First off, socialism in itself is not the evil conservatives make it out to be. Capitalism in itself isn't the complete answer. Conservatives love to point at Venezuela as an example of socialism gone wrong, but Venezuela isn't burning because of socialism. It is burning because of corruption, and bad government leaders. It is burning because the upper 1% hordes resources - not socialism but the vestiges of capitalism that their socialism'esque system hasn't been able to break down. It is burning because the government is so focused on their own issues they're not distributing resources, or caring for their people. It is burning because the United States, and European trade partners have put sanctions on Venezuela preventing them from getting resources that they need. It is burning because free, democratic elections have been suspended, the majority ruling party has not allowed opposition in years, and the will of the people has been crushed.

This isn't a symptom of socialism. This is a symptom of authoritarianism, and bad government. This is a symptom of our modern world.

See, plenty of countries blend free-market capitalism, democracy, and socialism to strike more positive balances, and thrive. Every Scandinavian nation, and the vast majority of European union nations, and even Canada. Conservatives want you to think socialism is evil, but they gladly accept that 90% of the people in America who own less than 50% of the resources, pay 98% of the taxes which pay for shareable resources such as infrastructure, defense, and civic services - which is, of course, socialism.

Yes, Hugo Chavez did put significant oil-economy generated capital behind social programs to help the people before his death in 2013, and it was also an imbalance.  Too many resources in one direction, and when things go badly, as they did shortly after his death, you're going to run into major problems. There has to be a balance, in all things. Look at the nations that currently have the highest standards of living, and highest satisfaction scores for the people who live there. They've found the balance. The United States can find the balance too, but like Venezuela, too many of our resources are stuck above the 1% line. We're just too wealthy as a nation over-all to feel the pain Venezuela is feeling right now, but given time with our current majority representatives, it will come. 

And it will suck.

On To The Weight Thing

The moment you all have not been weighting for.... see what I did there?

213.8

Not too terrible. I did miss last week and the number wasn't outstanding, but I'm going to keep working on this. My apologies to all two of you whom look forward to this weekly blog.

My goal hasn't changed. I'm aiming to get down to 190 or even 180'ish. I believe I can. Probably requires a major lifestyle change, and to start doing a lot more cardio, but I'm not in a rush to get there. As long as I keep seeing positive changes.

Iliza Shlesinger

We watched the Netflix Iliza Shlesinger special, Elder Millennial a while back, and pretty much her entire comedy show in this one is based on stereotypes of genders, and how we behave in relationships, starting relationships, ending relationships, etc.

One item that struck me is when she wrapped up a joke by stating, "No matter what kind of woman you are: quiet, tall, short, fat, skinny, loud, don't know much, you have a gill - whatever woman you are, you are right. As long as you're happy."

That's cool. I totally agree. You have to be who you are, and you should be appreciated for who you are.

The joke is set up by critiquing  the Hollywood trope of the wallflower getting Channing Tatum, while the strong, outgoing woman ends up with Steve Zahn, or Jonah Hill. When examined, what she is really saying is, it is unfair that not all women can have Channing Tatum, and women like her get "stuck" with guys who look like Jonah Hill. 

First point: if all of the stereotypes she tosses about are true, she is basically saying women are just as, if not more, looks driven in picking a mate than men are. Second point: why is it not ok to be Jonah Hill, when women can be, and should be right with whomever they are?

I have photographed many fashion shows. Yes, when the women walk the runway aside from the loud music, there are often cheers, applause, maybe even the occasional whistle. When a man walks the runway, women cheer louder. When an attractive man walks the runway, women get quite boisterous in their approval. If he takes off his shirt, you've been transported to a Chippendale's show of women loudly voicing their approval. I've never heard any of them shout "WOOOO! Are you in touch with your emotions, and can you communicate openly?!?!!  WOOOO!"

Yes, those intra-relationship factors that do matter in a relationship don't necessarily matter to women when exploring, and finding a mate. I've said many times, men face similar pressures to be attractive, and fit, and visually appealing. We're just not told to put on more makeup or wear high-heels. The discrimination is just quieter, more passive-aggressive, and less visible. Women are characterized as more accepting of men who aren't model-esque, but they're still looking for men who are model-esque, and would prefer their partner to be for the most part. But for the most part, Iliza is saying, ladies, even if you have gills you don't deserve to be stuck with someone who looks like Jonah Hill. Well, who does Jonah Hill deserve to have? 

Iliza punctuated this bit by stating that the men who hit on wallflowers because they're wallflowers are sexual predators, trying to prey on the weak.

Ugh. 

I'm sure that's the case at times. In any group, there will be a percentage of men who are sexual predators. But for a guy who actually wants to make a connection with someone, which is the easier scenario to do it? Approaching a group of six drunk women dancing with each other in the din of crappy house music, or with the woman who is sitting away from the noise, and not surrounded by people? Iliza also says men have to do the approaching because we're better equipped to deal with rejection, and we're not allowed to have feelings. Something I also find to be not exactly true.  We're not allowed to have feelings, but we do, and rejection impacts us emotionally as much as women. 

Just in case you watched this, and were laughing because, "that's so true!" 

Our 48-Hour Results

The director's cut of our 48-Hour Film Project - Saucy.

I think that's all for today.

Just remember - everything in balance. Not all truths are true. We're all individuals. 

And, I'm not actually a tomato.