The Cell Phone And The Parent

The other day I was walking my dog through a park when I witnessed a scene that, far from being uncommon, is unfortunately repeated all across the world each and every day. A father (and I use that term loosely) was sitting on one of the park benches while his daughter, who seemed to be about 5 years of age, played on the playground. The entire time I was there the dad was on his cell phone (probably texting a girl), looking up only when his daughter would call out to him, asking him to watch whatever trick (in her mind they were tricks) she was about to do. And even then his glances were perfunctory; devoid of any emotion or attention.

Seeing this filled me with a potent mix of pity and anger. Pity for the girl (just imagine what kind of message her father's averted gaze sends her) and anger towards the man who is spending once in a lifetime moments with his daughter being distracted by his phone.

Those scenes sure would have made for an interesting home video. I should have offered to film it for him.

On Ghosts and Hauntings (the hottest extra-curricular activity in the ghostiverse)

Poll a random group of one hundred people and you'll probably find at least thirty who believe in ghosts/spirits. A further ten of those people will likely believe in hauntings. I do not count myself a member of this group of people. There are just too many problems with the idea for me to subscribe to it (aside from the obvious lack of evidence). For one thing, this planet has been home to roughly a thousand trillion deaths over billions of years. Yes, billions, not six thousand. Sorry, Jesus freaks. Yet there seem to be maybe a hundred and twenty seven ghosts in existence and for some reason most of them lived in the Victorian era. Where are the Neanderthal ghosts? The Viking ghosts? Or more importantly, the dinosaur ghosts? I mean, what, only humans come back as ghosts? Humans from the Victorian era? If ghosts were real  they would be everywhere.

Not only would they be everywhere, if they had the ability to haunt life would be absolutely fucking unbearable because everything would be haunted.

Get it together people. You can rest easy tonight, okay? There are no ghost pterodactyls flying around your bed.

UFC 162 Predictions

Mike Pierce  vs. David Mitchell

Pierce via submission in round 2.

Seth Baczynski vs. Brian Melancon

Baczynski via submission in round 1

Edson Barboza vs. Rafaello Oliveira

Oliveira via boring ass decision

Gabriel Gonzaga  vs. Dave Herman

Herman via TKO in round 2

Norman Parke  vs. Kazuki Tokudome

Parke via tko in round 1

Chris Leben vs. Andrew Craig

Craig via ko in round 3 cause Leben gasses

Cub Swanson vs. Dennis Siver

FOTN contender imo. Tough to call. Siver by decision? Siver's been rejuvenated as of late and Swanson is a dark horse imo. can't wait!

Mark Muñoz  vs. Tim Boetsch

Hmmm....Munoz by decision I guess

Tim Kennedy vs. Roger Gracie

Kennedy via knockout in round 2

Frankie Edgar vs. Charles Oliveira

Edgar via decision (unless I'm wrong about his TDD). Btw, I like Edgar as a fighter. I hate all of that "point fighter b.s." He's technical and fun to watch, imo

Anderson Silva vs Chris Weidman

If Anderson doesn't come out more aggressive than usual and knock him out, then Weidman via submission or boring ass decision (it all depends on how much space he has to work with. If he gets Silva down (we'll find out) and doesn't smother him like Sonnen did I wouldn't be shocked if he submitted him during a scramble. Guillotine or a D'Arce or something. He just needs to have the balls to risk leaving that space. I just don't see him submitting him from within Silva's guard). If he doesn't nail his takedowns though....hahaha good luck. Or if he does but has no space to work with then it's going to decision (I doubt he'll get caught like Chael did). 

Beginning of a New Short Story I Am Currently Writing

The following is the beginning of a short story I am writing. I'm not entirely sure how this one will turn out but if it goes well I might end up with a pretty neat one (I have an ending in mind, but the path to it is murky and may not be traversable). If I do end up with a decent completed tale I might post it here, if anyone is interested. The tentative title is "Something To Think About." Here is the first little bit:

Dentist's Business Booming After Alleged Sex Abuse

Dentist's Business Booming After Alleged Sex Abuse

New York (Associated Press)

The dentist, Bedros Yavru-Sakuk, 62, of Edgewater, N.J, who was charged with the sex abuse of a 19 year old woman has been enjoying a rather unintended consequence of this recent turn of events: Business is booming. I ask him about this over the phone.

"Yes, it is true," he answers, speaking breathlessly into an office phone, his already strained voice being rendered even more indecipherable by the unmistakable sounds of an office teeming with activity emanating from what would presumably have been behind him. "I have been busier than ever since well, since that article was released." The article to which he is referring of course being the one detailing the alleged sex abuse. When I press him for details about it, he declines the offer to comment and instead says that anything he will have to say on the matter will be said in court. Any other questions I may have, he says, are to be directed at his lawyer.

Knowing better than to try again, I return to the earlier topic of his recent business success. I had spoken to some people from the area before my phone conversation with Mr. Yavru-Sakuk and almost everyone I spoke to who knew him had nothing but positive things to say. And so I ask him if he believes this increase in business to be a means of public support; a rallying cry of sorts, issued in his favour. He hesitates and then drops a bombshell on me: The increase in business has been exclusively female.

My Dog Maya

Meet my dog Maya:

Yes, I know; she's adorable. And yes, she's crossing her paws in the second pic. Why is she crossing her paws, you ask? I don't know. Why is she wearing a sock on her head in the following pic?

Sock it to me, baby

She does both of these things for reasons that are likely to be forever unknown to me and I wouldn't have it any either way. I may very well have the world's most enigmatic dog. 

Okay, you say. She is enigmatic. And admittedly very cute (although she looks a little you know......if dogs rode in schoolbuses as pups she would have rode in the short one, nomsayin'?). What else is she? 

What else else she? Well, let me show you:

Welcome to Mayaland. 

Dichotomy Between People's Actions and Their Self Perceptions

What do you call a person that eats meat? A meat eater.
What do you call a person that kills? A killer.
What do you call a person that cheats? A cheater.
What do you call a person that loves? A lover.
What do you call a person that hates? A hater.
What do you call a person that rapes? A rapist (not a raper...I wonder why?)

etc.

Basically, the above examples were made to illustrate a simple point. Said point being that most, if not all, people define other people by their actions. So far we are all in agreement? Okay, so here is where things get interesting. The farther out from someone's social circle is the more likely they are to be defined, in that person's mind, by their actions. The closer they are to that person the less likely (or at least the less intensely)  they are defined by their actions. There seems to be an inverse relationship between the degree to which one is defined, in the minds of others, by one's own actions and their social proximity to the other person/people. The rate of adherence to the rules of defining people vary with this proximity.

In the examples given above, one would assume that the people in question are people on the periphery of one's social group. Most people would refer to someone they read about in a magazine cheating on their significant other as a cheater. However, in the event that their best friend had an affair, would they be as likely to apply the cheater label? Taking this to the furthest point on the inverse end of this relationship is the judgement passers  themselves. What do most people call themselves when they do x or y?

I posit that they are quite unlikely to define themselves by these specific actions and instead are more likely to grant themselves psychological/moralistic leeway in the form of a statement such as "I'm not that kind of person," "I don't know what I was thinking- I don't do things like that" or "that's not me; I'm not really like that." Furthermore, I contend that you the reader have yourself done this, as, I will readily admit, have I, your gracious host and sexually proficient blog author.

So why the dichotomy?

Well, for the same reason that (in my opinion) most negative aspects of humanity exist: Ego.

Ego is a motherfucker. Ego is an incredibly strong motivator for much of the world's population; one that can be bested (or at least mitigated to a certain degree) but in order to learn to do so one must undertake a measure of study and practise. For most people, this process is unknown to them, and therefore out of their reach, regardless of their readiness to partake in it. This unreadiness/unwillingness to tackle the inhibiting effects of the ego (and the maintenance thereof) keep people in the default state in which they are prone to bending the truth (or at the very least use whatever techniques/tricks that are available to them in order to  maintain a certain narrative in their minds-a narrative regarding themselves and who they are as a person).

It is this psychological phenomenon that is responsible for the shift from actions being held to be the defining characteristic of a person's character to there being an essential "self" that exists outside of one's actions. The logical question is thusly evident, although the answer to it is not:

What are the criteria by which this essential self is judged? 

The answer, it seems to me, is partly past actions, partly the moral code that the person assimilated throughout their upbringing (a code that nearly no one follows at all times) and partly an idealized version of the self that is congruent with both a person's culture and the attributes they ascribe to a self actualized, idealized 'hero' character. Basically, we define ourselves by who who want to be, not who we are as would be judged if we were to be judged as we judge others; that is, solely by our actions.

The problem with this is that it can't be both. People either are the sum total of their actions or they are not. So which is it? Just remember that whichever choice you make applies to both you and everyone else. One interesting aspect of this fact that just struck me as I am writing this is that this choice basically comes down to either being harder on yourself or easier on everyone else. I'm not sure what people would rather do but I do know that either one comes down to the same unavoidable implication: You and everyone else will be held to the same standard. The exact thing that I believe sparks this problem in the first place.

I have a saying that applies here, and it as follows: You will be judged not by your actions but by the perceptions of your intent. Unless those doing the judging aren't you ;)