On Naiveté

In admittance to the claims of my most esteemed colleague in this, our pursuit of truth, understanding, and significant others, I submit the following:

What is the ultimate form of cruelty?

I pose this question as one deeply concerned about the future - my own and that of the vast world. I have recently been studying, so as to further enlighten myself and thereby others, two works by Niccolo Machiavelli. I shall not endeavor to make any comments with regards to those works here; rather, because of my current studies in that political-philosophical discipline, I have been confronted by the reality of the plight of humanity. I must admit that I have found it to be a most depressing subject but one that all should confront so as to awaken from the fanciful world that all to often people of means create for themselves.

I should like to present this problem from both a macro and micro viewpoint so as to illustrate better the forthcoming statement of truth.

Through the recorded annals of history, be them Roman, Greek, European, or what they may, we have plain evidence of sagacious leaders under whom their dominions flourished. The mere presence of prosperity does not necessarily imply righteousness on behalf of neither the leader nor the people. Many more are those who failed to rise to greatness or to gain the favor of their own subjects. I know that I speak vaguely at best, but this is my point: that to achieve greatness through exploit and dominion it is necessary to be wise. When wisdom is accompanied by righteousness the grace of the Almighty will further glorify such an earthly kingdom, as the case will prove with the biblical figure of King David. However, in our present situation, within our modern republic, apparently neither is present. I boldly declare this in the spirit of patriotism because the effeminate vice of naiveté has so taken root as to render our masterful and inspired form of government, as it were crowned upon us by the centuries of experiment and formulation of republics and democracies from the past and God himself, crippled by her very children.

The essence of the naiveté I denounce is this: the claim to progress without sacrifice. Sacrifice comes in myriad forms. It is often unplanned, but it is always the price to be paid. Let us consider the Industrial Revolution. The hours were long, the conditions brutal, and children, dirty and poor, worked in the factories. Out of the pressure created by such conditions emerged laws protecting the workers, children, and regulating commerce. The country boomed and emerged as an industrial powerhouse which resulted in a greater quality of living than had every been seen before in the world. However, people died. There were fires. There were widows and starving children. Did it absolutely have to happen that way? I suppose that if we lived in a perfect world with people living altruistic lifestyles, then the answer would be a resounding 'no!', but we do not. Should we therefore say that their suffering, because somehow, in some perfect world, it could have been avoided outweighs the overall benefit to mankind and the millions who have been blessed by their unintentional sacrifice? With an even more resounding 'NO!' I reply!

Likewise, on the micro level now, in the family this principle can be observed. The child who is raised in comfort, who does not have to work nor is disciplined when misbehaving, grows believing in a world that does not exist. Such parents who raise children thus upon the pretense of love are most naive indeed. For, those individuals, once integrated into society, having a belief as strong as perhaps my own, endeavor to make the society, the nation, the world in the image of that fantasy world of naiveté - a world where without blood, sweat, and tears everyone prospers.

I in no way advocate suffering, nor do I justify those who cause it upon the innocent. Rather, I state unequivocally that the very suffering that we see today is caused by those who most adamantly campaign for its extirpation. This is because we have been spread too thin, as it were. To fortify ourselves first and bolster our education, military, and government is the primary - nay, the only priority - of government. The only priority of parents is to raise disciplined and mature individuals who can continue to build upon the foundation of greatness that has preceded them.

Awake to the reality of the fallen world. There will be pain. We must move on. There will be death. We must progress. Dreams will come to naught. We must prevail. There will be war. We must be victorious. There will be sacrifice. We must not let it be in vain. There is cruelty. We must be wise.

It is painful to be wise; for, as we seek to save all we can from hunger, war, abuse, joblessness, and evil in all its manifestations people will die and pass into ignominy. This is not so much as a call to action as it is a call to realization. Our nation must reject the promise of complacency promised by the cruel naive. Families must not raise children to be cruel. Only then can I have hope that mouths will be fed, that tears will stop, and dreams will come true.

Sapere Aude
Dare to be wise

We are the Ants

I recently received this clever story and immediately thought about its application to our exposition on chivalry.

THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Those without wisdom and chivalry have a brief day in the annals of history but soon suffer ignominy because of it.

MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green."
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome."
Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.
Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.
The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Those who wisely build up their storehouse of chivalry are only taken advantage of in the end and are but...chivalry in the wind...

The Virtues of Chivalry

I have come to believe that teaching a concept consists mainly of defining terms. Such is the case with chivalry. I have bemoaned the lack of its presence but as of yet I have not defined it in such a way so as to provide a guide whereby the way of life that it represents can be adopted.

Upon researching chivalry I have concluded that there is no one 'code' per se. Rather, there are some general virtues that one who leads a chivalrous life should be in possession of. Obviously there are a great many virtues that one should endeavor to cultivate - what follows are only an important few.

1. Courage - having to do with the defense of truth and the integrity of others even when undesired by them
   
2. Justice - holding oneself and others to the absolute laws of the Almighty without excuse
   
3. Mercy - recognition of the imperfections of man in one's dealings
   
4. Largesse - generosity to the extent that one is able
   
5. Faith - not only an unwaivering trust in God but also a man of one's word, i.e. in good faith
   
6. Nobility - having to do with the character and purity of the soul, virtuous
   
7. Hope - not blind optimism, but knowledge that the nobler virtues will prevail

The fatalistic view that since perfection is not attainable we should not strive for it is the way of the weak-willed. I throw my will, my heart, my soul into the abyss of futility, knowing that I cannot achieve perfection - but I do it, if nothing more, because it is the right thing to do! Those who with such cowardice excuse themselves time and again from admitting defeat (yes, I say defeat; for, you cannot achieve the principles of valor without admitting that you do not presently possess them), will never know the true nature of the noble human soul, nor the spark of divinity that serves as the catalyst to greatness.

In Conclusion...

The week of nonstop posting has come and gone. I succeeded in posting every day for a week, and now we're back to square one.

What have I learned? Well, I've learned that there is likely an infinite number of things that can be thought, said, or written about relationships and The Game and all that. I haven't even scratched the surface of things that I have to write about for this blog. That's admittedly a scary realization.

We will continue onward in our search for understanding, truth, and significant others. It's all we really can do, anyway. In my late night reading I came across a poem by Ralph Waldo Emerson, one of my favorite authors/philosophers; it's titled "Sacrifice" and I will include it as the wise and profound conclusion to this post. I feel it accurately conveys the essence of my feelings at this moment.

Though love repine, and reason chafe,
There came a voice without reply,---
"'T is man's perdition to be safe,
When for the truth he ought to die."

Gravity

WARNING: This post may contain brief allusions to science.

Imagine yourself in one of those social settings that we've all been in. You know, the one where after some activity people are gathered around talking. People are smiling, laughing, and there is always someone that is at the center of attention.

Now here comes some science - its called the aggregate matter property. You see, matter has a tendency to come together in order to form a more stable state. Suns condense and planets form as a result of this process. Gravity, the final stabilizing influence, is the result of a large enough mass. That's the very simplified version, by the way. This also occurs within society.

Some guys are unstable like free-floating matter in space. They need attention. They simply cannot feel comfortable without it. Therefore, they develop cunning arts whereby to attract the more attractive side of our species. These can be peculiar hair and/or clothing styles and a loud personality - we all know what I mean. These men are essentially good, but they are not stable as illustrated by that little science example. It's simple psychology. Women like being entertained and they like to be happy, and there is nothing wrong with either. The problem lies in the fact that those men who are stable and do not feel that need to be the center of attention are neglected by women and seen as dry or unfriendly when, in reality, they are neither.

In fact, most of these self-sustaining men of true character are witty, charming individuals who need only be given the opportunity to show the greatness of who they are. They have amassed 'gravity', if you will, not by being the constant center of attention, but by self-mastery. They know who they are and have a sense of purpose. That is modern nobility - chivalry at its best.

Do not be deceived by the social aggregate matter property. The choice is yours: satiate the unbalanced and unstable man's needs and be used and possibly enter a relationship that will be just that, or be mature enough to admit this truth and align yourself with that self-sustaining virtue of chivalry.

Then, and only then, will ours not be...chivalry in the wind.

Superficial Comment of the Day: Cuteness

Okay, today's Superficial Comment of the Day (SCotD) could ruffle some feathers. That is not my intent, mind you, but I will not back away from taboo issues in order to keep everyone feeling great about everything. Sometimes we have to be completely honest, even if it may make others look at us derisively. Here we go!

I have been in a couple situations, let's use work as an example, and some female talks about a member of the opposite sex that we, the single males of the workplace, have yet to meet. That unknown person is described as cute. Later, after the single males have met the no longer unknown female, they are asked, "Isn't she cute, guys?" And sometimes, the immediate answer is an awkward moment of silence. Then someone eventually says, "She seems nice," and we hope that the conversation will move on to something different.

Some of you might be thinking, "Guys are such pigs," or "they're all superficial jerks." Ultimately that might be true, but in this instance, I think a little moderation must be exercised. Consider it exercised.

I'm going to generalize right now. Women, at least in my personal observations, in an effort to be kind to all the members of their gender, will almost always say that so-and-so is cute. If they have any kind of friendship with so-and-so, they will definitely say and truly believe that she is cute. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, but we all need to realize that men think differently. We would never say that all of the men we know are cute or handsome, even some of our friends will fall short of that mark.

Cute is, unfortunately, not democratic (nor is it republican, lest anyone try to make a political joke). Rather, it is not applied freely to all people, by men, nor can it. I suppose we believe in a superficial hierarchy of sorts. Some people do look better than others. (I have no trouble admitting this because I do not, and have never, considered myself on a high level of the superficial hierarchy). Maybe it is a fault of the male gender, but we cannot consider everyone equally when it comes to looks.

So coming back to my work example, what would happen if a female associate asks us what we think of the unknown female, and we respond that we don't find her cute. In our current societal conditions, the female associate would be appalled and her estimation of us as men would drop considerably. All we would have done is speak honestly. I don't think that it should be a social faux pas for us to admit that we don't find everyone attractive. We don't have to say it in a rude or inconsiderate manner; we wouldn't even have to say it to the particular person.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: women, don't be offended if a guy doesn't think that someone you know is cute. It is nothing personal; he just doesn't find her attractive, much like he doesn't find others attractive. Men are selective with the application of acknowledged superficial beauty. Don't berate them for not being as generous and kind-hearted as you. Cherish and believe them when they freely acknowledge your beauty. Because that says a lot.

Sentimentality

I have been thinking over the past couple days about a number of things. You know...those moments when you stop and ask yourself, "Wait, what am I doing again? Where did I want to go in life again?" Those moments are tough.

I know that this is out of the ordinary - usually I banter about some issue related to chivalry, honor, etc, but it does no good to complain. In the end you can only make decisions for yourself. To live a noble life is not to bemoan the lack of nobility in others but to instill that nobility within oneself and go throughout your life forever trying to be something greater.

I believe in the nobility of the human soul.

My Brain is Still Frozen from Late Night Ultimate Frisbee

It's been a long day. The post-a-day streak is still alive because, even though it is technically Saturday, I have yet to go to sleep so it's still Friday night to me. That's the way it works around these parts.

Tonight our ward had a Ward Date Night activity. What happened was everyone was basically randomly paired off, a gigantic blind date. Of course, if you knew the person you were paired with, it would be just like hanging out. If you were like me and got paired with someone you'd never met before (who was visiting a friend in our ward), then it was definitely a blind date. After the night's experience, which was positive, I have concluded that I am probably a really boring blind date.

This could just be my self-depracation speaking, but I know that I often struggle in a blind date situation to keep things interesting. After the initial get to know you questions, my mind seems to go blank. I have written in past entries about my inability to think of things to say when I'm around interesting people, and blind dates are no different. I think things were kept on the real for most of the evening, and I had an enjoyable time, but I probably didn't come off as a terribly interesting person.

Is the person writing this blog post the real me or is it the awkward person who doesn't know how to charm women with interesting conversation?

Anti-Valentine's Day Report Card

First off, I express my sympathy and condolences to all those affected by the shooting at the campus of Northern Illinois University. Our thoughts and prayers go out to those students, their families, and that community. The stuff we write for this blog seems so insignificant and trivial in the face of tragedy of that magnitude.

So for this, the 8th annual celebration of Anti-Valentine's Day, I did the following:
- school and work
- purchased some DVDs for a very good price at Best Buy
- had dinner with my family (free food always a plus!)
- got my hair cut for free
- watched LOST (kinda)
- enjoyed some conversation
- relaxed in a hottub for at least an hour
- watched some hilarious Youtube videos
- blogged
- slept (at some point)

Not too shabby, I'd say. Best of all, I did not eat any of those gross little candy hearts. More serious commentary will return in the immediate future...probably.

Corporate Takeover of Chivalry

Indeed, 'tis I once again. As my brother in truth so succinctly stated, Valentine's Day is a tragedy. He spoke of the commercialization of love. I wish to dwell briefly upon what the commercialization of chivalry has done to our society.

Oh bane of all holidays! Chivalrous conduct as a way of life - honorable, wise, charitable, noble, self-sacrificing - all these have been replaced by the allure of a much easier route. Petty gifts with bows and chocolates, flowers, and other such items have been the temptation that has drawn away the weak-willed men of this age. What is worse - women now expect it! The gifts that should be sought - a noble heart given to the trusting care of a caring woman - is now encased in a thin shell of mass-produced chocolate! Just as the flowers wilt and presents are forgotten, so to is this transitory pseudo-love. The gradual indoctrination of society that somehow candy hearts and paper cards are a status symbol has so distracted the masses that reality is shunned. The perpetuation of the ideology that love through such acts is chivalrous or in some way flattering is wholly a mystery.

Lest some in hasty judgment declare that I simply am one of those that has spent another Valentine's Day alone in bitterness, may I emphasize the good that some souls find in even this, the commercialized day of love. While I emphasize my analysis of the commercialization of chivalry, I wish to unequivocally state that those who truly find that noble character within themselves on this day, but hopefully also every other day, and show that character more by actions and their very way of life than by fleeting fancies and gifts aplenty are true men, triumphant over the stigma of society. Emotional maturity is their gift, a noble heart their offering, and internalized spirituality their moral code. They, they chivalrous, truly love what they most admire. They admire those traits that they themselves aspire to.

By and large, they are ignored or unknown this day...and all theirs is but chivalry in the wind...

All You Need is Love and Some of Those Little Candy Hearts

**Author's note: the following was originally written in February 2002**

I often feel nauseous. For years now I have observed that I seem to be stricken with a much more serious and dangerous nausea in early February. It may be tied to the fact that I've eaten a thousand candy hearts, hearts that come in shades of pink, yellow, or green, sporting such romantic phrases as "be mine" and "I love you", but I really think that what makes me most nauseous is the fact that the most deceptive, evil holiday known to man is celebrated on the fourteenth day of February---and there is nothing I can do about it.

For years I was absolutely powerless to stop this mindless tirade of fake affection; there seemed to be nothing I could do about Valentine's Day, and I thought that there would never be anything for me to do about it. Thoughts like that are hard to destroy, yet my train of thought was annihilated a couple years ago. No, I was not converted to the true meaning of Valentine's Day. No, my soul was not overcome by a love so powerful that I had to prove its veracity by doling out lavish gifts. Two compatriots and I stumbled upon a solution, a revelation that we could not deny. Amidst flowers, chocolates, and those vile candy hearts, we celebrated our own holiday: Anti-Valentine's Day.

Picture it: three teenage boys, coming together in high school to celebrate a holiday they call Anti-Valentine's Day. Is there any doubt in your mind that they are just jealous adolescents who can't get dates and have no one to spend Valentine's Day with? Obviously they created their little holiday as a way to make themselves feel better about being such losers. Now that we've gotten a vivid picture in your mind, I'd like to ask you to promptly destroy that image as quickly as possible. Had we wanted to observe the traditional Valentine's Day we could have. We may have been losers, but we were losers by choice not fate. Though for one day of the year, we were actually the only logical ones of the lot. We were the cool kids who knew what was up. We saw things that most people will never see in their lifetime. We saw that Valentine's Day is a farce of a holiday. Millions of people have it set in their minds that February 14th is the best day of the year. Why? Because they receive gifts and candy and affection they don't receive any other time of the year; it is the Christmas for hopeless romantics. Much like the actual Christmas that comes once a year, the meaning of Valentine's Day has been lost. In its conception, Valentine's Day is a great idea; in its celebration, Valentine's Day is an atrocity.

How awful could a holiday be that supposedly promotes love? I'm not sure, but I do know that the Teletubbies also promote love. Question answered. To put it bluntly, Valentine's Day is not about love. Corporate big-wigs want you to think it is. If you really love someone, is it necessary to heap gift upon gift at their feet on a special designated day other than birthdays, anniversaries, Christmas, Mother's Day, Father's Day, St. Patrick's Day, Columbus Day, and Labor Day? A real showing of love does not involve gifts or delicious victuals. Valentine's Day was created to dupe people into thinking that by purchasing expensive gifts they can show how much love they feel for someone. In all truthfulness, they are inadvertently doing the opposite. Do you have to be told when to tell someone that you love them? Does some C.E.O. of the mega-corporation that creates those little candy hearts have the right to tell you to that February 14th is the day to show your love and spend your money? I think not. Make that capitalist pig eat his shorts by not procuring anything related in any way to Valentine's Day---does anyone really like those little candy hearts anyways?

Aside from being a holiday created to steal your hard earned money, Valentine's Day does much more harm than good to those who celebrate it. Although it stimulates our economy, which by February is still stuck in the post-Christmas rut, the psychological effects of the holiday are astounding and far reaching. From the elementary schools to the care centers, Valentine's Day is upon us all. Young children base their personal worth on how many valentines they get dumped into their homemade box; both low and high self-esteems are created this way. What kind of message are we sending that child who receives very few to no valentines? Because this holiday is made out to be something important, that child will suffer for a long time because he didn't get as many valentines as some of the other kids.
Depression, self-loathing, anger, bitterness, those are all feelings that can and do accompany this holiday of love, and those feelings are probably even more prevalent amongst adults. Spending the holiday of love alone can cause severe depression in the lives of those unfortunate enough to believe that you have to have someone to share Valentine's Day with. The quantity and quality of gifts received on Valentine's Day lead human beings to create status levels, a class system of sorts, but the way I see it, our society is divided enough. What we truly need is unity, and Valentine's Day is circumventing any attempt at a long-lasting united society.

John Lennon sang, "All you need is love," and he was right. But those powers that be want you to think that all you need is love and some of those little candy hearts, a dozen roses, a box of chocolates, and some cute little stuffed teddy bear holding a cute little stuffed heart. Through all of time and across the many different cultures that inhabit our beautiful world, the ability to love has always been one of mankind's greatest characteristics. Love should be shown often; if you feel it, show it. Why should there be only one day a year designated to show someone that you love them? Wouldn't a gift given at random be more meaningful than a gift given on a day you're supposed to? Love, when it is truly felt, is a constant thing and should be expressed constantly. Anti-Valentine's Day is not about being anti-love; it promotes love in its pure form. Love is meant to be shared often, and once a year is not often enough. Instead of Valentine's Day, why not have Valentine's Year or Valentine's Decade? Or maybe we ought to just live our entire lives with love; if we did that, there'd be no need for this meaningless holiday. When I hear John Lennon and the Beatles sing, "All you need is love," I cannot help but echo their sentiments and whisper a quiet "amen". Until the world realizes its errors, accepts the truth, and begins to treat each and every person living on this earth with love, this is how I will stand: Pro-Love, Anti-Valentine's Day.

Time for Some Real Talk.

Is anybody out there? No, really. Is there anyone out there actually reading this blog? If so, please leave a comment.

I just want to share something that I learned once upon a time. When a girl says, "I don't feel like I can be in a relationship right now," she really means, "I don't want to be in a relationship with you." Okay, I can understand that; I probably wouldn't want to be in a relationship with me either, but at least tell me that straight up. Don't feed me any more of your conscience-sparing "I'm not the bad person here" garbage. You heard me.

Alright, time for some real talk. Do girls think that they are somehow sparing our feelings? Do they think that we are not smart enough to see what is really going on? I would think so much more highly of a girl that told me she didn't want to be in a relationship with me. I can respect brutal honesty, even if it hurts at first. I cannot, however, respect someone who can't find the courage to speak truth when it is most needed. Speaking half-truths in order to spare someone's feelings is insulting and the exact opposite of what this blog and its authors stand for.

Women of the world, be sincere in accepting us or courageous in rejecting us. We'll thank you either way.

Ode to Chivalrous Conduct

There is a man that we of the brotherhood of chivalry know for his gallantry and exploits. His recent quest for the hand of a maiden fair has resulted nil. His advances accepted but his heart rejected. His attention he showered upon her as the manna from heaven nurturing her soul and mind through her personal agonies. Yet, the great tragedy of this most noble of endeavors was the cruelness of the maiden. Disdain is shown once more for the chivalrous of heart! When his fancy he revealed with such constant attention she accepted only out of self-indulgence, out of selfishness.

The most humane course of actions would have been to have severed, as if with a blade fine and honed, all ties and aspirations so as to let the soul of so gallant a man begin to heal. However, with the long and deliberate slicing of so jagged a knife she wounds him still - a wound that will leave a scar such as dull instruments are wont to do.

Thus, cruelty mocks chivalry.

Silence and I

Interesting people have interesting things to say, right? If so, why don't I ever have interesting things to use to generate interesting conversations with people? The obvious answer would be that I am uninteresting, but I really don't believe that to be true. I mean, I like interesting things and can talk quite intelligently about a lot of things, but when I am around people that I don't know very well, I tend to sit silently and not actively generate conversation.

I am naturally timid in certain situations. Once I get to know people that timidity vanishes and conversation flows freely. The paradox lies in the fact that I only overcome my timidity and talk freely to people when I get to know them well, but I only get to know them well by talking to them. Clearly, remaining in my natural state won't change anything.

The easy answer is that I just need to be more confident. That always seems to be the easy answer - easy to give, at least; for those who keep receiving this advice, it's not the easiest thing to hear. Self-confidence isn't something that can be miraculously generated. It takes a lot of conscious decisions to change and a herculean effort to make it happen, and I am not sure that I am ready to make that effort. I know that I need to and that I'm tired of sitting silently when there are people nearby that I am interested in getting to know better. I know that I should be more active and assertive in getting out in the social spheres, but no matter how convinced I am of the appropriate course of action, I still find it difficult.

Of course, I could overcome these obstacles only to find out that I really am uninteresting after all, and then everything will be explained satisfactorily. Until I discover the truth of this matter, here's to the silent, yet interesting, men and women of the world.

Hail! Our Glorious Anthem!

I, the giver of light and knowledge, hereby proclaim that this blog must "have its roof blown off" as my cohort so eloquently phrased it. I therefore present the anthem of our glorious and widely unknown pursuit of justice for men.

Chivalry in the Wind
I am a man, raised to be so, then I am cast away.
All my life, taught to be respectful, is something wrong with me?
Lost to the world, lost to the world in our chivalry.

Same old door, I hold it open but she still chooses to ignore.
All we do, is for granted taken, and I mean by you.
Lost to the world, lost to the world is our chivalry.

Now, don't let go, once we're gone forever, we're forever gone.
Day by day, and soon you ladies will not have another gallant guy.

Lost to the world, lost to the world is our chivalry.
Lost to the world, lost to the world is our chivalry.

"I'm going to blow the roof off this thing."

“I am going to blow the roof off this thing.”

That’s what I said earlier today in reference to this blog, and I meant absolutely every word of it. I am tired of this blog moving along at a glacial pace, and I intend to kick start it by posting something everyday this week. I even made a list of topics worth writing about – that’s how serious I am about this. Though today’s entry probably won’t be anything special, there should be some good stuff at some point this week. Who knows, maybe I’ll post my long personal essay on the subject of beards.

Being that it is already late and I’m tired and have an aching head, I will stick to a Superficial Comment of the Day for tonight’s post. Tonight’s SCotD is about the way people get lured into near-relationships only to be spat out rather unceremoniously. Point in case, this past summer I was almost in a relationship. This girl and I hung out a lot (by a lot I mean nearly every day for three weeks), and at one point, we both expressed our interest in one another. Logically, I was pretty certain this was leading towards a relationship. Well, it may have been, but it definitely didn’t reach that point. The girl told me she didn’t feel ready to be in a relationship, and that was that. I quickly convinced myself to not dwell on it too much, and I was able to move on quickly.

What bothered me then, and still bothers me now, is this: shouldn’t she have known before things went so far that she wasn’t ready for a relationship? When someone says that they’re not ready to be in a relationship, it really means they don’t want to be in a relationship with you. If you know or sense that, why let things get so far along? A lot of guys probably wouldn’t deal with the letdown so rationally and unemotionally, and the disappoint could really hurt them. I’m not trying to say that this only happens with girls; guys are equally as guilty of doing this.

Of course, I understand being unsure if a relationship would work out, having some doubts, but ignoring them and starting a relationship only to find that it won’t work. I can’t say that I haven’t done that, because I have, last summer even. But I never felt that it wouldn’t work out until I gave it a try. Once I knew, I did what I had to to rectify the situation, and I always felt that it was best for both of us. I suppose what I am trying to get at with this comment is that people ought to be more upfront as soon as they sense that a relationship should not happen or would not work out. The sooner everything is resolved, the less people will be hurt.

That’s what I think, at least.

Among other things

At first glance this might seem to be an unfair and cruel rant on modern fashion.

I know that would be an odd and superficial tone coming from the great giver of light and knowledge. I just want to say that it is impossible to be chivalrous, even in my often outlandish and awkward way, towards people that look like they slipped on a patch of ice and slammed right into an electrified rainbow.

Ah yes, what, you might ask, is the electrified rainbow? It is a rainbow that has insane amounts of electricity flowing through it the like of which have never thought to have been possible. The unfortunate violent reactions are (for men): an odd spike of hair popping out of the the top of the head (oftentimes changing colour)and/or other hair anomalies (though less common), the jeans are burnt and take on a rusted colour and shrink to inhumanely small sizes, shirts adapt the overall fanciful gaiety of the rainbow from which they sprang, and their once proud symbols of virility, yeah the beard, are charred to the point to which only embarrassing attempts can be made at true beardiness.

For women, it is the warrior-paint anomaly (the reasoning for this is as follows: 1. since girls are made from sugar and spice and everything nice, and 2. collide with the electrified rainbow, then 3. two negatives make a positive and women wear warrior-paint of many colours often worn not to attract men as previously thought but as a warning like so so many exotic creatures of the deep jungles), their once crowning virtue of femininity, their hair, is either burnt short to resemble something of a hedgehog or the warrior-paint anomaly is further exacerbated long locks of not blond hair (as commonly held) but a lion's mane slowly taking over their once prominent locks. Truly, not only their femininity but also their humanity is undone by the double-negative reaction (reasoning shown previously) as feet and calves are replaced by TACKY UGG™BOOTS!!! (take that RoboCop)

Bereft of humanity these poor creatures wander our streets. Oblivious to the metamorphosis, that would have made Kafka wail in unending agony, that they have endured they are the cause of the prolonging of winter and the propagation of the 'slip and smash of the ignorant into that most repulsive of rainbows.

Oh cruelties of cruelties! Oh mockery of mockeries! Oh misery of miseries! Alas! the rainbow has been their downfall and my chivalry hath none effect! Alas, all of mine...is chivalry in the wind.