Peace..

If you are awake and conscious during the day here in the US, you might of heard some hullabaloo about the condition of our environment. Some say global warming is negatively affecting our planet, others say it is of no real consequence. Whatever side you take, you will also notice the 'green movement' that has become just as popular as the debate that spawned it. Everyone can agree that waste is waste and less waste is better. Why not recycle? Why not use things that need less energy and find alternative methods of producing said energy? It can only be for the greater good.

This is all true, the green movement is an ideal and virtuous way of life. It's just too bad it will never really catch on. It's the same reason Wal-Mart is so popular and the same reason why people drive two blocks down the road to visit a friend. The reason why the green movement will never catch on is because of the big two factors that everyone value: time and money. To put it into more relatable consumer terms : convenience and value. Wal-Mart is popular because it is a one-stop place that you can anything for butt cheap. People love cheap. You drive to your friend two blocks down because you have a vehicle that you don't have to directly put money into that will get you to your destination in the shortest foreseeable time. There are many, many better alternatives to each of these situations, yet these type of things will remain the most popular because they are A) the most convenient and B) the cheapest to your wallet.



This trend will never change. People will always look for the cheapest and fastest. The 'green movement' has caught popularity because certain people can afford it. Large companies can afford the cost of 'going green' and can use it as a marketing ploy. Sure, everyone has the ability to do something 'green', but it requires effort, and sometimes an extra cost, and in the end, those two things are never popular choices. Recycling has been around for as long as I can remember, and it is a task that can be easily accomplished without too much inconvenience (throw trash here instead of here). Carpooling, however is an inconvenience. Hybrid cars? Expensive. Not using bottled water? Bottled water is far too convenient to dismiss. Those compact fluorescent light bulbs? Much more expensive than regular bulbs. But wait, you say, those fluorescent bulbs will last longer and consume less energy, in effect being cheaper in the long run. Yes, yes they are. But you're looking at the big picture. If the popularity of celebrity gossip/American Idol/reality TV has taught you anything, it should be that people are concerned with the here and now, not the long run.

The only way this 'green' movement will be able to gain any traction is if the 'green' methods are incorporated and eased into a common day's activities. I know I always try to turn off lights in empty rooms, it just requires me to raise my arm and flick a switch. I also try to make my errand runs kill at least two birds in one drive, a roundabout way of conserving fuel. These type of things help, and require no more time or energy, just some thought.

The 'green' movement is a great option for those that can afford it. It is beneficial to the community, the people around it and the planet as a whole. It just cannot be expected to catch on universally. With so many people working just to get by, and everyone valuing their dollar more each day, there is no way 'green' can become a majority way of life. It will remain popular and visible for a while (remember Atkins food?) and then regress back to a behind the scenes idea. It will still have its followers and will remain a content notion, but until it can overcome the idea of convenience and value, there is little hope.

My reason for talking about this is to point out that it is very hard for people to do things that interfere with time and money. There are two ways around this. A) The people know they can afford some time or money or B) The people are told without a doubt that it is the right thing to do. I mentioned above that those who can afford it are generally more into these movements as it doesn't mean sacrificing any of this valuable time and money. They just have some extra that can be put to good use. The other factor is just as important. Because there is no definitive verdict about what kind of trouble the environment is in, there is no clear right or wrong and there is no real hard motivation to participate in the movement. An analogy would be the current war. There is no real reason why or why not there should be a war, so getting people to act accordingly is nonexistent. If it was clear that we needed to wage war, then people would sacrifice as needed to get things done (see WWII).

The 'green' movement is doomed to fall short of it's goals simply because it has yet to overcome the issue of time and money. If people can get something cheaper and faster, they'll get it. Green is a great idea, just not realistic enough to be implemented...yet.


Addendum: Turns out just one day after I made this post, the US Goverment decided that it will require everyone to phase out incandescent light bulbs for the new CFLs. There's an article here: http://biz.yahoo.com/usnews/071219/19_faq_the_end_of_the_light_bulb_as_we_know_it.html?.v=1&.pf=banking-budgeting. This is the kind of thing that gets results - passing a law. Now there is no argument, and people must act accordingly. I'm sure there will still be bootleg bulbs somewhere, and old coots will refuse to switch over for some reason, but it's a start. As much sense as it made, it takes a law to ensure the populous follows suit. Good show.

Ho ho ho!

It's the holiday season once again, and once again it's time to make the list of people you get to buy gifts for. I always try to get something the person wants or something that would mean something to them, just to make Christmas day more than a gift exchange. If I can't find something decent, there's always cash. Everyone likes money. One thing people also seem to like are Christmas cards. A gift is not complete unless there is a card attached with words and cute picture expressing just how much you cheer and joy you want to wish the person over the course of the season. What's worse is that we are so used to giving and getting these cards, that if we don't receive one, we may think less of the people not sending them. It's like candy on Valentine's or cake on your birthday. You don't have to get those, but it doesn't feel quite right without it.

Businesses have capitalized on this fact. If you go to a Hallmark store during the holidays, most of the store is rearranged just for holiday cards. In fact, for any holiday, the store gets changed for all those cards. My question is, why are cards so popular? I know it is nice to see a message from someone, or get a quick laugh from a lame punchline, or well up at some comforting words, but after the card is read, it becomes nothing more than recyclable material. I mean, do people keep their cards longer than two weeks after they are read? (Side note, actually, I do keep some of them, but they are in a pile in a box, just waiting to be tossed away). If you do keep the cards, are they ever read again? Sure, some may say yes, but I doubt much concern is taken for all the cards once the holiday/event is over. At my office for example, we put up all the cards from our different vendors up around the front desk. It's a nice reminder of the holidays and well wishing and what have you. Come January 2nd, we have a full garbage bin.

Now, I am not saying I have anything against spreading good cheer, but in an age of economic awareness and material valuing, is it worth spending 3 bucks on a card that will get 25 seconds of attention? I know the reason for cards' popularity is the convenience factor. They are relatively cheap, easy to send, and the card does most of the work of saying a touching thought. It's too easy, especially in the case of the vendors above or mass mailings, to just send out a card to everyone and cover your bases for the holidays. Nice and convenient, just the way we like it.

What I am a fan of, however, that is just as convenient, are e-cards. Same idea, just over email. No waste, no real cost (except for your Internet connection), and the thing can be discarded with the click of a button. Nowadays, you can find just as many e-cards online as you do regular cards in stores. Send your cheer electronically if you really need to send it out for the season.

As for the people who are determined to have a card to go with their gifts, how about a hand written note? At least that way you know the words actually came from the person's head and not some marketing guy in Albuquerque. I know I feel a bit uneasy when I read a card that's a bit too cheesy or wordy. I also know that I smile just a much from any card with messages of happiness and well-being, whether they are store bought or not.

So my advice is this: If you need to send a message of happy holidays to a large group of people, use an e-card, or better yet, just a regular email to those you care about. Everyone like getting email, and it's that much better when it's not trying to sell you something. If you need something to go along with the gift you are giving or need something to wrap around that crisp 50 dollar bill, try writing a note instead of buying one. I may not keep my cards, but I keep my notes. Those are from the heart and to me, express more about what the holiday season is about, recognizing and appreciating the people you care about.

Beep!

Last week, a light snow fell upon the DC area. Hooray for the first snow of the year! It's 2 inches of pure white bliss, inaugurating the true start of the winter season. Of course, it's the biggest story on the news; school children (and teachers) are praying for delays or closings; and drivers everywhere are going 20 mph slower than they need to.

A few hundred miles north of DC, up to a foot fell in certain areas of New England and New York. Sure, it's still a story, but it's not a big deal. It's winter, snow happens. People can still drive as they normally would.

Perhaps it is the celebration of occasion that makes people lay off the gas pedal and ride that brake. Here in the DC area, we get snow maybe 3 or 4 times durig the winter season, and it is always embraced as an important event. In between snows are plain days of 50 degree weather that make one sympathize with the global warming theory. Snow is an event, a possible break from work and a chance to go play. It is also horrible conditions for being on the roads. Despite the decent amount of salt trucks and coverage in the area, everyone slows down. A good percentage slow down to points of absurdity, even throwing on emergency flashers to reemphasize just how slow they are going.

I understand people want to be careful and don't want to wreck a major cost and dependence of their life, but there needs to be some enlightening to the speed:snow ratio. I've been in a white out before, where the snow is so heavy you can't see past the windshield. This is an appopriate time to pull over and wait it out. Light snow and ice is not. Your 2000 pound car can make it through and still be in control. Here's the tips: keep a decent distance between cars. Don't have distractions around you. Keep a decent speed. Other people will drive normally. I think you're in more danger by going slow and leaving the possibility for a normal driver to hit your slow ass.

If you drive a performance car with thin tires and sport suspension, you may have an excuse for going slower, but you shouldn't be driving anyway. The salt on the roads really F's with your paint job.

If you drive a truck or any SUV, you have no reason to go slow. You drive a 4 wheel drive vehicle. Granted, you have probably never been on any surface other than asphalt and your floor mats are muddier than your wheels, but you should know you can drive through snow without a problem. Just go.

On back roads and alleys, take your time. They are usually lined with things to hit and can be really icy. Main roads however are ready to go. Drive.

I think I'm just bitter because it is easy to see how we get the idea that as you travel farther south in the US, the less people know about driving in winter weather. It stinks, but it's a trade off for not going outside to -20 degree cold in January. I know people get excited over snow around here, but if you love it so much, pull over and make a snow angel. If you are driving, focus on the road and get out of my way. Don't perpetuate the stereotype.

G'day!

Or is it evening already?

This year, the government decided to push back daylight savings time a week to see if it would help save energy, among other reasons. I don't really care to the whys of this measure, but for once I am happy about a decision our government made.

Now, this one week extension is no great feat, but it did make me feel better that my country and I have a common interest. That is, daylight is a good thing to be in. I always dread when winter comes around for two reasons: 1. It gets really cold and my house is old and not very insulated (read: high gas bill) and 2. I get to wake up in the dark and get ready for work, then I get to return home in the dark. ITS THE DARKNESS! It stinks only seeing the sunshine from out your window (thank god my office is naturally lit), only to then watch it disappear by the time my shackle sets free at 5 pm.

In the summer, there was plenty of time (for me at least) to get home, change clothes and enjoy some outdoor time in the sun before dinner. I could go for a run (rarely), mow the lawn, etc and not feel like my day is confined and soon to be over already. Now that winter is here, I return home to the evening darkness and I am already in the mood for going to bed. It stinks.

I know there is a natural rotation of the seasons, daytimes and sun paths, so there is no real way to change or amend this issue. Winter must come along with the shortened days and colder temperatures. That's just science and you can't argue with it. But perhaps something could be done in the workplace, such as adjusting hours or accumulating time here or there. I know I would be ok with going to work at 7 am if it meant I would be out by 4 pm. This could easily lead into a discussion of work hours and the best management of such, but I will leave that for another post. I just know that people, myself included, seem to be happier during the summer hours and anything that can be done in the winter to improve our mood would be much appreciated.

Sure, the "early to bed, early to rise" way of life sure benefits from this time of year, but what normal person needs to be in bed by 7 pm? I like to do my own thing after a day's work, and I would prefer to have some daylight to do it in. Don't get me wrong, the night time is full of possibilities, just give me a little bit of light time to prepare me for the night. I don't need the night greeting me as soon as I step out of my office door. I guess it makes me value summer time even more once it returns.

PS - I had intended to try and incorporate the word "summernment" somewhere in here, but it just didn't work. Just let it be known that all privileges of the above word should run through here.

10100010...

When I surf the ol' interwebs, I am at the luxury of using a wireless mouse and keyboard. The keyboard runs off two AA batteries, while the mouse runs off a rechargeable battery that I must dock every night before shutting the computer off. Well, this mouse dock is a bit particular when it comes to placement, and often I don't find out until midday the next day that it hasn't charged properly. At this point, a small red light flickers and a notice comes on screen to say that my battery is low. Quite convenient. This does however pose a problem if I need to continue working, or half-working, or be 'working' (you get the idea). This brings me to today's peanut.

How well can you navigate around your computer without your mouse? I find it is tough, but possible. One of the most important buttons is the Tab button. No, Homers, it does not supply you with a refreshing 'Tab' cola. It does however move you around pages and your desktop. Here's some tips that I know of that may help you if you are ever in this situation. These are all for windows based OSes, so you hip Mac Users will have to find help elsewhere.

Tab: moves from heading to heading, or from icon to icon and along with the Enter button, can be used to select things.

Shift+Tab: moves in the reverse order as using the Tab button.

Alt+Tab: switches between applications open. Hold Alt to keep the new box open and Tab to scroll through. Note: This is an excellent quick press for hiding windows that may be NSFW. Keep a safe full screen window right behind the one you are on, then with a quick alt+tab, the one behind it will pop to the front.

Ctrl+Tab: on internet explorer, this will highlight the address bar so you can quickly type in your next destination.

F5: Refresh. This works well for webpages, but also for explorer windows when you want to realphabetize the listings.

Alt: This is pretty common knowledge, but pressing this and using the arrow keys will help you move around menus.

Trivia bonus: It makes sense the the shortcut for copy is Crtl+C, but why is paste Crtl+V? Well, the shortcuts were meant to be all accessible from just the left hand, as the right hand would be on the mouse. This way, editors could execute commands without taking their hands off the mouse. Save, cut, copy, paste, select all; all on the same hand. Only when you print does your hand have to reach for that 'P'.

bing!

It's Election Day! Guess what? I'm not voting. Ooooh, he's not using one of his most valuable rights as an American citizen. Yes, that's right, I'm not. But I feel like it is my responsibility not to vote. Why, you ask? Because I am completely uninformed about the people and positions I would be voting on. If I were to vote, I would simply be picking names from a hat. Since I am not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican party, I am doing neither any service by voting.

I must say that I find this to be the right thing to do and I would encourage other to refrain from voting unless they are properly informed on the situation. In order to get the most from our electoral system, the people elected must be done so for the right reasons. We learned back in history class that originally only white land-owning men could vote. My understanding is that these were usually the only type of citizen that were informed enough on politics to make a worthwhile decision on the matter. Granted, there were most likely many exceptions to this rule, and as time went on, of course this status changed, giving us new laws that allowed for everyone to vote. This was because education and information became available to everyone and everyone could be part of the system. The issue is that not everyone chooses to be part of the system. I, for one, have no clue as to who my school superintendent is, who my local comptroller is, or what any of them do or say about issues. Therefore, any decision I would make on their behalves would be foolish.

This brings up my trouble with how voting is done nowadays. To vote, after one registers, one goes to the local voting place and chooses from the names given them on the list. I would hope that the person voting knows who they are voting for ahead of time and actually knows who they are voting for. I feel like this is most often not the case, especially with lesser important seats that still get voted on. What results is a strictly party-based choice, or in worse case, a matter of who has the better, more recognizable name. This is no way to base choices on, and I blame it upon the simplifying of our electoral process that is meant to provide easier access to the common man. This makes the voting process common and simple, negating the value of actually being elected. Instead, I propose this: all voting should be written in. No more choosing from A or B. Instead have the people voting actually write in who they want in that office. The people could even bring in a cheat sheet with them so they don't have to actually remember anything. If they can't remember the name or office, they can have the option of simply choosing R or D, by party, since the name wouldn't even matter in that case. This puts more responsibility on the voter himself rather than the ad campaign behind a given name.

This solution just seems the most fair to everyone, especially the candidates. The people who genuinely have interest in the political process at hand can rest assured that their vote means something and that each vote counts as it should. Party loyalty can still be achieved.

I know this whole post seems like a big jab at our voting system, but I feel like right now it doesn't truly convey an honest, interested process. I could go to my precinct's voting place, choose a few names (with no prior knowledge) and then be looked at as a responsible citizen who voted, even though I have done my government an injustice.

Sure, this way of thinking may not account for the majority, but in a time when 'every vote counts', we should be making sure that every vote does count and that every voter is responsible for that vote. Be informed. Voting is a right, but more importantly, a responsibility.

Ahem...

If you have another minute, check out this article:

http://zenhabits.net/2007/09/how-to-accept-criticism-with-grace-and-appreciation/

It is about dealing with criticism and seeing the positive in negativity. I know for myself, and I assume many others, dealing with criticism can be a challenge. I feel more often than not, the criticizer is trying to help but may not come across as doing so, whether by tone or body language or word choice.

Personally, I do try to find the positive in any criticism given and understand that what was given to me is either A. the truth or B. someone's opinion, and that I should evaluate it and think about it before I respond. Generally, our first instinct is a good go to, but in terms of defending yourself or your position, I feel it is better to take it all in and think about it for a bit before reacting with an unwanted result.

Anyway, the article makes some good points and is worth a look. If you don't think so, I will appreciate your critique and respond in a polite manner...

Haaay!

This is not my idea, but I am a strong proponent of it. This idea is that everyone who has ever had a birthday party, a house-warming party, wedding party, baby shower, or any party where gift giving is involved should have a registry. Everyone is familiar with the typical wedding registry where you get to pick out a plate or two or maybe some nice towels; or the baby shower registry where you can give the gift of cotton booties that will be used maybe twice. The benefit of these registries is that the person receiving the gifts gets exactly what they ask for and are happy to receive them.

Don't get me wrong, the 'surprise' gift at one of these events are usually nice and can be heart-felt, meaningful, blah blah. Often though, these 'outside' gifts are meaningful dust collectors, if not re-gifted to the next sap, er, recipient. People make a list of things because it is what they would most like to receive from the party-goers. It is also far easier for the giver to get something worth while without putting too much thought into it. Note: thought and care should be given for gifts for a significant other or even a family member, as the conditions are a bit different and the time and effort put into that gift are well appreciated. But for the rest of us, who are going to a friend's place or a more distant relative, a gift off a registry is just right.

This idea is not that hard to institute. Just make a list at your favorite store or two and let people know about it. The list maker must, however, take into consideration budgets and 'gift-worthiness', of course. This means having a range of price options, with a majority of those being on the lesser end so people will actually buy it. No one is going to buy you that surround sound system for your Labor Day cookout. Taking this into consideration, it should be fairly easy to come up with decent gift lists, especially at your large department/get-it-all stores like Target or Macy's.

Now, the trouble with this grand idea is getting past the social stigma associated with the word 'registry'. If I were to have a birthday party and I include on my invitations that I am registered at a certain place, there is an immediate reaction of snobbery or disdain, as registries are considered appropriate only for what they are known to be associated with: weddings and babies. I propose that for now the non-wedding/baby gift registry only be indicated as available by word of mouth, as in "Oh by the way, if you are having trouble with gift ideas, I went out and made a random gift registy at store X. Feel free to look at it if you need some ideas". You know, something off the cuff and relaxed that gets others thinking about how good an idea this and how they want one themselves, and not what a d-bag you are for making your own personal gift list.

If these personal gift registries can be looked upon as a good for all people socially, and not a stab at a person's self-importance than this can work. I think the underlying issue is that people like to give gifts that mean something to the recipient and often do not want them to be acutely aware of the cost involved. Registries put the dollar figures out in the open, allowing the recipient to draw a conclusion (whatever that may be) simply from that figure.

Still, for all the parties out there, it sure would be nice to know that the $10 wine holder is something the party thrower actually wanted. I'm sure the party thrower wouldn't mind either. Even better, is that if people actually got things they wanted for these run of the mill parties, there might be a lot more parties, and better ones at that. I can only imagine the party competition once personal gift registries are commonplace. But I won't get ahead of myself, just pass the idea along. The super parties will come...

Bloop-bloop...

I'm sure everyone has experienced some version of this: You're driving along, maybe 5, 10 or 15 mph over the speed limit, as is everyone beside you, when all of a sudden you see the familiar silhouette of a police car. Immediately, everyone slows back down to the speed limit. This slowing continues until A) the cop car is out of sight, B) you realize the cop has pulled someone over and won't be coming after you or C) you see someone ahead of you going just as fast, if not faster, so are wagering that they will be caught first. This is all fine and dandy, as I see speed limits as mere suggestions anyway. Nothing pisses me off more than cars actually going 55 on the highway while everyone else is doing about 70.

Well, the other day I had this police car experience and of course everyone very noticeably slowed down when the cop car merged onto the road from an on ramp. I thought to myself, "Great, it's slow going for the next few miles." I can deal with a mild inconvenience such as this, no problem. What inspired this post was my next thought. I realized that if you like traveling above a snail's pace when driving, it must absolutely blow to be a police officer. I must imagine that whenever an officer is driving around, he is constantly dealing with the slow-down reaction of the other drivers. This has got to be why police officers are always in a bad mood when they pull someone over.

Imagine every where you drive, everyone else is going at exactly what the speed limit is. Just by being on the road, you make every other car into speed limit robots that are afraid to pass or speed up. Granted, you are the authority figure, so the power you feel must account for something, but it must stink to know that your travels are going to take that much longer than if you were in a plain car.

What sucks is that this will never change. People will never risk getting a ticket when they see a police car on the road. They will wait until the threat is out of sight to go back to 'breaking' the law, as is the smart thing to do. It's the same with the speed traps that are common in places like DC. People see the speed cameras, slow down to the appropriate speed as they past by, then speed back up again once past them. Another analogy is to when you are being observed or evaluated on your job. You want to do the best/right thing while being watched, then once it is over, you can go back to the slackiness that every worker would rather do.

Getting back to my point, this thought makes me respect the police at least a little bit more, since it is just one more thing they have to deal with on a day to day basis. Sure, if they wanted to, they can just flip on their lights and zoom off as they please, but for the most part they are dealing with drivers they know are driving slow just because of their presence and must deal with it all day every day. I now know for sure that I could never cut it as a police officer, at least one that drives around on duty, as I would no doubt be screaming on the speakers at the slow drivers and ramming them with my brush guard out of sheer annoyance. However, if they gave me something like this picture, I could have a change of heart. I'd still be stuck driving slow though.

lol...

I'm a fan of free speech. I value the First amendment. I think it promotes ideas and understanding and an individual will benefit from it. However, one should always be responsible for what he or she is saying or expressing.

If you want to see a blatant misuse of free speech that hurts more than helps the idea of free expression, just visit any message board on the internet. It is remarkable what you will read on any given board anywhere on the net. Personal attacks, offensive language, racism, sexism, absurdity, stupidity, and misinformation (and of course plenty of spam) run rampant. It is quite ridiculous.

I feel that the reason this exists is that all of these posts and ideas are free from any type of culpability. Other than an IP address, there is no link to the person who is posting it, other than a created persona and maybe a crude avatar. This allows for the worst possible things to be said without any personal repercussion. Sure, the user may be kicked off the site, postings removed or edited and notices sent out of such behavior, but as of now there are no penalties or limits on what is expressed.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying there should be penalties or limits, but there should be a more concrete way of attaching the words to a person. The anonymity of postings allows for things that one would never say face to face to another person. It allows for the deeper feelings, be them right or wrong, to come out without worrying about what one's response to them will be. Often, these 'offensive' things posted are done so merely to get a reaction or response, much like the 'shock-jockery' of radio personalities or like provoking a fight that you don't have to be involved in. Sure, some of this is done merely for the potential humor of it, but most of it is just drivel that the electronic world would be better off without.

What is more unfortunate is that these posts are real thoughts and ideas of real people. What I mean is that these atrocious messages shatter the idea that most people are inherently good or well-meaning. What comes across instead is that our society and behaviors are merely a front for our true feelings and intentions and the individual hides them (and rightly so) for fear of other's response. On message boards, one can express those offensive remarks knowing that the fear that prevents him from saying it in public is not attached to it. Thus, we get the result of true free speech and all the unpleasantries that accompany it.

Yes, freedom of speech is a wonderful liberty. It allows us to be able to express our individuality in a world of plurality. Unfortunately, true free speech reveals far more into how individual we are and often compromises the social norms that allows us the comfort of being able to express ourselves. Again, we should not put a limit on expression, but we must realize that for anything we say or do, we will be held responsible for it in the public realm, and others may not appreciate your opinion. What happens as a result of that expression again falls upon the individual, but this should not be a blind circumstance. You should know whether or not the things you are saying might not be readily appreciated or accepted by certain other people. Ignorance is not an excuse. Our right to expression must be met with our need to be responsible for said expression, a balance that keeps the society of individuals functioning smoothly.

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

On a side note, I am a fan of something I read on Wonkette.com. Every month or so, the editor posts that it is 'comment clean-up time' or something to that effect. Then, the readers vote on which usernames should be banned from the comments section because of their poor quality of responses. Granted, there are easy ways of getting around this, but I still think its a novel idea, especially with the amount of garbage available.

Ten-ho!

First off, I would like to say I have nothing against charities. I know they do great things and help a lot of people. Most are well worth the time and effort, a worthy place for time, energy and of course money. The bone I would like to pick is with those that are simply promoting 'awareness'.

This push for 'awareness' on a given subject seems like such a load of poo. Do you really need an all day rally to make citizens aware that a certain condition/ailment/event/issue exists? Isn't that what a pamphlet or a phone call or the internet is for? In this day in the information age, it seems that promoting 'awareness' of something is the physical equivalent of a run-on sentence. After the first mention, you are then 'aware' of the situation. There needs to be a purpose or goal of your action besides making people aware that you're doing it.

For example, there was recently a local fun run to promote Autism awareness. By the time you sign up, you are aware of the fact that kids have Autism and it is a difficult condition to deal with. I know the goal is getting people together to have fun running, while at the same time making people know that autism sucks, but come on, at least have a secondary goal in mind, such as actually stating whatever the money is going to or having a class or speech or something relevant.

It seems almost unjust to have an event like Bingo or a cake walk or something and just tag a charity onto it, promoting the 'awareness' of said cause. Sure, it's for a good cause, but often is unrelated and irrelevant. I mean that it is great that proceeds go to the cause, but there is no afterthought or meaning to the events.

I'm sure this is exactly why these thing take place. Everyone gets the fun part, it supports a good cause, and no one is inconvenienced by actually having to do any 'work' or 'sacrifice' or any real support of the cause. Donate some money and go on your way.

This is incredibly similar to those 'support our troops' ribbon magnets you see on all the Fords and Toyota Camrys across the nation, along with the multi-colored 'whatever-strong' bracelets that every self-important person loves to sport. You throw your few dollars out, say you love your cause and will do anything to support them, then continue on in your routine life. Nothing changes except for you now think that you're doing your part to help.

The fact is with these things, nothing really changes except for the amount of money you have in your wallet. These 'causes' and 'support' are nothing but another purchase, another expense that the financially comfortable can afford to be a part of. There is no meaning behind these tokens of support other than a viewpoint and a few dollars. Ribbons aren't bringing troops home, and a bracelet isn't curing cancer.

Granted, it is hard to argue with someone who likes to think they are helping and is honestly into whatever cause they are 'supporting'. It just sickens me to know that a person's opinion of someone can be influenced by these things when in fact, these items mean nothing and represent nothing other than a person's mild 'awareness' of the cause at hand. If a person is doing research or holding a rally or doing a documentary; then you can engage them as a person of the cause. A guy with a ribbon on his car is merely 'aware' of the situation and should represent nothing more. He can stick to his fun runs and the spreading of more awareness. What would be nice is if people were more aware of the triviality of these symbols and more educated as to what they are really supporting.

Ha!

Here's a question. What are your feelings on a person when you them driving or around their car and their clothes match the actual car?

The reason I bring this up is that I always feel a bit toolish when I wear a blue shirt to work. I have a blue car. My job does not require me to wear a tie, so I am usually in a button down shirt and khakis. This means that the entire upper half of my body is generally monochromatic, and somedays that means only blue. It's not that bad when it's a different shade of blue, but I have two shirts that are pretty darn close to the same color as my car. I can camoflauge myself from the waist up by walking by my ride.

I think the reason I feel odd about this color matching is that personally, I can't stand color coordinating. Don't get me wrong, I like a good suit, I like good fashion, and I don't mind if there is an obvious reason for your color choices (such as for a sports team or what have you). There is just something that bothers me about things all matching. I think it may stem from my dislike of 'trying too hard' or just the opposite, the total obliviousness. Or it could be from my unknown repressed memories of my parents dressing me in matching outfits that somehow meant bad memories; but I seriously doubt that. It could be from my finding virtue in indviduality and going against the flow that color matching seems to disagree with. I really don't know.

I wouldn't even have this problem if I had a black or silver car, that kind of matching doesn't even count. Black, white and silver are so generic that it doesn't stand out. It is only when you have a color of significant hue that it becomes an issue.

To be honest, I never really notice this about anyone else, but maybe I'm just not looking. I just feel everyone is looking at me, noticing my love for the color blue. I just want to know if this is true at all, if anyone actually does notice. Maybe I just need to get some window tint. Can they tint in blue?

Doop dee doop.

Check this out:

http://kotaku.com/gaming/clips/ultimate-nes-mash-up-starring-mega-man-and-that-kung-fu-dude-282402.php

Man, you gotta love old school nintendo games. Back then, the controller had 4 buttons, not 12 or 14 and goals were simple. Run, jump, shoot. Easy. Don't get me wrong, new games are great. 3D adventures add a whole different level of play and improved graphics immerse you in a virtual reality. But the old games were just so fun.

The big video games companies are aware of this fact. You can now download these older games to your new console and play on the web and compare high scores. It's like the arcade in your home. Thank god there's finally a good use for the internet.

Personally, I still have my old nintendo. And my Genesis, and my atari. Yes atari 2600. It doesn't get much more rudimentary than two squares shooting smaller squares at each other. There's an old game called "Circus Atari" that used the 'innovative' peripheral of the rotating paddles. These were analog long before analog was hip again. Anways, the game is basically bouncing a little circus guy on a teeter totter and popping the balloons overhead. Think a more complex version of 'breakout'. You lose when your man bouncing up and down misses the teeter totter and splats on teh ground, legs flailing. For some reason I found this hilarious as a kid and sure enough when I brought it out again, the laughter continued.

This brings me to my point. New games are great, new innovations and styles are remarkable. But are they worth the price? $60 for a new game on top of the $500 you spent on the console. If you got the money, disregard this comment. But if you're a tad on the thin wallet side and are looking for good entertainment, go back to the old consoles. You can still pick up used ones at the local game store, and there's plenty of material available to make sure you only get good games and not Superman 64. I feel like the kids of today should all be exposed to these old school games. Less violence, simple goals, plenty of fun. I feel I was priveledged to grow up with the gaming industry, whereas kids now are entering it at a point that is far too much for an introductory gamer. But what do I know? I'll be happy playing the first Zelda or Gunstar Heroes and leave the heavier games for the pros.

Hmmm...

I have a conundrum. At my present place of employment, there is a fellow employee that is a bit on the large side. Rotund you may say. If you met him, you would say he is obese. Not morbidly obese, as in "I wash myself with a rag on a stick" obese, but enough that you don't want to fly seated next to him. Given his stature, and the fact that he has made his back/bone problems readily known, should I feel bad about not inviting this guy out to lunch for some fast food?

I currently work in a very small office, so it is common for most of us to grab lunch together, usually at some nearby fast food joint. I have noticed that said employee brings a lunch in with him in the morning, only to dump it in the can, opting for a nice Spicy Chicken Filet instead. Obviously, he could care less about his poundage, but for some reason I am feeling guilty inside about inviting him along to a place that will only worsen his situation. I suppose it is the equivalent of handing out cigarettes or buying rounds of shots for people. They'd be better off without it and it won't hurt in the short term, but in the long term, you know you shouldn't.

So my dilemma is, do I go with my gut and continue to avoid aiding his obesity, or do I embrace his disregard for health and life and let it ride. I have been toiling over this for a while, my logical side says to let others do as they please, let them build or destroy themselves; but my moral side says to avoid being part of the process. (picture those frosted mini wheats commercials)Note how I left out the other option of encouraging him to do the right thing. This is not an option for me as I do not believe in pushing my opinions on others. The question is, am I essentially doing the same thing by not intervening?

It is one of those cases where in the long run, it really doesn't matter as we're all gonna kick the bucket somehow. I just get this odd feeling (compassion maybe?!?) that it is rather important to be healthy and fit and be able to enjoy life. I really can't judge; he may be happy regardless of his stature, but it still bothers me when I hand over a bag of saturated fat and superfluous calories. Not to mention the guy shits 3 times a day in our single bathroom. I know I get enough exercise and eat enough other healthy meals to offset my lazy trips to the burger stands, I just can't justify doing it for others.

Lucky!

(I suggest drinking a beer while reading this to contrast the nerdy content within)

My grandfather was born on July 7, 1930. This means that this year, he turned 77 on 7/7/07. Now if that's not a lucky number, I don't know what is. Of course we all told him to go buy a lottery ticket or two and do things that involve chance, simpy because the numbers are on his side. Deep down, we all knew, however, that is was just another day and a great coincidence that this happened.

Today's thoughts are about how we can often get caught up in numbers and our superstitions about them. We all know 7s are lucky and 6s are evil. 2 is a nice round number, there are great tricks to be done with 9s, and everything works off of 10s. Here's a quote I found pertinent:

"The creator of the universe works in mysterious ways. But he uses a base ten counting system and likes round numbers." -Scott Adams, US cartoonist (1957 - )

It's funny how things work out for us number wise, that we put so much meaning on items that are indeed random or generic, but have nice numeric associations. For example, when you see 12:34 pm on a clock or see strings of numbers you recognize, you can feel a connection with that item, more so then if they were some other random number; when in fact, the number itself is just as random as the others. Those 'lucky' numbers you play in the lottery are just random numbers you have grown to like, and standout to you though they are just as likely to win as any other number to be picked.

I don't mean to get into number theory or some extensive mathematical issues, but rather I mean to point out that the value of our numerical assocations are purely personal matters, and that the numbers themselves are mere random generations of the world around us. What's great about or numerical associations is that it is another means of setting us apart in this vast world; the fact that we can take something from nature or mathematics and give it personal meaning an value. Since numbers are all around us, these associations help keep us interested, entertained and going in a mundane world. There are the easy go tos such as "69" or "420" or "5318008" (those of you who had a calculator in 5th grade will know that one) that are good for a laugh when they appear in our day to day matters. If you see your old address number or birthday number somewhere, you can connect with whatever issue that is, rather than just dismiss it as another object of unimportance.

I guess my point of this blurb is that for all the thought of 'luck' or 'meaning' with numbers, the fact is that they are merely numbers and one can not be counted on more than another. It's great to have associations with a certain number or string you like, it keeps things interesting. Just remember that numbers follow rules, and all are equal.

Ahh...

I'm feeling a bit older. Yesterday was my birthday and it came and went as easily as any other day. It was a very nice day, a day that reminded me how nice it is to have people who care about you and can share in your happiness. It is also a reminder that time keeps moving and that we are only getting older and older.

Now I am under the philosophy that we are on a limited timescale on our dear planet here and that we should always live life to the fullest. This basis got me into a discussion yesterday about what is so great about birthdays. For most people, one's birthday is a day to celebrate, a day to step back, reflect and enjoy one's self, do things you wouldn't do (or get) on a normal day.

Personally, I have no great affection for my birthday. I love everything and everyone who puts time into making me feel special on my day, but on my own, I really see it as just another day in my life. You can see how this would seem depressing that your one 'special' day goes unappreciated. I don't feel that way at all and I think it has to do with the philosophy spoken above.

If I enjoy each day, love life itself and see the qualities in each day that make that day special, every day can be a birthday. Yes, there's not gifts or cards waiting for you everyday, nor are there a group of friends waiting at the bar with a row of shots ready to be downed (and most likely upped later), but there can still be that internal feeling of enjoyment and satisfaction each and every day.

I have the feeling that this notion is understood by most of us, just not utilized as fully as it could. Sure, we all have shitty days now and again. Shit happens. But we always have the next day and we always have memories of previous times that can lighten any sour time. It's not a guarantee, nor is it always easy to keep optimistic about our own story, but it should be remembered that there are good times ahead, possibly as soon as the next minute, and that each day should be celebrated in its own right as a day of which we are thankful to be alive.

Birthdays are great. You get a day where you are recognized for being alive by others that care about you. The other 364 days are for you to recognize you're alive and to enjoy it.

Oh S...

Take a second and read this.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1818.asp

Sucks to be a Virginian right now. This law is ri-goddamn-diculous. Thiry-five hundred bucks for speeding? WTF? Has anyone in Congress driven on I-95 in the past 10 years? NO ONE GOES 55 MPH; except for Grandmas and Asian women. Ooh, that's so stereotypical. Yeah, it probably is, but I have seen them with my own eyes. Stereotypes don't invent themselves.

Anypoo, this fine system is out of control. I know the government can always use more money, but this is ludicrous. I can understand making fines steep for really bad speeding, like 20 or 30 over, but three thousand dollars plus jail time plus all those points on the license? Forget about having cheap insurance after that, just more money down the hole. Remind me to get back to the whole 'insurance' thing in another post.

Granted, speeding and aggressive driving cause accidents, hurt people, even kill some of them and overall cost the state a lot of money. This is still quite the step up in penalties though. Perhaps this is a new test to see if a drastic change in penalties will actually slow people down. I know it sounded like a good idea to all gov't people involved. More money for them and less speeders on the highway. It just sucks for the people who get caught speeding.

What is going to be really bad is if this translates to those 35 MPH roads that are wide open and are easy to do 50 MPH on. You know what I'm talking about, there's always some road in a suburban area that is 4 laned and you can easily catch yourself going a little too fast.

Besides the fact that this is a huge cost for a penalty, my main beef with this is that speeding is so commonplace that it makes the times you do get caught seem random and unfair. Everyone goes faster than they should, often people are speeding just to keep up with everyone else. I would hope that those that actually do get pulled over and fined thanks to this new great law are actually deserving of it. You know, the swerving, slamming on brakes and speeding back up type that make you hate other drivers. This kind of thing should not apply to a 'picked-out-of-the-pack' incident or even an open road incident where there is no one else on the road and the cop is just waiting for you to zoom by. Shit like that would really push this too far. I can understand if you are putting people immediately in danger, with the swerving and the tailgating, but when there's an open road in front of you, come on.

It will be interesting to see how this goes over in the next few months and see the citizen's response. I'll be searching for testimonials and results just to see if my thoughts were right on. Looks like I'll be riding with out-of-staters until then. Virginia is for lovers, and out of state drivers.

NNNNNNNnnnnnnn.....

WARNING! Discussions of fecality ahead.

You know what one of the great underappreciated pleasures in life is? No, not heroin. Rather, a nice, satisfying shit. The kind where you feel all emptied out, toxins gone, weight a bit lighter and somehow restored in energy. There's even the double bonus "flawless victory" that requires zero cleanup. Amazing deuce dropping experiences like these are few and far between, but when they happen, it's like finding a twenty in your pocket unexpectedly, a nice suprise.

What brought this thought upon me was the antithesis of this event happening to me just recently. I was mid-session the other day and I could feel that things weren't going well. Stuff was not flowing as it should, I was resisting the urge to push, and the whole atmosphere smelled and felt like the underside of a stone paver (stinky, hard yet smushy, rough, etc.). I somehow managed to pull through and finish, but if you've had an unsatisfying session, you know that it doesn't feel 'finished'. Anyway, this tragic moment got me to thinking about how great it is to have real, good satisfying log droppings and I wondered why science or anyone has tried to harness this goodness for the people.

Wouldn't it be great it we could take some sort of supplement or do something that would result in consistent satisfying colon emptying? I know there's plenty of bran and fiber products out there, but that's more for irregularity. I'm talking just feel-good shitting. I remember some lame Matthew Broderick/Anthony Hopkins movie where they analyzed people stool and had them on a strict diet where they were deemed 'completed' or some mess only when the stool was of firm even texture and smelled of hay. I don't think this is where I'm going with this post, but it's fun to remember Anthony Hopkins looking at terds. My point is not to have healthy terds, but feel healthier after a successful number 2.

Of course, a good reason why this genius idea has yet to come to fruition is that there may not be a way to do it. I know most of Americans eat shit and are overweight, blah, blah, blah. But maybe science needs to delve more into the world of digestion and things of that nature to get a better idea as to how all that works. They could isolate certain ingredients or minerals that help make the good so good and the bad so stinkin bad. Granted, this would be a 'shitty' job for biologists to undertake, but it could lead to a breakthrough that would make the world a happier place, one flush (or sometimes two or three) at a time.

Click.

Like pretty much everyone browsing the interwebs, I like scouring through YouTube or Yahoo Video for random bits of entertainment. It's brainless fun that helps the day go by. I noticed this next point early on and it continues to bother me.

Why must every joe shmo who makes "my first video" or "my blah blah blah" use the SAME FREAKING FONT AND EFFECTS from IMovie?? You realize you can change the font, right? Not every piece of text on your homemade masterpiece has to be in Helvetica, and scroll from right to left with a bigger more translucent version of your text scrolling slower in the background. It's been done, this is no longer hip, it is no longer an option to use.

For God's sake, if you take any value in your 'art' or whatever you want to call what you're uploading for the world to see, take some time and make it unique. I can't count how many videos I've seen have the same generic title opening and the same lame ass 'credits' at the end. Ooh, he put his words on a blue background! How creative!

I think what bothers me the most about this is that when you see it, it is a dead giveaway that the author has spent less than 2 minutes putting this S together and for me is the equivalent of reading a children's book. Thanks for wasting me time with your amateur home movie garbage.

I'm not even expecting anything astounding, just not the same damn white on black or whatever color background, gently floating in and fading out. I know it's the default or whatever on IMovie, and when you first saw it you probably thought it was pretty nice, an easy effect that didn't look too bad. Well that time has come and passed, much like Tamagachis and Uggs, every one has seen them, is familiar with them and now wouldn't be caught dead with them unless they're trying to make a statement about how retro cool they are (which is in itself a fallacy since none of these things were ever cool or will ever be no matter how far into the past they recall).

Point: Change your damn font. Change your damn effects. Take 5 extra minutes and make it look like you care about what you are uploading for the world to see.

Bonus idea of the day: As a thought, it would be nice to be able to flag these videos as "lame" or "amateur" to go along with the 'inappropriate' flags that these video sites offer.

ZZZZZZzzzzz......

Today I would like to rant a bit on one my favorite activities. This activity is common throughout the animal world, a favorite past time of household pets, college students, and the elderly. No, it's not dry humping or drinking milk, but rather that oh so essential act of sleeping. Yes, sleeping. I must confess, I am an addict.

Nothing starts off a good day like sleeping in. Just like the other millions of Americans who work for the weekend, I look forward to my weekend with joy simply because it is the two days of the week I can wake up whenever I so please. I can open my eyes, welcome the sunlight in and then shut them right back up and wander back off into dreamworld. So delightful.

Now, for all the well-to-doers and busybodies out there, the obvious argument is, "Isn't sleeping too much a waste of time and life?" or "You can sleep when you're dead". To that I rebutt: no, it's not a waste if it is something I love to do, and no, you don't sleep when you're dead, you're dead when you're dead. If I have something important to do or an event to attend, then of course I shall rise to the occasion and get my lazy ass out of bed. But if I have nothing really better to do, and a 6 foot horizontal slab of some sort is in immediate reach, you can believe that I will be sprawled out on it. Whether it be inside on the couch or outside on the hammock, I can be found with my feet up and head back.

What is it that draws me to this essential, yet basic 'activity'? Is it my raw laziness or lack of motivation and ambition? It very well could be. I would rather like to think of it as my type of meditation. It is an undervalued opportunity to be able to lie in silence/darkness and just think to yourself and reflect on the day's happenings are your own thoughts. Granted, this often leads to sleeping and dreaming, but I also find that I can remember my dreams far more lucidly in the afternoon than upon waking up in the morning. I am also a fan of the analyzation of my dreams, but that will be another post. A little self-reflection is good for anyone.

What brought this notion upon me was an incident in the lazy afternoon of yesterday. I was laying in bed after an early soccer game when my cat came in the room and laid down next to me. He immediately fell asleep as if it was exactly what he was supposed to do. I'm sure I have noticed it before, but that cat sleeps a lot. That is what cats do, I suppose. It got me to thinking, shouldn't we humans be indulging that urge to sleep a bit more? I know logistically this can't happen. Schedules are too full as is and everyone has someplace they have to be. I find it gravely unfortunate that we can, for the most part, no longer truly enjoy this simple pleasure. Alarm clocks, meetings, due-dates, deadlines; all these conventions pull us from our normal system of sleep.

It saddens me to think that as I get older and my responsibilities increase, to my family, my career, as well as to myself, my opportunties to loll in relaxation will continually decrease. My need to be awake and attentive will overwhelm my ability to rest and reflect. Sleeping is such a simple pleasure, healer of wounds and pain, soothing agent, time for peace, re-energizer, and something no one can live without. In a world that is always on the go, it seems the pr0-sleeper such as myself is looked at in a negative sense. My guess to this view is that it's hard to make money while you're sleeping. An unfortunate result of capitalism, to say the least.

Look, I'm not bashing capitalism or ambition or active people, as people do what they must and that's their choice. My recommendation, however would be to live like my cat for a day; do what you got to do, but take a nap when you feel like it, embrace sleep like it is eating, when you feel like it, do it. See if you feel better, take some time for yourself, enjoy your pillow. Actually, that sound like a good idea...

Warning!

Political writing ahead. Turn away now unless you want to read some political opinion.

I am not sure if I would call this politcal opinion or observation. Anyways, today's musings are concerning the state of our politicians. Not so much their views, be that right, left or in the middle somewhere, but rather their interactions with each other and the nation as a whole.

What brought this up was an interview with Bob Schieffer this morning on my local news station. He commented that the latest immigration bill had once again failed and Congress was back to square one on the issue. He then continued on about Congress as a whole and the fact that since basically every one of these elected politicians are catering to some special interest or have financial ties to a certain stance, that there is no longer the room for compromise or deal making in order to get things done.

Normally, I could give two left nuts about our politics and the government, preferring the 'laissez-faire' attitude of citizenship toward my ruling body. They do what they gotta do and I continue to live my life. Up to this point, I haven't had any problems. I most likely will continue to not have any problems. I realized the reason for this is that there will not be any drastic change in our system anytime soon that will affect how I live my life.

Nowadays, (and I'm sure it's been this way for a while) politcal correctness and inoffensiveness are far too present in our culture. "Special interests" dominate our society. People who are offended by something spread their views into the mainstream and in turn, our politicians are catering to them. What really bothers me is that is all because of money. Getting elected nowadays cost so much money that politicians must search out for people to fund them and generally promise some sort of return to them. Soooo, when they eventually make it to that big white building in the center of DC, they already have their agendas set up, their minds made up on issues and must conform to them, lest they lose money, and don't get re-elected. They can't negotiate because it would mean they would lose their jobs.

Schieffer's comment of this inability to negotiate really bothers me, while at the same time relaxes me. It bothers me because nothing is getting done, but it also puts me at ease because nothing is going to change. The art of compromise and working together no longer seems to be the goal. Rather, it is a my-way-or-the-highway attitude that dominates, meaning that if one group doesn't like it, the entire thing is scrapped. This may be an exaggeration on my part, but I feel like it sums up the point to be made.

It seems like even on easier decisions such as the post 9/11 movement, there arose debates as to what was the correct move. It would be nice to hear on the 'news' for once something like, "Congress agrees to new bill, compromise deemed a success". Anything in that range of headline would do instead of "Bill defeated" or "Debate rages on" again.

For me, as someone who is content in his day to day dealings with the government and the law, this issue is reassuring that my life will not be impacted very much, if at all. However, it is eerie to know that if I did have an issue that I would like some action taken upon, there is very little hope that it will take place. I will just compromise by not taking issue...

Eh...

Due to the immense popularity of my previous post, I have decided to take more of my old posts from the other 'space' and post it here.

This is from February 17, 2007.


There was an opportunity just the other day to use the old phrase "fool me once, shame on you..." blah blah, etc. The problem was that I knew that it was the correct context to use said phrase in, but I could not for the life of me remember exactly how the phrase went. You know why? All I could think of was the infamous quote given by our fine president George Dub. I'm sure you've heard of it, during some speech he said, and I quote,
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Well, this utterance of genius was so rediculously memorable that I forgot the actual proverb and could only remember this version. This got me to thinking about what else in our venacular the beloved Shrub has negatively influenced. I know people don't agree with his policy or war 'stategery', but this is far more basic, something that affects everyone. It is no big shock that the Shrub is not the most eloquent speaker, but his mishaps are causing permanent damage. It is now just fine to pronounce 'nuclear' as 'nukular'. I find myself no longer even using the word 'strategy', opting for the far more inwardly hilarious 'strategery'.
Don't get me wrong, I love a funny quote as much as the next person, in fact I catch myself saying Borat's 'niiiice' or asking for a 'liter cola' all the time, but these are quotable because they are meant to be quotable, coming from writing that is meant to be catch-phrasable.. (New word). I don't quote John Kerry, I don't quote Barack O whatever, and I am glad I don't. I want to respect (as much as possible) my politicians, not mock and quote them because of their misuse of the english language and familiar quips.
Anyfart, the point of this is just to continue the rant on the effect that an unqualified leader can unknowingly have on his people.

Oh laziness...

It is easy to grab ahold of you and take you down to the depth of do-nothing-ness. In honor of one my greatest vices, here is a an old blog posted from that other 'space' that is mine. I am no longer posting on that blog as that site is way two months ago. It's all porn and pervs anyway (not that there's anything wrong with that...wait, actually there kind of is). Anyfart, here's the post from August 16, 2006. I thought of this when I came across "Pirate Master" on TV the other day. Just sad.



Everyone gets a show!

You know what is spectacular? No matter what you are in to these days, there's either a 'reality' show currently airing about it, has aired, or is in production, itching to air to your eyes. Fake superheroes? Preachers? Shit cleaners? Pornographers? Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses and I will find a way to make it into a series of half hour TV shows. I can't wait for "so you think you can farm" or "America's got Gynecologists". If you haven't heard, there is a stictly reality tv CHANNEL, brought to us by the ad wizards at Fox. What's sad is that no matter what felch pies they air on tv, half of america will watch it. Is it boredom? Apathy? Genuine interest? Doubtful. I feel like our media outlets have sensationalized every topic to point where given the right editing or presentation, even paint drying can be turned into entertainment, given that two of the painters are fighting for the love of a third painter, or one of the paints is a color of a confederate flag or a star of david; just for the controversy. I seriously doubt this trend of 'reality' television will end anytime soon, as the method has been perfected and there are plenty of oddball genres/contestant types/activities still waiting to be exploited/feature/itching to have that 15 seconds burned on DVD to add that ever growing home library.
I'll pass.

I see...

As the summer sneaks up on us, the pools are opening, the sun stays out longer and the yards are astir with the machinery of flora management. As I pushed the mower around the ol green rectangle, I was searching for reasons why I should be performing this bi-weekly task anyhow. The question became, why does a neatly trimmed yard look so good? What makes an even 2" of grass all around the ideal image of lawn maintenance?

I am guessing that it comes from a greater image of those rolling Irish hills that always look so perfect with the clear blue sky against a perfect shad of grass green. That, coupled with the interior look of an even carpet and flat floor make one's lawn an outdoor floor, an outdoor carpet. Of course this is going to look better than overgrown weeds or unorganized grass blades everywhere. Our lawn has become an extension of the house, with landscaping being the furniture and decor. That perfect flat, green lawn is the organic carpet that you feel comfortable walking barefoot through. A hill or change in topography can be offset by a small garden or rock pile, creating a wall or edge to the carpet. Flowers are planted in the ground instead of sitting in a vase on your table. Lawn chairs and gazebos are placed near edges or in formations that make exterior rooms. Hell, fountains and pools even pop up instead of sinks and baths.

Yes, this comparison has already gone on too far, but I just find it interesting how it is expected to keep a clean yard, just as it is to keep a clean house. Unkept yard? Dirty people. Perfect turf? Howdy neighbor. On a bigger note, this is just another unseen conformity issue that is expected of us. I am not really arguing that this is bad, I enjoy a nice looking yard as much as the next person, but I will continue to ask why and at least for the meantime try to find a justifiable reason why I am sweating my bag off for an hour or two every other week keeping the earth around my house 'suburbia pretty'.

Excuse me?

Here's a little nugget that can bake your noodle if you delve too deep...there's a shit ton of people on this Earth. Ha, yeah, this is a pretty obvious statement and something that is easily shrugged off, but yesterday on my drive home, as I contemplated the many happenings of the world, I paused and really thought about my place among the 6 BILLION humans on this planet.

We all know that cities are dense with people, suburbs are ever growing and China produces people faster than Hollywood can produce shitty unneeded sequels. (China's birth rate is about 13 per 1000 people). Anyways, what got my mind cooking is the sheer exponential growth this planet has faced over the course of a few thousand years.

It is estimated that around 1000 BC there were only 50,000 people worldwide. 50,000! That's less than the population of Bismarck, North Dakota! By 1000 AD, the number rises to over 300,000. Then just recently in the year 2000, the estimated world population is over 6,000,000,000. That is 4 extra zeroes! Ridiculous!

Now, after the recent 'boom age', census-peoples are saying that the 'growth rate' is actually declining and populations aren't exploding as they used to (they base this on later marriage ages, less need for big families, and more contraception options, etc.). This is all well and dandy except that the populations will still continue to grow.

This being the case, in my thinking I was not concerned about the near future; my lifetime, my child's life time, grand-kid etc, but rather I realized that there absolutely will come a point when there is just no more room for everyone. This also got me thinking that people will not be stupid enough to let this happen, meaning that at some point there will be a forced control, a limit to reproduction or even a mass 'extermination' to make this room.

OK, this is serious stuff, why would I even concern myself with such doom and gloom? Good question. I ask myself the same thing when considering global warming or the concept of outer space, these thing so far out of my reach that in reality, it won't concern me at all. But I think there is something in our human condition (and some may say the reason for life) that makes us want to be able to keep our genes going, to want to keep us alive, to keep hope alive. What this population conundrum roused up was the idea that all things aside, there is an endgame. There is a point when it all will end and it is beyond anyone's control.

I've always had the fantasy that by the time I am old, I will have the option of freezing myself or somehow placing my mind in frozen animation, able to be reawakened when the proper time comes. This idea of immortality is what everyone seeks (it's the great reward of most religions) and is something that everyone really wants. Dying sucks, the end sucks, and the worst part is that it is unavoidable.

So what's a person to do? My answer is to live it up. These realizations are going to change anything. Hell, all of these bitchings in these postings aren't really going to change anything. I'll continue to live my life as happy as I can possibly do it and will greet my end when the time comes. I'm happy I'm in a world that I can still have an optimistic attitude about. Imagine if we were born in the times when there is 1 TRILLION people on Earth. Talk about being cozy with your neighbors.

Bingo!

I will keep this one relatively short. Television has officially scraped the bottom of the barrel. The brainlords over at ABC have created one last attempt to profit off the recent success of brainless game shows. Their idea: BINGO. Yes, that lame-ass often-used-as-a-fundraiser loved-by-old-people game that takes as much skill as hitting the lottery is coming to your TV set as an hour long program.

Now, I have no idea whatsoever as to how this show will be aired, or what constitutes its planned enterntainment value other than the ability to 'play at home'. Is this really a draw and if so, is it drawing the ideal demographic that a television company and its advertisers are looking for? I am imagining a lot of Viagra/Depends/Ocean Spray ads during this hour of reading numbers.

To be honest, I bet this show does great. It is simple and stupid and interactive enough to captivate the zombies on their couches with their homemade bingo boards and felt pen in hand. I just find it sad that this show is being made. Don't bother going to your neighborhood firehouse for some Bingo action, now you can sit in the privacy of your own muck and 'share' the bingo experience with people nationwide! How exciting!

Something just inherently bothers me about this idea. I keep seeing the image of the TV in the dive bar that shows the latest Keno numbers, and the sad sacks that just sit at the booth and stare at the numbers popping up, hoping that their choices will make them a quick twenty bucks. (BTW, if you didn't know already, Keno has the absolute worst odds of any casino-type gambling game, and by worst I mean you might as well take the money you were gonna play Keno with, throw it in the air, leave your hands up and then walk away with whatever falls back into your hand, it is that bad) The idea of televised bingo just makes me depressed. It seems like there are just so many better things one can do than play bingo (especially on a nationally televised program where you don't even know if the game is legit).

My advice, if you want Bingo action, go support your community. If you want entertaining TV, well, too bad.

Hey!

So my past few posts have been a tad on the serious side. I had a long hiatus from writing my thoughts and I think I just needed to get a few of those out. But now I can go back to the shitty little trivial matters of our day-to-day routine.

My first foray back in the muck has to do with a retail store by the name of Rent-a-Center. These brainlords decided that they need a new spokesperson to lively up their line of products. Who, you might ask, would be the ideal candidate that would help people get into the store and RENT furniture, electonics or appliances? Perhaps a cast member from the musical RENT? No, AIDS is scary. Perhaps Adam Sandler? He played a salesman in some movie. No, way too A-list. Ooh, here's an idea (drumroll)... Kathy Ireland! Perfect!

Yes, the winners over at Rent-A-Center have a whole new product line sponsored by none other than the hottest supermodel from the late 1980's. Who are the ad wizards that came up with this one? I know I want an armoir that was designed (hell, I doubt she actually designed anything) by a supermodel. Hey mom, check out my new living room set! It's the new Kathy Ireland line, doesn't that make you want to go get one yourself?

I don't know what kind of behind the door deal this woman is doing, but really, she has her own line of furniture? How can anyone get behind this? I mean, I could get behind her, but why else make her the spokesman for your products? Where's Cindy Crawford's new line of frozen vegetables or Rachel Hunter's new pencil set?

Once again, I admit that my research only extends to what I have seen/heard in my media encounters, but I am assuming that the majority of the people out ther know about as much about K I as I do, that being little to none other than her being an ex-supermodel. I think I recall her having a line of clothing at K-Mart or something, which does make some sense since she was a model and wearing clothes was something she was known for. But furniture? Appliances? Really? I could even see maybe a fabric line, as that still has to do with fashion in some sense, but still, couldn't they have chosen someone a bit more contemporary?

Maybe K I appeals to the middle aged housewife who still considers herself attractive yet down to earth and a responsible member of the community. K I is a respectable choice, as she has been out of the news long enough that is no memory of any type of scandal or anything the least bit offensive (Back then, the SI swimsuit models would don 1-pieces!). So from that point, maybe there's a reason. But come on, Kathy Ireland-furniture? I know it's the hip thing for 'celebrities' to put their name on all kinds of random stuff, everyone likes extra money; an example being the Steven Seagal energy drink. Pure retardedness. I feel like these sponsored items are just a joke unless they have some sort of relevancy to the celebrity promoting them, like a Britney Spears baby monitor would do.

I just don't get it this decision, or why it was made, and I still have no desire to go to a Rent-A-Center, no matter how little I have to pay to get it in my home today. Geez, that was even a better line than "Kathy Ireland Home Collection".

You know what really grinds my gears? Everyone who feels the need to eliminate anything that offends them. This is a very general statement, and purposely so. I am sure it has been going on for a long long time, but since when does taking offense to something mean that it is now an evil thing?

People, not everyone is going to like everything they hear or see. But as a diverse species of intellectual beings, that is just the reality we live in. This continuous sheltering and 'cleansing', as I will call it, can only hurt things in the long run. It is inevitable that at one point you will come across something that you do not like or even that you find offensive to your beliefs or ideas. The thing is, this is perfectly OK. We are capable of assessing the situation, acknowledging the fact that it is offensive to one's self or loved ones, and then distancing one's self from it. It does not entail the right to distance others from it or the need to remove it entirely from existence.

I feel our culture has always dealt with this issue, with the larger issue of civil rights down to the much debated right of free speech. If you cannot tell, I am a great advocate of the right to free speech and I feel that someone should be able to say, write, draw or sing anything they choose. It is only the actions that can hurt people. Sure, somethings that are said can incite actions, but they can also incite just the opposite. The bottom line is that there is a responsibility of each person to their actions and the blame cannot be passed on to a spoken word or piece of text.

Family Guy for instance is what I consider a noticeably offensive show, yet millions of people love it. It's freakin hilarious. It presents material that may be offensive to some, but to others it is known to all be in jest. People know that it is not to be taken seriously and they can keep going about their day without shedding a tear. This is the way all offensive things should be handled. If you find it offensive, distance yourself from it. It is fine to give your opinion of it to the world, but it is not your place to force or deny others to material that you find questionable. If it is unpopular, it will go away anyway. If it is liked by many, it will stick around, and we have to respect that.

I know this is an over the top comparison, but here goes: this idea of 'offensiveness' is quickly becoming the new blasphemy. It can be argued that we are slowly becoming more and more secular in society (sure millions attend church and believe in God, blah, blah, but are we really that religious anymore? This will have to be another posting). As we turn more secular, the blasphemous ideas that we would have fought for in the past are now being redefined as simply 'offensive' as to include ideas beyond religion, to more innately human topics such as race, gender or sexual orientation. For some reason, we allow this fight to go on as if it is ok to actually fight for the protection from offense and differing views as if it was a life and death matter to protect our ears (and our dear, dear children of course) from something someone deems unfit.

Compounding the matter is the notion that those who are leading this movement of eliminating offenses have an underlying agenda of self-promotion that is easily followed and accepted by the masses. Nobody likes being offended, it sucks. Most people on a day to day basis would actually do as recommended earlier and just ignore this issue and move on. But when there is a figurehead speaking out on the topic, it is far too easy to simply sit back and in a way support the person while not really engaging one's self in the issue. I feel this is why these offense-offenders get so much attention and support. Another great thing about our culture is now that news travels faster than ever before, we are always aware of the newest scandal or situation, and who doesn't want to know what the latest scandal is? This type of thing can give attention to something that really doesn't deserve it. Imus is the current example. "Nappy-headed hoes"? I mean, come on, really? I hear worse things in the grocery store. Sure, he shouldn't have said it, but they are words, nothing more.

This whole issue makes me think it has less to do with the offense itself and more with people using it as a tool of self-promotion and attention. Take those crazy religious protestors who show up at military funerals, etc. Everyone knows they are just crazy people, but then again, everyone knows them. They speak out about something that is 'offensive' to them, the news picks it up, and now we are aware of them. Who cares about them? They are crazy! But because they take offense and bring a scandalish issue to light, we are now aware of them are their situation.

I just find the whole situation irritating. People could live much happier lives by simply going about their business, distancing themselves from things they dislike (much like I distance myself from diet soda, country music and girls with armpit hair). There, I voiced my disapproval and will now move on. There is no need for me to fight to get rid of country music. Other people enjoy the S out of it, I would be foolish to think I should be able to deny others something which they enjoy. No matter how offensive it is, one does not have the right to deny others from it. Share your opinion, but don't force your opinion. Nobody likes a fascist. Well, maybe somebody does, so I won't deny the right to be so. (But they are dicks, there I said it, GASP!)

Gov'na!

Who is this hip elderly woman pictured? No, it's not my grandma, though she is a grandmother. In the case you're monarchally unaware, this is a nice portrait of Queen Elizabeth II. She looks stylin' in her lavender shirt and pearls, hardly the picture of the monarchy you expect or visualize when you hear the words "Queen Elizabeth II".

It turns out this admired lady is visiting the good ol States for a while and her first visit in the great state of Virginia. She's visiting the old settlement of Jamestown for it's 400th anniversary. I feel this is quite a valiant gesture, seeing as how this English expedition started what was to begin the eventual American colonies and Revolutionary war, ending the potential English expansive dynasty. But anypoo, as I rode home yesterday listening to the 'news' on the radio, there was a story about how there's information available to us unknowing Americans as to the proper etiquette if one is in the queen's presence.

Here's a link: http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKN0322882820070504?src=050407_1058_DOUBLEFEATURE_other_news

Now, being a content American, I am unaware with the customs and loyalty of a person in a monarchal governmental system, but I feel that the time for a divide among people is no longer necessary. What I mean by this is this: the queen, or any other monarch or head of state or even celebrity for that matter is still just another human being. They are no different than you or me other than they are a hell of a lot more popular than you or me. Call me ungrateful or even disrespectful, but I see no point of 'avoiding eye contact' or 'stopping eating when she does'. Sure, she's a great person, she's the head of a nation, but she was born into it and is queen just because she is. There's nothing outstanding about it.

Yeah, it is good to have leaders and people to look up to, and sure, these people deserve some sort of respect, even if just for security purposes. But in these times of equal rights, the information age, etc; does there still exist the idea of someone being better or higher up simply by birthright or by what others have decided? The President was chosen by half the country, meaning 150 million people see him as a great leader. Does that mean he is any more of a person that any of us? Just like your boss, your mayor, your doctor, your police officers, your local judge, even your parents for that matter; they are all human beings. They all have problems and opportunities, families, cares, likes and dislikes. I know when I was younger there was an obvious class scale that I knew to respect. Some people were more important than I was and being a child I had no way to argue. But now I am one of the whole, a person on this world who gets to enjoy it all just as much as the next person. No longer do I need to feel intimidated or inadequate when conversing with a person 'of higher authority'.

This post is not meant as a argument for anarchy, goverment works and it needs people to make it work. Rather, my point is to realize that of all these positions and figureheads, there are still actual people behind them, human beings to go along with the titles that are no different than anyone anywhere. Respect everyone and expect the same for yourself. Oh, and long live the queen... and me, and everyone.

Woof!

You know what is so great about pets? Their complete lack of emotional memory. I don't mean that have no memory at all, they certainly recognize people, eating habits and pooping spots; but rather I mean they don't stay angry or happy or anything for more than 5 minutes.

Let's say you step on your dog's tail, let's say you even do it on purpose because you're pissed that he stole a hot dog off the table (you're not upset at the verbal cannibalism BTW). The dog will howl, lurk off into the corner and sulk for a bit. Five minutes later, that stimulus is gone, the dog has returned to his content obliviousness and things are right again. No grudge, no sad looks, no blackmail or secret loathing.

Now, I will give that these animals do have enough intelligence to become aware of a repeated action, say if you were to step on his tail everytime he barked. Then he might react differently, and wise up to the act, but even then, as soon as that stimulus has gone, it is back to the indifference of a pet that we know and love.

This is my main beef with the animal rights activists of the world. The extreme believers of animal rights treat pets like people. They are not. They are animals. They do not have the mental or emotional capacity to even realize they are being treated like animals. Now, I'm not saying go beat a dog with a golf club, but let us draw the line somewhere as to what rules apply and what don't. I know that people love their pets like children which is just fine. But when the life or happenings of people get displaced for that of a pet, that's where the problem lies.

This is not meant to be a animal rights lover's hate session, but rather just a post about great pets are for being animals. They love you no matter what and are far more loyal and easy-going than any person could be. Nowadays, "It's a dog's life" is not a bad thing, it's a great thing: being pampered, fed, loved and petted just for being a dog or cat or whatever pet you have. Pets are great because they give you unabashed love and attention, for which you in return show your love and affection and the comfort of "a dog's life".

So here's my tip for the day: If you feel like you need some love and also have some love to give or just need some cheering up that your significant other (or lack thereof) can not give, an animal's love is just the right thing (and NOT that kind of love, that's just wrong). If you don't want that kind of responsibility, just go to somebody's house you know who has a pet, it works the same way; to an extent.

I know it's great to come home after a particularly cruddy day and have a tail wagging behind the door, excited that it is me coming home. It's worth the awkward hand-in-the-plastic-bag-picking-up- poop-on-the-side-of-the-road-and-flipping-the-bag-inside-out. You know what I'm talking about.