options, and you have absolutely no idea how to work it. What is all this? How do you go about shedding that novice photographer tag? Well, I'll share some basics with you, and a piece of advice I listed for concert photography <a href="http://desultorydialogue.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-secret-to-concert-photography.html" target="_blank">here</a> is just as applicable to photography in general. The sooner you pick up some of the basic photography concepts AND know how your camera incorporates these concepts in the various settings, the sooner you'll be laughing at the fact you even considered using auto mode.<br />
<br />
The very first thing to understand in photography, and this is beaten to death everywhere, is the exposure triangle:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Aperture - the size of the opening in your lens that allows light to reach the sensor</li>
<li>Shutter speed - how fast the camera shutter opens, allows light coming through the opening in the lens, and closes</li>
<li>ISO - Setting for a camera's light sensitivity (think film speed)</li>
</ul>
<div>
Balancing these three items is what yields getting an appropriate exposure. A photo that is overexposed will be too bright and washed out, and a photo that is underexposed will be too dark. It used to be that you had to completely set a camera according to the specifications you calculated using a light meter, and perhaps some experience. Now the camera can do it for you, and it does a fairly good job of it most of the time. What this enables you to do is pick which of the three items you want to change, and let the camera choose the other two for you, or pick two of the three items and let the camera pick the last item for you. Here's the overview on the three:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Aperture - what people get wrong on this is that the aperture number is usually expressed as f4, but the actuality is that it is f/4. Because the 4 is in the denominator of the fraction, the bigger that number, the <i>smaller</i> the hole in the lens. Stands to reason that a smaller hole lets less light in, so other things equal, changing the hole to be smaller will require either letting the shutter stay open longer, or increasing the sensitivity to light. Aperture controls the depth of field of a shot, which in laymen's terms is how blurry or clear the foreground and background of a photo are.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Shutter speed - this too is almost always going to be a fraction. As the number gets larger (say from one sixtieth of a second to one thirtieth of a second), the amount of light getting into the camera increases, so a smaller aperture or less light sensitivity is needed, other things equal. Shutter speed controls the motion in a photo; a fast shutter speed freezes motion while a slow shutter speed will have motion blur.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
ISO - the larger the ISO, the more sensitive your sensor is to light. This is the tool you'll use to get the result you want if you have a particular aperture and shutter speed you want to use for a photo. The higher the ISO, the less crisp a photo is due to the introduction of noise into the photo.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Okay, great, so you've got the basics of the triangle, but how do you use them? Well, the three main modes you should become used to are your shutter priority mode, your aperture priority mode, and manual mode. Each camera has a different way of denoting it on its dial, so me stating what they are on my camera may not help you. Experiment with these modes; work on aperture mode when you want to control depth of field or when you know you'll challenged to capture light easily. If you want a nice, blurry background, like for a portrait, you'll want a wider aperture, so a smaller number in the denominator. For more crisp, clear backgrounds, you'll want a larger number in the denominator, which is what you'll want for something like landscape photography. If you are taking action shots, say of children playing or a sports event, you'll want to use shutter priority with a fast shutter speed, likely around 1/250 of a second (but experiment to get the results you'd like). For night shots, you'll need a longer shutter speed (and likely a tripod or very high ISO). Play around in each of these modes at different ISO levels. While it is pretty simple to get the mathematical relationship between "stops", many people don't think in those terms, so trial and error is the way you can navigate around having to think about the numbers too much. Lastly, what you may find is that the camera, while it may say that your photo is perfectly exposed, may not be giving you the results you want. I'll address the reason for that below, but one option you have is to bracket your photo by using an Exposure Value (EV) shift. Your camera will allow you to basically tell it to overexpose or underexpose a photo on purpose. Play around with it to see if it helps, or maybe you simply prefer to leave it one third of a stop (denoted by 0.3) down or up as a matter of style or preference. You can also place your camera into burst mode and make it so the camera takes three exposures, one at normal exposure, one that is underexposed, and one that is overexposed. This can come in handy if you don't have time to manually changed your settings between shots to tweak, but you want to have a margin of safety in case your camera doesn't get the result you want on a normal exposure.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are a few other settings/buttons you'll want to know. First is your focusing mode. DON'T leave this on auto-selection; you want the focus on autofocus so the lens will focus to the point you select, but you don't want the camera picking where that point is for you. There are various modes you can put your focus into which primarily relate to whether or not your camera will follow focus on a moving object or if it stays focused on the point you picked regardless of if the subject moves or not. I typically leave it on AI single, which uses the latter of those two strategies. The other item of note is your camera's metering mode. Metering is how the camera evaluates the exposure of the image you are viewing through the lens. What the camera can do is evaluate the image as a whole, or if can give priority to some section of the center of the photo. Perhaps you find that your photo is too dark; that could be because the metering is set to evaluate the whole frame, and the bright sky makes the camera select a shutter speed that makes a person in the center of the photo remain underexposed. What you can do is change the metering to center weighted or spot metering to make the camera base the exposure on what is strictly towards or at the center of the frame. The shutter will stay open longer, the person will be properly exposed, but the sky will be overexposed in all likelihood. This is inevitable for photos where different portions of the frame have drastically deviant lighting.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
These items should give you a good foundation to understand enough of what you are doing and give you ways to go out and try tinkering with your camera. Of course, taking pictures and learning from the shots you get is the only way to truly advance your comfort and skill level. That said, what are you waiting for? Get out there and shoot!</div>
Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-65104872443540343842014-05-09T17:36:00.000-04:002014-05-09T17:36:26.306-04:00Birth Control and PregnancyOkay, so I write less and less as I have become more and more busy with life in general. The only fair thing for me to do is to try and make up for quantity with quality, and by quality, I mean creating a firestorm with controversial topics. Healthcare economics is something that interests me; I can't quite say what I have for it is passion, as if I was passionate about it, I would seek out reading and discussion on it rather than let it come to me, but healthcare economics was my favorite topic of study in college. You'd never get me to shut up on the topic of health care economics, and since I don't want to write for the next 12 hours, I figure I will take a particular health care issue to discuss, which was primarily caused by the lunch conversation on health insurance along with seeing one of those pro life "a baby's heart is beating 18 days after conception" billboards.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now, here's a disclaimer: I don't typically discuss politics or religion at all, and I try to avoid discussing really divisive hot button items. Why? There's no point. The percentage of people able to hold a civil conversation with differing opinions just seems to continuously decline while ignorance increases. As such, it is much easier to just steer clear of it altogether. If someone directly asks me a question, I will answer it, but I won't instigate, and I won't voluntarily contribute to a discussion more often that not on one of these two topics. To me, the fact that most people cannot and could not identify any political or religious beliefs I have is a positive, as it is important to me to be an open-minded person, someone who is impartial on issues and bases conclusions on rationality and not emotion. At the end of the day, my thought is "who the hell am I to think my opinion is worth more than anyone else's?" It's not worth more, but the ability to analyze facts and come to a logical conclusion is not something that is as disputable as an opinion based on any sort of bias or emotion.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
At lunch yesterday there was a discussion about healthcare. The topic of birth control never came up once, but obviously it has been a huge issue discussed. What my problem is for many things is hypocrisy. Look, I get it, not everyone likes birth control for one reason or another. Maybe they are religiously opposed. Maybe they are opposed to forcing someone to pay for something they don't agree with as part of an insurance policy. Maybe they are opposed to making someone pay for a coverage they will never utilize. I get all that, with perhaps the last reason the piece I'd focus on. I'm not going to change anyone's opinions on moral grounds. It just isn't going to happen. What I can't idly sit by and accept without being irritated is this thought that "we shouldn't have to pay for birth control if we don't use it" <b>unless</b> that same argument is applied consistently.<br />
<br />
So basically, here is the argument people make: "Why should we have to pay for birth control in our health insurance premiums if we don't use it? It's not fair."<br />
<br />
And here is how one might respond: "Why should we have to pay for you to pop a kid out? It's way more expensive, makes up a larger component of an insurance premium, and quite frankly, we don't need more people on this overpopulated planet."<br />
<br />
I just don't see where people get off thinking that it makes sense for maternity expenses to have to be included in health insurance policies but birth control shouldn't be. Like I said, as long as the sentiment is consistent, it's preposterous to me. I completely understand that health insurance is different from other types of insurance. I suggest it should differ less; make coverages separate. A homeowners policy doesn't include coverage for replacement cost on personal property unless you add it for an additional premium. An auto policy doesn't offer towing and rental car coverages unless you add it for an additional premium. If a woman doesn't want to ever have kids, knows it, and doesn't want to subsidize people who do want kids, she shouldn't have to pay for it. The problem here is twofold: there's an attitudinal problem and a structural problem. While I could write quite a bit on each, the short version is 1) people don't think they should have to pay for things of others, but then they think their specific needs should be covered, and 2) we have a system that requires people and employers to purchase coverage that is not customized to their needs unless they want to be fined. The employment based structure is problematic for a number of reasons, but the one I am addressing here is that the employer has to secure a group policy that meets the needs of the entire group instead of letting people shop for the coverage that suits them best (and the options for an individual are not robust anyhow).<br />
<br />
Before I fall into a never-ending session of postulating on health care and insurance, I'll wrap this one up just by asking why it is so hard for people to open their eyes? One of my biggest irritants is the preponderance of double standards that one is confronted with day in and day out. Assuming that the healthcare system here is not beyond repair (which I believe it is - there are just too many factors all playing into it for it to be otherwise), I really think the attitudinal differences are going to have to play a bigger role than any structural differences. There are a lot of very different healthcare systems out there with much more efficient outcomes for the same or better health results, so it should demonstrate that you can make a number of structures work provided the public has the appropriate attitude accompanying it.</div>
Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-25508836545917706302014-04-30T20:40:00.001-04:002014-04-30T20:40:25.277-04:00Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?Alright, time to be controversial and talk about Donald Sterling. For those of you who don't know, Donald Sterling is the billionaire owner of the L.A. Clippers who also happens to be an extraordinarily big racist. On Friday, tapes of a conversation he had in private with his "girlfriend" were leaked and the news got out. A firestorm ensued, and yesterday he was fined $2.5 million, banned from the NBA for life, and will likely be forced to sell the Clippers. There's the back drop. Now let's dig deeper.<br />
<br />
First off, the guy is racist and in the wrong, undoubtedly. I don't think there is a place in our society for people like him. That said, let's look at the punishment. I get what the NBA did here. They had to do it, but they had to do it because they are all about the money. There was no other reason for this. Anything less and they alienate coaches, players, and their fanbase, and they cannot jeopardize their profits in the midst of the NBA playoffs by not coming to a harsh, swift judgment on a guy that no one likes. But was the punishment fair? I'm going to say no, and I think there's so much hypocrisy inherent in the whole situation. I'm not banging the free speech drum here; the NBA is a group run by owners and players, and if they want him out, they have the right to do so. I am more speaking to the message they are sending being inconsistent. Here's the message: we don't want sleazeball people in our league.<br />
<br />
Or is it? Is that the message, or is "we don't want racists in our league" the message? Or still yet, "we don't want white racists in our league"? It's a fuzzy picture. Certainly they, along with the rest of the professional sports world, couldn't care less about having sleazy people in the league. These leagues employ people from all backgrounds and of all skin colors who have been guilty of many things; they employ rapists, woman beaters, gang members, drug dealers, dog murderers, racists, people intolerant of LGBT people, etc. Where is the message being sent to those people? Michael Vick, you can murder animals and run an illegal gambling racket, welcome back to the NFL, here, take millions of dollars while you're at it. Jason Kidd abused his wife, had extramarital affairs, and has been caught driving under the influence. What did the NBA do about him? It's a ridiculous double standard that this league employs so many individuals who are guilty of actual crimes and have committed heinous acts, but when an owner has his private laundry aired and says some very racist things, now they have to bring the full force of the league down on him. Maybe I am misguided here, but I think that beating the crap out of your wife or murdering living creatures are worse than having some very misguided, disgusting beliefs.<br />
<br />
Here's the other thing: why has this come as a surprise to people? Now, all of the sudden, it's a big deal. There are times where I have felt Kareem Abdul Jabbar should keep his opinions to himself, but he expressed a very intelligent point of view on this. Why weren't people outraged sooner? The guy was a known racist; he got in trouble and was fined millions for denying housing to black Americans. He said racist remarks back then. Bomani Jones contributed to ESPN on this matter <b>back in 2006</b> on this matter, linked <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=jones/060810">here</a>. The NAACP had given this guy an award for all of his contributions to the black community and were about to give him another one. It's an appalling display of doing whatever possible to get money and attention in the moment, to not stand for rights or morals unless it is profitable. That's <b>exactly</b> what this is all about. The NAACP did nothing to further the treatment of colored people then; why would they if it jeopardized the money being doled out? Hell, let's throw a parade for the racist as long as he keeps sending millions our way. Same with the NBA: we've got no problem with the racist, oh wait, now people are upset and it might cost us money, let's get him out of here! The whole thing is so disingenuous, and I feel that people should be appalled by it all, much the way I am and much the way Jabbar is.<br />
<br />
To top it all off, the whole Magic Johnson piece of this just makes me sick. The guy is exalted in the media and loved by the community. Need we forget that this guy got HIV by cheating on his wife with who knows how many other women outside of his marriage? No, he's not unique in that, and certainly it doesn't put him in the league of many of the other sleazeballs, racists, and criminals associated with the major sporting leagues. But he's still not the citizen people make him out to be, yet now he's the moral compass, and the stage is set for him and his group to come in and buy the Clippers and become a savior in the process. Spare me, please. I don't want to diminish a lot of the good work Magic has done, and he's done a lot, but can we stop putting him on this grand pedestal, please?<br />
<br />
To circle back around, I understand the punishment handed down to Sterling. What I don't like is the hypocrisy and the actions resulting from greed and convenience, not out of strength of conviction or of fairness. If you want to sanction the guy on moral grounds, fine, but hold others to the same standards. I don't want to hear other NBA players making racist remarks and getting a pass for it. I don't want future occurrences of racism to be ignored or swept under the rug until it is profitable to act on them. And I don't want this event to be a rallying point for people trying to stir the pot that further divides people based on the color of their skin. Maybe instead of using this occurrence as a finger pointing session, we should take the opportunity to take a look back within. Was it right to take this guy's money and give him awards? Was it right to look the other way all these years? Instead of using Sterling as a scapegoat, let's take an honest look in the mirror and see where priorities are. Maybe we'll learn something, and maybe we'll find that the priorities of so many people out there need some re-evaluating.Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-75520622541180745732014-04-30T19:47:00.000-04:002014-04-30T19:47:42.898-04:00"You Sold Out"In the time I have spent on baseball message boards in the past, I have always found that I do not get along with Yankees fans. This seems unusual given I am a Yankees fan myself, but I wouldn't call the Yankees fanbase a very sensible one. Aside from all of the bandwagoners, the fanbase has a great deal of unreasonable and unappreciative fans. There are those who would run the franchise like they were playing a video game, there are those who criticize prospects who do not immediately succeed and run them out of town, then complain when we never have prospects come up through the system, and there are many who are simply never satisfied. When Robinson Cano returned to the Bronx in a Mariners uniform, he met jeers of "You sold out!" from the crowd.<br />
<br />
Let's think about that one for a second. The Yankees fans are criticizing someone for taking more money to go to another team. Let's ignore the fact that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and that they all would do the same thing when presented the same situation. These are the YANKEES. Have they looked at their roster. C.C. Sabathia is a sellout. Mark Teixeira is a sellout. Brian McCann is a sellout. Jacoby Ellsbury is a sellout in the worst way, leaving the rival Red Sox for the Yankees (albeit he was not exactly treated warmly by their fanbase). Go down the list of players over the years. How do the Yankees get their free agents? They throw more money their way than the next team. To criticize him, well, pot, meet kettle. No, Cano was not someone that was ever going to be the face of the franchise. Despite him being the best player on the team, he still was in Derek Jeter's shadow. People didn't like his lack of hustle, and fans grew weary of his October disappearing act. It still doesn't change his MVP caliber play year in and year out for the team that earned him the offer he got with the Seattle Mariners.<br />
<br />
I get that fans are going to jeer opponents, but what they are doing to Cano is unfair. The guy was a great player for the Yankees, and the Yankees, quite frankly, weren't interested. Yes, he had a nice seven year offer from them, and a pretty sensible one from the team's perspective. It's hardly something that people would take as disrespectful. It's what they did after that really changed things. They offered Jacoby Ellsbury an enormous contract of a similar size and amount, and Ellsbury is not in Cano's league as a player. Center field was also not a position of huge need for the Yankees, which they had to know since they had Carlos Beltran on their radar and several outfielders already under contract. Then they offered a five year contract to a player on the downswing at the catcher position, the only real position they have promising talent in the minors at. THEN they offered a contract (including the posting fee) in the same amount of Cano's to a pitcher who has never thrown a pitch in the big leagues. What they did afterwards was a message that they didn't value Cano. No, a ten year contract for any player at that age doesn't make much sense. It's a bad contract, for sure. But so is Ellsbury's, and so is McCann's. You kind of lose credibility for making a smart decision when you follow it with two dumb ones (and those weren't the only two dumb ones, either). So put in this context, why are fans booing him when the team didn't really want him?<br />
<br />
At the end of the day, the fanbase will do as it pleases. They pay their hard earned money to go to the games, and it's up to the players to tune them out and not let it impact them. I would have hoped for better from the fans, but I am not surprised. This is a fanbase whose opinions change as often as the wind changes direction. When people show their disgust when I say I am a Yankee fan, I can't blame them, and it's due in large part to the fact that I share the same disgust for so many of the fans of the team. He'll never read this, but for what it's worth, Mr. Cano, thanks for all the great years in pinstripes, and I wish you success with the Mariners.Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5431310488186666033.post-21124224496541388352014-04-20T19:02:00.000-04:002014-04-20T19:02:00.069-04:00Put Away Your MapMore and more of late, my emotions have been returning to a more up and down fashion. It's purely situational, as I've been working a ton of hours on a very high stress project; it's possibly got the potential to be the biggest thing I work on in my entire career, past or future. There's also the anxiety associated with moving (again). This past moving endeavor really took a lot out of me, and this forthcoming one promises to be the most draining of all since I will be owning, not renting. Not only do I have to do all the things I'd normally do, but all the things that are done for you upon moving into an apartment or a rented condo are now my responsibility, too. There's no management company to do touch up paint, patch nail holes in the walls, clean/replace carpets, and all those other chores you're not particularly looking forward to doing when you already have all your other stuff to move and take care of. That's not even the most daunting piece, either. For me, it's the psychological component that is most precarious. Previously I have always liked moving because of the prospect of a fresh start, something new and exciting. The more I have them though, the more you begin to question how many more times you want to. I love traveling, I love living in new places, I just dislike moving, and now I dislike the prospect of being anchored somewhere. My mantra that I try to stick to is "there are no good or bad decisions, only decisions". Very few things in life are permanent, and living arrangements due to home/condo ownership are no different. Nevertheless, it's still daunting.<br />
<br />
Deep down, I am worried about screwing up. The past several times I have relocated cities started out great. I was able to really take to a new environment and make the most of it. Each time, though, it faded. There are various reasons for that, but the thing I fear is it becoming a trend. Is it a trend? Did <i>I </i>screw something up? Was it life, or was it just <i>me</i>? Another component to this was both when I moved in 2007 and again in 2010, I was moving on an upswing. That's not quite the case this time around, so there's this element of worrying that if I come in during a low, will I even have a fresh start, or will I continue to stagnate? I've had some moments of optimism in the past several weeks; I've had some fun occasions that encourage me I will be able to shake this funk, and I routinely try to convince myself that I will get back into doing some of the things I enjoy, or at least that I think I enjoy (I never know what I enjoy anymore). The apprehension always manages to creep back in, though. Ultimately I have a fear that I share with many people, and that is a fear of not finding happiness.<br />
<br />
And that's where I need to stop myself. That is the wrong way to think, and it's hard wired into my brain right now, but I need to eliminate that line of thinking. Happiness always comes as quite elusive, but why? Well, because so many go on a quest for happiness, which is futile. You don't take a quest <i>for</i> happiness, you make a quest <i>of</i> happiness. Happiness is not a destination. There's no formula for it, there isn't a checklist where to do a number of particular things and then happiness is attained, and you're certainly less likely to find it if you're looking for it. Happiness is an emotion. You don't look for emotions, you feel them. Searching is an analytical process, and yes, I think there does need to be some thought that goes into what makes a person happy, but they are ultimately not similar processes. It's akin to why friends go on roadtrips; if four people take a road trip across the country, it's not them ending up in, say, San Francisco that made the trip great, it's the journey there. This is where so many people, myself included, often don't have, or fail to maintain, perspective on.<br />
<br />
So what am I advocating? If happiness is the journey, not the destination of the journey, how does that help? Well, work on enjoying the journey. Instead of being in the passenger seat reading a map the whole trip, look out the window! See what's going on around you - why would you want to miss the scenery to look at a piece of paper? There's so much beauty and vitality around us that we shouldn't question. Instead of asking "why is this beautiful?" just think, "wow, this is beautiful!" And you know what? You're going to get lost. How could you not? You haven't been reading the map, but who cares? Getting lost and enjoying it is a far greater experience than not getting lost and being none the better for it.Anthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04575192912409158067noreply@blogger.com0