No, this isn't a tutorial on how to copy the magnetic stripes off of credit cards or how to harvest social security numbers. You don't have to be nearly that crafty to commit identity theft on a small scale. All you really have to do is wander around internet-enabled computers that are publicly accessible, because if my observations are any indication, sooner or later (probably sooner) you'll find a computer on which someone has forgotten to log out of whatever they had been logged into before they left. There are a handful of self-service computers near where I work, and at least once a week I see an abandoned monitor with a personal account of some sort in plain view.
It's usually something as relatively low-security as an email account, and sometimes as medium-sensitivity as a college student's registration account, but when you can email their boyfriend/girlfriend a hostile breakup note or a fictitious confession of infidelity (which could be fun and fast if you had a nice elaborate one already written up as a text file and stored on a thumb drive you carry around with you ... not that I'd ever do that), or you can decline the financial aid package that a student really needs, the damage that can be done even on that level becomes clear ... to say nothing of the high-impact identity theft that can occur when someone passively allows a stranger to stroll right on into their own bank account, which -- express verbal consent or not -- is just what you'd be doing if you neglected to take the oh-so-simple step of clicking the "log out" button.
And with Facebook it can be somewhat trickier, since even if you close the browser completely and re-launch it later (unless the preferences setting that purges the browser's cookies when it's closed is active), Facebook keeps you logged in ... so it'd be easy to trash-talk a stranger's friends, change their status to being in a relationship with their friend's underaged sister (relax, folks ... just an out-of-the-blue example), or anything else that an armchair cyber-sociopath could dream up. Hijacking a stranger's passwords is getting more difficult, though, since nearly all reputable sites require users to verify their old password immediately before entering a new one.
News reports everywhere have been saying that identity thieves are getting more and more clever, but that's only half the story. Identity theft victims are getting more and more careless and/or stupid. Fortunately for you all, folks, I'm an honest guy, and whenever I see an abandoned machine that's still logged into something touchy, I'll usually just log it out rather than confess a random user's neo-Naziism to their entire address book, or finance my own vacation to Europe ... not that the whim might not strike me someday, somewhere....
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
'Tain't The Season
This is probably going to sound like a silly cliché that old-timers say, but I'm being totally honest when I say it: it feels like the Christmas hype starts earlier and earlier every year. This year, I could swear that I started seeing holiday-themed commercials on TV before Halloween even happened. I know for a fact that I saw them well before Turkey Day, and if you ask me that's way, way, WAY too early as it is. I can only stand a week and a half (two weeks at the very most) of Christmas music before I start retching, so you can imagine how I feel about enduring almost two months of advertisements peppered with holly twigs, snowflakes, wreaths, flashes of red and green, and the annoying sound of sleigh bells. I think there ought to be a law that forbids Christmastime advertising of any kind until after Thanksgiving.
People would probably argue that doing so would be counter-productive in terms of having a successful "Black Friday", but then we all know that every store opens ridiculously early and has ridiculous sales on the day after Thanksgiving, so all that people who are interested enough would have to do is to ask their favorite stores when they'll open that day. One thing's for sure: the only place you'd find me on that day is at home. It's not that I don't like a good sale as much as the next guy ... hey, I've been known to use coupons just because I have them. Instead, it's the spirit behind it -- and that's the one kind of Christmas "spirit" I can definitely do without. We've all seen the images of those stampedes of people who flood into the stores the instant the doors open the morning after the feast, and we hear almost every year about someone actually getting killed in one of those hordes. No amount of savings is worth enduring that chaos, and anybody who voluntarily goes out to take part in it has got to be clinically insane.
I have to wonder what happens come December to all the religious conservatives out there. The other eleven months of the year they're all in the faces of us secular folk about embracing Jesus as their savior and living "a Christian life" (whatever arbitrary criteria that phrase is supposed to fit), but where are they when the blatant commercialization of their holiest of holy days rears its ugly head? Far be it from me to trash-talk a group of people based on their faith, but I rather suspect they're some of the first ones out there, waiting in line at 2 A.M. the morning after Thanksgiving to buy that $199 flat-screen TV for their kids. Personally, I'm at neither extreme. I'm not religious, so Christmas isn't any kind of "sacred cow" to me (we don't even feel compelled to put up decorations at home, except for maybe a wreath or two). Nor do I tend to put any importance on either the monetary value or the quantity of the gifts that I give -- I usually stick with making little home-made gifts for family and friends in the interest of keeping it simple, relatively inexpensive, and more personalized -- and I hold no expectations for the gifts that I may receive from others (or may not -- not everyone's in the position to give gifts, after all).
America needs to make up its mind how it feels about Christmas, but the way the media and culture perpetuate our lemming-like consumerist attitudes, I don't see a change coming anytime soon. Most people think Christmas is all about Santa Claus, and they don't take it seriously enough; most of the rest take Christmas way too seriously and make it all about the Baby Jesus; but I'm comfortable standing on the middle ground, believing that the most important people at Christmastime are my family and close friends. I have to wonder what the world would be like if we all gave that approach a try.
People would probably argue that doing so would be counter-productive in terms of having a successful "Black Friday", but then we all know that every store opens ridiculously early and has ridiculous sales on the day after Thanksgiving, so all that people who are interested enough would have to do is to ask their favorite stores when they'll open that day. One thing's for sure: the only place you'd find me on that day is at home. It's not that I don't like a good sale as much as the next guy ... hey, I've been known to use coupons just because I have them. Instead, it's the spirit behind it -- and that's the one kind of Christmas "spirit" I can definitely do without. We've all seen the images of those stampedes of people who flood into the stores the instant the doors open the morning after the feast, and we hear almost every year about someone actually getting killed in one of those hordes. No amount of savings is worth enduring that chaos, and anybody who voluntarily goes out to take part in it has got to be clinically insane.
I have to wonder what happens come December to all the religious conservatives out there. The other eleven months of the year they're all in the faces of us secular folk about embracing Jesus as their savior and living "a Christian life" (whatever arbitrary criteria that phrase is supposed to fit), but where are they when the blatant commercialization of their holiest of holy days rears its ugly head? Far be it from me to trash-talk a group of people based on their faith, but I rather suspect they're some of the first ones out there, waiting in line at 2 A.M. the morning after Thanksgiving to buy that $199 flat-screen TV for their kids. Personally, I'm at neither extreme. I'm not religious, so Christmas isn't any kind of "sacred cow" to me (we don't even feel compelled to put up decorations at home, except for maybe a wreath or two). Nor do I tend to put any importance on either the monetary value or the quantity of the gifts that I give -- I usually stick with making little home-made gifts for family and friends in the interest of keeping it simple, relatively inexpensive, and more personalized -- and I hold no expectations for the gifts that I may receive from others (or may not -- not everyone's in the position to give gifts, after all).
America needs to make up its mind how it feels about Christmas, but the way the media and culture perpetuate our lemming-like consumerist attitudes, I don't see a change coming anytime soon. Most people think Christmas is all about Santa Claus, and they don't take it seriously enough; most of the rest take Christmas way too seriously and make it all about the Baby Jesus; but I'm comfortable standing on the middle ground, believing that the most important people at Christmastime are my family and close friends. I have to wonder what the world would be like if we all gave that approach a try.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
You Never Know...
Do you want free money from the government? Now, before you think this is some infomercial or Ponzi scheme or something, it actually did happen to me ... honest and for real. Of course, your name does have to be on a special list in order to get the money, plus you may very well have earned the money in some way which would mean that it's techincally not "free" ... but my point is that there just might be money out there for you right now and you just don't know it.
It's really simple to find out, too. All you have to do is go to www.unclaimed.org -- that's the website run by the National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators. They're an organization that can link you to your state (just click on the map on the homepage), where you can search with your name to find out if there's any money floating around out there that's yours. I did it just on a hunch, and landed myself a paycheck from my previous employer that, somehow, never made it to me after I moved out of state!
Now, a couple months later, I've all-of-a-sudden got enough money that I could get myself a new iPod! At least, that's what I was going to get, but my stereo has finally gone kaput and I need to get myself a new one. But hey, ain't that cool?! It's like getting a birthday or Christmas present from a total stranger! I only wish it hadn't taken me 15 years to get my hands on it. And I'm sure that, even though the government has been pulling down interest on it for all that time, they'll still want to take some more out come tax time ... those greedy so-and-so's.
It's really simple to find out, too. All you have to do is go to www.unclaimed.org -- that's the website run by the National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators. They're an organization that can link you to your state (just click on the map on the homepage), where you can search with your name to find out if there's any money floating around out there that's yours. I did it just on a hunch, and landed myself a paycheck from my previous employer that, somehow, never made it to me after I moved out of state!
Now, a couple months later, I've all-of-a-sudden got enough money that I could get myself a new iPod! At least, that's what I was going to get, but my stereo has finally gone kaput and I need to get myself a new one. But hey, ain't that cool?! It's like getting a birthday or Christmas present from a total stranger! I only wish it hadn't taken me 15 years to get my hands on it. And I'm sure that, even though the government has been pulling down interest on it for all that time, they'll still want to take some more out come tax time ... those greedy so-and-so's.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Election Day ... Why Bother?
I hope my good friend in San Diego isn't too disappointed in me after he reads this post, but my frustration-mixed-with-apathy (weird combination, yes) has reached a sort of critical mass. Mind you, since it's half apathy, don't be disappointed if you don't read a lot of seething vitriol. You see, this San Diego friend of mine is big into politics and rallies as many people as he can to the polls every election day. I really do have to admire him for that, because I just couldn't work up the enthusiasm for it, even if my life depended on it ... well, okay, maybe if my life depended on it. In fact, before we became friends, I voted in maybe half the Presidential elections and that was about it. It sounds terrible, I know, because it's our "civic duty" and all ... but I'm becoming less enthusiastic about it every year, and can barely see the point anymore.
It's not that I think the act of voting is pointless -- although with however the Electoral College process managed to get jury-rigged enough to get George W. Bush shoehorned into the White House in 2000, I have my doubts there -- but instead, I really seriously have to wonder what good it does anymore to have a certain person in a certain elected office? When you think about it, there are enough people in Washington with opposing viewpoints and agendas, that if one governmental body gets their way, another one is there to knock it down if they have the gumption. It's called "checks and balances", and though it was originally meant to keep any one person or group from wielding too much power, it has lately done little more than to stymie any true progress by the government -- at least toward anything constructive. If the legislative branch wants something, the executive can still veto it, but then the judicial branch might have the final say. I have to wonder if there's too much government, or not enough.
And then there are the damn-blasted political ads that saturate the TV. What's the point of them, or even of campaigning in general? All the candidates say the same things: "I'll create more jobs. I'll shape up our schools. I'll fix health care." Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Each candidate will promise anything the public wants to hear because they want to get elected, whether or not he or she has a plan on how to accomplish what they promise. (And besides, their opponent will tear apart what they say, or just recklessly criticize their plan anyway, no matter how half-baked their plan or their opponent's plan is.) Every election campaign boils down to nothing more than a popularity contest, and I've never been big on popularity contests. The truth of the matter is, we'll never be able to tell what a candidate will or won't accomplish until they're in office, so I try not to rack my brain on who I vote for or why. Besides, most voters out there, I'd bet you money, just vote blindly partisan -- whoever's representing the party in which they're registered, without even reading up on what that candidate has to say.
But I'm getting off topic (and trying my darnedest to narrow my focus so this blog entry isn't half a mile long). One of my big problems here is how rowdy the American voters have gotten lately, and how uncivilized their vicious partisanship has become. The Democrats and the Republicans are each screaming just as loudly about how the other party is going to destroy this country. And each side is getting louder and louder all the time, so in order to be heard, they have to exaggerate and sensationalize their arguments more and more profoundly. President Obama has actually been called a "socialist" and a "communist", largely by people who don't know what those labels really mean ... and all because he wants every American to have affordable health care. Isn't name-calling something that fourth-graders do on school playgrounds? You know, the kids who are afraid of "cooties"?
The liberals and conservatives in this country are so verbally at each other's throats that I find myself wishing we'd just go all-out, have ourselves another big civil war ('cause we've only had one so far), and get it over with already. Then the conservatives can go live in their own part of our torn-in-half country, and the liberals can have their own half. In some ways, we might as well, 'cause this country is far too screwed up for any one President or any one Presidential administration to be able to fix in one four-year term, or even two. It'll take decades, and it'll take some major, earth-shattering (hopefully not in the literal sense) change. And what makes it worse is that the short attention spans of the American people, and their need for instant gratification, are so pronounced now that if the guy in office doesn't effect change RIGHT NOW, they vote in the guy from the other party, so that no one has the time to get anything accomplished. Do we honestly expect Obama to turn this country around in two years, after letting Bush play around with it for eight friggin' years?!?
We all want what's best for our country, I get that. But what's best for our country isn't the pervasive distrust that has led us to treat election day like a battle. ("Oh crap, the Republicans have taken over the House of Representatives. Now we're screwed." Are we so sure we wouldn't be screwed if they hadn't?) How do we know that there isn't one candidate somewhere out there who actually has that plan -- the one that will actually work at starting us out on fixing everything that's wrong with our society -- and that he or she has gotten lost in the flotsam, because their opponent didn't shut the hell up long enough to hear them out? I'd bet you anything that, 150 years from now, our descendants (in whatever country this ends up being, unless the United States of America actually manages to survive that long) will look back at these years and laugh at how childish we all have been acting.
Aren't we all Americans? That's the thing that most people seem to be forgetting around November 2nd. To paraphrase Jon Stewart in a rally he recently hosted: the more we all shout, the harder it is for us to hear one another. And if I may employ another old saying: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Therefore, I'm going to do my best to stop complaining about the government, because I (like 99.9% of the rest of the country) don't have a damn clue how to make it better, though we can guess all we please. If we all really want what's best for our country, we need to start acting that way. We need to stop bitching about what's wrong with the other guys, and start working with them to turn this country into something we can all be proud of.
It's not that I think the act of voting is pointless -- although with however the Electoral College process managed to get jury-rigged enough to get George W. Bush shoehorned into the White House in 2000, I have my doubts there -- but instead, I really seriously have to wonder what good it does anymore to have a certain person in a certain elected office? When you think about it, there are enough people in Washington with opposing viewpoints and agendas, that if one governmental body gets their way, another one is there to knock it down if they have the gumption. It's called "checks and balances", and though it was originally meant to keep any one person or group from wielding too much power, it has lately done little more than to stymie any true progress by the government -- at least toward anything constructive. If the legislative branch wants something, the executive can still veto it, but then the judicial branch might have the final say. I have to wonder if there's too much government, or not enough.
And then there are the damn-blasted political ads that saturate the TV. What's the point of them, or even of campaigning in general? All the candidates say the same things: "I'll create more jobs. I'll shape up our schools. I'll fix health care." Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Each candidate will promise anything the public wants to hear because they want to get elected, whether or not he or she has a plan on how to accomplish what they promise. (And besides, their opponent will tear apart what they say, or just recklessly criticize their plan anyway, no matter how half-baked their plan or their opponent's plan is.) Every election campaign boils down to nothing more than a popularity contest, and I've never been big on popularity contests. The truth of the matter is, we'll never be able to tell what a candidate will or won't accomplish until they're in office, so I try not to rack my brain on who I vote for or why. Besides, most voters out there, I'd bet you money, just vote blindly partisan -- whoever's representing the party in which they're registered, without even reading up on what that candidate has to say.
But I'm getting off topic (and trying my darnedest to narrow my focus so this blog entry isn't half a mile long). One of my big problems here is how rowdy the American voters have gotten lately, and how uncivilized their vicious partisanship has become. The Democrats and the Republicans are each screaming just as loudly about how the other party is going to destroy this country. And each side is getting louder and louder all the time, so in order to be heard, they have to exaggerate and sensationalize their arguments more and more profoundly. President Obama has actually been called a "socialist" and a "communist", largely by people who don't know what those labels really mean ... and all because he wants every American to have affordable health care. Isn't name-calling something that fourth-graders do on school playgrounds? You know, the kids who are afraid of "cooties"?
The liberals and conservatives in this country are so verbally at each other's throats that I find myself wishing we'd just go all-out, have ourselves another big civil war ('cause we've only had one so far), and get it over with already. Then the conservatives can go live in their own part of our torn-in-half country, and the liberals can have their own half. In some ways, we might as well, 'cause this country is far too screwed up for any one President or any one Presidential administration to be able to fix in one four-year term, or even two. It'll take decades, and it'll take some major, earth-shattering (hopefully not in the literal sense) change. And what makes it worse is that the short attention spans of the American people, and their need for instant gratification, are so pronounced now that if the guy in office doesn't effect change RIGHT NOW, they vote in the guy from the other party, so that no one has the time to get anything accomplished. Do we honestly expect Obama to turn this country around in two years, after letting Bush play around with it for eight friggin' years?!?
We all want what's best for our country, I get that. But what's best for our country isn't the pervasive distrust that has led us to treat election day like a battle. ("Oh crap, the Republicans have taken over the House of Representatives. Now we're screwed." Are we so sure we wouldn't be screwed if they hadn't?) How do we know that there isn't one candidate somewhere out there who actually has that plan -- the one that will actually work at starting us out on fixing everything that's wrong with our society -- and that he or she has gotten lost in the flotsam, because their opponent didn't shut the hell up long enough to hear them out? I'd bet you anything that, 150 years from now, our descendants (in whatever country this ends up being, unless the United States of America actually manages to survive that long) will look back at these years and laugh at how childish we all have been acting.
Aren't we all Americans? That's the thing that most people seem to be forgetting around November 2nd. To paraphrase Jon Stewart in a rally he recently hosted: the more we all shout, the harder it is for us to hear one another. And if I may employ another old saying: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Therefore, I'm going to do my best to stop complaining about the government, because I (like 99.9% of the rest of the country) don't have a damn clue how to make it better, though we can guess all we please. If we all really want what's best for our country, we need to start acting that way. We need to stop bitching about what's wrong with the other guys, and start working with them to turn this country into something we can all be proud of.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Tomorrow is ... International Burn the Dove World Outreach Center Day!
September 11 -- which is supposed to be a somber commemoration of the lives lost in the World Trade Center attack -- is being targeted for a garish upstaging this Saturday by some crackpot preacher-man in Kentucky (well, Florida actually, but that's close enough), who somehow seems to think it's a good idea to throw an egregious spectacle of reckless hate-speech in the form of an organized burning of numerous copies of The Qur'an, the Muslims' holy scripture.
I have a better idea. How about, on September 10, we engage in a little incendiary ecclesiastical celebration of our own -- a bit of "pious pyromania", if you will? It's time, my brothers and sisters, to join hands in a congregational conflagration of eyebrow-singeing, kerosene-soaked worship that I believe -- I say, I believe! -- will be beneficial to the world community of faith and true to the religious beliefs of all humankind like none have been before! Bring your marshmallows and your weenies (I'm talking about hot dogs, you dirty-minded people) as we raise our matches in praise and ... burn that sorry-ass coop of self-righteous mothercussers to the ground. I'd like to declare September 10, 2010, as "International Burn the Dove World Outreach Center Day"! Here are five reasons why we should burn the Dove World Outreach Center.
1) Because, let's face it, anyone who takes The Bible so literally as to believe the planet Earth and all its plant and animal life sprang into existence fully-formed in less than a week, and that the entire human race descended from two people, clearly needs a reality check. All unbiased genetic science points to the conclusion that, if Adam and Eve's kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids were the incestuous, cousin-lovin' inbreeders the evangelicals suggest they were, about 95% of the Earth's population would have Down Syndrome. Then again, the way we humans have been behaving lately, maybe there's some credence to their argument....
2) Because DWOC's founder, the "reverend" Terry Jones, got kicked out of a church he also formed in Germany, thanks to alleged megalomaniacal proclivities and embezzlement of church funds. But then, the Catholic church has no problem ignoring far worse crimes like child molestation, so ... potāto, potăto. Oh, but did we mention that he was fined by the German court for calling himself a "doctor" because he had an honorary (read: fake) degree from an unaccredited (read: not worth a crap) theology school in California? That guy's just heaping with credibility now, ain't he?
3) Because the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving and benevolent, with only a tiny sliver of its radical fringe being responsible for causing 9/11. Not only is this "Burn The Koran Day" a recklessly inaccurate generalization of an entire religious faith, but it's further legitimizing the anti-American sentiment that already permeates the Middle East ... DWOC is effectively painting an even bigger target on the backs of the thousands of brave U.S. troops still stationed there. Besides, this sensationalistic behavior by DWOC is only emphasizing the dangers of misunderstanding an entire faith based on the extreme behavior of a microscopic fraction of its "followers". If DWOC is trying to make a point with irony (and I rather doubt they can even grasp the concept), it's a grossly negligent way of doing so.
4) Because DWOC claims that "all of the Islamic writings ... are confused, contradictory and inconsistent". Well, ain't that The Bible calling The Qur'an "black"? How can any one of the multiple versions and translations of The Bible be the accurate interpretation, especially when each religion's leaders claim theirs is the definitive word of God? And while we're on the subject of inconsistency, let's not forget how many so-called "devoutly" religious people seem to cherry-pick which verses in Leviticus are and are not abominations. Hey, if you prattle on about how gay sex is a no-no, then you'd best not have a tattoo, be trimming your beard, wearing polyester-cotton blend clothing, or eating pork, otherwise I'm gonna have a big problem with you.
5) Because the "reverend" Fred Phelps and his hatemongering Westboro Baptist Church are fully supportive of DWOC and this cockamamie stunt. Hey, far as I'm concerned, that's reason enough right there ... scum by association. Talk about being "damned with praise". Oh, don't get me started on Phelps and his minions, I'll tell you right now. Any religious organization who feels the need to preach their message primarily through hate speech is fully ignorant of the true nature of Christianity and IS NOT RELIGIOUS ... not in the slightest, I don't care what anyone says. No entity calling itself a "church" would have "www.godhatesfags.com" as its URL. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that the majority of Phelps' flock are relatives, and that's probably the case with Mr. Jones, too.
Oh, and let's not forget reason number 6) Because no one with a handlebar mustache can possibly be taken seriously as a clergyman, just like no one wearing a cowboy hat can possibly be taken seriously as a lawyer.
Seriously, though, how dare those assholes call their church the "Dove World Outreach Center"? That name is about as full of shit as "The Family Research Council", and they're being allowed to pervert the symbol of the dove -- the animal of peace -- for their own malignant philosophy. And as long as we're burning down the Dove World Outreach Center, let's go ahead and torch the Westboro Baptist Church too, while we're at it. Hey, it's in Kentucky, too (well, actually it's in Kansas, but that's close enough).
Okay, I consider it a crying shame that the art of satire is lost on about 85% of the American population and that I actually have to spell this out here, but here goes: The preceding piece was written primarily in the context of satire, although its sentiment is genuine. The author does not condone or intend for any bodily harm or property damage to be inflicted on the Dove World Outreach Center or the Westboro Baptist Church, or any of its members, and is not responsible for inciting such action ... even though those assholes really do have it coming to them.
Hey ... the DWOC's website is down ... I'm diggin' it.
I have a better idea. How about, on September 10, we engage in a little incendiary ecclesiastical celebration of our own -- a bit of "pious pyromania", if you will? It's time, my brothers and sisters, to join hands in a congregational conflagration of eyebrow-singeing, kerosene-soaked worship that I believe -- I say, I believe! -- will be beneficial to the world community of faith and true to the religious beliefs of all humankind like none have been before! Bring your marshmallows and your weenies (I'm talking about hot dogs, you dirty-minded people) as we raise our matches in praise and ... burn that sorry-ass coop of self-righteous mothercussers to the ground. I'd like to declare September 10, 2010, as "International Burn the Dove World Outreach Center Day"! Here are five reasons why we should burn the Dove World Outreach Center.
1) Because, let's face it, anyone who takes The Bible so literally as to believe the planet Earth and all its plant and animal life sprang into existence fully-formed in less than a week, and that the entire human race descended from two people, clearly needs a reality check. All unbiased genetic science points to the conclusion that, if Adam and Eve's kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids were the incestuous, cousin-lovin' inbreeders the evangelicals suggest they were, about 95% of the Earth's population would have Down Syndrome. Then again, the way we humans have been behaving lately, maybe there's some credence to their argument....
2) Because DWOC's founder, the "reverend" Terry Jones, got kicked out of a church he also formed in Germany, thanks to alleged megalomaniacal proclivities and embezzlement of church funds. But then, the Catholic church has no problem ignoring far worse crimes like child molestation, so ... potāto, potăto. Oh, but did we mention that he was fined by the German court for calling himself a "doctor" because he had an honorary (read: fake) degree from an unaccredited (read: not worth a crap) theology school in California? That guy's just heaping with credibility now, ain't he?
3) Because the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving and benevolent, with only a tiny sliver of its radical fringe being responsible for causing 9/11. Not only is this "Burn The Koran Day" a recklessly inaccurate generalization of an entire religious faith, but it's further legitimizing the anti-American sentiment that already permeates the Middle East ... DWOC is effectively painting an even bigger target on the backs of the thousands of brave U.S. troops still stationed there. Besides, this sensationalistic behavior by DWOC is only emphasizing the dangers of misunderstanding an entire faith based on the extreme behavior of a microscopic fraction of its "followers". If DWOC is trying to make a point with irony (and I rather doubt they can even grasp the concept), it's a grossly negligent way of doing so.
4) Because DWOC claims that "all of the Islamic writings ... are confused, contradictory and inconsistent". Well, ain't that The Bible calling The Qur'an "black"? How can any one of the multiple versions and translations of The Bible be the accurate interpretation, especially when each religion's leaders claim theirs is the definitive word of God? And while we're on the subject of inconsistency, let's not forget how many so-called "devoutly" religious people seem to cherry-pick which verses in Leviticus are and are not abominations. Hey, if you prattle on about how gay sex is a no-no, then you'd best not have a tattoo, be trimming your beard, wearing polyester-cotton blend clothing, or eating pork, otherwise I'm gonna have a big problem with you.
5) Because the "reverend" Fred Phelps and his hatemongering Westboro Baptist Church are fully supportive of DWOC and this cockamamie stunt. Hey, far as I'm concerned, that's reason enough right there ... scum by association. Talk about being "damned with praise". Oh, don't get me started on Phelps and his minions, I'll tell you right now. Any religious organization who feels the need to preach their message primarily through hate speech is fully ignorant of the true nature of Christianity and IS NOT RELIGIOUS ... not in the slightest, I don't care what anyone says. No entity calling itself a "church" would have "www.godhatesfags.com" as its URL. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that the majority of Phelps' flock are relatives, and that's probably the case with Mr. Jones, too.
Oh, and let's not forget reason number 6) Because no one with a handlebar mustache can possibly be taken seriously as a clergyman, just like no one wearing a cowboy hat can possibly be taken seriously as a lawyer.
Seriously, though, how dare those assholes call their church the "Dove World Outreach Center"? That name is about as full of shit as "The Family Research Council", and they're being allowed to pervert the symbol of the dove -- the animal of peace -- for their own malignant philosophy. And as long as we're burning down the Dove World Outreach Center, let's go ahead and torch the Westboro Baptist Church too, while we're at it. Hey, it's in Kentucky, too (well, actually it's in Kansas, but that's close enough).
Okay, I consider it a crying shame that the art of satire is lost on about 85% of the American population and that I actually have to spell this out here, but here goes: The preceding piece was written primarily in the context of satire, although its sentiment is genuine. The author does not condone or intend for any bodily harm or property damage to be inflicted on the Dove World Outreach Center or the Westboro Baptist Church, or any of its members, and is not responsible for inciting such action ... even though those assholes really do have it coming to them.
Hey ... the DWOC's website is down ... I'm diggin' it.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Happy "90210 Day"!
Yes, today is 9/02/10 ... so what better day to celebrate that most '90s of all '90s TV shows, "Beverly Hills, 90210"! Not the mediocre remake that's running now, mind you (hey, even Jennie Garth had the sense to bail on that one), I'm talking the original, the vintage, the classic! If you're too young to remember that show, you really missed out. Anyway, to celebrate, I thought I'd show you the main title you probably don't remember: the very first main title the show ever had, before the one that we all know and love and was even remixed for the new series. Enjoy...!
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Snowclones and Grammar Snobs
Betcha thought I'd never be back, huh? Well, it took me awhile, but sure as the sun keeps rising every morning, I'll sooner or later find something else to complain about. Well, this time I'm revisiting the topic of American English, and our questionable modern usage of it. Are you ready for some more made-up words and improperly used expressions? Here comes part 2 of my pet peeves of modern English!
"Irregardless" isn't a word. I'll prove it to you: the prefix "ir-" and the suffix "-less" mean the same thing, so they cancel each other out. People compulsively tack extra syllables onto words in order to make themselves sound more intelligent than they (evidently) are. Either drop the "ir-" and just use regardless, or use the word irrespective if you feel the need to utter one extra syllable.
Nobody needs a "hot water heater". Okay, most of us are guilty of this little redundancy, including myself, and most of us don't even realize it until we stop to think about it. It's a "water heater", not a "hot water heater". Hot water doesn't need to be heated, 'cause it's already hot! Not very energy-efficient if you ask me ... and unless your house is powered by superheated steam, it's totally unnecessary.
Stupidest. Idea. Ever. Obviously this one has only polluted our language in written form ... you know, the way people dramatically pause to emphasize their superlative declaration, such as "That was the Best. Concert. Ever." Not only would this gross offense against the laws of punctuation propel most high school English teachers into conniptions, but to me it's Really. Really. Annoying. And. Pretentious.
A light-year isn't a year. Maybe it's not fair to have this one on the list, because you'd have to be some amount of a geek (like me) to know that a light-year isn't a measure of time, but is instead a measure of distance. "My mind was light-years away" makes much more sense than "It's light-years ahead of its time." I guess you'll have to just trust me on that one.
I've already vented a little of my frustration about some of our dorky-sounding modern-day portmanteaus, but what's pissing me off is how they're starting to get legitimized by being added to the prestigious Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary. (No wonder college students are starting to sound stupid.) Two that really rub me the wrong way: "staycation" (as in a vacation spent at home) -- Are we so pressed for time that we can't just call it an "at-home vacation"? -- and "frenemy" (someone who pretends to be a friend but is really an enemy). What I don't understand is why anyone would use a dweeby-sounding word like "frenemy" when the phrase "two-faced bitch" is so much more colorful.
Now let's talk about snowclones ... while trying to ingore how dumb the word itself sounds. We've all heard them used, though not a lot of people know them by that term (I was one of those people who'd never been exposed to that word until just a few weeks ago). They're those catch-phrase templates that are usually adapted from ones heard in movies, TV shows, or advertising, and used to fit any number of everyday situations or ideas. "Got [x]?" is a good example, originating with the "Got milk?" ad campaign ... oftentimes you'll see a "Got Jesus?" bumper sticker on some religious nut's car.
While some are used cleverly and I can tolerate them, the one I absolutely hate is "[x] is the new [y]". It gets on my nerves mostly because it's used to herald the arrival of new trends in fashion, pop culture, design, and what have you ... and I've never given in to trends. I wear what I want to wear and listen to what I want to listen to, because it's my life and nobody else's. "Red is the new pink." No it's not. Red is red, it's always been red, and it'll always be red. That's why there's a whole separate color already called pink. "Thirty is the new forty." Again, no. Thirty is thirty, and forty is forty. Ask anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics and they'll tell you the same damn thing. Sheesh.
Now, just to show you I'm not completely obsessive about proper English usage, let me say a word about the kind of people I call "grammar snobs". These are the people who make their every sentence grammatically correct to such an extent that they defy the laws of verbal physics (as I like to describe it). You know how the normal everyday way that people talk doesn't necessarily hold hard and fast to every rule of grammar, syntax, and sentence structure? I'm perfectly okay with that ... just 'cause you're not, don't get all up in my face about it. Let me give you a couple of examples.
When someone asks me, "How are you?", I always say, "I'm okay. How are you?". If they say, "I'm well", that's when I know they're a grammar snob. When I hear that, it sounds as though they're saying, "I'm GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT. How are you?". People who are that linguistically pompous oughta be required to show a bachelor's degree in English, or else just talk like a normal, everyday person.
People aren't getting married anymore. Did you know that? Now they're "being married". Where the hell did this come from? I've seen it in "Dear Abby" (okay, so I read it in the paper ... shut up) several times in the last few weeks, and now I've gotta say something about it. Is it all-of-a-sudden no longer proper to use the phrase "getting married" for some reason? That old song would sound just plain stupid with the lyrics "I'm being married in the morning; ding-dong, the bells are gonna chime." Long as I'm around, people are going to get married when they have a wedding, and once it's over they'll be married. Again, sheesh.
"Irregardless" isn't a word. I'll prove it to you: the prefix "ir-" and the suffix "-less" mean the same thing, so they cancel each other out. People compulsively tack extra syllables onto words in order to make themselves sound more intelligent than they (evidently) are. Either drop the "ir-" and just use regardless, or use the word irrespective if you feel the need to utter one extra syllable.
Nobody needs a "hot water heater". Okay, most of us are guilty of this little redundancy, including myself, and most of us don't even realize it until we stop to think about it. It's a "water heater", not a "hot water heater". Hot water doesn't need to be heated, 'cause it's already hot! Not very energy-efficient if you ask me ... and unless your house is powered by superheated steam, it's totally unnecessary.
Stupidest. Idea. Ever. Obviously this one has only polluted our language in written form ... you know, the way people dramatically pause to emphasize their superlative declaration, such as "That was the Best. Concert. Ever." Not only would this gross offense against the laws of punctuation propel most high school English teachers into conniptions, but to me it's Really. Really. Annoying. And. Pretentious.
A light-year isn't a year. Maybe it's not fair to have this one on the list, because you'd have to be some amount of a geek (like me) to know that a light-year isn't a measure of time, but is instead a measure of distance. "My mind was light-years away" makes much more sense than "It's light-years ahead of its time." I guess you'll have to just trust me on that one.
I've already vented a little of my frustration about some of our dorky-sounding modern-day portmanteaus, but what's pissing me off is how they're starting to get legitimized by being added to the prestigious Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary. (No wonder college students are starting to sound stupid.) Two that really rub me the wrong way: "staycation" (as in a vacation spent at home) -- Are we so pressed for time that we can't just call it an "at-home vacation"? -- and "frenemy" (someone who pretends to be a friend but is really an enemy). What I don't understand is why anyone would use a dweeby-sounding word like "frenemy" when the phrase "two-faced bitch" is so much more colorful.
Now let's talk about snowclones ... while trying to ingore how dumb the word itself sounds. We've all heard them used, though not a lot of people know them by that term (I was one of those people who'd never been exposed to that word until just a few weeks ago). They're those catch-phrase templates that are usually adapted from ones heard in movies, TV shows, or advertising, and used to fit any number of everyday situations or ideas. "Got [x]?" is a good example, originating with the "Got milk?" ad campaign ... oftentimes you'll see a "Got Jesus?" bumper sticker on some religious nut's car.
While some are used cleverly and I can tolerate them, the one I absolutely hate is "[x] is the new [y]". It gets on my nerves mostly because it's used to herald the arrival of new trends in fashion, pop culture, design, and what have you ... and I've never given in to trends. I wear what I want to wear and listen to what I want to listen to, because it's my life and nobody else's. "Red is the new pink." No it's not. Red is red, it's always been red, and it'll always be red. That's why there's a whole separate color already called pink. "Thirty is the new forty." Again, no. Thirty is thirty, and forty is forty. Ask anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics and they'll tell you the same damn thing. Sheesh.
Now, just to show you I'm not completely obsessive about proper English usage, let me say a word about the kind of people I call "grammar snobs". These are the people who make their every sentence grammatically correct to such an extent that they defy the laws of verbal physics (as I like to describe it). You know how the normal everyday way that people talk doesn't necessarily hold hard and fast to every rule of grammar, syntax, and sentence structure? I'm perfectly okay with that ... just 'cause you're not, don't get all up in my face about it. Let me give you a couple of examples.
When someone asks me, "How are you?", I always say, "I'm okay. How are you?". If they say, "I'm well", that's when I know they're a grammar snob. When I hear that, it sounds as though they're saying, "I'm GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT. How are you?". People who are that linguistically pompous oughta be required to show a bachelor's degree in English, or else just talk like a normal, everyday person.
People aren't getting married anymore. Did you know that? Now they're "being married". Where the hell did this come from? I've seen it in "Dear Abby" (okay, so I read it in the paper ... shut up) several times in the last few weeks, and now I've gotta say something about it. Is it all-of-a-sudden no longer proper to use the phrase "getting married" for some reason? That old song would sound just plain stupid with the lyrics "I'm being married in the morning; ding-dong, the bells are gonna chime." Long as I'm around, people are going to get married when they have a wedding, and once it's over they'll be married. Again, sheesh.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Steppin' on Something that Stinks
I'll be taking a trip down to Southern California this summer, and will probably be visiting Hollywood. But unlike last time -- since the Virgin Megastore closed down since my last visit -- I don't expect to tread any sidewalks that are adorned with the stars of the world-famous Hollywood Walk of Fame, since Amoeba Music is a block or two off that studded path (if I recall correctly). And frankly, it's just as well, since the Walk of Fame doesn't hold nearly the glamour and allure now that it used to.
Back in the good old days, you really had to be a celebrity of some importance to earn your very own star on the Walk of Fame. Now the only requirement seems to be paying the $25,000 sponsor fee. And having the right timing doesn't hurt either. Case in point: Shrek. Yes ... Shrek, for the love of crap. Never mind that he's an animated character that doesn't even exist in reality -- that line was crossed when Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny got their stars. What gets me about it is that, by coincidence (yeah, coincidence my ass), he got his star on the Walk just a couple of weeks ago ... yup, right before his latest movie hit the theatres!! Funny that, eh? Don't get me wrong, the first one or two "Shrek" movies were fun, so I have nothing against the ogre ... it's just that the whole situation just makes me want to crap my pants in frustration.
Is there something wrong with a candidate's contribution to entertainment, name recognition, and relative historical significance being used as factors to determine their worthiness to be given a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame? There are probably a good number of names on the Walk now that I wouldn't recognize -- but then, I can't know who everyone is, so that's not so troubling -- but the list of people who still haven't been given their rightful stars is downright disturbing. Is anyone else as shocked as I am that Woody Allen, Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood, Madonna, Dustin Hoffman, Sally Field, Diane Keaton, Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, Jane Fonda, Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, and Sean Connery all have yet to be so honored? Not to mention -- yes, here it comes -- my own personal pet peeve on that left-outs list: "Weird Al" Yankovic.
Laugh if you will, but think about it: "Weird Al" Yankovic has been making people laugh in a family-friendly way for over 25 years, and he's made his mark not only on music, but also on film (the hilarious "UHF") and television (the short-lived but adorable Saturday morning series "The Weird Al Show") ... plus there's the simple fact that he's known the world over, not just by name but also by his face. This is made all the more aggravating considering that people like Britney Spears, Sean (whatever variation of "Diddy" he's using this week) Combs, and Judge Judy have been given stars long before they deserve them. All I can figure is that a) there must be a lot of free space on the Walk of Fame sidewalks, and b) the city must really need the money from all those sponsorship fees.
Back in the good old days, you really had to be a celebrity of some importance to earn your very own star on the Walk of Fame. Now the only requirement seems to be paying the $25,000 sponsor fee. And having the right timing doesn't hurt either. Case in point: Shrek. Yes ... Shrek, for the love of crap. Never mind that he's an animated character that doesn't even exist in reality -- that line was crossed when Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny got their stars. What gets me about it is that, by coincidence (yeah, coincidence my ass), he got his star on the Walk just a couple of weeks ago ... yup, right before his latest movie hit the theatres!! Funny that, eh? Don't get me wrong, the first one or two "Shrek" movies were fun, so I have nothing against the ogre ... it's just that the whole situation just makes me want to crap my pants in frustration.
Is there something wrong with a candidate's contribution to entertainment, name recognition, and relative historical significance being used as factors to determine their worthiness to be given a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame? There are probably a good number of names on the Walk now that I wouldn't recognize -- but then, I can't know who everyone is, so that's not so troubling -- but the list of people who still haven't been given their rightful stars is downright disturbing. Is anyone else as shocked as I am that Woody Allen, Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood, Madonna, Dustin Hoffman, Sally Field, Diane Keaton, Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, Jane Fonda, Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, and Sean Connery all have yet to be so honored? Not to mention -- yes, here it comes -- my own personal pet peeve on that left-outs list: "Weird Al" Yankovic.
Laugh if you will, but think about it: "Weird Al" Yankovic has been making people laugh in a family-friendly way for over 25 years, and he's made his mark not only on music, but also on film (the hilarious "UHF") and television (the short-lived but adorable Saturday morning series "The Weird Al Show") ... plus there's the simple fact that he's known the world over, not just by name but also by his face. This is made all the more aggravating considering that people like Britney Spears, Sean (whatever variation of "Diddy" he's using this week) Combs, and Judge Judy have been given stars long before they deserve them. All I can figure is that a) there must be a lot of free space on the Walk of Fame sidewalks, and b) the city must really need the money from all those sponsorship fees.
Monday, June 7, 2010
You're Not a Celebrity, Get the F**k Out of Here
Who's Brett Favre? He's an athlete. Who's Lily Allen? She's a musician. Who's Stephen King? Right, he's a writer. How about Kyra Sedgwick? Yup, an actress. Who's Kim Kardashian? Oh, she's a ... well ... aw, crap, what is she? Oh, and Perez Hilton? Uh, yeah, he's ... hmmm.... By now I'm assuming you see where this is going, and what my peeve is today.
You see, there's a difference between the first four people I named, and the last two. The former are celebrities, and the latter are not. Twenty-First-Century America may think otherwise, but as far as I'm concerned, in order to be classified as a "celebrity", you have to have an actual talent -- some skill that earns you notoriety in some (preferably positive) way. At least, that's what I was brought up to believe: you have to have some kind of aptitude in order to earn the attention and adoration of the public. The fact that all these so-called "personalities" are getting so much attention can only mean that America's standards have gone way, way, WAY downhill in recent years.
Kicking or throwing a ball, singing and playing an instrument, writing enthralling prose, and giving an engaging dramatic performance are skills. Sashaying around like it's a privilege for other people just to lay eyes on you, being self-absorbed as though you're God's gift to the world, and buying expensive shit that you don't even need are not skills ... and neither is taking paparazzi photos (not even your own, but other people's, for cripe's sake!) and scrawling clumsy doodles and dumb-ass remarks on them in white pixels with knockoff PhotoShop software. No, I don't know Perez Hilton at all, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's a perfectly nice guy underneath ... my only problem with him is that he hasn't earned all the damned attention he's been showered with. (The fact that he's a gossip has a lot to do with it ... I consider gossips to be neck-and-neck on the integrity scale with TV evangelists.)
Some people who have become these non-specific pop-culture "personalities" actually gained their notoriety earlier in their lives in other ways -- pro athletes being the most obvious example -- and I have no problems with that at all, because their core following is based on that previously excelled-at talent. But I hate when these upstart, attention-grubbing, no-talent nincompoops that are the subject of my ire use their dubiously-achieved 15 minutes of fame to get a foothold into an entertainment arena that honestly talented people have been struggling to make it in for years. (What were they smoking when they let Paris Hilton record an album?) The only saving grace in all this is the short attention spans of the American public, which result in the vast majority of these crossover attempts being met with a deafening lack of interest. (How many schmucks from "Survivor", "Big Brother", ad nauseam, have written "memoirs" that schmuck publishers actually thought would sell?)
I guess one thing -- amongst many, believe me -- that we can blame for this "celebrit-itis", as I like to call it, is how the lines between media are blurring, or in some cases all but disappearing: TV, radio, the Internet, music, and movies all used to be firmly separate domains, but it's getting increasingly difficult to tell them apart as they continue to merge into a single, all-encompassing thing. And, unfortunately, as media continues on this kind of controlled collision course, I fear that we'll continue to hear more and more about all these somebodies that I'd rather hear less and less about.
You see, there's a difference between the first four people I named, and the last two. The former are celebrities, and the latter are not. Twenty-First-Century America may think otherwise, but as far as I'm concerned, in order to be classified as a "celebrity", you have to have an actual talent -- some skill that earns you notoriety in some (preferably positive) way. At least, that's what I was brought up to believe: you have to have some kind of aptitude in order to earn the attention and adoration of the public. The fact that all these so-called "personalities" are getting so much attention can only mean that America's standards have gone way, way, WAY downhill in recent years.
Kicking or throwing a ball, singing and playing an instrument, writing enthralling prose, and giving an engaging dramatic performance are skills. Sashaying around like it's a privilege for other people just to lay eyes on you, being self-absorbed as though you're God's gift to the world, and buying expensive shit that you don't even need are not skills ... and neither is taking paparazzi photos (not even your own, but other people's, for cripe's sake!) and scrawling clumsy doodles and dumb-ass remarks on them in white pixels with knockoff PhotoShop software. No, I don't know Perez Hilton at all, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's a perfectly nice guy underneath ... my only problem with him is that he hasn't earned all the damned attention he's been showered with. (The fact that he's a gossip has a lot to do with it ... I consider gossips to be neck-and-neck on the integrity scale with TV evangelists.)
Some people who have become these non-specific pop-culture "personalities" actually gained their notoriety earlier in their lives in other ways -- pro athletes being the most obvious example -- and I have no problems with that at all, because their core following is based on that previously excelled-at talent. But I hate when these upstart, attention-grubbing, no-talent nincompoops that are the subject of my ire use their dubiously-achieved 15 minutes of fame to get a foothold into an entertainment arena that honestly talented people have been struggling to make it in for years. (What were they smoking when they let Paris Hilton record an album?) The only saving grace in all this is the short attention spans of the American public, which result in the vast majority of these crossover attempts being met with a deafening lack of interest. (How many schmucks from "Survivor", "Big Brother", ad nauseam, have written "memoirs" that schmuck publishers actually thought would sell?)
I guess one thing -- amongst many, believe me -- that we can blame for this "celebrit-itis", as I like to call it, is how the lines between media are blurring, or in some cases all but disappearing: TV, radio, the Internet, music, and movies all used to be firmly separate domains, but it's getting increasingly difficult to tell them apart as they continue to merge into a single, all-encompassing thing. And, unfortunately, as media continues on this kind of controlled collision course, I fear that we'll continue to hear more and more about all these somebodies that I'd rather hear less and less about.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
I Axe You to Talk Good American
In an alternate universe, I probably would have become a high-school English teacher. I take pride in my (mostly) proper use of spelling, grammar, and punctuation, partly because it's something that's always come quite naturally to me. So you can probably understand how, in recent years, I've become increasingly annoyed at how our language has begun to decay before my eyes. Misspellings, incorrect usage, poor punctuation -- some of it even showing up in supposedly "professional" media like news and advertising! -- are beginning to make us look stupid. So, I thought I'd do my best to try and help get us back on the right track with a handy-dandy guide to my pet peeves of modern English (part 1):
"Ginormous" is not a word. It never has been and, if I have anything to say about it, it never will be. It's a moronic melding of two legitimate words, gigantic and enormous. Please use one of those words ... they'd appreciate being used, and that's what they're there for. I hate how all these allegedly trendy portmanteaus have insidiously worked their way into the modern lexicon, especially with names, like "Brangelina" and "Zanessa".
Gift is not a verb. This is something that's become popular online, where you have the option to "gift this item". No, you don't "gift" something -- you give it as a gift. For the love of crap, please don't succumb to the dumb of using this word improperly. Consider it a gift to yourself, if it makes you feel any better.
There is no a in definitely. It says so right there ... look it up in the dictionary, I dare you. We need to respect the true spellings of words, people. The same goes for calendar ... remember, one e and two a's. Every home should have a dictionary, and everyone who doesn't want to look like a moron should make use of it.
Their they're is there ... and so is your you're. If you were paying attention in class, you should have been able to nail down the various spellings of these words by about the sixth grade. "Their" and "your" are things that belong to them or you; "they're" and "you're" (the ones with apostrophes) are actions that they or you are about to do; and "there" is where it's at. Got it?
"I could care less" ... no, you couldn't. I cringe whenever people get this expression wrong, which is about 75% of the time. When you "could care less", that's not saying much. It's when you "couldn't care less" that it's worth mentioning, and that's the right way to say the damn thing. I couldn't care less how you spend your free time, as long as you learn to say that expression correctly.
It's nuclear, not nucular. That's another thing that makes me wanna slap people ... mispronouncing the word nuclear. I hated George W. Bush for plenty of reasons, and this was one of the big ones. It can't be that hard to pronounce the word correctly. If remembering that there are no such things as "nucules" doesn't work, then watch the scene in "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" where Chekov is looking for the "noo-klee-ar wessels" ... or say it as two words: "new clear" ... either of those is better than pronouncing it the wrong way.
Like, stop using, like, the word, like, "like", so much ... like. How did this word come to infest American speech so much? Outside of using it for its proper meaning, using it as an idle word is fine every once in awhile -- kind-of like a verbal punctuation mark is how I think of it -- but please, try and keep it under 27 times in every sentence. Your generation may have become inured to it by now, but to the rest of us it's annoying and it makes you look unintelligent.
Okay, that should be enough helpful hints to get you more sloppy English-speakers started on the path back to appearing intelligent. And believe me, although these are all I could think of for now, rest assured there are probably plenty more things I'll add to this list later on.
"Ginormous" is not a word. It never has been and, if I have anything to say about it, it never will be. It's a moronic melding of two legitimate words, gigantic and enormous. Please use one of those words ... they'd appreciate being used, and that's what they're there for. I hate how all these allegedly trendy portmanteaus have insidiously worked their way into the modern lexicon, especially with names, like "Brangelina" and "Zanessa".
Gift is not a verb. This is something that's become popular online, where you have the option to "gift this item". No, you don't "gift" something -- you give it as a gift. For the love of crap, please don't succumb to the dumb of using this word improperly. Consider it a gift to yourself, if it makes you feel any better.
There is no a in definitely. It says so right there ... look it up in the dictionary, I dare you. We need to respect the true spellings of words, people. The same goes for calendar ... remember, one e and two a's. Every home should have a dictionary, and everyone who doesn't want to look like a moron should make use of it.
Their they're is there ... and so is your you're. If you were paying attention in class, you should have been able to nail down the various spellings of these words by about the sixth grade. "Their" and "your" are things that belong to them or you; "they're" and "you're" (the ones with apostrophes) are actions that they or you are about to do; and "there" is where it's at. Got it?
"I could care less" ... no, you couldn't. I cringe whenever people get this expression wrong, which is about 75% of the time. When you "could care less", that's not saying much. It's when you "couldn't care less" that it's worth mentioning, and that's the right way to say the damn thing. I couldn't care less how you spend your free time, as long as you learn to say that expression correctly.
It's nuclear, not nucular. That's another thing that makes me wanna slap people ... mispronouncing the word nuclear. I hated George W. Bush for plenty of reasons, and this was one of the big ones. It can't be that hard to pronounce the word correctly. If remembering that there are no such things as "nucules" doesn't work, then watch the scene in "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" where Chekov is looking for the "noo-klee-ar wessels" ... or say it as two words: "new clear" ... either of those is better than pronouncing it the wrong way.
Like, stop using, like, the word, like, "like", so much ... like. How did this word come to infest American speech so much? Outside of using it for its proper meaning, using it as an idle word is fine every once in awhile -- kind-of like a verbal punctuation mark is how I think of it -- but please, try and keep it under 27 times in every sentence. Your generation may have become inured to it by now, but to the rest of us it's annoying and it makes you look unintelligent.
Okay, that should be enough helpful hints to get you more sloppy English-speakers started on the path back to appearing intelligent. And believe me, although these are all I could think of for now, rest assured there are probably plenty more things I'll add to this list later on.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Getting Tea'ed Off
The other evening I watched an episode of the TLC series "Little People, Big World", in which a pair of 19-year-old twin brothers from Oregon, on their first trip by themselves to Europe, decide to take a pause in their sightseeing and partake of some history by visiting the notorious Dachau Concentration Camp in Germany. Needless to say, it was a rather heavy ten minutes of television, particularly when the tour group stood inside one of the crematoria where countless innocent people met their gruesomely methodical ends.
Fast-forward to the next morning: I'm watching the news, and the coverage inevitably turns to one of the latest rallies of the so-called "Tea Party" movement ... and to my incredulity, I see at least one crudely fashioned sign comparing President Barack Obama to none other than German Chancellor Adolf Hitler. I know I'd seen these ludicrous signs before, but seeing such a spectacle so closely juxtaposed to an American teenager's (one whose hometown is in relatively close proximity to mine, in fact) unscripted visit to an actual Nazi concentration camp, you can probably understand how acutely it pissed me off this time.
You don't need to be a world-renowned historian to see that there's a majorly big-ass difference between a ruthless, anti-semitic, megalomaniacal dictator who engages in systematic genocide ... and a democratic president who wants to get decent health care to as many of his citizens as possible. I don't know about y'all, but I'm a big fan of using actual well-researched facts and reasonable comparison and contrast to get a point across. I can't help it, I'm just funny that way. These "Tea Party" twits are getting on my nerves big-time, because their ignorance on every level -- from their tendency to make a statement with what is clearly a minimal grasp of the facts, to the "creative" spelling and grammar on the signs they tote around -- are giving the rest of us Americans a bad name. Their sign-making skills are inept, their analogies are inapt, and their rhetoric is just plain annoying.
Maybe it's the way that American pop-culture has cultivated a distorted perspective of "larger-than-life" people, places, things, and events, that has made even the average blue-collar American feel the need to grotesquely sensationalize and exaggerate damn near everything. People are upset with how grossly inefficient the federal government has become ... I totally get that. But to off-handedly equate someone to the mastermind behind The Holocaust -- especially when their "dastardly deeds" pale in comparison -- is to trivialize the suffering that every one of its victims endured. As much of a pacifist as I am, I find myself wishing that people like that, who would toss names like Hitler around as though they were beach balls, could spend two or three days in Dachau or Auschwitz, just to get an idea of what the name Adolf Hitler really means.
Whether or not you agree with any of President Obama's policies, plans, or reforms is beside the point. We just need to stop crying out "Hitler", "Communist", "Fascist", or any of the other miles-off-target snipes, especially if we haven't yet done our homework about said policies and we don't have any better ideas ourselves. It's reckless, and it only adds to the noise instead of fostering constructive argument. I remember hearing somewhere not too long ago (I think it was during the whole controversy regarding the depiction of Mohammed in a political cartoon) that exercising free speech just because we can is an abuse of that privilege. I couldn't agree more.
And while we're at it, let's please stop blaming Obama for all of America's current ills, 'cause doing so is kind-of like blaming the current CEO of Ford for the condition your 1979 Pinto is in after three decades of wear and tear -- it's pointless, illogical, and dumb. It took decades of abuse and neglect for America to get into the mess it's in now, and it's going to take decades of rethinking and retooling to dig us out. Some of the President's decisions might not make sense, and some of them might possibly hurt more than they help (at least at first), but something's gotta be done. We can't "leave well enough alone", because things aren't "well enough" ... not by a longshot.
But instead of getting more and more upset at those knuckleheads at their "Tea Parties", I just have to laugh at them ... especially when they throw the spotlight on their ignorance with dandy hand-crap-ted signs like these ... enjoy!
Fast-forward to the next morning: I'm watching the news, and the coverage inevitably turns to one of the latest rallies of the so-called "Tea Party" movement ... and to my incredulity, I see at least one crudely fashioned sign comparing President Barack Obama to none other than German Chancellor Adolf Hitler. I know I'd seen these ludicrous signs before, but seeing such a spectacle so closely juxtaposed to an American teenager's (one whose hometown is in relatively close proximity to mine, in fact) unscripted visit to an actual Nazi concentration camp, you can probably understand how acutely it pissed me off this time.
You don't need to be a world-renowned historian to see that there's a majorly big-ass difference between a ruthless, anti-semitic, megalomaniacal dictator who engages in systematic genocide ... and a democratic president who wants to get decent health care to as many of his citizens as possible. I don't know about y'all, but I'm a big fan of using actual well-researched facts and reasonable comparison and contrast to get a point across. I can't help it, I'm just funny that way. These "Tea Party" twits are getting on my nerves big-time, because their ignorance on every level -- from their tendency to make a statement with what is clearly a minimal grasp of the facts, to the "creative" spelling and grammar on the signs they tote around -- are giving the rest of us Americans a bad name. Their sign-making skills are inept, their analogies are inapt, and their rhetoric is just plain annoying.
Maybe it's the way that American pop-culture has cultivated a distorted perspective of "larger-than-life" people, places, things, and events, that has made even the average blue-collar American feel the need to grotesquely sensationalize and exaggerate damn near everything. People are upset with how grossly inefficient the federal government has become ... I totally get that. But to off-handedly equate someone to the mastermind behind The Holocaust -- especially when their "dastardly deeds" pale in comparison -- is to trivialize the suffering that every one of its victims endured. As much of a pacifist as I am, I find myself wishing that people like that, who would toss names like Hitler around as though they were beach balls, could spend two or three days in Dachau or Auschwitz, just to get an idea of what the name Adolf Hitler really means.
Whether or not you agree with any of President Obama's policies, plans, or reforms is beside the point. We just need to stop crying out "Hitler", "Communist", "Fascist", or any of the other miles-off-target snipes, especially if we haven't yet done our homework about said policies and we don't have any better ideas ourselves. It's reckless, and it only adds to the noise instead of fostering constructive argument. I remember hearing somewhere not too long ago (I think it was during the whole controversy regarding the depiction of Mohammed in a political cartoon) that exercising free speech just because we can is an abuse of that privilege. I couldn't agree more.
And while we're at it, let's please stop blaming Obama for all of America's current ills, 'cause doing so is kind-of like blaming the current CEO of Ford for the condition your 1979 Pinto is in after three decades of wear and tear -- it's pointless, illogical, and dumb. It took decades of abuse and neglect for America to get into the mess it's in now, and it's going to take decades of rethinking and retooling to dig us out. Some of the President's decisions might not make sense, and some of them might possibly hurt more than they help (at least at first), but something's gotta be done. We can't "leave well enough alone", because things aren't "well enough" ... not by a longshot.
But instead of getting more and more upset at those knuckleheads at their "Tea Parties", I just have to laugh at them ... especially when they throw the spotlight on their ignorance with dandy hand-crap-ted signs like these ... enjoy!
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Whole Lotta Nothin' Goin' On
No, I'm not dead (yet). Sorry for the inactivity on this blog, but I'd been having an extremely aggravating internet access issue, and hadn't been in much of a blogging mood lately. I'm still not quite there yet, and might never be, in all honesty ... the internet has lost a bit of its allure. Plus, I've been getting the jones lately to start some "real" writing (fiction), and may see fit to free up some time by shutting down one or more of my blogs.
So, what am I trying to say here? This blog might be going away ... and I stress the word "might". As long as it's still here, there's always the chance that you'll see updates; they just won't be as frequent as they used to be, unless I have a change of heart. But all the same, I really do appreciate anyone and everyone who stops by to read my ramblings. So ... watch this space!
So, what am I trying to say here? This blog might be going away ... and I stress the word "might". As long as it's still here, there's always the chance that you'll see updates; they just won't be as frequent as they used to be, unless I have a change of heart. But all the same, I really do appreciate anyone and everyone who stops by to read my ramblings. So ... watch this space!
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Awkward Family Photos
NOTICE -- I got a heads-up from a friend this morning that his Kaspersky security program was detecting phishing attempts from the following website or, more likely, one of its advertisers. Kaspersky has a history of occasional false-positive triggers on some sites, but sometimes if a site isn't careful enough about choosing its advertisers, it can inadvertently act as a "carrier" of a real phishing attack embedded in one of the rotating banner ads that those sites feed to the host page. He urged me to remove the link to the site, but even though I trust his judgement I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt. So, I suggest that you PROCEED WITH CAUTION, as you always should while browsing the web. It might not hurt to also close the browser and maybe clear the cache after you've visited the site below, just in case.
And remember, NEVER enter any sort of personal info without first double-checking the URL (web address) that's asking for it, and remember that no reputable business will ever contact its customers by email, text, or phone, asking them to verify their personal info ... you should always call them by the phone number listed on your statement or on the back of your credit/debit card whenever you're in doubt. Surf safely!
Sorry it's been a while (well, if you count one week "a while") since my last post, but I just haven't been struck with inspiration for this blog lately. But, thanks to a friend at work, I've found a completely awesome site I simply have to share with you: Awkward Family Photos (its title says it all -- and a lot more). And, since I've been at a loss for words here lately, and given that a picture is worth a thousand words, then, well ... this works out quite nicely.
And remember, NEVER enter any sort of personal info without first double-checking the URL (web address) that's asking for it, and remember that no reputable business will ever contact its customers by email, text, or phone, asking them to verify their personal info ... you should always call them by the phone number listed on your statement or on the back of your credit/debit card whenever you're in doubt. Surf safely!
Sorry it's been a while (well, if you count one week "a while") since my last post, but I just haven't been struck with inspiration for this blog lately. But, thanks to a friend at work, I've found a completely awesome site I simply have to share with you: Awkward Family Photos (its title says it all -- and a lot more). And, since I've been at a loss for words here lately, and given that a picture is worth a thousand words, then, well ... this works out quite nicely.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
Okay, so this comic would probably be more at home on my "Trek-Ease" blog, but then this here blog is all about the world not making perfect sense anyway, so in a way it's totally appropriate. Besides, this is the blog that's gone the longest without updates lately, so ... here it goes.
Image courtesy of the official "Foxtrot" website (where you can find it in much better quality ... thanks a lot, Blogger, for shrinking it so goddamn much).
Friday, March 12, 2010
Wacky Wikis
I was cruising around the Internet the other day, as I am wont to do, and I discovered a very curious fact: there's a wiki out there for just about anything. Granted, few of them have as many pages, or as exhaustive a knowledge base, as the granddaddy of them all, Wikipedia, but it's still somewhat astonishing how much some people know about some things (collectively, I would assume ... at least I would hope that these wikis aren't all assembled by one person each). For instance, did you know that there's a wiki about...
Pop Tarts? Yes, apparently someone thought it useful to assemble a database of information about that uniquely American breakfast food, the Pop Tart. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Pop Tarts, but still, it's not exactly a practical field of knowledge....
Pet Diabetes? I didn't even know there was such a thing. Mind you, I'm not at all making light of pet diabetes any more than human diabetes (there's a history in my own family, in fact), but still ... a curious little field of study indeed.
"South Park"? Actually, this one isn't all that surprising, considering they have wikis for other TV and movie properties like "Star Trek", and probably "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" too. Come to think of it, I might have to bookmark this one...!
Nudism? Aw hell, why not? It's the Internet, after all, and there's room for anything. But really ... how much does anyone have to know about not wearing clothes? Okay, maybe how to exercise caution when using devices with external moving parts that could potentially cause damage to your ... never mind.
Pop Tarts? Yes, apparently someone thought it useful to assemble a database of information about that uniquely American breakfast food, the Pop Tart. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Pop Tarts, but still, it's not exactly a practical field of knowledge....
Pet Diabetes? I didn't even know there was such a thing. Mind you, I'm not at all making light of pet diabetes any more than human diabetes (there's a history in my own family, in fact), but still ... a curious little field of study indeed.
"South Park"? Actually, this one isn't all that surprising, considering they have wikis for other TV and movie properties like "Star Trek", and probably "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" too. Come to think of it, I might have to bookmark this one...!
Nudism? Aw hell, why not? It's the Internet, after all, and there's room for anything. But really ... how much does anyone have to know about not wearing clothes? Okay, maybe how to exercise caution when using devices with external moving parts that could potentially cause damage to your ... never mind.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Legalize It! ...Got Any Snacks?
Okay, let's get one thing straight before I go any further: I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a "pot-head". In fact, I've never taken a toke in my life ... nor have I experimented with any other substances, not even alcohol ... hell, the only alcohol I've ever ingested has been in the form of cough syrup. Nevertheless, I'm a firm proponent for the legalization of marijuana. Why, you ask? There are a few reasons.
It's virtually harmless. Think about the laundry list of potential side-effects associated with all those prescription drugs that somehow manage to get FDA approval and are constantly advertised on television ... dry mouth, bowel cramps, watery eyes, constipation, headaches, nausea, nosebleeds, drowsiness, disorientation, heart attack, stroke ... the side-effects are often worse than the condition you're taking the drug for in the first place!! What does weed do? It gives you the munchies, makes you giggle at everything, and if used too much, it makes you dim-witted. Even compared to the consequences of chain-smoking and alcoholism, that's a freakin' walk in the park.
It'd help out the cops. There's hardly any police department in this country that isn't overworked and understaffed, so they'd probably welcome the opportunity to ignore the petty marijuana sale and distribution offenses and even the larger pot busts, and have more time to go after the far more harmful drugs like meth, cocaine, and heroin ... not to mention having more resources to fight violent offenses and property crimes. And if you think that's something, wait till you see how the ripple-effect of the decriminalization of marijuana would ease the stress on prison crowding and court dockets!
It'd stimulate the economy. If marijuana were legalized, it would give the government the opportunity to regulate its sale, which would in all probability mean taxing it ... which would bring in a much-needed (depending on who you ask) revenue stream for the federal government. Not to mention that legalizing its manufacture, distribution, and marketing would provide a new industry for the country, meaning the creation of jobs, which we need now more than ever.
It's one of the best medicines around. Marijuana has been clinically proven to relieve chronic pain and to stimulate the appetite. There are a lot of people out there suffering from diseases and disorders that inflict constant pain, and that also suppress the appetite, making people susceptible to malnutrition and starvation. Only a fraction of those people live in jurisdictions that allow for medical marijuana, and just a fraction of those have the means to obtain licenses for it. And then there are the countless college students who just want to let loose every once in awhile and relax ... weed takes pretty good care of that, too, and with negligible ill effects, I might add.
On top of all that is one of the most obvious reasons for legalizing it, one that makes an almost embarrassing amount of sense. Marijuana is a naturally occurring plant. It's not altered with cancer-causing and addiction-inducing artificial chemicals like tobacco is ... it's just dried and then it's ready for use ... which is one big reason why it's comparatively harmless when used responsibly and judiciously. When you sit there and think about all these complex pharmaceutical chemicals cooked up in laboratories, innocuously packaged under names that sound like planets that the "Star Trek" characters beam down to, and how they're perfectly legal, whereas something that grows naturally in the ground is outlawed and called "dangerous", it kind-of makes you wonder ... What are some of those FDA people smoking?!?
It's virtually harmless. Think about the laundry list of potential side-effects associated with all those prescription drugs that somehow manage to get FDA approval and are constantly advertised on television ... dry mouth, bowel cramps, watery eyes, constipation, headaches, nausea, nosebleeds, drowsiness, disorientation, heart attack, stroke ... the side-effects are often worse than the condition you're taking the drug for in the first place!! What does weed do? It gives you the munchies, makes you giggle at everything, and if used too much, it makes you dim-witted. Even compared to the consequences of chain-smoking and alcoholism, that's a freakin' walk in the park.
It'd help out the cops. There's hardly any police department in this country that isn't overworked and understaffed, so they'd probably welcome the opportunity to ignore the petty marijuana sale and distribution offenses and even the larger pot busts, and have more time to go after the far more harmful drugs like meth, cocaine, and heroin ... not to mention having more resources to fight violent offenses and property crimes. And if you think that's something, wait till you see how the ripple-effect of the decriminalization of marijuana would ease the stress on prison crowding and court dockets!
It'd stimulate the economy. If marijuana were legalized, it would give the government the opportunity to regulate its sale, which would in all probability mean taxing it ... which would bring in a much-needed (depending on who you ask) revenue stream for the federal government. Not to mention that legalizing its manufacture, distribution, and marketing would provide a new industry for the country, meaning the creation of jobs, which we need now more than ever.
It's one of the best medicines around. Marijuana has been clinically proven to relieve chronic pain and to stimulate the appetite. There are a lot of people out there suffering from diseases and disorders that inflict constant pain, and that also suppress the appetite, making people susceptible to malnutrition and starvation. Only a fraction of those people live in jurisdictions that allow for medical marijuana, and just a fraction of those have the means to obtain licenses for it. And then there are the countless college students who just want to let loose every once in awhile and relax ... weed takes pretty good care of that, too, and with negligible ill effects, I might add.
On top of all that is one of the most obvious reasons for legalizing it, one that makes an almost embarrassing amount of sense. Marijuana is a naturally occurring plant. It's not altered with cancer-causing and addiction-inducing artificial chemicals like tobacco is ... it's just dried and then it's ready for use ... which is one big reason why it's comparatively harmless when used responsibly and judiciously. When you sit there and think about all these complex pharmaceutical chemicals cooked up in laboratories, innocuously packaged under names that sound like planets that the "Star Trek" characters beam down to, and how they're perfectly legal, whereas something that grows naturally in the ground is outlawed and called "dangerous", it kind-of makes you wonder ... What are some of those FDA people smoking?!?
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Stupid Is as Stupid Protests...
I don't know who the kid with the second sign is, but I really, really like him! I never wish anyone ill will, I really don't ... but all the same, I'm kind-of counting the days till the so-called Reverend Fred ("God Hates...") Phelps kicks the bucket ... just so he can learn once-and-for-all how he's wasted away his life.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Techno-Choly Baby
I can be a real idiot sometimes. I got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning (figuratively, 'cause the other side of my bed is against the wall), and the day seemed to get worse from there, culminating in the local fast-food joint somehow forgetting to make my food, resulting in me being 15 minutes late getting back from my lunch hour. Fortunately I have a really understanding boss, so I didn't get an earful for being late. Another fortunate thing: my day basically couldn't help but get better from here, 'cause it had already hit bottom.
What started this downward spiral in my mood? News of the death of a relative or friend? No. A huge unexpected expense, like a car or home repair bill? Nope. You're gonna love the answer ... our broadband internet is on the fritz. Now comes the obvious, but no less puzzling, question: Why do I let it get me so upset? It's not the end of the world (if you'll forgive that revoltingly cliché expression). The stability of our life doesn't depend on it. It's not a vital component of our household infrastructure (except when it's time to pay bills). Nevertheless, it can throw my delicate little world into turmoil.
Did you happen to see the South Park episode from 2008 called "Over Logging", about how the Internet broke, sending all of human society into utter chaos? It's hard for me not to think about that episode, and naturally to juxtapose it to my own behavior, and end up feeling extra-super-duper-silly about myself.
When I find myself disconnected from the web like this, I fuss and fret as if my life is utterly directionless and I'm at my wit's end for something -- anything -- constructive to do. And then, what do I do once I'm overjoyed to finally see the green "DSL" LED on the modem return to its reassuring steady glow? Do I confidently forge into a carefully structured strategy to make a meaningful and profound contribution to cyberspace? Shit no, I browse the web aimlessly, wasting away a good two hours or so. You see? I told you ... I can be a real idiot sometimes.
Maybe part of the reason it upsets me is because we're paying a fair bit of money every month for having reliable high-speed internet access, and we're not getting what we're paying for. And maybe part of it is the unpleasant prospect of having to get on the phone with their customer service people and plodding through "the idiot list" of simple troubleshoots, none of which ever solve the problem, thus wasting time. But whatever the reason, it discourages me enough to long for a world without all these technological burdens we place on ourselves ... a quiet little village in rural France, perhaps. As clumsy and uncomfortable as my childhood was, I sometimes wish I still lived in a pre-digital world ... things were so much simpler then.
I'm really hoping the DSL will magically fix itself before tomorrow morning (and, more importantly, stay fixed), so I don't have to call those technical support people. I won't be calling them today, 'cause that would just be asking for one more wrench to be thrown into the rattletrap gearbox that is my Thursday. Sigh ... I should have listened more closely to that bird outside my window, whose pretty little song I could hear this morning while I was tying my shoes ... as if to tell me, "everything's going to be okay." Because, deep down inside, I know in the long run that it will be.
What started this downward spiral in my mood? News of the death of a relative or friend? No. A huge unexpected expense, like a car or home repair bill? Nope. You're gonna love the answer ... our broadband internet is on the fritz. Now comes the obvious, but no less puzzling, question: Why do I let it get me so upset? It's not the end of the world (if you'll forgive that revoltingly cliché expression). The stability of our life doesn't depend on it. It's not a vital component of our household infrastructure (except when it's time to pay bills). Nevertheless, it can throw my delicate little world into turmoil.
Did you happen to see the South Park episode from 2008 called "Over Logging", about how the Internet broke, sending all of human society into utter chaos? It's hard for me not to think about that episode, and naturally to juxtapose it to my own behavior, and end up feeling extra-super-duper-silly about myself.
When I find myself disconnected from the web like this, I fuss and fret as if my life is utterly directionless and I'm at my wit's end for something -- anything -- constructive to do. And then, what do I do once I'm overjoyed to finally see the green "DSL" LED on the modem return to its reassuring steady glow? Do I confidently forge into a carefully structured strategy to make a meaningful and profound contribution to cyberspace? Shit no, I browse the web aimlessly, wasting away a good two hours or so. You see? I told you ... I can be a real idiot sometimes.
Maybe part of the reason it upsets me is because we're paying a fair bit of money every month for having reliable high-speed internet access, and we're not getting what we're paying for. And maybe part of it is the unpleasant prospect of having to get on the phone with their customer service people and plodding through "the idiot list" of simple troubleshoots, none of which ever solve the problem, thus wasting time. But whatever the reason, it discourages me enough to long for a world without all these technological burdens we place on ourselves ... a quiet little village in rural France, perhaps. As clumsy and uncomfortable as my childhood was, I sometimes wish I still lived in a pre-digital world ... things were so much simpler then.
I'm really hoping the DSL will magically fix itself before tomorrow morning (and, more importantly, stay fixed), so I don't have to call those technical support people. I won't be calling them today, 'cause that would just be asking for one more wrench to be thrown into the rattletrap gearbox that is my Thursday. Sigh ... I should have listened more closely to that bird outside my window, whose pretty little song I could hear this morning while I was tying my shoes ... as if to tell me, "everything's going to be okay." Because, deep down inside, I know in the long run that it will be.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Random Lists 1
Celebrities I've met in person:
- Martin Milner (actor, "Adam-12") ... though I was too young to remember
- Ryan Cabrera (pop singer) ... right before he got famous, was a nice guy
- Robert Picardo (actor, "Star Trek: Voyager") ... nice guy, too ... got a personalized autograph for a friend
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt (actor, "3rd Rock From The Sun", "(500) Days of Summer") ... on vacation in California at a record store ... also a nice guy
- The 5 Browns (classical piano-playing siblings) ... yup, nice kids, too, all five of 'em
Famous people my mother has met that kind-of blew me away:
- Gary Collins (actor, talk-show host)
- Sir Edmund Hillary (climber of Mt. Everest) ... had dinner with him and some other people
- Sam Walton (founder of Wal-Mart) ... she drove his car!
- Lady Bird Johnson (First Lady of the United States 1963-1969)
- Terry Kirkman (front-man of '60s rock group The Association) ... went to school with him and lived down the street!
People I've seen in concert who are dead now:
- Victor Borge (classical pianist and comedian)
- George Carlin (the best stand-up comedian who ever lived)
- Sam Kinison (evangelist preacher turned raunchy stand-up comedian who lived fast and died hard)
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Silence Is Golden
You know what happened the other day? I was at home by myself, doing some of the usual household chores in the morning, and when I was done I just sat down in the living room for a few minutes, and that's when I noticed it ... silence. The sound of nothing. Living with family (one of whom works in construction and is usually doing some sort of improvement, big or small, on our house), and working a full-time job, I seldom get any peace and quiet ... and even when I'm by myself, I'm such a music fan that I usually have some of it playing in the background. Apparently, I get so little silence that I really notice it when I do.
I'm probably going to sound like I'm whining here, because it's not like I live or work in a big city like New York, and I don't have one of those high-stress jobs either. And I'm thankful that I don't, 'cause if I did it'd probably have driven me crazy by now. But it kind-of says something when a guy who lives a relatively low-key life actually feels the silence wrap around him like a blanket in an instance like I described above. I have to wonder what it's like for those hustle-and-bustle people, who literally never get a moment to themselves. Maybe the people in Europe and Latin America have the right idea with their tradition of the siesta.
I'm thinking that's something we need to introduce here: an hour of napping in the early afternoon, say from 2:00 to 3:00. I've heard that a lot of doctors endorse the idea of the afternoon nap, and I have the distinct feeling that Americans as a whole would probably feel a lot less stressed-out if they got a little afternoon pause like that. It wouldn't be too hard, really ... just introduce the idea that every business is closed from 2:00 to 3:00, and the way stuff spreads on the web these days it wouldn't be too long before everyone caught on that it's the "universal relaxation hour" ... although the word "siesta" does have a much more poetic sound to it.
I'm probably going to sound like I'm whining here, because it's not like I live or work in a big city like New York, and I don't have one of those high-stress jobs either. And I'm thankful that I don't, 'cause if I did it'd probably have driven me crazy by now. But it kind-of says something when a guy who lives a relatively low-key life actually feels the silence wrap around him like a blanket in an instance like I described above. I have to wonder what it's like for those hustle-and-bustle people, who literally never get a moment to themselves. Maybe the people in Europe and Latin America have the right idea with their tradition of the siesta.
I'm thinking that's something we need to introduce here: an hour of napping in the early afternoon, say from 2:00 to 3:00. I've heard that a lot of doctors endorse the idea of the afternoon nap, and I have the distinct feeling that Americans as a whole would probably feel a lot less stressed-out if they got a little afternoon pause like that. It wouldn't be too hard, really ... just introduce the idea that every business is closed from 2:00 to 3:00, and the way stuff spreads on the web these days it wouldn't be too long before everyone caught on that it's the "universal relaxation hour" ... although the word "siesta" does have a much more poetic sound to it.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Coach This, Beeyatch!
One of the uniquely 21st-Century American euphemisms that I totally cringe at whenever I hear it is "life coach". I'm sorry, but that's gotta be one of the biggest bullshit jobs (and money-making rackets) to come along since tarot cards and palm reading. What the hell is a "life coach", anyway? Basically, they're someone that disorganized saps pay an assload of money to tell them how to get their shit together ... something that friends or family would do for free, and probably in a nicer way. So evidently, anyone who would hire a "life coach" has more money than they have friends.
This is one of the more recent symptoms of a troubling trend. Something I've noticed in my job, working with and around the younger generations, is that for the most part they've stopped looking for answers themselves and turned to the much easier practice of just asking someone else (even when there's a sign just feet away that gives them the very answer they ask me). It's perhaps an inevitable side-effect of the Internet Age -- they're basically Googling the information, just from a person instead of a web browser. Today's high-school and college age kids would be completely lost if they had to take it upon themselves to look for answers, like I had to 20 years ago. I shudder to think how many of them have never even laid eyes on a good old fashioned multi-volume encyclopedia like World Book or Encyclopaedia Britannica.
I'd better stop here, 'cause this could very easily go on into a mile-long tirade on how dumbed-down and helpless this nation's population has started to become. Independent thought has gone out of fashion, and people have all but stopped trusting their instinct to get themselves on the right track. How else do you explain people relying solely on their GPS and then getting their truck jammed under an overpass that's a foot or two too low?
This is one of the more recent symptoms of a troubling trend. Something I've noticed in my job, working with and around the younger generations, is that for the most part they've stopped looking for answers themselves and turned to the much easier practice of just asking someone else (even when there's a sign just feet away that gives them the very answer they ask me). It's perhaps an inevitable side-effect of the Internet Age -- they're basically Googling the information, just from a person instead of a web browser. Today's high-school and college age kids would be completely lost if they had to take it upon themselves to look for answers, like I had to 20 years ago. I shudder to think how many of them have never even laid eyes on a good old fashioned multi-volume encyclopedia like World Book or Encyclopaedia Britannica.
I'd better stop here, 'cause this could very easily go on into a mile-long tirade on how dumbed-down and helpless this nation's population has started to become. Independent thought has gone out of fashion, and people have all but stopped trusting their instinct to get themselves on the right track. How else do you explain people relying solely on their GPS and then getting their truck jammed under an overpass that's a foot or two too low?
Monday, February 22, 2010
Where Do I Even Begin?
This sign is so disturbing on so many levels. Good ol' Crabby Dick's must have a loyal clientele, 'cause otherwise this sort of advertising would drive away a lot of people (except for the totally obvious niche market that we're all probably aware of). I wonder if the city council might have raised some concerns about the sign? Hell, in our ridiculously politically-correct climate, I imagine they did.That's not to say this picture ain't funnier than heck, though!!
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Sheesh, What a Bunch of Fruits...
Haha ... "fruits" ... "bunch" ... get it? (Although the guy in front and the guy on the left do seem to be taking care not to bite ... just sayin'....)
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined...
Well, I'm not wasting any time getting into one of my rants on this blog, am I? (Don't worry ... there's lighter stuff coming up quite soon enough.) And boy, are we getting into a big rant right off the bat, one of my biggest pet peeves of all: smokers. My dislike for smokers goes beyond the simple fact that I can't breathe the crap they exhale (think about it ... that's the shit that even their lungs couldn't process!) or that they otherwise smell thoroughly disgusting (really, if they knew how horrible they stank, especially right after they've smoked a cigarette, I bet 80% of them would be shocked into quitting cold-turkey). I actually lose a bit of respect for people I know if I find out that they're smokers, specifically with regard to my estimate of their intelligence.
How smart can you really be if you're a smoker? Think about it: you're paying a corporation (full of bald-faced liars) a ridiculous amount of money in exchange for the "privilege" of them slowly poisoning you to death, and worst of all you're doing it completely willingly. Am I the only one mystified by this behavior? Can you blame me for thinking smokers are stupid? "It relaxes me," some people say. Really? It wouldn't relax me to know I'm pumping concentrated amounts of known carcinogens into my lungs, instead of the oxygen that my body needs. The worst part is that a lot of people who smoke are the people who can least afford to, especially those poor schmucks at or below the poverty line, who live paycheck to paycheck, yet can still scrape together enough cash to regularly buy a pack of cigarettes ... and then have the nerve to complain about how they "can't seem to make ends meet"! Oh, how I'd love to punch them in the face.
We all know that nicotine is addictive (which is where the "bald-faced liars" reference above comes from ... the tobacco executives had the nerve to say before a grand jury that it's not), so I'm not without sympathy toward smokers, at least to an extent. My father was a smoker for the first 25 years of my life, but it took an extended hospital stay due to an aggressive form of cancer for him to quit. My sad old great-uncle, in the last couple years of his life, barely had the strength to hobble between his bed and the living-room couch in the morning and the evening (with the occasional trip to the bathroom), but would nevertheless continue to smoke until his dying day. And then there's the ex-husband of a friend of mine, who still uses smokeless chewing tobacco despite the fact that HALF OF HIS LOWER JAW WAS REMOVED because of its ill effects. And yes, I'm including those "chew" users in the category of "smokers" ... every bit as dumb.
Now just so you know, I'm definitely not a "smoking Nazi" ... I won't arbitrarily flash a smoker a gratuitous look of disgust, or verbally chastise them or goad them to quit at every opportunity. I honestly believe that smokers have a right to smoke in certain places if they insist on doing so, and I think the efforts of these anti-smoking activists to ban smoking in outdoor areas is going a bit too far -- and even in bars, really ... I mean, going into a bar and not expecting to be exposed to cigarette smoke is kind-of like going to San Francisco and not expecting to see any gay people. But I also think that those of us who don't want to be exposed to tobacco smoke have a right (within reason) to have it kept away from us. I'm a big believer in what I call "lowest common denominator" reasoning, in this case: smokers can comfortably breathe either tobacco smoke or oxygen, but non-smokers can comfortably breathe only oxygen -- so the rights of non-smokers should take precedence. Can anyone honestly fight the logic in that? I think not.
Smoking is addictive, yes, but all it takes to stop is enough determination. One of my closest friends, who smoked for a good 20 years or so, mustered up his will power about ten years ago, went on the patch for a couple of weeks, and hasn't lit up since. And yes, I might have gently persuaded him to quit, but I'm not one of those relentlessly pestering kind of people, so it was mostly his own motivation to, among other things, save a startlingly large amount of money by not "needing" to buy cigarettes anymore (not to mention improve his health ... he told me shortly afterward that he hadn't felt that good in years). And he probably won't know until he reads this, but his quitting smoking is quite possibly the thing I most respect him for above all else.
So, all you smokers out there, the next time The Great American Smokeout comes along, please give it an honest try. Maybe you'll suffer from nicotine withdrawals for a very short time, but in the long run, you'll save a lot of money, you'll smell better, you'll feel better ... and you'll win back some of my respect. It's a win-win situation, isn't it?
How smart can you really be if you're a smoker? Think about it: you're paying a corporation (full of bald-faced liars) a ridiculous amount of money in exchange for the "privilege" of them slowly poisoning you to death, and worst of all you're doing it completely willingly. Am I the only one mystified by this behavior? Can you blame me for thinking smokers are stupid? "It relaxes me," some people say. Really? It wouldn't relax me to know I'm pumping concentrated amounts of known carcinogens into my lungs, instead of the oxygen that my body needs. The worst part is that a lot of people who smoke are the people who can least afford to, especially those poor schmucks at or below the poverty line, who live paycheck to paycheck, yet can still scrape together enough cash to regularly buy a pack of cigarettes ... and then have the nerve to complain about how they "can't seem to make ends meet"! Oh, how I'd love to punch them in the face.
We all know that nicotine is addictive (which is where the "bald-faced liars" reference above comes from ... the tobacco executives had the nerve to say before a grand jury that it's not), so I'm not without sympathy toward smokers, at least to an extent. My father was a smoker for the first 25 years of my life, but it took an extended hospital stay due to an aggressive form of cancer for him to quit. My sad old great-uncle, in the last couple years of his life, barely had the strength to hobble between his bed and the living-room couch in the morning and the evening (with the occasional trip to the bathroom), but would nevertheless continue to smoke until his dying day. And then there's the ex-husband of a friend of mine, who still uses smokeless chewing tobacco despite the fact that HALF OF HIS LOWER JAW WAS REMOVED because of its ill effects. And yes, I'm including those "chew" users in the category of "smokers" ... every bit as dumb.
Now just so you know, I'm definitely not a "smoking Nazi" ... I won't arbitrarily flash a smoker a gratuitous look of disgust, or verbally chastise them or goad them to quit at every opportunity. I honestly believe that smokers have a right to smoke in certain places if they insist on doing so, and I think the efforts of these anti-smoking activists to ban smoking in outdoor areas is going a bit too far -- and even in bars, really ... I mean, going into a bar and not expecting to be exposed to cigarette smoke is kind-of like going to San Francisco and not expecting to see any gay people. But I also think that those of us who don't want to be exposed to tobacco smoke have a right (within reason) to have it kept away from us. I'm a big believer in what I call "lowest common denominator" reasoning, in this case: smokers can comfortably breathe either tobacco smoke or oxygen, but non-smokers can comfortably breathe only oxygen -- so the rights of non-smokers should take precedence. Can anyone honestly fight the logic in that? I think not.
Smoking is addictive, yes, but all it takes to stop is enough determination. One of my closest friends, who smoked for a good 20 years or so, mustered up his will power about ten years ago, went on the patch for a couple of weeks, and hasn't lit up since. And yes, I might have gently persuaded him to quit, but I'm not one of those relentlessly pestering kind of people, so it was mostly his own motivation to, among other things, save a startlingly large amount of money by not "needing" to buy cigarettes anymore (not to mention improve his health ... he told me shortly afterward that he hadn't felt that good in years). And he probably won't know until he reads this, but his quitting smoking is quite possibly the thing I most respect him for above all else.
So, all you smokers out there, the next time The Great American Smokeout comes along, please give it an honest try. Maybe you'll suffer from nicotine withdrawals for a very short time, but in the long run, you'll save a lot of money, you'll smell better, you'll feel better ... and you'll win back some of my respect. It's a win-win situation, isn't it?
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Once More Unto The Blog, Dear Friends
"Another freakin' blog from this jerk", you ask? Well, yes. I already have a blog about music and a blog about my geekdom, so I figured, why not a blog about everything else? At first I hesitated, since I have enough trouble keeping those other two blogs of mine updated, but then I realized that I think of at least one pet peeve a day to piss-and-moan about, and since this blog doesn't fit any real theme, I shouldn't have a problem packing it with junk that I hope you'll find at least mildly entertaining and/or enlightening.
The title of this blog serves a couple of purposes. You see, in my old-ish age (well ... I've still got a good couple of decades before Social Security kicks in, but I'm old enough to have been in my teens before home computers and VCRs materialized), I find myself looking around and seeing how insane and inane our world is becoming by ever-increasing orders of magnitude, and in more ways than I can count. And because of that, I just plain flat-out need somewhere to vent once in awhile ... hence, this here blog.
So, my "quest for sanity" is both outward (trying to make sense of this sick, twisted little ball of mud we call The World) and inward (hoping to get a cathartic release and maintain my grip on coherent thought), and I hope to accomplish both, little by little, post by post -- trying, of course, to make my rants at least semi-constructive. That's not to say it'll be all negative ... indeed, one of my personal heroes is the late George Carlin, and I'm hoping to inject my opinions with an offbeat humor not unlike his. Furthermore, you should fully expect this blog to venture into the mundane once in awhile, 'cause like everyone else, I too need to jabber aimlessly about random crap every once in awhile.
So, welcome to my world ... fasten your seat belts and enjoy the ride!!
The title of this blog serves a couple of purposes. You see, in my old-ish age (well ... I've still got a good couple of decades before Social Security kicks in, but I'm old enough to have been in my teens before home computers and VCRs materialized), I find myself looking around and seeing how insane and inane our world is becoming by ever-increasing orders of magnitude, and in more ways than I can count. And because of that, I just plain flat-out need somewhere to vent once in awhile ... hence, this here blog.
So, my "quest for sanity" is both outward (trying to make sense of this sick, twisted little ball of mud we call The World) and inward (hoping to get a cathartic release and maintain my grip on coherent thought), and I hope to accomplish both, little by little, post by post -- trying, of course, to make my rants at least semi-constructive. That's not to say it'll be all negative ... indeed, one of my personal heroes is the late George Carlin, and I'm hoping to inject my opinions with an offbeat humor not unlike his. Furthermore, you should fully expect this blog to venture into the mundane once in awhile, 'cause like everyone else, I too need to jabber aimlessly about random crap every once in awhile.
So, welcome to my world ... fasten your seat belts and enjoy the ride!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)