How To Choose The Right Hip Hop Gear

If you need Hip Hop gear, you have plenty of accessories from which to choose. The style is as unique as the lingo. However, you will have to present it when you go out clubbing. Choices for Hip Hop gear in the Hip Hop culture will definitely make you look cool when you Hip Hop dance, or just chill with your friends. So let us look at some of the different types of gear that you can buy. However, make sure that you keep updated on your Hip Hop gear, as it will change as fast as the music.

If you are a newbie to the Hip Hop scene then you will need some great gear to go along with your passion. Hip Hop culture is represented by common items such as belt buckles, watches, rings, earrings and the famous pendant. Of course, there are other items that you can buy like dog tags and faux rhinestone cross necklaces. In the Hip Hop world these items are not your common military dog tag styled id tags, and the rhinestone cross necklaces are not common either. They can be both fancy and dramatic. Dog tags are made with designs on front and back with specially engraved info such as group name, or special cut designs on the outer edge. Optional stones look dramatic too. Cross necklaces are usually overly large with variations of different colors, from white to yellow, and can be bought in silver or gold. Some stones have special engravings on them. There is a lot of bling bling yet to discover with Hip Hop gear.

A relatively new fad in Hip Hop gear is the spinners. In Hip Hop, dancing there is a lot of movement so you can be in style with a watch and shoe spinners. Shoe spinners can be attached to any shoe with laces. Most are worn predominantly on tennis type shoes. Optional jewelry metal color is gold or silver, but some can be purchased as two toned. Inside the metal circle, a wheel spins with movement. A word of caution, if you decide to wear two on one shoe it might not work – all of the dancing will make the metal disks bang together, and could damage the spinner. It is not recommended.

The watch spinners are very cool. You do not want to forget to buy one, or have someone get it for you for a Hip Hop birthday celebration, or any other holiday. Almost all Hip Hop watches have faux rhinestones encircling the spinners. You will need to buy the watch because there are no spinners with clips that you can attach to the watch you have now. All you have got to do for this Hip Hop watch to tell the time is just to flip the spinner back and reposition to a snap closed position – and start dancing again!

There are a lot of other bling bling Hip Hop gear accessories that you might want to get, like rhinestone cups to drink from at your party, or even gold studded earrings. The choice is yours – so go and check out all of the neat Hip Hop gear. You will find something you want with bling.

Bruce Lee - Enter The Dragon

BRUCE LEE

ENTER THE DRAGON
LITTLE KNOWN FACT
WAY OF THE INTERCEPTING FIST
A WARRIOR'S JOURNEY
LAST MAN STANDING
GAME OF DEATH
NUNCHAKU
FISTS OF FURY
THE CURSE
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE
SILENT BUT DEADLY
ELVIS & BRUCE
THE DRAGON

"Absorb what is useful. Discard what is not. Add what is uniquely your own"
- Bruce Lee

ENTER THE DRAGON

Bruce Lee Jun Fan Yuen Kam was born in the year of the dragon, 1940, and at the hour of the dragon, between 6 and 8 AM.

LITTLE KNOWN FACT

Bruce's ancestry was Chinese and German. His father was Chinese while his mother was of German-Chinese decent. Her mother was Chinese and her father was German.

WAY OF THE INTERCEPTING FIST

Jeet Kune Do, also known as Way of the Intercepting Fist, was Bruce Lee's personal martial art style. He developed it with the idea of being more flexible and practical with martial arts techniques. In doing so, he commonly considered the greatest martial artist of the 20th century.

A WARRIOR'S JOURNEY

His Jeet Kune Do instruction was a premium in the highest demand and commanded a staggering $275 an hour. His students consisted of some of Hollywood's most elite, including Kareem Abdul-Jabar, Steve McQueen, James Coburn, Joe Lewis and Chuck Norris.

LAST MAN STANDING

In many ways his celebrity gave him a parallel to the characters he portrayed as he was contantly being challenged by movie extras and other men who could get near him seeking to gain fame by beating him in a fight. Many tried, but he was never beaten.

GAME OF DEATH

His last film was "Game of Death" and was his only film to be shot with sound. His earlier films were shot without sound and the voices were later dubbed in.

NUNCHAKU

Nunchaku were Bruce Lee's hand weapon of choice and when wielding a pair he was an undefeatable force. He developed his legendary routine under the instruction of karate master Hidehiko "Hidy" Ochiai. The two men first met at the Los Angeles YMCA in the mid-1960's.

FISTS OF FURY

Bruce Lee's ultimate secret was his lightning quick speed. To demonstrate he developed a trick where he had a person hold a coin and close his hand around the coin, but before they could do so Bruce would quickly remove the coin and replace it with another most often without the participate even realizing what had happened. When they opened their hand, it would be the new coin.

THE CURSE

As most know, Bruce Lee's death was deemed to be extraordinarily bizarre. Motivating many to be belove it was the work of "Oni", a Japanese term for demons or evil spirits. This curse apparently carried on to his actor son, Brandon Lee.

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

During an interview, composer Lalo Schifrin revealed that Bruce often trained to the "Mission Impossible" TV Show soundtrack.

SILENT BUT DEADLY

Another claim to fame was Bruce mastered a technique called, "The One Inch Punch". With it he could deliver a devastating body punch just with his fist just a mere inch from his target.

ELVIS & BRUCE

Elvis Presley and Ed Parker had a pet project film they were constructing in 1973 and 1974, but then suddenly it was forgotten until 2003 when the footage resurfaced. The film is basically groups of martial arts experts going at it. The cast reads like a 'who's who' of the martial arts world of the time and although he is not featured in the film, 20 minutes of never-before-seen footage of Bruce Lee was also discovered with this lost footage.

THE DRAGON

When he passed away on July 20, 1973 Bruce Lee was only 32 years old was 5'7" and weighed 128 pounds. He might have been small in stature but was one of the all time greatest film stars and the most accomplished martial artist in modern history.

Being John Malkovich

A quintessential loser, an out-of-job puppeteer, is hired by a firm, whose offices are ensconced in a half floor (literally. The ceiling is about a metre high, reminiscent of Taniel's hallucinatory Alice in Wonderland illustrations). By sheer accident, he discovers a tunnel (a "portal", in Internet-age parlance), which sucks its visitors into the mind of the celebrated actor, John Malkovich. The movie is a tongue in cheek discourse of identity, gender and passion in an age of languid promiscuity. It poses all the right metaphysical riddles and presses the viewers' intellectual stimulation buttons.

A two line bit of dialogue, though, forms the axis of this nightmarishly chimerical film. John Malkovich (played by himself), enraged and bewildered by the unabashed commercial exploitation of the serendipitous portal to his mind, insists that Craig, the aforementioned puppet master, cease and desist with his activities. "It is MY brain" - he screams and, with a typical American finale, "I will see you in court". Craig responds: "But, it was I who discovered the portal. It is my livelihood".

This apparently innocuous exchange disguises a few very unsettling ethical dilemmas.

The basic question is "whose brain is it, anyway"? Does John Malkovich OWN his brain? Is one's brain - one's PROPERTY? Property is usually acquired somehow. Is our brain "acquired"? It is clear that we do not acquire the hardware (neurones) and software (electrical and chemical pathways) we are born with. But it is equally clear that we do "acquire" both brain mass and the contents of our brains (its wiring or irreversible chemical changes) through learning and experience. Does this process of acquisition endow us with property rights?

It would seem that property rights pertaining to human bodies are fairly restricted. We have no right to sell our kidneys, for instance. Or to destroy our body through the use of drugs. Or to commit an abortion at will. Yet, the law does recognize and strives to enforce copyrights, patents and other forms of intellectual property rights.

This dichotomy is curious. For what is intellectual property but a mere record of the brain's activities? A book, a painting, an invention are the documentation and representation of brain waves. They are mere shadows, symbols of the real presence - our mind. How can we reconcile this contradiction? We are deemed by the law to be capable of holding full and unmitigated rights to the PRODUCTS of our brain activity, to the recording and documentation of our brain waves. But we hold only partial rights to the brain itself, their originator.

This can be somewhat understood if we were to consider this article, for instance. It is composed on a word processor. I do not own full rights to the word processing software (merely a licence), nor is the laptop I use my property - but I posses and can exercise and enforce full rights regarding this article. Admittedly, it is a partial parallel, at best: the computer and word processing software are passive elements. It is my brain that does the authoring. And so, the mystery remains: how can I own the article - but not my brain? Why do I have the right to ruin the article at will - but not to annihilate my brain at whim?

Another angle of philosophical attack is to say that we rarely hold rights to nature or to life. We can copyright a photograph we take of a forest - but not the forest. To reduce it to the absurd: we can own a sunset captured on film - but never the phenomenon thus documented. The brain is natural and life's pivot - could this be why we cannot fully own it?

Wrong premises inevitably lead to wrong conclusions. We often own natural objects and manifestations, including those related to human life directly. We even issue patents for sequences of human DNA. And people do own forests and rivers and the specific views of sunsets.

Some scholars raise the issues of exclusivity and scarcity as the precursors of property rights. My brain can be accessed only by myself and its is one of a kind (sui generis). True but not relevant. One cannot rigorously derive from these properties of our brain a right to deny others access to them (should this become technologically feasible) - or even to set a price on such granted access. In other words, exclusivity and scarcity do not constitute property rights or even lead to their establishment. Other rights may be at play (the right to privacy, for instance) - but not the right to own property and to derive economic benefits from such ownership.

On the contrary, it is surprisingly easy to think of numerous exceptions to a purported natural right of single access to one's brain. If one memorized the formula to cure AIDS or cancer and refused to divulge it for a reasonable compensation - surely, we should feel entitled to invade his brain and extract it? Once such technology is available - shouldn't authorized bodies of inspection have access to the brains of our leaders on a periodic basis? And shouldn't we all gain visitation rights to the minds of great men and women of science, art and culture - as we do today gain access to their homes and to the products of their brains?

There is one hidden assumption, though, in both the movie and this article. It is that mind and brain are one. The portal leads to John Malkovich's MIND - yet, he keeps talking about his BRAIN and writhing physically on the screen. The portal is useless without JM's mind. Indeed, one can wonder whether JM's mind is not an INTEGRAL part of the portal - structurally and functionally inseparable from it. If so, does not the discoverer of the portal hold equal rights to John Malkovich's mind, an integral part thereof?

The portal leads to JM's mind. Can we prove that it leads to his brain? Is this identity automatic? Of course not. It is the old psychophysical question, at the heart of dualism - still far from resolved. Can a MIND be copyrighted or patented? If no one knows WHAT is the mind - how can it be the subject of laws and rights? If JM is bothered by the portal voyagers, the intruders - he surely has legal recourse, but not through the application of the rights to own property and to benefit from it. These rights provide him with no remedy because their subject (the mind) is a mystery. Can JM sue Craig and his clientele for unauthorized visits to his mind (trespassing) - IF he is unaware of their comings and goings and unperturbed by them? Moreover, can he prove that the portal leads to HIS mind, that it is HIS mind that is being visited? Is there a way to PROVE that one has visited another's mind? (See: "On Empathy").

And if property rights to one's brain and mind were firmly established - how will telepathy (if ever proven) be treated legally? Or mind reading? The recording of dreams? Will a distinction be made between a mere visit - and the exercise of influence on the host and his / her manipulation (similar questions arise in time travel)?

This, precisely, is where the film crosses the line between the intriguing and the macabre. The master puppeteer, unable to resist his urges, manipulates John Malkovich and finally possesses him completely. This is so clearly wrong, so manifestly forbidden, so patently immoral, that the film loses its urgent ambivalence, its surrealistic moral landscape and deteriorates into another banal comedy of situations.