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.

Finally, the Krunk has come back to blogspot! Hold your applause and change your panties, things will be ok now.

As my Earth Day resolution, I am going to try to continue writing and posting, as I have come to the conclusion that it is absolutely necessary that I do. In this age of information and connectivity, it would be unethical not to.

If you haven't detected my tone of Sarcasm, ( I tried to hint with the Bold) I admire your willingness to believe me. But alas, I am not being forthright. I am coming to a larger point which will explain my sarcasity.

Of all the blogs, of all the myspace pages, of all the facebook accounts and del.icio.us postings, how many are actually read or even viewed by more than 3 people? By now, everyone has some piece of their personality on the interwebs, 'sharing' and 'conversing' with the electronic world around them. Apparently it is common now for employers to do google searches as a background check for potential employees. The world is that faithful in the awesomeness of the internet.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is great to have an outlet for one's creativity; an ability to showcase some talent, vent some steam, voice an opinion or let everyone know how much you love "The Notebook". I just wonder how many of these people actually expect a response or even the number next to 'views' to reach double digits.

Perhaps I am not as connected into this whole realm as I picture myself being, but I feel that 99% of the personal material (i.e. myspace pages, facebook pages) go unappreciated for the amount of time put into them. Granted the majority of the content is crap no one other than the person himself/significant other care about, but it is interesting that it is all there for potential viewing.

To be honest, I have no idea where exactly I am going with this entry. It's great there is this percieved and potential connectivity througout the world and that people are trying to share themselves with the world. On the other hand, the only people that visit your pages are people that already know your favorite TV show is Heroes, know you are away for the weekend and wont be posting anything new for a week, or are related to you and could write the page themselves. It seems like this is an inherent conflict of ideas.

Then again, maybe I should look at this personal information sitting on the Net as a type of People Library awaiting my scanning and browsing. Think of a library with its thousands/millions of books and text at your fingertips. You still only go to the fiction section or the periodicals, but occasionally you might find yourself in the travel section looking at something interesting. Somebody wrote that book, and somebody shares your interest. This is the ideal connection that the personal pages offer. It may take a while to find, and many uninteresting attempts, but there's something interesting out there waiting for a mouse click and a view.

I guess my point is (and this refers back to a previous point of mine about the idea of one's own small world) that there is so so much out there; people, ideas, communities; that it may seem overwhelming. This overwhelming feeling is outside of our comfort zone, outside our familiar faces and ideas. For once, instead of checking to see if your friend has posted some new witty comment or picture, use that seach engine and try to find someone else's take on your interest, someone else's ideas and opinions. That is what this web is for, connectivity, not an electronic version of the inner circle you already belong to. Explore!


PS As this is my first posting in a while, I realize it is a bit on the preachy side but I needed a good opening chapter to get the ball rolling.