September 5th, 2012

deal with it

Mah lovely lady lumps

So, um, I didn't go to acro last night. I went to training yesterday and told DoomBoy the pertinent parts of my weekend adventures, and we went through a range of movements to see what hurt and what didn't, then did core exercises till I wanted to vomit, then some lighter lifting and some isolation exercises. None of these things hurt. However, by the evening my arm was throbbing and limp again, and I decided not to try doing thngs that involve pulling on strange angles. I reallyreally want to go to handbalancing tonight (mostly because I'm making progress damnit and I want to keep that up) but I know that it would be more sensible not to. At this point I'm holding out hope that resting all day will make it fine by tonight.

But I have to be realistic - there's something wrong or it wouldn't hurt. It's annoying that it doesn't hurt when I'm actually doing stuff so I can't tell what stuff to avoid. This means that avoiding everything is the most sensible approach and fuck that for a game of soldiers.

Collapse )

I was never very good at being anything less than entirely capable, all the time.

Last night we watched 2 episodes of the documentary series Drugs Inc - the cocaine one and the ecstasy one. While I can see that the makers were doing their best to appear neutral, I couldn't help but laugh at the way they pulled numbers out of their arses. There are 2 million cocaine dealers in the US, apparently. I wonder how they came about that figure. The census? "Occupation: Tick one - carpenter, project manager, cocaine dealer." *cough* The guy sniffing sassafras oil and saying it made his head feel like it was going to explode was also pretty funny. Some of the ecstasy 'facts' - like how it gives you brain damage - weren't very facty, just saying, and the language used was mostly couched in the usual 'drugs are bad' hegemony. However, given that the people making it were probably TV producers and not drug policy experts, I can almost forgive them not noticing how biased their language was. But not quite. The media is the machinery of ideology (along with education) and National Geographic should be very very careful to ensure that their language is actually neutral.

However, for the most part these were nowhere near as bad as I was expecting, and they make some good points. They did demonstrate a positive side to drug use, and discuss the failure of the war on drugs in terms of potentially better options. I liked the way they took pains to portray the perspective of the primary producers in the drug trade - lots of people don't think about them at all. But for the most part, it seemed to be a 'once over lightly' look at the various drug trades for the benefit of the ignorant. I imagine it would make most people at least think beyond "Oh look, a morally-degenerate crack addict dumb shit deserves to die" anyway. And in that respect it's good, so I guess I recommend it?

Also, if sassafras trees are so endangered and taking them for oil is so terrible for the environment, perhaps allowing them to be farmed is not such a dumb idea.

Surprising news is surprising

So that essay about Criminological Theory? The really boring compare/contrast one that I mustered zero enthusiasm for and expected about a B for because my lack of enthusiasm showed?

It got an A+. A firm one too, not just scraping in.

I guess the points I lost for saying in the student forum that the tutor needed maths lessons, I got back for being the only one that'll argue with him. Anyway, that should be enough to motivate me for the rest of the course.