Sweet Enlow

I wanted to take some time to comment on societies current approach to tattoo’s. My parents, both in their 60′s (and from the South), have raised me on the premise that tattoos are trashy and for “hooligans.” Clearly, they are in the minority with their opinion because tattoos are EVERYWHERE! Moreover, I disagree with them in general. They are just a different generation.

Yet, for the most part, I would say that one should still never acquire a tattoo unless they really know what they are doing – i.e. nix any idea of a tramp stamp. My friend Woody has a nice little tribute to his passed mother that I like and my friend and fighter Trey has without a doubt the only good tattoo in all of MMA.

However, regardless of what I think, Tattoos maintain, and will continue to maintain, immense popularity in every aspect of pop culture. Athletes, singers, actors all seem to possess their requisite “body art.” So, with that, I wanted to be the prick that I can be and point out the three worst tattoos that come to mind:

I hate to bash my beloved sport, but Brock Lesnar and all fellow MMA fighters possess the worst tattoos in modern society. For some reason, fighters think it goes hand-in-hand with the sport – I completely disagree. BJ Penn, one of the greatest of all time and one of the few fighters I genuinely like outside of his skill, has zero tattoos! Matt Hughes has zero as well, but he is a turd

LeBron James, “the King,” has this obnoxious one. But, luckily for him, Kobe out does him every time with his tattoo dedicated to his wife right after he got busted. God damn its stupid…

I could likely go on all day and highlight some other idiot tattoos, but it is unnecessary. You all probably have some of your own that you laugh out when you see them. But, I did want to say (and I think I have posted about this before) that John Mayer’s sleeve is straight beautiful – no other words necessary.

Don’t be sensitive if you have a tattoo. I am by no means opposed to them. I judge each one and person individually. Just be careful about what you get. It’s permanent…

If you read The Economist, I hope you read this weeks Schumpeter section concerning American universities. It sparked me to finally follow through on a post I have been thinking about for some time…

The Economist article brings to bear some serious issues concerning America’s- thus, the worlds – top universities. Among the many, The Economist writes of universities student becoming over saturated, the ridiculous rising cost of tuition, and – part of the main point I wanted to discuss – the lack of instruction taking place nationwide.  The Economist writes, “professors are not particularly interested in students’ welfare. Promotion and tenure depend on published research, not good teaching. Professors strike an implicit bargain with their students: we will give you light workloads and inflated grades so long as you leave us alone to do our research.” Moreover, “senior professors in Ivy League universities now get sabbaticals every third year rather than every seventh.”

What does this mean?

First, it clearly displays that higher education is more of a business with misaligned incentives than anything else. Professors should be yearning for quality time with their brightest students, not striking juvenile bargains. Yet even so, this country provides (usually) some of the best, most educated people on the planet. How? It is my contention that this has been done by the elite students taking it upon themselves to become educated through the todays ability to spread information – namely, the internet. Historically, this concept was damn near impossible – how could you educate yourself if you couldn’t access any quality subject material? Today, I can get on the internet and phish around gathering any type of material I so desire. Education is now more egalitarian – no doubt, a good thing.

This ability allows everyone to be able equally prepared for the job market. In the ol’ days, a person from Harvard was better educated (besides the fact that they were likely very smart) because they had access to all the best resources in the world. I don’t have a citation to prove it, but I can assume that Widener Library (Harvard’s) was a tad better than Oklahoma A&Ms for much of their existence.

Maybe what I am getting at is this (great scene by the way):

namley – “you dropped $150,000 on a fuckin’ education you coulda got for a $1.50 and late cha’ges at the public library!”

Simply put, the Internet allows everyone to access the same information at a tremendously fast rate. No one has a resource advantage – its not all on you

This brings me to my next question. Should universities still even be ranked with high tuitions?

Yes.

Why?

First, take for example today’s “esteemed institutions” – the Ha’vards, the Yales. At these places, one has the ability to access extremely powerful Alumni. Additionally, the schools tradition, with the Alumni (and their cash), is going to undoubtedly attract a more ambitious and intelligent student body – e.g. people like to attend Presidents Alma Maters. So you have brighter classmates helping to stimulate your learning. Concerning the faculty, though The Economist degrades professors work ethic, the fact is they are probably better academics than there fellow professors at an average school. They have to “be somebody” to be working there in the first place. Teacher Assistants are likely much better as well. Lastly, an impressive school helps that rolodex!

So, while traditional ratings of educationally systems I think no longer apply, the great schools are still likely going to be the great schools – albeit for different reasons. So, “is there still greater value in an Ivy League university at $200,000 compared to a state school at $15,000? My answer is a definitive Yes!

I would be remiss if I didn’t part with some praise for my Alma Mater – West Point. Though everyone at West Point is not the greatest subject mater expert, it does possess entirely the right incentives. The instructors seriously care about your education. Among a myriad of reasons, the most important is that instructors work in the same profession as you and your success is their future success. Your Instructor at school could one day be your boss on the battlefield – it has happened many times in the last few years. Commanders do not want their subordinate officers not to be able to think. In addition, money is not a dominating factor for the West Point faculty which helps to align their incentives. The instructors are paid the same as if they were operating in the regular Army. Maybe this is why I was getting consistent 1-1 time with M.I.T. Ph.D’s.

Maybe this is why I think the academies are the best overall undergraduate degree you can get.

When I was junior in college, I received a loan of $30,000. The “anointed” members of the West Point society all said the same thing, “invest your money!!” Moreover, it was always highly encouraged to invest your low interest loan in a “Roth Ira.”

Most would argue that this is a great idea – the low taxation, compounding interest, the high returns, blah blah blah. One can not deny these truths. Yet, after I have heard all the arguments for why I should act this way, I have come to conclusion – with the help of ample discussion by the crew – that this is, in fact, not entirely the right thing to do.

Why?

By saving money each year as a young adult for retirement – the smart thing to do – what are you implying? I think you are implying two different things – both shitty. First, do you really expect to be so miserable at work at 65 that you are just going to want to be able to have the financial security to wake up one day and not have to do a damn thing. Will you be living the life of Ron Livingston from Office Space? It is my contention that, if you have “done it right,” you will enjoy going to (at least a moderate amount) work each day. You will probably be in a good place with a great salary. My father is 63 he loves going to work each day. He doesn’t even think of retiring because he enjoys his job and the people he works with. Some may call that lucky, but I don’t think it really is. If you desire success, it will be so.

It also seems to imply that you are going to be so old and decrepit that you will need this money for your health. People think, “well, I’ll be 65 – I will need this money for medicine, medical bills, possibly in-home service etc…” This is nonsense. If you live right, you will still be living life to the fullest at this age. Look at people like Art DeVany and Mark Sisson. Older gentleman who flourish! Even if you don’t live right, modern medicine is so powerful now that even people with shitty diets and lifestyles are living adequately well into their 80s. These are people who eat terribly and don’t get an ounce of exercise – pretty incredible.

Clearly, its not a bad idea to save. But save only in such a way that it doesn’t hinder your current lifestyle as a young adult. However, if you think you’re life is going to be so unbearable and unmanageable that by the time you are 65 the money you save now – making your lifestyle less enjoyable – is worth it, then save it all. I know that if I am living by 65, my life will be one of immense enjoyment. A life that wasn’t hindered by the constant thought of “well, what the hell am I going to do about retirement????”

I am one to usually hate on social network things like Facebook or twitter. It took me a long time to sign up for a Facebook account and I just only recently got a Twitter account.

People often complain of how much time one can waste on either one. I tend to agree with the Facebook assertion, but definitely not the twitter one. I have learned more by the people I follow on twitter than I have in long, long time.

I seriously recommend getting a twitter account and following interesting people. This means not following dorks like Britney Spears and Ashton Kutcher. My personal account is zsweetenlow – follow me!

That being said, I am going to start posting interesting links from some of the people I follow on my blog. Here is the first. Some of my alcoholic friends are going to love this.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/07/26/alcohol-in-the-2010-dietary-gu

I was just hanging out tonight at Leon’s (go figure) with a few friends when I came across arguably the greatest piece of internet entertainment in history – Kenny Powers’ Twitter Account.

One has to have seen Eastbound and Down to appreciate the account (so, if you havnt, get on it).

Honestly, some of the funniest things I have ever heard.

A few samplers:

Fuck. Hate it when I give a girl advance payment for her services and then it only lasts 43 seconds

(When Steinbrenner died) Sad day in Jew York.

I’m sure someone’s fucking celebrating me today.

You know those dykes that tape down their tits ’cause they want to be guys? Yeah, I’m looking to drunk bang one tonight.

Seriously, get yourself on twitter if only for this reason.

As I have grown up, my relationship with my parents has blossomed. What was once a parent-child authoritative relationship has now grown into one of mutual respect and mentoring. My parents and I can talk about anything…

Within the context of “anything,” I have unfortunately discussed my personal life. Fortunately, my personal life has – overall – been excellent. Like all of us, though, I have had turbulent times within my relationships. Sometimes I have been so distraught that I can not function.

During these times, people often think (or recommend) that one should confide in the ones closest to them – friends, family, a confidant. Out of the three, who better than ones parents? Wouldn’t that be a sign that one had a fantastic relationship with ones parents? I would think so.

Regardless of your relationship with your parents, I feel you should always – ALWAYS – keep them ambiguously informed of your love life – if at all.

Why?

Parents are bias. Parents are incapable of being rational when it comes to their kids. The love parents maintain for their children blinds any sense of objectivity. My parents are very intelligent, but they will be angry over the slightest disturbance in my personal life. Not because my partner has done anything wrong, but only because their son is upset.

Telling your parents the intimacies of your personal life will only make your situation more complicated and more passionate. Often times, parents only increase the stress of the situation. What one needs is objectivity. Parents can not give that.

Do yourself a favor. Keep your parents out of it.

I have heard it all to often.  Luckily, few have given me this ironic title, but some of my friends have been riddled with this curse.  Maybe its just me who has heard this ad infinitum, but I don’t think so. Think about how often YOU have heard something similar to this quote…

“Well, I don’t know about him… I mean… he is a really nice guy”

ugh…

This quote should (if the person is smart) single handedly steer that someone away from their interest. Why? Because they now have no chance!

I, like always, am writing from a mans perspective.  However, the same applies for males to females.  I have heard to many times friends say, “Ya, she’s real cool… but… I don’t know… I am just not attracted to her.”

The reason, I feel, is that nobody really just wants a nice guy/girl.  Nice people (usually) fail to stimulate others – in general. It is a constant “Yes, man” situation. Instead of challenging back like one should, they submit themselves to the others ideas/opinions for appeasement. From my experience, this is never a successful approach – in any aspect of life.

Being “nice” is a great quality, but to gain an interest, one just can’t be nice. There is simply no stimulation there. It is a fucked-up world we live in, but being an asshole (relatively) is ultimately more appealing than being nice. If not appealing, definitely more interesting.

Don’t get me wrong, one should possess the quality of being nice, BUT only as a subset of your overall personality. Never let it come to forefront, at least not initially. Be funny, aggressive, a prick, mysterious, shy… whatever. Be those things first. Then allow yourself to be nice.  It will be more rewarding.

Currently, Drugs are criminalized in the United States.  Slowly, marijuana at least is becoming less and less criminalized…thank god. I am in the Army – as most know – where drugs will NEVER be legalized (unless of course its by their distribution!).  Because I am entirely unable to partake in the use of drugs because of my career choice, I feel I have an objective position on the matter of drug criminalization that most do not. Now, I could write a long post concerning my views, but the following video sums up beautifully everything I would want to say.

Milton Friedman is one of the best economists of all times. Moreover, he is a great speaker – poignant and articulate.