Jonas 的个人资料MC Delta T Space照片日志列表更多  |  工具 帮助 |
|
|
8月12日 An analogy as American as Apple PieI love analogies... I thought of this one whilst ummm... "having a constructive dialog" with a super lefty guy on the bus to Montreal. It describes my views on the distribution of wealth, especially in the face of calls for all wealth to be distributed equally. Frank and Joe are both presented with a bunch of apples, some sugar cane, an oven, flour, etc. Frank just eats the apples raw and chews on the sugar cane whilst checking the time on the oven. Meanwhile, using the same goods and tools that Frank got, Joe refines the sugar, makes the flour into dough, cuts the apples... and makes himself a delicious apple pie. Both were able to eat. But, come on... Who ate better? Joe, of course! Given the same opportunities, resources and capital, Joe was able to create more wealth by investing more labour and intelligence. Should he not be able to enjoy the fruits of his labour and intelligence? Of course he should! In the real world, it's often the same. Some people are simply wealthier because they do more with their opportunities and whatever is given to them. Granted, some people start off with more and get more opportunities, but all I'm trying to say is that perfect equality is unwarranted in a society because some people create more wealth in relation to what they are given than others so they should be allowed to enjoy at least most of the benefit of their efforts. Now, if Joe had used some of the wealth he created in order to buy up all the apples and sugar, or if Frank didn't start off with as many apples, perhaps then he'd owe Frank a piece of his pie or at least a couple of apples, since everyone should be able to eat, even if they can't eat as well as others. Perhaps it would be reasonable for Joe to demand that Frank help him in the kitchen in return for a piece of his pie, though. But he shouldn't just let Frank starve even if Frank was kind of dumber than him. My point is: Although everyone should be provided with enough wealth to survive, the wealth of a nation need not be divided equally since some people earn that wealth more than others. This is the conclusion I came up with until I heard the bible reading at Mass: Someone in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me.” He replied to him, “Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?” Then he said to the crowd, “Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one’s life does not consist of possessions.” Then he told them a parable. “There was a rich man whose land produced a bountiful harvest. He asked himself, ‘What shall I do, for I do not have space to store my harvest?’ And he said, ‘This is what I shall do: I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones. There I shall store all my grain and other goods and I shall say to myself, “Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!”’ But God said to him, ‘You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?’ Thus will it be for all who store up treasure for themselves but are not rich in what matters to God.” ~ Luke 12:13-21 So what does this mean to Joe and Frank? Joe can enjoy his apple pies but he shouldn't get carried away by producing a huge surplus that he really doesn't need... God doesn't care that if he makes a lot of extra apple pies. So he can go ahead and make a few for his enjoyment but his focus should be on loving and serving God, not himself. Creating wealth is not bad, in and of itself, nor is enjoying that wealth, but stockpiling way more than you need is wrong because it is greedy. God is not impressed. Joe must focus on loving and serving God. Joe should make some apple pies for him and his family to enjoy, perhaps he should sell a few to generate money to buy other things his family needs, perhaps he should give some of his pies to charity or to Frank, even. Loving and serving God entails showing compassion towards his neighbor. Joe could spend all of his time baking pies and thus accumulate more of them, but he shouldn't. The point is that he puts God first. God may want him to make pies but God doesn't want him to be greedy. After a while, he should maybe stop and do other things to serve God. Perhaps he could teach Frank how to make apple pies, for example... 7月14日 The Cynical Ethic and the End of CivilizationIn the early 20th century, a Sociologist named Max Weber wrote a book called "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" where he explores the influence of religion on productivity and economic success. Calvinists, who believe in pre-destination, saw financial success as a sign of being of God's elect, and so, people wanting to be of God's elect work hard so that they do well. Plus, they saw laziness as an affront to God. Using one's wealth to buy luxuries was frowned and so was giving to charity so the natural use for all this hard-earned money was investments. This hard work and sacrifice did much to fuel capitalism in many Calvinist countries and thus allowed them to be more economically successful than other countries, like Ireland, for instance. Today, I think that, as a society, we deal with a mass of cynics whose lack of work ethic leads to seriously low productivity. It seems that in a lot of my jobs, I have a lot of co-workers who are just so darn lazy. Then, they tell me off for working too hard and making them look bad. It seems that, rather than giving it 110%, their attitude towards work is just to get away with as little as possible. It's a race to the bottom. Part of the problem is that many people do not believe in God anymore so he does not notice when they slack off. So, as long as their employers don't notice/care, they can get away with being as lazy as they want. This lazy attitude is nothing new. In fact, Friedrich Taylor, theorized that most employees hated work and didn't really care to work hard. They just wanted what Sprint Canada used to promise: "The most for the least". He witnessed miners taking every opportunity that they could to slack off. They were paid by the hour and once the mine ran out of resources, they were out of a job, so, for an hourly-wage worker, there was a strong incentive towards low productivity. Thus, they tried to accomplish as little as possible, per hour so they could get the most hours possible and make more money. Well, could you blame them? Taylor called this phenomena "soldiering". The solution, according to Taylor, was close supervision, coercion a piece-work system, where workers were paid per unit of work accomplished rather than per hour. There was also a quota system which encouraged employees to exceed specific production targets set by management, by paying them more per unit, for every unit, once they exceeded the quota. For example, if Jack produced up to the quota of 100 Widgets per day, he might make 5 Pesos per widget for a total of 500 Pesos per day, but if he gave it 110% and made 110 Widgets, he might get 6 Pesos per Widget, for a total of 660 Pesos per day. (Not bad!) This seemed to work well and inspired a lot of thinking about Human Resources for the early part of the century. So what happened? The Hawthorne experiments. In the 20s, researchers studied the effects of varying the intensity of lighting on productivity at a certain factory. They tried increasing and decreasing the lighting but they found that whether they turned up the lights or dimmed them, the productivity would increase anyway, because the employees would feel they were part of something. Although, perhaps it was just because they knew they were being watched. This lead to a whole revolution in terms of thinking about motivation. Employers now tried to pay more attention to employees and made them feel like they were part of something. They now began to think that employees cared about the organization and did like work, sort of. This resulted in a less emphasis on a piece-rate pay structure and more emphasis on other forms of motivation which involved more attention being paid to the worker. Yet, through my experiences, I am finding more and more that perhaps Taylor was right. Often, I find that my co-workers do not like their jobs, they try to get away with doing as little as possible in order to make a task drag on. In my work, there is a finite amount tasks and once they are done, we might have no more work to do and so we will no longer be necessary so yea, I suppose that does provide an incentive towards soldiering. However, maybe I'm just young and naïve but somehow, I believe that my hard work would pay off somehow because, eventually, I would get recognized for it and that would help me land another job. Yet my co-workers seem so cynical. It's almost as if they believe that productivity doesn't even matter. The fact is: not all workers enjoy their jobs. So they try to get away with actually doing their job as little as possible. It makes sense. Not all jobs are all that enjoyable. So, you've got to look for ways of getting workers to do more of this lousy work. Perhaps if at least part of their pay was based on productivity, they might want to get more done so they can make more money. Also, use the new approach as well. Pay attention to the worker. Recognize when they do a good job and record it so that when management is looking to fill a higher position, that employees accomplishments will stand out and they might have a greater opportunity of getting a promotion. I think part of the problem is that many employers saw the Hawthorne experiments as an excuse to not reward the employees for high productivity. Alas, this is not the case. Although the experiments found that employees are motivated by attention being paid to them and feeling like they're part of something, they still would enjoy a little more money when they do a good job. Also, you must not forget to actually pay attention to employees and make them feel like their part of something, otherwise this is just not going to work! Also, Marx was right! Workers are alienated from their own labour-power. People often do not see how their task matters in the grand scheme of things so this is actually quite discouraging. Even when you have some idea of what your doing and how it helps, having more information would allow you to take more pride in your work. For example, I am currently working for Canadian Heritage and I realize how my task is saving the department money and thus benefiting the department but I don't really quite understand what the department does and how it benefits Canadians. If I did, I would be certainly more motivated. That is, if I liked what they were doing. i.e. If I found out that certain tools that I made were mainly used for abortions, I would certainly take less pride in my work and probably quit. Also, sometimes at a job, you have to impose silly rules required by other departments. It would be nice to see those other departments in order to realize why they have those rules. Task rotation is another good idea because, by letting employees try other tasks, they would be able to see more of the picture and realize how everything comes together to make the finished product. Mainly, though, I think that the problem is that workers do not see how their job really matters in their life, especially when they're not really doing their "dream job". Employers should interview employees to find out what they want out of life and how they think this job will help them achieve it. For example, I hope to eventually get an MBA and move out of Canada. I'm hoping I can work hard and get a good reference out of my job, which will allow me to eventually get a better job that's more relevant for business school which would give me a good reference. This interview could be part of the job interview at the selection stage where it could help employers select the ambitious people. (Ambitious people probably work harder.) However, candidates may not be completely candid as they might be afraid that revealing how they think their job will help their long term plans may hinder their ability to get the job, in the first place. However they could just ask them about their long-term plans in order to find the most ambitious people then after they start working, they could have a discussion about how the employee hopes the job will work into their long-term plans and also how the employer thinks the employee helps with their plans, in order that they might feel like part of something. The key is to have open dialogue. Employees should be able to talk with their employers about equipment or information they might need to do their job properly. They should be able to request training or guidance when they need it and suggests improvements that management can make to improve safety, efficiency or quality. They should also be able to discuss advancement opportunities withing the company and their work goals. Employers should discuss their productivity expectations with employees, as well as their constraints (i.e. corporate financial difficulties requiring cut-backs), suggestions for improving performance, etc. The idea is that employees and employers should be more open with each other. That way, they would be able to understand each other better and be able to co-operate more in achieving each-other's goals. Now, I understand that some jobs, especially in retail, emphasize "looking busy" but this is actually counter-productive: i.e. employees cleaning the same counter over and over again, or moving something back and forth between one place and another. So, companies should emphasize actual productivity. They should clearly identify what actually needs to be done and when they assign a task, they should set a goal for when they expect the work to be done. This goal should not be absolute, as in, if it is not done by that time, the employee is fired. But, they check in on the worker's progress from time to time and if they are going ahead of schedule, congratulate them and make note of it and perhaps reward them and if they are running behind schedule, ask them why and try to figure out how to improve productivity. When an employer finds an employee doing nothing, instead of immediately reacting with anger, they should enquire about how their task progress is coming along and only reprimand employees if it is unsatisfactory. It may even be possible that the employee is already done and they're just waiting for the employer to assign another task. There is no need for them to do unnecessary tasks just to "look busy". But, the bottom line is most of the above is BS and lazy employees are just... lazy. The only real way to deal with it is to keep a close eye on them and punish them by giving them less money or firing them. What has this got to do with the end of civilization? A great civilization would get as much productivity out of people as possible. But, then again, maybe I'm a "fascist" for thinking that. I just think that when you're paid to work you should work. If you don't want to work then don't. But our system is too inflexible for that. If our pay was more related to our job, then things would be a lot easier. If you don't want to work a 40 hour week, then you wouldn't have to. Just do enough work fast and then be done in, like, 3 days and stay home the other four days per week. Or, if you want to make more money and you don't mind working 50 hours per week, you could go ahead and take on more tasks and make tonnes of money. People also want steady incomes though, so, that should be a possibility. Perhaps, the ideal is a job that combined a small steady income with more income depending on how much work they actually do. But to pay people for work that they're not actually doing will hinder us in the long run, especially in the face of an increasingly competitive global marketplace. The more time we waste, the more things cost and the less gets done. If we keep going along that path, everything will cost too much and nothing will get done. Wouldn't you rather live in a world where things actually got done, products were more available and cheaper? Well, keep trucking, y'all! ~ Jonas "THE STEAMROLLER" Graham, B.A. 4月30日 The "God Hates Fags" peopleHave y'all heard of the Westboro Baptist Church? I'm not talking about the baptist church in Westboro, in Ottawa. Rather, I am talking about the group, based in Kansas, that preaches that "God Hates Fags" and stuff. But they don't stop there. They are so desperate for attention, they will do just about anything to provoke people even if it means alienating potential supporters. For example, they love to picket soldiers' funerals with signs like "Thank God for dead soldiers!" because they believe that dead soldiers are God's righteous retribution for America being so tolerant of sodomy and such. They could have won the support of the far-right bible-belt" support our troops" types but no... They had to go out and piss them off as well. Anyway, they're mainly made up of one family: the Phelps. There is also a documentary filmmaker, Steve, who converted. They believe that God also hates America (for being a "fag enabling" nation), God hates Canada, God hates Sweden, the Catholic Church is evil and depraved, etc. They believe in the Calvinist doctrine of Unconditional election, that is that God chose to save some people but not others and this is God's own choice, there is nothing we can do to influence our own salvation. They don't believe that God loves all humans. They believe that God actually hates certain people, such as fags (homosexuals). As a Catholic, I beg to differ. I think that God does love us all. He may hate the sins we do but he loves us anyway, through his infinite mercy. Even if you are gay, he loves you. I do believe that Sodomy is a sin but God still loves sinners. I don't think God is all about vengeance and all of the tragedies we experience are a result of the wrath of God. Sometimes bad things just happen. Sometimes people do bad things. The patriarch of the church is Rev. Fred "gramps" Phelps, a former lawyer who was actually famous for fighting for civil rights for black people. His tactics were harsh and even back then, he was famous for "bullying" witnesses and defendants but he won a number of cases and was a real champion for civil rights. Today, "gramps" makes videos condemning just about everybody from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for making fun of his views at the Emmy awards to "Fag Pimp" President Bush. In what I believe is his latest video, he thanks God for the Virginia Tech massacre because it was a just punishment for America's sins. Check it out: Anyway, you can find out more about the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) by checking out their websites:
Anyway, my point is: Love 'em or hate 'em, they've got a lot of attention, lately. But despite everybody saying the media is supposed to be fair and balanced, I find that it often isn't. It is very easy to disagree with these people, it is very easy to prove that they're wrong, using rational means. But instead of doing that, so many journalists just resort to personal attacks and using the bully pulpit, something the Phelps are all too familiar with... For example, check out the interview with Shirley Phelps and her daughters on the Tyra Banks show. At one point, Tyra is just like "I didn't come here to fight with you on my stage" Umm... Yea you did! Tyra's an idiot! I actually got a lot more respect for the Phelps after seeing this interview... Then, there was the BBC 2 documentary: The Most Hated Family in America. (It's divided into 6 parts on You Tube so look in the "related" sidebar.) At one point, in the 2nd part, the journalist, Louis Theroux, talks to Jael Phelps and asks her about boyfriends and stuff. He seems to heckle her and asks her really personal questions, like about whether she's ever sinned and he seems to try to make her feel bad about not having many boyfriends. OK, this is really personal and totally unrelated or maybe slightly related but does not affect the validity of their premise at all! I can personally relate to this cause, as y'all know, I'm pro-life and when trying to have a purely rational discussion about the morality of abortion, somebody once said something like "you've never even been with a girl" which does not have anything to do with my stance. They were just trying to attack me personally. There is a word for this: Ad Hominem. Anyway, depending on his definition of "been with", he's either right or wrong but like Jael, I don't want to talk about it (but then again I've talked about it enough already in this blog). My point is: this is waaaaaaaaay too personal for objective journalism and it has little or nothing to do with the issue. Louis also, routinely states his own opinion (not only on voice-over but he actually tells his opinion to the Phelps) and it shows his bias. And then there are those political talk shows like Hannity and Colmes and all that. But I don't blame them for being biased and such on the account of I don't really expect them to be fair and balanced. But some talk show host had the brilliant idea of bribeing them with airtime on his radio show in exchange that they don't picket the funerals of the murdered amish schoolchildren. And now, he had to do it again, to stop them from protesting the funerals of Virginia Tech students. And this is all just playing into their plan. For a church with just 71 members, they're getting A LOT of attention and that's really what they want: attention! And why don't these people ever do their homework? Why don't these people ever talk about Fred's work in the Civil Rights movement (by the way, the WBC has produced a documentary that talks all about this and other stuff - check out hatemongers.com). Why don't these people mention quotes from the bible that prove that God doesn't hate fags? Well, one journalist does... She still gets too emotionally involved, but at least she did her homework. Check it out: But, also, why can't they just debate them in purely rational terms? Why do they have to get all angry? Why can't they just show them that they're wrong or just show America who they are, without making any sort of judgement and let them decide for themselves? Try being objective for once. Here's an interesting thought experiment: Imagine you were just as you are - I'm assuming that's a reasonably intelligent person, not naïve or anything (you're welcome) - except that for some reason, up until recently you knew nothing about Christianity, Judaism (the religion of the old-testament) or homosexuality and you just learned in purely academic terms the rudimentary facts about these things. i.e. Christianity is a mono-theistic religion that sees Jesus as the messiah promised to the Jews who were a group of people that believed they were chosen by God and stuff... Homosexuality is when two people of the same sex have sex. Imagine you just knew basic facts like this and you really didn't know what to believe... Does God hate homosexuals or doesn't he? You turn on the TV and they are talking about the Westboro Baptist Church. You can clearly see that the WBC has a certain agenda. But so do the journalists! The Phelps seem to be very angry and think homosexuals are despicable but the reporters seem to be angry and think the Phelps are despicable. Who should you believe? There seems to be a whole lot of hating going on but not much reason! Why don't they present the facts? i.e. Here's what the WBC believes and here's why. And here's what critics of the WBC believe and here's why. Just present this objectively. That's what the media is supposed to do (or maybe I'm just naïve). Or why not have an intellectual debate? Perhaps they could have "gramps" debate some intelligent bible scholar about what the bible actually says about God's opinion on homosexuals. Perhaps they could have someone from Harvard Divinity School or something. Or you know what? If they hey really crave attention so much, maybe we really should just ignore them and they'll go away... I'll leave y'all on a lighter note. Parody is often a good way of dealing with conflict (although it doesn't really solve the conflict, it tones it down a bit) and if the Phelps are the most hated family in America, check out the second most hated family in America: God bless, y'all! ~ Jonas "THE STEAMROLLER" Graham, B.A. 11月2日 Love and MarriageI was thinking a lot about relationships, love, sex, chastity, marriage and stuff lately and I've come to realize something: I think many people totally have the wrong idea when it comes to this marriage thing... As I see it, people:
HOWEVER, what does it mean to get married? I'm especially putting this out to all y'all Catholic ladies: what does marriage mean to you? To me, marriage is a commitment between a man and woman to stay together, to stick with each other FOREVER. Marriage is a sacrament. God is present in the sacraments. God is present in marriage. But if you'll remember from my post on the sacraments, marriage is not invoked by the priest, like the eucharist. Marriage is invoked by the man and the woman. The priest just witnesses the marriage and blesses it. So... a wedding is just a ceremony and a formality. Marriage is the promise that a man and woman make to each other and to God that they'll commit to each other forever. I don't blame women for imagining a grand wedding and stuff. This should only happen once because, like I said, marriage is forever - you should never get divorced. So it's understandable that you may want to have a nice ceremony and stuff and that you do it right the first time. And having a nice ring is cool too. However, these things cost money and to insist on these very material things before sexual intercourse, is kind of like putting a price on yourself, not unlike what prostitutes do! If you truly love a man, you'll marry him if he puts a rubber band around your finger. After all, you're making a promise to love each other "for better or worse, for richer or poorer". You're promising not to leave him if he becomes broke, in the future, so why insist that he has money now? Since marriage is invoked by the man and woman, I'd say you can start having sex as soon as you've made that commitment to each other before God, even if you haven't yet had a wedding ceremony in front of a priest. Let's put it this way: say you promised to sell a house to somebody. You might not be legally responsible for your promise until the contract is notarized and the deed is legally transferred, but you are morally responsible from the moment you give your word. I think it's the same deal for marriage. God knows when you've made a promise to somebody. From the moment you've made this promise, you have to keep it, whether a priest knows or not. And the whole point of chastity is not to have sex without commitment, but if you have commitment and it's not formalized, I'd say it's good enough. I mean: why not? I mean: if you break your promise before your wedding and you leave because you can get away with it, legally, you're still wrong. Morally, you're just as wrong as if you had divorced or abandoned your wife after your wedding. Get it? Marriage is a commitment. It's not a ceremony. It's not a material transaction, a purchase with a wedding ring. These are nice to have. But they're not essential. And long as y'all promise: to "take [the Groom/Bride], to be [your wife/husband], to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do [y'all] part." Then you are married and you are bound to that promise and can enjoy the privileges of it, from the moment you make that promise as long as God sees it, even if nobody else does. Got it? Now, I understand that marriage is about building family and making babies and stuff and this requires financial stability, but you don't need to make babies from the get-go. NFP works pretty well. And if you do have babies before you're ready, love will find a way... This is a challenge that you both have to take on as a team. When you get married, you become one. One team that faces all of life's obstacles together and overcomes them, together. Have faith. Have faith in yourselves, each other and, most importantly, in God. You'll manage. Now, for this whole concept of "the one". It seems that many people, especially women, imagine that somewhere out there there is ONE person that is right for them and they have to keep searching until they find this person. And when they do, it's magic. They'll be in love forever, everything will be perfect and they will live happily ever after. But let's face it: this is a myth! Just like Santa Claus. You will never find the perfect spouse. Ever. Nobody's perfect, except God. You're not perfect. Your husband or wife won't be perfect. Your marriage won't be perfect. You will have rough patches. It will be difficult. You won't always be happy. Also, there is probably more than one person who can do the job. There is no magic ONE person. You have at least 3 billion choices. There is probably more than one option that will suit you. Furthermore, studies show that the "magic" feeling of passionate love that you may feel in the beginning will eventually die down. But this doesn't mean, you will be unhappy. You will be happy to have someone that you can have fun with, that you can share all your experiences with. You will be proud of the children you raise together and the life you will build together. You will be grateful to have somebody there by your side through it all: through the goods times and the bad. In a sense, it doesn't matter so much who your companion is, just as long as you have a companion. Take Adam and Eve for example. They didn't really have much of a choice. Adam was the only man. Eve was the only woman. And they went through some really tough times together, and stuck with each other through it all. They made mistakes and failed each other but they stuck through it all. Besides, many arranged marriages actually work. As long as you have someone to stick by you, it doesn't really matter even if you don't really "love" each other passionately any more, or ever. Personally, as long as I can find a girl that I could imagine being able to at least stand living with for 50 years, I'll be happy. I don't imagine that there is only one such girl out of 3 billion. And I don't imagine that will always love each other passionately. But we'll probably have a good life filled with many wonderful adventures, a great family and plenty of stories to tell our grandchildren. Of course, I have some expectations. I would hope that me and my wife's life goals are compatible. i.e. I want to move someplace warm which will probably mean leaving Canada for good and I would like to have at least 3 kids. Also, I kinda find the Korean model of husbands and wives going into business together an inspiring idea, and it would be great if me and my wife were not just life partners but business partners as well! But my point is I don't think that there is just one girl out there that would suit me and I don't expect things to always be magical. It's not too difficult to find somebody who you can stand living with. I mean, you don't get to chose your siblings but if you can manage to put up with them for 20 years, it shouldn't be too difficult finding a partner that you can put up with for 50 years or so. Anyway, I think we make too much of a big deal about love and marriage. We're too picky and so we end up being extremely lonely. This is kinda sad. It is more important to have a companion than to have the perfect companion! UPDATE: Upon further reflection, I realized what the whole point of marriage is. Couples didn't get married just because it was God's commandment, they did it in order to provide a woman with a certain amount of security. A marriage was a contract to support a woman when she had your babies, whether or not they were planned. A woman can't work during the later stages of pregnancy or when she has a young baby, so she needs a man's guarantee that he will support her during this time. That's where marriage comes in. It wasn't just a religious thing, there was a very practical side to it. However, paternity tests have now rendered this obsolete. Before, if an unmarried woman got knocked up, she could not get any support from the father because he could just deny it. But now, we can prove that a man is the father and hold him accountable. That's not to say that we don't need marriage. I think God is capable of thinking long-term and so when he told us to be chaste, I don't think he meant just until such a time as technology renders it less necessary. But it's just that, now, the whole legalistic side is not so important. But you should still be absolutely monogamous and stick with one man or woman for life. It may not be as necessary to get a legal contract guaranteeing this, but you should still promise this to each other and before God before forming a sexual union. Anyway, this just reminds me sooo much of that song Paradise by the Dashboard Light by Meat Loaf: " I started swearing to my god and on my mother's grave That I would love you to the end of time I swore that I would love you to the end of time!
So now I'm praying for the end of time 6月26日 That Girl! Oooooh... That kind of girl!The title of this post comes from a song performed by Maxi Priest and Shaggy. I love that song and I find this line is sooooo apt. Today, I would like to talk about a subject that interests me very much: girls! Now, as y'all may know, I am single, for now. I'm looking, yes, but I'm looking for just the right girl. I'm in no hurry, though. As a Catholic, I don't believe in Free Love so if I date a girl, it would have to be ultimately for the sake of possibly marrying her sometime in the future and I plan to not get married until I am at least 23, the magical age when the adulthood transition is complete, in my opinion. Hopefully, I'll be married before I turn 35, though. Now, speaking of girls, here's another fact that y'all might find interesting: although girls tend to think that guys are always thinking about sex, I read somewhere that they found that girls actually think about it TWICE as much as guys do. The reason? My theory is that guys have to learn to control their thoughts, from a very young age, in order to avoid the humiliation of "pitching a tent" in public, whereas girls don't have penises so they don't have to worry about this. But perhaps guys talk about sex more often. For example, when I'm with guys, it's always like: "Who was that girl you were with earlier?" "Ahhh... just a co-worker/customer/tutor/friend/sister/friend's sister/sister's friend/nun." "So.... did you do her yet?" It can be quite ridiculous sometimes, but that's just the way guys talk... Girls, as far as I know, are far more uptight, and they don't talk like that with each other (as much). Anyway, I'm very particular about my taste in women but I have a certain niche market that other guys don't usually go for. Did y'all ever see Not Another Teen Movie? It's pretty corny but at one point, they do a parody of She's all That, which is itself based on My Fair Lady which itself ultimately based on Shaw's Pygmalion. (I knew my Liberal Arts education would come in handy, somewhere!) Anyway, it's pretty funny: this guy puts this other guy up to a challenge. He picks the most unlikely girl and the other guy has to turn her into the prom queen. They go by and they're like: "How bout that Albino, hippy girl or that really fat girl?" "Naaaw... Too easy!", etc. And the guy eventually settles on this one girl and the other guy is just like: "No! NOOOOOOO! Anyone but her! She's got GLASSES and a PONY TAIL!!!!!!!" And that happens to be my favourite type! Bring on the nerdychicks! Wear contacts? DON'T! Can't figure out how to put your hair? May I suggest a pony tail, or better yet: a bun! I must say: I find such chicks EXTREMELY hot and I can hardly control myself when I see such a girl walking down the street or something. But there's more than looks. I think personality is very important. I don't want just any boring chick, even if she does have a pony tail and glasses. A girl has to have attitude. It can be explained using a simple formula: Smiling + Sassy + Silly = Sexy! Care for an example? The other day I found this video on You Tube. It's this girl (The future Mrs. Jonas "THE STEAMROLLER" Graham - mdr) lip-syncing to this song from Chicago. Now, I know lip-syncing doesn't require all that much skill, but you should see the sass that this girl has. I found it incredibly entertaining and so I followed the link to her myspace space. Check out the first video on her space, it sums up pretty much what she's all about. She has this quiz thing and in the "In a Boy/Girl.." section, she writes that she likes "blond highlights are ok as long as its on darker hair, i love like really brown or black hair" and "i dont like guys that are too muscular ... yuck... i like a guy whos in shape though with tone and a little fat is ok too, its good for cuddling". Haha! There's hope for me, yet! Anyway... she's got a bunch of other videos. She's really silly. In this one video, she makes fun of the news and how everything is so morbid and stuff. It's pretty funny. She also makes fun of emo chicks: "Maybe we can go slit our wrists!" "No. We did that last week..." MDR! And then there's my favourite: United States of Whatever. She gets a lot of negative feedback but she makes her videos anyway because she enjoys it and it turns out that she's been recruited by Carson Daily to be in the Entertainment industry somehow. That's pretty cool. She's got silliness, sass and best of all: AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP! Shucks. I won't get my hopes up (too much) on getting with a celebrity but still, she's a perfect example of how girls can have an attractive personality! I even managed to look past the fact that she didn't have a pony tail or glasses. Although, I would hope that if it ever so happens that I do have a chance with her, she'd put her hair in a pony tail and wear glasses. (Hopefully, she wears contacts. Otherwise, she's going to have to find some way of deteriorating her eyesight really fast! mdr!) Anyway, whateva! She's slightly older than me anyway, but I wish there were more girls like her! Anyway, girls: don't be afraid to be silly. It doesn't turn guys off. In fact, it can be a turn-on! Or maybe I'm just speaking for myself... But shucks! CRAZY IS GOOD! There are limits though. If y'all have ever seen Just Friends, the Samantha James character is a perfect example of too crazy! But to a certain extent, wacky is a plus! As for myself, there was this one time where I found some dating skills quiz and as a result, I ended up being signed up for this dating tips newsletter. Now I have been reading it quite passively and stuff but it's pretty good. I highly reccomend it. I use to think that I had no charm or anything. But this newsletter says that it's actually a plus to tease girls and stuff. So I said to myself: "Hey. I can do that! I tease Johann all the time!" Following its advice, I have learned to be more confident (especially around women) and weird as it may seem, I now act more like myself. I am more natural because I allowed myself the confidence to just be myself! Go me! Alas, it has not really got me anywhere yet. But I haven't really been trying and I haven't bought his expensive e-book (and don't plan to) but I have noticed some improvement in the reactions I get from girls! Shucks! I am SOOO AWESOME!!!!! KEEP TRUCKING, Y'ALL! (In Soviet Russia, Truck keeps YOU!!) Jonas "THE STEAMROLLER" Graham |
|
|
