Which wolf are you feeding?

Username:	Password:
Forgot your password?	Remember Me

Journal highlights to date:
The entries you should read if you're only going to read two:
The best entry ever
My favorite entry

And one link because I love this exercise, and I don't want it buried: Ask me anything

( Here's the rest )

I've found a repulsive little corner of the WoD. I was trying to find the origin of lawsuits against inanimate objects, like the amusingly named United States v. $8,850, and wound up digging into property forfeiture laws. It boils down to this: the government can arrest you and seize your property. You challange the forfiture and they pursue a civil suit against the property and you have to disprove *probable cause* in a civil court. Since you don't have to make the government pass the higher hurdle of a criminal case against YOU beyond reasonable doubt, they can keep your money/stuff w/o even bringing a charge against you. Now it's a fair point that they have to demonstrate PC for actual criminal activity, but depending on the state, having your cash contaminated by cocaine constitutes PC. Feeling good 'bout that?

From a friend:

IM: and the popularity of the UFC is growing rapidly
IM: the douchebagnaraok is coming
IM: a frat boy in a wolf shirt will devour the sun

Who are the 14% that think Fox is "mostly Liberal"?

( Why non-UFC federations will ALWAYS be better than the UFC )

NSFW due to incomprehensible non-nudity.

It strikes me that the Australian economists have something in common with the Peak Oil crowd in the 70's and the global warming crowd in the 80's. Dismissed as a fringe element, their problem is that they all told a truly inconvenient truth with some dismal predictions and recommendations. Over time, it will require a Kunhian notion of how to establish scientific truth rather than a Popper-ian model. As M is fond of pointing out to me, economics isn't a science the same way that chemistry is a science, however predictions and hypothesis can be demonstrated to be consistent with reality. The other distorting factor is that the very nature of politics shapes how consensus reality is perceived.

However, in this case, Kuhn will win. People will learn that debt is not free money. The Federal Reserve isn't going away, but my hope is that it's ability to drive reckless spending will be overcome by people's experience with their own reckless spending. As my Dad used to say, experience doesn't teach, but the interpretation of experience teaches. Some people will get it, some won't. The ones that do will begin to rely on their own due diligence to investigate their spending patterns, investment patterns, educational choices, and in a broader context, the nature of their grasping and aversion. (Sorry, Stick, if I got the serial commas wrong.)

I'm a sad man. I'm watching the first Laura Croft movie and am finding the dual H&K Match 45's nearly as hot as AJ.

See, I don't care so much if people have precognition, I want inanimate objects to have precognition and telepathy. That way you could see what your future with a new purchase could be.

Hallmark cards - "Hey, buy me. If you buy me for your girlfriend, her lower lip will start to tremble, her eyes will get all moist, she'll give a deep sigh and say 'oh, honey, that's soooo sweet. ", and she'll probably give you anal.

Cars - "Hey, buy me. I mean, yeah, I am an econobox, and you're pretty much handing your balls in at the dealership when you sign the papers, but next year when some asshole cuts you off and misses your front bumper by an inch, that one inch difference between me and the Mustang of your dreams means that you're leaning on the horn and not bravely learning to walk after getting hammered into the center divider by a Suburban."

Sofas - "Hey, buy me. Yeah, you'll wrench the shit out of your knee getting me up the stairs and miss the whole season of flag football, but that douchebag Wilson was pretty much going to house you all year on bump-and-runs. He'll drop football next year after his wife leaves him. Also, your girlfriend will give you anal on me."

Yahrtzeit. This remains a grief beyond words. Miss you, Dad.

Poll #1452913
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 23

An ex tells you that they still think about you when they masturbate.

View Answers

Cool
8 (34.8%)

Creepy
4 (17.4%)

Depends
15 (65.2%)

Who would you rather see beat Brock - Fedor, Nog, or Uriah Faber?

I just can't stop laughing...

"And then in the summertime such extreme summertime about a hundred and fifty degrees hotter than just some months ago, than just some months from now, with fireweed blooming along the frost heaves and merciless rivers that are rushing and carving and reminding us that here, Mother Nature wins. It is as throughout all Alaska that big wild good life teeming along the road that is north to the future. That is what we get to see every day."

Brock Lesnar** is going to present an interesting challenge for the UFC. The problem isn't about whether a heel can be popular with the fans. It's not that they won't show up because they hate him or love to hate him. The problem may be that people won't show up because they hate to see him *fight*. At the end of the day, for all of his amazing athleticism, his size is why he's winning. Don't believe me? Picture him in a "Best P4P" contest and think whether a 170 lb Brock could beat GSP, or beat Anderson at 185. I'll give you a minute to stop laughing, and then I'll remind you of how ugly Tim Sylvia's fights are. I like the guy, but just can't stand watching him fight. The Diaz boys are the reverse. They seem to be jerks, but they make for interesting fights and I'll watch them.

The other thing I sense from talking with MMA fans is this odd disquiet. In some way, BL represents the exact reverse of this unstated axiom that many MMA fans and participants share - that is, technique and training can overcome size. Brock points out that with a modicum of technique and training, lucky breaks on the genetics will help you beat up people with fantastic amounts of technique and training. Plenty of MMA students are drawing their personal validation from their training and being reminded that a huge bully may still hand them their ass is disappointing on a number of levels.

The big question: Could Lesnar beat Fedor? Sure, Fedor beat guys with tons of talent, and he's beaten huge guys, but he's never beaten someone Lesnar's size who's had that athleticism. If the fight happened tomorrow, I'd say it's a tossup.

** My original typo was "Brock Larson". The first person who spots the literary reference and why it would be on my mind in this context will receive a free custom screencap of a Google Trends chart that will make you laugh.

Yesterday, I went to kickboxing class solely on the strength of this entry from a friend, someone I admire a lot:

"Sometimes I go to the gym and I'm just kicking so much ass, every rep is a joy, I feel like I'm just tearing the place apart. Those days are great when they happen, but they aren't typically the norm for me.

Today was definitely not one of those days. I didn't want to go, and I just basically gutted out a workout. But I did it, and if I gotta do another one the next time, I will. The mark of you as an athlete is not your best day, at least that isn't how I think of it. No, the mark of an athlete is going and doing the work every time you need to, over and over again, rain, shine, happy, sad, whatever. You just friggin' go and do it.

And so, today, that is what I did. I checked the box."

I think a lot about entitlement and desire. Everybody wants stuff - a nice house, a loving partner, a black belt, fantastic abs, a bazooka filled with gummy bears. In my case, I'm happy where I live, I have a loving spouse, I've come to terms with the fact that I have fantastic abs which are hidden beneath a blanket of sad, and the judge was pretty clear about the bazooka thing. The black belt...well, I want the thing, but the question is whether I'm willing to do what it takes to get it. The process is a long series of "Show up. Check the Box". Every night is not Abu Dhabi night at the gym.

Desire is often bound up in self-identity. I want a thing not just because of it's inherent joys, but because I also like being the kind of person who has this thing. The sheer inherent joy of grappling is a delight, but having a belt means that I'm the person who did what it takes to get a belt. "Affliction t-shirt douchebags" is kind of a joke, but there's some truth to it. Acquiring the shibboleths of being an athlete is much easier than actually being an athlete. A belt means that you actually did it, that you actually are the kind of person who can do it, that you showed up day after day, constantly training with humility about your progress, constantly doing unpleasant things because the achievement is something that is integral to who you want to be. Wanting every practice to be stellar is wanting the belt without putting in the work. The achievement IMPLIES a long series of terrible workouts that you showed up for despite the aversion to suffering and the desire to be a star.

"Checking the box" is a great catch phrase for deciding what you want, then also deciding that you're willing to do what it takes to get it.

1) Muay Thai competition? Crap! I thought they said Pad Thai competition.

2) It dawns on me that for some people at my gym, martial arts practice is a socially acceptable substitute for cutting.

( The first rule about Paint Shop Pro errors... )

Wow, the Internet is just having it's way with me today. Best bit is around 3:20

( Also, for MMA fans )

Because you've all been waiting to hear my opinions on the upcoming SCOTUS pick, here goes. I'd love to read Elena Kagan's opinions for the next 30 years. She makes the language fetch and roll over and jump on command. Read "Private Speech, Public Purpose" if you can get hold of it - it's a brilliant statement about how Federal interests are smuggled into the reading of the first amendment. Also, she's on the side of angels with respect to executive power. On the other hand, she's supposed to be a great administrator, so she wont be completely wasted as Solicitor General.

Granholm shouldn't be on the list, Napolitano may get her chance if Ginsberg retires, and I wouldn't be unhappy about that. Napolitano is, I think, another administrator who may not get her chance at the SCOTUS because she's so badly needed where she is. Moreno won't get past the GOP.

I like Wood - she's good on UCC and seems very very smart. She may be another good choice as Obama's second or third pick. Sotomayor is a wolf in sheeps clothing, IMO. Southern Dems were pushing her as a palatable choice to W, and my read is that she's out with Thomas on executive power. My concern is that she'll be Obama's Souter except where it counts - on RKBA. She was also on Morgenthau's staff in NYC, Morgenthau not a man known for being unduly attached to the details of due process.

I would love to see Kathleen Sullivan and am disappointed but not surprised to see that she's not on the short list. a) She's gay, so if she were on the SCOTUS, we'd all have to start being gay, if I belive what I'm told. b) [real reason] She's an ACTUAL constitutional scholar. I really don't see a Justice who's seemingly as devoted to the 14th as she is being a big friend of this administration.