Angry Man 2009.04.23 (There Is No Gray.)

There's a little flap right now about a pageant bimbo saying she believes based on her religious convictions that marriage should only be between opposite sex individuals.  Pro-gay marriage folks are aghast at her intolerance.  Pro-man-woman marriage folks are aghast that people are attacking her "religious" beliefs.

Angry Man is aghast that we care what Miss California thinks.  I'm not sure what's more embarrassing:  Winning an award because you know how to tape your boobs for maximum lift or taking a pseudonym based on a semi-celebrity known primarily for drunk driving and night-vision porn.

 

But those aren't the real issue here.  Yes, beauty pageants are an affront to women, halfway between pornography and a cattle-market.  And, yes, Perez Hilton is an affront to all men, gay or straight.

 

(Don't get me wrong.  I'm perfectly willing to judge someone prancing around in a swimsuit.  I suspect my judgement and willingness to do so is further proof that pageants are demeaning.)

 

I'm not angry (today) about gay marriage or the lack of gay marriage.  I personally think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.  My marriage to a woman should be no more legally valid than your man-man, woman-woman, or flying pig-unicorn marriage.  It's just not their business.  Marriage should be strictly a social and religious construct with no legal ramifications.

 

You should, instead, be able to choose one person as your partner for legal purposes.  This person would file taxes with you.  Would be your emergency contact.  Would dispense your estate if no will designated otherwise.  You could change this person if you wanted, but there would be a two year waiting period between partners.  Insurance should work the same way.  Who cares if you're married?  Just choose one person to be your "dependent."  If you want to change, you wait two years.

 

I'm angry because people think that opposing opinions are equally valid.

 

There are no shades of gray.  Either gay marriage is right or gay marriage is wrong.  Either Christianity is right and Islam is wrong or Christianity is wrong and Islam is right.  (It is also possible/likely that Christianity and Islam are both wrong and the Buddhists or atheists win.)  Either slavery is right or slavery is wrong.

 

People who seem otherwise rational are suggesting that it is un-American to attack this women's anti-gay marriage opinion because her opinion is based on religion.  They suggest that persecuting her for this opinion is the same as persecuting gay people for wanting to be married.

 

That's stupid.  They're confusing governmental attack and societal attack.

 

I agree with the First Amendment.  The government should be very, very careful about squashing individuals' opinions.

 

The First Amendment isn't important because opinions are equally right or equally valid or equally important.  The First Amendment is important because it's often terribly hard to determine which of two opinions is correct.

 

Look, in 1850 (or 1950, or even 2009), you could've found thousands of people who held the opinion that people of African descent were less human than people of European descent.  This opinion even had basis in religious teachings.  Apparently Noah's rocky relationship with his sons, and his alcoholism, led to one son being less honored.  The thinking went that each of the three sons begat a race, European, Asian, and African, and the least honored was the forefather of Africans.

 

Guess what.  That's stupid.

 

Suggesting that an opinion should not be ridiculed because it is religiously based is stupid.  If the opinion is wrong, it's wrong no matter the basis. 

 

Some ideas are right.  Some are wrong.  If ideas are diametrically opposed there are only three possibilities:  The first is right, the second is wrong.  The first is wrong, the second is right.  Or both are wrong.

 

The final question:  Who determines right and wrong?

 

That's where things get gray.

Angry/Simple 2009.04.22.

This is a hybrid Angry Man/Simple Man.  I suppose as they are two parts of my personality, it makes sense that they blend and interact.  Otherwise I'd have some clinical disorder.  (Which may still be true, but it's not proven.)

My Car Thinks I'm Stupid.

I'm not sure when our metal and plastic cars decided they were smarter than us, but mine definitely thinks so.  It just doesn't trust me to do anything myself.

 

I can't remember to put on my seatbelt.

I can't remember to turn off the lights.

I can't remember to take the keys with me when I leave the car.

I can't remember to change the oil every 3000 miles (which is fair, because I never change it at 3000 miles).

I can't be trusted to close the doors or trunk securely.

 

Forgetting any of those things will get me an insistent reminder.  And it won't wait for me to figure it out, it warns me right away.  (It's a bit like a spouse in this regard.)

 

Then we get to the bigger things:

 

I can't lock my keys in the car even if I want to.  Unless I have three arms to push and hold all the handles and locks and buttons simultaneously.

I can't skid in a cool 80's cop show sort of way.

I can't shift out of park without my foot on the brake.

I can't shift out of park without the key.

I can't take the key out of the ignition unless I'm in park.  Not even in neutral.

On my old car, I couldn't start the car without my foot on the clutch, even in neutral.

I can't push my car to the limits of it's power and speed.  I'll never know how fast it could actually go.

 

And there are ugly black and yellow warnings on my sun visors reminding me, every time I get in the car, that the airbags can mash small children into pudding.  If my car was black and yellow, I might not mind.  But it's red with tan interior.

 

Here's the thing:  I am not stupid.

 

I may be a bit lazy, occasionally unambitious, now-and-again unfocused, but certainly not stupid.

 

All the dings and whistles and flashes that tell me I'm doing something wrong don't bother me all that much.  (I always wear my seatbelt even without the friendly reminder.)  Like everyone else, I just tune them out.  But the "safety" items that keep me from doing really stupid things also make working around problems a lot harder.

 

For example, recently, the lockout mechanism that keeps me from shifting out of park without the key in the ignition has been a bit sticky.  I'll have the car started, the key firmly in the ignition, and the gear shift won't move.  First of all, my problem is caused specifically by this "smart" feature!  Second, I have to use a screwdriver to open a small hatch, then use the key to release the lockout mechanism so I can shift out of park.  Of course, I have to stop the engine and take the key out of the ignition to do this.  Fortunately, it will at least let me start the car in neutral, otherwise I'd be stuck.

 

Sure, I'll eventually get it fixed, but because it's part of the steering column, it's going to be complex.  And complex equals expensive in everything, especially in cars.

 

Another example, more an inconvenience than a problem but...On my last car, a manual transmission, I had to depress the clutch to start the car.  No big deal, right?  Except that in the winter it's nice to start the car before you scrape the ice and snow off so that it warms up a bit before you go anywhere.  I couldn't just lean in and start it, I had to actually get in (covered with snow) so I could get a foot on the clutch.

 

One last example that will slide us into the Simple Man portion of this entry:  ABS.

 

What could I possibly not like about Anti-lock Braking Systems?  Do I actually enjoy losing control of my car? 

 

No.  In theory, I appreciate ABS and am glad to have it along with good disc brakes.  But in practice (especially other people's practice), it's a problem.  The problem arises from a concept called risk compensation.  Basically, people will push the limits of anything.  If they have ABS, they'll drive a little faster and a little closer thereby negating the value of ABS.

 

Simple Man and Angry Man get together and want people to slow down and recognize conditions.  If it's snowing, drive slow.  If it's icy, watch the curves.  If it's really nasty, stay home.

 

 

If Simple Man had his way there would be no power locks.  There would be no power windows.  No power steering.  (I'd allow power brakes.)  And NO automatic transmissions.

 

I believe that automatic transmissions cause accidents.

 

You can't find any studies to back this up.  Any study comparing accident rates for automatic transmissions and manual transmissions will find a higher incidence rate in manual transmissions.  This is because the researchers fail to take into consideration the other factors:  Manual transmissions are more prevalent on sports cars and sport models of regular cars.  These are more likely to be purchased by people with relatively high risk tolerance.  Manual transmissions are also more common (especially historically) on cheaper cars.  Younger people buy cheaper cars and are more risk tolerant and more likely to have accidents.  My point being that the results are skewed not by the transmissions but by related factors.  If we could get a study that compared "identical" drivers on two different transmissions, I believe my theory would hold.

 

I would like driving to be more visceral, more connected to the road, not less.  With automatic transmissions, and all the other improvements that have made driving easier and easier, we become divorced from the act of driving.  It becomes so easy to control the vehicle, that our minds are not engaged.

 

A manual transmission requires all four limbs to be engaged in driving.  This means both sides of the brain are in on it.  Doing other things gets harder.  It's pretty hard to carry on a cell conversation without a hands free set, unless your neck and shoulder are a bit more flexible than mine.  Ever try to eat an ice cream cone while driving a stick shift?  I can get from Baskin-Robbins to my house all in second gear.  You've just got to roll the four-way stops and gun it up to speed and then coast with the clutch.  (See, that's why people with manual transmissions cause more accidents:  It's not because the use of four limbs makes it harder, it's because they're young and stupid.)

 

Basically, the more of you that's involved in driving, the more of your brain will be involved, too.  Any part that's allowed to drift will be less likely dominate the driving part because the brain has to keep jumping in to remind you to brake-clutch-shift-gas-ease the clutch-repeat.

 

Plus, if we make it harder to drive, teenagers and old people might have more trouble getting/keeping their licenses. 

 

Ah, yes, it's nice to let Angry Man have the last word.

 

Angry Man 2009.04.02 (Move your fat ass!)

This is the first Angry Man post.  It's a quick hit, but I wanted to get it up here so we'd have one of each, Angry, Happy, and Simple, on the boards.

I was at the gym...stop...seriously, stop laughing, that's not the joke!  People who know me know that my stories rarely begin with "I was at the gym."  My life is rarely lived "at the gym."  But I'm turning over a new leaf, working at it a bit, so back off.

Anyway, I was at the gym and something just stuck in my craw.  Why do people think it's ok to rest on a weight machine?  If you're going to do three sets on a machine, what could possibly make you think that you should sit on the machine the whole time.  Especially with some of these folks that are taking a siesta to recover from each set.

There was a young lady there last night, a bit heavier than she needed to be (let's be honest, she was pushing my size!), but she's sitting on the lat pull machine.  And just taking forever between sets.  I'm thinking, "You just did a heavy ten of 40 lbs!  I can certainly see why you can't find the strength to stand!"  Oh, and because I'm horribly hypocritical, I added, "Fat ass."

Is it a real issue for me?  Probably not, my whole purpose isn't to have lats so wide I can glide down from a building.  I'm there to burn calories, so I try to move from machine to machine quickly.  If someone's in the way, I just skip it and catch it the next time around.  Unless "fat ass" is still there.

The real problem here is me.  The real anger comes from my inability to be openly rude to people.  I'd love to say, "Move, I'm going to use that machine."  But I take the road of less resistance and just skip to the next one.

Somebody said somewhere that we only hate that which is in ourselves.  Damn, I hate when it works out that way.

Seth Rogan is Dead!

This is a Happy Man post.  Yes, Mr. Rogan's death makes me happy.  And, no, he's not really dead.

But his career is.

I saw him on The Daily Show last night; he was horrible.  His bits weren't particularly funny, but he laughed and/or choked at his own jokes throughout the interview.  It's like applause:  You just don't clap for yourself.

Bad interviews and questionable social skills don't kill a career.  Being in a copy of a Kevin James movie kills a career.  Anytime you lag a year behind Kevin James, you're done.

Mr. Rogan is the most current in a long line of actors, primarily comic actors, who have been lousy at what they do, and yet have made millions of dollars.  Most the others have come from SNL:  Horatio Sanz (who apparently is still paid to "act"), Chris Farley (actually dead!), David Spade, Chris Elliot, the rest of the cast of SNL, who managed to suck but in such boring, insipid ways that I don't even remember their names.

Deep breath.  This was inching toward Angry Man.

Nope, this is a good day.  A travesty of humor/acting/celebrity etc, has met his doom!

What is Simple Man?

This is the inaugural post, yet we'll focus on the last word.  It's the last, but it's the most important.

Notice that the word is "simple."  Simple Man.  Not "simpleton."  Or "simplistic."

Simple Man aims for clarity and elegance, not lack of nuance.

Simple Man springs from the idea that we too often make things harder than they need to be.  I am not necessarily looking to go back to horse and buggy; I'm certainly no Luddite.  Rather, our lives are so hectic and complex today, we need to find a way to strip clean all the frivolous complexity, all the interest for the sake of interest.  Simple Man wants to live a focused life.

Simple Man is a life philosophy, but it's also concrete, day-to-day.  For this first post, let's look at an easy example:  Clothing.  

Anyone who knows me can attest that I'm no sartorial exemplar, but even I have far more clothing than I need.  At his most extreme, Simple Man wants to get rid of neckties; they are simply remnants of prior function, today only splashes of color for society's approval.  I would even get rid of collars--butterfly, button-down, pinpoint, oxford.  What purpose do they serve?  If we need a collar, why not a band collar?  

In the more normal range, Simple Man just wants to be able to buy the same pair of shoes every two years.  You get a nice pair, you like them, they fit.  Two years later, they wear out.  You go back to the same store, look at the same brand.  Do you see the same shoes?  No, because the companies change them to create artificial interest.

In many ways, Simple Man is anti-consumerism.  That is just a side-effect.  That's not the root purpose.  Another anti-consumerist idea comes from the question of varying levels of quality.  I understand that we all cannot, in our current system, afford top quality, but why is that?  Why are lesser quality items even available?  I can see it in natural products.  Some areas might have a better season for apples than others.  But what about shirts?  Or toothbrushes?  Shouldn't any producer want to produce the best possible product?  If everyone was producing the best possible product, there would be no lesser quality "choices."

Simple Man is a new idea.  Something that's been percolating for a while, but I hadn't brought it out to the light of day.  Now it's out, but by no means complete.  I'll flesh it out, maybe with help, as we go along.

Simple Man is an ideal.  But don't worry, I'll post an Angry Man update soon and you'll see that idealism and cynicism can exist side by side in one human being.