casual is cool

Work is blah! Gotta start posting again.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:54:00 +0000

Hey guys. I gotta start posting again. If not for you, then at least for myself.

I used to use xanga.. then that died. Before that I used to actually have my own primitive website that I would put "posts" or updates on in a diary/blog manner... then after xanga i sort of went into remission. Down the line, blogspot came out.. i used it here and there but created all these accounts so I never stuck with ONE and just posted on one.. that messed me up too. After that alivenotdead sort of like a myspace + blogger came out and now i post on that semi frequently.. but I'd like to choose one blog and just blog all the time on it. Why can't I stick to one thing and do just that one thing extremely well??? I think thats an innate problem - that I like to do a million things (which gives me stress). Now I am familiar with wordpress and have 4 or 5 wordpress blogs going on.

I am really going to stick to one. It's just that I like to write about such various things.. like my thoughts, philosophy, martial arts, romance, films, current events, wushu, stunts, business, creating wealth, networking, clubbing, parties, and automotive. Does that all belong in one blog?

Jackie Chan Tribute

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 07:04:00 +0000

More specifically a Police Story Tribute

Wushu Training Compilation

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:42:00 +0000

Compilation:
Longfist / Changquan
Straight Sword / Jian Shu
Spear / Qiang Shu

Tai Chi Master Theme Song

Female Tony Jaa - Thai Movie Trailer

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 31 May 2008 16:43:00 +0000

They even show the stunt outtakes at the end. She looks pretty cool.

Here is Tony Jaa in Ong Bak 2

Being A Man

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 02 May 2008 23:16:00 +0000

Manliness
by Harvey C. Mansfield
Yale, 304 pp., $27.50

ONE OF THE LEAST VISITED memorials in Washington is a waterfront statue commemorating the men who died on the Titanic. Seventy-four percent of the women passengers survived the April 15, 1912, calamity, while 80 percent of the men perished. Why? Because the men followed the principle "women and children first."

The monument, an 18-foot granite male figure with arms outstretched to the side, was erected by "the women of America" in 1931 to show their gratitude. The inscription reads: "To the brave men who perished in the wreck of the Titanic. . . . They gave their lives that women and children might be saved."

Today, almost no one remembers those men. Women no longer bring flowers to the statue on April 15 to honor their chivalry. The idea of male gallantry makes many women nervous, suggesting (as it does) that women require special protection. It implies the sexes are objectively different. It tells us that some things are best left to men. Gallantry is a virtue that dare not speak its name.

In Manliness, Harvey C. Mansfield seeks to persuade skeptical readers, especially educated women, to reconsider the merits of male protectiveness and assertiveness. It is in no way a defense of male privilege, but many will be offended by its old-fashioned claim that the virtues of men and women are different and complementary. Women would be foolish not to pay close attention to Mansfield's subtle and fascinating argument.

Mansfield offers what he calls a modest defense of manliness. It is modest, not because its claims are cautious--Mansfield courts wrath and indignation on almost every page--but because, as he says, "Most good things, like French wine, are mostly good and accidentally bad. Manliness, however, seems to be about fifty-fifty good and bad. . . . This is what I mean by a modest defense."

"Manliness," he says, "is a quality that causes individuals to stand for something." The Greeks used the term thumos to denote the bristling, spirited element shared by human beings and animals that makes them fight back when threatened. It causes dogs to defend their turf; it makes human beings stand up for their kin, their religion, their country, their principles. "Just as a dog defends its master," writes Mansfield, "so the doggish part of the human soul defends human ends higher than itself."

Every human being possesses thumos. But those who are manly possess it in abundance, and sometimes in excess. The manly man is not satisfied to let things be as they are, and he makes sure everyone knows it. He invests his perception of injustice with cosmic importance.

Manliness can be noble and heroic, like the men on the Titanic; but it can also be foolish, stubborn, and violent. Achilles, Brutus, and Sir Lancelot exemplify the glory of manliness, but also its darker sides. Theodore Roosevelt was manly; so was Harry "The Buck Stops Here" Truman. Manly men are confident in risky situations. Manliness can be pathological, as in gangsters and terrorists.

Manliness, says Mansfield, thrives on drama, conflict, risk, and exploits: "War is hell but men like it." Manliness is often aggressive, but when the aggression is tied to the concept of honor, it transcends mere animal spiritedness. Allied with reason, as in Socrates, manliness finds its highest expression.

Women can be manly--Margaret Thatcher is an example--but manliness is the "quality mostly of one sex." This creates problems for a society such as ours that likes to think of itself as "gender neutral," egalitarian, and sensitive. Manliness is not sensitive. Today, we mainly cope with it by politely changing the subject. The very word is deemed quaint and outmoded. Gender experts in our universities teach as fact that the sex difference is an illusion--a discredited construct, like the earth being flat or the sun revolving around the earth.

And yet, the complex range of behavior that "manliness" characterizes persists. It is still mostly men who embody it. We have succeeded in bringing the language to account, but we have not managed to exorcise masculine thumos.

After almost 40 years of feminist agitation and gender-neutral pronouns, it is still men who are far more likely than women to run for political office, start companies, file for patents, and blow things up. Men continue to tell most of the jokes and write the vast majority of editorials and letters to editors. And--fatal to the dreams of feminists who long for social androgyny--men have hardly budged from their unwillingness to do an equal share of housework or childcare. Moreover, women seem to like manly men: "Manliness is still around, and we still find it attractive," says Mansfield.

Mansfield's amusing, refreshing, and outrageous observations must already be causing distress for his Harvard colleagues. But many readers will be grateful to him for his candor and bravado. Today, when scholars acknowledge sex differences, they do it timorously. They follow every assertion of difference with a list of exceptions, qualifications, and caveats. Into this world strides Professor Mansfield, loaded for bear, and lethally armed with all the powerful stereotypes thought to be banished from bien pensant society. And he deploys them without apology in shocker after shocker:

[Women] shun risk more than men and they perceive risk more readily; they fear spiders. . . .
Women seem to desire more than men to make a nest and to take responsibility for making it. To do this, they sometimes need the help of their men, and they nag them responsibly and more or less charmingly according to their skill. . . .

In my experience, it is difficult for a man who is attracted to a woman not to find her cute, rather than intimidating, when she gets angry.

Mansfield reminds us that philosophers and poets were worried about manliness long before contemporary feminists began to anguish over it. He presents a magisterial survey of the role played by manliness in the thought of the great philosophers.

From the Greeks to Thomas Hobbes and Friedrich Nietzsche, philosophers have extolled or deplored manliness--but mostly they looked for ways to control it. No one, says Mansfield, understood the vices and virtues of manliness better than Aristotle and Plato. They gave it its due while "remaining wary of its dangers."

Unfortunately, few modern philosophers have followed their example. The ancients well understood that too much--or too little--manliness is a bad thing. Too much is dangerous, but too little is fatal to a society's prospects for greatness--or even for its survival. Modern philosophers err on the side of wariness and suspicion and, according to Mansfield, "the entire project of modernity can be understood as a project to keep manliness unemployed."

The entire project of modernity? This says, in effect, that modern philosophy has been engaged in making wimps out of men. As Mansfield sees it, since the dawn of the modern era, philosophers have conspired against manly thumos. Hobbes, for example, ignored the higher forms of heroic and philosophical manliness: He reduced it to a simple aggressive drive that leads to a "war of all against all." It had to be broken--not accommodated--by handing over power and rights to an absolute sovereign.

Hobbes placed self-preservation at the center of his theory. But, says Mansfield, manly men do not merely want to survive: They seek glory for themselves and their causes. For Mansfield, Hobbes is the extreme--but still typical--example of modern philosophers' disdain for manliness: "Liberalism is unmanly in setting down self-preservation as the end of man, as do Hobbes and John Locke."

Mansfield himself does not mind being a loner. For years, he has fought a forlorn battle at Harvard in defense of high standards. He was the only member of the faculty to vote against establishing a women's studies major. All the same, one would have expected him to find a few defenders of manliness somewhere in the annals of modern philosophy. But he does not cite any. With the possible exceptions of Baruch Spinoza and Edmund Burke, he complains that philosophers of modernity just don't get it when it comes to understanding and valuing male spiritedness: "Modern thinking does not want to cooperate with manliness, and does not care for thumos."

In place of the heroic, but rationally controlled, conception of manliness offered us by the ancients, modern thinkers give us a pallid, cautious, risk-averse bourgeois manliness--a world of Babbitts, rather than Achilles.

But this perspective is badly skewed. Surely Mansfield would not deny that the "bourgeois" male denizens of modernity have been responsible for some of the most prodigious displays of genius in art, literature, and music. They invented science, the free market, and liberal government, and they refined the art of war, magnifying its lethality a thousandfold. It would appear that Mansfield systematically underestimates the manliness of modern man, and of philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, Francis Bacon, and René Descartes who helped create him.

His discussion of Nietzsche's powerful influence on contemporary feminism shows Mansfield at his philosophical best and manly worst. Here, more than elsewhere, Mansfield dazzles us with the aptness of his insights, while being recklessly inattentive to nuance, exceptions, and complexity. He has no doubts about Nietzsche's manliness. He sets up a dramatic contrast between the manly ideal favored by Plato and Aristotle and the unrestrained masculinity promoted by Nietzsche.

Both Plato and Aristotle developed a conception of ethical manliness based on courage, tying manliness to protectiveness and reason. Manly men (and women) are the guardians of Plato's Republic; they are the noble gentlemen in Aristotle's polis. Both maintained that philosophers, not warriors, are the manliest of all.

By contrast, Nietzsche, a classicist by training, idealized the pre-Socratic Homeric age. He preferred the warrior to the philosopher, exalting Achilles over Socrates. He criticized Plato and Aristotle for putting reason above passion. For Nietzsche, says Mansfield, "Humanity is not to be found in reason but rather in the spark of life--the assertion of each man's life by that man." Nietzsche has burdened modernity with an exceptionally dangerous philosophy that Mansfield calls "manly nihilism." Where Plato and Aristotle place severe constraints on manly expression, Nietzsche gives us a manliness unrestrained by anything outside itself. Says Mansfield: "Manly assertiveness feeds on itself alone, and does not serve to protect and defend a cause greater than itself."

So where did contemporary feminists turn for philosophical inspiration? They had their pick of any number of the polite, sensible, and sensitive thinkers of modernity. John Stuart Mill would have been perfectly suitable. But no, says Mansfield, they turned down this nice guy--"a wimp when you come down to it"--and "went mad for crazy manly Nietzsche."

Nietzsche is hardly the philosopher one would expect to emerge as the muse for modern feminism. Not only did he valorize unrestrained male assertion, his contempt for women was famously explicit:

The true man wants two things, danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.
When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexually.

In another context, he said women were for the "recreation of the warrior." His advice to men on the subject of women: "Forget not thy whip." Why, then, did Nietzsche's point of view appeal so strongly to intellectual feminists?

"In the 1970s," says Mansfield, "nihilism came to American women. . . . What interested [feminists] in Nietzsche was the nihilism he proclaimed as fact--God is Dead--and the possibility of creating a new order in its place." Of course, most American women were not reading Nietzsche. But many did read Simone de Beauvoir, and she was the herald of the new nihilism. In Mansfield's words, she was "Nietzsche in drag." Far from being critical of Nietzsche's hypermasculine fantasies, his "will to power," and his rejection of the Judeo-Christian ethic--she embraced it all and urged women to emulate it.

Beauvoir famously said, "One is not born, but becomes a woman." She rejected the idea that there is anything like human nature or any other source of an authoritative moral order. When she said that women must seek "transcendence," she meant that they should reject all the inducements of nature, society, and conventional morality. Beauvoir condemned marriage and family as a "tragedy" for women; both are traps that are incompatible with female subjectivity and freedom. She described the pregnant woman as "a stockpile of colloids, an incubator for an egg." She compared childbearing and nurturing to slavery.

Mansfield reminds readers how far Beauvoir's "womanly nihilism" strayed from the classical feminism of Mary Wollstonecraft and American suffragists. The early feminists questioned the rigidity of sex roles, but they never doubted that there was such a thing as human nature, and that women had distinctive roles to play in the family and society. Simone de Beauvoir wanted women to be free of all roles. Toward what end? She did not specify. Beauvoir's womanly nihilism inspired apostles like Germaine Greer, Shulamith Firestone, Kate Millett, and (to a lesser extent) Betty Friedan. In the decades following the sixties, it became official feminist doctrine.

Of course, as Mansfield observes, women are not men, and so inevitably they are less effective at being true Nietzscheans. Unlike radicals in other social movements, the feminist revolutionaries of the 1970s and '80s never engaged in violence. None went to jail. So how did they succeed in changing American society?

As Mansfield explains, they "relied on womanly devices." They formed "consciousness raising" groups and enrolled in "assertiveness training" workshops. Pronoun policewomen went to work cleansing the language of sexism. Tantalized by the Nietzschean idea that knowledge was a form of power, and not the result of disinterested inquiry, feminist scholars went on a rampage "reinventing" knowledge. In the academy, women took full advantage of manly men's gentlemanly reluctance publicly to oppose and thwart women.

Is Mansfield being fair to feminism? Is Nietzsche its main guiding spirit? Not really. His description of "feminist nihilism" rides roughshod over many distinctions within feminist theory and the women's movement. Alongside the reckless feminism of Beauvoir, Firestone, Greer, and company, there was a quieter, more reasonable, eminently sane version (inspired by those "wimps" Locke, Mill, and David Hume) working its way through American society and bringing needed reforms. Mansfield is aware of, and appreciates the achievements of, this moderate wing, but Manliness gives the impression that Second Wave feminism was one long Nietzschean production. It was more than that.

But one forgives Mansfield his imprecision and hyperbole because so much of what he says is profoundly true. Not all of contemporary feminism is a playing out of Nietzschean themes, but a great deal of it is. He is also right when he points out that many feminist leaders emulate some of the cruder and unappealing qualities of manliness.

An example (not given by Mansfield) is Eve Ensler's male-averse play The Vagina Monologues. This is loosely based on interviews with more than 200 women on the subject of their intimate anatomy. Its more serious preoccupation is exposing male insensitivity and violence. Pathological male thumos is everywhere: The play is a rogues' gallery of male oafs, losers, brutes, batterers, rapists, child molesters, and vile little boys. It is as if honorable manliness never existed.

Mansfield's analysis of women's nihilism gives us the lens to understand these developments as caricatures of the feminist will to "empowerment." It is a form of manly assertiveness unmoderated by Aristotelian ideals. Here we have an example of women imitating masculinity in its lower range. It is the dark side of the "gender neutral society" in which we now live.

The women who champion Eve Ensler's production are rightly concerned about the problem of male violence. But the known solution is to teach boys (and men) to be gentlemen. "A gentleman," says Mansfield, "is a man who is gentle out of policy, not weakness; he can be depended upon not to snarl or attack a woman when he has the advantage or feels threatened." And any gentlewoman or "lady" is naturally more suited for the task of civilizing a vulgar, barbarous male than a whole army of gender warriors.

What would Mansfield have us do? His book is primarily a conceptual analysis of manliness. It is not a self-help book. But it should surprise no one that this bossy, opinionated, and intrepid male thinker has a lot of advice to dispense. Women who like manly men will want to pay close attention. He says a lot of useful things your women's studies professors probably forgot to mention.

First of all, he thinks we should clearly distinguish between the public realm and private life. In public we should pursue, as best we can, a policy of gender neutrality. He firmly believes that the law should guarantee equal opportunity to men and women. However, "our expectations should be that men will grasp the opportunity more readily and more wholeheartedly than women."

Though he mentions it only in passing, it follows from his position that our schools should be more respectful and accepting of male spiritedness; they must stop trying to feminize boys. A healthy society should not war against human nature. It should, he says, "reemploy masculinity." That means it has to civilize it and give it things to do. No civilization can achieve greatness if it does not allow room for obstreperous males.

In the private sphere, his advice is vivé la difference! A woman should not expect a manly man to be as committed to domesticity as she is; nor should she assume that he is as emotionally adept as her female friends. Manly men are romantic rather than sensitive. They need a lot of help from females to ascend to the higher ethical levels of manhood, and Mansfield urges women to encourage them in ways respectful of their male pride.

Men, for their part, need to be gallant to women and respectful. Above all, they must listen to them. Mansfield offers this advice to young men:

Women want to be taken seriously almost as much as they want to be loved. To take women seriously you must first take yourself seriously and after that ask them what they think. And when they tell you, try to listen.
He is not suggesting that women accept a subordinate role; on the contrary, he compares women to philosophers. They are, on the whole, less assertive, but that makes it easier for them to be observant, reflective, and calmly judgmental: "It should be expected that men will be manly and sometimes a bit bossy and that women will be impressed with them or skeptical."

The world of gender studies has never before had to confront anyone quite like this solitary rogue male professor of politics. Critics will rail against his excesses and feminists will be indignant and offended. But many women will be charmed by his effrontery, and grateful for the truth and wisdom in Mansfield's elegant treatise.

Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of The War Against Boys and coauthor of One Nation Under Therapy.

Live Longer Stress Less

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:33:00 +0000

Read an article about a lady who just passed her 115th birthday.

There are only about 100 or so people who are living that are past the age 110.

They are doing studies on these peoples genes and lifestyle habits.

One thing they found in common with these long life people was that they had less stress than others and were good at managing stress.

I am not saying we all need to strive to live passed 110, but there is something to be noted about not stressin.

WUSHU - The Movie!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:58:00 +0000

Wushu - My favorite sport is finally being recognized officially on the big screen.

Check out this article from kungfucinema.com

Along with its young new stars, a once humble, low-budget martial arts drama that sought to portray an unvarnished representation of modern Chinese martial arts has since picked up the sizable backing of martial arts screen legends Sammo Hung and Jackie Chan. With the international appeal that these talents deliver and two impressive new trailers now in circulation, WUSHU is shaping up to be a potential gold medal winner in a year when all eyes will be on China’s Olympic athletes.

View the Trailers

The footage in these trailers shows something that has been sorely missing from Chinese martial arts movies in recent years, actually two things. One, is heart. When a young girl, striking a pose in front of her fellow students, breaks out a huge grin as she briefly imagines herself as a martial arts heroine, it made me think of the French modern masterpiece AMELIE. In interviews I have seen with real wushu students from the mainland, children from humble roots dream a lot about how their efforts to master wushu can better their lives and the lives of their family. These Chinese students pour their hearts into their performances and I can already see that this film tries to capture that.

The other missing element that I see in WUSHU is real skill portrayed realistically. The young actors in the film are real wushu students who do not need doubles, undercranking or wires to enhance their movements. I don’t know how far Szeto, Hung and the rest of the crew went in order to maintain authenticity but so far the film appears to be a hugely refreshing alternative to the excessively exaggerated depictions of martial arts so often depicted in Chinese martial arts movies.

Wang Wenjie
In recent photos and in the trailers Wang Wenjie looks somewhat like a young Chow Yun-fat, except with much more impressive fighting ability. If he plays his cards right, Wang could end up being the next big international Chinese superstar. Who knows? This film could be to Wang what THE ROAD HOME was to Zhang Ziyi. Only time will tell.

WUSHU quickly became a high-profile project after its young star, Wang Wenjie, put on a wushu demonstration at Cannes which caught the attention of Sammo Hung. Eventually, Hung joined the cast by playing a father figure to Wenjie and co-star Liu Fengchao.

In an interview with Chinese media, Hung talked about being a real-life mentor to the actors who he sees as representative of the real successors to his generation. He expressed disappointment in his belief that Hong Kong can no longer produce young martial arts stars with the potential to measure up to the likes of Donnie Yen or Jackie Chan. Hung lays some of the blame on the fact that many of today’s young stars divide their time between acting and singing careers and do not have time or the interest to master screen fighting. The younger generation in Hong Kong in general lacks the commitment to train hard, unlike their mainland Chinese counterparts where demanding wushu schools continue to flourish and students remain focused on their physical training.

Hung admitted that his own son, Sammy, will never be a martial arts star because he didn’t put enough effort in to train. Coincidently, Jackie Chan’s son, Jaycee, did not learn screen fighting either yet has been attempting to make a name for himself as a dramatic actor.

In the same article, WUSHU producer Collete Koo briefly commented on the film’s non-violent theme, saying that in the past kung fu movies have been too focused on violence and revenge themes which in her view are unhealthy. She says that WUSHU is focused on the lives of students growing up in a wushu school and depictions of martial arts are not about violence or revenge.

WUSHU is scheduled to premiere in China in July.

Wushu Collegiates at Stanford Review!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:45:00 +0000

Well, last week collegiates at Stanford just came to an end.

First off I just want to congratulate all the teams that made it out there! This is always typically a fun tournament with a tight community. I also want to especially congratulate the UCLA Team for making a comeback to collegiates this year! They have been training really hard and this year UCLA brought the most competitors and has had the largest team its ever had. In addition UCLA took first in the group set.. so good job team!

As far as final placings go:
All Around
Male - Dennis Ta
Female - Stephanie Lim

Team Overall
1. Stanford
2. CAL
3. CAL

Good job all competitors!

University of Oregon also had a pretty funny group set. They beat each other up and then hobbled off the carpet.

The afterparty was on el camino. (I mean there was no afterparty.. wink wink. jk)
Good ol Kevin Morris competing as most advanced competitor in afterparty division held his spot in wushu afterparty rankings.

It was good to see familiar faces at the event in Stanford's Burnham Pavillion and also at the afterparty. Once I get my MBA I will be able to compete at collegiates again. haha!

Pre 12th Annual Wushu Collegiate Intros

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:32:00 +0000

Well, it's 8:30am and it's the morning of the 12th annual wushu collegiates. The UCLA Wushu Team just drove down last night from LA. We have a solid 15 members down at collegiates this year. There's a lot of competition this year with Stanford and Cal A and B Teams!

Should be an interesting and fun competition.

Cast your votes for which individuals and teams you think will win.

I will follow up with the outcome and also maybe some info on the after party if there is one.

and..

GO UCLA!!

www.wushukicks.com

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:27:00 +0000

http://www.wushukicks.com
For Quality Shoes For Martial Arts

2000 Celica GT-S For Sale

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:55:00 +0000

White 6 speed manual 2000 Toyota Celica GT-S For Sale.

Clean title with 85K miles. Regular maintenances.

Fully loaded: Leather seats, power windows, moon roof, premium sound, spoiler, and front and side airbags.

Additions include: Clifford RSX 3.5 Alarm that pages you if alarm is set off and remote ability to turn on headlights, AEM intake, TRD Exhaust, custom white led gauges, and an in-dash monitor for navigation or dvds.

Asking $7,500.

Email me at alfredrocks@gmail.com for serious inquiries.

Thanks.

Why people are FAT (Be Health Conscious)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:52:00 +0000

So I know this may sound harsh, but people are FAT because they are physically lazy.

If you don't work out and you eat a lot and you are still thin, you are lucky, but I predict that is rare and it won't last.

I once asked my friend "do you think people who are overweight are overweight due to genetic reasons or laziness?"

He replied "It's simplly intake minus output."

And it simply is that! ..granted that there are obviously exceptions and certain diseases or disabilities that will make people more prone to obesity.

However, for the normal average person that is not disabled or stricken with any rare ailment, IT IS SIMPLY INPUT MINUS OUTPUT.

I am not doing any crazy scientific study here, but to make my observation more valid.
http://www.exercise-equipment-review.org/how-many-calories-does-an-elliptical-trainer-burn
provides the following information:
General Estimates of Calories Burned with An Elliptical Trainer:

- 150 pound woman, 30 minutes of elliptical exercise: 387 calories

- 180 pound man, 30 minutes of elliptical exercise: 464 - 500 calories

- 120 pound woman, 30 minutes of elliptical exercise: 310 calories

Again, a few things matter in regard to intensity, muscle usage, and muscle to fat ratio.. but the point is in a 30 minute workout of an average person you burn about 300-500 calories.

Now let's look at our standard diet.

Let's look at an In n Out burger. I hate to call out IN n OUT because I love their burgers, but it's fast food and it's actually fresher than some of the other foods out their so it will work as a fair medium in my example.

According to http://www.shapefit.com/in-out-burger.html

An animal style cheesburger has 480 calories
An animal style double double has 670 calories
Fries get you about 400 calories
A lemonade (180) or coke has about (198) calories
ps. a shake is 690 calories.

so lets say you get a cheeburger, fries, and lemonade.
That's 480+180+400=1060 calories from one fast food meal.

Compared to a 30 minute workout on an elliptical burning 400 calories.

1060-400=660 calories fyi

if you want to LOSE weight.. you roughly need to have a NEGATIVE total!..
(meaning you burn more calories than you consume)

and who even works out EVERY DAY? BUT we EAT everyday.

granted that we walk to our cars and burn calories typing, speaking, etc. but that is only one meal.. we have 3 meals a day + snacks and late night food runs, etc.

So next time you wonder why you're putting on a few extra pounds, just think about intake vs output.

no need to become anorexic, but just eat smaller healthier meals, enjoy a fatty meal sometimes, but dont make it the standard dinner, eat 3 small meals a day instead of 1 huge meal, and exercise more and for longer.. and take the stairs vs elevators, walk if you have the option.. etc.

stay healthy guys!

Cheers!

Dec 23rd GLAM XMAS PARTY @ AREA!!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:29:00 +0000

alfred@thehouseofglam.com

SURFACE 2008 - NYE PARTY! FLYER 2

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:11:00 +0000

Come celebrate New Years eve with The House of Glam, Party Till AM and Climax Global.

Vibiana (www.vibianala.com)
210 S. Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Plan C/Climax/The House of Glam is throwing a special NYE Celebration at a brand new event venue in Little Tokyo. A portion of the event's proceeds will benefit the Little Tokyo Service Center-LTSC (www.ltsc.org) With this in mind, the event organizers have also allowed APEX an opportunity to benefit through the event while supporting the
headlining local non-profit.

Event Planner: Plan C/Climax/The House of Glam
Confirmed Beneficiary: Little Tokyo Service Center (www.ltsc.org)
Location: Vibiana in Little Tokyo (http://www.vibianala.com)
Date: 12/31/07-1/1/08
Time: 9pm - 2am
Appx. Attendees Expected: 1500
Age Requirement: 21+
Theme: Water
Selected Confirmed Non-Profit Supporters: Asian Professional Exchange (APEX) and Taiwanese American Professionals (TAP)
**Each ticket comes with event admission, access to appetizers from top ZAGAT ranked restaurant: Maison Akira (http://www.maisonakira.com), and a champagne toast at midnight**

-----------------------------

TICKET PRICES

Present to 12/15 - $80 presale
12/16 - 12/22 - $95 presale
12/23 - 12/31 - $125 presale

Table reservations
6 ppl - Bottle of Moet Champage, VIP Swags bags and express entry - $500
6 ppl - Bottle of Dom Perigion, VIP Swag bags and express entry - $750
6 ppl - Bottle of Cristal, VIP Swag bags and express entry - $1000

Wushu Fight

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:56:00 +0000

Check out this fight my buddies GW and YW worked on.

Choreographed outside of a dumpling house (Din Tai Fung) while we were waiting to be seated.
Filming - 2 hrs
Editing - 4 hrs

Finished Result:

SURFACE 2008 - NYE PARTY!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:11:00 +0000

alfred@thehouseofglam.com

NYE 2008 PARTY GLAM STYLE IN LA!!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:53:00 +0000

Hey guys ready for 2008?!

Check out our link for more info on GLAMS NEW YEARS EVE PARTY!!

http://www.thehouseofglam.com/surface2008/intro.swf

here is the flyer:

alfred@thehouseofglam.com for tix and other info.

let me know if you are interested in booking a hotel that night. ask about our discounted rates!

The Republic Nov 30th! Be there!!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:27:00 +0000

Also, here is a little TREAT for you!

New Years ideas? Check here!
http://www.thehouseofglam.com/surface2008/

Prepare for 2008!

Wushu Star Flyer

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:22:00 +0000

Flyer 1:

Flyer 2:

Feast this Thanksgiving Weekend @ OPERA HOUSE!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:31:00 +0000

YUM!!!! It's time to FEAST!!! WITH THE HOUSE OF GLAM!!!! FOR SOME PRE-THANKSGIVING PARTYING!!

HOLLA AT ME! CALL ME! BIG GROUP OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GEISHA HOUSE BEFORE PARTYING!

as always contact me for glam events @ alfred@thehouseofglam.com

Even Neo Played by the Rules of the Matrix for a Bit

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:22:00 +0000

Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere, it's all around us, here even in this room. You can see it out your window, or on your television. You feel it when you go to work, or go to church or pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo: What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge bullets?
Morpheus: No, Neo. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.

Even Neo played by the rules of the Matrix for a bit in the beginning while he was learning the rules to the game. Sometimes you gotta learn the rules of the game at least at a fundamental level before you break them.
The interesting thing is that I think 99% of the people who watched this movie and think they understood the concept of the movie totally didn't. They probably went back to the grind and continued life exactly as it was. I think that is why it was portrayed that only >1% can and do "free your mind."
What does it take and What does it mean to take that leap and become unbounded?

Neo: I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid... afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and then show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you. A world without rules or controls, borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.

Coach Wu Bin Seminar on Nov. 23rd

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:34:00 +0000

South Coast Martial Arts & Wushu Star Martial Arts presents
MASTER TEACHER: WU BIN Martial Arts Seminar

Coach Wu is a world-renowned Wushu coach who has produced more champions than any other teacher in China. He has been credited as father of the Beijing Wushu team and teacher of martial arts superstar Jet Li.

Date: Friday Nov 23rd (Friday after Thanksgiving)
Times: 8:30am & 11:00am (714) 545-5759

Location: Wushu Star Martial Arts 114 E. St. Joseph St., # 15 Arcadia, CA
Sponsors: Instructors Joaquin and Philip Sahagun & Coach Woody Wong

Price: $25 per seminar

Seminar #1 Begins at 8:30 am
"The Martial Arts Applications and Training Methods of Wushu"
* Traditional Fighting ("Wu-Gong") Training Methods
* Samples of various combat training styles in Wushu
* Applications
* Partner training
* Difference between external and internal styles
* Question and Answer session

Seminar #2 Begins at 11:00
"How to Improve your Sport Wushu Routines"
* History of Sport Wushu
* What areas each student should pay attention to improve their wushu
each level: beginners, intermediate, and advanced.
* How coaches and parents can nuture wushu potential in children.
* What elements American wushu players need to improve so as to reach
similiar skill levels as China players.
* Practice session
* Direction and trends in sport wushu
* Stories of how Wu Bin trained his students in the 1970's and 1980's
* Question and Answer session

Guestlist only party at The Republic!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:03:00 +0000

Come out and party on Friday @ The Republic!

To get on the list hit up alfred@thehouseofglam.com

Veterans Day Celebration!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:54:00 +0000

Come one come all and come celebrate at Opera!

All your requests shall be answered with Alfred@thehouseofglam.com

Bill Clinton speaking at UCLA

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:02:00 +0000

Apologies on the quality of this video, but it was recorded on my phone.

This is former president Bill Clinton at UCLA speaking about empowerment and making a change.