There's a "Have Your Say" article over at The Local Sweden today that has prompted this post. The question is basically, how do you view Sweden and the USA.

I don't like the "compare/contrast" aspect of this question because it supposes that it's possible to determine that one is, in fact, better than the other; which it's not. There is no "better or worse," there is only difference. A lot of the comments I see on The Local's articles leave me wondering why the average person bothers to read them. Sure, I have been known to offer up my 2 cents worth on certain stories, but nothing like some of the people who frequent this site -- some of their comments are downright vicious.

(Here's some free advice for people who live in Sweden but hate it there (they seem to be foreigners...): since you hate Sweden so vehemently, then why don't you spare yourself any further pain and suffering and leave. I'm pretty sure the Swedish people would thank you.)

I did respond to this open invitation to "have my say," and I thought I'd share it with you all. (Obviously, if you'd like to view the other comments then feel free to follow the link above)

Recently, I found an old article about an Italian beach town whose mayor is trying to make his town a better place to live by banning "revealing" clothing. I posted the link on Facebook and an interesting discussion ensued.

The discussion was prompted by a line in the article stating that a consumer group was arguing that banning "revealing" clothing "is a step backwards for feminism." I said that I can't understand what is so "feminist" about wearing skanky clothing and asked how it would be good for feminism. One of my friends responded with, "[i]ts not good for "feminism" its is just a form of idiot rationalization that you get to dress like a whore and somehow that makes you more liberated and powerful (sic)."

It's amazing that there are women who actually think they're getting ahead by falling behind; becoming less of an object by becoming more of an object. And that's what you are, when you show off what you've got, because men, in general, are very visual creatures. So, if you think you're getting one over on them by showing off your cleavage then you are sorely mistaken.

Perhaps you think you're "winning" because you think that by showing your assets you are somehow in control. Well, whores are not in control because the man doesn't have to buy sex from them, he chooses to do it. Sure, he may have a little impulse control problem that facilitates the transaction, but ultimately he's the one who makes the decision. The Heidi Fleiss's of the world think they're in control because they have something that men want, but, again, the men are the ones who make the final choice. And if men ever got a clue, then you'd be out of a job. And there are a few smart men out there who've figured out that slutting around isn't such a good idea. What if they started to convince other men of that, eh?

According to the dictionary, "feminism" is the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. When you use your body to achieve these goals (e.g. by wearing revealing clothing) you are not, in effect achieving those goals because you are still trapping yourself in the objectification of bygone ages. True equality would not require the degradation (yes, that's what it is; let's call an orange an orange, okay) of one of the sexes in order to advance it.

Do yourself, and everyone else, a favor and cover up. If you want true equality then it must be achieved through the right channels.

Yeah, I'm still thinking about working on trashing a raging torrent of dumb broads in that "feminist stupidity" diatribe...but it's not as enjoyable as you might think.

While you're waiting, here's something way cooler than daft chicks who think power and influence come from wearing skanky clothes: deer! Yup, these critters were snacking on fallen fruit in the neighbor's yard this morning. Have to admit they're pretty cute, what with them big ol' Dumbo ears (is it wrong of me to think, "mmmm, oven roast!" when I see these animals??).

 

BELOW: They're not usually quite so active during daylight hours; I was a little surprised to see so many.

 

BELOW: They kept moving around so it wasn't real easy to get an accurate count, but I'm positive that there were at least 7 of them; all female except for this little guy checking me out. He's a good looking buck -- just needs a few more years to make those antlers a bit more impressive.

I am actually working on something else but have lost a bit of steam with it. So, while I'm trying to re-motivate myself to tackle the subject of feminist stupidity, here is some Arkona for you to listen to. Arkona is a Russian Folk Metal band, but don't let that discourage you from listening to this (no, seriously, this is some truly moving music and you'd be a fool not to listen). The song, "Небо хмурое, тучи мрачные" (loosly translates to "Sullen Sky, Lurid Clouds"), is about a woman who finds out her husband has been killed in battle and, as a result of her sorrow, she kills herself...I know, depressing subject, but it's really a beautiful song.

I have wanted a Volvo since I was 17 years old. Kinda surprising really, since aesthetically speaking a Volvo is a box on wheels and I don't normally find that interesting; but I was always attracted to their safety record and for some reason the boxiness of it appealed to me.

I had one virtually in my grasp; it was just two doors down and had been for sale since I moved back up here. So, for nearly 3 1/2 years I have been coveting that little blue box-on-wheels and in just a couple more months I could've scraped together the money to buy it...but no more. Just a short time ago I saw it drive out of my life.

I'm devastated. I never took a picture of it (cuz I didn't think I'd need to) but I found it's mate online. I keep looking over at it's former home, hoping that I was wrong and they are bringing it back; but alas...

 

P.S. If you bought my Volvo then you suck and I hate you. But if you bring it back then all will be forgiven.

(If you are confused by the title, "Volvo" is Latin for "I roll.")

I have often said that I hate snow. This is the third winter that I am delivering newspapers in this town and, up until this morning, that opening statement has been 100% true. Whether you're walking, biking, or driving, delivering papers in snowy conditions is not fun and can even be quite dangerous. Basically, my job and snow are not compatible; my job and rain aren't really compatible, either -- it costs me a lot of money to bag all those papers. But as I was driving home this morning I have to admit that snow is really quite beautiful (especially new-fallen, before humans have had an opportunity to mess it up).

So, is that statement still true? To be honest, I don't think it's ever really been true. I just don't like delivering papers in it (or shoveling it, either...oh how happy I would be if I had a snow blower....). If that's the case, you say, then why don't I just pack it in and find a less harrowing, less under-appreciated job? Because of what happened this morning that makes it all worth it.

As I was walking up to one house to leave the paper, the resident, a little old lady, came to the door to meet me and she thanked me profusely. And folks, that's what makes this job worth it. The rare, but heartfelt thanks that I do get. So, for at least a short time more, I will put up with knee-high snow, unplowed and icy roads, and I will try to appreciate the snow for it's beauty.

So, one of my Facebook friends posted a link to a Washington Post article about Michele Bachman's manicure and whether it's tasteful, tacky, or totally off-limits...

Are you effing serious? Is that really what's important these days? With everything that's going on (read: wrong) in this country we're seriously going to focus on Michele Bachman's fake nails? I can't believe this is even an issue. If people vote against her because of her acrylic nails then we are definitely up shit crick with no t.p.

The idea that people would focus on something so incredibly trivial is mind boggling (and it isn't just the Washington Post, if you read the article you will see that the attention is across a broad spectrum of media). As if we don't have enough to worry about, people are now bringing up a completely inconsequential factor. The presidency is not about fashion, it's about governing this country and we shouldn't be focusing on a person's look(s) when considering whether they have what it takes to drag this country out of the hellish abyss it's currently in.

Would you really rather have a president that simply looks good? Or would you prefer one that can actually lead? Personally, I prefer the latter. But if you're so ridiculously shallow that you would actually, genuinely, prefer the former then you deserve whatever terror your future, hot president can dish out.

Stop worrying about Bachman's manicure and start paying attention to what really matters.

...Or not.

There's been a lot of drama in the Metal community lately thanks to a University of Melbourne study that apparently links Metal with depression...y'know, like it hasn't been linked before. But it's caused enough of a stir with at least one musician, Jason Foley, that he wrote a statement about it, to which the study's author, Dr. McFerran, responded, and he then rebutted.

To be honest, I was trying to avoid this topic, but some comments attached to the rebuttal have compelled me to speak out.

I haven't read the entire study, in fact, I've only skimmed the introduction and discussion (which are essentially the most important portions of any report), but what little I've read has already had an effect. The study indicates that teens choose music based on their mood, and that their mood can be changed by the music they listen to. This isn't news, folks, I've known for years (and I'm sure loads of other music-listeners have too) that I tend to choose music that reflects my mood and my mood can change based on what I am listening to.

The danger with this study, and all the research that McFerran refers to, is the fact that it was done by the academic establishment. Why do I think that's a problem? Because, unfortunately, academia is myopic and tunnel-visioned; I've addressed this problem before.  For some strange reason, academics limit themselves and generally wind up missing the point entirely, which results in reports such as this (which the media, and U of Melbourne then completely misrepresented and blew out of proportion).

In the case of this particular report, the inference is that the music is what causes the initial problem, when it's clear, from her own report, that the music is used to alleviate a problem that already exists. If you read the discussion at the end of the report you will see how she is forcing the data to conform to her ideas ("...some strong emotional experiences may result in an initial deterioration of mood, but ultimately result in an improvement...However this is an unlikely explanation in the context of this study since participants were reflecting on experiences in the past four weeks. It could be assumed that any delayed positive effect would have been enacted by this time, thus altering how they answered the question." [emphasis added]).

You know what they say about assuming...

In the immortal words of whoever said it first, "There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics," and any report can say whatever the author or academic establishment wants it to based on how they manipulate the wording and the stats. What everyone needs to take away from this is the fact that all people react differently to different music and you cannot possibly make inferences across a population because there are simply too many confounding factors. Ergo, this "research" is useless.

I believe that we gravitate toward music that speaks to us, and we will make our own choices based on our life experiences. People like to vilify Metal and point to the few instances when Metal fans have either killed others, or themselves, as proof that Metal is harmful. Yet nobody bothers to comment on music when a rap fan does a drive-by, or a pop fan bullies a fellow student into committing suicide. I have long believed that what we don't understand we fear, and what we fear we try to destroy. Those who would try to destroy Metal are they who do not understand it. To those people who believe that Metal causes people to kill others, I would point to the thousands of Metal fans who have never killed anyone. And to those people who would like to believe that Metal causes depression, I would say, talk to someone for whom Metal has been a life-saver and helped them cope through stressful and depressing times (like me).

If we are going to bring music into the equation when a Metal fan commits a crime or suicide, then we need to bring it into the equation for every crime or suicide. Music is not the enemy, narrow-mindedness is.

According to experts, when you dress in business attire you behave more business-like. And that's why many businesses require their employees to dress accordingly. I've always wanted to argue about this, because I feel that when you are comfortable in your clothes then you will be more productive, and not everyone is comfortable in business clothes.

This last week has put my argument to the test. Last Thursday, I was minding my own business doing my job, when I was viciously attacked by a section of pavement. The resulting list of injuries included bruises, abrasions, and swelling on both knees and my left arm. As a result of the damage to my knees I didn't feel much like wearing jeans, so I wore my flaming skull lounge pants instead (and spent a lot of time with my feet up, on the couch).

A week later, my knees are not causing me excruciating pain when trouser fabric touches them, so today I wore jeans. And, interestingly enough, I actually managed to get some things done; things that had been piling up while I was wearing my lounge pants.

Now, I can't guarantee that the change was due entirely to the change in clothes, because, frankly, being in pain isn't really conducive to productivity, but I will say that while I was wearing the lounge pants I really didn't feel like doing anything. It felt a bit like an extended weekend, really. But today, after putting on the jeans, I actually felt like I could get some things done -- and I did. In fact, I actually felt my attitude adjust; it was a perceptible change.

So, while I don't agree that business attire is the only clothing that will make you more productive, I do have to agree that what you wear can have an effect on your ability to get things done.

A curious thing has happened over the last little while over on Facebook. Since the most recent round of Facebook changes there has been an explosion of image sharing that has reached epic proportions. With the new ease of sharing, it's now possible to share material from people you never even knew existed. This seems to have resulted in some sort of impromptu, unspoken competition to see who can share the most, and the funniest images and stories.

But since this explosion I've noticed a certain dearth of substantive postings. Not that posts were particularly substantive before, but now it just seems like the image sharing has allowed people to get a little lazy. Don't get me wrong, I like a good laugh just as much as the next person, but seriously, when the only things you post are funny image after funny news story...gets a bit old.

If the story or image is particularly thought provoking then, okay, post it; but I have Feed Demon that brings me the news from sources that I actually care about, so, I'm not really interested in yours. And all the funny images -- just clog my news feed. Just sayin.'