Maybe I'm playing in shark-infested waters a bit here, but I've got a complaint about the company I work for, Target. I want to stress, though, that I am not displeased with the store that I work at or the people I work with. That stuff is fine. It's not fine, however, that the top executives of Target Corp. decided that it's okay to donate a bunch of money to a far-right and severely anti-gay-rights candidate for political office in Minnesota. Now, as big corporations go, Target has a reputation of being fairly benign and moderately progressive, certainly when compared to a company like Wal-Mart. This is a pretty significant misstep, though. I'm not suggesting that Target made this campaign contribution in an effort to anger the gay community and their supporters; I don't know whether or not that factored into the decision. I am sure that it was at least primarily a business decision, since Republican candidates like to do things like give huge tax breaks to billion-dollar corporations.
A lot of people are protesting Target, to the point that there is a boycott in effect against the company. I would suggest that this is misdirected anger. Whether I agree with the company's decision or not is not the point. This is nothing new, big companies have been donating money to political candidates for as long as there have been political candidates, and often those candidates have been much more controversial than this one. Target, and any other company that does so, is merely operating within the confines of the law, since the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can more or less pour as much money into a campaign as they want. That, my friends, is what we should be protesting. Political alignments aside, a corporation is not a person, and should not be allowed to act as one. This is further evidence that the United States is not a government by the people, for the people. Rather, it is by the money, for the money.
Everyone is all up-in-arms about Target's choice of candidates to support, and I think they should have opted for one who is not attempting to deny the rights of a huge group of Americans. What seems to be eluding everyone, however, is that this shouldn't even be an issue, because corporations shouldn't be allowed to act as individual people. We should be protesting the Supreme Court for their flawed decision.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Someone Else's Problem
Let me present you with a scenario, dear friends. Have you ever let a friend or family member borrow something of yours? Maybe it's something small, a book or a DVD or a t-shirt, or maybe it's something big, like your car. It's someone you like and trust with your stuff, obviously, or you wouldn't let them borrow it in the first place, but they manage to betray your trust anyway. Your book is returned with crayon drawings all over it, your DVD is scratched, your t-shirt has a big ketchup stain on it, or your car looks like it might have turned into a Transformer and been blown up several times. Did your friend or relative offer to fix or replace the item that became damaged while in their possession? Oh, they did? That's awesome, they have a sense of accountability!
Or how about this one: you're over at a friend's house, and the two of you are playing video games. You're getting your ass kicked, and your temper gets the best of you. You throw the controller at the TV, but your aim is terrible and it goes into the fish tank instead. The controller is all waterlogged and will never work properly again. What do you do? Do you just leave without saying a word, leaving your friend with one fewer working controller than they previously had? Wait, what? That's exactly what you would do? Holy shit, stop reading this blog right now and go drink some bleach!
If you're a friend of mine, though (and if you're reading this blog, you probably are), then you probably aren't that terrible. Good for you. Some people, however, have not learned that there are proper ways to act in society, and those are the sorts of people who will break something that belongs to you and then won't take responsibility for what they did. Surely someone or something else is to blame! And even if it is my fault, why should I have suffer the consequences? That's the kind of thinking that too damn many people seem to have now, and I'll tell you exactly why: nobody is willing to tell someone when they're behaving like a jackass, and being stupid doesn't hurt like it should, so these folks just plain don't know that actions are supposed to have consequences!
Apparently it's not okay for parents to punish their children anymore, because it's not politically correct or some bullshit, and now we are seeing the results of that course of non-action: children who have never been made to clean up their mess, because they see that once they make the mess, nothing will happen to them, and someone else will clean it up for them. And then we all wonder why so many people are turning out to be massive dickbags. If there was a direct correlation between acting like an idiot/asshole and being dead, well, there would be corpses lining the streets.
Or how about this one: you're over at a friend's house, and the two of you are playing video games. You're getting your ass kicked, and your temper gets the best of you. You throw the controller at the TV, but your aim is terrible and it goes into the fish tank instead. The controller is all waterlogged and will never work properly again. What do you do? Do you just leave without saying a word, leaving your friend with one fewer working controller than they previously had? Wait, what? That's exactly what you would do? Holy shit, stop reading this blog right now and go drink some bleach!
If you're a friend of mine, though (and if you're reading this blog, you probably are), then you probably aren't that terrible. Good for you. Some people, however, have not learned that there are proper ways to act in society, and those are the sorts of people who will break something that belongs to you and then won't take responsibility for what they did. Surely someone or something else is to blame! And even if it is my fault, why should I have suffer the consequences? That's the kind of thinking that too damn many people seem to have now, and I'll tell you exactly why: nobody is willing to tell someone when they're behaving like a jackass, and being stupid doesn't hurt like it should, so these folks just plain don't know that actions are supposed to have consequences!
Apparently it's not okay for parents to punish their children anymore, because it's not politically correct or some bullshit, and now we are seeing the results of that course of non-action: children who have never been made to clean up their mess, because they see that once they make the mess, nothing will happen to them, and someone else will clean it up for them. And then we all wonder why so many people are turning out to be massive dickbags. If there was a direct correlation between acting like an idiot/asshole and being dead, well, there would be corpses lining the streets.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
The Real Tragedy
We've been having an issue with our internet connectivity recently, so apologies for my absence of however long I've been gone from here. Lucky for you, I'm back now! And I'm here to talk about this Mosque at Ground Zero business, so I'm jumping right into that.
Basically, it's a lot of bullshit. Well, you know, just like every other goddamn thing. I'm not talking about building a mosque (it's actually an Islamic cultural center, which happens to include a mosque), and I'm not even talking about building a mosque at or near Ground Zero, or opening it on 11 September. None of those things alone is bullshit. However, combining all of them into one big fucking event, well, that is a considerable amount of bullshit. Frankly, I don't care if it pisses people off that they're doing it; the only reason it bothers me is because that's the WHOLE GODDAMN REASON THEY'RE DOING IT. I mean, you're just asking for a shitstorm if you're going to be either insensitive or unaware enough to open a mosque anywhere in the vicinity of Ground Zero on 11 September. I don't particularly direct attacks at Muslims more than anybody of any other faith, but this is just stupid. You don't go and plan something like that and not realize that people are going to get pissed, so you must be doing it intentionally. And it's so easy, because then you can just say, hey, this is America, freedom of religion and all that, and if you're opposed to this, you're a racist or a bigot or whatever and you're trying to take away our rights. By doing this, you are just looking to start a fight, and you fucking know it.
By the same token, there's nothing illegal or even particularly immoral about it, so we need to not be making an issue of that. Maybe it is legitimately insensitive to some people, almost certainly the decision to put that thing where you want to put it and open it on that particular day is in poor taste, so if you want to say that, then fine. I'll support that. As usual, my real complaint is just that people are acting like idiots on both sides of this issue. It would have been the smart and decent thing to at least open the damn thing a day later or whatever, but they didn't do that. The folks opposed to this thing could've just shrugged and figured, whatever, it ultimately doesn't affect me, I'll let it go, but they're not, because some people just have to make it a point to be offended by something or other on a regular basis. Are you people just bored or something? Go find something constructive to do, like poking a hornet's nest. I hope someone flies a plane into the side of your fucking head, and I'll have the good sense to not put up a library or a university or a museum at the site of the horrible wrong done against your stupidity.
Basically, it's a lot of bullshit. Well, you know, just like every other goddamn thing. I'm not talking about building a mosque (it's actually an Islamic cultural center, which happens to include a mosque), and I'm not even talking about building a mosque at or near Ground Zero, or opening it on 11 September. None of those things alone is bullshit. However, combining all of them into one big fucking event, well, that is a considerable amount of bullshit. Frankly, I don't care if it pisses people off that they're doing it; the only reason it bothers me is because that's the WHOLE GODDAMN REASON THEY'RE DOING IT. I mean, you're just asking for a shitstorm if you're going to be either insensitive or unaware enough to open a mosque anywhere in the vicinity of Ground Zero on 11 September. I don't particularly direct attacks at Muslims more than anybody of any other faith, but this is just stupid. You don't go and plan something like that and not realize that people are going to get pissed, so you must be doing it intentionally. And it's so easy, because then you can just say, hey, this is America, freedom of religion and all that, and if you're opposed to this, you're a racist or a bigot or whatever and you're trying to take away our rights. By doing this, you are just looking to start a fight, and you fucking know it.
By the same token, there's nothing illegal or even particularly immoral about it, so we need to not be making an issue of that. Maybe it is legitimately insensitive to some people, almost certainly the decision to put that thing where you want to put it and open it on that particular day is in poor taste, so if you want to say that, then fine. I'll support that. As usual, my real complaint is just that people are acting like idiots on both sides of this issue. It would have been the smart and decent thing to at least open the damn thing a day later or whatever, but they didn't do that. The folks opposed to this thing could've just shrugged and figured, whatever, it ultimately doesn't affect me, I'll let it go, but they're not, because some people just have to make it a point to be offended by something or other on a regular basis. Are you people just bored or something? Go find something constructive to do, like poking a hornet's nest. I hope someone flies a plane into the side of your fucking head, and I'll have the good sense to not put up a library or a university or a museum at the site of the horrible wrong done against your stupidity.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
You Got No Right
Just a brief rant here, because it's late-ish, but I want to get it out while I'm thinking about it. I know I occasionally talk about sports on here, and this pertains to sports, but it's kind of a common sense thing as well. One of the startling trends in the NFL recently is players holding out, refusing to report to training camp, preseason games and, occasionally, regular season games until their demands to have their contracts restructured are met. Their reasoning is that the team will have to pay them, because they are impact players, and the team will be substantially weaker without their services, and the pressure will mount on the team from the fans to just give the player whatever they want, so that the team will not suffer. The current big case of this involves New York Jets cornerback Darrelle Revis, a phenomenal player, perhaps the best in the league at his position. Revis' current contract is for three more years, and would pay him about a million dollars this season. He is believed to be asking for a contract in the neighborhood of ten years and $160 million.
Putting aside, for a moment, my personal belief that no athlete, professional or otherwise, should be paid $160 million or anything close to it, it can be easily argued that Revis ought to be among the most well-compensated players at his position. In an ideal world, each player would be paid in accordance with their contributions, and his are significant. In reality, though, a good player is paid essentially whatever he wants, because he will always be able to find a team that wants his services enough to give him what he wants. In this sort of system, the player has all of the leverage, because he plays to the fans, appeals to their desire to put the best possible team on the field, and it's easy for them to protest to the team to give him the money, because it's easy to spend money that's not yours. So if a player such as Darrelle Revis believes that he is not being adequately compensated, it is easy for him to say that he is going to hold out, that he will not play for the team until his demands are met. Of course, the team could always turn around and paint the player as greedy and ungrateful (they would be right), but that sours the relationship between the team and the player, and for whatever reason, the fans don't care, they just want that good player to be on their team!
You know what we call it at any other job if you decide you aren't being paid enough, so you're not going to show up until you get a raise? We call it, your ass is fired! We call it, breach of contract! That's not exactly right either, workers ought to be able to collectively bargain to improve their wages and/or working conditions, but your average worker is not complaining if he's making a million bucks a year (not that you ever see that). My real gripe here is not that players are demanding to be paid more money than you or I can even conceive of as a real number (though that is another disturbing trend itself). The real issue is that Darrelle Revis or whatever other player is holding out agreed to that original contract! If they are not happy with the contract, they should not have signed it in the first place. If they signed it anyway, they have no right to complain and should garner no sympathy from anybody. That player should damn well live with the contract he agreed to, be happy that he is still being paid so handsomely, and negotiate for more when that contract runs out.
You are not allowed to complain about a situation that you caused yourself to be in! That's the lesson for today, kids.
Putting aside, for a moment, my personal belief that no athlete, professional or otherwise, should be paid $160 million or anything close to it, it can be easily argued that Revis ought to be among the most well-compensated players at his position. In an ideal world, each player would be paid in accordance with their contributions, and his are significant. In reality, though, a good player is paid essentially whatever he wants, because he will always be able to find a team that wants his services enough to give him what he wants. In this sort of system, the player has all of the leverage, because he plays to the fans, appeals to their desire to put the best possible team on the field, and it's easy for them to protest to the team to give him the money, because it's easy to spend money that's not yours. So if a player such as Darrelle Revis believes that he is not being adequately compensated, it is easy for him to say that he is going to hold out, that he will not play for the team until his demands are met. Of course, the team could always turn around and paint the player as greedy and ungrateful (they would be right), but that sours the relationship between the team and the player, and for whatever reason, the fans don't care, they just want that good player to be on their team!
You know what we call it at any other job if you decide you aren't being paid enough, so you're not going to show up until you get a raise? We call it, your ass is fired! We call it, breach of contract! That's not exactly right either, workers ought to be able to collectively bargain to improve their wages and/or working conditions, but your average worker is not complaining if he's making a million bucks a year (not that you ever see that). My real gripe here is not that players are demanding to be paid more money than you or I can even conceive of as a real number (though that is another disturbing trend itself). The real issue is that Darrelle Revis or whatever other player is holding out agreed to that original contract! If they are not happy with the contract, they should not have signed it in the first place. If they signed it anyway, they have no right to complain and should garner no sympathy from anybody. That player should damn well live with the contract he agreed to, be happy that he is still being paid so handsomely, and negotiate for more when that contract runs out.
You are not allowed to complain about a situation that you caused yourself to be in! That's the lesson for today, kids.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
In Retrospect
It isn't new that some people out there are shouting about President Obama being un-American or anti-American, but it has become even more prevalent recently in light of the President's decision to place himself on the unpopular side of several issues. These include his backing of the U.S. Justice Department's decision to fight the Arizona immigration law, the health care bill, the stimulus package, and his ban on deepwater oil drilling.
My personal feelings about these issues aside, there are clearly deep flaws in the thinking that Mr. Obama's positions make him anti-American in any way. Most significantly, it should be noted that what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. The President's positions might not be popular today, but that doesn't mean that he is making the wrong decisions. So often, the long-term implications of the actions of a President are not seen until much, much later, even far beyond his term. It looked like a fine idea back in the 1980s for President Reagan to authorize the sale of weapons to places like Iran and Afghanistan, and to give military training to people like Osama bin Laden. That worked out real well for us, didn't it? Conversely, it didn't look too good to some folks back in the 1930s when President Franklin Roosevelt spent lots of government dollars to fund some public work programs that would allow people to be employed and earn an honest wage. It was more than a decade before the country started to see the positive effects of this course of action.
My point is, why are we so averse to giving Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt here? I mean, he's a pretty smart dude, and he's got a lot of other smart people working with him. Maybe, just maybe, he knows what he's doing here. Maybe he's a little more qualified to be making these decisions than your average person. Maybe we should consider that he's more well-informed on these issues than the guy standing in line at Wal-Mart, struggling with the complex tasks of paying for his microwave burritos while trying not to drool on himself. The President might be in the minority, but perhaps the minority has a better idea about what's good for the country than do the drooling masses. Again, I'm not saying positively that the President is right on all counts here. What I am saying is that we did elect this guy President of our country, maybe we should try to see what impact his decisions actually have before we do crazy things like calling him anti-American. I know that everyone and everything in our society today demands instant gratification, but the truth is, nothing gets fixed overnight. So often, we don't appreciate what our leaders accomplish until they are long gone, and then it's too late, our impatience has already bested us. So let us remember the lessons about what is popular and what is right, so that we do not make knee-jerks out of ourselves.
My personal feelings about these issues aside, there are clearly deep flaws in the thinking that Mr. Obama's positions make him anti-American in any way. Most significantly, it should be noted that what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. The President's positions might not be popular today, but that doesn't mean that he is making the wrong decisions. So often, the long-term implications of the actions of a President are not seen until much, much later, even far beyond his term. It looked like a fine idea back in the 1980s for President Reagan to authorize the sale of weapons to places like Iran and Afghanistan, and to give military training to people like Osama bin Laden. That worked out real well for us, didn't it? Conversely, it didn't look too good to some folks back in the 1930s when President Franklin Roosevelt spent lots of government dollars to fund some public work programs that would allow people to be employed and earn an honest wage. It was more than a decade before the country started to see the positive effects of this course of action.
My point is, why are we so averse to giving Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt here? I mean, he's a pretty smart dude, and he's got a lot of other smart people working with him. Maybe, just maybe, he knows what he's doing here. Maybe he's a little more qualified to be making these decisions than your average person. Maybe we should consider that he's more well-informed on these issues than the guy standing in line at Wal-Mart, struggling with the complex tasks of paying for his microwave burritos while trying not to drool on himself. The President might be in the minority, but perhaps the minority has a better idea about what's good for the country than do the drooling masses. Again, I'm not saying positively that the President is right on all counts here. What I am saying is that we did elect this guy President of our country, maybe we should try to see what impact his decisions actually have before we do crazy things like calling him anti-American. I know that everyone and everything in our society today demands instant gratification, but the truth is, nothing gets fixed overnight. So often, we don't appreciate what our leaders accomplish until they are long gone, and then it's too late, our impatience has already bested us. So let us remember the lessons about what is popular and what is right, so that we do not make knee-jerks out of ourselves.
Monday, August 2, 2010
The Fuckin' Truth
I'd been scanning the headlines every day, looking for something that really ruffled my feathers, but it had been in vain until I ran across this story today, in regards to one Jennifer Keeton. Ms. Keeton is a student at Augusta State University in Georgia, and is seeking a graduate degree in counseling from the school. However, Ms. Keeton seems not to be interested in meeting the school's requirements to earn her degree. You see, both national standards and common sense hold that, to earn a degree in counseling, students have to recognize and accept differences among their future clients, including cultural diversity and points of view different from their own. Ms. Keeton, though, has the obvious roadblock of having a Bible-based bias, an allegation which she does not dispute. Among her beliefs are that homosexuals suffer from what she terms "identity confusion". Needless to say, this was a source of concern for the university, which required that she attend diversity training, among other things. She has thus far refused, choosing instead to enlist the help of the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization, to sue the university for, she claims, being forced to renounce her religion.
Legally, it's a tough one: freedom of religion versus the national standards we hold our counselors to. That's no little thing. We're talking about people who are supposed to do their best to help others who are struggling with any number of personal issues. Of course, not every person is the same, and as such, counseling sessions would be most effective when tailored to each person's particular needs. If you are a counselor and a patient or client is coming to you for help, they do not want or need to be preached at. If that was what they were looking for, they would go to a church or a synagogue or a mosque or whatever. Ms. Keeton isn't interested in any of that, though. She doesn't want to help people in the way that they need. She has said that she believes "the Bible's teaching is true for all people and it shows the right way to live." The program's associate director indicated that Ms. Keeton believes that she possesses a special knowledge about the way that other people should live their lives, and that others should conform their values to hers.
It appears to me that the issue at hand is not Ms. Keeton's beliefs, but her insistence that they are the only valid ones, which is in direct conflict with the standards of the American School Counselor Association. To be perfectly blunt about it, this woman is in the wrong place for what she wants to do. She wants the prestige of a graduate degree, but is clearly unwilling to meet the requirements. If she wants to offer Bible-based counseling, then she needs to attend a school which limits itself to such teachings, and find a job at a similar place, where everyone will know that she isn't an actual counselor, but just another person who wants to tell people how they are supposed to be living their lives. As an aside, I would frankly be appalled to learn that a counselor I was entrusting myself to had failed so thoroughly to address her own issues.
This is a persistent problem that we have in this country, the inability to call a spade a spade. Ms. Keeton doesn't want to be a real counselor, she wants to be a Christian counselor who calls herself a real counselor. We want to say that the idiots among us have learning disabilities. They can't just be stupid. We somehow pass off those people on Jersey Shore as TV stars, but they're not. They're just an obnoxious orange douche circus. I could go on, but you get the point. We're addicted to euphemisms, and for some reason, we've become okay with that. Let's not be okay with that. It's intellectually dishonest, and it makes you look like a real big piece of equine posterior, and that's the fuckin' truth.
Legally, it's a tough one: freedom of religion versus the national standards we hold our counselors to. That's no little thing. We're talking about people who are supposed to do their best to help others who are struggling with any number of personal issues. Of course, not every person is the same, and as such, counseling sessions would be most effective when tailored to each person's particular needs. If you are a counselor and a patient or client is coming to you for help, they do not want or need to be preached at. If that was what they were looking for, they would go to a church or a synagogue or a mosque or whatever. Ms. Keeton isn't interested in any of that, though. She doesn't want to help people in the way that they need. She has said that she believes "the Bible's teaching is true for all people and it shows the right way to live." The program's associate director indicated that Ms. Keeton believes that she possesses a special knowledge about the way that other people should live their lives, and that others should conform their values to hers.
It appears to me that the issue at hand is not Ms. Keeton's beliefs, but her insistence that they are the only valid ones, which is in direct conflict with the standards of the American School Counselor Association. To be perfectly blunt about it, this woman is in the wrong place for what she wants to do. She wants the prestige of a graduate degree, but is clearly unwilling to meet the requirements. If she wants to offer Bible-based counseling, then she needs to attend a school which limits itself to such teachings, and find a job at a similar place, where everyone will know that she isn't an actual counselor, but just another person who wants to tell people how they are supposed to be living their lives. As an aside, I would frankly be appalled to learn that a counselor I was entrusting myself to had failed so thoroughly to address her own issues.
This is a persistent problem that we have in this country, the inability to call a spade a spade. Ms. Keeton doesn't want to be a real counselor, she wants to be a Christian counselor who calls herself a real counselor. We want to say that the idiots among us have learning disabilities. They can't just be stupid. We somehow pass off those people on Jersey Shore as TV stars, but they're not. They're just an obnoxious orange douche circus. I could go on, but you get the point. We're addicted to euphemisms, and for some reason, we've become okay with that. Let's not be okay with that. It's intellectually dishonest, and it makes you look like a real big piece of equine posterior, and that's the fuckin' truth.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
A Side of Fries
Tuned in to listen to Bill Cunningham briefly today in the car. For those of you who aren't from the Cincinnati area, Bill Cunningham is our local version of Rush Limbaugh. Anyway, he was whining today about something I've been hearing a lot about lately, the controversy over extending unemployment benefits, which has historically been done in times of financial difficulty. Our president is a proponent of extending these benefits, as are most in his party, which means the Republicans are throwing a fit. The argument against extending unemployment benefits seems to be primarily that paying people who aren't working encourages them to continue to not work.
Now, I can't honestly say that there aren't some people who fall into that category, but I don't know too many unemployed people who enjoy being unemployed, and I know a whole bunch of people who complain that they are severely underemployed (that is to say, they aren't working as many hours as they want to be working, because the hours aren't there to be worked). I fall into this latter group myself. Most people don't want a handout, they want to be paid, but they want to earn it. Don't get me wrong, I like my free time, but I want to work, damn it!
If you're in the camp of those who don't want to extend unemployment benefits, or even worse, want to end it altogether, what is your defense for this position? Probably, it's something like, It'll get these people off their butts and back into the work force again! Well, golly, that sure is a great argument. Oh, except for the part where there are five unemployed people for every available job right now. Math was never my strong suit, but that doesn't seem like a situation where there are just a bunch of lazy people who don't want to work. It seems a lot more like a situation where there just AREN'T ENOUGH GODDAMN JOBS.
Strangely enough, when our President wants to create new jobs (for instance, he just proposed adding 20,000 new IRS agents), people start screaming that we don't need that! Seriously? Let me explain, briefly, why that is exactly what we need. 20,000 new jobs for the government means 20,000 more people earning a living wage, something that will pay for their home, their food, their car, and all of that stuff for their family, with a little left over. That means 20,000 more people with DISPOSABLE INCOME, which is a crucial little thing that capitalism thoroughly depends upon. When people don't have disposable income, they stop buying things, and the economy crashes. Is this crystal-fucking-clear, people?
Once more: there are actually people out there who want people to get off of unemployment and get out there and get a job, yet they bitch and moan when somebody tries to create jobs for some of these people. Look, you can't have it both ways, folks. That's called a double standard, and I see so much of that, you'd think you can just drive down to McDonald's and order a Double Standard Value Meal for lunch! Hot molasses! That value meal should come with a side of Logic Fries and a nice tall glass of Shut the Hell Up!
Now, I can't honestly say that there aren't some people who fall into that category, but I don't know too many unemployed people who enjoy being unemployed, and I know a whole bunch of people who complain that they are severely underemployed (that is to say, they aren't working as many hours as they want to be working, because the hours aren't there to be worked). I fall into this latter group myself. Most people don't want a handout, they want to be paid, but they want to earn it. Don't get me wrong, I like my free time, but I want to work, damn it!
If you're in the camp of those who don't want to extend unemployment benefits, or even worse, want to end it altogether, what is your defense for this position? Probably, it's something like, It'll get these people off their butts and back into the work force again! Well, golly, that sure is a great argument. Oh, except for the part where there are five unemployed people for every available job right now. Math was never my strong suit, but that doesn't seem like a situation where there are just a bunch of lazy people who don't want to work. It seems a lot more like a situation where there just AREN'T ENOUGH GODDAMN JOBS.
Strangely enough, when our President wants to create new jobs (for instance, he just proposed adding 20,000 new IRS agents), people start screaming that we don't need that! Seriously? Let me explain, briefly, why that is exactly what we need. 20,000 new jobs for the government means 20,000 more people earning a living wage, something that will pay for their home, their food, their car, and all of that stuff for their family, with a little left over. That means 20,000 more people with DISPOSABLE INCOME, which is a crucial little thing that capitalism thoroughly depends upon. When people don't have disposable income, they stop buying things, and the economy crashes. Is this crystal-fucking-clear, people?
Once more: there are actually people out there who want people to get off of unemployment and get out there and get a job, yet they bitch and moan when somebody tries to create jobs for some of these people. Look, you can't have it both ways, folks. That's called a double standard, and I see so much of that, you'd think you can just drive down to McDonald's and order a Double Standard Value Meal for lunch! Hot molasses! That value meal should come with a side of Logic Fries and a nice tall glass of Shut the Hell Up!
Monday, July 19, 2010
What Goes Around
A little miscellaneous business is in order today, I believe. Went down to the Reds game Friday night, and was thrilled to see a great game. A close, hard-fought contest that the Reds ultimately won, a packed house, and a playoff-like atmosphere made for one of the most exciting games I have ever attended. However, my enjoyment was somewhat negated by many of the other people in attendance, specifically those who chose to walk up and down the aisles during the innings, while the game was going on. Seriously? Why am I even having to talk about this? Isn't it common courtesy, if not common sense, that you should not obstruct anybody else's view of the game if at all possible? For that matter, shouldn't you be watching the game yourself? You probably laid down at least twenty bucks, if not more, for your seat, and maybe as much for your family or your friends to sit next to you, why don't you pay attention to the game? How much diversion do you really need? Can you not wait until the inning is over to go get your hot dogs and your beers? Should you arrive back to your section after procuring your food and the inning is still in progress, you should wait on the concourse until play has stopped, and you should then return to your seat as quickly as possible, so that you are not blocking the view of another person (exceptions, of course, if you have to use the restroom and cannot wait any longer). Also, you do not need to be texting and checking Twitter every two minutes, as the guy in front of me seemed to believe was necessary to his very existence. You're at a damn ballgame, an exciting one between two good teams! Watch the fucking game! Please, be aware that you are not the only damn person in the world, and that the world will not end if you are away from your phone and/or the internet for a few hours.
Elsewhere in the world of sports, there is basketball. I personally don't care for basketball, but it's out there. And you would have to be living outside of the uncharted waters in the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy to be unaware of the LeBron James saga, which ended with James and two other top-of-the-line stars all signing with one team at the same time. The three players had essentially gotten together beforehand and come up with the idea to all play for the same team, and presumably win themselves a championship every year for the next decade or so. Doesn't that sound screwy to anybody else? I saw this morning where Michael Jordan said something to the effect of, he never called up Larry Bird and Magic Johnson and said, Hey, why don't we all play for the same team? He didn't want to play those guys, he wanted to beat them, because that's how you know you're the best. And he's right in his implication, that LeBron James isn't interested in any of that, he just wants his rings, even if it isn't strictly fair or right the way he gets them. You can be like the Yankees in baseball and stack the deck in your favor, and it may get you your championships, but it will also be sure to get you hated by everybody who doesn't root for your team.
For something completely unrelated, I'm now looking at some billboards that have gone up in a few states which are at least supporting the right of old and/or sick people to go ahead and kill themselves, if not outright encouraging it. And to this I say, great! The last thing we need is a bunch of elderly people who don't know where they are or who can't take care of themselves hanging around for way too long, being a drain on either the government or their family, whichever is paying to keep them alive. It's about time somebody started taking a common sense approach to this sort of thing. Hell, why would anybody want to stick around in that condition anyway? I mean, if you're old but you're still getting around okay, more or less on your own, then great, keep at it. Otherwise, we need to get some people outta here! I guess you could say that my theme for the day is pretty much, don't be an asshole, because there seems to be a lot of that going around right now. Somebody, please, break the cycle!
Elsewhere in the world of sports, there is basketball. I personally don't care for basketball, but it's out there. And you would have to be living outside of the uncharted waters in the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy to be unaware of the LeBron James saga, which ended with James and two other top-of-the-line stars all signing with one team at the same time. The three players had essentially gotten together beforehand and come up with the idea to all play for the same team, and presumably win themselves a championship every year for the next decade or so. Doesn't that sound screwy to anybody else? I saw this morning where Michael Jordan said something to the effect of, he never called up Larry Bird and Magic Johnson and said, Hey, why don't we all play for the same team? He didn't want to play those guys, he wanted to beat them, because that's how you know you're the best. And he's right in his implication, that LeBron James isn't interested in any of that, he just wants his rings, even if it isn't strictly fair or right the way he gets them. You can be like the Yankees in baseball and stack the deck in your favor, and it may get you your championships, but it will also be sure to get you hated by everybody who doesn't root for your team.
For something completely unrelated, I'm now looking at some billboards that have gone up in a few states which are at least supporting the right of old and/or sick people to go ahead and kill themselves, if not outright encouraging it. And to this I say, great! The last thing we need is a bunch of elderly people who don't know where they are or who can't take care of themselves hanging around for way too long, being a drain on either the government or their family, whichever is paying to keep them alive. It's about time somebody started taking a common sense approach to this sort of thing. Hell, why would anybody want to stick around in that condition anyway? I mean, if you're old but you're still getting around okay, more or less on your own, then great, keep at it. Otherwise, we need to get some people outta here! I guess you could say that my theme for the day is pretty much, don't be an asshole, because there seems to be a lot of that going around right now. Somebody, please, break the cycle!
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Life in a Bubble
When did I last post something here? Couple weeks ago? Okay, that's not too bad. I've been trying to form some kind of concrete idea of what I wanted to say next time I pulled up this page, and I think I've settled on a rant about people who are afraid of everything.
We're all afraid of something. Maybe it's spiders, maybe it's clowns, maybe it's heights, dentists, enclosed spaces, the number thirteen, whatever. Maybe you're that very special guy who fears being stuck in an elevator at the thirteenth floor who is somehow falling from the ceiling while being attacked by an arachnid improbably wearing a big red nose and oversized floppy shoes and trying to give you a root canal. You know what scares me? It isn't that unlikely Dr. Spiderclown, DDS. No, rather it's the guy that's afraid of that. Well, not that specifically. I'm talking about the guy with dozens of unspecified fears who takes extreme measures to avoid coming into contact with any of them, the guy who wears a surgeon's mask at night because he heard that you swallow eight spiders in your sleep every year, or the guy who surrounds his bed with garlic and crosses because he's afraid that Robert Pattinson might come after him and get glitter all over him.
The worst, though, the absolute worst are the overprotective parents of the world. You probably know the type. Their kid can only eat the finest (overpriced) all-natural, organic food, they have to wear an entire football uniform to get to soccer practice in case of an automobile accident, they have to be home-schooled because at a public school, they might be exposed to all sorts of Satanic things like practical sex education, the theory of evolution, or possibly even actual human interaction (oh, the horror!)
As I am going to be a dad for the first time around February or so, I want to assure you, dear reader, that there will be none of that sort of bullshit from me. Look, I'm not saying that kids don't need some good old-fashioned parental support and guidance and all that, but they absolutely do not need to be fucking coddled. That shit isn't good for anyone, it just makes them dependent and ill-prepared for the real world, and I will not have any part in having one more goddamn whiny pussy kid running around out there. It's okay if your kid is exposed to some germs, it keeps their immune system sharp in case something really nasty comes along, so don't waste your money on gallons of hand sanitizer. Don't make them wear a helmet when they go bike-riding (unless they're just learning). It will just get them beat up. Take them to McDonald's every once in awhile, it won't fucking kill them. Now, real little kids, you gotta watch them, because they're stupid and they'll stick a key in an electrical outlet first chance they get, but they grow out of that. At some point, though, you gotta take off those kid gloves and let 'em go out and get sick and get hurt and get into trouble, because that's how they learn how to be a person. If you home school 'em, they're just gonna end up being like that guy you work with who not only collects dolls, but has convinced himself that they are endangered Vietnamese kids that he has to protect by blowing up his neighbor's house, and that guy isn't nearly as funny as the movies would have you believe. Damn people, I know the media feeds you all sorts of scary things that can happen out there in the world, but you gotta remember, their paycheck depends on being able to make you afraid of everything.
Anyway, quit being over-protective, and quit being afraid of everything. You've got this life, you might as well try to enjoy it rather than putting a big fucking plastic bubble around you and everyone you care about, because life in a bubble is just a pale imitation, kids. It's Diet Life, nonfat, low-calorie crap that you choke down and try to convince yourself that you like it, but you know deep down that it's not as good as the real thing. Haven't you had enough of that?
We're all afraid of something. Maybe it's spiders, maybe it's clowns, maybe it's heights, dentists, enclosed spaces, the number thirteen, whatever. Maybe you're that very special guy who fears being stuck in an elevator at the thirteenth floor who is somehow falling from the ceiling while being attacked by an arachnid improbably wearing a big red nose and oversized floppy shoes and trying to give you a root canal. You know what scares me? It isn't that unlikely Dr. Spiderclown, DDS. No, rather it's the guy that's afraid of that. Well, not that specifically. I'm talking about the guy with dozens of unspecified fears who takes extreme measures to avoid coming into contact with any of them, the guy who wears a surgeon's mask at night because he heard that you swallow eight spiders in your sleep every year, or the guy who surrounds his bed with garlic and crosses because he's afraid that Robert Pattinson might come after him and get glitter all over him.
The worst, though, the absolute worst are the overprotective parents of the world. You probably know the type. Their kid can only eat the finest (overpriced) all-natural, organic food, they have to wear an entire football uniform to get to soccer practice in case of an automobile accident, they have to be home-schooled because at a public school, they might be exposed to all sorts of Satanic things like practical sex education, the theory of evolution, or possibly even actual human interaction (oh, the horror!)
As I am going to be a dad for the first time around February or so, I want to assure you, dear reader, that there will be none of that sort of bullshit from me. Look, I'm not saying that kids don't need some good old-fashioned parental support and guidance and all that, but they absolutely do not need to be fucking coddled. That shit isn't good for anyone, it just makes them dependent and ill-prepared for the real world, and I will not have any part in having one more goddamn whiny pussy kid running around out there. It's okay if your kid is exposed to some germs, it keeps their immune system sharp in case something really nasty comes along, so don't waste your money on gallons of hand sanitizer. Don't make them wear a helmet when they go bike-riding (unless they're just learning). It will just get them beat up. Take them to McDonald's every once in awhile, it won't fucking kill them. Now, real little kids, you gotta watch them, because they're stupid and they'll stick a key in an electrical outlet first chance they get, but they grow out of that. At some point, though, you gotta take off those kid gloves and let 'em go out and get sick and get hurt and get into trouble, because that's how they learn how to be a person. If you home school 'em, they're just gonna end up being like that guy you work with who not only collects dolls, but has convinced himself that they are endangered Vietnamese kids that he has to protect by blowing up his neighbor's house, and that guy isn't nearly as funny as the movies would have you believe. Damn people, I know the media feeds you all sorts of scary things that can happen out there in the world, but you gotta remember, their paycheck depends on being able to make you afraid of everything.
Anyway, quit being over-protective, and quit being afraid of everything. You've got this life, you might as well try to enjoy it rather than putting a big fucking plastic bubble around you and everyone you care about, because life in a bubble is just a pale imitation, kids. It's Diet Life, nonfat, low-calorie crap that you choke down and try to convince yourself that you like it, but you know deep down that it's not as good as the real thing. Haven't you had enough of that?
Saturday, June 26, 2010
For Just A Few Dollars More
It is astonishing to me that a man as smart as President Obama continues to do stupid things. His recent proclamation that his administration will be cracking down on piracy is stunningly short-sighted and poorly thought-out, and it is entirely possible that his position will have detrimental political implications when he comes up for re-election in a couple years.
The President claims that a failure to put an end to piracy will result in nothing less than the demise of the global economy, which sounds disturbingly like the sort of fear-mongering we endured in the eight years prior to Mr. Obama's election. Even worse, it is completely unfounded, as the Government Accountability Office released a report to Congress earlier this year that found no evidence of the million dollar losses claimed by the entertainment industry, most notably the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America. Indeed, the report suggested that piracy could actually be a boon to the economy.
When the American public overwhelmingly elected Mr. Obama to the presidency in 2008, it was in part because they dared hope that we would at last have a president immune to lobbyist dollars. Unfortunately, it has proven to be more of the same. For Mr. Obama, this decision comes at a time when the MPAA and RIAA (the latter in particular) have become increasingly archaic and unpopular with the American people, who see them as protectors of corporate interests, all too eager to gouge your average working stiff who just wants a night out at the movies with his family, but finds himself swindled for upwards of fifty bucks for a few tickets and a bucket of popcorn. Even worse, this appears to be just the next in a series of unwinnable wars against ideas, and this is certain to be a failure as complete as the wars on poverty, on drugs, and on terrorism, among other things. There are those among our populace who are becoming very aware that such battles are really nothing more than a distraction, the wave of a hand by a skilled magician to ensure that you won't notice the coin he has palmed in the other.
Despite this, I am less concerned with the political fate of Mr. Obama than I am with the rights of the people. Though I am not a judge or a lawyer, I have plenty of common sense that tells me that if somebody pays for something, they can do whatever they like with it. If you purchase a DVD or buy an album on iTunes, then the files contained therein belong to you, and if you choose to give them away on the internet, then you are well within your rights to do so. Downloading those files is not, as Vice President Biden suggests, equivalent to smashing a store window and taking something. Rather, it is accepting something that has been offered freely as a gift. And as for the alleged loss of millions of dollars, even if you don't accept that report from the Government Accountability Office, you should know that the record labels represented by the RIAA, for instance, make virtually nothing from album sales. Their profits derive almost wholly from live performances and merchandise. Likewise, film producers aren't making much from sales of hard copies of their movies; their big bucks come from box office receipts, and they aren't hurting for those. In case you hadn't noticed, numerous box office records have been set in multiple categories just in the last couple years. Of course, as much as it costs to go to the movies these days, it would be difficult to not be raking in the green.
At some point, we have to start applying common sense to real life, and our politicians have to be made to enact and enforce laws that protect the common man rather than corporate interests. Not everything has to make money for someone in this country, damn it! These people would have you believe that they are being robbed at gunpoint, but the truth is very much the opposite.
The President claims that a failure to put an end to piracy will result in nothing less than the demise of the global economy, which sounds disturbingly like the sort of fear-mongering we endured in the eight years prior to Mr. Obama's election. Even worse, it is completely unfounded, as the Government Accountability Office released a report to Congress earlier this year that found no evidence of the million dollar losses claimed by the entertainment industry, most notably the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America. Indeed, the report suggested that piracy could actually be a boon to the economy.
When the American public overwhelmingly elected Mr. Obama to the presidency in 2008, it was in part because they dared hope that we would at last have a president immune to lobbyist dollars. Unfortunately, it has proven to be more of the same. For Mr. Obama, this decision comes at a time when the MPAA and RIAA (the latter in particular) have become increasingly archaic and unpopular with the American people, who see them as protectors of corporate interests, all too eager to gouge your average working stiff who just wants a night out at the movies with his family, but finds himself swindled for upwards of fifty bucks for a few tickets and a bucket of popcorn. Even worse, this appears to be just the next in a series of unwinnable wars against ideas, and this is certain to be a failure as complete as the wars on poverty, on drugs, and on terrorism, among other things. There are those among our populace who are becoming very aware that such battles are really nothing more than a distraction, the wave of a hand by a skilled magician to ensure that you won't notice the coin he has palmed in the other.
Despite this, I am less concerned with the political fate of Mr. Obama than I am with the rights of the people. Though I am not a judge or a lawyer, I have plenty of common sense that tells me that if somebody pays for something, they can do whatever they like with it. If you purchase a DVD or buy an album on iTunes, then the files contained therein belong to you, and if you choose to give them away on the internet, then you are well within your rights to do so. Downloading those files is not, as Vice President Biden suggests, equivalent to smashing a store window and taking something. Rather, it is accepting something that has been offered freely as a gift. And as for the alleged loss of millions of dollars, even if you don't accept that report from the Government Accountability Office, you should know that the record labels represented by the RIAA, for instance, make virtually nothing from album sales. Their profits derive almost wholly from live performances and merchandise. Likewise, film producers aren't making much from sales of hard copies of their movies; their big bucks come from box office receipts, and they aren't hurting for those. In case you hadn't noticed, numerous box office records have been set in multiple categories just in the last couple years. Of course, as much as it costs to go to the movies these days, it would be difficult to not be raking in the green.
At some point, we have to start applying common sense to real life, and our politicians have to be made to enact and enforce laws that protect the common man rather than corporate interests. Not everything has to make money for someone in this country, damn it! These people would have you believe that they are being robbed at gunpoint, but the truth is very much the opposite.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
In the Interest of Fairness
I've got a little more to throw at BP today, specifically their CEO, Tony Hayward. Facing Congress on Thursday to provide some answers about the Gulf oil spill, Hayward repeatedly offered such replies as, "I don't recall," "I can't answer that question," and "That's a decision I was not party to." Well, now I've got a question for Tony Hayward, one that Congress didn't ask: Mr. Hayward, what exactly are you doing to earn your nearly $6 million a year (American) salary? You say you're not stonewalling, you just weren't involved in the decision-making process. This is a pretty major thing your company was doing, and you didn't have anything to do with it? Are we supposed to believe that? Are we just going to accept whomever you send forth to be your fall-guy? I know I won't. Mr. Hayward, you are the CEO of your company, you are ultimately responsible for the policies and decisions of BP. One of two things must be true here, Mr. Hayward, and neither of them is good for you. Either you were involved in the decision-making process and are lying about it, or you weren't involved, which would seem to indicate that you aren't actually doing very much actual work there, and consequently you do not deserve to be earning two pennies to rub together, much less six million dollars a year in salary (plus bonuses for more alleged accomplishments).
In a greater sense, this speaks to the issue of the money "earned" by corporate executives, be they members of the board or CEOs or Vice Presidents or whatever. Almost without exception, these people are millionaires many times over, because they are in a position to essentially determine their own salary. I'm not necessarily saying that all of them abuse this privilege, and I'm not saying that some of them aren't working hard to earn every dollar they get. What I am saying, however, is that a person receiving a salary or other form of income that makes them a multi-millionaire (or more), they aren't doing anything to deserve that kind of money. If you're not saving lives or curing cancer or something like that, you just aren't worth that kind of cash. Just because you say you deserve it doesn't mean that you actually do. You don't need that much to live on comfortably. And most importantly, you shouldn't be allowed to decide how much you make. If you're a corporate executive, your worth should be measured by how much you contributed to your company. Let your employees tell you how much they think you should make. If you worked hard and treated those in your employ well, then you will be adequately compensated.
Similarly, do you know that our members of Congress determine their own salaries? In what way is that fair? A United States Senator, for instance, earns somewhere in the neighborhood of $175,000 a year right now. Now, many of them are hard workers who mostly mean well. Their job is a difficult one, in which they face constant public scrutiny, and for good reason. The ones who do a good job probably deserve even more than that princely sum. However, it should not be their decision to make. I don't get to write my own checks, and they shouldn't be allowed to either. Ask their constituents how much they deserve; that will be a little more representative of reality. This is not me railing against those in the socio-economic upper class in this country. Rather, this is me arguing in defense of fairness to the American people, most of whom rarely get what they deserve, for better or for worse.
In a greater sense, this speaks to the issue of the money "earned" by corporate executives, be they members of the board or CEOs or Vice Presidents or whatever. Almost without exception, these people are millionaires many times over, because they are in a position to essentially determine their own salary. I'm not necessarily saying that all of them abuse this privilege, and I'm not saying that some of them aren't working hard to earn every dollar they get. What I am saying, however, is that a person receiving a salary or other form of income that makes them a multi-millionaire (or more), they aren't doing anything to deserve that kind of money. If you're not saving lives or curing cancer or something like that, you just aren't worth that kind of cash. Just because you say you deserve it doesn't mean that you actually do. You don't need that much to live on comfortably. And most importantly, you shouldn't be allowed to decide how much you make. If you're a corporate executive, your worth should be measured by how much you contributed to your company. Let your employees tell you how much they think you should make. If you worked hard and treated those in your employ well, then you will be adequately compensated.
Similarly, do you know that our members of Congress determine their own salaries? In what way is that fair? A United States Senator, for instance, earns somewhere in the neighborhood of $175,000 a year right now. Now, many of them are hard workers who mostly mean well. Their job is a difficult one, in which they face constant public scrutiny, and for good reason. The ones who do a good job probably deserve even more than that princely sum. However, it should not be their decision to make. I don't get to write my own checks, and they shouldn't be allowed to either. Ask their constituents how much they deserve; that will be a little more representative of reality. This is not me railing against those in the socio-economic upper class in this country. Rather, this is me arguing in defense of fairness to the American people, most of whom rarely get what they deserve, for better or for worse.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Win, Lose or Draw
This briefly, before I get to my actual blog topic for the day: I appreciate those who would come to the defense of both myself and common sense; I ask merely that you keep the discourse civilized here. If you cannot do this, then it had better be damn funny at the same time. Failing this, I will have to ask that such exchanges be kept private. Entertaining though they may be, this is not the place for them. I would hesitate to delete any comments, as there are few things I despise more than censorship, and there are few that I love more than the freedom that we, as Americans, enjoy to say or write whatever we like. However, I will vigorously leap to defend my friends as they have defended me should they come under any personal attack, so all who comment here should be wary of any such remarks. Similarly, comments which are in no way relevant to the blog (for instance, those which identify another commenter as my ex-girlfriend) are not welcome here. I will not have my blog reduced to an episode of the Jerry Springer Show. Again, thanks to those who realize that volleying insults back and forth is only a mere step above monkeys flinging crap at one another. Now, onward to the actual subject of the day.
I kicked around a few possibilities to write about today, and I have settled on one that came up in conversation today between Audrey and I, that being soccer. This is prompted, of course, by the World Cup, which I believe just got underway in the last day or two. I probably wouldn't even have noticed had updates on it (and the equally uninteresting NBA Finals) not been constantly interrupting the much more fascinating baseball highlights on ESPN. It is rare that I find myself in agreement with most Americans, but I think that we got it right on this occasion with our collective shrug towards soccer. I know that even ESPN pays soccer some lip service, but you can tell those guys are just trying to get through it as fast as possible to get back to the good stuff. Football and baseball are the most loved and most watched sports in the United States, and though I have not checked the ratings or attendance figures or merchandise sales, I believe that each of those things will support my conclusion (certainly, my experience as a retailer of sports cards and memorabilia bears it out). Soccer is, what, maybe sixth? Depends if you count NASCAR or golf as sports (I don't...my understanding of sports is that it is a requisite to be an athlete to play professionally, and while NASCAR drivers and golfers may be skilled in their abilities, they hardly have to be in optimal shape to perform at their peak). Soccer at least is a sport...it's just a very boring one.
I played soccer for a year (way back in third grade, admittedly), I have attempted to watch it...there's just no getting around it, it is composed of kicking a ball around. This will be enjoyable to your average person for maybe ten consecutive minutes. Hockey is essentially the same as soccer, just on skates and with sticks and a puck, and the fights occur between the players more often than in the stands. Basketball is the same essential idea, it just places less of a premium on its points. Football is a whole different animal. Political commentator George Will once described football as a combination of the two worst things about America: it is violence punctuated by committee meetings. Leave it to America to love a game such as this. Though I like football quite a lot, I suspect that I like it for entirely different reasons than your typical football fan.
I have opined at great length to anyone who will listen on the virtues of baseball, and it truly is the most unique sport that is widely watched and enjoyed in this country. Every other sport I have named is essentially one that sees each team take turns moving up the court/field, advancing on its opponent's goal. Baseball has no goal line, no net. It is the only sport in which the defense controls the ball and initiates each play. It requires, by far, the most skills to master to play at the professional level of any sport. Baseball players must be at least adequate at handling a bat in numerous situations, including the ability to hit-and-run and bunt as needed, they must be able to judge the strike zone, they must be intelligent baserunners, they must know how to read the positioning of the defensive players and know which ones have good or poor range and strong or weak throwing arms. Defensively, a player must be proficient at playing at least one position on the field, should know how to position himself according to the tendencies of every hitter who comes to the plate, should be able to make accurate throws to any base, and outfielders should know how to take the proper route to a ball in the air or on the ground, and should know where the cutoff man will be and be able to deliver the ball to him quickly and accurately. Catchers must also know how to handle a pitcher, be a good judge of his limitations and abilities, must be familiar with every hitter in the league, must be able to block pitches in the dirt and runners coming towards home plate, and must be able to throw to each base quickly and accurately. Pitchers must also have extensive knowledge of all hitters, must be able to throw at least two different pitches effectively, and must be able to field their position, cover first base, and back up throws to third and home. No other sport requires such a compendium of talent and skill, and that is only what is required to be an average baseball player. And let us not forget that baseball players are almost exclusively fine athletes. This is often overlooked because being a good athlete is not the lone requisite for being a good baseball player.
In a sport such as football or basketball, a player can often compensate for marginal skills by being extremely big and strong (see: Shaquille O'Neal) or very fast and elusive (see: Reggie Bush). Baseball players who attempt to compensate for mediocre ability with either of these things almost inevitably wash out of the pros in short order. Ask Bo Jackson or Deion Sanders, the two most notable athletes to play both pro baseball and pro football, which sport is more difficult. Both will tell you in an instant that the answer is baseball. Jackson and Sanders are both freakish athletes who worked their tails off to have just ordinary baseball careers (though they were remarkably exciting to watch play), but were stars in the NFL. Keep in mind, an NFL regular season is a mere sixteen games long. An NBA regular season is just eighty-two games. An MLB regular season is twice as long as an NBA season and ten times longer than an NFL season in terms of games played, and off-days are infrequent. Baseball's position players are expected to play about 150 games every season, nearly every single day (less for catchers, understandably). I defy anyone to go out every summer, on the hottest days of the year, and play in 150 baseball games in 180 days. It ain't as easy as it sounds, folks.
I guess my point is, please ESPN, stop interrupting my exciting, tension-packed, talent-dripping, thought-provoking baseball games to bring me clips of some guys kicking a damn ball around and their fans rioting in the streets, which I might add happens whether they win, lose, or draw. Oh, and that's another thing: there are no ties in baseball (except that one All-Star Game, but that was just an exhibition, after all). Can we please all stop pretending to care about soccer? It's getting embarrassing.
I kicked around a few possibilities to write about today, and I have settled on one that came up in conversation today between Audrey and I, that being soccer. This is prompted, of course, by the World Cup, which I believe just got underway in the last day or two. I probably wouldn't even have noticed had updates on it (and the equally uninteresting NBA Finals) not been constantly interrupting the much more fascinating baseball highlights on ESPN. It is rare that I find myself in agreement with most Americans, but I think that we got it right on this occasion with our collective shrug towards soccer. I know that even ESPN pays soccer some lip service, but you can tell those guys are just trying to get through it as fast as possible to get back to the good stuff. Football and baseball are the most loved and most watched sports in the United States, and though I have not checked the ratings or attendance figures or merchandise sales, I believe that each of those things will support my conclusion (certainly, my experience as a retailer of sports cards and memorabilia bears it out). Soccer is, what, maybe sixth? Depends if you count NASCAR or golf as sports (I don't...my understanding of sports is that it is a requisite to be an athlete to play professionally, and while NASCAR drivers and golfers may be skilled in their abilities, they hardly have to be in optimal shape to perform at their peak). Soccer at least is a sport...it's just a very boring one.
I played soccer for a year (way back in third grade, admittedly), I have attempted to watch it...there's just no getting around it, it is composed of kicking a ball around. This will be enjoyable to your average person for maybe ten consecutive minutes. Hockey is essentially the same as soccer, just on skates and with sticks and a puck, and the fights occur between the players more often than in the stands. Basketball is the same essential idea, it just places less of a premium on its points. Football is a whole different animal. Political commentator George Will once described football as a combination of the two worst things about America: it is violence punctuated by committee meetings. Leave it to America to love a game such as this. Though I like football quite a lot, I suspect that I like it for entirely different reasons than your typical football fan.
I have opined at great length to anyone who will listen on the virtues of baseball, and it truly is the most unique sport that is widely watched and enjoyed in this country. Every other sport I have named is essentially one that sees each team take turns moving up the court/field, advancing on its opponent's goal. Baseball has no goal line, no net. It is the only sport in which the defense controls the ball and initiates each play. It requires, by far, the most skills to master to play at the professional level of any sport. Baseball players must be at least adequate at handling a bat in numerous situations, including the ability to hit-and-run and bunt as needed, they must be able to judge the strike zone, they must be intelligent baserunners, they must know how to read the positioning of the defensive players and know which ones have good or poor range and strong or weak throwing arms. Defensively, a player must be proficient at playing at least one position on the field, should know how to position himself according to the tendencies of every hitter who comes to the plate, should be able to make accurate throws to any base, and outfielders should know how to take the proper route to a ball in the air or on the ground, and should know where the cutoff man will be and be able to deliver the ball to him quickly and accurately. Catchers must also know how to handle a pitcher, be a good judge of his limitations and abilities, must be familiar with every hitter in the league, must be able to block pitches in the dirt and runners coming towards home plate, and must be able to throw to each base quickly and accurately. Pitchers must also have extensive knowledge of all hitters, must be able to throw at least two different pitches effectively, and must be able to field their position, cover first base, and back up throws to third and home. No other sport requires such a compendium of talent and skill, and that is only what is required to be an average baseball player. And let us not forget that baseball players are almost exclusively fine athletes. This is often overlooked because being a good athlete is not the lone requisite for being a good baseball player.
In a sport such as football or basketball, a player can often compensate for marginal skills by being extremely big and strong (see: Shaquille O'Neal) or very fast and elusive (see: Reggie Bush). Baseball players who attempt to compensate for mediocre ability with either of these things almost inevitably wash out of the pros in short order. Ask Bo Jackson or Deion Sanders, the two most notable athletes to play both pro baseball and pro football, which sport is more difficult. Both will tell you in an instant that the answer is baseball. Jackson and Sanders are both freakish athletes who worked their tails off to have just ordinary baseball careers (though they were remarkably exciting to watch play), but were stars in the NFL. Keep in mind, an NFL regular season is a mere sixteen games long. An NBA regular season is just eighty-two games. An MLB regular season is twice as long as an NBA season and ten times longer than an NFL season in terms of games played, and off-days are infrequent. Baseball's position players are expected to play about 150 games every season, nearly every single day (less for catchers, understandably). I defy anyone to go out every summer, on the hottest days of the year, and play in 150 baseball games in 180 days. It ain't as easy as it sounds, folks.
I guess my point is, please ESPN, stop interrupting my exciting, tension-packed, talent-dripping, thought-provoking baseball games to bring me clips of some guys kicking a damn ball around and their fans rioting in the streets, which I might add happens whether they win, lose, or draw. Oh, and that's another thing: there are no ties in baseball (except that one All-Star Game, but that was just an exhibition, after all). Can we please all stop pretending to care about soccer? It's getting embarrassing.
Friday, June 11, 2010
For Your Entertainment
This may be brief, as I have just returned from vacation and am not as of yet fully recovered. Hopefully will be returning to a semi-regular schedule of better posts in the near future. However, this really couldn't wait.
Not sure if anybody else reads the comments I get on my entries here, but I do, and I seem to have acquired a Mystery Commenter who is pretty clearly opposed to at least most of the beliefs I hold. Most of these comments have been pretty benign and unobjectionable, but the most recent got my hackles up. I do not, as of this writing, know who this person is, I have only their tag, something about Blog-Eating-Waffles (what a concept!) and a sparse profile. That's fine, it's not particularly important (I don't even know what my own profile says, if it says anything). It's also fine if somebody disagrees with me; I have encouraged this in the past, and continue to do so now. I'll also readily admit that I'm not the most informed person on all things, nor do I pretend to be. I am, for what it's worth, more informed than your average guy on the street, but this blog hasn't got anything to do with that. It mostly serves as my take on whatever pops into my mind based on whatever I know of it, and should be taken as nothing more than that.
However, cherry-picking select things that I write to criticize based on whatever facts I have omitted or was unaware of...that is not respectful disagreement, that is looking to start a flame war, which I am not interested in. If you want to read my blog, that's great, I appreciate it. If you want to comment, even better. If you disagree, that's okay too, we have our right to free speech. I embrace that, and you should too. I am not, though, looking to have my blogs edited for accuracy. If I was interested in that, I would do it myself; my sterling grades on written papers during my college years indicates that I am fully capable of doing so if I wish. Clearly, I am not here to give you your news, and if that's why you're here, I recommend going elsewhere for it. Primarily, I am here to entertain (or to attempt to), in the style of a Jon Stewart or a Bill Maher, though I am no match for them in terms of my comedy or my knowledge, but then again, it is their job to be unmatched, while it is my job to stock the shelves at Target. This is just something I do in my free time, when the mood strikes me; I am hardly a professional.
If you are not entertained by my blog, please feel no obligation to continue reading it. If you wish merely to fact-check someone, I recommend applying for such a job at a news company (don't waste your time applying at Fox News, however, as they do not employ one).
Finally, if you wish to attempt to wield logic against me, you should probably be aware of the ways in which logic works. I am not interested in "having it both ways" as Mystery Commenter has suggested. If I was accepting President Obama's statements that he is responsible, then you could possibly make this claim. However, I do not recognize his acceptance of the responsibility. If I just took everyone at his or her word, then I would believe that the crazy guy on the street corner is Jesus, that Tom Cruise is sane, and that Barack Obama both is and is not a socialist, since I hear both of these uttered so frequently, and then the world would cease to exist because two contradictory things would be true. So, there you have that, I am not trying to have it both ways. Of course, I have a basic understanding of logic and do not attempt to perform gymnastics with words. I call it as I see it, and all those other great cliches. If I suggest that some Americans are happy to blame the black guy for any disaster that befalls this country, it's because I've seen significant evidence of it, but I am not suggesting that any one particular person is doing this. So, Mystery Commenter, believe it when I say that neither the universe nor my blog revolves around you (and do not make the mistake of believing that even this entry is about you; it was merely prompted by your remarks). This suggestion about a portion of the American psyche in general was not directed at you, nor anyone else in particular. You don't care what color the President's skin is, neither do I. Some people do, though, and my statement was issued to that end. A person with common sense might have deduced that from my phrasing, and the add-on that you were "waiting for this" sort of remark only serves to further my belief that you are just looking for a fight to pick. Now, you have had your say on this matter, I have had mine, and I am considering this the end of the issue. Once again, if you (and by you, I mean anybody) wish to read my blog, great, if you wish to comment, better, if you wish to disagree, fine. If you wish to solicit unwanted editing, take my words out of context, and attempt to use faulty logic against me, I will rapidly lose patience with you, and your comments containing any of these things will be cheerfully disregarded.
Not sure if anybody else reads the comments I get on my entries here, but I do, and I seem to have acquired a Mystery Commenter who is pretty clearly opposed to at least most of the beliefs I hold. Most of these comments have been pretty benign and unobjectionable, but the most recent got my hackles up. I do not, as of this writing, know who this person is, I have only their tag, something about Blog-Eating-Waffles (what a concept!) and a sparse profile. That's fine, it's not particularly important (I don't even know what my own profile says, if it says anything). It's also fine if somebody disagrees with me; I have encouraged this in the past, and continue to do so now. I'll also readily admit that I'm not the most informed person on all things, nor do I pretend to be. I am, for what it's worth, more informed than your average guy on the street, but this blog hasn't got anything to do with that. It mostly serves as my take on whatever pops into my mind based on whatever I know of it, and should be taken as nothing more than that.
However, cherry-picking select things that I write to criticize based on whatever facts I have omitted or was unaware of...that is not respectful disagreement, that is looking to start a flame war, which I am not interested in. If you want to read my blog, that's great, I appreciate it. If you want to comment, even better. If you disagree, that's okay too, we have our right to free speech. I embrace that, and you should too. I am not, though, looking to have my blogs edited for accuracy. If I was interested in that, I would do it myself; my sterling grades on written papers during my college years indicates that I am fully capable of doing so if I wish. Clearly, I am not here to give you your news, and if that's why you're here, I recommend going elsewhere for it. Primarily, I am here to entertain (or to attempt to), in the style of a Jon Stewart or a Bill Maher, though I am no match for them in terms of my comedy or my knowledge, but then again, it is their job to be unmatched, while it is my job to stock the shelves at Target. This is just something I do in my free time, when the mood strikes me; I am hardly a professional.
If you are not entertained by my blog, please feel no obligation to continue reading it. If you wish merely to fact-check someone, I recommend applying for such a job at a news company (don't waste your time applying at Fox News, however, as they do not employ one).
Finally, if you wish to attempt to wield logic against me, you should probably be aware of the ways in which logic works. I am not interested in "having it both ways" as Mystery Commenter has suggested. If I was accepting President Obama's statements that he is responsible, then you could possibly make this claim. However, I do not recognize his acceptance of the responsibility. If I just took everyone at his or her word, then I would believe that the crazy guy on the street corner is Jesus, that Tom Cruise is sane, and that Barack Obama both is and is not a socialist, since I hear both of these uttered so frequently, and then the world would cease to exist because two contradictory things would be true. So, there you have that, I am not trying to have it both ways. Of course, I have a basic understanding of logic and do not attempt to perform gymnastics with words. I call it as I see it, and all those other great cliches. If I suggest that some Americans are happy to blame the black guy for any disaster that befalls this country, it's because I've seen significant evidence of it, but I am not suggesting that any one particular person is doing this. So, Mystery Commenter, believe it when I say that neither the universe nor my blog revolves around you (and do not make the mistake of believing that even this entry is about you; it was merely prompted by your remarks). This suggestion about a portion of the American psyche in general was not directed at you, nor anyone else in particular. You don't care what color the President's skin is, neither do I. Some people do, though, and my statement was issued to that end. A person with common sense might have deduced that from my phrasing, and the add-on that you were "waiting for this" sort of remark only serves to further my belief that you are just looking for a fight to pick. Now, you have had your say on this matter, I have had mine, and I am considering this the end of the issue. Once again, if you (and by you, I mean anybody) wish to read my blog, great, if you wish to comment, better, if you wish to disagree, fine. If you wish to solicit unwanted editing, take my words out of context, and attempt to use faulty logic against me, I will rapidly lose patience with you, and your comments containing any of these things will be cheerfully disregarded.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Playing the Blame Game (An Ode to BP)
So, this BP oil spill that happened, what, a month ago now, that's old news, right? Oh well, I'm just now getting around to it. Actually, I wasn't planning on getting to it at all, because what should've happened is that BP would have the oil spill, they wouldn't fuck around, they'd stop the leak right away, clean the mess up as much as possible, they'd get a fine or whatever from the EPA, and that would be the end of it. No, strike that. What should've happened is, it shouldn't have happened at all, because BP shouldn't be in this business at all if they don't have the ability to prevent this sort of thing, or at a very minimum, to clean it up if it does happen. Okay, but it did happen. So, that's assloads of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico (or assloads of money, from BP's perspective), and they should be getting that shit cleaned up immediately, if for no other reason than they're losing a ton of money (from their point of view), or that they shouldn't be causing a ton of damage to people and the planet in that area (from the point of view of human beings). Yet, inexplicably, BP is, in fact, fucking around, since they didn't have a contingency plan for this sort of accident. And even more inexplicably, all of the anger over this incident seems to be directed at President Obama rather than at BP. This is the point at which I felt compelled to say something, not because I'm a big defender of Obama (I'm not particularly a defender of any politician), but because the media in this country is so collectively stupid that it probably couldn't locate its enormous ass with both hands, a map, a compass, and a whole goddamn team of sherpas.
Look, bottom line is, this is not Obama's fault. This is also not Obama's Katrina (that was a natural disaster where nobody is at fault, this is an unnatural disaster where somebody is at fault). The worst you can say about Obama here is that he didn't make sure that BP had a contingency plan in place for this sort of situation, but neither did any other President, or anybody else for that matter, so it's no more his fault than it is mine or yours. If we're going to blame somebody arbitrarily, why don't we blame someone who is undeniably a terrible human being? If we're going to just pick someone to scapegoat, someone who was in no way involved in this, I'd have to vote for Fred Durst. Holy shit, Fred Durst isn't doing anything about the BP oil spill?! Well, he won't be getting my vote this November! Nevermind that, for whatever reason, our media has decided that it's Obama's fault, so they're going after him instead of going after BP. Does anybody have an explanation for this? A rational explanation, I mean. Does Obama have any direct say over what BP does? Not really, unless he wants to tell BP that they will no longer be allowed to conduct business in the United States until they clean the shit up, apologize, throw garbage bags full of money at anyone adversely affected by the whole mess, and take honest-to-goodness legitimate steps to not let it happen again, and make sure there is a plan if it does happen again, a plan that will work (side note: he should do this, but he won't, because they helped him get elected. Like I said, I'm not defending that.)
More importantly, though, is that Obama or anyone else shouldn't have to worry about regulating BP. BP should fucking well regulate themselves! They should have a conscience, and if not, they should at least care about their public perception enough to not let this happen so that they don't lose a ton of business. Then again, I did drive past a BP just today, and there were a half-dozen people filling up their gas tanks there...is that it? Do people really not care that much, and BP was smart enough to realize that? I know that all oil companies are fucking the environment somewhere in the process, but right now, BP is pretty openly not giving a shit about it, and we're sort of okay with that, as long as we get to blame a black guy! Hell, he probably went down there and started pouring that oil into the gulf himself, right after he raped my mom and killed my dad and sold drugs to my little brother!
People, if you're going to blame anybody for anything, please, think about who you're blaming and what you're blaming them for, and ask yourself if there is actually a correlation between the two. If you're going to get pissed at someone for dumping oil in the Gulf of Mexico, get pissed at the people who did it, not whoever the media tells you is to blame.
Look, bottom line is, this is not Obama's fault. This is also not Obama's Katrina (that was a natural disaster where nobody is at fault, this is an unnatural disaster where somebody is at fault). The worst you can say about Obama here is that he didn't make sure that BP had a contingency plan in place for this sort of situation, but neither did any other President, or anybody else for that matter, so it's no more his fault than it is mine or yours. If we're going to blame somebody arbitrarily, why don't we blame someone who is undeniably a terrible human being? If we're going to just pick someone to scapegoat, someone who was in no way involved in this, I'd have to vote for Fred Durst. Holy shit, Fred Durst isn't doing anything about the BP oil spill?! Well, he won't be getting my vote this November! Nevermind that, for whatever reason, our media has decided that it's Obama's fault, so they're going after him instead of going after BP. Does anybody have an explanation for this? A rational explanation, I mean. Does Obama have any direct say over what BP does? Not really, unless he wants to tell BP that they will no longer be allowed to conduct business in the United States until they clean the shit up, apologize, throw garbage bags full of money at anyone adversely affected by the whole mess, and take honest-to-goodness legitimate steps to not let it happen again, and make sure there is a plan if it does happen again, a plan that will work (side note: he should do this, but he won't, because they helped him get elected. Like I said, I'm not defending that.)
More importantly, though, is that Obama or anyone else shouldn't have to worry about regulating BP. BP should fucking well regulate themselves! They should have a conscience, and if not, they should at least care about their public perception enough to not let this happen so that they don't lose a ton of business. Then again, I did drive past a BP just today, and there were a half-dozen people filling up their gas tanks there...is that it? Do people really not care that much, and BP was smart enough to realize that? I know that all oil companies are fucking the environment somewhere in the process, but right now, BP is pretty openly not giving a shit about it, and we're sort of okay with that, as long as we get to blame a black guy! Hell, he probably went down there and started pouring that oil into the gulf himself, right after he raped my mom and killed my dad and sold drugs to my little brother!
People, if you're going to blame anybody for anything, please, think about who you're blaming and what you're blaming them for, and ask yourself if there is actually a correlation between the two. If you're going to get pissed at someone for dumping oil in the Gulf of Mexico, get pissed at the people who did it, not whoever the media tells you is to blame.
Friday, May 28, 2010
My Moment of Nerdiness
Okay, my last couple of posts here have been a bit on the heavy side, both in terms of content and quantity, even by my standards. I see that I got some views, but no response, which probably means either it was too bulky to absorb, or it just wasn't interesting. So...I was considering writing today about one of my hobbies, destroying misologists (that is, those with a fear or hatred of reason). However, I fear that path would lead me into further heavy territory, what with the requisite bashing of those holding bizarre religious beliefs--Christians and the like (no, honestly, I don't begrudge anybody their religion, so long as they do not attempt to impose it upon anybody else). So, I've decided to shelve that one for the moment, and instead write about something I've been kicking around for a week or so. It would, to the casual observer, appear to be lighter in tone than my other recent entries, though I know it to be, in fact, at least as controversial as matters of religion...and if it's not, I'll make it that way! My topic today is video games.
That's right, at the risk of alienating many of my friends, I'm about to trash video games. I am admittedly not much of a gamer, and for good reason. There are a few (very few) games out there with considerable quality. These, sadly, are becoming increasingly rare. Most games now resemble the likes of God of War or Halo or Grand Theft Auto, impostors all, substituting body count and collateral damage for story and soul and hoping that nobody will notice, or will be too overstimulated by the explosions and gunfire to care. You know what I call that? I call it the T-Rex Effect, the tendency not to notice anything that doesn't display a lot of noise or movement. I know I complain a lot already about the low-brow nature of so many Americans, so I won't tread that way today. Suffice it to say, it's a lot of garbage and people need higher standards, even if it is just video games we're talking about. I know, they're meant to be an escape of sorts, and who am I to tell other people what form their escapism should take? Well, I'm Ryan, and I wouldn't be me if I didn't gripe about it!
Look, I've got my own guilty pleasures. One of the few games I play regularly is a wrestling game. Whatever. It isn't my principal form of video game entertainment. You know what my favorite game was way back when we had the original Nintendo system? The Legend of Zelda. Yeah, I was probably 7 or 8, playing a game that requires enough thought that it would be unbeatable for many adults today. And I beat the damn thing! Okay, yeah, it was kind of a group effort along with my mom and my brother. We still beat it! And that was my favorite game all the way up until we got a Nintendo 64, and I got my hands on The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Best game ever, and I know I'm not the only one who thinks so. Many prominent gaming magazines place it in their top spot, even though its technology is now somewhat outdated. I was as enthralled as I have ever been with a video game. It is remarkably broad and diverse in its scope. It contains so many elements sorely missing from nearly every other game or series. It's central characters have considerable history, based on a deep and thoroughly developed mythology, and even the secondary and peripheral characters are far from interchangeable warm (digital) bodies. The adventures are complex and fascinating, and require multiple abilities in order to navigate them successfully. The physical geography is frequently breathtaking, and even something as seemingly trivial as the music is right on the money, serving to perfectly capture the mood of each location (I particularly recall the haunting tone of the Forest Temple, so apropos considering the spirits found throughout the maze-like structure). I could go on, but you get the point; the game deserved every single off-the-charts score it received.
A few weeks ago, Audrey and I finally got a copy of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, which I am now firmly entrenched in. It is more challenging still, though this may partially be due to getting accustomed to an entirely new controller. Even so, it contains so many of the elements that made most of its predecessors in the series so great. Nearly all of the games in the Zelda series are massively popular (or were in their time, at least), and rightfully so. My fear is that they could eventually be eclipsed by the throbbing mass of mindless violence that makes up 95% of the video game market today...but my hope is that Zelda will continue to be a shining beacon, a pinnacle which all other games will forever aspire to reach, not only for the sake of video games, but what that would represent, a triumph of the mind.
Everything else aside, though, the games are just damn fun, while emphasizing the virtues of wisdom and courage over mere power and bloodthirst. After all, isn't that what we're supposed to be striving for in the real world, just as Link and Zelda do in Hyrule?
That's right, at the risk of alienating many of my friends, I'm about to trash video games. I am admittedly not much of a gamer, and for good reason. There are a few (very few) games out there with considerable quality. These, sadly, are becoming increasingly rare. Most games now resemble the likes of God of War or Halo or Grand Theft Auto, impostors all, substituting body count and collateral damage for story and soul and hoping that nobody will notice, or will be too overstimulated by the explosions and gunfire to care. You know what I call that? I call it the T-Rex Effect, the tendency not to notice anything that doesn't display a lot of noise or movement. I know I complain a lot already about the low-brow nature of so many Americans, so I won't tread that way today. Suffice it to say, it's a lot of garbage and people need higher standards, even if it is just video games we're talking about. I know, they're meant to be an escape of sorts, and who am I to tell other people what form their escapism should take? Well, I'm Ryan, and I wouldn't be me if I didn't gripe about it!
Look, I've got my own guilty pleasures. One of the few games I play regularly is a wrestling game. Whatever. It isn't my principal form of video game entertainment. You know what my favorite game was way back when we had the original Nintendo system? The Legend of Zelda. Yeah, I was probably 7 or 8, playing a game that requires enough thought that it would be unbeatable for many adults today. And I beat the damn thing! Okay, yeah, it was kind of a group effort along with my mom and my brother. We still beat it! And that was my favorite game all the way up until we got a Nintendo 64, and I got my hands on The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Best game ever, and I know I'm not the only one who thinks so. Many prominent gaming magazines place it in their top spot, even though its technology is now somewhat outdated. I was as enthralled as I have ever been with a video game. It is remarkably broad and diverse in its scope. It contains so many elements sorely missing from nearly every other game or series. It's central characters have considerable history, based on a deep and thoroughly developed mythology, and even the secondary and peripheral characters are far from interchangeable warm (digital) bodies. The adventures are complex and fascinating, and require multiple abilities in order to navigate them successfully. The physical geography is frequently breathtaking, and even something as seemingly trivial as the music is right on the money, serving to perfectly capture the mood of each location (I particularly recall the haunting tone of the Forest Temple, so apropos considering the spirits found throughout the maze-like structure). I could go on, but you get the point; the game deserved every single off-the-charts score it received.
A few weeks ago, Audrey and I finally got a copy of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, which I am now firmly entrenched in. It is more challenging still, though this may partially be due to getting accustomed to an entirely new controller. Even so, it contains so many of the elements that made most of its predecessors in the series so great. Nearly all of the games in the Zelda series are massively popular (or were in their time, at least), and rightfully so. My fear is that they could eventually be eclipsed by the throbbing mass of mindless violence that makes up 95% of the video game market today...but my hope is that Zelda will continue to be a shining beacon, a pinnacle which all other games will forever aspire to reach, not only for the sake of video games, but what that would represent, a triumph of the mind.
Everything else aside, though, the games are just damn fun, while emphasizing the virtues of wisdom and courage over mere power and bloodthirst. After all, isn't that what we're supposed to be striving for in the real world, just as Link and Zelda do in Hyrule?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
A Curious Sort-of Agreement
It has come to my attention that a significant number of my blogs boil down to issues of the role of government in the lives of the American people. I try to make a point of being an informed person on American politics, as I wish to be able to defend any arguments I make either for or against any particular policy or individual. I pride myself in my ability to be objective, or at a minimum, to be able to identify my own biases. That is to say, for instance, that I prefer to get my news from MSNBC rather than Fox News, though I know that MSNBC is almost as favorable to the political left as Fox News is to the political right. The reason is because I also know that, unlike Fox News, MSNBC doesn't just make shit up. Of course, I could circumvent the whole thing and go to CNN (which is reasonably centrist), but they just don't have any style. Hey, I am an American, and I like my news to have a bit of flair!
My larger point is that I'm self-aware enough to at least know where my prejudices lie. On the whole, I tend to be pretty leftist, though there are some issues on which I am at least ambivalent, if not firmly to the right. In brief, you might call me "pro-death" (like Bill Maher) in that I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and pro-assisted suicide/euthanasia (in the first and third instances because people should be allowed to do what the hell they want to themselves, in the second because we just need to get some people outta here...there are too many of us). I'm in favor of legalization of most (if not all) drugs (again, people should be allowed to do what the hell they want). I believe that gay marriage should be as legal as any other (see previous argument). I have mixed feelings about second amendment rights (that's guns, kids), as I understand the problem, but see no realistic solution to the seemingly endless wave of violence, and I can certainly see the argument in favor of these rights (though I feel that it is often abused and misinterpreted). I'm more or less opposed to affirmative action because I'm not interested in anybody playing favorites and because I believe so strongly in social Darwinism (and if blacks or any other minority don't like their place in society, then they damn well ought to do something about it other than bitch and moan...but at the same time, if they want to be treated with equality, then they also need to act like they deserve it...sorry, that got a bit tangential, and I'll be coming back to it shortly). I believe in individual freedom and keeping government as small as possible, because I think that large government is at best unwieldy and prone to bureaucracy and red tape, and at worst corrupt and invasive of its citizens' privacy, though I also acknowledge that a minimal amount of government is a necessary evil (not to mention unavoidable; again, more on this in a moment). One might call me a libertarian of sorts, though I prefer not to be labeled, and at any rate, libertarians tend to be (though are not exclusively) capitalists, while I stand considerably left of center when it comes to economics, at least in theory. That's me in a nutshell, and it brings me, at long last, to my main topic for today, so thanks for bearing with me thus far, and please don't give up, as I'm just getting warmed up!
On the topic of libertarians, I come inevitably to Dr. Rand Paul, who has suddenly found himself in the news for something other than being the son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul (the two will henceforth be differentiated as Dr. Paul for the former, and Congressman Paul for the latter). Like father, like son, Dr. Paul has made a name for himself as more or less a textbook libertarian, advocating for individual freedom for the American people, even at the expense of some of his personal beliefs (which I applaud), while being generally conservative on most issues, enough to recently secure the GOP nomination for a Kentucky Senatorial seat this fall. What made the news, however, was Dr. Paul's interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, in which he was seemingly unsure whether or not he supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Of course, this made it appear on its face that Dr. Paul is a racist and is unwilling to admit to it. Perhaps surprisingly, I don't believe this to be the case, and not only because of Dr. Paul's subsequent statement that he "will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act". My feeling, upon great reflection of his stated political views, is that Dr. Paul is simply still in the process of sorting out just where the balance should lie in the struggle of personal freedom versus government intervention. In this respect, the Civil Rights Act is in something of a grey area, and I found myself re-thinking my position on the Civil Rights Act, which I have long applauded. Should the government be permitted any say here in the way people treat one another (outside of physical harm, of course)? As I stated previously, I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they like, so long as it is not injurious to another person. To be perfectly frank, I believe (as I suspect Dr. Paul does) that if a person wants to be a racist, then there should be nothing preventing that, provided they don't go out lynching black dudes, and that if a company wants to not hire black people, then it is likely to be socially shunned and lose enough business that it will cease to exist, and that if a politician wants to be racist, then he runs the risk of committing political suicide. It's the long and slow and painful way to move towards a more fair and equal society (though we will never be a utopia; I'm not that idealistic), but it appears to me to be the best path to take. Rather than trying to force people to accept equality de jure, it should be allowed to happen organically. I still probably wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul if I were a Kentuckian, because he is still a Republican, and I'm very wary of Republicans in general simply because for every rational and reasonable thing the typical Republican says, he or she has probably also said three completely batshit crazy things. I am glad that Dr. Paul seems to be aware of the complexity of this issue, even if we are not in complete agreement in our respective assessments of it. He believes in this instance that the end justifies the means, while I believe that the end will sort itself out, whatever the means may be, and as such, I would prefer to keep the government minimal and unobtrusive (and un-intrusive), because a big government doesn't do much other than scare the shit out of me.
If you have managed to trudge through this entire piece, then I wish to thank you sincerely. I know it has been quite long, and I appreciate your endurance. It required much more time to write than to read, I assure you. As this is clearly something that I feel very strongly about, I would of course encourage any and all comments, whether they be in support of or in disagreement with all these things that pop into my mind and fall out of my fingertips.
My larger point is that I'm self-aware enough to at least know where my prejudices lie. On the whole, I tend to be pretty leftist, though there are some issues on which I am at least ambivalent, if not firmly to the right. In brief, you might call me "pro-death" (like Bill Maher) in that I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and pro-assisted suicide/euthanasia (in the first and third instances because people should be allowed to do what the hell they want to themselves, in the second because we just need to get some people outta here...there are too many of us). I'm in favor of legalization of most (if not all) drugs (again, people should be allowed to do what the hell they want). I believe that gay marriage should be as legal as any other (see previous argument). I have mixed feelings about second amendment rights (that's guns, kids), as I understand the problem, but see no realistic solution to the seemingly endless wave of violence, and I can certainly see the argument in favor of these rights (though I feel that it is often abused and misinterpreted). I'm more or less opposed to affirmative action because I'm not interested in anybody playing favorites and because I believe so strongly in social Darwinism (and if blacks or any other minority don't like their place in society, then they damn well ought to do something about it other than bitch and moan...but at the same time, if they want to be treated with equality, then they also need to act like they deserve it...sorry, that got a bit tangential, and I'll be coming back to it shortly). I believe in individual freedom and keeping government as small as possible, because I think that large government is at best unwieldy and prone to bureaucracy and red tape, and at worst corrupt and invasive of its citizens' privacy, though I also acknowledge that a minimal amount of government is a necessary evil (not to mention unavoidable; again, more on this in a moment). One might call me a libertarian of sorts, though I prefer not to be labeled, and at any rate, libertarians tend to be (though are not exclusively) capitalists, while I stand considerably left of center when it comes to economics, at least in theory. That's me in a nutshell, and it brings me, at long last, to my main topic for today, so thanks for bearing with me thus far, and please don't give up, as I'm just getting warmed up!
On the topic of libertarians, I come inevitably to Dr. Rand Paul, who has suddenly found himself in the news for something other than being the son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul (the two will henceforth be differentiated as Dr. Paul for the former, and Congressman Paul for the latter). Like father, like son, Dr. Paul has made a name for himself as more or less a textbook libertarian, advocating for individual freedom for the American people, even at the expense of some of his personal beliefs (which I applaud), while being generally conservative on most issues, enough to recently secure the GOP nomination for a Kentucky Senatorial seat this fall. What made the news, however, was Dr. Paul's interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, in which he was seemingly unsure whether or not he supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Of course, this made it appear on its face that Dr. Paul is a racist and is unwilling to admit to it. Perhaps surprisingly, I don't believe this to be the case, and not only because of Dr. Paul's subsequent statement that he "will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act". My feeling, upon great reflection of his stated political views, is that Dr. Paul is simply still in the process of sorting out just where the balance should lie in the struggle of personal freedom versus government intervention. In this respect, the Civil Rights Act is in something of a grey area, and I found myself re-thinking my position on the Civil Rights Act, which I have long applauded. Should the government be permitted any say here in the way people treat one another (outside of physical harm, of course)? As I stated previously, I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they like, so long as it is not injurious to another person. To be perfectly frank, I believe (as I suspect Dr. Paul does) that if a person wants to be a racist, then there should be nothing preventing that, provided they don't go out lynching black dudes, and that if a company wants to not hire black people, then it is likely to be socially shunned and lose enough business that it will cease to exist, and that if a politician wants to be racist, then he runs the risk of committing political suicide. It's the long and slow and painful way to move towards a more fair and equal society (though we will never be a utopia; I'm not that idealistic), but it appears to me to be the best path to take. Rather than trying to force people to accept equality de jure, it should be allowed to happen organically. I still probably wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul if I were a Kentuckian, because he is still a Republican, and I'm very wary of Republicans in general simply because for every rational and reasonable thing the typical Republican says, he or she has probably also said three completely batshit crazy things. I am glad that Dr. Paul seems to be aware of the complexity of this issue, even if we are not in complete agreement in our respective assessments of it. He believes in this instance that the end justifies the means, while I believe that the end will sort itself out, whatever the means may be, and as such, I would prefer to keep the government minimal and unobtrusive (and un-intrusive), because a big government doesn't do much other than scare the shit out of me.
If you have managed to trudge through this entire piece, then I wish to thank you sincerely. I know it has been quite long, and I appreciate your endurance. It required much more time to write than to read, I assure you. As this is clearly something that I feel very strongly about, I would of course encourage any and all comments, whether they be in support of or in disagreement with all these things that pop into my mind and fall out of my fingertips.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
The Worst Thing
I'm not sure if I've mentioned it much here on my blog, but I've been quite vocal about all the crap that's been going down on Wall Street in the last couple years (much longer than that, in fact, but it has really only recently become a major issue among the members of the American public). At this point, I think your average person on the street is pretty deeply distrustful of AIG and Goldman Sachs and all the rest, which means that the guy who harbors a lot more anger in general (namely, me) is absolutely frothing mad that this level of corruption and exploitation of the little guy has been allowed to happen. If there's one thing I'm a big fan of, it's social justice, and there has been none of it in this area.
Our government has, as it typically does when some wrong has been done on a huge scale, waited until every last horse has escaped to close the barn door. Still, though, at least if they start regulating the activities on Wall Street, it'll prevent this sort of thing from happening again, right? Well, that's the reasoning as I understand it, and I had been of the impression myself that increased regulation was the way to go, though I generally have strong reservations about giving the government any more power, since it mostly either gets abused, or else results in even more bureaucratic red tape, if not both. With these caveats in mind, I found myself wondering if perhaps more regulation of Wall Street is not, in fact, what the problem calls for.
I recall hearing once that the worst thing about Christianity is the Christians. The same thing, I think, could be said for capitalism and capitalists. I would argue that a capitalist system will necessarily contain some degree of evil. It's not that evil is inherent in the system; rather, evil is inherent in human nature. Okay, maybe evil is too strong a word here, but the bottom line is that there will always be those who look to take such a system too far. In a capitalist system, each individual is supposed to look out for his/herself first and foremost, in a fiscal sense. No question, it's good to take care of yourself, but once you are adequately taken care of, is it so wrong to take care of some others? Capitalism says yes, it is wrong to take care of others! Really, now? How many millions or billions of dollars do people need? Doesn't matter, there will always be greedy people, for whom another million dollars is of vital importance, even if they have nine hundred million other dollars, and even if they couldn't reasonably expect to spend it in their lifetime or, indeed, in several dozen lifetimes. My main problem with capitalism is that it encourages people like this. The curious thing is that socialism (for which I advocate, at least in theory) would suffer from the same problem in practice, not due to any lack of soundness in its rationale, but from that human nature thing that some of us have that makes us unsatisfied with "good enough", that makes us reach for more money, more power, more anything we can get our hands on. In fact, any system would suffer from this problem. There's always gonna be one guy (or more) looking to exploit any system that is put in place.
I wish I had a solution to propose, but I think the sad truth is that no amount of pills could cure the ills of society. Even if ninety-nine out of one hundred people were essentially good (they're not), that one other guy would still fuck it all up for everyone. The good news in all this is that you'll get to keep reading my angry blogs, because I can sleep soundly knowing that there is no chance at all that we could ever hope to get every last person on this rock to be on the same page. Hell, Audrey and I can't even agree on what condiment is best used on a hot dog. And you want to get six billion-plus people to come to a consensus about what will fix all the crap that keeps going wrong with our alleged society? Good luck with that.
Our government has, as it typically does when some wrong has been done on a huge scale, waited until every last horse has escaped to close the barn door. Still, though, at least if they start regulating the activities on Wall Street, it'll prevent this sort of thing from happening again, right? Well, that's the reasoning as I understand it, and I had been of the impression myself that increased regulation was the way to go, though I generally have strong reservations about giving the government any more power, since it mostly either gets abused, or else results in even more bureaucratic red tape, if not both. With these caveats in mind, I found myself wondering if perhaps more regulation of Wall Street is not, in fact, what the problem calls for.
I recall hearing once that the worst thing about Christianity is the Christians. The same thing, I think, could be said for capitalism and capitalists. I would argue that a capitalist system will necessarily contain some degree of evil. It's not that evil is inherent in the system; rather, evil is inherent in human nature. Okay, maybe evil is too strong a word here, but the bottom line is that there will always be those who look to take such a system too far. In a capitalist system, each individual is supposed to look out for his/herself first and foremost, in a fiscal sense. No question, it's good to take care of yourself, but once you are adequately taken care of, is it so wrong to take care of some others? Capitalism says yes, it is wrong to take care of others! Really, now? How many millions or billions of dollars do people need? Doesn't matter, there will always be greedy people, for whom another million dollars is of vital importance, even if they have nine hundred million other dollars, and even if they couldn't reasonably expect to spend it in their lifetime or, indeed, in several dozen lifetimes. My main problem with capitalism is that it encourages people like this. The curious thing is that socialism (for which I advocate, at least in theory) would suffer from the same problem in practice, not due to any lack of soundness in its rationale, but from that human nature thing that some of us have that makes us unsatisfied with "good enough", that makes us reach for more money, more power, more anything we can get our hands on. In fact, any system would suffer from this problem. There's always gonna be one guy (or more) looking to exploit any system that is put in place.
I wish I had a solution to propose, but I think the sad truth is that no amount of pills could cure the ills of society. Even if ninety-nine out of one hundred people were essentially good (they're not), that one other guy would still fuck it all up for everyone. The good news in all this is that you'll get to keep reading my angry blogs, because I can sleep soundly knowing that there is no chance at all that we could ever hope to get every last person on this rock to be on the same page. Hell, Audrey and I can't even agree on what condiment is best used on a hot dog. And you want to get six billion-plus people to come to a consensus about what will fix all the crap that keeps going wrong with our alleged society? Good luck with that.
Monday, May 17, 2010
The Beauty of Grey
After I posted on here yesterday, I checked the tally on visitors to my blog that I had installed around the time of my previous post, maybe a few weeks ago. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I had received sixty-something visitors (or at least, sixty-something views...I may have a stalker who reads my old posts three times a day or something), and I've had another half-dozen since yesterday. I had thoroughly anticipated being disappointed by what my hit counter would reveal, but I'm glad to see that (about to go all Sally Field here) you like me! You really, really like me! Or maybe it just means that y'all have a lot of free time on your hands, but that's cool, as long as you keep reading. In all seriousness though, I really do appreciate anybody who takes the time to read my blog, it makes it feel a lot more worthwhile. Now, if I could just get more of you to leave me some comments so I know who you are and what you think, I could thank you personally!
Here's something I thought about today that I don't think I've really discussed on here. Audrey and I were heading home from the store this afternoon, listening to 700 WLW because we're old people, I guess, and the hourly news comes on, and there's something about a seventeen-year-old somewhere in the area who was killed on the roads yesterday, and almost as an afterthought, the news guy mentions that alcohol was involved. I turned to Audrey and I said, "You know, you hear that a lot with those, that alcohol was involved. Have you ever heard them say that marijuana was involved?"
There are plenty of things that I'm ambivalent about, if not outright apathetic, but I'm a pretty aggressive advocate for the legalization of pot (and a lot of other drugs as well). I'm no pothead, mind you. I've done it maybe a couple dozen times in my life, most recently something like three or four years ago. I've never done anything heavier; I've never had train tracks, I've never danced with the devil in the white dress, I've never seen the pink elephant. However, I thoroughly believe that if that's what other people want to do, they ought to damn well be allowed to. What a person does in the privacy of their own home should not be subject to persecution by anybody else, and that's just the part of me arguing in favor of personal freedom. Then there's the part of me that says, look at the financial benefit that could be had by the United States if all, or at least some of those drugs were legalized. There's the revenue that would be provided by regulating the stuff for one, but more significantly, it would nearly slice the prison population in half! That's a whole bunch of people sitting in prison right now, eating up our tax dollars to keep them fed and clothed and in an 8x10 cell, not to mention covering their court costs. And what did they do? Nothing that hurt anybody but themselves, and in the case of marijuana, not even that! Of course, I'm talking here about drug users. They should still regulate the stuff for kids, just like they do with alcohol (not that it does a lot of good), and they should still go after people who sell it to kids, but we could still get a lot of otherwise harmless people out of our prisons and save ourselves millions, maybe billions of dollars, which we could then put towards educating the kids about the stuff, and let them make their own decisions. The kids today might not seem quite so stupid if we actually gave them some wiggle room instead of just telling them what's wrong and right. It's not the same for everybody. It's a grey area, but we are long past due to, as Ed Kowalczyk put it, appreciate the beauty of grey.
Here's something I thought about today that I don't think I've really discussed on here. Audrey and I were heading home from the store this afternoon, listening to 700 WLW because we're old people, I guess, and the hourly news comes on, and there's something about a seventeen-year-old somewhere in the area who was killed on the roads yesterday, and almost as an afterthought, the news guy mentions that alcohol was involved. I turned to Audrey and I said, "You know, you hear that a lot with those, that alcohol was involved. Have you ever heard them say that marijuana was involved?"
There are plenty of things that I'm ambivalent about, if not outright apathetic, but I'm a pretty aggressive advocate for the legalization of pot (and a lot of other drugs as well). I'm no pothead, mind you. I've done it maybe a couple dozen times in my life, most recently something like three or four years ago. I've never done anything heavier; I've never had train tracks, I've never danced with the devil in the white dress, I've never seen the pink elephant. However, I thoroughly believe that if that's what other people want to do, they ought to damn well be allowed to. What a person does in the privacy of their own home should not be subject to persecution by anybody else, and that's just the part of me arguing in favor of personal freedom. Then there's the part of me that says, look at the financial benefit that could be had by the United States if all, or at least some of those drugs were legalized. There's the revenue that would be provided by regulating the stuff for one, but more significantly, it would nearly slice the prison population in half! That's a whole bunch of people sitting in prison right now, eating up our tax dollars to keep them fed and clothed and in an 8x10 cell, not to mention covering their court costs. And what did they do? Nothing that hurt anybody but themselves, and in the case of marijuana, not even that! Of course, I'm talking here about drug users. They should still regulate the stuff for kids, just like they do with alcohol (not that it does a lot of good), and they should still go after people who sell it to kids, but we could still get a lot of otherwise harmless people out of our prisons and save ourselves millions, maybe billions of dollars, which we could then put towards educating the kids about the stuff, and let them make their own decisions. The kids today might not seem quite so stupid if we actually gave them some wiggle room instead of just telling them what's wrong and right. It's not the same for everybody. It's a grey area, but we are long past due to, as Ed Kowalczyk put it, appreciate the beauty of grey.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Ignoring History
So, just about everybody and their mother (and my mother!) is on Facebook these days. Yet, suddenly, there have been numerous calls for people to delete their Facebook accounts, due to Facebook not really giving a shit about anybody wanting any degree of privacy. Most of their default settings allow pretty much anybody to see everything on your profile, pictures, contact info, you name it. This might not be such a huge issue if Facebook actually informed its users that it was doing these things, but they don't, mostly because founder Mark Zuckerberg is an ass.
Now look, personally, some of this stuff is not that big a deal to me, but I make a point of keeping myself informed when Facebook changes something, so that I can make the requisite changes to my privacy settings to keep them where I want them. Also, I don't much care who sees my profile and my info, as long as they refrain from drunk dialing me and sending me spam e-mail. It's not like my SSN and bank account numbers are up there. However, I also understand that not everybody has the same preferences I have, and if Facebook can't respect everybody's privacy of its own accord, then it needs to be forced to. This would require either government intervention, or people deleting their accounts in droves. I'm not huge on government intervention (they've got too damn much power as it is), but if they would direct it properly, that would be fine. The second option brings us back to where I started this post: deleting your account (not to be confused with deactivating your account, which is the only option Facebook readily presents you; if you want to actually delete your account, you have to dig through something like five links to get to it). As I keep myself in the know about Facebook's activities, I don't feel threatened enough by their policies to rid myself of my account at this time. It's still the most convenient way to stay in touch with friends (which is almost exclusively what I use it for), for all of its absurdity, redundant (and sometimes confusing) interface, and assload of annoying applications, which it seems like I have to Hide another dozen of every time I sign in, until I get fed up with the handful of friends who are responsible for it and just Hide them instead (or delete them altogether, if I'm feeling feisty). But, I digress.
Myspace had the market cornered for awhile there, but they fucked it up by ignoring what the users wanted. Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg ought to be keenly aware of this, lest they go the way of Myspace whenever a better alternative comes along.
Now look, personally, some of this stuff is not that big a deal to me, but I make a point of keeping myself informed when Facebook changes something, so that I can make the requisite changes to my privacy settings to keep them where I want them. Also, I don't much care who sees my profile and my info, as long as they refrain from drunk dialing me and sending me spam e-mail. It's not like my SSN and bank account numbers are up there. However, I also understand that not everybody has the same preferences I have, and if Facebook can't respect everybody's privacy of its own accord, then it needs to be forced to. This would require either government intervention, or people deleting their accounts in droves. I'm not huge on government intervention (they've got too damn much power as it is), but if they would direct it properly, that would be fine. The second option brings us back to where I started this post: deleting your account (not to be confused with deactivating your account, which is the only option Facebook readily presents you; if you want to actually delete your account, you have to dig through something like five links to get to it). As I keep myself in the know about Facebook's activities, I don't feel threatened enough by their policies to rid myself of my account at this time. It's still the most convenient way to stay in touch with friends (which is almost exclusively what I use it for), for all of its absurdity, redundant (and sometimes confusing) interface, and assload of annoying applications, which it seems like I have to Hide another dozen of every time I sign in, until I get fed up with the handful of friends who are responsible for it and just Hide them instead (or delete them altogether, if I'm feeling feisty). But, I digress.
Myspace had the market cornered for awhile there, but they fucked it up by ignoring what the users wanted. Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg ought to be keenly aware of this, lest they go the way of Myspace whenever a better alternative comes along.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Center of the Universe
Wow, I've been absent a couple weeks here, haven't I? I beg your forgiveness there, for you see, I have been preparing to run for the hills. As you have undoubtedly noticed by now, the end is near. You can see an apocalypse of one sort or another nearly anywhere you look, particularly if you view the world as I do, in an increasingly Dale Gribble-like way. And how can you not? I know I've been on this kick about how the Man is everywhere now, but damn! The Man is everywhere now! Even if it's not the government directly, it's one of their lapdogs, the military, the multinational corporations, or my personal favorite, the media. And what does media mean today? Well, there's your TV stuff, your alleged news, your mindless primetime trash where amateurs pretend to have talent, C-level celebrities dance, and lots of things happen on an island that nobody should ever give a shit about, but that's just the distractions. The real meat is in the moneymaking, and that's on the internet. And what isn't on the internet now? The big chunk of the internet is the old cliches, all the porn and pictures of cats. Either way, you can't click a link without getting a screen full of pussy. Actually though, the bulk of what you end up looking at is advertising.
That's not the scary part, though! The really ball-shrivelingly frightening part is how specifically aimed at you the ads are now. You think that's just good marketing? You think that's companies studying their demographics? No way, dude. That's McDonald's looking at your Facebook profile and seeing that you're a great big fat person and then following you around plastering pictures of quarter-pounders with cheese on every wall they can reach. That's Starbucks looking at the same pictures and seeing a guy with clogged arteries who has trouble getting going in the morning, and surely needs a veinte-sized double caramel macchiato with a shot of espresso, whatever the hell that is, so you get your Starbucks ads on every page you look at. And then every company promoting every diet ever conceived of by man takes a look at that mess, and they see a guy who hates the way he looks and wants an easy fix, a six-pack in six weeks without having to lift a finger, and you'd better believe you'll see every last one of those on the way to checking your e-mail. A month later, you've lost two pounds, and that's reason enough to reward yourself with a Budweiser...and another, and then another, and then there's a picture of you on the internet wearing a dress with permanent marker on your face, and Budweiser sees that you're becoming an alcoholic, but you're not quite there yet, so give that man another round! Of course, all that alcohol means you can't get it up when you need to, and the damn Viagra isn't working, so you need to buy a big, loud truck to make up for your sad little dick, and of course Ford and Chevy will be there to pick you up when you're down. Of course, you can't really afford that, so you put it on your credit card, which you'll never pay off, and eventually all your stuff gets repossessed and you're out on the street begging for change. But hell, that's just what the marketing folks get paid to do! It's why they make the big bucks!
You think that sounds an awful lot like a slippery slope fallacy, huh? Well, maybe it is. But this shit happens, and don't think for a second that it's not intentional. These people know what they're doing, and they won't stop doing it until you're pushing up daisies, and then they'll just hone in on the next guy. Face it, there is no privacy. They all know just what you're doing, and they know just how to exploit it and make their money off of you and then toss your corpse onto the side of the New Jersey Turnpike. The upshot to this is that you're not insignificant. No sir, you're the big payday! So enjoy knowing that you're at the center of somebody's universe, whether you want to be or not.
That's not the scary part, though! The really ball-shrivelingly frightening part is how specifically aimed at you the ads are now. You think that's just good marketing? You think that's companies studying their demographics? No way, dude. That's McDonald's looking at your Facebook profile and seeing that you're a great big fat person and then following you around plastering pictures of quarter-pounders with cheese on every wall they can reach. That's Starbucks looking at the same pictures and seeing a guy with clogged arteries who has trouble getting going in the morning, and surely needs a veinte-sized double caramel macchiato with a shot of espresso, whatever the hell that is, so you get your Starbucks ads on every page you look at. And then every company promoting every diet ever conceived of by man takes a look at that mess, and they see a guy who hates the way he looks and wants an easy fix, a six-pack in six weeks without having to lift a finger, and you'd better believe you'll see every last one of those on the way to checking your e-mail. A month later, you've lost two pounds, and that's reason enough to reward yourself with a Budweiser...and another, and then another, and then there's a picture of you on the internet wearing a dress with permanent marker on your face, and Budweiser sees that you're becoming an alcoholic, but you're not quite there yet, so give that man another round! Of course, all that alcohol means you can't get it up when you need to, and the damn Viagra isn't working, so you need to buy a big, loud truck to make up for your sad little dick, and of course Ford and Chevy will be there to pick you up when you're down. Of course, you can't really afford that, so you put it on your credit card, which you'll never pay off, and eventually all your stuff gets repossessed and you're out on the street begging for change. But hell, that's just what the marketing folks get paid to do! It's why they make the big bucks!
You think that sounds an awful lot like a slippery slope fallacy, huh? Well, maybe it is. But this shit happens, and don't think for a second that it's not intentional. These people know what they're doing, and they won't stop doing it until you're pushing up daisies, and then they'll just hone in on the next guy. Face it, there is no privacy. They all know just what you're doing, and they know just how to exploit it and make their money off of you and then toss your corpse onto the side of the New Jersey Turnpike. The upshot to this is that you're not insignificant. No sir, you're the big payday! So enjoy knowing that you're at the center of somebody's universe, whether you want to be or not.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Just Details
Write about something positive, Laura says to me. You're so negative about everything, Audrey tells me. Finally, last night, Ron offers the opinion that I must be sad and depressed all the time, because of my cynical and nihilistic views of the condition our world is in. Really? Is that what everyone thinks of me? That I couldn't possibly be happy, just because the world is falling apart?
Look, the fact of the matter is, things suck, and they're only getting worse. That's just the nature of the universe. Chaos is always increasing. The way we know that time has elapsed is because there is more chaos now than there was a minute ago. You might see a glass fall off the table and shatter on the floor, but you'll never see the glass gather itself back together and leap back onto the table. That's because there is always more chaos in the future than there is in the past. Therefore, if chaos is always increasing, then the universe is just going to continue to get more chaotic, and things will keep breaking down. Remember a few weeks back when I wrote about all those earthquakes we've been having recently? Well, they're still happening. But I'm not cynical about that. That's just a fact of life.
Our government is a joke. It doesn't serve the people, it just distracts them. They don't want us united. Oh, sure, they say they do. But then they turn around and make every effort to polarize us. You know why? Because divide and conquer, that's why. The more divided we are, the more power they have. Do we really want a government that has more power? They tell us we're free, but we're not fucking free. Yeah, we have choices. We can eat at McDonald's or Burger King. We can use an Apple or a PC. We can call or text. We can vote Democrat or Republican. Those are our alleged choices, but ultimately, you get the same thing either way. That's not a fucking choice! We can choose, but we can only choose from the options they want us to choose from. If we choose something else, we're ostracized. We haven't managed to fit in with the societal norms, so we get marginalized, at best. We don't matter.
Back to my original point. Yes, I'm pretty cynical, and yes, I'm pretty nihilistic. But it's just the reality of the situation. The difference between me and most other people is that I've accepted it for what it is. There is no realistic hope of changing it; we're all beyond help. It's all good, though. This is the situation we've all been thrust into, but why should I let it drag me down? Sure, it's frustrating, and it makes me angry quite a lot (hence this blog), but I don't see why it should prevent me from generally enjoying the life I've got. I think I'm in a pretty good mood on the whole. I'm rarely sad, and even if I'm angry, I try to keep my sense of humor about it, because I realize that, at the end of the day, that's all I can really control, and it's the only thing that actually matters. Everything else is just details.
Look, the fact of the matter is, things suck, and they're only getting worse. That's just the nature of the universe. Chaos is always increasing. The way we know that time has elapsed is because there is more chaos now than there was a minute ago. You might see a glass fall off the table and shatter on the floor, but you'll never see the glass gather itself back together and leap back onto the table. That's because there is always more chaos in the future than there is in the past. Therefore, if chaos is always increasing, then the universe is just going to continue to get more chaotic, and things will keep breaking down. Remember a few weeks back when I wrote about all those earthquakes we've been having recently? Well, they're still happening. But I'm not cynical about that. That's just a fact of life.
Our government is a joke. It doesn't serve the people, it just distracts them. They don't want us united. Oh, sure, they say they do. But then they turn around and make every effort to polarize us. You know why? Because divide and conquer, that's why. The more divided we are, the more power they have. Do we really want a government that has more power? They tell us we're free, but we're not fucking free. Yeah, we have choices. We can eat at McDonald's or Burger King. We can use an Apple or a PC. We can call or text. We can vote Democrat or Republican. Those are our alleged choices, but ultimately, you get the same thing either way. That's not a fucking choice! We can choose, but we can only choose from the options they want us to choose from. If we choose something else, we're ostracized. We haven't managed to fit in with the societal norms, so we get marginalized, at best. We don't matter.
Back to my original point. Yes, I'm pretty cynical, and yes, I'm pretty nihilistic. But it's just the reality of the situation. The difference between me and most other people is that I've accepted it for what it is. There is no realistic hope of changing it; we're all beyond help. It's all good, though. This is the situation we've all been thrust into, but why should I let it drag me down? Sure, it's frustrating, and it makes me angry quite a lot (hence this blog), but I don't see why it should prevent me from generally enjoying the life I've got. I think I'm in a pretty good mood on the whole. I'm rarely sad, and even if I'm angry, I try to keep my sense of humor about it, because I realize that, at the end of the day, that's all I can really control, and it's the only thing that actually matters. Everything else is just details.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Of Monkeys and Minors
Have you ever been to Wisconsin? I have. I was lucky enough to be there briefly during the summer maybe half a dozen years ago, and I was very impressed. Milwaukee looked to be roughly Cincinnatian in size and in aesthetic qualities, but was mysteriously lacking in a bunch of people being killed all the time. We drove through Madison, with all those pretty lakes, right around sunrise, and that was downright beautiful. There was so much green...it was really the highlight of my trip out west. But today, Wisconsin is disappointing me.
A district attorney in Juneau County has informed high schools within his jurisdiction that teaching students about birth control and sexually transmitted diseases will result in prosecution. How does this work, you ask? Well, according to the DA, teaching sex ed to teenagers amounts to nothing more than contributing to the delinquency of a minor! Really? But wait, this gets even better. These schools are not required to teach sex ed, but those that do are required to teach students about birth control and STDs! That is to say, by teaching students about these things that the DA refers to as "sick and shameful", the schools would be following the explicitly stated law!
I really, sincerely hope that some teacher challenges this and teaches the proper curriculum anyway, in order to challenge the district attorney's decision on this matter. It'll be the Scopes Trial all over again (yes, I know that Scopes was found guilty, but that was teaching evolution in 1920's Tennessee. That wouldn't even go over there today!) I can't imagine that any of this would stand up in a court of law (though I have not the greatest faith in our legal system) as anything resembling contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
On a side note, when are people going to finally give up this notion that teaching sex ed to teenagers is a bad thing? Has it not been shown pretty conclusively that telling kids not to have sex, then sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming until the devil goes away, does not really do anything towards actually stopping kids from having sex? Give up already! They're kids, it's what they do. You need to just accept that and teach them how to do it in a way that won't get anyone pregnant or give anyone the clap. We're a fucking decade into the twenty-first century here people, isn't it time we stopped acting like it's the goddamn 1950s?
A district attorney in Juneau County has informed high schools within his jurisdiction that teaching students about birth control and sexually transmitted diseases will result in prosecution. How does this work, you ask? Well, according to the DA, teaching sex ed to teenagers amounts to nothing more than contributing to the delinquency of a minor! Really? But wait, this gets even better. These schools are not required to teach sex ed, but those that do are required to teach students about birth control and STDs! That is to say, by teaching students about these things that the DA refers to as "sick and shameful", the schools would be following the explicitly stated law!
I really, sincerely hope that some teacher challenges this and teaches the proper curriculum anyway, in order to challenge the district attorney's decision on this matter. It'll be the Scopes Trial all over again (yes, I know that Scopes was found guilty, but that was teaching evolution in 1920's Tennessee. That wouldn't even go over there today!) I can't imagine that any of this would stand up in a court of law (though I have not the greatest faith in our legal system) as anything resembling contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
On a side note, when are people going to finally give up this notion that teaching sex ed to teenagers is a bad thing? Has it not been shown pretty conclusively that telling kids not to have sex, then sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming until the devil goes away, does not really do anything towards actually stopping kids from having sex? Give up already! They're kids, it's what they do. You need to just accept that and teach them how to do it in a way that won't get anyone pregnant or give anyone the clap. We're a fucking decade into the twenty-first century here people, isn't it time we stopped acting like it's the goddamn 1950s?
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Inside the (Terrible) Actors' Studio
You know something? This is my blog, damn it, and I can and will write about whatever I like. It doesn't always have to be about the latest political news, or supposedly important stuff. Hell, I don't write about that stuff because it's important, I write about it because it's interesting to me. And today, what is interesting to me is to write about how I despise Ray Romano. You know why I can't stand the guy? Because fuck Ray Romano, that's why. However, this is a blog, and I can't leave it at that. Surely you, my valued reader, demand more detail as to what it is about Ray Romano that just doesn't chop my liver.
See, the thing is, Ray Romano doesn't do anything that Tony Danza and Joe Mantegna haven't been doing better for much, much longer. Everybody loves Raymond, yes. But where, my friends, is the love for Tony Danza and Joe Mantegna? Ray Romano wouldn't even have a stereotypical Italian patriarchal role to butcher if it wasn't for Tony Danza. Who's the boss? Well, it ain't Springsteen, and it sure the hell ain't Ray Romano. Fuck no, it's Tony Danza! And now I have to say something about Joe Mantegna to defend my position that he is better than Ray Romano, so here's that: Ray Romano appeared on one episode of The Simpsons, whereas Joe Mantegna has been on the show numerous times over the previous two decades. That is to say, wherever somebody is playing a crappier version of "that Italian guy" on any TV show, Ray Romano is there. Whenever I see Ray Romano on TV, it almost makes me wish I was watching the Golf Channel. Almost.
Seriously, what kind of country is this that some guy can just go and steal the character already played successfully by two other talented actors, do a piss-poor job of it, and make millions of dollars at it? Oh, right. It's that kind of country.
Next week on my feature on actors who should just give up, I haven't decided who annoys me more, Ben Stiller or Kevin James, but it'll be one of them. Or I'll be lazy and not write about it. But let it be known that the world is worse for their presence.
See, the thing is, Ray Romano doesn't do anything that Tony Danza and Joe Mantegna haven't been doing better for much, much longer. Everybody loves Raymond, yes. But where, my friends, is the love for Tony Danza and Joe Mantegna? Ray Romano wouldn't even have a stereotypical Italian patriarchal role to butcher if it wasn't for Tony Danza. Who's the boss? Well, it ain't Springsteen, and it sure the hell ain't Ray Romano. Fuck no, it's Tony Danza! And now I have to say something about Joe Mantegna to defend my position that he is better than Ray Romano, so here's that: Ray Romano appeared on one episode of The Simpsons, whereas Joe Mantegna has been on the show numerous times over the previous two decades. That is to say, wherever somebody is playing a crappier version of "that Italian guy" on any TV show, Ray Romano is there. Whenever I see Ray Romano on TV, it almost makes me wish I was watching the Golf Channel. Almost.
Seriously, what kind of country is this that some guy can just go and steal the character already played successfully by two other talented actors, do a piss-poor job of it, and make millions of dollars at it? Oh, right. It's that kind of country.
Next week on my feature on actors who should just give up, I haven't decided who annoys me more, Ben Stiller or Kevin James, but it'll be one of them. Or I'll be lazy and not write about it. But let it be known that the world is worse for their presence.
Monday, March 22, 2010
That Would Make Sense
At work today, I was stocking shelves over in the toys department. Sally, a tiny woman who looks to be forty-ish, was the only other one in the area. We were finishing up there, and over in the adjacent sporting goods section, a couple of small children were running around, babbling loudly. Sally remarked that she remembered when her kids were that little. I replied that a number of people had told me that they couldn't picture me as a little kid, that I must have just appeared somewhere as a teenager. Mom tells me that I was like an old person, even when I was very young. I doubt it's what she was referring to, but I was certainly advanced, particularly with words. I could read before I started school, and was reading at a high school level in second grade. Thing about that is, the school I attended was Clermont Northeastern, a place which does not exactly represent the pinnacle of standards in education to begin with. Naturally, they didn't know what to do with someone like me. In the early grades, work was assigned for the coming week on Monday, to be completed by the end of the day Friday. I would finish my work on Tuesday or Wednesday, and spend the rest of the week doing reading of my choice. Or at least, that's what I wanted to do. CNE, being CNE, decided that the best thing to do with a smart kid who was eager to be intellectually stimulated was to punish him. What, was that intimidating or something? Have there never been gifted students before? Is this the nineteenth century? Why have we not figured this shit out yet?! And believe me, it's still going on. There is no celebration of individuality or of actual intelligence. They just want you to pass their standardized tests, and then they dump you out into the real world with not a clue what to do once you're there. Aw, hell, ain't that what college is for? Right, but we're not prepared for that either, so if we do go to college and get that $50,000 piece of paper that reads, "Yay, you bought a piece of paper!", we spend that four-plus years just catching up, and by the time the university spits us out, we missed all that stuff that was supposed to help us. But I digress.
Back at CNE, I wasn't allowed to read my books, and I was discouraged from doing anything not school-approved (that is, anything that I thought of on my own was no good at all). So, I got to be bored, and I started acting out because what the hell else was there to do? And then I got punished for that too, and now everybody wonders why Ryan has no ambition? Maybe it's because anytime I ever tried to do anything I wanted to do, somebody rapped my knuckles with the proverbial ruler. Really makes a guy feel like he just can't do anything right, so why try? I'm not saying that's right, and it's not an excuse or anything, it was just something that occurred to me. So, thanks for psychologically crippling me, CNE! But also, thanks for convincing me that what I really needed was a college education, so that I could be one of millions of college graduates who can't get a real job because the job market is so saturated with people just like me, who blew thousands of dollars to get that degree that was supposed to land us the big bucks at some indefinite place down the line...but the system just can't support that, and we need to face that reality. Otherwise, we spend our lives convincing ourselves that all kids are equal when they're not, so that all young adults believe that they're equal to all other young adults, when they're not, so they all go and get those pricey pieces of paper, and most of them will no longer earn enough more in a lifetime than a non-college graduate to justify the cost (that's true, go look it up). Yes, it's a great education system we've got here.
In other news...actually, I guess it's the big headline today...the health care thing passed. I'm actually surprised that even that relatively weak bill managed to get through in this country. It's...well, I guess it's progress, or something. I mean, it is a step in the right direction, though I still think that what we really need to do is scrap the whole system and have the government pay for everybody's health care. I mean, why does everything in this fucking country have to make money? Shouldn't access to health care be one of those things that's for the public good? Instead of having everybody essentially gambling, putting money into something with no guarantee that they will get the equivalent back in health care, why don't we all just pay towards it in our taxes relative to how much we make, and that goes to pay the doctors and provide the medicine and procedures as needed? Yeah, that's socialism, but so goddamn what? It's fair, and it makes sense! Why does that scare everyone so much? But the worst thing about the bill we've got now is that it penalizes people for not having health insurance. Hey, quick question here. Anybody have any idea what the number one reason is that people don't have health insurance now? Because they don't have enough money to pay for it! So we're going to fine them? Oh yes, that makes sense. Let's fine the people who don't have any money. Then we can have debtor prisons again, because we're not already wasting enough money imprisoning people on harmless drug charges. You see how everything ties together like that? Maybe we'll get all this stuff right eventually...but probably not.
We have a saying down at Target: "You know what the most commonly uttered phrase is among Target employees? 'That would make sense.'" Think about it.
Back at CNE, I wasn't allowed to read my books, and I was discouraged from doing anything not school-approved (that is, anything that I thought of on my own was no good at all). So, I got to be bored, and I started acting out because what the hell else was there to do? And then I got punished for that too, and now everybody wonders why Ryan has no ambition? Maybe it's because anytime I ever tried to do anything I wanted to do, somebody rapped my knuckles with the proverbial ruler. Really makes a guy feel like he just can't do anything right, so why try? I'm not saying that's right, and it's not an excuse or anything, it was just something that occurred to me. So, thanks for psychologically crippling me, CNE! But also, thanks for convincing me that what I really needed was a college education, so that I could be one of millions of college graduates who can't get a real job because the job market is so saturated with people just like me, who blew thousands of dollars to get that degree that was supposed to land us the big bucks at some indefinite place down the line...but the system just can't support that, and we need to face that reality. Otherwise, we spend our lives convincing ourselves that all kids are equal when they're not, so that all young adults believe that they're equal to all other young adults, when they're not, so they all go and get those pricey pieces of paper, and most of them will no longer earn enough more in a lifetime than a non-college graduate to justify the cost (that's true, go look it up). Yes, it's a great education system we've got here.
In other news...actually, I guess it's the big headline today...the health care thing passed. I'm actually surprised that even that relatively weak bill managed to get through in this country. It's...well, I guess it's progress, or something. I mean, it is a step in the right direction, though I still think that what we really need to do is scrap the whole system and have the government pay for everybody's health care. I mean, why does everything in this fucking country have to make money? Shouldn't access to health care be one of those things that's for the public good? Instead of having everybody essentially gambling, putting money into something with no guarantee that they will get the equivalent back in health care, why don't we all just pay towards it in our taxes relative to how much we make, and that goes to pay the doctors and provide the medicine and procedures as needed? Yeah, that's socialism, but so goddamn what? It's fair, and it makes sense! Why does that scare everyone so much? But the worst thing about the bill we've got now is that it penalizes people for not having health insurance. Hey, quick question here. Anybody have any idea what the number one reason is that people don't have health insurance now? Because they don't have enough money to pay for it! So we're going to fine them? Oh yes, that makes sense. Let's fine the people who don't have any money. Then we can have debtor prisons again, because we're not already wasting enough money imprisoning people on harmless drug charges. You see how everything ties together like that? Maybe we'll get all this stuff right eventually...but probably not.
We have a saying down at Target: "You know what the most commonly uttered phrase is among Target employees? 'That would make sense.'" Think about it.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Expletive (Not) Deleted
Some things are very black and white in my book. For instance, Gold Star is good, Skyline is bad. This is a fact, there are no two ways about it. There are a few other things that are etched in stone as far as I'm concerned. So, here's the thing about Chicago: fuck Chicago. It is the worst place humanity ever conceived of. I've had the pleasure of spending a total of about six hours in Chicago in my life, and every one of them ranks among the worst hours of my life. Those of you who know me that well will probably point out that I was passing through Chicago going to and from Montana on a Greyhound bus, so most of that time was spent in a bus station, and that's not representative of the real Chicago, right? Bullshit, that is perfectly representative of Chicago! But Ryan, you ask, you must have been in a lot of bus stations on that trip, and there must have been shitty people in every one of them, right? Not a chance. People were perfectly nice at almost every single one of them, and at the various other places I saw along the way. But in Chicago? No, anybody I had to communicate with for any reason was nothing less than a complete douchebucket. I've never been to New York, but I cannot imagine that New Yorkers are more horrific people than Chicagoans. Chicago is that place that Hell spewed forth from its seventh circle, then promptly disowned for being too disgusting. For those of you who haven't been to Chicago, have you ever maybe been channel-surfing, and you happened upon a Chicago Cubs game on WGN? Have you seen the kinds of people who attend those games? They're the kinds of people who throw baseballs onto the field, who steal the cap off the heads of the players in the visiting team's bullpen, and who dump beer on the opposing outfielders. Real classy, Chicago. Hey, I know, there are shitty people everywhere, even here. But damn, it's like Chicago has been holding an Asshole Convention non-stop for the last century or so.
Okay, that's all of my anti-Chicago rant there. In other news, I had a pretty lousy day yesterday, bad enough that I'm actually bothering to bitch about it here. It's actually not really to complain, but rather to astonish you, my beloved readers, that a day can, in fact, be that lousy without a loved one dying or something. Okay, it wasn't really that bad in retrospect (and not compared to Laura's...as she told it, hers made mine look like a walk in the fucking park, but nonetheless). It started with me waking up at 3:30 AM, better known as the middle of the fucking night, and still two and a half hours before I had to be at work. For reasons known only to...well, nobody really, my brain decided to switch itself on and begin galloping at top speed. So that was it for sleeping for me, in spite of my efforts to get back to sleep, which I needed to do badly. An hour later, I gave up and went to sit in front of my computer. However, upon turning it on, I discovered that it decided that it wasn't going to locate my hard drive. I don't know a ton about computer problems, but I know enough to realize that "Hard Drive Not Found" sounds pretty bad. With no other options presented to me, and since I couldn't get to Windows, I ran some sort of diagnostic thing, and left it running while I went to work and spent my shift wondering how I was going to afford a new computer. Feeling about the worst I've ever felt at work, I worked my usual exhausting spot on the line while we unloaded a 2100-piece truck, the most difficult one I've done yet. I was offered an extra half-hour at the end of my shift, which I could've used, but I was supposed to meet Old Gary to get some back pay, so I had to decline. Naturally, Old Gary was late enough that I could've taken the extra work anyway, so that was great. I spent most of the rest of the day cleaning the living room, washing dishes, and trying to plunge the toilet that randomly refuses to flush. On the plus side, my computer magically fixed itself while I was gone, apparently, but I'm still a bit paranoid that it might go out again and not come back. Ain't technology great? My space bar also isn't working so great, I have to keep backspacing so my words don't run together, but I guess that seems pretty minor after all the rest, eh? Okay, so yeah, not really the worst day ever, but worth the recounting anyway. I also meant to do some writing, but I never could get my brain into the right gear for it, hence this lengthy blog today. Not altogether my usual sort of blog, I know, but it's good to mix things up occasionally.
Okay, that's all of my anti-Chicago rant there. In other news, I had a pretty lousy day yesterday, bad enough that I'm actually bothering to bitch about it here. It's actually not really to complain, but rather to astonish you, my beloved readers, that a day can, in fact, be that lousy without a loved one dying or something. Okay, it wasn't really that bad in retrospect (and not compared to Laura's...as she told it, hers made mine look like a walk in the fucking park, but nonetheless). It started with me waking up at 3:30 AM, better known as the middle of the fucking night, and still two and a half hours before I had to be at work. For reasons known only to...well, nobody really, my brain decided to switch itself on and begin galloping at top speed. So that was it for sleeping for me, in spite of my efforts to get back to sleep, which I needed to do badly. An hour later, I gave up and went to sit in front of my computer. However, upon turning it on, I discovered that it decided that it wasn't going to locate my hard drive. I don't know a ton about computer problems, but I know enough to realize that "Hard Drive Not Found" sounds pretty bad. With no other options presented to me, and since I couldn't get to Windows, I ran some sort of diagnostic thing, and left it running while I went to work and spent my shift wondering how I was going to afford a new computer. Feeling about the worst I've ever felt at work, I worked my usual exhausting spot on the line while we unloaded a 2100-piece truck, the most difficult one I've done yet. I was offered an extra half-hour at the end of my shift, which I could've used, but I was supposed to meet Old Gary to get some back pay, so I had to decline. Naturally, Old Gary was late enough that I could've taken the extra work anyway, so that was great. I spent most of the rest of the day cleaning the living room, washing dishes, and trying to plunge the toilet that randomly refuses to flush. On the plus side, my computer magically fixed itself while I was gone, apparently, but I'm still a bit paranoid that it might go out again and not come back. Ain't technology great? My space bar also isn't working so great, I have to keep backspacing so my words don't run together, but I guess that seems pretty minor after all the rest, eh? Okay, so yeah, not really the worst day ever, but worth the recounting anyway. I also meant to do some writing, but I never could get my brain into the right gear for it, hence this lengthy blog today. Not altogether my usual sort of blog, I know, but it's good to mix things up occasionally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)