So, I am now an ordained Dudeist priest. True story. Have a look at what it's all about at dudeism.com. I happened across it and determined that the basic philosophy behind it is strikingly in line with the way in which I want to live my life. I like to take it easy and not make too big a deal out of things. Whatever happens, you know, you just gotta roll with it.
The good news there is, that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on things, and it certainly doesn't mean that I can't proclaim it loudly, as I tend to do. It mostly just means that, whatever I believe and whatever I say, it's cool. It's out there, and you can do what you like with it. If you don't buy what I'm selling, that's fine. No harm, no foul.
Mostly, I'm thinking that people just need to leave other people alone. So many people just have to be in someone else's business, and that ain't cool. In general, I don't really care what anyone else is doing, with a big qualifier: as long as it isn't hurting or inconveniencing anyone else against their will. The problem with that is, for some reason, a lot of people just can't seem to help interfering with what other people are doing when they really have no business doing so. This can't just be human nature, I know a handful of people, including myself and my lovely wife, who just don't get involved in other people's affairs because it doesn't affect us and has no bearing on the way we live our lives. My conclusion then is that there is societal pressure to, well, put societal pressure on other people. Humans are, by nature, xenophobic. In philosophical terms, we are wired to be adverse to the Other. In lay terms, we shit our pants when presented with anything unlike us or the way we know life to be.
Jean-Paul Sartre famously said, "Hell is other people." Clearly, there is something to that. That is the very reason why most people tend to react so strongly (and negatively) when they encounter a person representing a very different lifestyle from their own. It's because the world outside their own monkeysphere is, in short, terrifying to them. (For more on the Monkeysphere, look at the Wikipedia article on it's technical term, Dunbar's Number or, for a more readable and humorous take on it, try this: http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html. I strongly recommend the latter.)
These concepts all intertwine, and all are valid and important. But you know what, dude? Other people ain't so bad. They're just trying to get through their lives just like you or me. They might go about it a little differently, or even a lot differently, but so what? Why should that be a problem for you? Just do your thing and let other people do theirs, and things will be a whole lot groovier, you know?
Monday, November 30, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Not Knowing
Well, I don't have a Douchelord of the Day today. I could easily make it Sarah Palin, but I could do that just about any day. She did, of course, write a memoir, despite the fact that memoirs are usually reserved for people who have, you know, accomplished something in their life. Nevertheless, she did write the thing, and has subsequently done the whole book signing tour and all that. The book has proven to be extremely popular, because this country is full of idiots. Case in point:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/palin-supporters-struggle_n_367800.html
If you don't watch the video there (you should), what is basically going on there is that a reporter is questioning people waiting in line for Sarah Palin to sign their books about what they like about Sarah Palin. The responses are almost entirely vague, and when the reporter asks the people specifically which policies of hers they support, they are hard-pressed to come up with anything (perhaps because she doesn't really have any policies?) This video filled me with a lot of anger and frustration with people. Not because of their politics, but because of their inability to explain why they think the way they think, and why they support a woman they know almost nothing about.
It is stupefying to me that people will support something or someone without knowing why they are doing so. This is why I'm not just going after Palin here, because it happens all across the political spectrum. There are plenty of people who support President Obama without knowing the first thing about his policies (though there are, I suspect, fewer instances of this). What bothers me about all of this is that people aren't actually willing to examine people or issues with any depth. For these people, a knee-jerk reaction does just fine. Nevermind the facts, we don't need 'em! I feel strongly about this, I don't know why, and that works for me! Am I the only one who has a problem with that mindset?
I'm not suggesting that emotions should be left out of the equation altogether. Emotions are a big part of what makes us people. But this should not happen so frequently at the expense of rationale, and everyone should not be so wary of putting any thought into anything. If you're going to support Sarah Palin, then okay, but have a good reason for it. That goes for any politician or any issue. Don't just blindly follow the pack. Have an idea, have an independent thought.
On a final note, this is why the idea of Sarah Palin holding any important office in this country is nothing short of terrifying to me. It isn't just because she stands for nothing real. It isn't just because she is astonishingly stupid. More than that, it's because of the sorts of people who support her. Large crowds of poorly-informed people rallying behind a dense but inexplicably influential individual...that is really, truly frightening, and it's exactly the sort of reason that the world is in the sorry state it's in today.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/palin-supporters-struggle_n_367800.html
If you don't watch the video there (you should), what is basically going on there is that a reporter is questioning people waiting in line for Sarah Palin to sign their books about what they like about Sarah Palin. The responses are almost entirely vague, and when the reporter asks the people specifically which policies of hers they support, they are hard-pressed to come up with anything (perhaps because she doesn't really have any policies?) This video filled me with a lot of anger and frustration with people. Not because of their politics, but because of their inability to explain why they think the way they think, and why they support a woman they know almost nothing about.
It is stupefying to me that people will support something or someone without knowing why they are doing so. This is why I'm not just going after Palin here, because it happens all across the political spectrum. There are plenty of people who support President Obama without knowing the first thing about his policies (though there are, I suspect, fewer instances of this). What bothers me about all of this is that people aren't actually willing to examine people or issues with any depth. For these people, a knee-jerk reaction does just fine. Nevermind the facts, we don't need 'em! I feel strongly about this, I don't know why, and that works for me! Am I the only one who has a problem with that mindset?
I'm not suggesting that emotions should be left out of the equation altogether. Emotions are a big part of what makes us people. But this should not happen so frequently at the expense of rationale, and everyone should not be so wary of putting any thought into anything. If you're going to support Sarah Palin, then okay, but have a good reason for it. That goes for any politician or any issue. Don't just blindly follow the pack. Have an idea, have an independent thought.
On a final note, this is why the idea of Sarah Palin holding any important office in this country is nothing short of terrifying to me. It isn't just because she stands for nothing real. It isn't just because she is astonishingly stupid. More than that, it's because of the sorts of people who support her. Large crowds of poorly-informed people rallying behind a dense but inexplicably influential individual...that is really, truly frightening, and it's exactly the sort of reason that the world is in the sorry state it's in today.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Shiny
Apologies for disappearing for a few days there, things got pretty busy and I didn't have my usual constant internet access. Never fear, though, for I have returned with a brand new Douchelord of the Day. Actually, it's a woman, so would that make her a Douchelordess? Douchelady? Whatever the correct word is, that's what she is.
I'm talking about Stephenie Meyer. To start, your first name is spelled stupidly. I know, you didn't pick your name. I don't care. It's still stupid. Second, and of much greater importance, you have unleashed upon an unsuspecting world a string of poorly-written books and an excuse for teenage girls to wear shirts proclaiming their love of men who sparkle. For either of these offenses, you should be tied to a chair and beaten with a hammer. For both...well, as sick and twisted as the collective human consciousness is, we have yet to come up with a punishment suitable for the plague which you have inflicted upon humanity.
Don't get me wrong, it's great if people are out there reading books, and there are plenty of good ones. These books, however, were not written to tell any great or even vaguely original story. They were not written with anything resembling talent. They were written with the sole purpose of making a lot of money. There's nothing wrong with making money, but Ms. Meyer, did you really have to do it in a way that also caused hundreds of teenage girls to accumulate in every bookstore and movie theater in the country simultaneously? You knew that would happen; you had to know it, because you wrote your female lead character as essentially an empty shell, so that any young female reader could simply plug herself into that role while reading, and you then placed that character in a story that virtually any young female reader would wish to find herself in: a world different from her own, where an exceptionally youthful-looking 104-year-old man would sweep her off her feet, because that is perfectly reasonable to expect.
Oh wait, no it's not. In fact, that's the same sort of myth that Disney has been feeding the youth of America for damn near a century now, which is exactly why we have a bunch of damn emo kids sulking around, reading these books and watching these movies, because everyone has a fucking unrealistic expectation of love and romance and life in general. Shame on you, Ms. Meyer, for perpetuating that myth to the most susceptible generation we've produced thus far. You deserve a far worse fate than whatever the universe has planned for you.
I'm talking about Stephenie Meyer. To start, your first name is spelled stupidly. I know, you didn't pick your name. I don't care. It's still stupid. Second, and of much greater importance, you have unleashed upon an unsuspecting world a string of poorly-written books and an excuse for teenage girls to wear shirts proclaiming their love of men who sparkle. For either of these offenses, you should be tied to a chair and beaten with a hammer. For both...well, as sick and twisted as the collective human consciousness is, we have yet to come up with a punishment suitable for the plague which you have inflicted upon humanity.
Don't get me wrong, it's great if people are out there reading books, and there are plenty of good ones. These books, however, were not written to tell any great or even vaguely original story. They were not written with anything resembling talent. They were written with the sole purpose of making a lot of money. There's nothing wrong with making money, but Ms. Meyer, did you really have to do it in a way that also caused hundreds of teenage girls to accumulate in every bookstore and movie theater in the country simultaneously? You knew that would happen; you had to know it, because you wrote your female lead character as essentially an empty shell, so that any young female reader could simply plug herself into that role while reading, and you then placed that character in a story that virtually any young female reader would wish to find herself in: a world different from her own, where an exceptionally youthful-looking 104-year-old man would sweep her off her feet, because that is perfectly reasonable to expect.
Oh wait, no it's not. In fact, that's the same sort of myth that Disney has been feeding the youth of America for damn near a century now, which is exactly why we have a bunch of damn emo kids sulking around, reading these books and watching these movies, because everyone has a fucking unrealistic expectation of love and romance and life in general. Shame on you, Ms. Meyer, for perpetuating that myth to the most susceptible generation we've produced thus far. You deserve a far worse fate than whatever the universe has planned for you.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Late Nights
I'll get right to the point here today, because I've got somewhere to go shortly. I'm already getting behind on my feature, but I've got a grand Douchelord of the Day for you now! Today's Douchelord is Jay Leno. He didn't do anything in particular in the last couple days to warrant that, it's kind of a lifetime achievement award in this case, because he's been poisoning late-night television for so many years. It's strange to me that the guy is considered a comedian when he doesn't actually make any jokes. Have you listened to his monologues? The basic construction is something like this: he brings up something that's been in the news that day and says something very obvious about it. No, there's not more. That really is all he does. Why does this entitle him to not one, but two late-night shows? I know the guy has been doing it for a long time, which leads me to believe that people are just assuming that just because he's been around for awhile, he knows what he's doing. Nope, sorry, longevity doesn't cut it in my book. Just means you were sucking at your job pretty hard a decade ago and you just wouldn't go away. I'm calling you out, Mr. Leno! You are nothing but smoke and mirrors, and in your chosen profession, that makes you nothing more than a Douchelord.
I should add, however, that Mr. Leno, while he is quite unfunny, is far from the worst thing on TV. I don't follow it all closely enough to know what variations of these shows they've got on these days, be it Survivor: Guantanamo Bay, American Idol's Trailer Trash Edition, or Dancing with the Porn Stars, but how much do you need to see to know that the very existence of these shows is causing aliens from another planet to look at us and consider blowing us all up just for being the worst civilization ever?
I should add, however, that Mr. Leno, while he is quite unfunny, is far from the worst thing on TV. I don't follow it all closely enough to know what variations of these shows they've got on these days, be it Survivor: Guantanamo Bay, American Idol's Trailer Trash Edition, or Dancing with the Porn Stars, but how much do you need to see to know that the very existence of these shows is causing aliens from another planet to look at us and consider blowing us all up just for being the worst civilization ever?
Monday, November 16, 2009
Pointing Fingers
Today, I am presenting to you a surprising choice for Douchelord of the Day. Today's honoree-of-sorts is not someone who would typically qualify for this award, but hypocrisy has a way of rapidly climbing the ranks of the Douchelordesque among us. Please observe:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama
Yes, this is what prompted me to name President Obama as Douchelord of the Day, even if it is only for one day. To be perfectly blunt about this, it is a severe double standard to call out the government of another country for its censorship of the internet while your own Federal Communications Commission (your friendly neighborhood FCC, for all you kids out there) is attempting to end net neutrality in your own country! Wake up, Mr. Obama! Allowing the FCC to end net neutrality is tantamount to giving internet providers a license to censor. Hey, you know what country that sounds like? I'll give you a hint, Mr. Obama: it's the same country that you just pointed at and denounced for its censorship policies. Perhaps you ought to make sure that this sort of thing is in order in your own country before criticizing another country for the same thing, for only then can you avoid the title of Douchelord of the Day.
Seriously though, censorship in any form is not cool. Do you really want anybody else telling you what you can and can't do, what you can and can't read, what you can and can't watch, what you can and can't think? That's the direction we're heading in, people.
On a related note, I happened across this piece regarding the First Lady:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652
In short, Michelle Obama has hired twenty-something attendants, which the article is quick to take her to task for. Now look, does Mrs. Obama really need all those attendants? No, I'm sure she doesn't. I'm sure she knows it too. Yet, I am not critical of her for it, because that's twenty-something people getting paid to do something who otherwise would not be. The article talks about Mrs. Obama's excesses during a recession; I am quick to point out that the best way to end a recession is to make sure that PEOPLE HAVE JOBS. This isn't even really news, it just pissed me off to see that.
One last thing, since every other football fan is offering their two cents about it: should Bill Belichick have opted to go for it on fourth down with his team leading by six and two minutes to play against the Colts? Clearly, I'm not in the minority here in saying that the decision was temporary insanity on his part. I don't typically care for conservative play-calling or game planning, but this was an instance that called for just that. In that situation, you cannot assume that you get the first down. You have to assume that you won't, and that Peyton Manning will have less than thirty yards to go to win the game. You didn't have to score, you just had to keep the Colts out of the end zone. You have to punt in that situation. Yes, it's not a stretch for Manning to drive for seventy or eighty yards either, but the odds are a lot better in that scenario. At a minimum, Manning has to break a sweat to win the game there. I don't get it, but for once I'm not alone there.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama
Yes, this is what prompted me to name President Obama as Douchelord of the Day, even if it is only for one day. To be perfectly blunt about this, it is a severe double standard to call out the government of another country for its censorship of the internet while your own Federal Communications Commission (your friendly neighborhood FCC, for all you kids out there) is attempting to end net neutrality in your own country! Wake up, Mr. Obama! Allowing the FCC to end net neutrality is tantamount to giving internet providers a license to censor. Hey, you know what country that sounds like? I'll give you a hint, Mr. Obama: it's the same country that you just pointed at and denounced for its censorship policies. Perhaps you ought to make sure that this sort of thing is in order in your own country before criticizing another country for the same thing, for only then can you avoid the title of Douchelord of the Day.
Seriously though, censorship in any form is not cool. Do you really want anybody else telling you what you can and can't do, what you can and can't read, what you can and can't watch, what you can and can't think? That's the direction we're heading in, people.
On a related note, I happened across this piece regarding the First Lady:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652
In short, Michelle Obama has hired twenty-something attendants, which the article is quick to take her to task for. Now look, does Mrs. Obama really need all those attendants? No, I'm sure she doesn't. I'm sure she knows it too. Yet, I am not critical of her for it, because that's twenty-something people getting paid to do something who otherwise would not be. The article talks about Mrs. Obama's excesses during a recession; I am quick to point out that the best way to end a recession is to make sure that PEOPLE HAVE JOBS. This isn't even really news, it just pissed me off to see that.
One last thing, since every other football fan is offering their two cents about it: should Bill Belichick have opted to go for it on fourth down with his team leading by six and two minutes to play against the Colts? Clearly, I'm not in the minority here in saying that the decision was temporary insanity on his part. I don't typically care for conservative play-calling or game planning, but this was an instance that called for just that. In that situation, you cannot assume that you get the first down. You have to assume that you won't, and that Peyton Manning will have less than thirty yards to go to win the game. You didn't have to score, you just had to keep the Colts out of the end zone. You have to punt in that situation. Yes, it's not a stretch for Manning to drive for seventy or eighty yards either, but the odds are a lot better in that scenario. At a minimum, Manning has to break a sweat to win the game there. I don't get it, but for once I'm not alone there.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
New Feature!
Inspired by the comments of a friend who remarked on my free-floating hatred (which, on that occasion, had been directed at Chad Kroeger and Nickelback), I've decided to attempt at least a semi-regular feature here, which I will call...
DOUCHELORD OF THE DAY!
Today's Douchelord comes to us courtesy of Fox News. When talking about Fox News, there are always several strong candidates for the leading Douchelord on any given day, and on this particular day, the number one Douchelord is none other than Sean Hannity. The guy is vile enough when he's just talking, but it's a whole other matter when the host of a television program on any network attempts to deliberately mislead the viewing audience. A few days ago, while discussing a small-ish health care rally in Washington, he aired footage of a much larger Tea Party protest in an attempt to make the health care rally appear to be a more populated event. Of course, Jon Stewart noticed some discrepancies in the video, most notably that it was taken during the summer (as an aside, isn't it interesting how the "fake news" in this country is more honest than the so-called "real news"?)
Of course, Mr. Hannity was forced to issue an apology, and might have saved himself from being the Douchelord of this day, but he just had to insist that the airing of that video was accidental. Well, Mr. Hannity, that is an outright lie, and everybody knows it. The videos that are aired on your show, any show, are loaded ahead of time. You know what videos you are going to put on the air, and you have time to check and make sure you have the right one. It is very apparent that you intentionally and willfully attempted to mislead your viewing audience, Mr. Hannity, and for that, I have no choice but to name you as the Douchelord of the Day.
DOUCHELORD OF THE DAY!
Today's Douchelord comes to us courtesy of Fox News. When talking about Fox News, there are always several strong candidates for the leading Douchelord on any given day, and on this particular day, the number one Douchelord is none other than Sean Hannity. The guy is vile enough when he's just talking, but it's a whole other matter when the host of a television program on any network attempts to deliberately mislead the viewing audience. A few days ago, while discussing a small-ish health care rally in Washington, he aired footage of a much larger Tea Party protest in an attempt to make the health care rally appear to be a more populated event. Of course, Jon Stewart noticed some discrepancies in the video, most notably that it was taken during the summer (as an aside, isn't it interesting how the "fake news" in this country is more honest than the so-called "real news"?)
Of course, Mr. Hannity was forced to issue an apology, and might have saved himself from being the Douchelord of this day, but he just had to insist that the airing of that video was accidental. Well, Mr. Hannity, that is an outright lie, and everybody knows it. The videos that are aired on your show, any show, are loaded ahead of time. You know what videos you are going to put on the air, and you have time to check and make sure you have the right one. It is very apparent that you intentionally and willfully attempted to mislead your viewing audience, Mr. Hannity, and for that, I have no choice but to name you as the Douchelord of the Day.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Chilisaurus
Those of you who remember my editorials in the newspaper back in high school might recall that I like to alternate the serious pieces with something a little more fun. With that in mind, my topic today is chili. And I'm not talking any old chili here. This is my Cincinnati chili rant.
You really shouldn't ever be caught so much as looking at Skyline Chili. By chili standards, the place is downright terrifying. I mean, sure, it's a fine place to get your chili. That is, if you like your chili all watery and flavorless. Let's face it, any idiot can put a hot dog on a bun with mustard, onions, and shredded cheese. The real coup de grace is the chili, but it just won't do if the chili is making your hot dog bun all soggy. If your hot dog is falling through the bun, then you've got a real problem there. The only thing that should fall off of your cheese coney is the cheese. That's sure to happen at Skyline too, since they have to overload their coneys with cheese in order to mask the subpar taste of their chili. And you can forget about enjoying your three-way at Skyline, since you won't be able to adequately mix your chili with your spaghetti noodles and cheese. The chili would have to actually contain a significant amount of meat in order to blend properly, and Skyline chili simply lacks the proper protein.
Now, if you want some real Cincinnati chili, your only real option is Goldstar. To start, the ambiance in a Goldstar restaurant is far superior to any Skyline. The red and gold colors give it a feeling of warmth, which is what you want from your chili, much in contrast to the cold blue of Skyline. At Goldstar, the other ingredients serve to complement the taste, rather than hide it. Instead of overloading your coney with other stuff, they strike the perfect balance of chili and cheese, with just the right touch of mustard and onions, if you like. And you simply won't have to worry about a soggy hot dog bun. Even if you let it sit for ten or fifteen minutes to cool, or while it is in transport, the bun won't fall apart on you. The chili actually has plenty of meat in it, wateriness will not be an issue at Goldstar. This will also help with your three-way, since the chili will actually adhere just right to the cheese and noodles, rather than sitting in a puddle at the bottom of your plate. We all know, though, that texture is not the ultimate deciding factor with food. The bottom line is the taste, and the fact of the matter is, Goldstar has it in spades, and Skyline just doesn't. If for some reason you prefer your chili to be watery and bland, then go enjoy your Skyline. If you want some chili with real robust flavor and some actual substance, then you'll want to enjoy true Cincinnati chili at Goldstar.
One final note: Goldstar Chili did not pay me to write this, nor did they offer me free supplies of their fine chili. I write this only to guide some poor lost souls who do not yet know what their source of chili should be.
You really shouldn't ever be caught so much as looking at Skyline Chili. By chili standards, the place is downright terrifying. I mean, sure, it's a fine place to get your chili. That is, if you like your chili all watery and flavorless. Let's face it, any idiot can put a hot dog on a bun with mustard, onions, and shredded cheese. The real coup de grace is the chili, but it just won't do if the chili is making your hot dog bun all soggy. If your hot dog is falling through the bun, then you've got a real problem there. The only thing that should fall off of your cheese coney is the cheese. That's sure to happen at Skyline too, since they have to overload their coneys with cheese in order to mask the subpar taste of their chili. And you can forget about enjoying your three-way at Skyline, since you won't be able to adequately mix your chili with your spaghetti noodles and cheese. The chili would have to actually contain a significant amount of meat in order to blend properly, and Skyline chili simply lacks the proper protein.
Now, if you want some real Cincinnati chili, your only real option is Goldstar. To start, the ambiance in a Goldstar restaurant is far superior to any Skyline. The red and gold colors give it a feeling of warmth, which is what you want from your chili, much in contrast to the cold blue of Skyline. At Goldstar, the other ingredients serve to complement the taste, rather than hide it. Instead of overloading your coney with other stuff, they strike the perfect balance of chili and cheese, with just the right touch of mustard and onions, if you like. And you simply won't have to worry about a soggy hot dog bun. Even if you let it sit for ten or fifteen minutes to cool, or while it is in transport, the bun won't fall apart on you. The chili actually has plenty of meat in it, wateriness will not be an issue at Goldstar. This will also help with your three-way, since the chili will actually adhere just right to the cheese and noodles, rather than sitting in a puddle at the bottom of your plate. We all know, though, that texture is not the ultimate deciding factor with food. The bottom line is the taste, and the fact of the matter is, Goldstar has it in spades, and Skyline just doesn't. If for some reason you prefer your chili to be watery and bland, then go enjoy your Skyline. If you want some chili with real robust flavor and some actual substance, then you'll want to enjoy true Cincinnati chili at Goldstar.
One final note: Goldstar Chili did not pay me to write this, nor did they offer me free supplies of their fine chili. I write this only to guide some poor lost souls who do not yet know what their source of chili should be.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Help Me Jebus!
No, but seriously, what's with this Jesus dude? Well, I recently found myself in the middle of a debate of sorts about Jesus (and the whole religion train wreck thing), so when I came across this piece, I made note of it:
http://www.y-jesus.com/bornid_1.php?gclid=CMfD2puS_Z0CFRUwpAodl1mgrw
Now, that thing is pretty biased for something purporting to be objective, but that shouldn't come as any sort of surprise. There's a pretty rampant inability in this country for people to behave in any sort of rational way, but nevermind that for the moment. The main argument of this piece is that Jesus did exist as a historical figure (it also goes somewhat further than that, so keep that in mind). Being trained as a historian, I'll be quick to point out that the piece offers no references, offering only non-cited stories to support the argument. Okay, fine, then we'll take it with a grain of salt, shall we? That said, the article's contention that Jesus existed as a historical figure is indeed supported by most historians based on secular evidence. True, there aren't any written records of Jesus contemporary with his life, but this isn't uncommon for this time period. So we look instead to circumstantial evidence, which largely suggests that yes, Jesus the person did exist. Hell, even religious texts from Judaism and Islam mention the guy! The general consensus of these and the more objective writings is that Jesus was around, and he was a good guy with some good, if idealistic thoughts on how to live your life, and that he was very influential among a select circle. Frankly, though, there just is not any objective evidence which suggests that he was anything other than a mortal man. What is much more likely is that his exploits were, well, exploited posthumously. That is to say, he was made out to be much more than he actually was, or perhaps even claimed to be. This is not uncommon; a number of historical figures have either been deified (though most not as much as Jesus) or demonized after their lifetime far beyond what they actually were. And, well, if you're going to build a religion around a guy, you'd probably do well to play up his strengths and exaggerate them wherever necessary.
Now, I know, then you've got the whole "faith" argument and all that. I'm not arguing against that; if you want to have faith, go ahead. There are some things that I have faith in myself, even without any particular empirical evidence to support the belief. My point is, it isn't unreasonable to try to establish a balance between faith and logic in your life (forgive me, I'm a Libra, I love balance), so if you're going to have faith, it might as well be faith in something reasonable. Savvy?
http://www.y-jesus.com/bornid_1.php?gclid=CMfD2puS_Z0CFRUwpAodl1mgrw
Now, that thing is pretty biased for something purporting to be objective, but that shouldn't come as any sort of surprise. There's a pretty rampant inability in this country for people to behave in any sort of rational way, but nevermind that for the moment. The main argument of this piece is that Jesus did exist as a historical figure (it also goes somewhat further than that, so keep that in mind). Being trained as a historian, I'll be quick to point out that the piece offers no references, offering only non-cited stories to support the argument. Okay, fine, then we'll take it with a grain of salt, shall we? That said, the article's contention that Jesus existed as a historical figure is indeed supported by most historians based on secular evidence. True, there aren't any written records of Jesus contemporary with his life, but this isn't uncommon for this time period. So we look instead to circumstantial evidence, which largely suggests that yes, Jesus the person did exist. Hell, even religious texts from Judaism and Islam mention the guy! The general consensus of these and the more objective writings is that Jesus was around, and he was a good guy with some good, if idealistic thoughts on how to live your life, and that he was very influential among a select circle. Frankly, though, there just is not any objective evidence which suggests that he was anything other than a mortal man. What is much more likely is that his exploits were, well, exploited posthumously. That is to say, he was made out to be much more than he actually was, or perhaps even claimed to be. This is not uncommon; a number of historical figures have either been deified (though most not as much as Jesus) or demonized after their lifetime far beyond what they actually were. And, well, if you're going to build a religion around a guy, you'd probably do well to play up his strengths and exaggerate them wherever necessary.
Now, I know, then you've got the whole "faith" argument and all that. I'm not arguing against that; if you want to have faith, go ahead. There are some things that I have faith in myself, even without any particular empirical evidence to support the belief. My point is, it isn't unreasonable to try to establish a balance between faith and logic in your life (forgive me, I'm a Libra, I love balance), so if you're going to have faith, it might as well be faith in something reasonable. Savvy?
Monday, November 9, 2009
Everyone Seems to Need the Cure
So, the health care bill passed the House of Representatives a couple days ago. This is relatively big news and all that, and I've been vocal about health care reform in certain circles for some time now, so I really ought to remark on something about it. I was waiting until I found the right angle to approach it from, and I've found it:
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153995
That's the statement released by Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) regarding why he voted against the bill. I must say, I tend not to give much credit to politicians in this country, but his explanation for his vote was remarkably insightful, and I applaud his willingness to take that position, even if I am not in full agreement with his vote. In short, he voted against the bill because he felt like the main thing it would do would be to drop an additional $70 billion into the already deep pockets of the health insurance companies. Well, yeah, he's absolutely right on that count. Clearly, his feelings against lining the pockets of the insurance companies outweighed his desire to improve the health care situations of millions of Americans. The sense I get is that he felt like the public option should have been stronger and the coverage more comprehensive and beneficial to the American public rather than to the insurance companies. But, the bill is what it is, and I'm sure he felt like he was in a difficult position: either vote for a limited and weak bill, or vote against further strengthening the insurance companies. It's not a choice I would want to make myself, and I cannot honestly say which way I would have voted myself had the decision been laid at my feet. Frankly, I think even a strong public option isn't going far enough; I think the whole system needs to be trashed and started from scratch. I think insurance companies are a scam and ought to be illegal. They're vultures, pure and simple, and they actually do nothing but get in the way of people receiving the health care they ought to be guaranteed. Yeah, my view of things is probably awfully idealistic, and maybe better in theory than in practice. Even with its own set of flaws though, it would be far better than what we've got now. And it's sure the hell better than fining people for not having health insurance. Sure, let's take away more money from people who clearly don't have enough, as evidenced by the fact that they DON'T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE TO BEGIN WITH. That rationale is incomprehensible to me.
Regarding the health care bill that did pass the House, well...progress in this country has always been very incremental. One would hope that, if this is enacted into law, that it is only the first step, and that further steps will come in short order, because this country is sick, and hopefully not incurable.
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153995
That's the statement released by Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) regarding why he voted against the bill. I must say, I tend not to give much credit to politicians in this country, but his explanation for his vote was remarkably insightful, and I applaud his willingness to take that position, even if I am not in full agreement with his vote. In short, he voted against the bill because he felt like the main thing it would do would be to drop an additional $70 billion into the already deep pockets of the health insurance companies. Well, yeah, he's absolutely right on that count. Clearly, his feelings against lining the pockets of the insurance companies outweighed his desire to improve the health care situations of millions of Americans. The sense I get is that he felt like the public option should have been stronger and the coverage more comprehensive and beneficial to the American public rather than to the insurance companies. But, the bill is what it is, and I'm sure he felt like he was in a difficult position: either vote for a limited and weak bill, or vote against further strengthening the insurance companies. It's not a choice I would want to make myself, and I cannot honestly say which way I would have voted myself had the decision been laid at my feet. Frankly, I think even a strong public option isn't going far enough; I think the whole system needs to be trashed and started from scratch. I think insurance companies are a scam and ought to be illegal. They're vultures, pure and simple, and they actually do nothing but get in the way of people receiving the health care they ought to be guaranteed. Yeah, my view of things is probably awfully idealistic, and maybe better in theory than in practice. Even with its own set of flaws though, it would be far better than what we've got now. And it's sure the hell better than fining people for not having health insurance. Sure, let's take away more money from people who clearly don't have enough, as evidenced by the fact that they DON'T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE TO BEGIN WITH. That rationale is incomprehensible to me.
Regarding the health care bill that did pass the House, well...progress in this country has always been very incremental. One would hope that, if this is enacted into law, that it is only the first step, and that further steps will come in short order, because this country is sick, and hopefully not incurable.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Relative Sanity
People sure do like to tell me what I have to do, what I ought to do, what I should do. That's all well and good, and I appreciate the concern, but you have no idea what it's like to be me. Do I seem like the kind of guy who's very comfortable working around people? Do I seem like I could even function as someone who puts on a suit and tie and does the 9 to 5 thing? I know, it's easy to say that I should go out there and get that kind of job, but that's coming from people who seem to be blissfully unaware of the kind of anxiety it causes me even to think about that sort of thing.
Look, it's just not who I am. I'm the kind of guy who wants and needs a quiet, low-stress job, one that doesn't chew up all my energy so I still feel like working on my book at the end of the day. Everyone has been telling me for years that I should be a writer, but now that I'm really trying to be, suddenly that's not enough, now I have to go do something else? Is this not America? Am I not free to pursue my happiness? Well, I'm damn well trying to! How about supporting me in what I'm doing, instead of complaining about what I'm not? It may not be your way, and it may not be what you like, but it doesn't have to be. I've always made my own way, and it's done pretty well for me.
This wasn't my planned topic for today. I was going to do something about movies or music or maybe both, and I might still later. But this had been bugging me for awhile, and it got really bad the last couple days, and by the time I got to this point today, I was screaming in the car, so I had to air some grievances here. Now, to re-direct my anger at something more productive: my book.
Look, it's just not who I am. I'm the kind of guy who wants and needs a quiet, low-stress job, one that doesn't chew up all my energy so I still feel like working on my book at the end of the day. Everyone has been telling me for years that I should be a writer, but now that I'm really trying to be, suddenly that's not enough, now I have to go do something else? Is this not America? Am I not free to pursue my happiness? Well, I'm damn well trying to! How about supporting me in what I'm doing, instead of complaining about what I'm not? It may not be your way, and it may not be what you like, but it doesn't have to be. I've always made my own way, and it's done pretty well for me.
This wasn't my planned topic for today. I was going to do something about movies or music or maybe both, and I might still later. But this had been bugging me for awhile, and it got really bad the last couple days, and by the time I got to this point today, I was screaming in the car, so I had to air some grievances here. Now, to re-direct my anger at something more productive: my book.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Let's All Panic!
Let's see, what's in the news today that's annoying me?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/11/sick_iowa_kitty_had_swine_flu.html
If you actually read that link, you get the idea what the story is about. Now, first off, I have a qualifier. I'm not glad that the cat got swine flu or anything like that. I may hate dogs, but I love cats. I'm not pointing at this story like, oh, haha, the cat got sick! Actually, I'm pointing at this story to illustrate how it is that the media likes to scare the everliving shit out of people. Sure, it doesn't come right out and say it in the article, but you know the immediate knee-jerk reaction from about 99.8% of everyone who reads that, or any other article about this story, will be to FREAK OUT. Because that's what people do best, and that's what the media likes to exploit. It's called sensationalism people, and that's a best-case scenario. The media does this because it gets them ratings and advertising dollars and all that fun stuff, but what is far, far worse is that the government allows...no, strike that...the government ENCOURAGES this sort of fear-mongering, because nothing is more easily manipulated than a frightened public. If people think it will save them from swine flu, or terrorists, or Nazis, or communists, or homosexuals, or whatever else, they will do whatever the hell the government says they should do, and they will agree to things that they would ordinarily never agree to, and they will do this happily because they have no idea what to do about it on their own and they need somebody else to tell them how to think. I don't know about anyone else, but this appalls and terrifies me, and what invariably happens is that the government takes advantage of this fear to push through some ridiculous legislation or serve up some vaccine, and you know what? Swine flu vaccine will probably contain some sort of tracking device so they can pin you down at all times, or it'll turn you and millions of other people into zombies that they can drop into Afghanistan because, hey, an army that can't be killed because it's already dead! I'm exaggerating, but I'm not, you know?
Look people, homosexuals are just people, they're not going to hurt you with their pithy humor, fabulous clothes, or fastidious living spaces. Communists barely exist in practice, and communism isn't the horrible thing Glenn Beck tells you it is, but you don't actually know what it is, now, do you? Read a book, people. Also, people cannot be both communists and Nazis, they are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, so don't be stupid. Besides, nobody is like the Nazis. Except Wal-Mart (thanks to Bill Maher on that one). Terrorists aren't going to get you, you live in the boonies in the midwest, they don't care about you. And finally, swine flu...well, that might get you. Probably not, but it could. But here's the good news: it's not actually any worse than normal flu. In terms of symptoms, it's just about the same, and its mortality rate is something like a tenth what the normal flu is. So don't freak out about the cat getting swine flu, it's not fun, but shit happens. Don't be panicky, don't let the media influence you, and don't let anyone tell you what to do or how to think. Draw your own conclusions. It's only a little more difficult, and it's a lot more rewarding.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/11/sick_iowa_kitty_had_swine_flu.html
If you actually read that link, you get the idea what the story is about. Now, first off, I have a qualifier. I'm not glad that the cat got swine flu or anything like that. I may hate dogs, but I love cats. I'm not pointing at this story like, oh, haha, the cat got sick! Actually, I'm pointing at this story to illustrate how it is that the media likes to scare the everliving shit out of people. Sure, it doesn't come right out and say it in the article, but you know the immediate knee-jerk reaction from about 99.8% of everyone who reads that, or any other article about this story, will be to FREAK OUT. Because that's what people do best, and that's what the media likes to exploit. It's called sensationalism people, and that's a best-case scenario. The media does this because it gets them ratings and advertising dollars and all that fun stuff, but what is far, far worse is that the government allows...no, strike that...the government ENCOURAGES this sort of fear-mongering, because nothing is more easily manipulated than a frightened public. If people think it will save them from swine flu, or terrorists, or Nazis, or communists, or homosexuals, or whatever else, they will do whatever the hell the government says they should do, and they will agree to things that they would ordinarily never agree to, and they will do this happily because they have no idea what to do about it on their own and they need somebody else to tell them how to think. I don't know about anyone else, but this appalls and terrifies me, and what invariably happens is that the government takes advantage of this fear to push through some ridiculous legislation or serve up some vaccine, and you know what? Swine flu vaccine will probably contain some sort of tracking device so they can pin you down at all times, or it'll turn you and millions of other people into zombies that they can drop into Afghanistan because, hey, an army that can't be killed because it's already dead! I'm exaggerating, but I'm not, you know?
Look people, homosexuals are just people, they're not going to hurt you with their pithy humor, fabulous clothes, or fastidious living spaces. Communists barely exist in practice, and communism isn't the horrible thing Glenn Beck tells you it is, but you don't actually know what it is, now, do you? Read a book, people. Also, people cannot be both communists and Nazis, they are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, so don't be stupid. Besides, nobody is like the Nazis. Except Wal-Mart (thanks to Bill Maher on that one). Terrorists aren't going to get you, you live in the boonies in the midwest, they don't care about you. And finally, swine flu...well, that might get you. Probably not, but it could. But here's the good news: it's not actually any worse than normal flu. In terms of symptoms, it's just about the same, and its mortality rate is something like a tenth what the normal flu is. So don't freak out about the cat getting swine flu, it's not fun, but shit happens. Don't be panicky, don't let the media influence you, and don't let anyone tell you what to do or how to think. Draw your own conclusions. It's only a little more difficult, and it's a lot more rewarding.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Talking Politics
Some days, I like to pretend that I know what's going on in the world of politics. This is one of those days.
To start things off, I happened across an article from the L.A. Times about a proposed provision in the Senate's health care bill:
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-religion3-2009nov03,0,2239900.story?page=1
The long and short of it is that the provision would require health insurance companies to pay for "prayer treatments", whatever the fuck that is, as well as healing sessions and that sort of thing either in place of or in addition to actual clinical medicine. Now, if private insurance companies want to do this on their own (they never would), then that's fine. Stupid, but fine. There are, however, two conditions under which this is completely unacceptable. For one, if the government were to mandate this requirement of private insurance companies, that is ridiculously in violation of separation of church and state. I'm certainly not a supporter of insurance companies; all they've done is managed to wedge themselves between your average American and the medical treatments they ought to be entitled to as...well, as a person, and the companies profit from the misery they cause. Then, there's the second condition, which is even worse: if the government sponsors the public option, or anything like it, and this provision is allowed into the bill, that would not only be in massive violation of separation of church and state, but it would essentially require taxpayers to pay for SOMEBODY ELSE'S FAITH HEALING AND PRAYER TREATMENTS. To that, I say no. Absolutely and unequivocally. I'm all for a public option (or something much further left on the spectrum, even), but I will not give one penny that I earn to anybody's religious treatment. That would open a terrifying can of worms in this country.
The second thing I have today is in regards to President Obama, one year after his election to the nation's highest office. I caught the response to a poll on the local news last night, which asked something to the effect of, If the election were held again today, would you vote for Obama or for Senator McCain? Some 72% of respondents said they would opt for McCain. There's a decent chance that nearly that many people voted for McCain the first time around in this area; southwestern Ohio is disproportionately conservative compared to the rest of the state and much of the country. Mr. Obama's support is flagging nationwide, however, and I'm certainly aware that there is significant unrest and displeasure over the things he has failed to accomplish thus far in his presidency. It is my belief that much of this is unfair to Mr. Obama. I am not inclined to be an apologist on anyone's behalf, and at any rate, I don't find myself in complete agreement with Mr. Obama's policies at all times or anything of that sort. However, to accuse him of having done nothing in his first year in office is inaccurate at best. I think he would agree that he has not yet accomplished all that he had hoped to have done by this time, and I think he would also agree that some of the blame ought to be laid at his feet. He has been neither as assertive nor as aggressive as he was during his campaign, and he has been naive in believing that the Republican Party would play nice and actually make any effort to help him pursue his goals, and those of his party.
Naive or not, though, Mr. Obama was not incorrect in his belief that the two parties are supposed to come together after an election to work in the best interest's of the country. That was the intent of the founding fathers, but it is another of those things that is much better in theory than in practice. In their defense, however, they had no idea then that the modern incarnation of the Republican Party would not only decline to be cooperative, but would also decline even to be civil. Repeatedly, Mr. Obama and other leading members of his party have extended their hands across the aisle, only to have their palms spat in. Patience is a virtue, Mr. Obama, but at some point being patient leads you to become a pushover. If you wish to avoid that as your legacy, you're going to have to stop playing games and put your foot down. Do you want to know why your approval ratings are sinking like the Titanic? It's because you are no longer projecting the strong, confident image you put forth during your campaign, because you haven't kept your foot on the accelerator. People want you to go out there and do the things you said you would do. Your falling approval ratings do not reflect people's dissatisfaction with your positions, but rather the dissatisfaction with your unwillingness thus far to act on those positions.
But it isn't all on you, Mr. Obama. It isn't your fault that democracy is slow, while the average person in the modern world demands immediate results. That isn't fair to you. For a point of reference, I refer everyone to Franklin D. Roosevelt. He inherited a similar situation as did Mr. Obama, a reeling economy and a frightened and angry public. However, even Mr. Roosevelt, considered one of our country's greatest presidents, wasn't able to solve all of those problems overnight. He was well into his second term before his methods began to bear fruit. Mr. Obama's problems will likewise not be resolved all that quickly, and I implore everybody to stand behind the president you helped to elect and actually give him a chance to reach his goals instead of discounting him as failed after a single year in office. And remember, the alternative would be scare tactics, terror alerts, and a recession that would be deepening rather than declining.
To start things off, I happened across an article from the L.A. Times about a proposed provision in the Senate's health care bill:
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-religion3-2009nov03,0,2239900.story?page=1
The long and short of it is that the provision would require health insurance companies to pay for "prayer treatments", whatever the fuck that is, as well as healing sessions and that sort of thing either in place of or in addition to actual clinical medicine. Now, if private insurance companies want to do this on their own (they never would), then that's fine. Stupid, but fine. There are, however, two conditions under which this is completely unacceptable. For one, if the government were to mandate this requirement of private insurance companies, that is ridiculously in violation of separation of church and state. I'm certainly not a supporter of insurance companies; all they've done is managed to wedge themselves between your average American and the medical treatments they ought to be entitled to as...well, as a person, and the companies profit from the misery they cause. Then, there's the second condition, which is even worse: if the government sponsors the public option, or anything like it, and this provision is allowed into the bill, that would not only be in massive violation of separation of church and state, but it would essentially require taxpayers to pay for SOMEBODY ELSE'S FAITH HEALING AND PRAYER TREATMENTS. To that, I say no. Absolutely and unequivocally. I'm all for a public option (or something much further left on the spectrum, even), but I will not give one penny that I earn to anybody's religious treatment. That would open a terrifying can of worms in this country.
The second thing I have today is in regards to President Obama, one year after his election to the nation's highest office. I caught the response to a poll on the local news last night, which asked something to the effect of, If the election were held again today, would you vote for Obama or for Senator McCain? Some 72% of respondents said they would opt for McCain. There's a decent chance that nearly that many people voted for McCain the first time around in this area; southwestern Ohio is disproportionately conservative compared to the rest of the state and much of the country. Mr. Obama's support is flagging nationwide, however, and I'm certainly aware that there is significant unrest and displeasure over the things he has failed to accomplish thus far in his presidency. It is my belief that much of this is unfair to Mr. Obama. I am not inclined to be an apologist on anyone's behalf, and at any rate, I don't find myself in complete agreement with Mr. Obama's policies at all times or anything of that sort. However, to accuse him of having done nothing in his first year in office is inaccurate at best. I think he would agree that he has not yet accomplished all that he had hoped to have done by this time, and I think he would also agree that some of the blame ought to be laid at his feet. He has been neither as assertive nor as aggressive as he was during his campaign, and he has been naive in believing that the Republican Party would play nice and actually make any effort to help him pursue his goals, and those of his party.
Naive or not, though, Mr. Obama was not incorrect in his belief that the two parties are supposed to come together after an election to work in the best interest's of the country. That was the intent of the founding fathers, but it is another of those things that is much better in theory than in practice. In their defense, however, they had no idea then that the modern incarnation of the Republican Party would not only decline to be cooperative, but would also decline even to be civil. Repeatedly, Mr. Obama and other leading members of his party have extended their hands across the aisle, only to have their palms spat in. Patience is a virtue, Mr. Obama, but at some point being patient leads you to become a pushover. If you wish to avoid that as your legacy, you're going to have to stop playing games and put your foot down. Do you want to know why your approval ratings are sinking like the Titanic? It's because you are no longer projecting the strong, confident image you put forth during your campaign, because you haven't kept your foot on the accelerator. People want you to go out there and do the things you said you would do. Your falling approval ratings do not reflect people's dissatisfaction with your positions, but rather the dissatisfaction with your unwillingness thus far to act on those positions.
But it isn't all on you, Mr. Obama. It isn't your fault that democracy is slow, while the average person in the modern world demands immediate results. That isn't fair to you. For a point of reference, I refer everyone to Franklin D. Roosevelt. He inherited a similar situation as did Mr. Obama, a reeling economy and a frightened and angry public. However, even Mr. Roosevelt, considered one of our country's greatest presidents, wasn't able to solve all of those problems overnight. He was well into his second term before his methods began to bear fruit. Mr. Obama's problems will likewise not be resolved all that quickly, and I implore everybody to stand behind the president you helped to elect and actually give him a chance to reach his goals instead of discounting him as failed after a single year in office. And remember, the alternative would be scare tactics, terror alerts, and a recession that would be deepening rather than declining.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Star-Spangled Banner, etc.
So, here I am, watching all the usual introductory stuff for Game 4 of the World Series, and I recall a couple of gripes I've had for a number of years regarding the singing of the national anthem and the associated festivities.
For one, why is it that Major League Baseball is so insistent on associating itself with the U.S. military? Yes, we have a military, I know that the country needs a military (though I largely disagree with the ways in which the military is utilized, but that is for another day). What in the world, though, has that got to do with baseball? So far as I can tell, not a goddamn thing. I even see this sort of thing during regular season games, not just the postseason. They'll have some army/navy/air force/marines regiment out on the field doing some sort of flag ceremony, one of them will sing the national anthem, there will be some sort of jet flyover, blah blah blah. Why the preponderance of this?
Speaking of the jet flyovers, there also tends to be a lot of this, or a short burst of fireworks, during the line, "...and the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air...", and all the fans, who had been silent up to this point, suddenly cheer. In the middle of the national anthem. First, don't do that, it's disrespectful. Second, why then? Is it the bright lights and loud noises? Can you not restrain your amazement at this? If you can't, you need a smack in the side of your head, because what the fuck is wrong with you? Are you six years old? If you are, you get a pass. Maybe. Otherwise, smack in the head.
That is all.
For one, why is it that Major League Baseball is so insistent on associating itself with the U.S. military? Yes, we have a military, I know that the country needs a military (though I largely disagree with the ways in which the military is utilized, but that is for another day). What in the world, though, has that got to do with baseball? So far as I can tell, not a goddamn thing. I even see this sort of thing during regular season games, not just the postseason. They'll have some army/navy/air force/marines regiment out on the field doing some sort of flag ceremony, one of them will sing the national anthem, there will be some sort of jet flyover, blah blah blah. Why the preponderance of this?
Speaking of the jet flyovers, there also tends to be a lot of this, or a short burst of fireworks, during the line, "...and the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air...", and all the fans, who had been silent up to this point, suddenly cheer. In the middle of the national anthem. First, don't do that, it's disrespectful. Second, why then? Is it the bright lights and loud noises? Can you not restrain your amazement at this? If you can't, you need a smack in the side of your head, because what the fuck is wrong with you? Are you six years old? If you are, you get a pass. Maybe. Otherwise, smack in the head.
That is all.
Welcome
Greetings. This is Something Something Happy Fun Blog Time. I am enjoying some sunflower seeds. There are other things that I enjoy. I enjoy baseball and football. I enjoy reading and writing. I enjoy history and geography. I enjoy unconventionality and individuality. And I enjoy observation. There are many other things which I enjoy, but there are also many things which make me angry, or some variation thereof. These can largely be summed up with four I's: inequality, injustice, ignorance, and idiocy. I also don't care for small children, old people, or dogs, but those don't start with an I...
Incidentally, why do people bombard me with pictures of their kids? I'm talking about Facebook here. I don't keep friends on Facebook for this reason. I only want to keep up with some friends and have some occasional diversionary amusement. If I want to see your kids or hear about them, I'll ask. Please do not post pictures constantly and unbidden. An occasional one here or there, okay, fine. No person is deserving of having a photographic chronicling of every day of their life; nobody is that interesting, and certainly not a small child who cannot yet do anything other than eat, sleep, soil itself and scream. If you must take pictures of every one of these events, keep them to yourself unless asked. I'm sick of them invading my news feed and my line of sight.
Speaking of the news feed (still on Facebook here), I'm fine with having a news feed, it's not a bad way to keep up with your friends, if you're busy and they're busy and you don't get to see or speak to them very often otherwise. However, please try to limit your posts to information which is pertinent, at least slightly unique, or thought-provoking. You're going to lunch? That's nice, but I don't care. You're visiting your family? Great, get off your computer and go spend time with 'em!
On a related note, there is entirely too little emphasis placed on interpersonal interaction these days. Yeah, we're all busy and all that crap, but look, life is what you make it. There aren't many things that make your life mean more than actually spending time with people you like and care about. So go do that, you'll be better for it. I'm not one for a lot of sentimentality or any of that crap, but I recognize that we're all people here, and like it or not, we thrive on our relationships with other people, and without that, we're left with...well, not much.
I think I like this whole blogging thing. I might do this some more.
Incidentally, why do people bombard me with pictures of their kids? I'm talking about Facebook here. I don't keep friends on Facebook for this reason. I only want to keep up with some friends and have some occasional diversionary amusement. If I want to see your kids or hear about them, I'll ask. Please do not post pictures constantly and unbidden. An occasional one here or there, okay, fine. No person is deserving of having a photographic chronicling of every day of their life; nobody is that interesting, and certainly not a small child who cannot yet do anything other than eat, sleep, soil itself and scream. If you must take pictures of every one of these events, keep them to yourself unless asked. I'm sick of them invading my news feed and my line of sight.
Speaking of the news feed (still on Facebook here), I'm fine with having a news feed, it's not a bad way to keep up with your friends, if you're busy and they're busy and you don't get to see or speak to them very often otherwise. However, please try to limit your posts to information which is pertinent, at least slightly unique, or thought-provoking. You're going to lunch? That's nice, but I don't care. You're visiting your family? Great, get off your computer and go spend time with 'em!
On a related note, there is entirely too little emphasis placed on interpersonal interaction these days. Yeah, we're all busy and all that crap, but look, life is what you make it. There aren't many things that make your life mean more than actually spending time with people you like and care about. So go do that, you'll be better for it. I'm not one for a lot of sentimentality or any of that crap, but I recognize that we're all people here, and like it or not, we thrive on our relationships with other people, and without that, we're left with...well, not much.
I think I like this whole blogging thing. I might do this some more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)