St. Dickolas
It's the holiday season and that means one thing: shopping. Everyone and their mother is out at the mall or retail store. This also means that normally wide open parking lots are full to the ends of the aisles; and with full aisles comes cars creeping along looking for an open spot or someone about to pull out.
So with all these cars creeping along looking for spaces, you get the occasional car stalker. By this I mean there is that car that slowly follows you as you walk down the aisle to your car, finally putting on the flashers when you reach the car, waiting to take your space. For me, I detest these people. I don't know what it is. Laziness? Stalking? I don't know, but I do have a fun and easy way to deal with it. I simply walk down the wrong aisle to the approximate depth of my car, then cross over between rows to where my car is. The stalking cars will follow slow behind you, then as they see you cross over, will usually stop for a brief second, look around a bit, then peel off and try to find another spot. I find this highly amusing, despite it's contradiction in embodying the spirit of the season. Screw it, I say. The holidays are so full of unwarranted pressure and stress, that little things that can make you laugh are welcomed.
Just thought I'd share this little tip. But don't do this if you've parked near the end of the aisle and the stalker car can just whip around the corner and brandish the full parking lot rage.
On a side note, I have added a 'reactions' bar at the bottom of these posts, where you can click and agree, disagree or just say 'who cares?'. I appreciate the feedback, if only to steer what I bitch about next.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Wiikness
I was recently visiting my local electronic gaming store and I found myself amongst citizens other than the usual teenager/college kid/geek I was accustomed to seeing. Rather, those around me were all 40 and 50 year old professionals each with a piece of paper in hand. Ah, the lists! At that moment I recalled making one of those lists myself as a child each Christmas. These lists did not have a single article of clothing, a single book or even a movie. It was all video games (or video game accessories). Of course I would put the really expensive stuff on there, partly as a joke, but they were also there to make the other items more worthy of purchase. Yes, video games also taught strategerie. Anypoop, I found it amusing that now as an adult, I am noticing the continued practice of the video-game-Christmas.
What bothered me during this experience though was seeing how a good majority of these shoppers had absolutely no clue what they were purchasing other than the name written on the list. Honestly, I saw an 80 year old man buy "Left 4 Dead" and "World of Warcraft: Battle Chest". Now if these were movie titles, I doubt Mr. Oldman would have been buying them, but he seemed to have no reservations, even after seeing the mutilated hand on the cover of "Left 4 Dead". Others were asking questions to the sales clerk about different games and "whether they are fun" or "how many people can play this", etc. Would it kill you to take a minute and familiarize yourself with the item you are purchasing for your child, who will no doubt be spending at least 10 or 15 hours sitting zombified in front of it's illuminated display? Shit, I guess that's why they have the ESRB.
Now, I'm sure the kids who will be receiving these games have done their research or at least know why they want the game, so I can't pick a bone with title choice or system preference. However, the whole time I was in this store, the phone was ringing off the hook with people asking if the store had any remaining Nintendo Wiis. The store was sold out (much like every other store in North America), but customers were urged to check back in the morning for a possible new shipment. I have to give respect to the geniuses over at Nintendo, for they have realized one of the greatest cash cows of the past few years. Even with the economic downturn of late, video games; led by the Nintendo Wii and Nintendo DS, are still selling strong. Combine a trusted name, family friendly software, a new control system that promotes 'active movement' (hilarious), a couple new-wave gimmicks, and a relatively low price point; and well, you have yourself a winner. The Wii is probably most popular for it's gimmick of the 'Wii Fit' which is essentially just a balance board and scale that you can stand on, control your system and see how fat you are. It, and the rest of the system, markets itself as an activity alternative and an interactive element that allows you to do more than just sit on the couch. I will say, that yes, this is a great idea in principle, but it is just like drinking a diet coke: you have less calories, but you are still drinking a sugary cola. With the Wii, you are still playing virtual tennis rather than going outside and playing actual tennis. But I'm sure it comforts all the parents out there that their little butterballs are at least moving more than just their eyes and thumbs.
As a further note, of all the people I know who have a Wii, I would say about 95% of them haven't even turned it on in the past month. It is a fad, a moderately expensive fad, and Nintendo is profiting nicely. Sure, the younger kids still play everyday, but like any fad, even that will wear off in time. Overall, I would just like to know how much these parents and giftgivers know about the products they are purchasing and what level of involvement their kids have with them. I often get the feeling that these games are merely babysitters and tranquilizers. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, but I would be responsible enough to fully interview the babysitter and at least try out the tranquilizer myself before leaving my kid alone with it. Video games are great, but like any media, there is still a level of responsibility to uphold.
I was recently visiting my local electronic gaming store and I found myself amongst citizens other than the usual teenager/college kid/geek I was accustomed to seeing. Rather, those around me were all 40 and 50 year old professionals each with a piece of paper in hand. Ah, the lists! At that moment I recalled making one of those lists myself as a child each Christmas. These lists did not have a single article of clothing, a single book or even a movie. It was all video games (or video game accessories). Of course I would put the really expensive stuff on there, partly as a joke, but they were also there to make the other items more worthy of purchase. Yes, video games also taught strategerie. Anypoop, I found it amusing that now as an adult, I am noticing the continued practice of the video-game-Christmas.
What bothered me during this experience though was seeing how a good majority of these shoppers had absolutely no clue what they were purchasing other than the name written on the list. Honestly, I saw an 80 year old man buy "Left 4 Dead" and "World of Warcraft: Battle Chest". Now if these were movie titles, I doubt Mr. Oldman would have been buying them, but he seemed to have no reservations, even after seeing the mutilated hand on the cover of "Left 4 Dead". Others were asking questions to the sales clerk about different games and "whether they are fun" or "how many people can play this", etc. Would it kill you to take a minute and familiarize yourself with the item you are purchasing for your child, who will no doubt be spending at least 10 or 15 hours sitting zombified in front of it's illuminated display? Shit, I guess that's why they have the ESRB.
Now, I'm sure the kids who will be receiving these games have done their research or at least know why they want the game, so I can't pick a bone with title choice or system preference. However, the whole time I was in this store, the phone was ringing off the hook with people asking if the store had any remaining Nintendo Wiis. The store was sold out (much like every other store in North America), but customers were urged to check back in the morning for a possible new shipment. I have to give respect to the geniuses over at Nintendo, for they have realized one of the greatest cash cows of the past few years. Even with the economic downturn of late, video games; led by the Nintendo Wii and Nintendo DS, are still selling strong. Combine a trusted name, family friendly software, a new control system that promotes 'active movement' (hilarious), a couple new-wave gimmicks, and a relatively low price point; and well, you have yourself a winner. The Wii is probably most popular for it's gimmick of the 'Wii Fit' which is essentially just a balance board and scale that you can stand on, control your system and see how fat you are. It, and the rest of the system, markets itself as an activity alternative and an interactive element that allows you to do more than just sit on the couch. I will say, that yes, this is a great idea in principle, but it is just like drinking a diet coke: you have less calories, but you are still drinking a sugary cola. With the Wii, you are still playing virtual tennis rather than going outside and playing actual tennis. But I'm sure it comforts all the parents out there that their little butterballs are at least moving more than just their eyes and thumbs.
As a further note, of all the people I know who have a Wii, I would say about 95% of them haven't even turned it on in the past month. It is a fad, a moderately expensive fad, and Nintendo is profiting nicely. Sure, the younger kids still play everyday, but like any fad, even that will wear off in time. Overall, I would just like to know how much these parents and giftgivers know about the products they are purchasing and what level of involvement their kids have with them. I often get the feeling that these games are merely babysitters and tranquilizers. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, but I would be responsible enough to fully interview the babysitter and at least try out the tranquilizer myself before leaving my kid alone with it. Video games are great, but like any media, there is still a level of responsibility to uphold.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
The Real Tragedies of Reality Television
I know I have posted before about the inane crap that is put forth on cable these days, but after another painful session of boob tubery, I must return to the topic. On the glorious day of gluttony that is known as Thanksgiving, I found myself just this side of comatose and frozenly staring into the tv set with some family. We happened upon a marathon of "The Real Housewives of Atlanta", which stayed on my screen due to the lack of me being able to put up any protest. So we watched, and I cringed, we watched some more, and I about shot myself in the face. I was not suprised at my reaction, but rather angered that this kind of drivel constitutes entertainment. Also, being 'reality' television, I was further angered by the fact that these characters are actually real people inhabiting the same real country I live in.
If you are not familiar with "The Real Housewives" series on Bravo, it basically follows 5 or 6 'housewives' in various localities that are known for their wealth and luxury. Surprisingly enough, Atlanta was chosen for this past season, but my guess is that it was to give a different perspective of luxury living than that of a blonde liposuctioned white trophy wife or a brunette liposuctioned Jewish trophy wife. The cast of 'Atlanta' were all black wives of current or ex-professional athletes, except one 'token' white chick. All of the wives were relatively interesting, but nothing I would write home about. Some are still with their husbands, some not, but all are retardedly wealthy and spend their free time shopping and gossiping. Ridiculous. But I suppose this alone wasn't enough fodder for 13 or however-many episodes, so they included the most braindead mannish looking waste of oxygen disguised as a white 'housewife'. This woman did not reveal (at least from what I saw) her 'sugar daddy' or 'big poppa' or whatever she called him because he didn't want to interfere. Whoever this guy is, he must know just how worthless this chick is because he doesn't want to be publicly associated with her. Cheers to him. Anyway, there were too many things to point out about this womanly abomination; between the fake singing and the bitching back and forth to warrant me elaborating any further. Take away this: if cancer took human form, this would be your model.
Anyfart, enough griping. My real issue is not with blonde retards or gold-digging feminists, but rather the people that decide this is entertainment and the viewers in the world who agree that this is entertaining. These women are poop and I could care less what they do with their lives. I am hoping that the main draw to engaging in these people's lives is to watch how shitty things are for them and to take pleasure in the fact that we are not them. I know conflict and tragedy are interesting viewing material, but I enjoy scripted television because I always am comforted by the fact that these horrible things are not really happening to real people. Instead, by watching these monstrosities, we become aware just how crappy the upper class can be and in turn, people as a whole. It taints the view of people in these positions. I know I got the impression that women like these with healthy bank accounts and huge houses are vapid, inconsiderate gossips who spend the day drinking wine, buying thongs and occasionally showing up at a charity function.
I know editing and production can extremely alter the reality of the situations, but you can't edit everything. What concerns me is that these women are acting this way on purpose. They know they are being filmed, they know it will be seen nationwide, yet they continue to put on the show. This just means they are ignorant to their own situation and how they come across to others. Perhaps this is the key to 'good' reality television, but I generally interpret ignorance with a negative connotation and would happily distance myself from any instance of it.
What results from all this is a facilitating of negative stereotypes for the middle-aged wealthy woman. Granted these woman may be exceptions and is why they were picked from the show in the first place, but there should be an understood responsibility of knowing what this type of show could promote. It bothers me to no end that horrible people get paid attention to in ways such as this. The people who make this show no doubt realize how miserable these people are, but it sells advertising and makes money, so it will go on. With so many worthwhile people out there, why not show them on national tv. We all know the reason why: happiness doesn't sell like tragedy does. It just sucks these people get paid to be garbage.
I know I have posted before about the inane crap that is put forth on cable these days, but after another painful session of boob tubery, I must return to the topic. On the glorious day of gluttony that is known as Thanksgiving, I found myself just this side of comatose and frozenly staring into the tv set with some family. We happened upon a marathon of "The Real Housewives of Atlanta", which stayed on my screen due to the lack of me being able to put up any protest. So we watched, and I cringed, we watched some more, and I about shot myself in the face. I was not suprised at my reaction, but rather angered that this kind of drivel constitutes entertainment. Also, being 'reality' television, I was further angered by the fact that these characters are actually real people inhabiting the same real country I live in.
If you are not familiar with "The Real Housewives" series on Bravo, it basically follows 5 or 6 'housewives' in various localities that are known for their wealth and luxury. Surprisingly enough, Atlanta was chosen for this past season, but my guess is that it was to give a different perspective of luxury living than that of a blonde liposuctioned white trophy wife or a brunette liposuctioned Jewish trophy wife. The cast of 'Atlanta' were all black wives of current or ex-professional athletes, except one 'token' white chick. All of the wives were relatively interesting, but nothing I would write home about. Some are still with their husbands, some not, but all are retardedly wealthy and spend their free time shopping and gossiping. Ridiculous. But I suppose this alone wasn't enough fodder for 13 or however-many episodes, so they included the most braindead mannish looking waste of oxygen disguised as a white 'housewife'. This woman did not reveal (at least from what I saw) her 'sugar daddy' or 'big poppa' or whatever she called him because he didn't want to interfere. Whoever this guy is, he must know just how worthless this chick is because he doesn't want to be publicly associated with her. Cheers to him. Anyway, there were too many things to point out about this womanly abomination; between the fake singing and the bitching back and forth to warrant me elaborating any further. Take away this: if cancer took human form, this would be your model.
Anyfart, enough griping. My real issue is not with blonde retards or gold-digging feminists, but rather the people that decide this is entertainment and the viewers in the world who agree that this is entertaining. These women are poop and I could care less what they do with their lives. I am hoping that the main draw to engaging in these people's lives is to watch how shitty things are for them and to take pleasure in the fact that we are not them. I know conflict and tragedy are interesting viewing material, but I enjoy scripted television because I always am comforted by the fact that these horrible things are not really happening to real people. Instead, by watching these monstrosities, we become aware just how crappy the upper class can be and in turn, people as a whole. It taints the view of people in these positions. I know I got the impression that women like these with healthy bank accounts and huge houses are vapid, inconsiderate gossips who spend the day drinking wine, buying thongs and occasionally showing up at a charity function.
I know editing and production can extremely alter the reality of the situations, but you can't edit everything. What concerns me is that these women are acting this way on purpose. They know they are being filmed, they know it will be seen nationwide, yet they continue to put on the show. This just means they are ignorant to their own situation and how they come across to others. Perhaps this is the key to 'good' reality television, but I generally interpret ignorance with a negative connotation and would happily distance myself from any instance of it.
What results from all this is a facilitating of negative stereotypes for the middle-aged wealthy woman. Granted these woman may be exceptions and is why they were picked from the show in the first place, but there should be an understood responsibility of knowing what this type of show could promote. It bothers me to no end that horrible people get paid attention to in ways such as this. The people who make this show no doubt realize how miserable these people are, but it sells advertising and makes money, so it will go on. With so many worthwhile people out there, why not show them on national tv. We all know the reason why: happiness doesn't sell like tragedy does. It just sucks these people get paid to be garbage.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Kiss my Gas
Remember a year and a half ago when gas was a little over 2 dollars a gallon? We were all worried about the prices rising and whether America could afford to pay more for a resource they rely so heavily upon. Well, the prices did rise and I know personally I paid as much as 4.30 for a gallon of gas this past summer. We saw some cutting back on driving and car sales, but there were still plenty of cars on the highways and roads around the country. We managed.
If you go to your local gas dispensary today, you will notice something odd, yet wonderful. Gas prices have returned to close to where they were 2 years ago! I filled my entire tank yesterday for less than 35 dollars, and I was pumping premium! We have seen the price of a gallon of gas get cut in half over a course of 3 months. Granted, it seems like the entire world's economy is tanking faster than Sarah Palin taking her SATs, but is that the only reason why we are getting this monetary reprieve?
Why was gas 4 dollars a gallon in the first place? I don't think we are consuming significantly more or less gas than we did at any time in the past 3 years, and I am pretty sure there is still an ocean of black goo under all those pumps in the Middle East, Canada and South America. So what gives? Why would something so indispensable to American life be able to have it's price fluctuate and differ so much from year to year? How can the gas that does the same thing for everyone that it did for the past 100 years sell for much more than inflation would dictate, then revert back to prices more in the norm on a whim?
I will grant that I am not an economist or a trader, but I'm pretty sure I have a good idea as to why the gas prices have seen such dramatic changes. It's a common trait among any businessman: greed. Gas sold for what it did this past summer because people will pay for it, no matter what. Gas is so essential to our daily routines that, if economic conditions were not as dire as they are right now, a gallon would still be 4 dollars and could keep on rising. There has to be some moderation just so it is not blatantly obvious that the men behind it all are ripping the consumer off, but they really had a hold on their own future. They can charge whatever they want and reap in the profits. I can't even comment on the 'gas futures' market because my eyeballs would explode from anger. Plus, these oil companies are bringing in record profits, yet the prices continue to rise! It just pisses me off that it takes a global economic crisis in order to bring these gas prices back to normal. Those ass napkins in the middle east (among others) are just raking in cash while they tamper with a resource that is crucial to daily operation. Sure, you may say that if this gas is so valuable, then why not charge as much as you want for it? If you are a capitalist, good point. You should have a right to make money on your product. But this product is used world wide. This product runs everything from transportation to heating. This is a commodity, a part of the globe's functionality. It should be protected from shit like this.
In the end, I can understand how it happened and even why it happened. Greedy oil bastards realized they could be making much more money. Good for them. Exxon makes 10 billion in profits, those retarded wipe-my-ass-with-money fools in Dubai build fake islands, indoor ski slopes, ridiculous theme parks and mile high skyscrapers with all this oil money, and nothings in 'future trading' make money PREDICTING that these people will make money. All I can say is a giant "Fuck You" to all of them. There was no need for that spike in price. Gas is $2 right now. It was $2 3 years ago. I understand increasing with inflation, but doubling price in a year? Ridiculous. You shouldn't be able to mess with gas. It is too imperative to the functionality of our society. Sure, the gas spike was great for the 'green movement', but let's get real; that's not going to change anything for a while. I want my $2 gas now, and I want it kept that way.
Remember a year and a half ago when gas was a little over 2 dollars a gallon? We were all worried about the prices rising and whether America could afford to pay more for a resource they rely so heavily upon. Well, the prices did rise and I know personally I paid as much as 4.30 for a gallon of gas this past summer. We saw some cutting back on driving and car sales, but there were still plenty of cars on the highways and roads around the country. We managed.
If you go to your local gas dispensary today, you will notice something odd, yet wonderful. Gas prices have returned to close to where they were 2 years ago! I filled my entire tank yesterday for less than 35 dollars, and I was pumping premium! We have seen the price of a gallon of gas get cut in half over a course of 3 months. Granted, it seems like the entire world's economy is tanking faster than Sarah Palin taking her SATs, but is that the only reason why we are getting this monetary reprieve?
Why was gas 4 dollars a gallon in the first place? I don't think we are consuming significantly more or less gas than we did at any time in the past 3 years, and I am pretty sure there is still an ocean of black goo under all those pumps in the Middle East, Canada and South America. So what gives? Why would something so indispensable to American life be able to have it's price fluctuate and differ so much from year to year? How can the gas that does the same thing for everyone that it did for the past 100 years sell for much more than inflation would dictate, then revert back to prices more in the norm on a whim?
I will grant that I am not an economist or a trader, but I'm pretty sure I have a good idea as to why the gas prices have seen such dramatic changes. It's a common trait among any businessman: greed. Gas sold for what it did this past summer because people will pay for it, no matter what. Gas is so essential to our daily routines that, if economic conditions were not as dire as they are right now, a gallon would still be 4 dollars and could keep on rising. There has to be some moderation just so it is not blatantly obvious that the men behind it all are ripping the consumer off, but they really had a hold on their own future. They can charge whatever they want and reap in the profits. I can't even comment on the 'gas futures' market because my eyeballs would explode from anger. Plus, these oil companies are bringing in record profits, yet the prices continue to rise! It just pisses me off that it takes a global economic crisis in order to bring these gas prices back to normal. Those ass napkins in the middle east (among others) are just raking in cash while they tamper with a resource that is crucial to daily operation. Sure, you may say that if this gas is so valuable, then why not charge as much as you want for it? If you are a capitalist, good point. You should have a right to make money on your product. But this product is used world wide. This product runs everything from transportation to heating. This is a commodity, a part of the globe's functionality. It should be protected from shit like this.
In the end, I can understand how it happened and even why it happened. Greedy oil bastards realized they could be making much more money. Good for them. Exxon makes 10 billion in profits, those retarded wipe-my-ass-with-money fools in Dubai build fake islands, indoor ski slopes, ridiculous theme parks and mile high skyscrapers with all this oil money, and nothings in 'future trading' make money PREDICTING that these people will make money. All I can say is a giant "Fuck You" to all of them. There was no need for that spike in price. Gas is $2 right now. It was $2 3 years ago. I understand increasing with inflation, but doubling price in a year? Ridiculous. You shouldn't be able to mess with gas. It is too imperative to the functionality of our society. Sure, the gas spike was great for the 'green movement', but let's get real; that's not going to change anything for a while. I want my $2 gas now, and I want it kept that way.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
History!
Last night was a great night. Either way the election went, history was to be made. But the results of last evening marked a huge step in American history and has, in my opinion, solidified our country as a nation unified in our diversity. The underlying implications of this momentous event are still yet to be seen, and in reality, I don't think much will change, but it is fantastic to see an African-American as the leader of this great country.
That being said, it's time to pick apart a few things now that the campaign trails have ended. Despite the multitude of negative ads, I was pleased to see that neither side involved the families in the debate. The wives and children were left to their own devices, as they should be. Even the Palin daugther's pregnancy was slipped under the rug while the focus was put on the candidates. Good show.
Secondly, even though the majority of the population voted for a black president; light was still shone upon the less tolerant of places throughout the nation and reminded us that despite our advances and betterment of our society and culture in the past 100 years, there are still plenty of ill-informed, bigoted and intolerant people residing in the United States. It blew my mind to see how many people still thought Barack Hussein Obama was an Arab, a Muslim, or a terrorist; often giving the reason "just look at his name". I suppose there will always be people like this amongst us and there will consistently be a camera nearby to exploit and highlight this ridiculousness. Last night, at McCain's gracious conceding speech, members of the audience actually booed at the mention of McCain continuing to work with Obama and Biden in the future. These people booed at the sound of the new President's name. Hopefully the excuse is that the meth has kept reality from sinking in and they haven't realized the election is finally over. I don't have a problem with the booing per se, but rather the fact that they interrupted the final speech of their dear candidate with booing of the newly elected President. No respect...
But people are people, and this was a highly emotionally charged election. No one was more aware of this than the media as a whole. They capitalized on this by having 8-person 'panels' with various wing-nut sides taken and a whole lotta jibba-jabba in between actual poll numbers. I understand this was a big deal, but was a 2-minute ultra close shot of Jesse Jackson crying really necessary? Let the man enjoy the day without exploiting his face on the TV (though, I did detect a little bit of hamming on the Reverend's part, with a few looks right into the camera). Also, every major news station had some sort of fancy expensive graphic to go along with their coverage. None was more egregious than CNN's holograms of reporters in the studio. Are holograms really that appealing? I know this election was a turning point in history, a great look into the future of the country, but do we really need holograms to make us listen to cable news? Give me a map with colored states and I'm fine. Take the money from the hologram and buy out Joe the Plumber so he never appears in a media mention ever again.
What will be in the media now is how the Democrats handle things from here on. There was an obvious overturn for the Dems, and while having democratic control of Congress and the White House may sound great for all those blue staters out there, it opens them up to great criticism. We are in the middle of a war, an economic crisis and expanding energy concerns. If the Democrats fail at handling these issues responsibly, we very well may see a complete Republican overhaul come 2012.
But that's the future; I'd rather soak in the present. What I am most pleased about right now is that it is all over. No more ads on TV, radio and billboards. No more robocalls or unexpected knocks on the door. No more muckraking and needless arguments. People will still argue of course, but now the lines are clear. The people have spoken and have chosen the new leader for the next 4 years. I think we made the right choice. Unfortunately, he's got quite a large hole to help us get out of, but I believe he can do it. History has been made!
Last night was a great night. Either way the election went, history was to be made. But the results of last evening marked a huge step in American history and has, in my opinion, solidified our country as a nation unified in our diversity. The underlying implications of this momentous event are still yet to be seen, and in reality, I don't think much will change, but it is fantastic to see an African-American as the leader of this great country.
That being said, it's time to pick apart a few things now that the campaign trails have ended. Despite the multitude of negative ads, I was pleased to see that neither side involved the families in the debate. The wives and children were left to their own devices, as they should be. Even the Palin daugther's pregnancy was slipped under the rug while the focus was put on the candidates. Good show.Secondly, even though the majority of the population voted for a black president; light was still shone upon the less tolerant of places throughout the nation and reminded us that despite our advances and betterment of our society and culture in the past 100 years, there are still plenty of ill-informed, bigoted and intolerant people residing in the United States. It blew my mind to see how many people still thought Barack Hussein Obama was an Arab, a Muslim, or a terrorist; often giving the reason "just look at his name". I suppose there will always be people like this amongst us and there will consistently be a camera nearby to exploit and highlight this ridiculousness. Last night, at McCain's gracious conceding speech, members of the audience actually booed at the mention of McCain continuing to work with Obama and Biden in the future. These people booed at the sound of the new President's name. Hopefully the excuse is that the meth has kept reality from sinking in and they haven't realized the election is finally over. I don't have a problem with the booing per se, but rather the fact that they interrupted the final speech of their dear candidate with booing of the newly elected President. No respect...
But people are people, and this was a highly emotionally charged election. No one was more aware of this than the media as a whole. They capitalized on this by having 8-person 'panels' with various wing-nut sides taken and a whole lotta jibba-jabba in between actual poll numbers. I understand this was a big deal, but was a 2-minute ultra close shot of Jesse Jackson crying really necessary? Let the man enjoy the day without exploiting his face on the TV (though, I did detect a little bit of hamming on the Reverend's part, with a few looks right into the camera). Also, every major news station had some sort of fancy expensive graphic to go along with their coverage. None was more egregious than CNN's holograms of reporters in the studio. Are holograms really that appealing? I know this election was a turning point in history, a great look into the future of the country, but do we really need holograms to make us listen to cable news? Give me a map with colored states and I'm fine. Take the money from the hologram and buy out Joe the Plumber so he never appears in a media mention ever again.
What will be in the media now is how the Democrats handle things from here on. There was an obvious overturn for the Dems, and while having democratic control of Congress and the White House may sound great for all those blue staters out there, it opens them up to great criticism. We are in the middle of a war, an economic crisis and expanding energy concerns. If the Democrats fail at handling these issues responsibly, we very well may see a complete Republican overhaul come 2012.
But that's the future; I'd rather soak in the present. What I am most pleased about right now is that it is all over. No more ads on TV, radio and billboards. No more robocalls or unexpected knocks on the door. No more muckraking and needless arguments. People will still argue of course, but now the lines are clear. The people have spoken and have chosen the new leader for the next 4 years. I think we made the right choice. Unfortunately, he's got quite a large hole to help us get out of, but I believe he can do it. History has been made!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Oh, I didn't realize you are not from America...
I listen to talk radio. I listen to NPR. I listen to radio news channels. Call it nerdy or boring, but I get information fed to me all day long. Talk radio is based around personalities, and is rightly so as it is meant to be entertaining; requiring a character to entertain you. News channels, and some NPR programs, however are just read articles with a sound byte here or there for flavor. As long as you have a nice voice and an understandable cadence, then it doesn't really matter who is reading the news to you.
Unfortunately, some of the people whose job is to read this news to you do not share in my opinion. I live in the DC metro area, and on the radio, the #1 news station is 103.5 WTOP FM. It is your around the clock news station is 'traffic and weather on the 8's' (practical and catchy...). Anyhow, I couldn't tell you more than one or two names of the news anchors on the station despite me having listened to this station consistently for the past 5 years. But, there is one I can remember and will recognize immediately and it pisses me off every time I hear her. Her name is Patricia Guadalupe. She is a veteran reporter well known in the DC area. The main reason she is well known is after every report, she hits the listener with an out of nowhere accent switch to pronounce her name. She doesn't say "Patricia Guadalupe, WTOP News"; rather she says "Patreeeeseea Wadaloopay" in full on Spanish accent. Whatever news she is reporting is said in a slow articulate manner, much like Tricia Takanawa without the asian accent, where she trails off on the end word and never strays far from the average tone (read: dull). So, you get this one or two minute piece in regular old English, and then BAM! Spanish name. It is so distracting I almost forget what the damn piece was about as I am busy being pissed that it is this reporter once again over pronouncing her own name.
The problem is that I am not exactly sure why I get so pissed off at this. I don't have anything against Mexican Americans or Latin Americans and I admit that I wouldn't mind learning Spanish myself. I could care less about the reporters who give my news everyday. There is just something that bothers me about it. It doesn't fit. It's distracting. It's just egregiously bad. You can see this reporter's profile here. It doesn't help that she looks like a middle class white lady, despite being raised in Puerto Rico.
So yes, she has latin heritage. But she reports the news in flat normal American accent. The name drop just comes with such a sudden switch that it negates the past 30 seconds of words you just took in while you contemplate the new sounding speech pattern that just bludgeoned your ears. Nobody cares that a reporter is bilingual. I just want butt plain english spoken to me without external distractions. I do not need any insight into who the reporter is or where she is from, yet that is what this lady seems to want to do. She needs to make sure we know that she is a full blooded Latin American and if you were to for some reason contact her at the station, you must pronounce her name the same way or else you are wrong. This conclusion may be a bit exaggerated, but there is this underlying snobbyness I get when I her say her name on the radio. I'm sure it's not meant that way, but that's what I hear.
In reality, it not as much of a burden as it is a fun thing to make fun of every time it is heard. You can probably say "Patreeseea Wadaloopay" to anyone in DC and they can laugh with you at the absurdity. So, much like the way I treat the things that piss me off and I have no control over, ol' Patty G just gets laughed at and mocked. It's just that pissed off type of joking that could go bad any second. Fortunately, the news keeps coming and the traffic report soon distracts me again from my last thought. Why was I pissed again?
I listen to talk radio. I listen to NPR. I listen to radio news channels. Call it nerdy or boring, but I get information fed to me all day long. Talk radio is based around personalities, and is rightly so as it is meant to be entertaining; requiring a character to entertain you. News channels, and some NPR programs, however are just read articles with a sound byte here or there for flavor. As long as you have a nice voice and an understandable cadence, then it doesn't really matter who is reading the news to you.
Unfortunately, some of the people whose job is to read this news to you do not share in my opinion. I live in the DC metro area, and on the radio, the #1 news station is 103.5 WTOP FM. It is your around the clock news station is 'traffic and weather on the 8's' (practical and catchy...). Anyhow, I couldn't tell you more than one or two names of the news anchors on the station despite me having listened to this station consistently for the past 5 years. But, there is one I can remember and will recognize immediately and it pisses me off every time I hear her. Her name is Patricia Guadalupe. She is a veteran reporter well known in the DC area. The main reason she is well known is after every report, she hits the listener with an out of nowhere accent switch to pronounce her name. She doesn't say "Patricia Guadalupe, WTOP News"; rather she says "Patreeeeseea Wadaloopay" in full on Spanish accent. Whatever news she is reporting is said in a slow articulate manner, much like Tricia Takanawa without the asian accent, where she trails off on the end word and never strays far from the average tone (read: dull). So, you get this one or two minute piece in regular old English, and then BAM! Spanish name. It is so distracting I almost forget what the damn piece was about as I am busy being pissed that it is this reporter once again over pronouncing her own name.
The problem is that I am not exactly sure why I get so pissed off at this. I don't have anything against Mexican Americans or Latin Americans and I admit that I wouldn't mind learning Spanish myself. I could care less about the reporters who give my news everyday. There is just something that bothers me about it. It doesn't fit. It's distracting. It's just egregiously bad. You can see this reporter's profile here. It doesn't help that she looks like a middle class white lady, despite being raised in Puerto Rico.
So yes, she has latin heritage. But she reports the news in flat normal American accent. The name drop just comes with such a sudden switch that it negates the past 30 seconds of words you just took in while you contemplate the new sounding speech pattern that just bludgeoned your ears. Nobody cares that a reporter is bilingual. I just want butt plain english spoken to me without external distractions. I do not need any insight into who the reporter is or where she is from, yet that is what this lady seems to want to do. She needs to make sure we know that she is a full blooded Latin American and if you were to for some reason contact her at the station, you must pronounce her name the same way or else you are wrong. This conclusion may be a bit exaggerated, but there is this underlying snobbyness I get when I her say her name on the radio. I'm sure it's not meant that way, but that's what I hear.
In reality, it not as much of a burden as it is a fun thing to make fun of every time it is heard. You can probably say "Patreeseea Wadaloopay" to anyone in DC and they can laugh with you at the absurdity. So, much like the way I treat the things that piss me off and I have no control over, ol' Patty G just gets laughed at and mocked. It's just that pissed off type of joking that could go bad any second. Fortunately, the news keeps coming and the traffic report soon distracts me again from my last thought. Why was I pissed again?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Face of the Nation
For those of you unaware (such as me 3 days ago), yesterday was 2008 Blog Action Day. The idea was that bloggers around the world would all write on a global topic to help spread ideas and awareness. In 2007, the theme was the environment, while this year, the topic is poverty. Well, as you can tell by the date up there above the headline, I am a little late. Not to make excuses, but I was busy helping my local automobile repair shop stay working in these times of 'financial crisis'. So, I guess I was somewhat doing my part against poverty. Well, no, not really, but to be honest, that's about as close as I get to actually being involved in things poverty related. It's sad and probably a bit irresponsible of me to not be addressing this vital issue of our global health, but hey, that's life. I have things to do. By things, I often mean watch TV.
Speaking of, besides yesterday being Blog Action Day, October 15th was also the host of the last of the three presidential debates before Election Day. Personally, I don't watch the debates. I know where the candidates stand and I am not a fan of awkward passive aggressive conversations or situations (which is why "Meet the Parents", etc. are loads of garbage disguised as entertainment, but that's another post). However, besides being a great drinking game, the debates can offer one vital insight into the next President. I did this prior to the article, but Joe Biden has some great advice:
“For this debate, for part of this next debate, do what I did for part of the last two debates. Literally, turn the sound off. I’m not being…I’m not joking now. Literally, turn the sound off. And just watch. Watch the body language of both men. You can sense it folks. You know it, when there’s a command [sic] presence. You know it when someone has the confidence and the certitude about himself and what he believes in.”
This is what I'd like to focus on today, the appearance and demeanor of our leader of our country. Back when our 'first black President' was in office, I (and the rest of our nation) felt comfortable that we had a competent, well-spoken, charming (too charming?), intelligent leader who we were proud to have as the spokesperson for our country. For the past 8 years, however, we have not. What we had was a layperson from an esteemed family who climbed the ropes of nepotism and broadbase appeal because of his similarities to the common man. Well, unfortunately he wasn't running for your local comptroller; this 'guy I'd like to have a beer with' WAS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The one person who represents a nation of 300 million, the guy who is a reflection of the greatest country on Earth, the leader of the free world; he's a guy who is easily compared to 'the common man'. Well, I don't know about you, but I don't want a common man representing my fine nation, I want a standout leader who fit the ideal of a figurehead of a global power. I want THE MAN, not a man.
But enough about the past, let's focus on the future. Of our two current nominees, either would be a great step up from our current situation. However, when it comes to sheer presence, there is an obvious choice. One (that one?) stays cool and collected and though sometimes lets a few to many 'ums' leak out, he is an eloquent, eduacted statesman who is comfortable in a leading role. The other one, though perhaps just as intelligent, seems too often to let emotion get the best of him while under public scrutiny. One is young and in tune with the new generation, appealing to a new and expanding global identity. The other one is an old military veteran who is just finally getting around to discovering the joy of email. One plays basketball and is in ideal health, while the other has permanent physical injuries and whose health can be considered questionable at best.
As superficial as some of this may sound, it is actually an important issue to consider. I want a person in the Oval Office who appears worthy to be there. I want someone who is the face of my country to be a fitting representative thereof. I want a President that other presidents, monarchs or leaders also respect. I want a President who is honest and can address the people with confidence and intellect. The issues are a vital part of the election, but the people that surround the President will influence a lot of those decisions. What won't be influenced and will sit purely on the executive's shoulders is his appearance to the people. We need someone who is 100% focused mentally, physically and socially who can represent our diverse, yet united, top-tier population; someone who is in tune with both the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the domestic and the international.
I just don't understand the appeal of 'he's just like me'. I don't want a President (or VP) who is just like me. I want the best damn leader possible, in every facet of his job. And as a spokesperson of the USA, presence is crucial.
For those of you unaware (such as me 3 days ago), yesterday was 2008 Blog Action Day. The idea was that bloggers around the world would all write on a global topic to help spread ideas and awareness. In 2007, the theme was the environment, while this year, the topic is poverty. Well, as you can tell by the date up there above the headline, I am a little late. Not to make excuses, but I was busy helping my local automobile repair shop stay working in these times of 'financial crisis'. So, I guess I was somewhat doing my part against poverty. Well, no, not really, but to be honest, that's about as close as I get to actually being involved in things poverty related. It's sad and probably a bit irresponsible of me to not be addressing this vital issue of our global health, but hey, that's life. I have things to do. By things, I often mean watch TV.
Speaking of, besides yesterday being Blog Action Day, October 15th was also the host of the last of the three presidential debates before Election Day. Personally, I don't watch the debates. I know where the candidates stand and I am not a fan of awkward passive aggressive conversations or situations (which is why "Meet the Parents", etc. are loads of garbage disguised as entertainment, but that's another post). However, besides being a great drinking game, the debates can offer one vital insight into the next President. I did this prior to the article, but Joe Biden has some great advice:
“For this debate, for part of this next debate, do what I did for part of the last two debates. Literally, turn the sound off. I’m not being…I’m not joking now. Literally, turn the sound off. And just watch. Watch the body language of both men. You can sense it folks. You know it, when there’s a command [sic] presence. You know it when someone has the confidence and the certitude about himself and what he believes in.”
This is what I'd like to focus on today, the appearance and demeanor of our leader of our country. Back when our 'first black President' was in office, I (and the rest of our nation) felt comfortable that we had a competent, well-spoken, charming (too charming?), intelligent leader who we were proud to have as the spokesperson for our country. For the past 8 years, however, we have not. What we had was a layperson from an esteemed family who climbed the ropes of nepotism and broadbase appeal because of his similarities to the common man. Well, unfortunately he wasn't running for your local comptroller; this 'guy I'd like to have a beer with' WAS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The one person who represents a nation of 300 million, the guy who is a reflection of the greatest country on Earth, the leader of the free world; he's a guy who is easily compared to 'the common man'. Well, I don't know about you, but I don't want a common man representing my fine nation, I want a standout leader who fit the ideal of a figurehead of a global power. I want THE MAN, not a man.
But enough about the past, let's focus on the future. Of our two current nominees, either would be a great step up from our current situation. However, when it comes to sheer presence, there is an obvious choice. One (that one?) stays cool and collected and though sometimes lets a few to many 'ums' leak out, he is an eloquent, eduacted statesman who is comfortable in a leading role. The other one, though perhaps just as intelligent, seems too often to let emotion get the best of him while under public scrutiny. One is young and in tune with the new generation, appealing to a new and expanding global identity. The other one is an old military veteran who is just finally getting around to discovering the joy of email. One plays basketball and is in ideal health, while the other has permanent physical injuries and whose health can be considered questionable at best.
As superficial as some of this may sound, it is actually an important issue to consider. I want a person in the Oval Office who appears worthy to be there. I want someone who is the face of my country to be a fitting representative thereof. I want a President that other presidents, monarchs or leaders also respect. I want a President who is honest and can address the people with confidence and intellect. The issues are a vital part of the election, but the people that surround the President will influence a lot of those decisions. What won't be influenced and will sit purely on the executive's shoulders is his appearance to the people. We need someone who is 100% focused mentally, physically and socially who can represent our diverse, yet united, top-tier population; someone who is in tune with both the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the domestic and the international.
I just don't understand the appeal of 'he's just like me'. I don't want a President (or VP) who is just like me. I want the best damn leader possible, in every facet of his job. And as a spokesperson of the USA, presence is crucial.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
A Note to Pillsbury
Dear Pillsbury,
I enjoy pretty much everything you offer in your 'toaster strudel' line of product. The taste is great, it's real convenient, and your breakfast pastries don't end up in ridiculous stacks that fall out of my locker when I open the door. In other words, thank you for a great breakfast choice.
However, I have one major gripe to express to you. Can you please, please fix the perforations on the strip of icing packets? Please? I acknowledge the need on your part to make producing this product as cost efficient as possible, therefore your inclusion of 6 packets of icing on one continuous strip. This makes it easier to locate the icing packets in the box and keeps most of us consumers from accidentally losing a very valuable sack of sugary topping. Unfortunately, the current set up on your perforating machine leaves something to be desired. It is clear where I, the consumer, need to tear the string of packets in order to break off on for a nice breakfast treat, but due to the flimsiness of your plastic, I more often than not do not result in an even break. What usually happens is that the tear starts on the perforated line, then very easily slips to tearing the packet itself and then down the side of the icing pouch to the bottom. No longer do I need to tear off the
reservoir tip (or whatever you would prefer call it in case 'reservoir tip' is too explicit) because I have a huge hole on the side of my packet that will alternatively let my icing free. Now that I have this accidental hole on the side, I no longer have the nice channel for icing to flow through, resulting in not a fancy lined design shown here, but rather a large glop of icing in the middle that I must now spread like butter or margarine on my flaky pastry.
This is denying me a major attraction of the toaster strudel. Being artistic in nature, I enjoy creating a good design on my strudel, with a zig zag here and a spiral there, each strudel being a different design. Instead, I too often get a boring image of a white rectangle, where I was forced to spread the icing like any other breakfast spread.
This could all be fixed by simple tinkering. Increase the perforations or reinforce the sides of the icing pouch. Pretty simple, and the quality of your product is consistent for each of the 6 delicious strudels. I will no longer have to take more time carefully breaking icing packets than actually toasting the strudel. I will no longer have to feel that moment of disappointment when I realize today's mental design for icing will not be able to come to fruition.
Thank you.
PS. Your strawberry and cream cheese filled strudels are the shiznittlebomb.
Dear Pillsbury,
I enjoy pretty much everything you offer in your 'toaster strudel' line of product. The taste is great, it's real convenient, and your breakfast pastries don't end up in ridiculous stacks that fall out of my locker when I open the door. In other words, thank you for a great breakfast choice.
However, I have one major gripe to express to you. Can you please, please fix the perforations on the strip of icing packets? Please? I acknowledge the need on your part to make producing this product as cost efficient as possible, therefore your inclusion of 6 packets of icing on one continuous strip. This makes it easier to locate the icing packets in the box and keeps most of us consumers from accidentally losing a very valuable sack of sugary topping. Unfortunately, the current set up on your perforating machine leaves something to be desired. It is clear where I, the consumer, need to tear the string of packets in order to break off on for a nice breakfast treat, but due to the flimsiness of your plastic, I more often than not do not result in an even break. What usually happens is that the tear starts on the perforated line, then very easily slips to tearing the packet itself and then down the side of the icing pouch to the bottom. No longer do I need to tear off the
reservoir tip (or whatever you would prefer call it in case 'reservoir tip' is too explicit) because I have a huge hole on the side of my packet that will alternatively let my icing free. Now that I have this accidental hole on the side, I no longer have the nice channel for icing to flow through, resulting in not a fancy lined design shown here, but rather a large glop of icing in the middle that I must now spread like butter or margarine on my flaky pastry.This is denying me a major attraction of the toaster strudel. Being artistic in nature, I enjoy creating a good design on my strudel, with a zig zag here and a spiral there, each strudel being a different design. Instead, I too often get a boring image of a white rectangle, where I was forced to spread the icing like any other breakfast spread.
This could all be fixed by simple tinkering. Increase the perforations or reinforce the sides of the icing pouch. Pretty simple, and the quality of your product is consistent for each of the 6 delicious strudels. I will no longer have to take more time carefully breaking icing packets than actually toasting the strudel. I will no longer have to feel that moment of disappointment when I realize today's mental design for icing will not be able to come to fruition.
Thank you.
PS. Your strawberry and cream cheese filled strudels are the shiznittlebomb.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Mein Coif
Before I get into today's witticism, I would like to point out that this is the 50th entry into MCP, a milestone I certainly had doubts I would reach. Surprisingly, my desire to write about this and that has continued on beyond that initial moment of inspiration and continues to spill forth on these virtual pages, of which I could not be happier.
While we are on the subject of me, let me continue to discuss more about me.
I consider myself to be of average height, perhaps a smaller build, but pretty average overall. Aiding in that claim of average is my choice of haircut, and by choice, I mean I can go into any cuttery and just say "haircut" and it comes out the same. It's the typical young professional guy style; short on the sides and back, with just a bit of length on the top and front. I call this patch of length 'the expression zone' and the object of today's thoughts.
Nothing can be considered a more crucial facial accessory than facial hair, but for the whitey-white Irish blooded, actually growing this hair of the face into an acceptable, reasonable look is quite the challenge. I know I am not a fan of patchy scraggliness, so I doubt anyone looking at me and the scraggles are either. What results is a much higher focus on the aforementioned 'zone' atop my forehead. It's a manageable little tuft that can swing to the side, stick straight up, wave in a multitude of directions, or just hang limply and lifeless (make your own simile). What I have noticed is that whatever this area of hair is up to that day, my emotional, mental or physical mood is similar in status.
Weekends are usually the best time to catch this phenomenon in action. Often, quite often, I will awake with a morning malaise, no doubt incurred by the previous night's shenanigans. If not given away by the expression on my face, my forehead hair will admittedly tell the tale. Out of place, matted, and swirled all over, it's obvious there is a person underneath hurting on the inside. On the contrary, on those rare mornings where the sun is shining and I'm ready to conquer the world, the 'EZ' will slightly rise and shape itself into one damn good looking wisp of follicles. My status is then supplemented by the reflection I view in the mirror. Surprisingly (and this is what made me think of writing this piece), I seem to able to alter my feelings by adjusting that little patch above my eyes. Now, it's not anything miraculous, but it does have an effect. A simple brush to the side, a gentle tousing, or my favorite, a scalp messaging finger run through to ease some tension, all help to rejuvenate an earlier lesser state.
What I am wondering is whether this is purely my own vain self-importance or is it that making yourself appear more attractive (to yourself, and it turn, others) actually make you feel better. I personally have no way of altering my facial appearance (no makeup, no jewelry, no facial hair - damn patches), so this forehead beard is the only area I have to mix things up and determine whether I am looking really really ridiculously good or not. So, I fumble with my hair, I flash a LaTigra and I'm feeling better about myself. I abhor the fashion industry and the self-importance therein, and was never really concerned about external appearances, but I'm starting to rethink the value of feeling attractive. Granted, fashion and attractiveness do not necessarily have to be related, as self-confidence is a far better partner of attractiveness than fashion, but appearance is always in front of us (literally) and even the smallest effort can pay off. I am fortunate enough to be quite confident in my self and my standing, but that little extra superficial effort actually appears worthwhile.
I guess my point is to take the extra second and gaze lovingly at yourself in the morning. Change what you need, but I am putting forth that liking (or not liking) what you see will affect your disposition for the rest of the day. There's no cure for ugly, but at least there's a new hairstyle.
Before I get into today's witticism, I would like to point out that this is the 50th entry into MCP, a milestone I certainly had doubts I would reach. Surprisingly, my desire to write about this and that has continued on beyond that initial moment of inspiration and continues to spill forth on these virtual pages, of which I could not be happier.
While we are on the subject of me, let me continue to discuss more about me.
I consider myself to be of average height, perhaps a smaller build, but pretty average overall. Aiding in that claim of average is my choice of haircut, and by choice, I mean I can go into any cuttery and just say "haircut" and it comes out the same. It's the typical young professional guy style; short on the sides and back, with just a bit of length on the top and front. I call this patch of length 'the expression zone' and the object of today's thoughts.
Nothing can be considered a more crucial facial accessory than facial hair, but for the whitey-white Irish blooded, actually growing this hair of the face into an acceptable, reasonable look is quite the challenge. I know I am not a fan of patchy scraggliness, so I doubt anyone looking at me and the scraggles are either. What results is a much higher focus on the aforementioned 'zone' atop my forehead. It's a manageable little tuft that can swing to the side, stick straight up, wave in a multitude of directions, or just hang limply and lifeless (make your own simile). What I have noticed is that whatever this area of hair is up to that day, my emotional, mental or physical mood is similar in status.
Weekends are usually the best time to catch this phenomenon in action. Often, quite often, I will awake with a morning malaise, no doubt incurred by the previous night's shenanigans. If not given away by the expression on my face, my forehead hair will admittedly tell the tale. Out of place, matted, and swirled all over, it's obvious there is a person underneath hurting on the inside. On the contrary, on those rare mornings where the sun is shining and I'm ready to conquer the world, the 'EZ' will slightly rise and shape itself into one damn good looking wisp of follicles. My status is then supplemented by the reflection I view in the mirror. Surprisingly (and this is what made me think of writing this piece), I seem to able to alter my feelings by adjusting that little patch above my eyes. Now, it's not anything miraculous, but it does have an effect. A simple brush to the side, a gentle tousing, or my favorite, a scalp messaging finger run through to ease some tension, all help to rejuvenate an earlier lesser state.
What I am wondering is whether this is purely my own vain self-importance or is it that making yourself appear more attractive (to yourself, and it turn, others) actually make you feel better. I personally have no way of altering my facial appearance (no makeup, no jewelry, no facial hair - damn patches), so this forehead beard is the only area I have to mix things up and determine whether I am looking really really ridiculously good or not. So, I fumble with my hair, I flash a LaTigra and I'm feeling better about myself. I abhor the fashion industry and the self-importance therein, and was never really concerned about external appearances, but I'm starting to rethink the value of feeling attractive. Granted, fashion and attractiveness do not necessarily have to be related, as self-confidence is a far better partner of attractiveness than fashion, but appearance is always in front of us (literally) and even the smallest effort can pay off. I am fortunate enough to be quite confident in my self and my standing, but that little extra superficial effort actually appears worthwhile.
I guess my point is to take the extra second and gaze lovingly at yourself in the morning. Change what you need, but I am putting forth that liking (or not liking) what you see will affect your disposition for the rest of the day. There's no cure for ugly, but at least there's a new hairstyle.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Best Hyperbole Ever!
There is a trend I have been noticing quite a bit lately. I'm not sure if this is actually just common place and I haven't been noticing it before or if this really is an epidemic of our culture. What these inquisitive ears have been hearing far too often of late is the emphatic use of hyperbole (pronounced hi-per-bo-lee, not hyper-bowl). You know, that term you learned in 4th grade that gave you a grammatical name to associate with all the exaggerations you heard in the schoolyard (well, if you thought about that kind of stuff, it did).
What inspired me to expose this aggravation was a recent trip to the community pool. As I was leaving, I overheard a teenager say, "I hate him with the passion of a thousand suns". First, this struck me as just plain ridiculous, that a teenager would say something with that type of syntax, but I assumed he had just heard it somewhere and was repeating it for intentional comic effect. But then it got me to thinking just how often this overly exaggerated type of verbiage is used to convey rather ordinary thoughts and feelings.
I'm sure this teenager doesn't hate the person that much. I'm also sure that The Dark Knight is not the best movie ever created and that Megan Fox is not the hottest woman in the universe. Yes, I know that hyperbole is not meant to be taken literally, but that is not my point. My point is that these type of things are heard every day, mostly from those trying to sell us something. We are bombarded with it every time we turn on the tv, listen to the radio or read a periodical. Hyperbole sells. It claims to have the extreme of something, the ultimate. Words like "Best", "Fastest", and "Hottest" are combined with "ever", "of all time", or "in the world" to appeal to our inner power struggles. We all want the newest or best product, something that puts us ahead of our neighbors, something that makes us important, special or just better. Hyperbole appeals to this desire head on.
One problem with this aggrandizement comes when we must actually face reality about the things we are being sold, and in turn the reality of the things we describe that may have been overstated. My new computer is only 'the fastest computer on the market' until the next one comes out the following week. When I was thirsty, the most thirst-quenching sports drink in all likelyhood could have been easily replaced by good old water. I'm not trying to be Debbie Downer here, scraping the glitter off of all the shiny things around us, but I would like to call for a more realistic approach to our everyday descriptions. Use terms and adjectives that are truthful and realistic in scope. Perhaps this is too honest an approach for a capitalistic people, constantly striving for one-up-manship. I would like to let slide all the advertisers out there who use hyperbole to attract customers, as it would be a lot harder to sell something that is just average, or good enough. My real problem with all of this is that with enough saturation of exaggerated banter, we tend to adopt these methods in our own right and in effect put a veil of superiority over our everyday lives.
Yes, hyperbole is great for comedic effect, as demonstrated by the pool guys. It is also great for saleability and marketing. What I am bothered about is the sheer amount of hyperbole apparent in our daily lives. I feel like in our everyday conversations, things cannot be described in a to the point, honest fashion. Instead, they are "the sweetest thing I have ever seen, ever" or "the dumbest thing in the history of man". Luckily, good writing rarely traipses over these boundaries, but in reality, the majority of our conversations are verbal and are thus subject to the vernacular of the time.
Hyperbole is not a bad thing. In the right context, it achieves it's purpose. I just wish more people would think twice before resorting to this extreme. A well thought, honest description is far more valuable than empty rhetoric, perhaps even the best type of description man has ever created.
There is a trend I have been noticing quite a bit lately. I'm not sure if this is actually just common place and I haven't been noticing it before or if this really is an epidemic of our culture. What these inquisitive ears have been hearing far too often of late is the emphatic use of hyperbole (pronounced hi-per-bo-lee, not hyper-bowl). You know, that term you learned in 4th grade that gave you a grammatical name to associate with all the exaggerations you heard in the schoolyard (well, if you thought about that kind of stuff, it did).
What inspired me to expose this aggravation was a recent trip to the community pool. As I was leaving, I overheard a teenager say, "I hate him with the passion of a thousand suns". First, this struck me as just plain ridiculous, that a teenager would say something with that type of syntax, but I assumed he had just heard it somewhere and was repeating it for intentional comic effect. But then it got me to thinking just how often this overly exaggerated type of verbiage is used to convey rather ordinary thoughts and feelings.
I'm sure this teenager doesn't hate the person that much. I'm also sure that The Dark Knight is not the best movie ever created and that Megan Fox is not the hottest woman in the universe. Yes, I know that hyperbole is not meant to be taken literally, but that is not my point. My point is that these type of things are heard every day, mostly from those trying to sell us something. We are bombarded with it every time we turn on the tv, listen to the radio or read a periodical. Hyperbole sells. It claims to have the extreme of something, the ultimate. Words like "Best", "Fastest", and "Hottest" are combined with "ever", "of all time", or "in the world" to appeal to our inner power struggles. We all want the newest or best product, something that puts us ahead of our neighbors, something that makes us important, special or just better. Hyperbole appeals to this desire head on.
One problem with this aggrandizement comes when we must actually face reality about the things we are being sold, and in turn the reality of the things we describe that may have been overstated. My new computer is only 'the fastest computer on the market' until the next one comes out the following week. When I was thirsty, the most thirst-quenching sports drink in all likelyhood could have been easily replaced by good old water. I'm not trying to be Debbie Downer here, scraping the glitter off of all the shiny things around us, but I would like to call for a more realistic approach to our everyday descriptions. Use terms and adjectives that are truthful and realistic in scope. Perhaps this is too honest an approach for a capitalistic people, constantly striving for one-up-manship. I would like to let slide all the advertisers out there who use hyperbole to attract customers, as it would be a lot harder to sell something that is just average, or good enough. My real problem with all of this is that with enough saturation of exaggerated banter, we tend to adopt these methods in our own right and in effect put a veil of superiority over our everyday lives.
Yes, hyperbole is great for comedic effect, as demonstrated by the pool guys. It is also great for saleability and marketing. What I am bothered about is the sheer amount of hyperbole apparent in our daily lives. I feel like in our everyday conversations, things cannot be described in a to the point, honest fashion. Instead, they are "the sweetest thing I have ever seen, ever" or "the dumbest thing in the history of man". Luckily, good writing rarely traipses over these boundaries, but in reality, the majority of our conversations are verbal and are thus subject to the vernacular of the time.
Hyperbole is not a bad thing. In the right context, it achieves it's purpose. I just wish more people would think twice before resorting to this extreme. A well thought, honest description is far more valuable than empty rhetoric, perhaps even the best type of description man has ever created.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Look at me, Judge me!
Readers, before you continue onto today's point of nitpicking, you'll notice I have finally decided to utilize this thing called a "title bar". Now you'll get a line of summarizing words that will help you to decide whether you actually want to spend the next 2.7 minutes reading whatever sentences I decide to digitally bring to you every few weeks. Now, on to the meat...
For someone who considers his television a family member, such as myself, the summer season is a harsh, empty period of time. Fresh programming is at a minimum, leaving me to either rehash old broadcasts, scan the wasteland of hundreds of other channels offered by my cable company, or; god help me, just turn the ol' TV off. Lately, with the current trend of programming choices, I have been opting for the latter of the three, finding my entertainment in print form (crazy, I know). The primary factor contributing to this oustanding decision has been the broadcasters (and I suppose in turn, America's) infatuation with the 'reality' genre's subset of contest shows.
I cannot stand any of these shows. These are the ones where there is a panel of 'judges', be they celebrities, near-celebrities, ex-celebrities, 'experts' of their respective field, or just eye candy; observing some act or object, giving their two cents, and then turning it over to America and all their wisdom to choose a winner. I'm sure you are familiar with at least one of these shows: American Idol, Big Brother, So You Think You Can Dance, Dancing with the Stars, The Biggest Loser, America's Got Talent, Last Comic Standing, America's Best Dance Crew, Celebrity Circus ...etc. These shows are wildly popular, and for me, completely unbearable.
What makes me cringe at the thought of watching these televised messes are the fact that for every success or great performance seen, there are many more failures and catastrophes that go along side with it. I don't know if it is just something about my character, but I do not get any pleasure about seeing someone genuinely try and fail miserably, only to have it then critiqued, deconstructed and replayed again and again. My television is a medium of entertainment for me. It should make me happy, which usually, it succeeds easily in. Watching someone display his 'talent' and then get torn apart by 'judges' who seemingly know what the rest of us don't is not entertainment. It is watching someone else be miserable.
For most people, it is easy to see beyond this point. The show progresses and the losers are never heard from or seen again. Ultimately, a winner arises, and the show ends on a happy note. Everyone likes a happy ending. In the mean time, however, is a string of harsh disappoinments; disappointments where most of the cast of characters do not get their happy ending. Don't get me wrong, in no way am I an advocate of the 'everybody is a winner' philosophy. Games and contests should have clear winners and losers, and not everybody can win. The difference though, is that in these contests of winners and losers, say, like a little league game or a spelling bee, the only people the outcome matters to are the direct participants. The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat are instilled only in those participating (and close family members, I suppose). These contest-shows, however take these events and put them on a nationally-viewed stage, where the victory is that much sweeter, but the defeat is that much more destructive, being shared with millions of people worldwide.
Perhaps the allure of these shows is to remind us out in the viewer's world that there are people whose lives suck at lot more than ours, and we can relish in the fact that we have it ok, comparitively. Watching people fail on national tv makes us happy that we are not there having to go through that ourselves. We can laugh at these fools anonymously and then move on to the next contestant. There is no attachment (mostly) to the failing. Contrast this with any scripted show. On any drama or comedy, we are attached to the characters and when they fail at whatever is written for them that week, we are concerned with how they will bounce back and make things right. If they do fail, it is for a reason and has meaning, not just laughable fodder. This is how entertainment has been done for as long as a story has been told. Character to plot to problem to solution. There is no solution for the losers of the contest show. There is only a long drive home and the 'fifteen minutes of fame' that would assuredly be happily traded back for perhaps some nice parting gifts.
So, until the fall rolls around with the new wave of happy scripted shows, I will be searching for other stories where the characters are appreciated and not discarded after their failures are pontificated. Humanistic? Sure. But more so, I think it comes back to the Golden Rule that should be instilled in us all. How would you feel if that happened to you? I wouldn't want anyone watching that.
Readers, before you continue onto today's point of nitpicking, you'll notice I have finally decided to utilize this thing called a "title bar". Now you'll get a line of summarizing words that will help you to decide whether you actually want to spend the next 2.7 minutes reading whatever sentences I decide to digitally bring to you every few weeks. Now, on to the meat...
For someone who considers his television a family member, such as myself, the summer season is a harsh, empty period of time. Fresh programming is at a minimum, leaving me to either rehash old broadcasts, scan the wasteland of hundreds of other channels offered by my cable company, or; god help me, just turn the ol' TV off. Lately, with the current trend of programming choices, I have been opting for the latter of the three, finding my entertainment in print form (crazy, I know). The primary factor contributing to this oustanding decision has been the broadcasters (and I suppose in turn, America's) infatuation with the 'reality' genre's subset of contest shows.
I cannot stand any of these shows. These are the ones where there is a panel of 'judges', be they celebrities, near-celebrities, ex-celebrities, 'experts' of their respective field, or just eye candy; observing some act or object, giving their two cents, and then turning it over to America and all their wisdom to choose a winner. I'm sure you are familiar with at least one of these shows: American Idol, Big Brother, So You Think You Can Dance, Dancing with the Stars, The Biggest Loser, America's Got Talent, Last Comic Standing, America's Best Dance Crew, Celebrity Circus ...etc. These shows are wildly popular, and for me, completely unbearable.
What makes me cringe at the thought of watching these televised messes are the fact that for every success or great performance seen, there are many more failures and catastrophes that go along side with it. I don't know if it is just something about my character, but I do not get any pleasure about seeing someone genuinely try and fail miserably, only to have it then critiqued, deconstructed and replayed again and again. My television is a medium of entertainment for me. It should make me happy, which usually, it succeeds easily in. Watching someone display his 'talent' and then get torn apart by 'judges' who seemingly know what the rest of us don't is not entertainment. It is watching someone else be miserable.
For most people, it is easy to see beyond this point. The show progresses and the losers are never heard from or seen again. Ultimately, a winner arises, and the show ends on a happy note. Everyone likes a happy ending. In the mean time, however, is a string of harsh disappoinments; disappointments where most of the cast of characters do not get their happy ending. Don't get me wrong, in no way am I an advocate of the 'everybody is a winner' philosophy. Games and contests should have clear winners and losers, and not everybody can win. The difference though, is that in these contests of winners and losers, say, like a little league game or a spelling bee, the only people the outcome matters to are the direct participants. The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat are instilled only in those participating (and close family members, I suppose). These contest-shows, however take these events and put them on a nationally-viewed stage, where the victory is that much sweeter, but the defeat is that much more destructive, being shared with millions of people worldwide.
Perhaps the allure of these shows is to remind us out in the viewer's world that there are people whose lives suck at lot more than ours, and we can relish in the fact that we have it ok, comparitively. Watching people fail on national tv makes us happy that we are not there having to go through that ourselves. We can laugh at these fools anonymously and then move on to the next contestant. There is no attachment (mostly) to the failing. Contrast this with any scripted show. On any drama or comedy, we are attached to the characters and when they fail at whatever is written for them that week, we are concerned with how they will bounce back and make things right. If they do fail, it is for a reason and has meaning, not just laughable fodder. This is how entertainment has been done for as long as a story has been told. Character to plot to problem to solution. There is no solution for the losers of the contest show. There is only a long drive home and the 'fifteen minutes of fame' that would assuredly be happily traded back for perhaps some nice parting gifts.
So, until the fall rolls around with the new wave of happy scripted shows, I will be searching for other stories where the characters are appreciated and not discarded after their failures are pontificated. Humanistic? Sure. But more so, I think it comes back to the Golden Rule that should be instilled in us all. How would you feel if that happened to you? I wouldn't want anyone watching that.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Bonjour,
This is a little out of nowhere, but it is something that has been bothering me. The remake of "Get Smart" is out, so we get to see it's starts out promoting it. This means we get to see Steve Carrell and Anne Hathaway on everything from late night shows to internet homepages. What's bugging me is that after seeing Miss Hathaway's mug a few times, I keep wanting to sing "Black Hole Sun" by Soundgarden. Sure, she's an attractive actress, (maybe she can act? I don't know, I missed "Devil Wears Prada", those Disney movies, and basically anything else she was in), but I feel like her face is a bit disproportionate. It's almost freakish. Tell me if I'm wrong.
One is the actress, and the other is from the Soundgarden music video. I really don't have a problem with her face, it's just that the music video with all it's digitally altered faces really made me uncomfortable. So when I see ol' Annie there, I get this weird feeling like I should be running for my life lest my face will melt and I will be sucked up into a spinning fiery vortex where the sun used to be. Let's just say I won't be seeing "Get Smart".
This is a little out of nowhere, but it is something that has been bothering me. The remake of "Get Smart" is out, so we get to see it's starts out promoting it. This means we get to see Steve Carrell and Anne Hathaway on everything from late night shows to internet homepages. What's bugging me is that after seeing Miss Hathaway's mug a few times, I keep wanting to sing "Black Hole Sun" by Soundgarden. Sure, she's an attractive actress, (maybe she can act? I don't know, I missed "Devil Wears Prada", those Disney movies, and basically anything else she was in), but I feel like her face is a bit disproportionate. It's almost freakish. Tell me if I'm wrong.
One is the actress, and the other is from the Soundgarden music video. I really don't have a problem with her face, it's just that the music video with all it's digitally altered faces really made me uncomfortable. So when I see ol' Annie there, I get this weird feeling like I should be running for my life lest my face will melt and I will be sucked up into a spinning fiery vortex where the sun used to be. Let's just say I won't be seeing "Get Smart".
Monday, June 16, 2008
Hey now,
I appreciate good advertising. I like it when commercials recognize their own senseless immorality and apply a real-life sense of humor. What I don not like are commericals that revolve around an idea that is no way related to the product they are selling.
Basically, what I am trying to get to is the fact that I despise these new commercials for McDonald's 'revolutionary' southern style chicken sandwiches. I cannot believe they pitched these commercials to those brainlords at Mickey D's headquarters and they thought it would be a good idea. Personally, I love the sandwich; it is quite tasty. But this new combo menu item is hardly a breakthrough in fast food.
First of all, let it be well known that this 'southern style' sandwich is a clear and blatant rip of the popular chic-fil-a sandwich. Apparently the patent for this chicken frying method is up, because those guys over at Arby's have a new 'southern style' hit as well. So, what they have is nothing new, unless you've never heard of chic-fil-a before (in which case you are missing out on some damn good dipping sauces). Secondly, this new chicken and bread combo is hardly one of man's greatest achievements, but listening to the poor souls who were paid to read the atrocious writing on these commercials, you would think that you were eating a Da Vinci sketch on a jewel-encrusted 'buttery-tasting' bun. I can't quote word for word (because that would mean willingly submitting myself to another viewing of this audio/visual compost), but the gist of the ads are something like: "Man is constantly creating... searching for new things... inventing... blah blah blah... creating the perfect chicken sandwich". I hope the starving actors who read these lines realize the ridiculousness of the tone of what they are putting forth. This SSCS is not a war treaty, it's not a solution to our addiction to fossil fuels, and it's not even a healthy lunch alternative in this era of calorie counting and weight balancing. ITS A FUCKING CHICKEN SANDWICH! I would compare it with the existence of the bean bag I use to rest my wrist on when I use my computer mouse; I don't need it, but I appreciate it being there for me. I could easily live without it and I am pretty sure it won't be getting a mention when I sit down and reflect on my life and humanity as a whole.
I even don't mind the uber-gimmicky commercials with that guy with the weird beard who trolls the newest home gadget because at least you know that they are selling gimmicky baloney. I'll get a wonder shammy or some magic putty because they are coming at me from the right angle - flashy superficial sales. The world will not change because of the fact these products exist. Nor will it change when you see the SSCS on the combo board at your local Golden Arches. They could have easily done an ad with the SCSS and the word "Delicious" posted on the screen for 30 seconds and had the same effect. Shit, a few days ago, they were giving these sandwiches away for free! (Yes, I had one). That's how you do it. I'm pretty sure no one thanked their cashier for working for such a great creative company when they purchased their sandwich.
To me, advertisers need to know their role, and know their audience. Spend less time with concepts and more time researching who these products are aimed at. Last time I was at McDonald's, my fellow patrons hardly seemed the type to appreciate great achievements in human progress, much less the idea that this SCSS is a groundbreaking work of man.
On a similar note, go to YouTube and search for Brawndo if you want a clearer idea of what advertising should end up being.
I appreciate good advertising. I like it when commercials recognize their own senseless immorality and apply a real-life sense of humor. What I don not like are commericals that revolve around an idea that is no way related to the product they are selling.
Basically, what I am trying to get to is the fact that I despise these new commercials for McDonald's 'revolutionary' southern style chicken sandwiches. I cannot believe they pitched these commercials to those brainlords at Mickey D's headquarters and they thought it would be a good idea. Personally, I love the sandwich; it is quite tasty. But this new combo menu item is hardly a breakthrough in fast food.
First of all, let it be well known that this 'southern style' sandwich is a clear and blatant rip of the popular chic-fil-a sandwich. Apparently the patent for this chicken frying method is up, because those guys over at Arby's have a new 'southern style' hit as well. So, what they have is nothing new, unless you've never heard of chic-fil-a before (in which case you are missing out on some damn good dipping sauces). Secondly, this new chicken and bread combo is hardly one of man's greatest achievements, but listening to the poor souls who were paid to read the atrocious writing on these commercials, you would think that you were eating a Da Vinci sketch on a jewel-encrusted 'buttery-tasting' bun. I can't quote word for word (because that would mean willingly submitting myself to another viewing of this audio/visual compost), but the gist of the ads are something like: "Man is constantly creating... searching for new things... inventing... blah blah blah... creating the perfect chicken sandwich". I hope the starving actors who read these lines realize the ridiculousness of the tone of what they are putting forth. This SSCS is not a war treaty, it's not a solution to our addiction to fossil fuels, and it's not even a healthy lunch alternative in this era of calorie counting and weight balancing. ITS A FUCKING CHICKEN SANDWICH! I would compare it with the existence of the bean bag I use to rest my wrist on when I use my computer mouse; I don't need it, but I appreciate it being there for me. I could easily live without it and I am pretty sure it won't be getting a mention when I sit down and reflect on my life and humanity as a whole.
I even don't mind the uber-gimmicky commercials with that guy with the weird beard who trolls the newest home gadget because at least you know that they are selling gimmicky baloney. I'll get a wonder shammy or some magic putty because they are coming at me from the right angle - flashy superficial sales. The world will not change because of the fact these products exist. Nor will it change when you see the SSCS on the combo board at your local Golden Arches. They could have easily done an ad with the SCSS and the word "Delicious" posted on the screen for 30 seconds and had the same effect. Shit, a few days ago, they were giving these sandwiches away for free! (Yes, I had one). That's how you do it. I'm pretty sure no one thanked their cashier for working for such a great creative company when they purchased their sandwich.
To me, advertisers need to know their role, and know their audience. Spend less time with concepts and more time researching who these products are aimed at. Last time I was at McDonald's, my fellow patrons hardly seemed the type to appreciate great achievements in human progress, much less the idea that this SCSS is a groundbreaking work of man.
On a similar note, go to YouTube and search for Brawndo if you want a clearer idea of what advertising should end up being.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Heyyy!
Recently, there has been a bit of a 'buzz' about a little-known plant by the name of salvia divinorum. This ado has come from our favorite purveyor of human stupidity, the well-intentioned but easily corruptive YouTube. There are numerous videos of people experiencing their respective Salvia 'trips', much to the delight of the cameraman and others around. What the hub-bub is about seems to be the odd behavior and near total loss of control that is evident on the videos. Of course, what really gets the public going is that this is being done by teenagers, and we all know that teenagers are easily influenced and need to be protected from strange, unfamiliar and potentially damaging things (that was sarcasm for those new to MCP).
Before I continue, here is a little history. Salvia Divinorum really is a powerful psychoactive plant that is related to the mint family. It has been used by Mayan shamans to invoke visions and is regarded as a spiritual tool to help one gain insight into his own life. The psycho-active element, Salvinorin A, is a uniquely naturally occurring substance. Normally, one can chew or smoke just the leaves of the plant, but the main chemical can be extracted and concentrated into a more powerful form. This is where the YouTube videos stem from.
The videos usually show a volunteer smoking a pipe or what have you of 20x or even up to 80x concentration. This no doubt fucks them up. Yours truly has experienced Salvia for himself and can tell you from experience that it will take you on quite the ride. As soon as you intake it, you can immediately feel the effects (at least with the concentrated version). There is usually an internal feeling of added weight, as if you are being pulled or pushed in a certain direction, though your body remains still. Visuals come soon after, where patterns and lines will appear and often move, rotate or vibrate. Senses may become heightened, though there is often a fog associated where thinking straight becomes harder. Other things may occur, like dry mouth or confusion, but in total, the effects will generally only last for about 15 minutes. As you come down, there is generally a decent feeling buzz as you return to normality.
I think what has people up in arms is the fact that many people just don't know what this stuff is. All they hear is 'drug' and 'smoke' and 'catatonic testees' (giggity) and immediately come to the conclusion that it is evil and must be controlled. Granted, this plant is not for everyone and should most likely be avoided by those with pre-existing physical, mental or emotional problems, but this makes it not unlike a majority of items in our social sphere. What is needed is understanding and education and an ability to make informed decisions for your own personal well-being. That previous sentence could be applied to anything from food to guns to sex, and it all moves toward my much larger point of self-governance. There is nothing inherently dangerous about Salvia. Yes, it does make you trip out and lose control for a short period of time. However, it is completely non-addictive. You will not see someone driving down the road lighting up a cigarette of salvia. Trust me, after one session, it will be off your to-do list for at least a few months. I'm sure the worry is that something bad will happen during the period of lost control, but I find it highly unlikely. The situations for Salvia use are either A) alone time by one's self, introspecting and reflecting on the experience itself, or B) in a social atmosphere where you will have at least one secondary party to watch over you. It is not a super social anytime substance and is not something that concerned adults should about taking over the minds and bodies of the youth.
Like I said, my bigger point is to continue to struggle for the acceptance and social reliance on self-governance. Salvia is something that individuals can deal with without the greater public needing to worry about possible conflicts. I would say there is no social overlap, other than the viewing of trip experiences on video posting websites. If there is any concern or outrage, it stems from ignorance and misunderstanding and mostly from inexperience from those making accusations. All I can say is, if you have a problem with something, take a few seconds to learn about what your problem is, hear both sides of the story and make an informed decision. At least try to understand the pros and cons of whatever it may be, so you don't come off as a total ignoramus (google 'kevin james hardball' for an example).
Personally, I found Salvia to be a great experience as it continues to show the wonders that is the human mind and our natural world around us. I would highly recommend experiencing it in a comfortable, calm atmosphere with friends you know and trust. It just makes it that more fulfilling. I would end by saying to keep your videos to yourself as it is your own business, but hey, if it's hilarious as you (and I) think it is, feel free to share.
Recently, there has been a bit of a 'buzz' about a little-known plant by the name of salvia divinorum. This ado has come from our favorite purveyor of human stupidity, the well-intentioned but easily corruptive YouTube. There are numerous videos of people experiencing their respective Salvia 'trips', much to the delight of the cameraman and others around. What the hub-bub is about seems to be the odd behavior and near total loss of control that is evident on the videos. Of course, what really gets the public going is that this is being done by teenagers, and we all know that teenagers are easily influenced and need to be protected from strange, unfamiliar and potentially damaging things (that was sarcasm for those new to MCP).
Before I continue, here is a little history. Salvia Divinorum really is a powerful psychoactive plant that is related to the mint family. It has been used by Mayan shamans to invoke visions and is regarded as a spiritual tool to help one gain insight into his own life. The psycho-active element, Salvinorin A, is a uniquely naturally occurring substance. Normally, one can chew or smoke just the leaves of the plant, but the main chemical can be extracted and concentrated into a more powerful form. This is where the YouTube videos stem from.The videos usually show a volunteer smoking a pipe or what have you of 20x or even up to 80x concentration. This no doubt fucks them up. Yours truly has experienced Salvia for himself and can tell you from experience that it will take you on quite the ride. As soon as you intake it, you can immediately feel the effects (at least with the concentrated version). There is usually an internal feeling of added weight, as if you are being pulled or pushed in a certain direction, though your body remains still. Visuals come soon after, where patterns and lines will appear and often move, rotate or vibrate. Senses may become heightened, though there is often a fog associated where thinking straight becomes harder. Other things may occur, like dry mouth or confusion, but in total, the effects will generally only last for about 15 minutes. As you come down, there is generally a decent feeling buzz as you return to normality.
I think what has people up in arms is the fact that many people just don't know what this stuff is. All they hear is 'drug' and 'smoke' and 'catatonic testees' (giggity) and immediately come to the conclusion that it is evil and must be controlled. Granted, this plant is not for everyone and should most likely be avoided by those with pre-existing physical, mental or emotional problems, but this makes it not unlike a majority of items in our social sphere. What is needed is understanding and education and an ability to make informed decisions for your own personal well-being. That previous sentence could be applied to anything from food to guns to sex, and it all moves toward my much larger point of self-governance. There is nothing inherently dangerous about Salvia. Yes, it does make you trip out and lose control for a short period of time. However, it is completely non-addictive. You will not see someone driving down the road lighting up a cigarette of salvia. Trust me, after one session, it will be off your to-do list for at least a few months. I'm sure the worry is that something bad will happen during the period of lost control, but I find it highly unlikely. The situations for Salvia use are either A) alone time by one's self, introspecting and reflecting on the experience itself, or B) in a social atmosphere where you will have at least one secondary party to watch over you. It is not a super social anytime substance and is not something that concerned adults should about taking over the minds and bodies of the youth.
Like I said, my bigger point is to continue to struggle for the acceptance and social reliance on self-governance. Salvia is something that individuals can deal with without the greater public needing to worry about possible conflicts. I would say there is no social overlap, other than the viewing of trip experiences on video posting websites. If there is any concern or outrage, it stems from ignorance and misunderstanding and mostly from inexperience from those making accusations. All I can say is, if you have a problem with something, take a few seconds to learn about what your problem is, hear both sides of the story and make an informed decision. At least try to understand the pros and cons of whatever it may be, so you don't come off as a total ignoramus (google 'kevin james hardball' for an example).
Personally, I found Salvia to be a great experience as it continues to show the wonders that is the human mind and our natural world around us. I would highly recommend experiencing it in a comfortable, calm atmosphere with friends you know and trust. It just makes it that more fulfilling. I would end by saying to keep your videos to yourself as it is your own business, but hey, if it's hilarious as you (and I) think it is, feel free to share.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Hola!
Normally, I dismiss most of the hyped stories-of-the-day I read on the internet as silliness attributed to the way of the world. There's always somebody upset with somebody else, some protest going on, or some group who is radically offended with the actions or words of some other group. Again, I will just attribute this to the fact that with billions of people connected across the world and exposed to each others' ways and practices, conflicts will arise.
Today, however, I came across something that just made my mind hurt. Every 'net news outlet carried the story about the Mexican Absolut ad. For those who haven't refreshed their browser recently, the ad wizards at Absolut decided to try to market their product with another clever 'absolut' related image, but this time went with something a bit more controversial than a bottle shaped pool. This time, they chose to show an image of North America, but instead of our understood layout of countries, they showed Mexico still with the land that they had sold to America after the Mexican-American War. This includes California, Texas, Arizona, Colorado,
Utah and the rest of the desert/mountainous lands of the west. You can see in the image that "In an Absolut World" is taglined across this faux map.
Obviously, this image is geared to Mexicans who have national pride and maybe even those that still hold a grudge against the U.S. for acquiring that land from the Mexican empire. However, what resulted from this image being printed was an outraged cry from American "nationalists" saying it was a blatant anti-American ad and it sympathized with illegal immigrants and their cause. Whaaaa?
I can see how this image may seem like an attack on America. I mean, they colored an area of the U.S. the same as part of Mexico! How dare they even connote any type of connection between the great nation of America and the pitiful shamble that is it's southern neighbor!
What gets me is that people really thought that absolut is anti-american. I'm pretty sure that Absolut does a shit ton more business in the U.S., and they were just looking for a new angle to attract a Mexican demographic. In no way would they want to ruin any previous relationships, that's just bad business. This was just a way to appeal to the Mexican people. Absolut could easily run another ad 'strictly for the U.S.', that would show a map of the world with the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Kuwait, Vietnam, (and plenty others) all colored the same and use the exact same tagline. The ad is simply appealing to the nationalism of the Mexican people, and could be done the same way with other countries.
Instead, what has resulted from this ad is yet another scapegoat of a much larger issue. Those people who live in 'shaded green area' of the US on that map who have ill feelings about the current immigration situation see this ad as an opportunity to address the issue. Unfortunately, this ties Absolut into a mess they have nothing to do with. People see Absolut as 'sympathetic' to a cause they don't agree with and Point A goes to Point C without considering Point B, and you get the outcry as a result. Granted, immigration is a hot topic in the southwest, but there should be an ability to sort out relevance and involvement among the media.
On a similar note, there was another outcry amongst homosexuals against Jay Leno. On a recent show, he was discussing roles with his guest, Ryan Phillipe, and asked for his best "gay face". Immediately, this was seen as a slant against gays and a whole web site was born of people showing their best 'gay face'. (It's not what you expect) Again, I can see where people are coming from when they say they are 'offended' by his comments, being that it is very easy to attack someone who mentions a tender subject, but in this case, the audience knew exactly where Leno was trying to go with the joke, and be it funny or not funny, there was no bad intentions. But issues in the public realm quickly get shifted to its ideological extreme and then get blasted by those on the sides of those extremes, leading to media coverage and exploitation without giving context or real consideration.
It's unfortunate that this is how our media works. It takes a level head to see through the fog of the issues' presentation and think about the real intention of these actions. What we get in the meantime is a system of scapegoats that goad around the real issues that really have a reason for people to be upset about them. The best example: violence and video games. But that will be another post.
Normally, I dismiss most of the hyped stories-of-the-day I read on the internet as silliness attributed to the way of the world. There's always somebody upset with somebody else, some protest going on, or some group who is radically offended with the actions or words of some other group. Again, I will just attribute this to the fact that with billions of people connected across the world and exposed to each others' ways and practices, conflicts will arise.
Today, however, I came across something that just made my mind hurt. Every 'net news outlet carried the story about the Mexican Absolut ad. For those who haven't refreshed their browser recently, the ad wizards at Absolut decided to try to market their product with another clever 'absolut' related image, but this time went with something a bit more controversial than a bottle shaped pool. This time, they chose to show an image of North America, but instead of our understood layout of countries, they showed Mexico still with the land that they had sold to America after the Mexican-American War. This includes California, Texas, Arizona, Colorado,
Utah and the rest of the desert/mountainous lands of the west. You can see in the image that "In an Absolut World" is taglined across this faux map. Obviously, this image is geared to Mexicans who have national pride and maybe even those that still hold a grudge against the U.S. for acquiring that land from the Mexican empire. However, what resulted from this image being printed was an outraged cry from American "nationalists" saying it was a blatant anti-American ad and it sympathized with illegal immigrants and their cause. Whaaaa?
I can see how this image may seem like an attack on America. I mean, they colored an area of the U.S. the same as part of Mexico! How dare they even connote any type of connection between the great nation of America and the pitiful shamble that is it's southern neighbor!
What gets me is that people really thought that absolut is anti-american. I'm pretty sure that Absolut does a shit ton more business in the U.S., and they were just looking for a new angle to attract a Mexican demographic. In no way would they want to ruin any previous relationships, that's just bad business. This was just a way to appeal to the Mexican people. Absolut could easily run another ad 'strictly for the U.S.', that would show a map of the world with the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Kuwait, Vietnam, (and plenty others) all colored the same and use the exact same tagline. The ad is simply appealing to the nationalism of the Mexican people, and could be done the same way with other countries.
Instead, what has resulted from this ad is yet another scapegoat of a much larger issue. Those people who live in 'shaded green area' of the US on that map who have ill feelings about the current immigration situation see this ad as an opportunity to address the issue. Unfortunately, this ties Absolut into a mess they have nothing to do with. People see Absolut as 'sympathetic' to a cause they don't agree with and Point A goes to Point C without considering Point B, and you get the outcry as a result. Granted, immigration is a hot topic in the southwest, but there should be an ability to sort out relevance and involvement among the media.
On a similar note, there was another outcry amongst homosexuals against Jay Leno. On a recent show, he was discussing roles with his guest, Ryan Phillipe, and asked for his best "gay face". Immediately, this was seen as a slant against gays and a whole web site was born of people showing their best 'gay face'. (It's not what you expect) Again, I can see where people are coming from when they say they are 'offended' by his comments, being that it is very easy to attack someone who mentions a tender subject, but in this case, the audience knew exactly where Leno was trying to go with the joke, and be it funny or not funny, there was no bad intentions. But issues in the public realm quickly get shifted to its ideological extreme and then get blasted by those on the sides of those extremes, leading to media coverage and exploitation without giving context or real consideration.
It's unfortunate that this is how our media works. It takes a level head to see through the fog of the issues' presentation and think about the real intention of these actions. What we get in the meantime is a system of scapegoats that goad around the real issues that really have a reason for people to be upset about them. The best example: violence and video games. But that will be another post.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Greetings,
If anyone has installed an application or updated software recently on their computer, I'm sure they have come across this unexpected question: "Would you like to install the Google toolbar to your internet browser?". It seems like everything from Java updates to registry scanners have this option built in to their installation process.
My beef is not necessarily with the software developers who take in the extra cash for allowing Google to provide this service, but rather with Google themselves. It is the mere saturation of the option across all things internet. I come across this at least once every other week and each time, I make sure to uncheck the option (as it comes conveniently prechecked and ready to go). Granted, it's not that bad of a service, I'm sure, as it's only meant to make things easier search and browsing wise, but why is there such a continuous presence? It is that beneficial to have the ability to add this bar on every new download? I bet Google gets a decent turnaround simply from the people who just click "next" and don't bother to read through directions, simply because they are not expecting excess options. Google claims that they include the toolbar option on downloads in order to keep up with competitors like MSN or AOL or Yahoo who include similar options for their users. However, I don't see these competitor's offerings nearly as much as I do Google's.
I think what bothers me the most is that this toolbar is something that one wouldn't search for autonomously, and I'm only aware of its existence because of the fact that it is stuck in an altogether different application. What this translates to is that this application is spam or spyware of some sort. Even if it is not (which it isn't at all, really), that is the vibe I get; which is why the small white box always gets its black check mark removed upon appearing on my screen. What follows from this experience of unchecking is that in every instance that this toolbar option appears, I get reaffirmed in my opinion that it is some sort of spam tool that I should be avoiding. I would think that this is a scenario that a well-reputed company such as Google would like to avoid. Personally, I find google to be a very trustworthy and handy site, as I am a fond user of Gmail, Reader, Blogger (as you can see) and even have the search site as my homepage. There is just this annoying spammish toolbar that is always lingering right behind the next download, and with every computer literate person knowing that spam = bad, it immediately puts a negative blemish on the Google reputation.
This all being said, it won't really affect my use of Google or its many applications, but it makes me stop and ponder things from it such as emails and offers a bit more sternly.
On a sidenote, I read an interesting article the other day about how once you post a blog entry, it immediately gets scanned, filtered, and processed (among other things) by bots or programs that provide information to advertisers, marketers and other companies. Here's the link:
http://www.wired.com/special_multimedia/2008/ff_secretlife_1602
This may be broken, but it's interesting nonetheless. I had no idea that every blog entry goes through this process of what I would call 'publication'. It's not just your close ring of friends/admirers/haters that read your blog posts. It's the entire interwebs that does it!
If anyone has installed an application or updated software recently on their computer, I'm sure they have come across this unexpected question: "Would you like to install the Google toolbar to your internet browser?". It seems like everything from Java updates to registry scanners have this option built in to their installation process.
My beef is not necessarily with the software developers who take in the extra cash for allowing Google to provide this service, but rather with Google themselves. It is the mere saturation of the option across all things internet. I come across this at least once every other week and each time, I make sure to uncheck the option (as it comes conveniently prechecked and ready to go). Granted, it's not that bad of a service, I'm sure, as it's only meant to make things easier search and browsing wise, but why is there such a continuous presence? It is that beneficial to have the ability to add this bar on every new download? I bet Google gets a decent turnaround simply from the people who just click "next" and don't bother to read through directions, simply because they are not expecting excess options. Google claims that they include the toolbar option on downloads in order to keep up with competitors like MSN or AOL or Yahoo who include similar options for their users. However, I don't see these competitor's offerings nearly as much as I do Google's.
I think what bothers me the most is that this toolbar is something that one wouldn't search for autonomously, and I'm only aware of its existence because of the fact that it is stuck in an altogether different application. What this translates to is that this application is spam or spyware of some sort. Even if it is not (which it isn't at all, really), that is the vibe I get; which is why the small white box always gets its black check mark removed upon appearing on my screen. What follows from this experience of unchecking is that in every instance that this toolbar option appears, I get reaffirmed in my opinion that it is some sort of spam tool that I should be avoiding. I would think that this is a scenario that a well-reputed company such as Google would like to avoid. Personally, I find google to be a very trustworthy and handy site, as I am a fond user of Gmail, Reader, Blogger (as you can see) and even have the search site as my homepage. There is just this annoying spammish toolbar that is always lingering right behind the next download, and with every computer literate person knowing that spam = bad, it immediately puts a negative blemish on the Google reputation.
This all being said, it won't really affect my use of Google or its many applications, but it makes me stop and ponder things from it such as emails and offers a bit more sternly.
On a sidenote, I read an interesting article the other day about how once you post a blog entry, it immediately gets scanned, filtered, and processed (among other things) by bots or programs that provide information to advertisers, marketers and other companies. Here's the link:
http://www.wired.com/special_multimedia/2008/ff_secretlife_1602
This may be broken, but it's interesting nonetheless. I had no idea that every blog entry goes through this process of what I would call 'publication'. It's not just your close ring of friends/admirers/haters that read your blog posts. It's the entire interwebs that does it!
Friday, February 15, 2008
Push a push-pop!
Most of us remember this tag line from the ad wizards who came up with the commercials for Push pops in the 90's (or was it 80's?). More of us just remember the tasty on-the-go treat that is Push pops. They are the lollipops that were in a little tube that had a dust and other junk preventing cap that made it the perfect candy to take along in one's pocket, pack or marsupial sack. The cap even had a little pen clip on the top so if you happened to be pocket free that day, you could attach it to your sleeve/collar/flap of choice and keep the sugary goodness with you.
These candies were great and very popular among the kid folk. The flavors were great, the thing lasted an eternity and did I mention the convenience factor? Great piece of sugar stick there. Except for one thing. Well, one major design flaw. See, the candy is shaped like a cylinder. It gets pushed from the bottom. Therefore, the consumption method is a top-down lick around. One licks around the top and eventually the cylinder erodes down until the goo is gone. In one's mind, there doesn't seem to be a problem with this. Well, until you actually attempt it. Instead of eroding downward gradually, what happens instead is that the candy erodes into a cone shape.
(thank you google images)
Now, do you see that point at the top of the cone? Now imagine that cylinder being taller than it is wide (h>r). What this point becomes is a mouth stabbing dagger of flavored sugar. This point fits perfectly in the roof of your mouth or in between your teeth (again, how convenient!). I loved push pops, but I would always end up with some sort of puncture wound by the time I was finished with one. You may say, well, just bite the point off, then you have a flat nub to start on again. Yes, that is correct. But then you get to chew this corn syrup glass shard and hope it doesn't get stuck in one of your many cavities (pun?) and cause more damage. Just spit it out then! Well, that's a design flaw if I ever saw one, now isn't it.
.
This post is a call for a new Push pop. A push pop for the kids with gentle mouths (that sounds gross, get your minds out of the gutter). No more sugar swords! Give me a portable pop that won't deter me from eating spicy or hot foods afterwards. Perhaps make the core of this pop melt in your mouth so you never get that point of doom. Candy is for smiles, not tears.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Hooray!
In the midst of all the political to-do recently, I have seen something that bothers me almost as much as those dreaded nails on a chalkboard. It's not a sound, but rather a distinct image (well, set of images) that just makes me cringe. What I'm talking about is the overhead high-five-grip shake. This one gesture can make the coolest guy look like a total buffoon. It can make the most distinguished gentleman seem like an awkward clown. Despite this, if you watch any political rally or celebration of late, you can catch one of these OHFGS on camera, polluting your normal news broadcast with squirm inducing video.
If you are still not familiar with what I am talking about, let me try to describe this phenomenon to you. It starts off with a simple gesture of raising the hands to go in for what one would assume to be a high-five. This is where the normalcy ends. From there, the palms touch and fingers spread. Instead of just pulling back with satisfaction of a good palm slap, the fingers curl into each other and grip tightly. This joining of the hands is then shaken about, usually in jubilation, but awkward nonetheless. Now, when I say shaken, I mean that the ball of hands is moving about in a jerky fashion, usually controlled by the more dominant hand. I looked for a picture of this to demonstrate this more clearly, but when I typed in to the image searcher 'awkward overhead high five grip shake', I got nothing of relevance.
It gets worse. Normally, you give a high five or a hand shake with the same hand, as in I shake your right hand with my right hand, or high five right on right. High fives actually work right to left or left to right because of the simple instantaneous contact. There is no lingering. With the OHFGS, when it is done with opposite hands, it is the ultimate in embarrassing gestures. Because of the great structure of our anatomy, in order to get the opposite hand grip of this abomination, the hands must be palm to palm. In order for that to work, the two people must be facing each other or close to it. This is a bad sight when you see two people facing each other shaking their fist ball in the air. What's weirder is when after the grip has commenced, the two arc out to the crowd (or whoever cares to actually watch the mess) and shake to the crowd. Just the awkward angle of arms and fingers is enough to question reality. Entwined fingers shouldn't be moved around like that.
I don't really know what bothers me so much about the OHFGS, but it does. I suppose the awkwardness of it shows the humanity of people, able to still make mistakes and be a normal person, but I feel like there are so many better ways to do that, say, with a nice trip or faceplant. I just think the grip can be avoided, just let go of that hand in the air. If you do have to hold hands, do it with closed fingers, like a normal handshake.
So when you are watching coverage of the caucuses or even some sporting events, be prepared to see some of these awkward handshakes. You'll know when you see it. Sorry for ruining the celebration.
In the midst of all the political to-do recently, I have seen something that bothers me almost as much as those dreaded nails on a chalkboard. It's not a sound, but rather a distinct image (well, set of images) that just makes me cringe. What I'm talking about is the overhead high-five-grip shake. This one gesture can make the coolest guy look like a total buffoon. It can make the most distinguished gentleman seem like an awkward clown. Despite this, if you watch any political rally or celebration of late, you can catch one of these OHFGS on camera, polluting your normal news broadcast with squirm inducing video.
If you are still not familiar with what I am talking about, let me try to describe this phenomenon to you. It starts off with a simple gesture of raising the hands to go in for what one would assume to be a high-five. This is where the normalcy ends. From there, the palms touch and fingers spread. Instead of just pulling back with satisfaction of a good palm slap, the fingers curl into each other and grip tightly. This joining of the hands is then shaken about, usually in jubilation, but awkward nonetheless. Now, when I say shaken, I mean that the ball of hands is moving about in a jerky fashion, usually controlled by the more dominant hand. I looked for a picture of this to demonstrate this more clearly, but when I typed in to the image searcher 'awkward overhead high five grip shake', I got nothing of relevance.
It gets worse. Normally, you give a high five or a hand shake with the same hand, as in I shake your right hand with my right hand, or high five right on right. High fives actually work right to left or left to right because of the simple instantaneous contact. There is no lingering. With the OHFGS, when it is done with opposite hands, it is the ultimate in embarrassing gestures. Because of the great structure of our anatomy, in order to get the opposite hand grip of this abomination, the hands must be palm to palm. In order for that to work, the two people must be facing each other or close to it. This is a bad sight when you see two people facing each other shaking their fist ball in the air. What's weirder is when after the grip has commenced, the two arc out to the crowd (or whoever cares to actually watch the mess) and shake to the crowd. Just the awkward angle of arms and fingers is enough to question reality. Entwined fingers shouldn't be moved around like that.
I don't really know what bothers me so much about the OHFGS, but it does. I suppose the awkwardness of it shows the humanity of people, able to still make mistakes and be a normal person, but I feel like there are so many better ways to do that, say, with a nice trip or faceplant. I just think the grip can be avoided, just let go of that hand in the air. If you do have to hold hands, do it with closed fingers, like a normal handshake.
So when you are watching coverage of the caucuses or even some sporting events, be prepared to see some of these awkward handshakes. You'll know when you see it. Sorry for ruining the celebration.
UPDATE!! A good friend of mine has located two decent photos of what I was trying to explain.
Unfortunately, these are both of Mrs. Clinton, but I assure you that Obama, McCain and the rest of the fellow politicians all have had their run-ins with this atrocity.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)