I am as addicted to commenting on One's blog as he is to blogging.
Conservatives have a problem confronting certain parts of human nature, just like liberals have a problem confronting others. Homosexuality is a natural part of human nature. I can think of many evolutionary benefits that have guaranteed a small number of the population is gay or has gay potential at any one time in evolutionary history.
The conservative reaction to homosexuals is similar to its reaction to drugs. It can't square the fact that some people have homosexual urges just as it can't square the fact that some people like to experience altered states of mind. Although both come with issues that must be acknowledged, conservative ideology causes more problems trying to "stamp the problems out" to "protect the children".
Marriage is unpopular because girls are told it's oppressive, and boys are scared of the unfair consequences of a whimsical change of mind by their wife. On the other hand, boys have had their male role models publicly flogged for their supposed misogyny. So, the many males who become married fathers are foolish enough to fall into the lifestyle traps such as drinking, affairs that turn them into horrible husbands and fathers leading to divorce.
The war on masculinity is often juxtaposed with the fight for gay rights. Although the combatants are often the same, the battles should be separated.
To me, this is a much bigger threat to the future of family and marriage - a family not willing to teach positive, healthy gender identities as outlined by society.
http://photogallery.thestar.com/photogallery/995120
If gay couples can accept the truth about the nature of gender differences, then I think they can be good parents. I have strong doubts, however, that all of them conform to the Hollywood sales pitches like the TV show Modern Family.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
D-Day
June 6, really used to mean something to me. I used to recognize it every year. I didn't even think about D-Day until the subject was raised by someone else today. Why is it passe to recognize the glory, blood and sacrifice of the men from the past to ensure our society is free and just? Oh yeah, it's passe to recognize that our society is free and just. We're only allowed to lament how imbalanced and unfair our world is.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Dalrock Explains The Slut March
Dalrock hits close to the home of sluts:
I have been trying to come up with good signs that could throw these ideas back at the sluts in a way that can't be objected to, but is still counter to their goals enough to raise some eyebrows. I could never be in an anti-slut-march (I'd probably loose my job), but it would be fun to imagine a group of young men, standing in mock support chanting and holding signs and see how the slut marchers react. In the spirit of the Yale Chanters, but trying to be less juvenile, more politically accurate.
"We Love [Insert City] Sluts"
[There is no way that this could be construed as offensive: You call yourselves sluts, we love you.]
One Step Further:
"We Love Sluts, But We Marry Ladies."
This one could be a discussion point - which is more sends a stronger message? Which would be seen as more offensive to feminists?
1: "No Means No. Yes Means Slut."
2: "No Means No. Slut Means Yes."
I think #2 is more offensive since it implies the very thing the sluts are saying i.e. sluttiness is inviting rape so I couldn't carry such a sign. #1 again, cannot be argued against, because "Sluttiness" is supposedly a positive, strong, trait.
So what is the global slutwalk temper tantrum really about? One respected man judged women in a minor gathering. Note that the officer who made the comments isn’t high ranking; when the feminists howled he was reprimanded and forced to attend “further training”. He didn’t even judge them in an overt way. The context of his statement acknowledged that there was such a thing as a slut, and that it isn’t a good thing to be one.There are too many good points to comment on and I don't have time to read the interesting discussion and post my own points (160+ comments right now), so I suggest you do.
I have been trying to come up with good signs that could throw these ideas back at the sluts in a way that can't be objected to, but is still counter to their goals enough to raise some eyebrows. I could never be in an anti-slut-march (I'd probably loose my job), but it would be fun to imagine a group of young men, standing in mock support chanting and holding signs and see how the slut marchers react. In the spirit of the Yale Chanters, but trying to be less juvenile, more politically accurate.
"We Love [Insert City] Sluts"
[There is no way that this could be construed as offensive: You call yourselves sluts, we love you.]
One Step Further:
"We Love Sluts, But We Marry Ladies."
This one could be a discussion point - which is more sends a stronger message? Which would be seen as more offensive to feminists?
1: "No Means No. Yes Means Slut."
2: "No Means No. Slut Means Yes."
I think #2 is more offensive since it implies the very thing the sluts are saying i.e. sluttiness is inviting rape so I couldn't carry such a sign. #1 again, cannot be argued against, because "Sluttiness" is supposedly a positive, strong, trait.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Paleo Experiment
Today, I skipped my morning Bran Flakes and raisins in lieu of a small omelet - two eggs, with ground meat, carrots and raisins fried in a big pad of butter. The same thing I had for dinner last night (just leftovers). I wanted to see how my appetite would be affected. Would I feel satiated all morning (as the paleo proponents say), or would I be reaching for my mid-morning snack as usual. I normally follow my cereal with a banana. I usually have no problem eating this since my hunger is legendary in the morning. Today, however, I looked at the banana and felt strangely guilty that I had no desire whatsoever to take in the nutrition-filled fruit. I basically forced myselft to eat it with the thought that if I don't eat fruit, I'm going to get rickets or some vitamin deficiency.
I was diagnosed with IBS years ago and told that I needed to up my fibre and stop drinking milk. So, I've been fairly strict for most of my adult life by eating whole grains - cereal with soy milk first thing and then another serving of oatmeal or whole wheat toast a few hours later. I was actually smug about it when the news reporters would bellow how most people aren't eating enough whole grains. Well, according to them, my bowels should be as healthy as an ox. While I have to say that the whole grains seem to help somewhat, after close to ten years of eating loads of them almost every day my bowels are far from what I'd call normal.
So, back to my appetite this morning. By 9:30, it was obvious something was wrong. I had no desire to pull out my yogurt, bread or anything. I kept waiting for the hunger signals to start, but my stomach just sat quietly in my gut happy as a clam. 10:30...11:00 AM (I usually start thinking about lunch) 11:30...12:00...(I should be in serious hunger mode by now.) 12:30 passed and I still didn't feel hungry. Something must be wrong. I am known as the guy who always eats. I went downstairs to the fridge just because I was getting nervous. This must have been the first morning that I worked straight through in years. I've had a more productive morning.
I warmed up my chicken more because I felt like I should, not because I was hungry. There was no way I could down the pork chop. I put the chunks of meat on the plate beside my salad. I plowed through the salad while picking at my chicken. I felt so full but looked down at my plate to see I was only half-way through. I could have put it back in the fridge, but is that safe with chicken? So, I begrudgingly finished it. Normally, I eat as much for lunch as some people eat for dinner.
My wife and I have been cutting back the carbs for about five months now. Instead of rice or pasta 3-5 times per week, we have been eating squash, sweet potatoes and salads. We've dropped the grain, rice, potatoes or bread as a main part of the dinner dishes to about 2 times per week. It's difficult with an active family - T-ball, soccer, 2 parents working - but we've done what we can. People have noticed. Friends have asked me if I have lost weight. My wife looks better than she ever has.
The results seem great. However, we can't be sure whether it is the diet, or the exercise. As Gary Taubes believes, exercise has no affect on weight-loss. The problem with my experiment is that we both added more exercise to our lives - I started playing hockey, she started a spinning class. So, is it the diet or the exercise that has caused our weight-loss? Luckily for you, I have been afflicted with an unrelated condition that will likely make it impossible for me to exercise or any strenuous activity for probably 4 weeks. I have recorded my weight using a Wii Fit balance board. I will provide some pictures of the graphics on the Wii. If exercise has anything to do with my weight loss, then the next four weeks should be enough to reverse it. If I continue to eat my basically low-carb diet and lose weight, then that would suggest that my diet is the main factor. It will be difficult to log all of my food, but I'll do what I can to give a basic idea of what I eat on a daily basis. Also, I'll continue to eat cereal sometimes to because that is what I've eaten most mornings (when I don't think to boil eggs the morning before) while I've been playing hockey.
Note: I am not under any delusions that this is scientific. However, I don't live in a laboratory. This is a test in real life with a real-life family. For the record, I had 4 frozen breaded fish fillets, a little bit of pre-packaged risoto mix and some fried zucchini for dinner. Fridays and T-ball nights are the nights we allow ourselves some pre-packaged, simple meals or take-out because we're don't really have time or energy to cook our regular style of meals.
I was diagnosed with IBS years ago and told that I needed to up my fibre and stop drinking milk. So, I've been fairly strict for most of my adult life by eating whole grains - cereal with soy milk first thing and then another serving of oatmeal or whole wheat toast a few hours later. I was actually smug about it when the news reporters would bellow how most people aren't eating enough whole grains. Well, according to them, my bowels should be as healthy as an ox. While I have to say that the whole grains seem to help somewhat, after close to ten years of eating loads of them almost every day my bowels are far from what I'd call normal.
So, back to my appetite this morning. By 9:30, it was obvious something was wrong. I had no desire to pull out my yogurt, bread or anything. I kept waiting for the hunger signals to start, but my stomach just sat quietly in my gut happy as a clam. 10:30...11:00 AM (I usually start thinking about lunch) 11:30...12:00...(I should be in serious hunger mode by now.) 12:30 passed and I still didn't feel hungry. Something must be wrong. I am known as the guy who always eats. I went downstairs to the fridge just because I was getting nervous. This must have been the first morning that I worked straight through in years. I've had a more productive morning.
I warmed up my chicken more because I felt like I should, not because I was hungry. There was no way I could down the pork chop. I put the chunks of meat on the plate beside my salad. I plowed through the salad while picking at my chicken. I felt so full but looked down at my plate to see I was only half-way through. I could have put it back in the fridge, but is that safe with chicken? So, I begrudgingly finished it. Normally, I eat as much for lunch as some people eat for dinner.
My wife and I have been cutting back the carbs for about five months now. Instead of rice or pasta 3-5 times per week, we have been eating squash, sweet potatoes and salads. We've dropped the grain, rice, potatoes or bread as a main part of the dinner dishes to about 2 times per week. It's difficult with an active family - T-ball, soccer, 2 parents working - but we've done what we can. People have noticed. Friends have asked me if I have lost weight. My wife looks better than she ever has.
The results seem great. However, we can't be sure whether it is the diet, or the exercise. As Gary Taubes believes, exercise has no affect on weight-loss. The problem with my experiment is that we both added more exercise to our lives - I started playing hockey, she started a spinning class. So, is it the diet or the exercise that has caused our weight-loss? Luckily for you, I have been afflicted with an unrelated condition that will likely make it impossible for me to exercise or any strenuous activity for probably 4 weeks. I have recorded my weight using a Wii Fit balance board. I will provide some pictures of the graphics on the Wii. If exercise has anything to do with my weight loss, then the next four weeks should be enough to reverse it. If I continue to eat my basically low-carb diet and lose weight, then that would suggest that my diet is the main factor. It will be difficult to log all of my food, but I'll do what I can to give a basic idea of what I eat on a daily basis. Also, I'll continue to eat cereal sometimes to because that is what I've eaten most mornings (when I don't think to boil eggs the morning before) while I've been playing hockey.
Note: I am not under any delusions that this is scientific. However, I don't live in a laboratory. This is a test in real life with a real-life family. For the record, I had 4 frozen breaded fish fillets, a little bit of pre-packaged risoto mix and some fried zucchini for dinner. Fridays and T-ball nights are the nights we allow ourselves some pre-packaged, simple meals or take-out because we're don't really have time or energy to cook our regular style of meals.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Insanity = Animal Rights > People's Rights
Imagine you walk into your back yard to see a gang of wild animals desecrating your property (no, I'm not talking about gangs of male hoodlums. I'm talking about a mother raccoon and her kids. City dwellers tend to think of them as cute critters and part of the community, ignoring the serious issues they cause. They are actually filthy, disease carriers and viscious when confronted.
In Toronto, one of the most liberal cities in North America, you will be hauled away in handcuffs and charged with weapons offences for defending your property from them. Apparently, the laws in Ontario are simply ridiculous. According to The Star, you are not allowed to move them more than one kilometer, if you trap them. I've never studied wildlife, but I can't see that one kilometer - about 3/5ths of a mile being very far for a raccoon. You can't remove babies if they're less than 6 weeks old (I guess drowning them is a big no-no). Meanwhile, having a wildlife service remove a family could cost you over $1,000. Here we are with a well meaning government regulation basically removing our rights and making us helpless to defend ourselves. Home owners are supposed to throw their hands in the air, call someone and fork over a wad of cash if their homes are being invaded. Here is another example where people are required to defer their own protection (much like they have personal responsibility) to other people - the so-called professionals. Am I alone in wanting to be able to take a matter into my own hands once in awhile without being afraid of incarceration?
In Toronto, one of the most liberal cities in North America, you will be hauled away in handcuffs and charged with weapons offences for defending your property from them. Apparently, the laws in Ontario are simply ridiculous. According to The Star, you are not allowed to move them more than one kilometer, if you trap them. I've never studied wildlife, but I can't see that one kilometer - about 3/5ths of a mile being very far for a raccoon. You can't remove babies if they're less than 6 weeks old (I guess drowning them is a big no-no). Meanwhile, having a wildlife service remove a family could cost you over $1,000. Here we are with a well meaning government regulation basically removing our rights and making us helpless to defend ourselves. Home owners are supposed to throw their hands in the air, call someone and fork over a wad of cash if their homes are being invaded. Here is another example where people are required to defer their own protection (much like they have personal responsibility) to other people - the so-called professionals. Am I alone in wanting to be able to take a matter into my own hands once in awhile without being afraid of incarceration?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)