The Mala Perspective

It appears, thanks to the announcement of the past year’s temperature cooling rate, that the theory of man-made global warming is on its last legs. It’s time to get the word out and stop anti-business legislation before it moves another step forward! Full article coming soon.

Recently, congress has questioned 7-time Cy Young winner Roger Clemens in several multi-hour sessions about whether or not he used Human Growth Hormone, or HGH (which is designed to repair muscle damage, by the way). What of uneasy relations with nuclear superpowers China and Russia? Have we forgotten about the fact that a billion of the world’s people want us all dead? Nevermind that, says Big Brother. It’s more important to find out whether or not a baseball pitcher enhanced his performance with a chemical that wasn’t FDA approved. Barry Bonds’ former trainer has spent two years in prison because he wouldn’t say whether or not his client used “performance-enhancing drugs”. Roger Clemens has been forced to indict his own wife’s one time use, and Andy Pettite has revealed that it was his father who connected him to HGH. As is the story of modern American history, one unconstitutional overreach of government power has yielded another, until now we’ve arrived at this latest mockery of liberty. It knows no bounds, will investigate any private matter, and does so with its belligerent threat of force. I’m glad Thomas Jefferson didn’t have to see this.

This type of government muscle flexing is not new. Bureaucrats constantly look for ways to show that they are more powerful than the petty individuals over which they rule – even the likes of revered sports athletes. If you don’t believe me, ask Bill Gates. And this damaging, drawn out, and totally unjustified “investigation” has been carried out under an increasingly tiresome and worn-out guise. We’ve got to protect our children! This is a stretch even for the busybodies who exploit purported childrens’ interests for their own goals at every turn. Nothing disgusts me more than using children as the boot on the neck of liberty.

Steroids are an ‘epidemic’ among young people, we’re told. Nevermind that behaviors are not diseases, and that likening steroid use to an actual epidemic such as, say, Spanish influenza or smallpox seems to be alarmist of Chicken Little-esque proportions. And more dishonest. The reason they give for this ludicrous display of government authority is that professional athletes are a “bad influence” on children. I’m trying to count how many things are wrong with this argument. Firstly, before congress put its nose in the issue, it was much less well-known. I’m unsure how Mark McGuire using steroids unknown to children was a bad influence on them. Secondly, and most crucially, being a bad influence is not a crime. Should we have locked up Clapton for writing “Cocaine”? Or anyone who smokes cigarettes within sight of a child? Or Bukowski for… well, being Bukowski? I want to see congress interview the Cookie Monster for being such a bad influence – I know cookies are a much more prevalent epidemic (I believe this is the modern usage, right?) among our nation’s children.

I’m ready to tell the government that it’s time they worry more about blowing up terrorists and less about what I want to put into my own body (See: trans fats). Are you?

Most men have been there at one time or another – you have a great time with a girl, who says she wants to see you again, and then she doesn’t call you back.

Today, I’m going to talk about the psychology of such women (and certainly men do this as well, but I have little experience with that). I understand the motivation. Several months ago, a girl wanted a relationship with me, but I was not interested. I knew I could easily tell her that I wasn’t over my ex, or ignore her, or tell her my “abilities” were taken away in the war. It was hard to be honest with her – indeed, to tell her that I was not interested in her – and I felt awful about the situation.

But it was the obvious choice – just consider the alternatives: First, I could have told her I was not over my ex, which would have been a believable story given my history with this particular ex. But had I said that, this girl would have waited, continuing to inquire about my status until, finally, I ended up dating someone else, at which time she would have felt deceived and (justifiably) angry. Or had I simply ignored her, she may have given me the benefit of the doubt, and do what so many people (myself included) have done in this situation – assumed the unlikely, yet more appealing scenario that I had simply lost her number, not gotten her email, etc. But she would only assume this because she’d supposed that I was a straightforward and honest individual. So I would be relying on dishonesty and deception to make this work until she painfully realized, after many phone calls and emails, that I was deceitful. She would be angry – again, rightfully so.

Yet this is the path taken by so many women who are uninterested in a man. It is shortsighted and disrespectful — no honest person acts nice to one’s face, yet disregards them when they are not around.

Of course, the attraction to one of these alternatives is apparent: it’s an attempt to avoid hurting the other person’s feelings, by telling them that it is not the case that they are undesirable, but rather, that they are caught in some unlikely scenario where no further romantic relationship will be possible. But these scenarios are more the stuff of fiction than reality – if two people are right for each other, other relationships, timing, and virtually all other factors are secondary. In an ordinary interaction – say, that of an acquaintance – one would probably shrug off a phone call that was not returned, and assume the person would call when they wanted to talk. But in the situation where one person is infatuated with another, this is rarely the case.

An infatuated person can often only see the good points about the object of their affections – so this is an especially volatile situation, causing the admirer to believe the most outlandish excuses. I know this well – I was once in a situation where I honestly believed a girl was being physically threatened because she did not call! However, it was a lesson well learned – now I am much more attuned to the subtleties of the so-called ‘polite’ let-down. But I am no less insulted by it.

It is my experience that women do this more often than men. Perhaps it is the same reason that women pay higher prices for cars – they are generally frightened by confrontation. But confrontation is sometimes essential to healthy communication, leaving everything on the table, and no one feeling cheated in the end.

Back in my story, I did tell the girl, flat out (after the issue had been specifically addressed by her) that I did not want to have a relationship with her. And she was able to pursue people who would return her affection without wasting weeks or even months on someone who would not. In was difficult to do, but it was better for both of us.

Be honest with the people in your life. There are no “little white lies”, and people deserve honesty. If you’re concerned with other peoples’ feelings, consider the long term results. No one is more vulnerable than in love – which is why it is more important than ever to be completely honest when you are the subject of such affection.

Rolling hills
My wooden fence
Summer days long gone
My old dog
Mornings in the fog
Oh, days have passed me by

You and I laughing over wine
There never was enough time
Before you became resigned
To letting it all pass you by

What it’d be
To sit under my tree
Once again
Then I’d be me
Happy and free
Laughing at these dark clouds
With she
Once again

Some days I think I hear the gate squeak
My heart skips a beat
Before I realize it’s just a frog by the creek
An’ I can still see you walking up the path, then
Smiling, so happy to see me again

I could get back,
If I really wanted,
Those old summer days in the fields
But only one thing’s for sure
Nothing will cure
My longing to see your smiling face once again

In a world where glimpses of greatness are too few, the ones that can be seen resonate even more. Too often, the greatest things happening in our world go unrecognized and unreported, hidden from the public view by a media which undervalues the real achievements. In popular culture, we are left with watered down sitcom drivel or anti-hero icons who flaunt their own worthlessness (see Paris Hilton). But four times a year, for a few hours, we are treated to seeing, in dramatic form, heroism embodied. Four times a year, tennis great Roger Federer walks onto center court to fight for another grand slam title, and I watch with a type of excitement that can only be summed up in one word – “Yes!”

Recently, Roger won his 12’th grand slam title at the US Open and is on pace to tie the all time record of 14 next year – at the age of 26. He has been ranked number one for an all-time tennis record of 200 weeks, and is all but guaranteed to hold that position until next year. Since summer of 2003, he has won 12 of the 18 grand slams that have taken place. Roger has demolished the previous open-era record of four straight grand slam final appearances by Andre Agassi and others – he is currently at 10. How many more are on the way? With the fierce brilliance of this once in a lifetime champion, who knows?

Throughout his four year dominance of this sport (which has never been equaled), Roger Federer has not been the best at any particular shot. James Blake or Rafael Nadal have had better forehands, Andy Roddick has had a better serve, Andre Agassi had a better backhand. But these shots are not what make a true champion – while he does have exceptional abilities in all of these aspects, it is Federer’s mind which makes him the champion that he is. He steps onto court with a genuine type of confidence – that is, of a man who knows what must be done, and that he can do it.

To win the last grand slam final this year, Roger saved 7 of 7 set points against his opponent, third-ranked Novak Djokovic. Novak served at 40-love for the first set – but he was serving against Roger Federer. As he put it after the match, “One of the biggest strengths is his mental strength. He has [an] advantage over every player because he makes us think, ‘We’re playing against Roger Federer.’ I was asking the crowd what I need to do. Nobody had an answer.” That’s because you’re playing against what those on the circuit refer to as simply TMF. For “The Mighty Fed.”

Our culture does value achievement. But other displays of genius, focus, and goal-achievement are obscured from our view by a media which underestimates their importance – or our hunger to see such displays. But four times a year, I hold my breath and see what greatness men are capable of. Roger Federer plays tennis like men should live – with confidence, rationality, and an uncompromising devotion to achievement.

Throughout the ages, rare examples of human ingenuity have shown through the murky waters of the commonplace. Men such as Leonardo Da Vinci, Thomas Edison, and Ayn Rand, to name a few (yes, I realize the irony, given that Ayn Rand was a woman) have shown what can be done if one adheres to a basic principle of living. Now, I must say, this principle does not entirely explain their success; in truth, I cannot fully explain or quantify it (if it could be quantified at all). But I do recognize one principle which has allowed their success – a mentality that allows them to achieve true greatness. This principle is Objectivity. Objectivity, here, means the recognition that things of fundamental import in life are, in all essentials, regardless of other men. That is to say, nature governs the most key aspects of living: happiness, success, and even death. These individuals took an Objective approach to living, and it is Objectivity which allows – no, requires – men to think and act differently from other men.

The following point is essential to living successfully: whether you are better, or worse (in terms of skills or abilities) than other individuals, or than all other individuals, is fundamentally inconsequential. Men of true greatness, as those mentioned above, did not view their lives in relation to those around them (at least not primarily). They viewed them in terms of their relation to reality. The only importance in life is whether you are good or bad at abilities which further your happy existence, and to which degree you are either. But this is something that may only be evaluated Objectively. For instance, it is not particularly comforting to know that you are in better shape than those around you if you are living in a disease infested muck pit – knowing that you will die of malaria a week after everyone else is not the same as a long, happy life. And likewise, of what use is knowing that you are more learned and intelligent than everyone else if you still are unable to understand things vital to your interests (i.e. why a disease is killing a loved one)?

All great individuals measure themselves on an Objective scale – and this means, by measuring themselves in relation to nature. It must have been this principle which led Leonardo Da Vinci to make the following, seemingly mad assertion (given the tremendous level of his work): “I have offended god and man that my work did not rise to the level it should have.” He measured what he did achieve in relation to what he could have achieved, rather than to anyone else. While it is crucial to not underestimate the greatness of one’s achievements, it is just as crucial to measure that on a scale devoid of comparison to others. Had these brilliant geniuses decided that their main goal was to achieve more than others, they would have been uninterested to achieve more – that is, to live.

In conclusion, any man who thinks of himself primarily in relation to others, for better or for worse, is doomed to bear the scarlet letter of mediocrity until he realizes that “better than you” is an admission of a terrible kind of ignorance: that of one’s own worth.

I’m concluding the longest period of dormancy since I began blogging over a year ago. I have been more focused on personal matters recently, but I expect to begin blogging again soon as my motivation and time will allow (1-2 weeks). For those of you who asked, yes, I still do intend to write about Roger Federer’s greatness — look for it after he wins this French Open in a week .

Another topic has come to the forefront as well: niceness. Many people, especially women, are so adverse to confrontation of any kind that they become misleading and complicate easily fixable matters. I want to illustrate that this type of avoidance is not beneficial to anyone involved. Deception is short-sighted, counterproductive, and disrespectful — not to mention the headaches it causes. People… just be honest with those in your life; they can handle it!

I’m entering into two of the most difficult weeks in my college career. However, I wanted to give an update on several possible upcoming blogs: The topics include heroism in general (specifically that of tennis great Roger Federer) and the validity of child support.

But first, a new topic which is in the same vein as some of my recent entries: prohibitionism.

Except this prohibitionism is perhaps the most insidious of all — prohibiting language. Language is a way we organize our thoughts and express them, which makes prohibiting words the same as prohibiting thoughts.

This has recently become a hot topic, as the New York City Council unanimously prohibited the usage of the word “Nigger” yesterday. It carries no penalty (as of yet), but it is important because, as councilman Albert Vann said, “This could be the beginning of a movement.” And that movement is diametrically opposed to freedom.

Our Founding Fathers made the Freedom of Speech the first amendment to our constitution for a very specific purpose: because words are inextricably tied to thoughts. Certainly there are bad ideas — racism, in this case. And racism is a truly irrational and awful concept — that is, that some races are inherently inferior to others. Defining a person by his skin color presupposes that people do not have volition, thereby ignoring the most vital thing about a man: his ability to choose rationality.

But this terrible notion (or any other one, for that matter) is no justification for the government preventing one from believing it or expressing it. Put simply, if the government may restrict those words, why can it not restrict any words that it deems bad? If this is the beginning of an Orwellian movement, I will not be able to write this blog and you will not be able to read it. I will not be able to listen to Chris Rock’s comedy and he will not be able to perform it. Rather than a market of ideas, everyone will be fed muck from the same governmentally-endorsed trough.

If speech is banned because it may offend its listener, it will be a moratorium on creativity or thought in whole; not simply a moratorium on offensive language. And if the New York City Council is so concerned with people being offended, I propose a new motion to ban the council because it’s offending the hell out of me.

Today’s Perspective is geared primarily towards the religious among my readers.

The notable engineer and thinker Marshall Brain (responsible for www.howstuffworks.com) created a fantastic website that debunks Christianity as a whole. Moreover, it disproves the existence of any interventionist god in a very down to earth, rational, and complete way. It isn’t condescending, but rather counts on the fact its readers are intelligent. Had I found this website when I was in high school, I could have saved myself a lot of time before I got the religious clutter out of the way.

As a dear friend of mine once said, “It was amazing the day I first looked at Christianity objectively and stopped trying to make rationalizations for it.” So if you’re ready to do the same, it’s time to ask the hard questions about your religion — and applying the critical mind which leads you through all other areas of your life will succeed here, too. Your mind isn’t impotent, and you know it. Now let it do its thing.

So if you are a Christian or are considering it, go to the following website and you’ll see what I mean: to begin, a video which poses 10 questions every Christian must consider — http://godisimaginary.com/video10.htm

This is associated with a more complete and point by point rebuttal on www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com

While this website helps to clear away the confusion of religion — it does not offer a sound philosophy to fill the idealistic need within all of us (this isn’t a criticism of the site, it isn’t designed with that scope). For that, just read some Ayn Rand — namely The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. The world makes sense — and you can better deal with it once you separate truth from falsehood.

The ideals that I believe in as an atheist are more emotionally powerful than those which were divinely-based in my religious days — because I am certain that they are right, necessary, and wonderful. The important thing is — never be afraid of your own thoughts; man’s mind is the only means by which he attains his goals and his own happiness. Ignorance is not bliss — it’s time to experience that proud certainty that comes from having viewed life objectively and completely — and knowing that you are right.

Here I further explore the nature and implications of the recent wave of restaurant smoking bans in our country (including my home state of Ohio, sadly).

Smoking bans are wrong for a very simple reason: they infringe liberty. How?

I’ll ask a question that illustrates the point: What is the fundamental difference between having friends over to one’s home (and smoking there) and owning a restaurant where you’d like to allow your customers to smoke? If the government may restrict individuals’ rights to allow smoking in their restaurants, why can it not restrict their rights to smoke in their own homes? There are equivalent arguments (to those used by smoking ban activists) to disallow smoking in homes: Why should workers be subject to ‘second-hand smoke’ just to have a job? Likewise, why should your dinner guests be subject to said carcinogens just because they’d like to enjoy a meal with their friends? The answer is in both cases that the owner of the property should be able to decide whether he’d like smoking in his home or establishment. The guests (or customers) may only weigh his decision when deciding whether or not to eat there. The restaurant owner and the home owner are very much the same: they own the means involved in serving a meal. Put simply, unless force or fraud is involved, it does not fall within the purview of proper government – which means, until restaurant owners begin to threaten customers into remaining in their smoking establishment, it’s not the government’s (or the anti-smoking zealots’) business.

Whenever the government interferes with normal market forces, the results are inefficient and freedom-killing. This is why smoking bans must be stopped before they sweep across our great (and generally liberty-loving) nation. I like living in a country where I am free to act – free to make choices, either to my detriment or betterment. Because the government (or the mere majority) doesn’t know better than you or I do. When the government runs people’s lives, it only runs them into the ground. It’s far better when we may all make our own choices — at least then we have a fighting chance.