A French architect is claiming to have discovered the process through which the Egyptian Pyramids were built. Which leaves only one question regarding the architectural novels that are the Egyptian Pyramids; How the fuck did it take us 5,000 years to figure out something that was done by people who defecated in the same river that they drank from?
I believe a theory that I first conceived while reading a book on the 7 wonders of the ancient world may be illuminating:
We as a species have been getting progressively dumber since shortly after the dawn of civilization (shortly being relative, probably around 1000-2000 years). This is due to a dilution of the gene pool resulting from excessive procreation amongst the dumber elements of society.
It is widely accepted that as countries become more developed their population growth slows and the wealthier elements of society tend to have fewer children than poorer elements. Now, I don't mean to suggest that all wealthy people are smart and all poor people are dumb, but I do believe that a correlation exists between wealth and intelligence. (Here's the wikipedia link to a controversial book entitled IQ and the Wealth of Nations that tangentially supports this argument). Said correlation has been amplified by capitalism which has provided those most savvy and capable among us a far better opportunity to become wealthy then had been the case under previous economic systems. Over time, this creates a situation whereby high IQ individuals represent a smaller portion of the gene pool than low IQ individuals. Further, the likelihood of high IQ individuals procreating with low IQ individuals increases thus creating a generation that is less intelligent than the one that preceded it.
I know that this idea is wildly politically incorrect and I'm not even sure I stand by it, but as I was reading about the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and the Lighthouse of Alexandria I couldn't help but think about how impressive those creations were particularly with the limited resources of the time.
A counter argument would suggest that the limited resources were due to the lack of intelligence of the people existing in those civilizations. This is of course nonsense as it stands to reason that over time inventions and discoveries are inevitable regardless of the intelligence of the human species as a whole.
Mike Judge, creator of Beavis and Butt-Head and Office Space made a movie about the future of our ever dumbing society titled Idiocracy, that tackles this very idea in a comical fashion. It's a pretty funny film and it does well to satirize some of the dumber aspects of society.
Be back tomorrow with YouTube clips.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Bobby don't call her Whitney
I haven't had a cogent thought over the last several days so I'm going to recount a story from the past to compensate for my decided lack of personality in the present:
When I was a senior in college my roommate and I signed up for an intersession course (a course that meets for a month between first and second semester) in Italy. We arrived at the bus stop early one morning and met our professor and fellow classmates. They were not ideal companions for such a trip but there was an attractive female and a guy who seemed like he might be cool and we were headed to Italy for the first time so everything else was ancillary. We started drinking on the plane and arrived in Florence in jovial spirits.
By the time we checked into our hotel we had established enough of a relationship with our classmates to venture out into the Florence night with one another. We decided to go to a local Irish bar (as all Americans seem to do upon initial arrival in a foreign land) and started drinking heavily. I recall several Guinness' a bunch of shots and maybe a car bomb here and there.
Then the night turned black.
When I came to I was sprinting through the streets of Florence.
I wasn't really sure why I was running, in fact I had no idea why I was running (think Memento) but I figured there must be a good reason, so I kept up my frantic pace and dipped behind an alleyway corner after a couple blocks to evaluate the situation.
After a couple moments I peered back and saw nothing. I had no idea what I was running from but more importantly I had no idea where my run had brought me. I was in Florence without the slightest idea where I was, without any idea about the whereabouts of my hotel, and no clue as to its name.
I was fucking lost.
I stumbled around for a while trying to figure out how this had happened and how I was going to remedy the dire circumstances I had found myself in, when I remembered that there was an internet cafe across the street from our hotel called the Internet Train. So I went up to the first person I saw and asked them if they knew of the location of the Internet Train.
Apparently Internet Train in Florence is like Starbucks in New York because the person started pointing in about fifteen directions telling me the many locations of the Internet Train.
This was not good.
I began aimlessly walking around Florence approaching cabs and cop cars asking if they knew where my hotel was, getting blank stares in response and then stumbling away in frustration. I had no idea what to do and kept coming upon various Piazza's thinking I had seen them a million times before.
Finally, at around 5:30 in the morning, angry and distraught, stumbling through the empty streets of Florence, I came upon an Internet Train that looked familiar. I turned to my left and there was my hotel in all its glory. Rarely have I seen such a beautiful site.
With spring in my step I went up to the reception desk, got my key and called it a night.
When I was a senior in college my roommate and I signed up for an intersession course (a course that meets for a month between first and second semester) in Italy. We arrived at the bus stop early one morning and met our professor and fellow classmates. They were not ideal companions for such a trip but there was an attractive female and a guy who seemed like he might be cool and we were headed to Italy for the first time so everything else was ancillary. We started drinking on the plane and arrived in Florence in jovial spirits.
By the time we checked into our hotel we had established enough of a relationship with our classmates to venture out into the Florence night with one another. We decided to go to a local Irish bar (as all Americans seem to do upon initial arrival in a foreign land) and started drinking heavily. I recall several Guinness' a bunch of shots and maybe a car bomb here and there.
Then the night turned black.
When I came to I was sprinting through the streets of Florence.
I wasn't really sure why I was running, in fact I had no idea why I was running (think Memento) but I figured there must be a good reason, so I kept up my frantic pace and dipped behind an alleyway corner after a couple blocks to evaluate the situation.
After a couple moments I peered back and saw nothing. I had no idea what I was running from but more importantly I had no idea where my run had brought me. I was in Florence without the slightest idea where I was, without any idea about the whereabouts of my hotel, and no clue as to its name.
I was fucking lost.
I stumbled around for a while trying to figure out how this had happened and how I was going to remedy the dire circumstances I had found myself in, when I remembered that there was an internet cafe across the street from our hotel called the Internet Train. So I went up to the first person I saw and asked them if they knew of the location of the Internet Train.
Apparently Internet Train in Florence is like Starbucks in New York because the person started pointing in about fifteen directions telling me the many locations of the Internet Train.
This was not good.
I began aimlessly walking around Florence approaching cabs and cop cars asking if they knew where my hotel was, getting blank stares in response and then stumbling away in frustration. I had no idea what to do and kept coming upon various Piazza's thinking I had seen them a million times before.
Finally, at around 5:30 in the morning, angry and distraught, stumbling through the empty streets of Florence, I came upon an Internet Train that looked familiar. I turned to my left and there was my hotel in all its glory. Rarely have I seen such a beautiful site.
With spring in my step I went up to the reception desk, got my key and called it a night.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
The invention inventory
So I was reading a Klosterman post from Esquire (http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0306KLOSTERMAN_124_2), and I had just had another idea for an invention, so I figured I'd write about a couple of them.
First: Flip flops with a pocket in the side of the sole. The pocket would be very small, such that it would be difficult to place anything in there other than money or credit cards (or ID's). I have also envisioned this as a zipper pocket with a carrying case that has a bit of rope at the end of it, so you place the money and card in the case (think baseball card plastic protectors) and you slip it into the pocket. When you need to get it out, you can pull the bit of rope, pay the bartender, and start drinking. Ideal for beach environs.
Second: For magazine subscriptions; the option of having the magazine sent to your home, or, having a credit card sent to your home that allows you to "purchase" one issue of the magazine at a newsstand per month. This is ideal for forgetful or oft-late individuals, who find themselves at airports/train stations, wishing they had the copy of a magazine that is sitting on their coffee table. Instead, the costumer would pay the annual subscription rate and the credit card would entitle them to one newsstand copy a month. The cards could be sponsored by actual credit card companies as a way of recouping production and tertiary costs.
Third: A program that turns a computer keyboard into a music keyboard. So when the application is accessed the "a" button becomes a certain sound, the "b" button a similar but somewhat higher pitched sound and so on and so forth. This program would also allow for recording, thus allowing any user to become a DIY music producer who could then upload their "beats" to a file sharing service and show their "skillz".
First: Flip flops with a pocket in the side of the sole. The pocket would be very small, such that it would be difficult to place anything in there other than money or credit cards (or ID's). I have also envisioned this as a zipper pocket with a carrying case that has a bit of rope at the end of it, so you place the money and card in the case (think baseball card plastic protectors) and you slip it into the pocket. When you need to get it out, you can pull the bit of rope, pay the bartender, and start drinking. Ideal for beach environs.
Second: For magazine subscriptions; the option of having the magazine sent to your home, or, having a credit card sent to your home that allows you to "purchase" one issue of the magazine at a newsstand per month. This is ideal for forgetful or oft-late individuals, who find themselves at airports/train stations, wishing they had the copy of a magazine that is sitting on their coffee table. Instead, the costumer would pay the annual subscription rate and the credit card would entitle them to one newsstand copy a month. The cards could be sponsored by actual credit card companies as a way of recouping production and tertiary costs.
Third: A program that turns a computer keyboard into a music keyboard. So when the application is accessed the "a" button becomes a certain sound, the "b" button a similar but somewhat higher pitched sound and so on and so forth. This program would also allow for recording, thus allowing any user to become a DIY music producer who could then upload their "beats" to a file sharing service and show their "skillz".
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Like a Stumbling Boulder
A review of a Rolling Stone issue (also, here's a link to a much more worthwhile publication in terms of music reviews www.pitchforkmedia.com. Pitchfork can be monumentally pedantic and self-involved (David Cross' "review" satirizes Pitchfork herehttp://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/10279-guest-list-david-cross-albums-to-listen-to-while-reading-overwrought-pitchfork-reviews) but generally does well to review interesting, and upcoming artists):
If Rolling Stone were an ice cream, it’d be Chocolate - more unique than Vanilla (and proud of itself for being so) but not nearly as unusual as Rocky Road or Cherry Garcia. Nowhere is this more evident than in the August 10, 2006 edition.
The cover is a picture of Jimmy Page and Robert Plant from an era long gone looking cool as ever. It proclaims Zeppelin to be the “Heaviest Band of All Time,” which is a fair attempt at a bold title, and while it’s not exactly timely it is nice to see RS featuring musicians rather than Angelina Jolie or Avril Lavigne.
The table of contents declares that it is “All the News that Fits,” which I imagine was at some point edgy and counter-culturey, but now sounds like a joke my 9th grade math teacher might have made.
The front of the book is well designed with interesting music industry information, obits of famous musicians and general pop culture matters. There does seem to be a strong emphasis on the bottom line with nearly every news item mentioning sales if not actual dollar amounts. While money is obviously the engine of the music industry, that which drives the car is the music, and it seems Rolling Stone sometimes forgets that concept.
The feature story on Zeppelin is Rolling Stone doing what Rolling Stone does best. It’s a lengthy (eight page) look at the band and is interesting to both casual fans and Zeppelin aficionados. The pictures are an impressive collection that do well to highlight the essence of the article (there is also a picture of Page swigging Jack Daniels that is flat out inspiring). The article gets behind the scenes (and takes the reader there with it) at all the big moments of Zep’s career and provides insider info about a band that was always hard to understand.
The ending informs the reader that Mikal Gilmore, the articles author, has been writing for RS since 1976. This is why Rolling Stone can remain relevant despite it’s inability to fully grasp today’s music scene – it has unparalleled access to pop culture history, and in this article, it shows.
The problem with Rolling Stone is evident in two sections. First, in Target Iran, the magazine’s national affairs story, they discuss how the Pentagon and the Bush administration are once again plotting to start a war. At this point Rolling Stone would be far more controversial and edgy if they were to support something the Bush administration did. I'm certain that I could outline the political views of the editorial staff of RS, when a layman can do such a thing (or at least thinks he can), the magazine has lost it's ability to captivate an audience.
The other matter is more musical in its fault. The CD review section features eight separate reviews of new records. Six of the reviews receive three stars with two receiving three and a half. This is not compelling material. Frankly, if a music magazine cannot find a single record worth panning or extolling then it shouldn't be put out. There are too many records released each week to not be able to find something that isn't, well, vanilla. And this is where Rolling Stone has become irrelevant. The magazine is no longer willing to, or able to, decipher musical trends, or find the bands that are creating them. Very few music junkies turn to RS to find the next big thing, because RS is too busy churning out three star music reviews of records put out by the big five production companies.
Rolling Stone was an important magazine. It was chocolate when vanilla was all there was. However, the internet is Ben and Jerry and Rolling Stone has yet to add any flavor to its recipe.
If Rolling Stone were an ice cream, it’d be Chocolate - more unique than Vanilla (and proud of itself for being so) but not nearly as unusual as Rocky Road or Cherry Garcia. Nowhere is this more evident than in the August 10, 2006 edition.
The cover is a picture of Jimmy Page and Robert Plant from an era long gone looking cool as ever. It proclaims Zeppelin to be the “Heaviest Band of All Time,” which is a fair attempt at a bold title, and while it’s not exactly timely it is nice to see RS featuring musicians rather than Angelina Jolie or Avril Lavigne.
The table of contents declares that it is “All the News that Fits,” which I imagine was at some point edgy and counter-culturey, but now sounds like a joke my 9th grade math teacher might have made.
The front of the book is well designed with interesting music industry information, obits of famous musicians and general pop culture matters. There does seem to be a strong emphasis on the bottom line with nearly every news item mentioning sales if not actual dollar amounts. While money is obviously the engine of the music industry, that which drives the car is the music, and it seems Rolling Stone sometimes forgets that concept.
The feature story on Zeppelin is Rolling Stone doing what Rolling Stone does best. It’s a lengthy (eight page) look at the band and is interesting to both casual fans and Zeppelin aficionados. The pictures are an impressive collection that do well to highlight the essence of the article (there is also a picture of Page swigging Jack Daniels that is flat out inspiring). The article gets behind the scenes (and takes the reader there with it) at all the big moments of Zep’s career and provides insider info about a band that was always hard to understand.
The ending informs the reader that Mikal Gilmore, the articles author, has been writing for RS since 1976. This is why Rolling Stone can remain relevant despite it’s inability to fully grasp today’s music scene – it has unparalleled access to pop culture history, and in this article, it shows.
The problem with Rolling Stone is evident in two sections. First, in Target Iran, the magazine’s national affairs story, they discuss how the Pentagon and the Bush administration are once again plotting to start a war. At this point Rolling Stone would be far more controversial and edgy if they were to support something the Bush administration did. I'm certain that I could outline the political views of the editorial staff of RS, when a layman can do such a thing (or at least thinks he can), the magazine has lost it's ability to captivate an audience.
The other matter is more musical in its fault. The CD review section features eight separate reviews of new records. Six of the reviews receive three stars with two receiving three and a half. This is not compelling material. Frankly, if a music magazine cannot find a single record worth panning or extolling then it shouldn't be put out. There are too many records released each week to not be able to find something that isn't, well, vanilla. And this is where Rolling Stone has become irrelevant. The magazine is no longer willing to, or able to, decipher musical trends, or find the bands that are creating them. Very few music junkies turn to RS to find the next big thing, because RS is too busy churning out three star music reviews of records put out by the big five production companies.
Rolling Stone was an important magazine. It was chocolate when vanilla was all there was. However, the internet is Ben and Jerry and Rolling Stone has yet to add any flavor to its recipe.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Jeoparity
Before thoughts on Jeopardy, here's the coolest site I've found in a long time...
http://blog.awswebshop.com/2006/10/15/turn-google-into-your-own-personal-free-napster/ Enjoy.
Otherwise, I had a thought while watching today's Jeopardy that I think is worthwhile. On Friday's show, the three contestants tied with $16000 a piece - the first time in the show's history that a three-way tie had occurred. My initial thought was that the gentleman with the lead going into Final Jeopardy, Scott, was a bit of a knob for not risking the extra dollar to take the victory. However, further examination led me to a different conclusion. Scott had been beating his opponents soundly going into Final Jeopardy; both of them were tied at $8,000 and had no choice but to wager everything. Therefore, by betting just enough to tie both of them, Scott assured that a correct answer would net him no less than $16,000 (as the victor) as well as the possibility of competing against one or two opponents he had already essentially defeated. In Jeopardy every new contestant is a serious threat to the previous day's victor, if a contestant can assure himself of beatable competition then he has a decided advantage over a contestant competing against unknown competition.
Today after running out to the early lead and being up something like $22,400 to 11,600 to 10,000 going into final Jeopardy, Scott failed to answer the question correctly (On May 5, 1961 he said this "Oh, what a beautiful view" - answer at bottom) and lost. Maybe this invalidates the argument, but as any good poker player will say, make the decision based on the odds, if the results don't work, you’ve still made the right play. If the move was made strategically on Scott's part - I applaud his creativity and believe future contestants should consider his approach; If the move was not made strategically, then I still (begrudgingly) applaud him for his altruism.
Answer: Alan Shepard (both Scott and the third place finisher said John Glenn)
http://blog.awswebshop.com/2006/10/15/turn-google-into-your-own-personal-free-napster/ Enjoy.
Otherwise, I had a thought while watching today's Jeopardy that I think is worthwhile. On Friday's show, the three contestants tied with $16000 a piece - the first time in the show's history that a three-way tie had occurred. My initial thought was that the gentleman with the lead going into Final Jeopardy, Scott, was a bit of a knob for not risking the extra dollar to take the victory. However, further examination led me to a different conclusion. Scott had been beating his opponents soundly going into Final Jeopardy; both of them were tied at $8,000 and had no choice but to wager everything. Therefore, by betting just enough to tie both of them, Scott assured that a correct answer would net him no less than $16,000 (as the victor) as well as the possibility of competing against one or two opponents he had already essentially defeated. In Jeopardy every new contestant is a serious threat to the previous day's victor, if a contestant can assure himself of beatable competition then he has a decided advantage over a contestant competing against unknown competition.
Today after running out to the early lead and being up something like $22,400 to 11,600 to 10,000 going into final Jeopardy, Scott failed to answer the question correctly (On May 5, 1961 he said this "Oh, what a beautiful view" - answer at bottom) and lost. Maybe this invalidates the argument, but as any good poker player will say, make the decision based on the odds, if the results don't work, you’ve still made the right play. If the move was made strategically on Scott's part - I applaud his creativity and believe future contestants should consider his approach; If the move was not made strategically, then I still (begrudgingly) applaud him for his altruism.
Answer: Alan Shepard (both Scott and the third place finisher said John Glenn)
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Wired
I had an idea for an episode of the Wire one evening when I was in the shower.
The idea stems from the premise of the show, which in my estimation can be boiled down to the struggle between good and evil. This is a standard literary convention but what makes it compelling in the Wire is that the good side and the evil side are not readily apparent. In fact, those who we would normally associate with good are often as self-interested and immoral as those we would tend to associate with evil, if not more so. Further, the characters are so well developed that the struggle exists internally as well as externally allowing us to see flaws in characters we tend to believe to be good. The overarching theme is that righteousness and rightness exist in every element of society (excepting possibly politicians) but wears different clothes and assumes different stances depending which side of the law it's on.
That being said, the show thrives on it's authenticity. It moves at it's own pace and not a single line feels like it's a plot device or intended to further a story line. Every line is delivered as though it was meant for the character. This creates a reality that is both gripping and believable.
These two elements create the perfect backdrop for an examination of moral luck. Omar, a drug-dealer robbing, hood, is one of the most engrossing and likable characters on the show. He is "29, or thereabouts," as he says on the witness stand during season two, he's openly gay, and he has been robbing drug dealers for close to a decade and giving most of the proceeds back to the people from whom the drug trade steals (the innocents, I mean, not the users). He also has a menacing scar on his face, and has killed numerous individuals during the course of the show. But Omar has always existed within the confines of his own moral code. As he says on the witness stand, "I ain't ever put my pistol on nobody wan'nt in the game."
Omar's profession requires him to sometimes act recklessly in order to succeed. In several episodes he engages in what is essentially street warfare.
So I believe, an episode in which he were to accidentally kill a person, even a child, who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time would lead Omar, and I think the viewer, to some really interesting moral questions.
Specifically, do we hold Omar in contempt because he had the misfortune of having a bullet of his hit an innocent bystander despite viewing him with adoration prior? Do his intentions cancel out the negative effects of his actions? Do his previous actions negate his misfortune? How can our own perceptions of him change simply because of his misfortune? What would be justice in this scenario?
And I'm curious how he would react. Would he turn himself in to the police? He has never seemed like the type of character that would believe ultimate justice should be meted out by law enforcement. What would be ultimate justice in his mind under these circumstances? I honestly don't know.
I mentioned this idea to a friend, Angry, and he immediately discounted it by saying that Omar was too good for that to happen. Frankly, I agree with him, but moral luck is a reality that we all must live with and it is for that very reason that I think this subplot should happen.
The idea stems from the premise of the show, which in my estimation can be boiled down to the struggle between good and evil. This is a standard literary convention but what makes it compelling in the Wire is that the good side and the evil side are not readily apparent. In fact, those who we would normally associate with good are often as self-interested and immoral as those we would tend to associate with evil, if not more so. Further, the characters are so well developed that the struggle exists internally as well as externally allowing us to see flaws in characters we tend to believe to be good. The overarching theme is that righteousness and rightness exist in every element of society (excepting possibly politicians) but wears different clothes and assumes different stances depending which side of the law it's on.
That being said, the show thrives on it's authenticity. It moves at it's own pace and not a single line feels like it's a plot device or intended to further a story line. Every line is delivered as though it was meant for the character. This creates a reality that is both gripping and believable.
These two elements create the perfect backdrop for an examination of moral luck. Omar, a drug-dealer robbing, hood, is one of the most engrossing and likable characters on the show. He is "29, or thereabouts," as he says on the witness stand during season two, he's openly gay, and he has been robbing drug dealers for close to a decade and giving most of the proceeds back to the people from whom the drug trade steals (the innocents, I mean, not the users). He also has a menacing scar on his face, and has killed numerous individuals during the course of the show. But Omar has always existed within the confines of his own moral code. As he says on the witness stand, "I ain't ever put my pistol on nobody wan'nt in the game."
Omar's profession requires him to sometimes act recklessly in order to succeed. In several episodes he engages in what is essentially street warfare.
So I believe, an episode in which he were to accidentally kill a person, even a child, who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time would lead Omar, and I think the viewer, to some really interesting moral questions.
Specifically, do we hold Omar in contempt because he had the misfortune of having a bullet of his hit an innocent bystander despite viewing him with adoration prior? Do his intentions cancel out the negative effects of his actions? Do his previous actions negate his misfortune? How can our own perceptions of him change simply because of his misfortune? What would be justice in this scenario?
And I'm curious how he would react. Would he turn himself in to the police? He has never seemed like the type of character that would believe ultimate justice should be meted out by law enforcement. What would be ultimate justice in his mind under these circumstances? I honestly don't know.
I mentioned this idea to a friend, Angry, and he immediately discounted it by saying that Omar was too good for that to happen. Frankly, I agree with him, but moral luck is a reality that we all must live with and it is for that very reason that I think this subplot should happen.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Music, for or against?
Couple things. There's a band called Moros Eros (http://www.myspace.com/moroseros) from Atlanta (or somewhere thereabouts) that I've been listening to allot lately. They kind of sound like Modest Mouse sometimes which is cool. Their drummer is supreme. I've also been listening to Portishead a fair amount lately and would definitely recommend them to anyone that likes chill mood music from time to time. Otherwise, below I have listed a hip hop mix that I use when I go to the gym and I want to list it for further suggestions.
Huslin' - Rick Ross
Blow - Rick Ross
What you know - T.I.
Bonnie n Shyne - Shyne
Bad Boys - Shyne
Gimme the Loot - Biggie
Ride Around Shining - Clipse
Brooklyn's Finest - Biggie and Jay-Z
Dead Presidents - Jay-Z
Ether - Nas
Who Shot Ya - Biggie
Quiet Storm - Mobb Deap
Hit em up - Tupac
As you can see I tend to prefer my hip hoppers to be hard when they step to the mic. I often say that I like rappers who I think would kill me for being white. That being said, I also tend to prefer east coast mc's. I don't really feel like I can relate to the west coast cats, what with growing up in such a different area and what not. If anyone has any suggestions for more singles to add to my list feel free to comment or email, thanks in advance.
On an entirely unrelated note, I had an interesting revelation about boxing and ufc last night at a local bar. ESPN Classic was showing the Tyson/Spinks massacre and I was telling my two drinking companions about when my family got the fight (the one time in family history I remember us getting pay-per-view) and then it was over in 90 seconds. When the announcements were done and the fighting began Spinks got smoked so quick you could miss it by looking down to take a drink. Anyway, it occurred to me that the reason I prefer boxing to ufc is because boxing is a more accurate metaphor for life. In boxing, as in life, strength and aggression are rewarded but not when unchecked. There is a specific set of rules, some of which are seemingly arbitrary, through which the contest must be played. Any violation of the rules and the contestant is reprimanded, multiple violations and the contestant can be disqualified. In ufc, the only rules are those intended to prevent serious lasting injury to ones opponent, there are no confines within which the match is played, it's a free-for-all in which any behavior is acceptable. I cannot think of a single situation in life in which this scenario plays itself out. Even war has rules. This is why, I don't think I can ever accept ufc as a sport, it's more like a barfight with a larger audience.
Huslin' - Rick Ross
Blow - Rick Ross
What you know - T.I.
Bonnie n Shyne - Shyne
Bad Boys - Shyne
Gimme the Loot - Biggie
Ride Around Shining - Clipse
Brooklyn's Finest - Biggie and Jay-Z
Dead Presidents - Jay-Z
Ether - Nas
Who Shot Ya - Biggie
Quiet Storm - Mobb Deap
Hit em up - Tupac
As you can see I tend to prefer my hip hoppers to be hard when they step to the mic. I often say that I like rappers who I think would kill me for being white. That being said, I also tend to prefer east coast mc's. I don't really feel like I can relate to the west coast cats, what with growing up in such a different area and what not. If anyone has any suggestions for more singles to add to my list feel free to comment or email, thanks in advance.
On an entirely unrelated note, I had an interesting revelation about boxing and ufc last night at a local bar. ESPN Classic was showing the Tyson/Spinks massacre and I was telling my two drinking companions about when my family got the fight (the one time in family history I remember us getting pay-per-view) and then it was over in 90 seconds. When the announcements were done and the fighting began Spinks got smoked so quick you could miss it by looking down to take a drink. Anyway, it occurred to me that the reason I prefer boxing to ufc is because boxing is a more accurate metaphor for life. In boxing, as in life, strength and aggression are rewarded but not when unchecked. There is a specific set of rules, some of which are seemingly arbitrary, through which the contest must be played. Any violation of the rules and the contestant is reprimanded, multiple violations and the contestant can be disqualified. In ufc, the only rules are those intended to prevent serious lasting injury to ones opponent, there are no confines within which the match is played, it's a free-for-all in which any behavior is acceptable. I cannot think of a single situation in life in which this scenario plays itself out. Even war has rules. This is why, I don't think I can ever accept ufc as a sport, it's more like a barfight with a larger audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
