Crotch Shot Humor -- Photo of the Week 24 Aug 2009

Call it juvenile, but some things never lose their humor:

Photo sent by Josh M.

I think Shaolin monks are known for their ability to tolerate enormous amounts of pain. Taking a Karate Kid-esque Flying Crane kick to the equipment would most definitely fall into that category. And based on the photo backdrop, I can only deduce that this is taking place in some Asian house of legislation, where instead of pounding a gavel or ringing a bell to begin new parliamentary sessions, the Speaker of the House commits an atrocity against a buddhist monk. Look at all the pent-up frustration in that lawmaker's face! There must be a testy piece of health care legislation on the debate docket.

My sister Jen asked me once why, as males, we laugh uproariously when a fellow man is struck in the man-area. Dodgeballs, fists, knees, wrenches... Any object hitting a man in the crotch with violent force -- for whatever inane reason -- is hilarious to us. Except, of course, if we're on the receiving end. In those cases, all we can muster is a weak yelp and collapse in nauseating pain. This leads me to conclude that we men possess none of the following: 1) Maturity; 2) empathy; 3) a belief in karmic retribution.

While I'm at it, some things that will never lose their humor, just off the top of my head:

Watching other men try to show off -- and fail : I was in the gym at work this past week and there was a man in a t-shirt, nicely-pressed slacks, and heavy-looking dress shoes running on the treadmill. It looked uncomfortable. He was loudly commenting to the man on the adjacent treadmill "Yeah, I haven't worked out in like 8 months!" and then proceeded to crank the treadmill pace up to 12.5 mph. Genius! As I listened/watched the man plod along in his dress shoes -- he sounded like a Clydesdale whose hooves had been soaked in cement, were left to dry, and now was galloping full force on them -- I just knew something was going to happen. And something did. He lost his footing and fell, luckily catching himself before flying off the treadmill. Thank goodness he was not injured -- both for himself, and the fact that if he had been, I would be an a-hole for relaying this incident and laughing every time I think about it.

People that are heavily involved in Medieval reenactments: No explanation needed, but in case you needed a reminder, click away.

Happy Monday, all. Men: be protective of your manhood this week. Also, depending on how my schedule works out, it could be a good writing week. Stay tuned.

Read more...

Sleep Drooling -- Photo of the Week 17 Aug 2009

This one was taken a while ago. However, no other image conveys what I would rather be doing right now. And no, "drooling on your friend's mother's leather couch" is not what I meant. Sleep. Sleep is what I meant.

It was a fun weekend, but after lots of driving, chasing my nieces around, taking calls from work at 2am, and my sister Juli taking me on a "jog" (read: Bataan Death March) through some perilous jungle, I am exhausted today.


Regardless, Happy Monday to you. To temporarily distract your minds from the restrictive, fluorescent-bulbed hell that is your work cubicle, I have created a survey on the right to get your take on the Bourne movies.

Origins of survey: After listening to a lesson at church, BiL Ben was insistent on conveying the following principle to me: If you're in a brawl with someone, always have something in your hands to fight with. He cited the rolled-up magazine in The Bourne Supremacy. Don't ask me how this related to the lesson topic in any way -- I know for sure the lesson wasn't about Samson and the ass's jawbone -- but I'm sure it was related. If Ben has taught us anything, it is that his mind is unfailingly logical. Enjoy.

Read more...

More From the Beasties

We're all familiar with the term and fashion abomination that is the mullet. I won't delve into why we abhor this haircut, because websites -- as well as books and doctoral dissertations, I'm sure -- have been dedicated to the topic. Needless to say, my simple reasoning is that we don't like ugly, and mullets are ugly. Hence, we don't like mullets.

Anyway, according to an article in the Seattle Times that cites the Oxford English Dictionary, the Beasties made the term "mullet" popular by ripping on the haircut in the 1994 song "Mullet Head" and also penning an article about it in their label's magazine, Grand Royal, called "Mulling Over the Mullet."

I can't speak to the authoritativeness of the Oxford English Dictionary (really, who compiled this thing -- PhDs? "scholars"??), but if they're willing to attribute a modern cultural reference to the Beastie Boys, their credibility goes up in my eyes.

...And my odd fascination with the B-Boys continues...

Read more...

Guest Blogger: Begs What?

******Warning: NOT JOSH******

I am not Josh. But reading his blog inspired me to complain publicly about the things that bother me. So I now write about when people say “begs the question.” But first I will head off any and all of your questions:

1. Q: Who are you? A: Who am I? Who are you?
2. Q: Are you qualified to post on Josh’s blog? A: 1. I’m a doctor. 2. I already have a quote on here (see right hand side of page for hilarity). 3. I am related to Josh (And no: “I once stayed up with Josh all night drinking Dr. Pepper and watching Lord of the Rings and/or Jason Bourne and then went on a Betos run in the morning” does not count as related to Josh. It counts as “I should have worked harder in college.”).
3. Q: I don’t like you. A: That’s not even a question; try and stay on topic.
4. Q: Why would the phrase “begs the question” bother you? That’s weird. A: I’ll tell you why.

When was the last time you heard someone say “begs the question?” (Ha, who’s asking the questions now?). It was probably by some reporter on TV who said “President Bush is disliked by such a large majority of the population, it begs the question . . . how was he reelected?” Or, “The man had a firearm at the airport terminal, which begs the question . . . how did he get it through security?” Or, the 2-year-old child was found wandering the street at 2AM (near Betos restaurant, and I use the term restaurant loosely), which begs the question . . . where were her parents?” Well, whoever said these phrases, or phrases like unto them, are idiots! Hearing stuff like this completely Battlefield Earths me. What these people mean to say is “prompts the question” or “elicits the question.” It doesn’t beg the question! How does a question beg? Am I begging for the question to be raised?

Begging the question is a logical fallacy that presupposes a premise of an argument to be true, without proof other than the argument itself; and/or when the proposition of an argument is assumed in the premises. Here is an example that I often come across:

1. Mormons believe X
2. I don’t believe X
3. Anything I don’t believe is False

∴ Therefore, Mormonism is False

This arguer is begging the question because he is assuming #3 to be true without proof, and because he is assuming the proposition (Mormonism is False, see #2-3) in the premises. (Please note: the preceding argument is valid, meaning that the proposition follows from the premises (nearly all arguments based on circular reasoning are valid), but it is NOT sound—a sound argument must be valid and have all true premises). Are you paying attention? This is important.

I once heard a TV commentator use the phrase “prompts the question.” It was amazing. For me, it was probably tantamount to the feelings most people had when the 1980 hockey team beat the Russians. Some people think that the phrase is misused so often that it should just become part of the common vernacular in its incorrect form. This is absurd. If enough people do something wrong, should it become OK? That’s pinko talk.

So I ask all of you to join with me in my fight against the incorrect usage of “begging the question,” which should only be used in critiquing an argument. It’s a good fight, because you only have to fight very infrequently, and you get to feel smart.

Read more...

Neverending Logical Strings: "If this....then...AND then...therefore"

"PAPER or PLASTIC?"


It seems like an ordinary, everyday question, but the implications—politically, environmentally, ecumenically—may run deeper than you think when you tell that underpaid (and unlikely to understand any English besides "paper" or "plastic") grocery-bagger of your choice of bag.


Well, besides personal preference for how you carry your grocery bags, or the utility of the bags after they've served their initial purpose, I don't see how you could be a strong advocate for one or the other. The interesting thing that got me thinking about this, however, is the logic used by those who DO hold strong opinions regarding one or the other.


Some environmentalists will say "paper" because it is recyclable, and, at the very least, biodegradable. It does, however, kill trees. Lots of them. And to serve what purpose? To be used once, maybe twice, then thrown away. So plastic must be the way to go, right? True, it saves the trees from being cut down, but it is 100% non-biodegradable, and quite possibly contributes to the killing of animals that Green Peace or PETA or someone is trying to save (didn't Russell Crowe asphyxiate that tiger in the Colosseum-scene in "Gladiator" with a plastic grocery sack? I can't remember).


I suppose you could take the saving the trees argument far enough down the logical line to say: "Well, if you're saving trees, then there are more trees to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen…and THEN you're indirectly fighting global warming," or something...but then, you're still stuck with the rising landfills and dying cuddly animals problem, which, last time I checked, aren't incredibly environmentally- or ecosystem- friendly.

Which brings me to another point. If you have the option in a public restroom of using paper towels or the hand dryer, which do you use? Paper towels are faster and you don't have to sit around, but supposedly the hand dryers were instated to be more environmentally friendly and save some trees and avoid waste buildup. (Not to mention that getting rid of paper towels eliminates the possible-embarassing-items-that-you-could-walk-out-with-stuck- to-the-bottom-of-your-shoe-dilemma back down to toilet paper only). Not a bad argument. But when you press that button on the hand-dryer, aren't you using electricity? This may be a stretch because the amount of electricity that you use is negligible, but that electricity is most likely coming from one of many coal-burning plants, which are major sources of greenhouse gases that are allegedly the cause of global warming in the first place.

Quite the conundrum.

I don't write this to further paralyze people from making decisions, so that when they're in the supermarket and are innocently asked "paper or plastic" they freeze like a deer in the headlights because images of dying seagulls flash through their minds; nor when they are done taking care of business in the bathroom to make them stare aimlessly at the paper towel dispenser and/or the hand dryer thingy.

Nor am I advocating that we continue to be consumers who refuse to consider the consequences of excessive consumption. We are stewards here and have the responsibility to do what we can to take care of the planet.

I'm just saying that you can only use the running-train of logic that a lot of people with special interests (in this particular blog entry, environmentalists or animal rights' activists...which, by the way, I am not picking on, this just happened to be the first subject I thought of) can take us down: "If this is the case...then this...AND then this...etc", but end up coming full circle or contradicting themselves. There are a lot of flip sides to a lot of coins.

So I guess I should add "…but probably not" to the very end of my opening paragraph.

Read more...