The Future is Now...

It sounds cliche, but it is hard to believe another year has come and gone. One thing to know is that time stops for no one, the river continues to flow downstream. What I find more incredible is that we are coming up on 2011, a year once pictured in our minds as the distant future, full of possibilities. The future is now the present and we continue to move forward in this 21st century. I tried to think of things that really are futuristic in terms of where we were 10 or 20 years ago, and though it may not all be holograms and robots, there are plenty of things that we may take for granted that 20 years ago would have been thought improbable or even impossible.

First, we have the complete saturation of mobile and 'smart' phones. Do you even remember early cell phones? They were the size of bricks and only did what a phone is supposed to: make calls. Now, we have credit card sized devices, capable of a multitude of communications, as well as functionality and entertainment. I mean, you can stream live TV on your little 4" portable screen now. Similarly, can you remember life pre-cell phones? We are so connected and in touch now that I feel many people would just be plain lost without their means of hand-held communique. Our lives are fully dependent on 4 cubic inches of technology.

Next we have the new wave of home entertainment: Wi-Fi internet access, fiber optic cable, DVRs, 3D TVs and cloud based TV services. The ability to download and stream television programming has revolutionized how we view our media. No longer must we gather round the TV at 8 pm sharp or set our VCR to record a scratchy copy of a show. Now shows are on your own schedule, available when you have the time for it. Everything is fast and connected. You used to be the cool house if you had any TV larger than 40". Now you'll need a 100" projector. Also, remember how much those old TVs used to weigh? You needed two other people just to move the set off the stand. Now we have flat panels that hang above your fireplace that can run your 'fireplace' screen app while you talk over Skype to your relative on the other side of the world.

What connects all of this is the proliferation of that series of tubes that connects us all: the internet. Just 10 years ago, we were still dialing up and eagerly anticipating hearing that little .wav file saying 'you've got mail'. Some were already moving on to Netscape and IE, but it really has been in the last few years that everyone young and old, tech and not-so-tech really considered internet access as essential to living in today's world. This technology has connected the everyone, everywhere. We are no longer limited to our state or country for information. We now have the entire globe to work, shop, visit and share with. And all of this is done in the blink of an eye with a click of a mouse. Unfortunately, this instantaneous access has also decreased our patience and tolerances. Productivity is king and we are down to measuring wasted seconds. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly different than it was 10 years ago.

There have also been many advances in science and medicine which are great for humanity, but nothing to visible in terms of being 'futuristic'. We do have a lot more wind turbines and solar panels around the world as we look for alternate energy sources. Total mechanical prostheses aren't here yet, but they are getting close.

I think it easy to lose track of all the progress we have made in the past 20 years since we have become so in tuned with what is right now. The sheer amount of data we are presented with on a day to day basis seems to outweigh years of information gathered before. Now, I am not calling for a need of nostalgia (go watch VH1 for that), but just to keep things in perspective when looking at the past. As technology advances exponentially, I feel it is still important to look at where we were not so long ago and reevaluate what our priorities really are, keeping in mind that we'll be doing it all again soon in just a few years.


On a side note, I think I am going to start a new blog page that hosts my daily links I post on IM. I will post a link when it is up and running.

Albert Haynesworth is a Douchebag

I repeat, Albert Haynesworth is a douchebag. This clown signed a 7-year, $100 Million dollar deal with the Washington Redskins in 2009 and now, one and half seasons later, is suspended for the remaining games due to 'conduct detrimental to the team'. Basically, he was just a jerk to everyone and wanted to do things his way instead of being coached. There are all kind of excuses for Fat Albert, such as the 'Skins defensive scheme didn't work with Al's play style or Coach Shanahan's is too hard-nosed to listen, but what it all boils down to is this player's total lack of respect for football in general.

Let me make something clear to everyone. The fans pay the player's salaries. Yes, the actual check comes from the owners of the teams, but where does he get that money? Tickets, merchandise and sponsorships. Even the sponsorships are fan based, as it requires fans to pay attention to the sponsors and advertisements to make them pay off. The fans are the money source. Even investors of a franchise can be considered fans, giving support to a team they like. What all this means is that there is a certain level of respect and responsibility that the players (as well as all team staff) owe the fans.

You may now ask, well what does Al's conflict with the team have to do with owing the fans? Well, if you listen to any amount of sports talk radio or tv programming, you would have an idea. The happenings of the team are no longer held behind closed doors. The media is now an ever-present entity and every aspect of the team is covered. Conversely, the players are coaches are aware of the fans' opinions and attitudes. In all normal situations, this does not create a problem. If a team loses, there can be a quasi-discussion between all involved about what to improve upon. Same goes for a win, a discussion happens about what went right. However, when there are personal quabbles and non-game related issues, there creates this extra rift in the overall relationship and you can bet that the media will be covering it.

After all the continuous media coverage, we can understand if these personal spats happen now again over the course of the season, but they should be easily and quickly resolved. They should not last for 2 years. At this point, it becomes apparent that there is something else going on behind the scenes that is causing a problem. In this case, it is the horrible attitude of an overplayed player. Fat Albert would often give quotes saying he wants to be the greatest defensive player of all time and he just wants to play football. Well, no matter how good of an individual player you are, you still have to play as part of a team. Football is a team sport. Winning teams may have great individual players, but those players know how to be part of a team as well. Haynesworthless only knew how to be part of team Haynesworth.

So, when a player is signed for $100M, fans should be able to expect that player to do whatever it takes to earn that money. Instead, the up-front paycheck allowed a selfish player to make his own demands and pout and complain when the reality differed from the expectation. Media coverage did make a bigger deal about the whole drama, but in this case it was almost warranted. As far as I can tell, no effort was made to ensure the fans that their investment was going to turn out ok. Sure, you can also blame the owners and paycheck writers who created the situation, but it all really comes down to a player who is more concerned with himself than what everyone else cares about - the team.

This should really be a lesson to all professional athletes and can even be related to any large business or service group - remember where the money is coming from. Remember that you are part of a bigger whole that represents a lot more than yourself. Remember that the people indirectly paying your salary deserve a certain amount of responsibility and respect. If that is non-present, then you should expect that respect to not be reciprocated.

One Bad (green) Apple...

The green apple I am referring to is one of the many flavors of Joose alcoholic beverages. You may have heard of Joose or Four Loko in the news lately, as apparently it has just come to light in the national media that these caffeinated alcoholic beverages exist. For the still unfamiliar, these flavored drinks come in ~24 oz cans and contain a good amount of caffeine and sugar while also having a 10-12% alcohol content. "Blackout in a can" is the term being used by media outlets, and for once, this actually holds up. And they are fantastic.

My friends and I first discovered these great drinks a few years ago and were immediately taken back by what a wallop they deliver. If you can manage to get two cans in your system, you are in for a wicked night. By wicked I mean very, very drunk. But because these drinks have so much caffeine in them, the combination of pep and drunk make for potentially sloppy situations. This is what is causing all the brew-ha-ha about these drinks. Apparently people are drinking these beverages and then doing irresponsible things, sometimes deadly things (drunk driving, alcohol poisoning, falling, etc). Well, once this crap has hit the national attention, of course 'concerned' parties must step in and intervene. Dissenters want drinks of this nature to be taken off the market in the name of public safety. By eliminating these dangerous drinks, people won't do irresponsible things. Can you smell the faulty logic?

Sure, these drinks put people on the insanely fast track to intoxication. But that's the damn point. They are butt cheap and pack a punch. You are a fool if you think that young people (who these drinks are aimed at despite the owning companies denying the fact) just drink to have a good time and loosen up. People drink to get hammered. Hammered, I tell you, not nicely buzzed. People who want a nice buzz pour a glass of chianti and watch the Mentalist. People who drink Joose or Loko want to get tore up and have a good time doing it.

The problem I have with the national uproar relates to the bigger issue of personal liberties. There are a lot of dangerous things and a lot of dangerous products, but they don't become dangerous until the person uses it and makes it so. Somebody can drink Joose and get S-faced, pass out and wake up with a serious hangover. Another can drink it and then decide to go for a drive and kill somebody. The difference is the action of the person, who should be held responsible for those actions. Instead, the tact is taken, like so many other things in our society, where we don't hold the person responsible, we search for blame in material objects or exterior reasons. In this case, it's not the person's fault, it is the alcoholic drink that he himself consumed. Why bother the person with blame when we can just say it is the products fault? If the product is eliminated, then he would never had had the problem in the first place.

This kind of reasoning is garbage. It is the line of thinking that makes one bad apple spoil the bunch for everyone. Because a small percentage of users fuck things up, everyone should be reprimanded. Everyone loses out on something they enjoy because others were irresponsible. I mean, for the guy who crashed his car because of being intoxicated, can't by the same logic we say that the car is to blame? If he didn't have a car, there would be no crash. This is a lame argument of course, but it points out the absurd reductionist reasoning that is oh so popular nowadays. Similarly, think of airport security - I can't bring a water bottle on a plane? Really? One guy puts some explosives or whatever in a water bottle and now millions and millions of people are denied the liberty of bringing a bottle of frickin water on a plane. God forbid someone tried to bring a can of Joose on a plane. Security guards' heads would explode.

I will be happy to admit that these types of drinks are horrible for you. They mess you up. But do I need to be censored in my choices because of potential? Critics argue there is no good that can come from these drinks. The combination of caffeine and alcohol create dire results for the consumer and are just not healthy. Well guess what, there are a lot of things that are unhealthy that are available to for consumption. It should be up to the person to evaluate the product and decide for himself the results. Some people, (like me) enjoy Joosin'. These same people have not died or caused trouble. But again, because the potential is there, the 'safe' route is to eliminate it. It is just a damn shame that absolutes must be pushed like this and are accepted under the guise of larger public safety.

I will say that in the end, it won't even matter if these drinks get taken off the shelves. It has been shown that there is a market for this type of beverage and just because you can't run down to 7-11 and grab one (or two or three...) doesn't mean that people won't be able to get smashed and make bad decisions. Something else will come along or some other method will be made known to get the same effects. Case in point: http://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/make-your-own-four-loko-homebrew. You can stop people's desire to get messed up, you can only hope to contain it. For now, just go stock up on those cans of blackout.

The Big Scary 100

Readers, this is the 100th post here at MCP. I has taken a few years (five to be exact), but I am proud to achieve this milestone. That being said, I would like to tackle the biggest, scariest topic out there. This affects every single last one of us as well as (to a lesser extent) our pets, animals and even plants. This frightful subject is death. It is the last great mystery, the great unknown. This topic is pretty much the reason religion exists and is something that truly can never be solved. Oh really? Never solved you say? Yes, I do say, and the reason is this: there is nothing after death. Nothing. Emptiness. The void. The scariest freaking void there is.

I will put it like this: imagine yourself as a machine. You are booted up (born), you run and serve your purpose with some sleeping and hibernating to keep you in shape, then you get shut down (die). Your consciousness is the life of the machine. Once that consciousness is no longer possible, the machine no longer works. And what happens to a useless machine? Dismantled and discarded. As bleak as this sounds, it is the same way with bodies. We just have a bit more respect when we dispose of them.

The reason this termination is scary is because of the aforementioned consciousness. We humans are tragic in that we can recognize and realize our own limitations. Our consciousness cannot last forever. We all have aspirations, possibilities available, emotional connections and feelings of responsibility. There are things we hope to do before we die, families to be part of, love to have and share, genes to pass on. These all immediately go away once death happens. There are no second chances, no possible comebacks. There is no waking up and changing things. There is just no more. People may compare death to sleeping, but when you sleep, you are still technically conscious. Comparing death to sleep is a false relationship. With sleep, your mind is still active and there is still the ability to wake up. In death, I reiterate, there is no more.

So what is a person to do? Live in hiding, preserving one's life force for as long as possible? That would be a waste of life. Unfortunately, there is big business in the realm of death and most of that started with religion and then the church. Since absolutely no one has the answer to what lies beyond (because it is physically impossible), there is plenty of room for speculation, theory and in essence, hope. Many explanations have been put forward to varying degrees of success. The most popular seems to be that after this life, there is a magnificent realm of happiness, often referred to as heaven, where everything is happy go lucky, and all evils are in another place. Other explanations include reincarnation or energy transfers, but most all of these 'answers' involve some sort of transfer or transport to another realm and most of these involve the idea of the soul or spirit of the individual.

I don't want to get into the debate of whether there is a soul or not only because I think there is a confusion as to what a soul is. I think that because of our own self-awareness, a complication is created where we think we are more than we actually are. Each of us are still just one being; a being who exists just like the billions of people before us did. No one is more special than the other, each one is born, lives, then dies. To my knowledge, there has been no factual exceptions to this (there are plenty of legends and myths though). I ask you to now take a step back and thinking logically, picture the idea of the human race. As stated, there are billions of people who have lived and still live today. Now what makes more sense, the idea that there is a hidden control of billions of souls where depending on which religion you believe in, this controller will then individually take you to your next fantastical destination, or the idea that the people are just like any other living thing on earth, having a defined life period and a terminal life on earth.

If you agree with me, then the latter makes more sense, but is still as frightening as ever. This is why religion appeals so much to people, it relieves the fear and anxiety of the impending doom. We cannot escape death's grasp, but we can choose to believe that it is not as bad as it really is. I will acknowledge the benefit of soothing this fear of death by religion, but at the same time, it can have the adverse effect of allowing the person to not respect death in its finality. Life is the greatest gift you can receive. Death takes away that gift. If one believes that there is a possibility of something after death (in this case something better), then death no longer becomes a consequence. The severity of death is diminished to just a road bump on a longer journey. The result is extremely dangerous to the value of life.

It is this very value that must be restored and fully appreciated. I feel like denying to yourself the finality and magnitude of what death is creates an excuse for not fully living and respecting life for what it is. You are only given one chance, one lifetime. Everyone around the world is given that same single chance. Denying yourself experiences in life in hope or regard for a promised afterlife is foolish. The same thing goes for taking that ability away from someone else. Violence, harm and murder destroy a person; in the most literal sense. I feel acts like these now have a diminished sense of their true power and people neglect to realize what it actually means to take and eradicate a person from existence. This is why is boggles my mind that we are more concerned about seeing a naked body in the media than we are about seeing a person brutally murdered. Love is more taboo than death. This makes no sense, but that will have to be elaborated upon another day.

The point I am trying to make is this: Death is absolutely horrible. It ends your life. No more memories, no more experiences, nothing. Just try and imagine this. It is chilling. It makes you want to find a way around it, defy it. Religion has offered a valiant alternative. Science is slowly giving we mortals hope. Life expectancy is constantly increasing. My only advice is to stay in the positive about what time you do have. Experience life to the fullest. Do not put off for tomorrow what you can do today. Tomorrow is never guaranteed. Cliche and cheesy, yes it is, but I am dead serious (sorry). We all to need to take a step back and realize what a gift and treasure life is before we no longer have that ability.

So after all this morbidity, is there any possible upside to dying? Any pros to the big con of not existing anymore? The only thing I can think of is the fact that you just won't know you are dead. There is no "oh crap, I died" or any last words or last chance type things, you are just gone. Sometimes at night, while I am laying in bed, I stare up and imagine this nothingness. I imagine all of reality gone, a time when I can't think and can't feel. This is some of the scariest shit mentally possible and I can easily work myself up into a panic. In order to come back down, I realize that I will not be conscious of the fact that I am not conscious. The fear comes from worrying while I am living. Once I die, the ability to worry is no longer there. There will be no reflection on my sadness. In essence, there is nothing, just peace. Eternal peace. Big scary eternal peace.

Wack Commercial Roundup

I would like to dedicate this post to the adwizards out there who have inundated us with horrible commercials and advertisements. It seems as of late there have been a slew of uncreative, misleading and just plain garbage ads being played (see my earlier Brady post). Now I know the ads won't stop for the simple fact that we Americans will not stop watching tv or even just consuming goods as we are just so damn good at it. In any case, here's a quick rundown of some the more outstanding bad.

First up is the food tax information ad from the "Americans against food tax". Basically it is some frumpy housefrau whining about how her sugary drinks and snacks may be taxed by the government. Somehow this is switched around into how the government wants to control what you eat. All I hear is "don't tax my obesity". God forbid the extra cost of junk food may make you pick up an apple instead. Instead of saying anything about what the tax is really about, it all boils down to spin and fear about big government. Bottom line bullshit: "I have a right to my diabetes".

Next up, there is a chevy or gm ad about some kid running home and jumping in the back of his mom's car. He does this just in time, as the tailgate closes and 'his friends' don't catch him. Well, I am pretty sure that this commercial was entirely rewritten from its original concept. The beginning starts off with the main kid leaving school. Three other kids come out and say (noticeably overdubbed) "race you home". The kid then runs home and makes the aforementioned slide into the back of the van. The three kids wait outside the van, looking distraught while the main kid makes faces at them. Obviously this whole commercial was rewritten from a bully escape situation to a seemingly innocent race home. Is bullying too real of a subject? Did some old lady write in and say "My son was bullied in school, therefore I will not be buying your minivan"? I don't really even know my real problem with this ad other than it has definitely been changed from its original intent and seemingly for a real weiner-kid of a reason. Bottom line bullshit: "Bullies don't sell cars".

Next we have an ad I mostly hear on radio, this time about a bid for building fueling tankers between Boeing and EADS. First of all, I don't know why they are publicly advertising for influence on a government decision, but who knows, maybe they will reach someone who can make a difference. But what really gets me is the completely forced dialogue between the characters, attempting to disguise the discourse as conversational. There are situations where fake conversation is fitting. When you are pointing out the faults of a major industrial company with mechanical specifications, try something a bit more formal. I think what bothers me about this ad is that it is just a train wreck of bad decisions. Bottom line bullshit: "Maybe if I dumb this down enough, people won't care I am whining about bids for government jobs".

Finally, we have the latest oxiclean (or whatever they're selling) ad with famous pitchman Anthony Sullivan. His partner in sales, Billy Mays, shockingly died last year, thus ending the run of their show "Pitchmen". Well, I guess Billy Mays' face alone will sell shit, because this latest ad has a translucent portrait of Billy in the background giving his thumbs up approval while Tony slings the product. I don't know, it just seems pretty weak to keep that association going. There's nothing really wrong with it, it just seems in bad taste. At least wait a few years so it is not blatantly obvious you are using his image to move product. Bottom line bullshit "The beard sells".

At least with all these incidents, I can just change the channel; and I am sure with the upcoming holiday season, I will be treated with even more fodder to give my thumb extra exercise. Hooray capitalism.

October Gut

the month of October is relatively boring compared to the other months; fall is approaching meaning cool, comfortable temperatures, there are 31 days just like 6 other months and the only nationally recognized holiday is Columbus Day, which to most is less of a 'holiday' and more of a free day off work (for those who are lucky). In reality, October all boils down to Halloween. As soon as you hear October, you visualize a pumpkin, maybe with a face carved in it. Halloween is just a fun day for all (unless you are a devout Christian, in which case it is a celebration of the devil and you have to give out candy in thanks to the 'harvest season' or God's triumph or some baloney). Kids dress up, grownups dress up (often skankily) and candy and shenanigans are had by all.

Of course the world of merchandise knows this, allowing many stores to start selling for the day of fun long before October even arrives. One of the easiest places to recognize this phenomena is in your local grocery store or pharmacy. As soon as you enter the store, the piles and piles of Halloween candy are presented to you like the inside of Scrooge McDuck's vault. It is hard to resist the allure of bright packaging and the promise of sugary treats within. The most attractive part of it all is the fact that Halloween candy is often 'fun-sized' or in miniature form, allowing you to believe that your future indulgences aren't nearly as bad as the full size candies.

Well, herein lies my issue. I heart candy. My house usually has a bowl of some sort of confection lying around and this fact is amplified come October. Sure, I may say the extra bag I pick up at the store is just in preparation for the soon to be visiting kids, but in reality, this precautionary bag is gone long before the end of the month. This replenishing may even happen more than once, as the temptation of those little candy bars within arms reach are too tempting to pass up. So, long story short, October becomes the month of consuming 5 bags of mini sized candy bars and all the sugar and calories that go along with it all, in the spirit of preparing for a day of fun (done for the kids, surely).

Knowing this, I also find it interesting that the following two months are recognized by large gorging events near the month's end. Maybe it is all designed to put that extra layer of fat on before the cold winter months arrive. I will just remember to say that to myself as rationalization for the next time I casually reach over and grab another Butterfinger (fun size of course).

Rules are for Idiots

Yesterday, I visited the Arlington Cemetery outside of Washington, DC. I was there for a class I am taking and we were to meet at the Women In Military Service for America Memorial (a great piece of architecture, btw) at 1:30. I arrived at the Cemetary at 1:10 and since you must pay to park, decided to idle in front of the gate to give me some extra time. I was fully conscious of any cars behind me that also wanted to park, but there was also a second gate for cars to gain access to the parking garage. Well, during this time, a 'security guard' (portly, of course) strolls up to my car and tells me the due to the 'droves' of cars that come into the garage, I need to move immediately. I look behind me and there are no cars in sight. I tell him I understand I would need to move if a car was behind me, yet he insists I need to move to keep the area open. Obviously, this makes no sense. This guy is merely following rules set up by whatever system is in charge of the Arlington Cemetery and not even thinking about the common sense application of said rules. So, instead of arguing with the rules robot, I enter the gate and get my ticket.

Later, as I was leaving the monument and heading back to the garage, I walk down the sidewalk and turn down a road that would be quick access to the garage. About 2/3 of the way down this road before I hit the next sidewalk, I hear "HEY, HEY!" I turn to see another security guard pointing at me, telling me I cannot walk down that way. Instead, I have to use the designated pedestrian walk. He is ignoring the fact that I am almost to the next sidewalk, and it would actually take more time to walk back the way I came to use the 'appropriate' walkway. I understand this is for my safety, since cars would be driving down the road and I was not on a real sidewalk. But at that time, and for the whole time I was walking, no cars passed me and none were in sight. Yet, because of the 'rules' established, I had to revert and comply. Again, no common sense was applied.

I think this is the main reason why police and security guards get so disrespected. Yes, it is their job to enforce the laws of whatever system they are representing, but often the rules they are enforcing create more conflict than needed. When these situations arise where the rules or laws conflict with pure common sense, then the offender will take it out on the enforcer, despite the system being to blame.

I also understand that in this age of litigation, where any infraction can result in some sort of lawsuit, the enforcers of these rules have been guided to make sure strict application of those rules be administered. If for some reason they don't, and something unfortunate were to happen, they would be the ones to blame because the rules were not followed. In order to keep their job, they have to follow the rules of enforcing the rules. It's just sad that these enforcers have to deny common sense for fear of causing their employer to be sued. In fact, the legal system is the biggest proponent of ignoring common sense and only living by rules. Just look at the example of having to put a written warning of "Caution, Contents may be hot" on a cup of coffee, the antithesis of application of common sense.

Beyond the fact that our legal system is a crock of shit, I guess my biggest beef is that these rules being enforced are assuming that I, as the common patron, am an idiot. I am obviously not smart enough to realize other cars might want to use the entry gate to park, so a rule needs to be in place to keep me from blocking their entrance. I am also not smart enough to realize that a road is used by cars and if I stand in that road when I car comes by, I could get hit and injured. I am not intelligent or capable enough to move myself out of the way on my own volition. The example above is even worse since I had to put myself in even more 'danger' in order to comply with the rule being enforced.

Yes, for the most part, rules are there for our own protection and are a necessity for keeping society safe and functional. I would think that we can all agree that anarchy, or no rules at all, just would not work in a world of almost 7 billion individuals. But there needs to be an allowance for questioning the rules that govern us. If a rule or law is in obvious contradiction with common sense or is counter-intuitive to given situation, then why should that rule be applied? My only conclusion is that rules must be applied in a general fashion to protect the whole of society and since there are those that are not as smart as others, rules must conform to the lowest common denominator. Hence, rules are designed for idiots.

Education Motivation

If you haven't heard, the US isn't the best country when it comes to education. In fact, of the major industrialized nations, it isn't even in the top 10. It ranks 18th of 36. 18th. For a country that is the 'envy' of other nations and the embodies the ideals of the modern world, this is a sad, sad fact. This fact is not overlooked by the people and their government. Every administration has had policies to try to ameliorate the education situation in America. Initiatives have been created, regulations worked and re-worked and even some out-of-the-box thinking has been tried. Yet, we continue to see a less than adequate result. So what is the real problem?

To start, I would like to point out that such ideas as smaller classrooms, benchmark testing, test-based school rewards, socio-economic integration and even healthier lunches are all great ideas that could benefit the student, but have each yet to show any real significance in beneficial change. What each of these ideas do is attempt to attack the problem of education from the outside in. They adjust factors of the environment of the student instead of addressing the students themselves. What I mean by this is that the real issue with the education of our students today is the motivation for those to students to educate themselves.

This idea was written about by Robert J. Samuelson in a recent issue of Newsweek and I could not agree more. I feel like the fundamental problem with the education in our country lies purely on the students' shoulders. If necessary, you can also transfer blame from the student to the parents, as it is really the parents' job to instill the value of education to their children. If not for parents, then whoever can be considered a peer or mentor or guardian of said student holds the responsibility. The teachers themselves can share some of this burden, but as they are often just another adult to the kids, the real motivation for motivation will come from the family. The student needs to understand (and the earlier the better) that education is an invaluable element in the sum of their success as an adult.

It is easy to understand how critical motivation can be to a high school student, but you may ask, how can the motivation of a 6 year old toward education be taken as a serious issue? In this case, look at it more as an issue of respect and obedience. At this young age, it can be impressed upon the student that what they are doing is a very important thing and that the more time they spend learning and listening, the more likely they will be happier and successful in the future. Yes, this sounds very idealistic, but it is the kind of values that need to be imprinted on a child's mind to keep that motivation going.

What is troubling is the proliferation of distractions from this truth. Sure, there are the obvious examples of rock stars, reality-tv 'stars' (Teen Mom?) and plenty of stories of rags-to-riches that can catch the eye of the naive student offering diversions from the path of education. However, the bigger difficulty is convincing these students that this education that is so necessary is something that will have to be worked for and will not come easy. In the era of microsecond internet searches, immediate response and instant gratification, it is becoming more and more challenging to instill the value of years and years of the educational process. To me, this is the largest obstacle to overcome that hinders the students' motivation. Why work hard at something for the future when you can be satisfied now? Why keep doing that homework when you have 'much better' things you could be doing?

I could easily go into depth about all the different factors that can deter a student from wanting to continue, but the important thing to recognize is that the solution lies more in addressing these aspects than with the teachers. Yes, every school needs better quality teachers. Yes, they need more resources and funding and more attention to special individual needs. But what every student needs is the reassurance that all this hard work is going to pay off in the end. They need to be encouraged when they get frustrated or hit a bump in the road. They need to be shown that there is no easy way out, that there is a larger picture to be aware of. Granted, this is not an easy task. Parents and teachers must work together while students also have to realize what is at stake. Keep finding the external education solutions as well, but keep in mind the most important factor: the students themselves.

Tom Brady should keep his day job

Recently, Comcast has come out with a marketing campaign for their new 'Xfinity' cable service with an emphasis on all the NFL action it brings to the table. This is a great idea for them, as the 2010 NFL season is about to kick off and the majority of Americans cannot get enough of things football. The marketing people also decided to have a major NFL star be the face of their campaign. Unfortunately, ol' Peyton Manning already had enough endorsements to do. So Comcast got the other popular white QB, Tom Brady to do the job. We all know Tom Brady is liked by the ladies for his manly features and butthole chin (Ok, those who like his face wouldn't call it that). He has also done some acting before, appearing on Saturday Night Live and many other commercials. On paper, it sounds like a great choice.

As an avid consumer of media, I often get to witness an overlap of commercials between television and radio (and print and digital, etc, etc). The aforementioned advertisement with Mr. Brady runs on both my local cable service as well as my local radio stations and its constant running is why I decided to bring this issue up. Both the tv and radio versions are basically the same commercial, with the dialogue being the focal point. This is where the trouble starts. Whoever was Tom's acting coach the day they shot the advertisement must have been hungover, didn't care or just didn't exist. The result is an ad that sounds like a high school drama student reading right off a poorly written script. There are attempts by the 2-time super bowl MVP to change inflection and pacing so it sounds like he's having an actual conversation with the interested client, but most of the dialogue comes up short. Every time I hear this ad played, my first instinct is to change the channel or station, just so I don't have to witness more of the train wreck (anti-rubbernecking?). The television version is even worse, as it looks like Brady needs his joints to be oiled or something. Nothing is more noticeable to me than awkward hand placement.

I know Tom Brady's selling points are not his acting chops. I know most people don't care how an NFL player says words. They could also care less if he looks like a total stiff in a suit in front of a camera. But why put him in this situation? Why not just let real actors say the script while Tom looks nice in the background. I'm sure the ad wizards expected him to do a bit better given his previous 'acting' experience, but about the time they went for the twentieth take, perhaps a rewrite would be in order. For me, I would rather have a well executed advertisement than a pile of doodoo with some famous glitter sprinkled on top. This is especially true if that same ad is going to be played on the radio. If you still need Tom's magical voice somewhere on that radio ad, work around his skills. Use humor to get by his inability. Do something besides a clumsy reading that almost comes off as soliloquy.

Personally, I am not a Brady fan, but I don't really have anything against somebody marketing themselves. He was probably offered a briefcase full of money and just went with it. I blame it more on the heads of the advertising department for putting me through the atrocity of the commercial. Using a famous face to sell you product is almost always a good idea, but when that face becomes more distraction than promotion, you lose all of that advantage. Now I mentally picture Tom Brady talking like a robot in his huddles during games. It's funny, but not in a way that benefits the NFL or Comcast.

This is how it is done well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzToNo7A-94

Fantastic Sports

August has reached us once again and along with another month of oppressive heat comes one large beacon of joy for a majority of 18-35 year old males (though this does not really exclude anyone else). No, it is not the return of children to school, albeit a great source of celebration; rather it is the start of the National Football League season and more importantly, the start of fantasy football season.

Each year, this event brings together groups of 8-16 friends and coworkers for an often intense competition of bragging rights, tactical and sports knowledge and maybe even a nice wad of cash. All of this is commenced by a draft in which the person's 'team' chooses players from the available rosters. These drafts are usually parties in disguise, complete with snacks and beer, which in that point alone is something to look forward to.

For me, the biggest draw of fantasy football is that it instills in me both knowledge and an eagerness to pay attention to the daily happenings of the league. By following the players I have drafted, I care that much more about the outcome of a given game and I find myself much more entranced by a regular season football game. This is not to say that I wouldn't be watching the game anyway, but having players involved that you are now personally invested in makes it that much more interesting. Whether I have a starting running back playing or if my opponent has one of his wide receivers on the field, I am paying more attention, and at least for me, enjoying the game that much more.

Understanding the above paragraph, I have applied this concept to other major sports, mainly baseball and basketball. Again, having a competition that relies on the performance of certain players greatly increased my involvement and knowledge of those sports. For example, I may not know the exact numbers, but I have a better idea of who leads their teams in field goal percentage or turnovers (basketball) as well as which pitchers have a better than average ERA as compared to their WHIP (baseball). When it comes to football, after a given Sunday, it is not uncommon for the typical fantasy player to be able to spout off his players' yards and touchdown for that week. All of these examples show the constantly changing complexities of sports and their statistics that the casual fan may let slip by.

For the serious players, the fantasy sports process then continues into the off seasons of these sports. Incoming rookie classes, trades, injuries and retirements are all noted and analyzed in preparation for the next draft. Fantasy sports can be a year long process, even when only playing a single sport.

But where is the fun in just one? Nowadays, you can participate in a fantasy version of just about any athletic competition. Golf, soccer, auto racing, and even college sports can all be monitored, scored and distributed to a nice spreadsheet of points. I can say I have even once participated in a 'fantasy movie mogul' league where we drafted upcoming movies for stats like opening box office numbers and average screens shown.

For everyone who thinks that fantasy sports are just a waste of time and productivity, consider the process more of conversational tool. Most everyone enjoys some sort of sports game and would be interested in talking about it, even if just to riff on how awful some team or player is. With a little research (mock drafts, scouting reports, expert analysis), your newly found perspicacity may payoff when that conversation starts to wane. For the rest of us, it is just good to associate with friends and deal out a healthy dose of shit-talk for those 17 weeks in the fall. Now back to those draft projections...

Brown Water

Before you get your hopes up, this post has nothing to do with toilets or excrement or broken sewer pipes. Nor does it have anything to do with poor water conditions or anything like that. What this post is tackling is people's blatant disregard for basic respect of businesses.

The event I would like to relate took place at the delicious Elevation Burger in Falls Church, VA. Like many order-to-go eating establishments, this burger joint has a fountain drink dispenser. You buy a cup and fill it up. For those who would just like a glass of water as opposed to the sugary sodas offered in said fountain, the place gives you a small clear cup that is purely intended for holding water only. The damn thing is translucent so you can see what is being held within. Well, after ordering, I sat and waited patiently for my burger and fries. As I waited, the next customer asked for a water cup while placing her order. The cashier gave her the cup and moved on to the next customer. The lady then proceeded to the fountain area and filled her cup right up with Iced Tea. As should be done, the cashier saw this and reminded her that the cup was strictly for water and nothing else. Instead of recognizing her offense and changing, she decided to argue with the cashier about her desire for just a cup of iced tea. Apparently she even felt offended that he would say anything to her about it.

It took quite a bit in me not to just run up and punch this bitch in her face. Yes, this is a bit extreme of a response for such a minor infraction, but it is crap like this that infuriates me. I mean, she wasn't even trying to hide it. It's a clear cup with obvious not-water in it. You want some iced tea? Pay the shitty 2 bucks like everyone else. Your old upper middle class jerk-ass is not exempt from standard ways of business. The icing on the cake is that she was slightly foreign or something so she had that special attitude that made me want to drown her in that 8 oz cup. To be honest, I wouldn't have cared if she instead apologized or at least showed some sort of remorse. No, she was defiant in her right to have a cup of tea as if the burger joint was doing her a disservice by asking her to purchase a normal cup.

In the end, the result was what could be expected. The complaining hag got her way and kept the cup of tea and the business went on as usual. Those of us lucky to be seated near this lady got to hear her bitch about her treatment and that all she wanted was a little tea. Now I believe most rules are bendable, if not breakable, but if you're going to go against a rule that everybody knows and understands at least try to hide it. Put some sprite or something clear in that cup, not something colored as to make it plainly visible you don't give a shit about how things work. Unfortunately, I am pretty sure crap like this happens quite frequently all over the place. My only consolation is the belief that karma will sweep back and take care of these people, maybe with some brown liquid appearing where they hoped water would be (There, now this post is about broken sewer pipes).

Over (air) Conditioned

I came across an article recently lamenting the luxury of what many to be the most important technology during the summer time: air conditioning. Before you guffaw at this with thoughts of 'how can anyone not appreciate air conditioning, especially in the middle of July", let me explain that the complaint is about our social structure as a result of closed cold air systems, not how sad it is to wear a snuggie on your couch when it is 100 degrees outside.

The guy's point was that back in the days before air-conditioned homes, the summertime was an opportunity for neighbors to venture outside and interact with each other, with the outdoors being the more comfortable environment as opposed to the sweltering interiors of most homes. People would go outside and escape the heat that their homes trapped in. These outdoor activities brought neighbors and communities together, encouraging interactions and sharing ways for everyone to beat the heat. Nowadays however, our residences are the escape plan. The houses can be temperature controlled, removing the need to utilize nature's cooling devices. As a result, all that neighborly communication is gone. People choose to stay inside, denying the possibility of making a new experience within his community. Instead, the indoor-dweller resigns himself to the comforts and solitude within his own house.

Let it be clear that this is not some over-predicating idea of the decline of our social structure; that we are destined to be asocial zombies enslaved by refrigerated air systems. The point being made is that in despite an ever increasing population and ever increasing methods of social communication, the prevalence of air conditioning is trending to a more and more privatization of our daily lives. Sure, we still go to the pool or the beach or a farmer's market every once in a while, and we plan big events or vacations in these middle months, but that fundamental notion of a social summer in the everyday sense is no longer the norm.

Granted, there are many homes that still do not have the luxury of blasting cold air in the middle of a heat wave and still rely on the front porch for a relieving cool breeze. But for most of us living in modern residences, the air conditioner is relied upon appliance. This reliance takes us away from relaxing in a rocking chair on the front porch or sitting under an oak tree in the shade. It deters us from taking a stroll on a tree-lined sidewalk or climbing down to the nearest creek or river for a splash. Most importantly, it keeps us from interacting with the others around us that would be doing the same thing. If life is made up of the experiences you have and the people you meet and care about, is it worth it to hole yourself up in your house in the name of comfort? I guess we have telephones and the good old internet (it is 'old' now, right?) to keep those communication lines open, but nothing beats getting outside and living. Unfortunately, our reliance on air conditioning is preventing us from doing just that.

Don't get me wrong, I doubt anyone would consider ridding themselves of their AC (including myself), as it is always reassuring to know you can escape to a cool place, but the effect of having this available has surprisingly more implications than just a higher electricity bill. I also know that we still have plenty of social interactivity in our day to day lives, whether it be in the office or at your local bar or restaurant, but there is something different about the casual happenings of a neighborhood in the summer. Regrettably, these experiences are going by the wayside, with people opting for a confined existence in temperate comfort instead of absorbing a few degrees in nature's open air.

In all, it just struck me as interesting that something as unarguably great as AC still has big implications when thought of on a societal level. I will be sure to think more about this as I sit on my couch tonight in 75 degree comfort instead of out on my deck in the summer heat.

Made for TV Movies

The other day I found myself laying on the couch channel surfing. Okay, this is not out of the ordinary, especially the laying and the surfing. Anyhow, I stopped upon one of the many runs of "Grandma's Boy" on FX. It's a great movie by the people behind such other classics as Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore. The thing is, if I looked 10 degrees below my television, I could see the DVD case of "Grandma's Boy" staring back at me. I own the uncut, much funnier version of this great flick which is at my disposal at any time I choose, yet I decide to watch the cut-for-tv version on basic cable instead.

This wouldn't be much of an issue if I had just watched a segment or two to catch a funny part and then went on to other channels. No, instead I watched about 3/4 of the entire movie before deciding it was enough. Why would I do this? All the swear words are gone, most of the innuendos have been changed to something lame like 'petting the puppy' or some mess and let's not forget, there are freaking commercial breaks. Why would I put up with this when a disc of much better movie goodness is 5 feet in front of me? I can only attribute it to the shear laziness that goes with couch potato-ing.

See, in order to watch said DVD, I would have to 1. get up. 2. turn on dvd player 3. open disc case and put in dvd and 4, most importantly, sit through an entire hour plus of movie. For someone lazing about on a couch in the afternoon, this is far too much effort. Watching a DVD is essentially an hour or so long event that I must participate in. This does not fare well against an option that requires not much more than lifting a finger. Plus, with the TV version, I always have the option of just switching to something else in an instant; not messing with video inputs or pausing.

Sure, I miss a lot of the stuff not suitable for broadcast television, but I can certainly remember what I am missing. Sometimes, that part is kind of fun, seeing what silly words they use to replace actual curse words ('rubber sucker', 'muffin fudger', etc.) and what parts they just blatantly cut out (there's a lot of bong hits in Grandma's boy). Remembering these things is a fun novelty, but why don't I just watch the whole thing as it was intended? That same reason, the DVD takes away my surfing vegetating freedom.

I imagine in the future, my DVD collection will be completely stored on a hard drive or some sort of cloud computing will allow me instant access and this point will no longer hold water. Until then, my poor DVDs continue to sit on the shelf and stare back at me while I watch their bastardized TV counterparts get my viewing pleasure.

World Cup Fever Mild Contagion

Today kicks off the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. The world is excited. Well, every country except the USA. I take that back, there are plenty of people in the US who will be watching as much World Cup action as possible these next few weeks, but I would say as a majority, the US is just not that into it.

For some reason, the appeal is just not there. My only explanation is the fact that most soccer games are low scoring affairs. This would also explain why hockey does not have as much of a following as the other sports. Hockey does have some great physicality to it that can draw people in. Soccer is a more strategic game of possession and progress rather than big hits and flashiness. There aren't many goals, but there is great play in between. At the very least, what needs to be appreciated is the sheer athleticism of the soccer players themselves. These athletes are constantly on the run for 2 45-minute halves, all the while bumping and racing the other players. I'd like to see any baseball or NFL player try to keep up.

I am actually not that interested in comparing sports; I will resign to the fact that soccer just won't be popular here in the states when compared to the other major sports. This fact is fine with me, it means that the actual followers are real fans and the interest will be more genuine. For now, it is time to sit back and enjoy some world class soccer matches and be happy to share the emotion and experience with the rest of the world, albeit less enthusiastic. If the US team makes a deep run, perhaps the story may change.

Why is underwear white?

It's a simple question, but one without a clear answer. Honestly, all the things that underwear is keeping from seeping onto your nice outer layer of clothing is not white (well, maybe one thing, but you shouldn't have underwear on at that point anyway). It is inevitable to end up with some sort of stain in these undergarments. Is the point of these articles being white to make it more evident? A sort of time-to-change indicator that makes a stain painfully obvious?

Thinking logically, it was most likely the cheapest and simplest color for a clothing manufacturer to produce and since it is not actually seen (or at least shouldn't be seen), the color did not really matter. Thinking morally, white is associated with purity and innocence, hence covering up your naughty bits with a swath of white could help the sinners ease their mind. Thinking practically, however, it doesn't compute. Do I want to be shamelessly aware of the remnants of my excrement? Do I need that clear of indication that it is time to change into something fresher? This may make sense for young ones in training, who are new to the underwear game, but I think even by early childhood, the concept of changing one's drawers is understood.

Perhaps I am too judgmental. It is a societal acceptance and expectation that underwear is white. If I were to say, picture a man in his underwear, you would most likely (I hope) picture a guy in a pair of whitey tighties and maybe a white t-shirt. This being the fact, we all know how hard it is to go against convention. There is a wide variety available of colors and patterns available nowadays, now that dye and colored fabrics are a bit cheaper to produce. Still, the majority of your standard underwear is pure cotton white.

I think what it boils down to (there's a pun in there somewhere) is that I don't need to be reminded of my body's minor failings of natural procedures. Nobody appreciates a skidmark and nothing makes it more evident than a white background. It is certainly embarrassing for myself, let alone if a third party were to observe such an atrocity. Is it too much to ask for maybe a tinted insert that doesn't make the inside of these undergarments look like a sepia toned art palette? That way you can keep your pristine white on the outside and not be subjected to an earth-toned Jackson Pollock waiting for you on the inside.

The peril of sympathy

Yesterday, I decided to check out a new restaurant nearby my office. It is a little fried chicken place located in a small strip mall. The place used to be an independent burrito joint that had awesome fried plantains. I am assuming the location is the main reason for the original restaurant's demise, but this chicken establishment moved in pretty quickly after the former tenants left. Anyways, I drive up and see the usual signs: fried chicken, burgers and pizza; all available and ready for delivery. It looked promising.

First off, I like to mention that when it comes to food, it is my philosophy to try most everything at least once. There are the usual automatic rejections, like eyeballs or 'lamb fries' that may be a tad too exotic for my taste. But for the most part, I'll give new things a try. This relates to the fact that I try to patronize all of my local eateries at least once. Many are not good (One place I went had a spinach and cottage cheese sandwich... I like these separately and unfortunately, that's how they should remain), but occasionally you find a diamond in the rough that becomes a place to frequent. All that being said, I had no qualms about giving this chicken place a try (despite the temptation of Chick-fil-A right around the corner).

I should have guessed something was up as I walked in. The place was empty except for me. The lady behind the counter looked eager to please, so I shrugged off the desolation of the place, attributing it to the not-so-prime location. Looking further behind the counter, I noticed the cooks leisurely standing by, seemingly out of action for quite a bit of time. On a side note, I need to mention that all of the staff were of Asian descent, most likely Korean. This is not a big deal at all, as my area is known for great Korean food and BBQ, but the name of this certain establishment happens to be "New York Fried Chicken". Something about that name for the given employees seemed off (these employees were most likely also the owners). These elements aside, I checked out the menu and ordered some chicken fingers and fries. The lady behind the counter happily took my order and the cook started up the fryer. I grabbed a seat (there were plenty to choose from) and waited for my meal.

When it was ready, everything was nice and golden brown and hot out the fryer. However, my first bite vehemently betrayed the expectation my eyes and nose had made. These chicken fingers were the most rubbery, greased soaked pieces of chicken I had ever eaten. I ordered four pieces and only made it (gruelingly) through two. The fries were ok, but I realized they were distinctly similar to Ore-Ida crinkle cut fries that I get from the grocery store. They were nice and crisp though (but really, if you fuck up french fries, you might as well get out of the restaurant business). The meal had been served to me in a travel container, so luckily I just closed it up and packed it to take with me instead of having to toss it out right in front of everyone. Normally, tossing food wouldn't be an issue, but as the sole patron, I had many eyes upon me observing my reactions. I refilled my Dr. Pepper and prepared to leave, very unsatisfied. The lady behind the counter kept smiling and as I got up, she asked if everything was ok and was it good. This is where the dilemma of this post made its appearance. I just didn't have the heart to tell her the food was horrible. I mean, I had already made the decision in my head that I would not revisit this place ever again, but for some reason, I just couldn't relate my disappointment to this lady. She was so cheerful to me during the visit, (I am assuming just because there was someone actually in the place) that I felt it would be just shameful of me to tear her happiness out from underneath her.

The question is, should she be told? Should the employees and owners be made aware that the product they are selling is pretty much garbage? I know this is one of those situations that would eventually work itself out: bad food = no patrons = no business. But I am also sympathetic to the fact that the restaurant industry is a hard business to be in, especially being independent and not affiliated with a franchise or national chain. I felt like I could have helped these entrepreneurs maybe save a little money or effort by letting them know that what they are offering is not going to attract more customers. This would mean, though, that I had to tell them this to their face.

My decisions could easily be attributed to my preference to stay out of confrontations or awkward moments, but I think it lies more with the fact that the whole situation was borderline pathetic and my sympathy for those that worked there prevented me from piling on more bad news. I know in business, it is kill or be killed if you want any type of success. This place was obviously not headed for any type of success. But it is my place to make them aware of this fact? Does my sympathy hurt them more than it helps? Like I said earlier, this situation will work itself out eventually, but I can help but feel like my compassion was not the appropriate response. Cold honesty would have been the best advice to give them business wise, but the compassion from human interaction won out. Sadly, this same compassion that seemed right in the moment will most likely hurt more in the long run.

Militant Morons

Recently, our political atmosphere has been swarmed by angered citizens, upset in the current situation and how it effects either their left or right oriented lives. Some organize rallies, stage protests or call incessantly to their elected representatives to voice their opinions. As outrageous as some of their claims may be (government conspiracies, corruption, bias, not listening to real America, etc.), the disenchanted have yet to resort to anything that could be seen as traitorous or even criminal.

Unfortunately, voicing concerns is not enough for some. Instead, these angry people decide to get together with their 2nd amendment right to bear arms and decide they are going to do things their way. They form local 'militias' and make statements and threats that it will be their way or the highway. These clowns do not succeed. This leads me to my point. Morons like these, no matter how many AK-47s or RPGs they have, will not succeed in changing the government or any aspect of America by force. Ever. How this logical fallacy befalls these people is what concerns me. Sure, they may have their few acres of land secured and locked down, but they will not be successful in implementing any type of new government or sovereignty. How could they? Perhaps they get a decent standoff or create and incident that exposes them to a national audience, but how in the hell can these people actually execute the plan they propose? I am pretty damn sure a national army over a million strong will always win over a rag-tag group of angry militants. A militant stronghold will always fall to a national army if the nation so chooses.

My biggest problem with these fools is the ridiculous claims they make. Ideas such as secession or coups or 'shows of force' are just ridiculous. I understand having differing views of life and wanting to be able to live how you live, but threatening an entire nation of 300 million people to serve the cause of you and 100 or even 1000 of your buddies is not a wise move. These guys will always lose. What gets me more is the fact that one of the main reasons these fools can get away with assembling like this is because they are doing it in a country that allows for that right to protest. Essentially, they are fighting the entity that lets them fight in the first place. America is built on that respect and freedoms of the individual. Militias are concerned with the idea of these freedoms being impeded or taken away. Yet, the fact that these militias exist show that those freedoms are still there and have been there all along.

I don't know it is mere delusions or a need for conflict and purpose that drives these buffoons, but there are much more efficient and civil ways of getting your opinion heard. Countering that thought, it seems to me that if you just keep your head low and not bother others, you will be able to do whatever you had in mind anyway. Not bothering others? Keep as many guns in your house as you want. Don't like government administrations? Don't pay attention to them. Don't like being taxed on your things? Well, that is just too bad. This is the price for living in a country that lets you live this free. If you don't like it, you can always try a different place. Unfortunately, we no longer live in a time where land is still available to pioneers and explorers. The age of colonization and new land is no more. Livable land has all been claimed and all we can do is find the best nation to be affiliated with. This could sound like an inescapable burden, but really, how bad can it be living in the great country of the USA?

Sure, there are a few good answers to that question that show the horrors and tragedies of life, but you can find those all across the globe, and most of the other ones will be far worse than anything you will find here in the US. I just don't get the reasoning behind trying to rise against the country that is letting you do as you wish.

You know what 2:30 feels like...

Yeah, I do, thanks for reminding me. The title of this entry is taken from a recent commercial pitching "5 hour energy". For those unfamiliar with the product, it is a small vial of liquid that is mostly caffeine, dosed in an amount that is supposed to give you that jolt of energy to get you through the next 5 hours. Since it doesn't require sugary water to make it drinkable like the other energy drinks, it claims to not have that 'sugar crash' that is common with the alternatives. This is the main selling point.

I am not questioning the validity of their claim. Caffeine seems to help millions of people everyday, and despite the fact that I do not drink coffee or tea in the morning, I know I could call upon a cup if I really need the help. So, great, the product does what it claims. My beef is with whoever directed the 'star' of their commercial to come off as a complete dickface that I would rather punch than buy vials of drugs from. The guy himself looks like a regular young office worker, completely nonthreatening. However, as soon as he starts talking, you can taste the smug, impish arrogance through the TV screen. Every line he delivers is accompanied by a slight smirk and a slight tilt of the head. Not major, but enough to notice and enough to rile up my violent tendencies. The way the ad is written doesn't help, either. Yes, we know what 2:30 feels like (smirktilt), and 3:30 (smirktilt) AND 4:30 (GODDAMN SMIRKTILT). Don't talk to me like I am a child you smirky fartsniffer, just sling me some uppers and get off my TV!

OK, I will calm down. But seriously, it is sad when the advertisement for a company's product does more damage than the product itself. But maybe we've all been swindled and aggravating through advertisement is actually an ingenious way of keeping the product in our thoughts. No, there is a line. Thought-provoking or near-obnoxious ads keep products in our heads, but ads that push the limits of my patience will immediately deter me from said new product. For products I already know and love, zany ads don't matter much. But if you're trying to sell me something new, don't make me hate it before I even get it in my hands.

In closing, thank you 5-hour energy for making me clench my fists every time I see 2:30 appear on the clock in my office. The same goes for 3:30 and 4:30. It's not enough that the day can certainly drag at those points, but now I have the mental image of some twerp smirking and tilting his head at me in that knowing, condescending manner whose only natural response is a knuckle sandwich to be served on a tray that is his face. Way to sell.

When Cars Fly...

I think we all have the vision of the future where cars are flying around from here to there; highways are actually 'skyways' that have lines of vehicles scooting about in formation and everything runs smoothly. This is the future of transportation, not limited by roads and gravity. It's an idealistic vision, one that encapsulates our hope for technological advancement fully integrated into our daily lives. Well, I hate to be the Debbie Downer of the future coming back to instill doubt and disbelief, but there is no chance flying cars will ever happen. None.

Well, not as we know it. When we think of a car, we think of a vehicle that we pilot to travel from place to place. Driving these cars takes a knowledge of how it works, what pedals and levers do what and how that translates to the vehicle's output. What allows most every competent adult to drive is that these variables only occur in a 2-dimensional field. X and Y. You go forward, you go back, and you turn in between. Gravity does all the work, keeping your Z movement relatively constant according to the ground beneath the tires.

Now, compare this with the knowledge of how to drive (or pilot) a plane. The constant of the Z position is gone. A whole new plane of direction is possible, full 3-dimensional movement. Think now of the amount of traffic accidents and near incidents that happen every day. This happens within the realm of 2d driving. Adding a third dimension of movement would increase these incidents exponentially, simply because of the realm of possibility.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that a flying car would be able to move in said Z axis without worrying about the thrust/lift dynamic. It is capable of hovering and moving up and down with some sort of control. This added maneuverability is great in concept but also allows that much more room for error. Now, instead of just stopping before you hit the car dead ahead, you now must make sure you are aligned properly top to bottom, else that bumper to bumper hit becomes bumper to windshield.

Basically, a 'flying car' would just be far too advanced and prone to error to allow for a simple modification of the system of today's driving. If flying cars or flying personal transportation is to ever happen, the process would need to be fully automated. Automated to take the Z axis back out of the picture. Essentially, the 'flying' becomes a relative position; the road is off the ground and in the air. This, however leaves a bit of a logical gap. The automation process would need to be completed before the cars can fully get off the road and in the sky. But if the automation process is complete, it could be just as easily applied to the cars on the ground. Those 'skyways' of lines of cars are now placed back on the ground, where, again, things are easier to control and maneuver.

It is only when the ground itself becomes an inoperable surface to travel on that the sky becomes useful. This would be the case for over-water travel or for land that is too hospitable for ground travel. The flying cars could become an alternative to building bridges or even boats. But again, this is only possible when the full automation of the vehicles and their lanes of transport are created. Otherwise, we will be sticking to the reliable force of gravity as our co-pilot. We will never get 'flying' cars. We may, however, get 'flying' roads.

Thinner Mints

The snow is finally melting, college basketball is ramping up and good Catholics are denying themselves things they love most. Yes, Spring is finally on its way and after an incredible winter here in the mid-Atlantic, it could not be welcomed more. But perhaps a more indulgent happening of the new season is one seen only at your local school or in front of your neighborhood grocery store. I am talking of course of the annual sale of those delicious cookies by America's Girl Scouts.

Just seeing those boxes stacked up, in neat piles of single colors, gets my stomach rumbling. The fact that buying these delicious morsels helps a national community organization is just icing on the cookie. I have purchased 4 boxes so far, a variety that includes the 'even better when frozen' Thin Mints and my favorite, the coconut covered 'Samoas'. Unfortunately, these pretty little boxes do not last very long. My cherished box of Samoas contained only 15 little rings of deliciousness. I had to pace myself to keep from crushing the whole box in one sitting. This was the same deal with the Tagalongs. The Thin Mints come in 12 pack sleeves as opposed to the 5x3 tray. However, these sleeves are almost just as easy to plow through as the tray set-up, especially with a big glass of milk.

Like most everyone else, I understand how companies function and that everyone needs to make a profit. The boxes are only $3.50 a piece and some of that money actually goes to help the organization, not just the cookie manufacturer. So getting 15 cookies in one box is OK. What I am more concerned about is the actual size of these cookies. Now, perhaps I just remembered these cookies as larger, since as a kid, the ratio of my palm to the cookie would be much closer. But looking at these treats the other day, I noticed how significantly smaller they are than I had at one time imagined. Perhaps it is all a Trompe d'Oeil and the real culprit is the fewer cookies per package. Either way, my joy of caramel and sugar and chocolate is blemished by this concern.

This also relates to an observation of mine of Granola bars. I am pretty sure they were much larger years ago, but again this could be a difference in my perception as my own size grew. I also know that food items today are measured much closer in terms of calories and daily percentages and that lessening the size of these items may make them more acceptable when you look on the side of the packaging for that nutritional information. Just be sure to check that serving size. Nobody just eats 2 cookies. (*I am pretty sure the serving size for the girl scout cookies is more than 2, but I am making a point)

In all, I feel it is a combination of things that has poked a hole in my big bag of loving Girl Scout Cookies. The fewer cookies per package and smaller size are economic concerns that are out of my grasp. It is the perception issue that strikes more at my core, as it is a realization of my old age. It makes me realize I am much closer to having a Girl Scout as a daughter than a classmate. My hands will no longer be filled by 2 or 3 tagalongs. Instead of a 3 thin mint dessert after dinner, I can kill a third of a box of Samoas in between meals.

But despite my sad reflection, I still know that as each year passes, there will be a table set up outside my grocery store in early March ready to dole out some sweet nostalgia. Now if only those boxes were tax deductible...


PS - The 4th variety of cookie I bought was the Dulce de Leche kind, a small regular-looking cookie with caramel pieces. A few cold nights ago, I was dipping these little bites into some hot chocolate. One slipped and fell right into the mug. Instead of fishing it out, I decided to wait til the end and eat my cocoa soaked bite. The cookie did not last that long. In fact, it disintegrated into the cocoa and made it that much better. Caramel hot cocoa with tiny cookie pieces. I highly recommend this and since they cookies are so small anyway, they fit perfectly right in the mug.

Ignoramuses

I have a few email accounts, one for work, one personal, one for registering on websites and junk email and then and extra miscellaneous one that is a leftover from the early days of the internet. This leftover account still gets an email or two a day; mostly spam, but every once in a while I will get something from somebody forwarding along an email to everyone in his address book who doesn't really know me enough to have had updated his contacts with my new email address.

One of those aforementioned senders is a member of my parents' church. I used to attend meetings with this church when they were planning on constructing a new addition. The email circle was to keep those interested posted on events, announcements, etc; the typical email purpose. Well, this gentleman has kept that list and has decided that these same people should be made aware of many of the email forwards found circulating across the world. Some are sort of helpful, making it known there are certain email chains that contain viruses or to be aware of scams from foreign royalty. The greater majority of them are religion-based, asking for days of prayer or to petition (by petition, I mean forward this email to 15 people or else Satan will take over the Earth kind of stuff) some new law that excludes the word "God" or takes away the right to pray. Surprisingly, I do not have a problem with these emails; people need their inspiration and in most cases, religion helps people and gives them security and hope. These emails aren't harming anyone and are spreading positivity, for the most part. However, this clown also forwards email that push the boundary on not only religious matters but on sheer common decency and understanding.

The one that pushed me over the edge was received just a few days ago. Apparently, this has been circulating around since 2001, but the ignorance continues to swirl. This email calls for the boycott of a set of US stamps that celebrate the Islamic holiday of Eid. This email says things like "remember the MUSLIM bombing of" the USS Cole, the embassies, 9/11, etc. It says to "remember all the American lives that were lost in those vicious Muslim attacks" and to 'pass this along to every patriotic American' and honor the USA. I am no Muslim apologist or anything, but I feel like this is a plainly and purely obvious example of discrimination and ignorance. Yes, those attacks were caused by extreme Muslims, but every religion has its extremists and incurred tragedies. Only small minded bigots would generalize this into hating on an entire population. Only morons would associate a holiday stamp with terrorist attacks.

Herein lies my dilemma. I know that these type of people exist. I know that this type of misinformation is common and easily spread to those looking for excuses or someone to blame. My main problem is that this comes from a church group, whom, from my experience is quite friendly and tolerant. This email spreads misinformation and bigotry and is something I wouldn't expect to come from these people. An easy solution for me would be to just reply and ask to take me off the list. But to be honest, I want to stay on this mailing list so I can see what kind of bullshit continues to get passed around. As bad as the content may be, I almost feel better knowing exactly what is going around so I am aware of what kind of ignorance is out there in my world. I would rather know of this and other kinds of idiocy than be caught off guard by the latest naive trend. So, I end up saying nothing. I can only hope the other recipients also notice the pure ridiculousness of the email and can see it reached them simply by some nut pushing the forward button on another email he received. But just like any piece of media, some will believe what they read without thinking for themselves, continuing the chain of ignorance and miscommunication. That's far scarier than a stamp with Islamic calligraphy.

A damn shame.

Yesterday was the day Massachusetts held the election to find a replacement for the recently deceased Senator, Edward Kennedy. Sen. Ted Kennedy had served his country for 46 years, after taking the seat of his brother John had resigned the seat to become the President of the United States. He was the second most senior member of the Senate at the time of his death and was the fourth-longest serving Senator in U.S history. He campaigned constantly for universal health care and helped pass many laws to try to reach that goal.

What is inopportune about yesterday's election is the sheer timing of it. Senator Kennedy got to see a Democrat take office in the White House with the same goal of universal health care. . He did not make it to see it to law, but there is still hope it will come to fruition. Everyone knows that universal health care is a controversial topic among the population, but this is the closest it has ever come to being made law. Democrats control the Senate and can make things move along. It is so unfortunate that the man whose goal was universal health care passed on at its most critical stage. With his seat empty, Massachusetts (a Democratic state if there ever was one) had to fill it. Continuing this misfortune is the American's incapacity for patience and foresight. Instead of putting another Democrat into the seat, something it has been doing since 1979, the reactionaries of Massachusetts decided a Republican would be a better fit. Despite the fact that this Republican has claimed to be an 'independent thinker', I feel the message sent has less to do with him or even Massachusetts, but rather those that have strong feelings about the current administration and its policies.

This, of course, is our political system as usual. Bipartisanship is all but a fairy tale. If a compromise is made one way, then the next election will make up for it the other way. This is expected. What sucks about the whole thing in this case is the underlying legacy that is being swept aside in what I see as a purely reactionary measure. Who cares if this Democratic Senator served the majority of his life helping Americans and the causes he believed in. Who cares that the people of Massachusetts elected him over and over to keep striving for those goals. It is all intensified by the fact that his one seat is crucial in the party stakes in the Senate.

To be honest, I am not surprised at how things played out; I just am saddened by the continuous tragedy that surrounds the Kennedys. They are taken before their time, leaving things undone. I am not really one for tradition or 'that's the way it was' type of stuff, but this Massachusetts election seemed to be more of a political exercise than a mission for what is right. That has me worried more than health care or abortion or what have you, that people will are more preoccupied with the politics and affiliations than the real causes.

We won't be fooled again...

First off, Happy New Year! It's hard to believe it is actually 2010. It's the future, man. Too bad it is still the same old reality we have meandered along through so far. But I digress...

What I'd like to rant about is brought upon by the recent events of Christmas Day, those by the now infamous "underwear bomber". After the 'attack', noises were made, security was beefed, and Republicans scorned the President for not reacting fast enough (though Bush took longer after the 'shoe bomber' incident). Anyways, it has continued to be a story of note and a hassle to airline travelers everywhere. The thing that gets me is that the guy was stopped not by security or screeners or intrepid investigators hot on his tail, but rather the fellow passengers on the plane.

I continue to believe that there is no fool proof way to foil terrorists or terrorism or wacked out people forever. Somehow, someway, people will find a method that allows them to disrupt the way things are. The question arises when methods to stall or thwart these efforts interferes with the overall quality of life. Nobody wants a 'big brother' police state of constant observation and we can all assume this will not fully happen (Yes, everything is recorded nowadays, but nobody really watches). In a much lesser sense though, nobody wants to have to arrive 6 hours before a flight and sit around waiting in lines just to do some traveling. I have taken some flights recently, and though they security measures are not egregious, they are still a huge pain in the ass and depending on the time and day, could be a whole lot worse.

What I would like to propose is that we still keep a modicum of security on the front end of the airport process, but we really rely on our fellow passengers to do the heavy lifting. Of course you would still screen for weapons and knives (not nail clippers you ridiculous TSA members) and still check passports and look for suspicious behavior. But I feel nowadays, people are far more aware of their fellow flyers and will say something if somebody is mixing odd liquids in the seat near them. No more bans on liquid containters (Honestly, is 3 oz the absolute limit? If anything, somebody will find a way to make explosives out of 2.9 oz). No more rattling through the bags of 70 year old ladies or taking Play-doh away from kids. Best of all, no more rows and rows of lines for security. To be honest, the poor workers in these security lines don't all seem to be that into the job anyway. There is enough awareness in the flying population to speak up and alert when they see something out of place. No longer will anyone sit by on a plane if there's a chance it will crash into the side of a building.

On the downside of this people-based security is that it can be easily overruled by discrimination and racism. Yes, most of the terrorist and bomb suspects are middle eastern, or in the underwear case, Nigerian, so a profile of suspicion is already well planted. If a referendum was made that actually changed this and let people know they should be the ones looking out or themselves, the actions of every middle eastern or Nigerian person will be deeply scrutinized and followed. This would make everyone who isn't trying to blow up a plane pay the price for the one or two who looks like them that did.

I think what got me the most about the incident is the reactionary beefing of security when the security process was not necessarily the problem. There will always be loopholes and ways to get around the process (I mean, I personally do not want security personnel patting down my junk). The current system does more than enough to weed out potential threats. Despite our current pass-the-blame society, it is now the responsibility of the people to help keep themselves safe. Joining together as a community responsible for each other is the best security measure possible and it just may make things run smoother in the future.