Some of my regular readers may be wondering why I took a break from my regularly scheduled programming to discuss how Reebok hates children.
The source of the image is CrossFit Apex. Apparently one of their trainers thought it was a cool thing to do and then crossfit.com, the owner of the brand name, posted a link to it, presumably because they thought it was cool. I don't think it's cool. CrossFit.com has recently entered into a partnership with Reebok (note the banner) and I don't think Reebok thinks it's cool. So I encourage people to write to Reebok (corporate@reebok.com) and let them know what they're supporting. Legitimate lulz involved.
CrossFit.com is, of course, a bit of a joke to thinking people because of their pompous rhetoric1, general douchebaggery, cult-like followers, and inevitable results (injuries, burnout, subpar performance). Take, for instance, an amusing take-down of their pompous claims that "We got the science" and it will "dwarf anything ever conceived of in Framingham or Harvard Nurses". LOLWHAT.
Anyway, so I posted that for my own personal amusement. Perhaps it will ruin somebody's day. But it will make so many other people's days so much better because a reckless and dangerous corporation may lose some marketing dollars or be recognized as the purveyors of batty insanity that they are.
NOTE: CrossFit.com originally had a link to the guy's website on that page. They also said that they don't "unpublish", so they would keep the picture up. However, they've taken down the link, which is why I provided a link to http://www.crossfitapex.com.
1: This does not need a footnote, really, but here's a canonical quote demonstrating their self-delusion: "We can take you from a 200-pound max deadlift to a 500-750 pound max deadlift in two years while only pulling max singles four or five times a year." No, they can't.
EDIT: This is rather amusing, more amusing if you're familiar with the dysfunctional circus that is CrossFit (which I barely am, mostly out of a mild curiosity toward them not unlike my mild curiosity about anti-vaccine advocates, Mercola followers, 9/11 Truthers, etc): http://www.forgingelitesarcasm.com/2011/08/babies-need-to-harden-the-fuck-up-2.html
Friday, August 19, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Reebok hates babies.
Reebok hates babies. This patently unsafe image is proof.
Reebok hates children. Just FYI. Reebok encourages patently unsafe behavior. Reebok is bad for children.
Reebok hates children. Just FYI. Reebok encourages patently unsafe behavior. Reebok is bad for children.
What's going on in Blogoslavia
That is my cute name for the Orthodox web-log-o-sphere. I've been trying to make it a "thing" for a while, but it hasn't caught on.
Answer: mostly just a bunch of wankers talking about stuff. Apparently "homosexuality" is a big "thing" right now. An extremely polarized "thing" - which is to be expected. It's also extremely political, and explicitly so in the treatment of one side. This has the unfortunate side effect of allowing the treatment of those outside your bloc as a monolith without nuance and declining to hear anything they say. Of course, that right there is a characterization which you may not agree with. Fortunately for us all, the people that actually matter, for the most part, are not the ones spewing crap on web-logs. Some, unfortunately, seem to have some influence (AOI and its ilk, though, of course, they would claim that certain other groups they don't like have some influence, perhaps).
All I would say is that people should be careful of the rhetoric they use and not be dickheads. And ignore anything coming out of AOI and its constellations.
As a result of this, I've actually started posting on some forum or other. Intriguing. Some people are apparently very tightly wound and likely insane, and I say this not necessarily on the basis of discussions of this topic.
EDIT: Unlike, it seems, some of the AOI/Monomakhos/etc people, I approve of Metropolitan Jonah's approach outlined here if the outline does it justice. Particularly point #5: Homosexuality is a much smaller problem for the Church than heterosexual pornography, infidelity, and divorce. Much better than what the culture warriors and, for instance, Fr Josiah Trenham, seem to say. Also point #7: The bigger problem is people judging each other, gossiping about other people’s sins, and causing a lot of hurt. (A lot said on this.) See, by way of contrast, any discussion about Mark Stokoe in the last six months by anybody involved with AOI, OCA Truth, etc.
EDIT #2: It seems the commentors on monomakhos don't like Metropolitan Jonah's points at all. Well, I guess it's a twofer, then!
Answer: mostly just a bunch of wankers talking about stuff. Apparently "homosexuality" is a big "thing" right now. An extremely polarized "thing" - which is to be expected. It's also extremely political, and explicitly so in the treatment of one side. This has the unfortunate side effect of allowing the treatment of those outside your bloc as a monolith without nuance and declining to hear anything they say. Of course, that right there is a characterization which you may not agree with. Fortunately for us all, the people that actually matter, for the most part, are not the ones spewing crap on web-logs. Some, unfortunately, seem to have some influence (AOI and its ilk, though, of course, they would claim that certain other groups they don't like have some influence, perhaps).
All I would say is that people should be careful of the rhetoric they use and not be dickheads. And ignore anything coming out of AOI and its constellations.
As a result of this, I've actually started posting on some forum or other. Intriguing. Some people are apparently very tightly wound and likely insane, and I say this not necessarily on the basis of discussions of this topic.
EDIT: Unlike, it seems, some of the AOI/Monomakhos/etc people, I approve of Metropolitan Jonah's approach outlined here if the outline does it justice. Particularly point #5: Homosexuality is a much smaller problem for the Church than heterosexual pornography, infidelity, and divorce. Much better than what the culture warriors and, for instance, Fr Josiah Trenham, seem to say. Also point #7: The bigger problem is people judging each other, gossiping about other people’s sins, and causing a lot of hurt. (A lot said on this.) See, by way of contrast, any discussion about Mark Stokoe in the last six months by anybody involved with AOI, OCA Truth, etc.
EDIT #2: It seems the commentors on monomakhos don't like Metropolitan Jonah's points at all. Well, I guess it's a twofer, then!
Monday, August 15, 2011
One thing I'm very curious about...
Is why I get google hits for "mr gzt" on this page. Okay, I know why they end up here, I'm flummoxed as to why people google "mr gzt". I don't sign off as that very often, in most places I'm just plain "gzt". Even if I did sign off as that, why would people google it? On most web-logs, I even put a link to this web-log when commenting, so there's no need to google. Most of my hits come from the venuleius site, by the way. I was curious as to whether people were clicking on my comment links or the links on the site itself, so I made the comment links point at my extremely boring and narcissistic chess site. I'm not linking to the venuleius site because I don't find it particularly helpful.
I would also just say that not informing on people is a fundamental aspect of interpersonal relations. I'm thoroughly disappointed whenever I hear of people "snitching" to their priest about gossip or somesuch.
I would also just say that not informing on people is a fundamental aspect of interpersonal relations. I'm thoroughly disappointed whenever I hear of people "snitching" to their priest about gossip or somesuch.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Divorce, Sanctity of Marriage
Monomakhos, a web-log I don't particularly like, quite frankly, posted a piece about OCALaity's resolutions that they are submitting at the All-American Council this fall. The author's intro text says, "All are well aware of the continued assault on traditional marriage due to fornication, adultery, divorce, and same-sex unions." Emphasis added. I do like that he included divorce in this list.
The resolutions, however, do not contain the word "divorce" at all and only allude to it. It is of course true that, in certain circumstances, the Church allows divorce and remarriage. However, I would certainly argue that divorce is a far greater threat to "traditional marriage" than "same-sex unions" - though certainly far less than fornication and adultery - and therefore deserves at least an explicit mention in any resolution about the "sanctity of marriage". If George Michalopoulos can find room in the intro text on his web-log for the word, I'm sure the actual resolutions can as well. Divorce is the only thing on George's list, after all, that will end a "traditional marriage". I realize it's tricky to mention appropriately, but if you're going to tackle tough subjects, you have to actually tackle them. Otherwise, it's just political posturing.
EDIT: Of course, the big issue is not so much divorce but remarriage after divorce. If somebody divorces and remains celibate perpetually, there's not much to object to. However, neither Michalopoulos nor the resolutions refer to remarriage after divorce and only Michalopoulos mentions divorce.
The resolutions, however, do not contain the word "divorce" at all and only allude to it. It is of course true that, in certain circumstances, the Church allows divorce and remarriage. However, I would certainly argue that divorce is a far greater threat to "traditional marriage" than "same-sex unions" - though certainly far less than fornication and adultery - and therefore deserves at least an explicit mention in any resolution about the "sanctity of marriage". If George Michalopoulos can find room in the intro text on his web-log for the word, I'm sure the actual resolutions can as well. Divorce is the only thing on George's list, after all, that will end a "traditional marriage". I realize it's tricky to mention appropriately, but if you're going to tackle tough subjects, you have to actually tackle them. Otherwise, it's just political posturing.
EDIT: Of course, the big issue is not so much divorce but remarriage after divorce. If somebody divorces and remains celibate perpetually, there's not much to object to. However, neither Michalopoulos nor the resolutions refer to remarriage after divorce and only Michalopoulos mentions divorce.
What I'm Reading Right Now
I'm reading A Change of Heart, a book about the Framingham study, a groundbreaking longitudinal study which unraveled many of the mysteries surrounding the causes of cardiovascular disease. They're the people who coined the term "risk factor". It's amazing how far science has advanced in the last few decades. I got it for a penny off of Amazon, but it seems that the used price is now slightly more. I don't know that I would recommend seeking it out unless you are interested in the subject matter, but it is very good if you are. Of course, how can all these scientist jokers compare to an exercise cult? They will obviously be dwarfed.
Before that, I read The Fatal Shore, which is about the founding of Australia up to the end of the transportation system. This book is not only a wonderful history, but it well-written and enthralling. I highly recommend it even if you are not terribly interested in the subject matter. As a bonus, you can still get it off of Amazon.com for a penny (plus shipping). I first heard about this book while reading the Aubrey/Maturin series. O'Brian mentioned it as a valuable resource when writing about their trip to Australia and highly recommended it. It was a good recommendation. Interestingly, the author is an art critic, not a historian. There is some overlap in the training for the disciplines, to be sure, but it is not what I would expect.
Besides that, some chess books. Before all that, the Flashman novels, which you'll either love or hate. The last few get a bit redundant, but are interesting for their historical details, just like the boat books.
I haven't been reading much theology lately besides the lives of the saints and the OCA tabloids.
Before that, I read The Fatal Shore, which is about the founding of Australia up to the end of the transportation system. This book is not only a wonderful history, but it well-written and enthralling. I highly recommend it even if you are not terribly interested in the subject matter. As a bonus, you can still get it off of Amazon.com for a penny (plus shipping). I first heard about this book while reading the Aubrey/Maturin series. O'Brian mentioned it as a valuable resource when writing about their trip to Australia and highly recommended it. It was a good recommendation. Interestingly, the author is an art critic, not a historian. There is some overlap in the training for the disciplines, to be sure, but it is not what I would expect.
Besides that, some chess books. Before all that, the Flashman novels, which you'll either love or hate. The last few get a bit redundant, but are interesting for their historical details, just like the boat books.
I haven't been reading much theology lately besides the lives of the saints and the OCA tabloids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)