Died Doing What They Love

I often hear that people “died doing what they love”. This is a bit of a misrepresentation. Maybe if you died in the arms of your lover that would be truly correct. I just read a story on CNN titled “Canadian folk singer died doing something she loved, mother said”. This title made me curious; I wanted to know how she might have died. Did she die while singing? Perhaps she overdosed, but loved doing drugs? Maybe she was making love and took her final breath doing this. It turns out that she died from being eaten by a pack of coyotes. Who the fuck loves getting eaten by coyotes? This sounds like a miserable death and not something that even the most ardent animal lover would like to take part in (although The Grizzly Man did say he would be honored to die at the hands of a bear and the bear obliged him). I find the use of doing what they loved to be used inappropriately when that death is painful. When Dick Cheney shot that guy in the face hunting was there an article saying he was injured doing what he loved? Hunters like to do the shooting, not be the prey. If they die in this manner, I would argue that they were not doing something that they loved. Did Dale Earnhardt die doing what he loved? I think he loved racing, loved winning, loved the competition, but I never once saw him say I love wrecking into the wall.

I would just like to let everyone know that if I die doing something I love do not say this. Unless I die painlessly in my sleep or watching TV, do not say I died doing what I love.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/10/29/taylor.mitchell/index.html

Michael Savage and Larry David and the Christ Debacle

I sometimes enjoy listening to talk radio while I work, I find it entertaining to hear differing opinions and find that by seeing all points of view you will be a better informed individual. The past couple days Michael Savage has been on a continuous rant about a segment from the Larry David show. In the episode, Larry is urinating in a bathroom, but his urine stream is too voracious and causes a splash effect. His urine hits a picture of Jesus that is in the bathroom. Once he leaves, a woman finds the picture and believes that the urine splash is a tear and that the picture is crying. She thinks it is a miracle.

Michael Savage sees this as a travesty. That it is a plot brought about by the government and the media machine to slander Christians. He asks, “Why doesn’t Larry David urinate on a picture of Muhammad?” I find his take on this segment is missing the entire point of the joke. The joke is that fanaticism breeds a willingness to ignore rational explanation and instead be blinded by their faith. I am not really sure why this is offensive though. He is playing a character in a situation that could be realistic. The character is often put into precarious situations that are made worse by the poor manner in which he handles them. His character is oft vulgar and insensitive, but this is what makes you laugh.
Michael Savage, an advocate for free speech, has even suggested that the government should get involved to stop HBO. I understand that sometimes people are offended by different things. I feel like even if you are saying something offensive you should be allowed to say it without the government getting involved. HBO is a premium channel that should not be subject to government intervention. If Larry wants to get on TV and urinate directly on religious symbols of all sorts he should be allowed. In a capitalist society we all get a vote with our dollars. If you think Larry is vulgar, do not get HBO, if you enjoy it subscribe to HBO. It’s been a while since I have seen the Larry David show or subscribed to HBO, so I will leave you now to go buy the previous seasons on DVD and order HBO for the next episode.

Discover Myself Through Writing

I find that having conversations with others often challenges you to reveal things about yourself that you do not know. I am the kind of person that usually formulates an opinion at least three times. It's really a system I have that really assists me in day to day life. Broken down it looks a little like this.

1. Gut Opinion - This is the opinion formulated instantly when hearing someone's view on an issue. I rarely ever share this, unless it is an opinion on an issue I am already educated on. For example if someone says, "Nickelback is the greatest band of all time", while I have not studied the topic specifically I am familiar with Nickelback's body of work. While I am not repulsed by them in the way that most people are, I still know from my knowledge bank that there are other bands closer to the apex of the hierarchy.

2. Parrot Opinion - This is when you hear one side of an issue or argument and form your opinion entirely off of this. Again, I am not comfortable in expressing one of these opinions openly because it leaves you open for attack. There are some topics where this can work. I will sometimes enter a sports conversation and parrot something that my brother has stated. I do this because I know that he spends a lot of time watching, reading and listening to sport. I also know that he will not usually make a statement without some facts to back it up, so I remember those facts too. So I just hope that he knew what he was talking about so when I enter a conversation with, "Shaq is shooting over ninety percent from the charity stripe this year" I will not look like a fool or be asked for further evidence. An opinion in sports or music is pretty easy to defend (aside from a statistics mistake such as the one above) since there is usually no real right answer even if you're a fan of the Detroit Lions you can still wear your big blue #1 foam finger.

If, however, you hear, "September 11 was an inside job! The mayor of San Francisco even cancelled his flight that morning because he was warned of the attack." While this anecdotal evidence might be interesting, it would at least require a little due diligence on your part to learn more about the issue. Even find the answers to your obvious questions like, "If it was a plot that went all the way to the San Francisco mayor, how has this not leaked by now, or before it even happened?" If you just go out and parrot this opinion selling it as a fact you will certainly be discredited and your opinions will no longer be of importance.

3. Informed Opinion - This is an opinion that has been formed by varying degrees of research on a topic. Sometimes you can simply read two opposing articles on a topic and know where you stand. In fact your opinion may not have even changed over the course of these steps. Just be careful that you are open to changing your opinion through the course of the debate. If you are able to see the issue from other points of view you have a better chance of making an informed opinion. Researching and forming an opinion on some subjects becomes a slippery slope. In order to prevent contradicting yourself you may have to revisit old opinions that you have already formulated. This type of flip-flopping is absolutely necessary in life. If you never have changed your mind in the presence of new evidence then you have not really opened yourself up to education.