About a year ago, I had a daily routine: get up at about 7:30, scroll through my phone for half an hour, then go to work. When I got home, I'd eat supper before settling in to a relaxing evening of browsing through Twitter and watching TV. Then one day, I decided to read Harry Potter.
Now if you follow along with my posts, you may have noticed my poor regard for the 20-40 minute visual spectacle otherwise known as TV shows. I acknowledge that they have their proper place, though I think it is limited. Therefore, I would like to propose an alternative to the many situations which often lend themselves to consumption of TV. Read an easy book. Not something earth shattering. Not something mind expanding. Just something easy. Read a book that grabs your interest and keeps it. Don't try to read for very long, either. Start with 10 minutes a day, and slowly work your way up to the amount of time that would otherwise be spent watching TV. Why? Because reading is good for you! Watching TV is the mental equivalent of sitting on the couch (often accompanied by the corresponding physical posture). Light reading is the mental equivalent of going for a walk: the positive impact might not be much, but any negative impact is non-existent. A year ago I started reading Harry Potter. Since then, I've read over a dozen other books, learned a lot, slept better, and the amount of TV I watch has dwindled to little more than a few minutes a day. Free time does not have to be wasted time. Read a book.
0 Comments
Really quick. I’ve just got a public service announcement: overusing words takes away their power. Misusing words takes away their meaning. If we want the things we say to have meaning, then the words we use have to mean something themselves. Unfortunately, the way we've chose to use words has taken away their power, and therefor their usefulness.
Take “lol” as an example (I know it’s an acronym, but it’s a good example). “lol” ought to mean laughing out loud. But does it? I must confess I’ve texted, or even said “lol” countless times. But I was only truly laughing out loud once or twice. So when I said “lol” I didn’t really mean it. What I actually meant was “that’s amusing enough to elicit acknowledgement on my part, though not, in actual fact, all that funny.” “Lol” doesn’t mean laughing out loud anymore. We’ve overused and misused it, thereby changing its meaning. There are other examples. Does anyone even know what irony is? Does anyone really recognize when something is actually ironic? How about this one; “awesome.” To be filled with awe. The state a person is in when the information coming at them is of a magnitude which confounds mental processing. How many of us mean that when we say something is “awesome”? I’ve seldom been certifiably amazed in my lifetime. But I can say that when I was, my mouth hung open like a drawbridge whose sentinel fell asleep. Some words have simply been stripped of their meaning and usefulness, and can no longer travel unaccompanied in the linguistic jungle. “Whelmed” for instance. I’ve often been underwhelmed; at movie theaters, on first dates, and at the sight of fast-food. I’ve sometimes been overwhelmed; with too much work, not enough time, or by more affection from others than I thought I was worthy of. But as to being just plain “whelmed,” I’m sure I’ve never described myself as such. Make no mistake, “whelmed” is a word; a conjugation of the verb “to whelm” in fact. And yet, bereft of any accompanying modifier, the word has ceased to have any use. And again, there are other words, the definitions of which occupy such a small and particular space, that their falling out of use can be chalked up to nothing more than the lexical equivalent of being misplaced and thereafter forgotten. A fellow might say, upon unearthing something of his which he had not seen in years, “oh this tool was of great use unknotting my molasses covered shoelaces.” So too, one might offer a similar comment at the sight of a long estranged and remarkably particular word. “Resistentialism,” understood to be the seemingly spiteful behavior exhibited by inanimate objects. Certainly, we have use for this word (if only due to the existence of sharp corners, legs of chairs, and Legos). Yet, because of its excessively narrow and one-dimensional definition, we have forgotten it. Finally, a brief comment on the abuse of words. It has been said that words are among the most powerful weapons at our disposal. With an unkind comment, or a slandering claim, we have the potential to impair someone’s self-confidence, or ruin their reputation. This on its its own is a harmful use of language. But oftentimes, it occurs with the use of word which does not apply, and weakens the use of the word towards even the purpose for which it was created. Take for instance the aggressive claim of calling a man who has just stepped on a bug “a murderer.” Has the man killed something? Yes. Does that make him a murder? Only if we are willing to loosen the meaning of word, making it a much less serious claim than it is if we understand a murderer to be someone who kills people. To call a bug killer a murder is not only an unfair claim, but it also lessons the charge laid on any man who really is a murderer. I conclude with advice which if deviated from, may lead to dangers untold. Hear this well, lest ye continue in the ways of negligent linguistic communication: use words toward their intended purpose, do not overuse them, and choose the most fitting word to each situation. I write this not as a teacher to his pupils, but merely as another humble transgressor of the misuse of words. It’s the end of the day as I write these words. And, truth be told, I’m pretty tired. I don’t feel particularly enthusiastic about writing right now. I’d much rather be watching tv to wind down, or going to bed.
So why am I writing, and not doing those things? Well, it’s because writing is important to me. It’s a skill I want to continue developing, and this was the only time of the day that I had open. The reader can be the judge as to whether my writing is any good. Either way, the point is this: I am taking time out at the end of my day, to do something productive. I could go to sleep. Sleep is good and if my body is telling me I need it, I should listen. But when I look back in a month, a year or a decade, what I’ll be proud of myself for won’t be all the times that I went to bed before 10:00pm because I was feeling sleepy. No. I’ll be proud of myself for sticking it out a couple of extra minutes to develop a tool that can help get me places. Missing out on a half an hour of sleep will not effect too much in the short term or in the long term. But writing? That’s exercise. That’s going to help me communicate with others, develop a thought, think critically, and help with several other things besides. By making a small sacrifice of comfort, I’m doing something which stands to benefit me for a long time. I’m not saying of course that people should sleep less. In fact, most people could probably use more sleep. But making a little sacrifice can go a long way. Doctors sacrifice years of their life studying for their profession. Athletes endure daily strain on their bodies, pushing them to be the best they can be. Astronauts face the reality of going months at a time away from family. These are all sacrifices that are necessary for these people to succeed in their pursuits. If people are capable of that degree of discipline and sacrifice, then I can handle staying up a few extra minutes to write. All things we do land on a spectrum, with productivity on one end and unproductivity on the other. Naturally, productive things achieve some desired end, whether it be earning money, building muscle, learning new things or simply checking off the to-do list. And just because a given activity is meant for fun or relaxation does not make it unproductive. Reading a book or going out with friends are leisure activities which can serve to increase our knowledge or develop personal relationships. Something is only unproductive if there is no fruitful outcome.
Enter the smartphone, accompanied by an uncouth band of technological relatives, colloquially known as TVs, Tablets, Laptops and the like. When this band of miscreants enter the room, they bring real challenges with them. On one hand, they offer untapped possibilities for productivity and advancement, heretofore undreamt of. On the other, a cesspool of self-indulgent, marginally intriguing entertainment, where many a well-meaning but unsuspecting comrade goes to meet their doom. Did you get all that? Sorry, I got a little dramatic there. The point is, technology offers us the chance to learn more, be more organized, more punctual and more efficient. If used as a tool, it can help us to accomplish more, personally and professionally, than we ever could have without it. The amount of resources awaiting our command only a few taps of the finger away is a blessing that the most intelligent, productive and powerful people in history could never dream of. On the other hand, just imagine what great accomplishments humankind could have never made, if someone like Albert Einstein was too busy scrolling through social media to develop his theory of general relativity. What if the Wright Brothers had decided to sit at home, watch Netflix and look at memes? Descartes would have been so preoccupied on facebook, that his famous “I think, therefore I am,” might have been replaced with “I link, therefore I spam.” Technology is a fork in the road. It can help make us, or it can be our demise. The major concern is that our general inclination is to settle for the 280 character limit on Twitter, the incessant memes and videos on facebook, and the mediocre TV shows on Netflix. To avoid that takes discipline. To make technology a tool and not a crutch requires self-mastery. Look both ways before crossing the street, don’t drink and drive, and avoid the technological swamp of unproductivity at all costs. I’ve watched it my entire life as a Brewers fan: the offseason comes, the Brewers have positional needs to fill, and the media tell us who they should go after. They need an ace at the front of the rotation. First base is weak and they need to go after a guy like so and so. Last year it was Yu Darvish and Jake Arrieta. This year it’s Corey Kluber at pitcher, and Josh Harrison/Jed Lowrie/DJ Lemahieu/Brian Dozier.
Here’s the thing though: when Doug Melvin was at the helm, it wasn’t unusual to see him make splashes in the free agent market proportionate to the Brewers’ market size (i.e. Kyle Lohse, Matt Garza). But David Stearns doesn’t operate that way. Even with regards to the Brewers most expensive free agent signing of all time in Lorenzo Cain, the idea was not to solve the team by adding one player to one spot to solve one problem. David Stearns does something far craftier. Stearns knows that if he invests heavily into his best option, that, even though he has a better chance of success with that one option, if it doesn’t pan out, he has very few alternatives. When the Brewers signed Matt Garza to a 4 year, $50,000,000 contract, he had to lead the Brewers’ rotation for the majority of his contract. He didn’t. In four years with Milwaukee, Garza had ERAs of 3.64, 5.63, 4.51 and 4.94. Nothing close to what was needed. Garza was even asked to stay home and not finish the season with the team in September of 2015. The Brewers front office seems to have learned that these financial commitments are too risky. So what has Stearns done instead? Added, added, added. Stearns doesn’t throw one player at any given problem, he throws numerous players at it. When the Brewers signed Eric Thames in the ‘16-’17 offseason, stearns didn’t stand pat, he claimed Jesus Aguilar off waivers too. And the next offseason, even though he knew he had Keon Broxton and Domingo Santana, Stearns chose to acquire Christian Yelich and Lorenzo Cain, who became the team’s two most productive players during their 2018 pennant chase. When the Brewers needed an upgrade at second base during the 2018 season, they began by adding Tyler Saladino from the White Sox, then Brad Miller from the Rays. When neither of those players proved a sufficient solution, Stearns then traded for Mike Moustakas. But he didn’t even stop there, ultimately acquiring Jonathan Schoop in the final minutes before the July 31 trade deadline. Some of these players worked out, and many of them did not. But that’s the point: the more players David Stearns can plug into a situation, the better chance he has of finding one guy who can solve it. At first base right now, that’s mainly Jesus Aguilar. In the outfield, it’s currently Braun, Cain and Yelich. Who it will be in the rotation or at second base for 2019 remains to be seen. Rest assured, David Stearns and the Brewers can be depended on to add players who they think can fill holes. Just don’t expect them to put all their eggs in one basket. |
Nick MartinMy name is Nick Martin. I write sometimes. These are my thoughts. Archives
July 2021
Categories |