Let me begin by saying that I've been totally neglecting this corner of the Internet that, if nothing else, is mine.
I wish I could say that I have been busy saving the world or inventing a cure for cancer (no, the two aren't even close to being the same thing). That, however, would be a lie.
It seems that my last few posts had even won be a following of about two people, but now that I've been silent for close to three months, they've probably gone away to read someone else's witty words. Sigh, I guess I'll have to try to interest someone else.
I'm well aware that you don't care what I've been doing, so I won't tell you directly. Instead, allow me to launch into a diatribe that's related to what I have been doing.
I hear lots of people bitch about how much their job sucks. And rightly so, there are a large numbers of shitty jobs out there that we just can't seem to import enough Mexicans to do.
I myself have held two or thee or six of those shitty jobs, and some of them I have been glad to have, if for no other reason than they allowed me to get drunk with co-workers and whine about how big an asshole the boss is.
Sometimes your boss is right their beside you with a pint in his or her hand and your complaints are directed at customers instead. This is usually the case when you work in retail or the "service" industry.
And yet, from another point of view it seems so childish. It's like complaining about how hard your classes are when you're in elementary school. Looking back, you may realize that what you're doing is really ridiculously easy and you should just get on with it and enjoy the parts that don't suck so horribly.
Now if there are any nuclear physicists or research chemists or structural engineers reading this, you may be thinking that your job IS hard. Well, fair enough, I wouldn't know and I'll allow that you're probably right. However, by taking a bit of a pay cut, you could have a shitty job doing insignificant work and get drunk more often.
Of course, all of this is a slap in the face of people who are currently unemployed. You never really realize how much you will miss your old job until you don't have it anymore. Getting a new job seems like it will be easy and quick, but then you spend a few months sifting through classified ads and realize that every job offering is looking for skills you don't have and even some creative resume work isn't going to help your situation.
You tell yourself things like "It's this economy" or "I just haven't discovered the right opportunity" but deep inside there is that little voice that says "You're a piece of shit and noone will hire you because your hair is too long and you smell like a donkey's taint." So you keep looking and all the while everything in your life seems like it's falling apart.
Then the day comes when you pass a guy on the sidewalk begging for change and realize that you're one bad arguement with your spouse or significant other away from being him.
Even in this day and age, a man is expected to be a capable provider, even if he isn't the only one in the family who is bringing home the bacon. So you even end up feeling like less of a man.
That's me these days. I'm bouncing around, picking up a temp job every few weeks. I barely make enough bother cashing the checks.
Anyway, I'll try to be back more often. It's not like I have shit else to do.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Where did my McCain go?
There was once a vibrant and passionate politician who stood for something. He meticulously avoided shady dealings and always tried to do what he thought was right. People loved him for it, he was called a maverick and a straight-talker.
He stepped across party boundaries in an attempt to make the political process more balanced.
Nowadays you don’t hear much about that guy. Wait, did you think I was talking about Barack Obama? Obviously not since you can’t turn on a TV or radio without hearing his name.
I’m trying to figure out what the heck happened to John McCain.
Where once the American people loved his firey nature, they now seem to be chiding his temper. And while he once stood for fair election practices, he’s now caught up in a campaign financing debacle that seemed to threaten his whole campaign at one time.
It may be that this term is played out by now, but it really seems like McCain has sold out.
In 2000 it seemed like he offered a stark contrast to the Reagenesque spend and hope ideals of G. Bush Jr.
Now it seems as if his mesage is that he plans to continue the failed policies of that administration.
He talks about a gas tax holiday when what we really need to talk about is conservation–cutting back that is, not hugging trees.
This is a conservative who makes no bones about being pro-life while still supporting stem-cell research.
And maybe that’s the problem. While we love John McCain for his personal story as a war hero and independent man, we don’t necesarrily like his policies, or at least not all of them.
McCain is a politician for a group that really doesn’t exist. His political views are defined issue by issue rather than by a party line.
At the same time that we like that in a man, it’s political suicide. People like predictability and consistency, they like someone who, once they know where he stands on the Iraq War, they know where he’ll stand on immigration and gay marriage–two issues where McCain has repeatedly refused to toe the party line.
With John McCain it’s something of a crap shoot. He’ll make up his own mind and damned be the consequences.
At least, that used to be the image he put forward. Now it seems like that one thing we like about him–that he wanted to end corruption and fight insider politics–is gone as he court the same political figures that he spurned in 2000.
It seems that he’s lived to learn from his lesson in 2000. Being a “maverick” isn’t enough to win the presidency. He needs the support of those party insiders to bolster his war chest.
His drop from headlines is obviously hurting him. Though they haven’t gone after him with any vigor yet, Democratic candidates have made off hand comments and worked through proxy to tarnish the 70-year-old’s image without him being able to snipe back.
The real test seems to be coming up in the general election. Will McCain resort to what many journalists refer to as the “Karl Rove playbook,” or will he keep it above the board and make this about the issues that we all want to know about.
I really hope it’s the second choice, because I don’t know how much more jaded I can get without going all rigid and green.
He stepped across party boundaries in an attempt to make the political process more balanced.
Nowadays you don’t hear much about that guy. Wait, did you think I was talking about Barack Obama? Obviously not since you can’t turn on a TV or radio without hearing his name.
I’m trying to figure out what the heck happened to John McCain.
Where once the American people loved his firey nature, they now seem to be chiding his temper. And while he once stood for fair election practices, he’s now caught up in a campaign financing debacle that seemed to threaten his whole campaign at one time.
It may be that this term is played out by now, but it really seems like McCain has sold out.
In 2000 it seemed like he offered a stark contrast to the Reagenesque spend and hope ideals of G. Bush Jr.
Now it seems as if his mesage is that he plans to continue the failed policies of that administration.
He talks about a gas tax holiday when what we really need to talk about is conservation–cutting back that is, not hugging trees.
This is a conservative who makes no bones about being pro-life while still supporting stem-cell research.
And maybe that’s the problem. While we love John McCain for his personal story as a war hero and independent man, we don’t necesarrily like his policies, or at least not all of them.
McCain is a politician for a group that really doesn’t exist. His political views are defined issue by issue rather than by a party line.
At the same time that we like that in a man, it’s political suicide. People like predictability and consistency, they like someone who, once they know where he stands on the Iraq War, they know where he’ll stand on immigration and gay marriage–two issues where McCain has repeatedly refused to toe the party line.
With John McCain it’s something of a crap shoot. He’ll make up his own mind and damned be the consequences.
At least, that used to be the image he put forward. Now it seems like that one thing we like about him–that he wanted to end corruption and fight insider politics–is gone as he court the same political figures that he spurned in 2000.
It seems that he’s lived to learn from his lesson in 2000. Being a “maverick” isn’t enough to win the presidency. He needs the support of those party insiders to bolster his war chest.
His drop from headlines is obviously hurting him. Though they haven’t gone after him with any vigor yet, Democratic candidates have made off hand comments and worked through proxy to tarnish the 70-year-old’s image without him being able to snipe back.
The real test seems to be coming up in the general election. Will McCain resort to what many journalists refer to as the “Karl Rove playbook,” or will he keep it above the board and make this about the issues that we all want to know about.
I really hope it’s the second choice, because I don’t know how much more jaded I can get without going all rigid and green.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
A big shit sandwich, want a bite?
There are alot of angry people on the left side of the American political spectrum this week. In a democratic race that has been contested from Iowa all the way to Pennsylvania, the two leading candidates were all set to debate last week.
But where was the debate? Where was the information on the topics that we all want to hear about? The American public has a knot in it's collective stomach about the economy and the lending crisis, but instead the moderators asked questions about the goddamn Weather Underground, a mildly violent group from the 1960s.
We wanted to hear about how the Iraq quagmire might be resolved sooner rather than later, but the moderators felt that a few questions about a former first lady's trip to Tuzla was more important than a current war.
To tell the truth, the YouTube debates which were a mockery themselves probably had more political substance than that reeking pool of festered cat urine that saw two hours of air-time last week.
Ignoring the very idea that a moderator may have gotten one of his questions directly from right-wing mouthpiece Sean Hannity, it seems clear to me that they weren't at all interested in trying to advance the public knowledge of the candidates' stances on issues. Rather they decided to shoot for the Pulitzer prize for moderating by asking such zingers as "What's the deal with that flg pin (or lack thereof)?" and "Didn't your pastor once make an off-color comment?"
I'm generally surprised they didn't ask Mrs. Clinton about how her period affects campaign strategy, or who Obama's favorite rapper is.
This is it. This is what political discourse has come to. Not only are television ads worthless in determining any sort of information about a candidate (not a new development), but debates are lowest-common-denominator. The moderators may as well have farted into their mics and had the candidates rate the tone, timbre and smell.
I have yet to decide which is worse, the debate, or the hordes of right-wing flunkies who are falling over themselves to call out the candidates for failing to acceptably answer "hardball" questions.
Let me pose a hypothetical question: If you take a ball of wet manure, stick a rock in the middle of it and then wrap it in a filthy gym sock before throwing it, does that count as a hard or soft ball?
I really don't know if the moderators (Stephanopolous and Gibson) are stupid or just ridiculously out of touch with the American people. Maybe in some high Ivory tower, it matters a lot weather Obama has lunch with a man who had ties to a radical group fourty years ago. Did we forget that Ayers (the man in question) was pardoned? Or that his group never killed anyone, taking great pains to warn the occupants of the buildings they intended to blow up?
Clinton jumped all over Obama and said that the Weather Underground killed innocent people with their bombs. That's either a lie or a misrepresentation of facts depending on how you look at it. The only people who died were members of the group who accidentally touched off an explosion while manufacturing bombs. It would seem then that they were hardly innocent.
I don't care who you support. That debate was a big garbage sandwich that we shouldn't have to swallow it.
But where was the debate? Where was the information on the topics that we all want to hear about? The American public has a knot in it's collective stomach about the economy and the lending crisis, but instead the moderators asked questions about the goddamn Weather Underground, a mildly violent group from the 1960s.
We wanted to hear about how the Iraq quagmire might be resolved sooner rather than later, but the moderators felt that a few questions about a former first lady's trip to Tuzla was more important than a current war.
To tell the truth, the YouTube debates which were a mockery themselves probably had more political substance than that reeking pool of festered cat urine that saw two hours of air-time last week.
Ignoring the very idea that a moderator may have gotten one of his questions directly from right-wing mouthpiece Sean Hannity, it seems clear to me that they weren't at all interested in trying to advance the public knowledge of the candidates' stances on issues. Rather they decided to shoot for the Pulitzer prize for moderating by asking such zingers as "What's the deal with that flg pin (or lack thereof)?" and "Didn't your pastor once make an off-color comment?"
I'm generally surprised they didn't ask Mrs. Clinton about how her period affects campaign strategy, or who Obama's favorite rapper is.
This is it. This is what political discourse has come to. Not only are television ads worthless in determining any sort of information about a candidate (not a new development), but debates are lowest-common-denominator. The moderators may as well have farted into their mics and had the candidates rate the tone, timbre and smell.
I have yet to decide which is worse, the debate, or the hordes of right-wing flunkies who are falling over themselves to call out the candidates for failing to acceptably answer "hardball" questions.
Let me pose a hypothetical question: If you take a ball of wet manure, stick a rock in the middle of it and then wrap it in a filthy gym sock before throwing it, does that count as a hard or soft ball?
I really don't know if the moderators (Stephanopolous and Gibson) are stupid or just ridiculously out of touch with the American people. Maybe in some high Ivory tower, it matters a lot weather Obama has lunch with a man who had ties to a radical group fourty years ago. Did we forget that Ayers (the man in question) was pardoned? Or that his group never killed anyone, taking great pains to warn the occupants of the buildings they intended to blow up?
Clinton jumped all over Obama and said that the Weather Underground killed innocent people with their bombs. That's either a lie or a misrepresentation of facts depending on how you look at it. The only people who died were members of the group who accidentally touched off an explosion while manufacturing bombs. It would seem then that they were hardly innocent.
I don't care who you support. That debate was a big garbage sandwich that we shouldn't have to swallow it.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
The Golden Rule
Having money is no excuse for being a jerk.
It doesn’t matter if you have nine dollars or nine million, you will be expected to maintain, at the very least, an air of civility toward your fellow man.
During a trip to my favorite pub I got to witness a person violating this particular ethos.
Let me set this up by saying that the place was packed. I was lucky enough to have a seat by the bar having gotten their early to watch the final four basketball games – I picked Kansas to win.
This person, Jackhole #1, comes up behind me and reaches his arm over my shoulder to hold up a five dollar bill like it’s a flag for the bartender.
He then turns back to talk to his pack of compatriots without even looking at the bar. The bartender serves about three other people drinks before coming to find what this guy wants.
After being asked for a drink order three times, the guy finally turns around and orders a beer and a mojito. I can only assume that the mojito was for a girl, and considering how busy the bar was it was a ridiculous request.
While it may seem silly that any drink would be off limits in a bar, a mojito requires a bar tender to crush spearmint and lime together and dissolve granulated sugar in the drink. At a busy bar, any pint pourer worth his salt could serve six other people in the time it takes to make this one drink.
But Jackhole #1 wasn’t finished. He proceeded to give a five minute lecture to the tender about how he shouldn’t make regular customers weight.
I’m in that bar fairly often and have never seen this guy or any of his posse ever before.
Now, knowing the bartender, I’m surprised he didn’t just tear the guy’s money in half and hand it back to him.
Instead he very politely informed Jackhole #1 that there was no mint for the mojito, but he could make one with just lime.
Jackhole accepts this by grunting and nodding.
About 60 seconds later the bartender is back with the drinks and quotes the price as $7. Jackhole lays down his fiver and picks up the drinks to walk away.
What followed is what I can only describe as an escalating scene in which Jackhole #1 refused to pay full price for the mojito because of the flaw which he had accepted before it was made. In the meantime Jackholes #2-6 had joined in to loudly throw some very rude names across the bar.
I’d like to remind all the readers out there that this entire exchange was taking place over my head. I don’t like to eavesdrop, but when people have to literally converse around you it’s hard not to hear.
Eventually the manager came down and gave the group two options. Pay up or leave.
As the crew of complainers filed out the door, leaving the two half-consumed drinks behind, a smattering of applause went up from the crowd.
I shot a quizzical look at the owner who shrugged and pointed to a sign on the wall. It read: “Everyone who comes in here makes us smile. Some when they enter, others when they leave.
I ordered another beer and toasted the tender who was kind enough to pour it for me.
As an amusing side note, Jackhole #1 never bothered to pick up his five dollars before leaving. When this was pointed out to the bar tenders it was dropped into the tip jar.
I guess five dollars is a fair price for half of two drinks and alot of grief.
It doesn’t matter if you have nine dollars or nine million, you will be expected to maintain, at the very least, an air of civility toward your fellow man.
During a trip to my favorite pub I got to witness a person violating this particular ethos.
Let me set this up by saying that the place was packed. I was lucky enough to have a seat by the bar having gotten their early to watch the final four basketball games – I picked Kansas to win.
This person, Jackhole #1, comes up behind me and reaches his arm over my shoulder to hold up a five dollar bill like it’s a flag for the bartender.
He then turns back to talk to his pack of compatriots without even looking at the bar. The bartender serves about three other people drinks before coming to find what this guy wants.
After being asked for a drink order three times, the guy finally turns around and orders a beer and a mojito. I can only assume that the mojito was for a girl, and considering how busy the bar was it was a ridiculous request.
While it may seem silly that any drink would be off limits in a bar, a mojito requires a bar tender to crush spearmint and lime together and dissolve granulated sugar in the drink. At a busy bar, any pint pourer worth his salt could serve six other people in the time it takes to make this one drink.
But Jackhole #1 wasn’t finished. He proceeded to give a five minute lecture to the tender about how he shouldn’t make regular customers weight.
I’m in that bar fairly often and have never seen this guy or any of his posse ever before.
Now, knowing the bartender, I’m surprised he didn’t just tear the guy’s money in half and hand it back to him.
Instead he very politely informed Jackhole #1 that there was no mint for the mojito, but he could make one with just lime.
Jackhole accepts this by grunting and nodding.
About 60 seconds later the bartender is back with the drinks and quotes the price as $7. Jackhole lays down his fiver and picks up the drinks to walk away.
What followed is what I can only describe as an escalating scene in which Jackhole #1 refused to pay full price for the mojito because of the flaw which he had accepted before it was made. In the meantime Jackholes #2-6 had joined in to loudly throw some very rude names across the bar.
I’d like to remind all the readers out there that this entire exchange was taking place over my head. I don’t like to eavesdrop, but when people have to literally converse around you it’s hard not to hear.
Eventually the manager came down and gave the group two options. Pay up or leave.
As the crew of complainers filed out the door, leaving the two half-consumed drinks behind, a smattering of applause went up from the crowd.
I shot a quizzical look at the owner who shrugged and pointed to a sign on the wall. It read: “Everyone who comes in here makes us smile. Some when they enter, others when they leave.
I ordered another beer and toasted the tender who was kind enough to pour it for me.
As an amusing side note, Jackhole #1 never bothered to pick up his five dollars before leaving. When this was pointed out to the bar tenders it was dropped into the tip jar.
I guess five dollars is a fair price for half of two drinks and alot of grief.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Movie quote Meme.
I've decided that I'm going to steal my friend James' meme, which he took from Paul Clark. Paul's list was really hard, James' was slightly easier, mine will probably be a cake walk for just about anyone.
Here's da rules.
1. Pick 10 of your favorite movies.
2. Go to IMDb and find a quote from each movie.
3. Post them here for everyone to guess (use the comments, if you please).
4. Strike it out when someone guesses correctly, and post the answer along with who guessed it.
5. No Googling or using IMDb search functions. You're on your honor.
6. One movie guess at a time. Give people a chance to guess before you steal all of the glory
1) What kind of place is this? It's beautiful: Pigeons fly, women fall from the sky! I'm moving here! I think Paul C. is the only one still playing, but he recognized this quote as coming from what is possibly my favorite movie out there "Life is Beautiful." As he pointed out, this one is tough because the movie is in Italian with subtitles, so you don't actually hear what the characters say.
2)You Samoans are all the same. You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture. Alex Power recognized this quote from 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Raoul Duke (Jonny Depp) often calls Dr. Gonzo (Benicio Del Toro) a samoan, however, his country of origin is never revealed for certain.
3)Well that's just great. Either I have a monster in my kitchen or I'm completely crazy. Bonnie got this one just as I expected her to. It's from Dana Barret (Sigourney Weaver) in the first Ghostbusters. Spoken to Venkman (Bill Murray) as he checks out her apartment.
4)Yes, you can help me... Forget you ever knew me, and never come back here again. I never thought that this one would get people. It's from Gladiator, Maximus Desmus Meridius (Russel Crow) to be specific. I picked a quote that was a little bit obscure, but with esoteric titles like 5 and 6 I thought for sure this one would be snapped up before the rest.
5)The day I make someone sane, they're in trouble! Even though he claims to have never seen it, Paul C. got the hint and guessed "What the @#%# do we know?"
6)I'm not saying that you don't know what you're talking about, but I don't know what you're talking about. Paul C. got another one that I expected to be tough by identifying this quote from a pinball player in "Waking Life." He says it's one of his favorites and I agree. Also a good date movie assuming the girl (or guy) you're with isn't an airhead.
7)I've always been considered an asshole for about as long as I can remember. That's just my style. Paul C. knows that this line came from the titular character Royal Tenenbaum (Gene Hackman). He even knew the line that follows it (see the comments). Well done Paul.
8)There is a time for daring and a time for caution, and a wise man knows which is called for. From Dead Poet's society, from the mouth of John Keating (Robin Williams).
9)I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener". James nailed this quote. It's kind of a gimme for him since he used the same movie in his version of this game. The line is from a very fast speech by Edgar Friendly (Denis Leary) in Demolition Man.
10)We are now up against live, hostile targets. So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch. This one was from a relatively minor 2002 release called "Dog Soldiers" featuring a bunch of brits noone had heard from before or since. There were a number of really hilarious lines, but I really liked this one.
There's only one or two of these that I expect will be a bit tough to place. Have at it folks (all two of you), post answers in the comments section.
That's four down with six to go, I expect 1, 10 and perhap 6 to be the tough ones. A new post will be going up this week on the subject of underage drinking once I've found a way to make it a little bit more funny.
I suppose it's about time to offer some hints on the quotes that are left.
#4 is a movie that won five oscars and had some really kicking fight scenes.
#5 is a science type movie with a bleeped out word in the title
#6 is said by a character who is a teacher
#10 is from a movie that involves werewolves which caught some flak for not using CGI in its special effects
Here's da rules.
1. Pick 10 of your favorite movies.
2. Go to IMDb and find a quote from each movie.
3. Post them here for everyone to guess (use the comments, if you please).
4. Strike it out when someone guesses correctly, and post the answer along with who guessed it.
5. No Googling or using IMDb search functions. You're on your honor.
6. One movie guess at a time. Give people a chance to guess before you steal all of the glory
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
There's only one or two of these that I expect will be a bit tough to place. Have at it folks (all two of you), post answers in the comments section.
That's four down with six to go, I expect 1, 10 and perhap 6 to be the tough ones. A new post will be going up this week on the subject of underage drinking once I've found a way to make it a little bit more funny.
#4 is a movie that won five oscars and had some really kicking fight scenes.
#5 is a science type movie with a bleeped out word in the title
#6 is said by a character who is a teacher
#10 is from a movie that involves werewolves which caught some flak for not using CGI in its special effects
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Keeping the 'big issue' trend alive I go after Global Warming
Here we are in late March and outside my window snow is drifting down to lay in heavy piles.
A week ago I heard the local meteorologist describe the conditions outside as an “unrelenting winter.”
Even the groundhog went along with it and predicted six extra weeks of cold and white.
While the words “global warming” are on the lips of every politician and half of all environmental scientists, why is it that it’s taking so long here?
After a recent column I wrote espousing the tentative nature of arguments for and against gun control, I received a letter which asked about my take on other big issues such as global warming and ethanol.
I’ll leave ethanol for another time, as global warming is something that is on my mind right now in light of the cooling I continue to see outside.
That having been said, I don’t think that any snowstorm or hard winter is evidence which contradicts global warming theories.
Anecdotal evidence about how hard a winter has been is a local focus, while global warming is on a planet wide scale.
I’ve reviewed a lot of published work on the warming of the globe, but I have yet to find anything that has convinced me that the world is in a crisis.
About four years ago while I was studying at the University of Minnesota-Minneapolis I took a course in geology to satisfy a science requirement.
The professor was a wise old man with a thick Indian accent and if you could learn to hear what he was saying he was a wellspring of information.
What it boils down to, in the end, is learning to think on a geological time scale.
First and foremost your have to understand that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old. I don’t have to tell you that that’s a lot. Now, life on earth didn’t start until circa 3.5 or 2.8 billion years ago.
Our early human ancestor’s Homo Erectus don’t show up on the timeline until 1.6 million years ago.
To put all of this in perspective, if the timeline of earth were the Empire State Building, human development and civilization would be a postage stamp at the top of the spire.
So that’s a lot of time and changes to this big ball of rock to make it to the point that we are at today. In all of that time two simple things have been happening.
The climate has been changing all the time. It periodically goes up and then back down. The reasons for this are subtle and complex, and best left to scientists with a solid background in ancient egyptian algebra.
The second thing that has been happening is that species have evolved to survive in one kind of world, only to have it change around them. They either die out or adapt to the new conditions.
Climate change obviously plays a large part in the roll of species survival. One of the competing theories for the great mystery of what killed all the dinosaurs is that massive climate change (cooling in this case) made the earth uninhabitable to giant lizards.
What I’m trying to say is that I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the climate of the earth is changing. There is good evidence to suggest that the earth is in the midst of a warming period.
I am much more skeptical of the connection drawn between the actions of mankind and global climate change.
Yes, the earth is warming, is that so bad?
There are two things that might happen. First, the trend reverses and scientists are suddenly scrambling for preventative measures to prevent global cooling. Second, it continues and there is a massive species die-off which wipes out all or most of the human race.
You’ll notice that even the second option didn’t involve the destruction of the planet. That’s because earth is more resilient than we sometimes give her credit for.
Whatever happens to us as a species, the world will go on turning until cockroaches achieve sentience, at which point global climate change will be debated by the new insect lords of earth.
More likely, a lot of people will someday die many will migrate toward the poles, Florida and Arizona will no longer be choice retirement destinations and the Canadian economy will boom.
There are a lot, possibly too many, people out there who want to tell you that “green” living is the way to save the planet.
If we only drove 20 fewer miles per day or washed our clothes with chlorine free detergent or bought only organic food then the warming trend is supposed to magically reverse itself.
Now, some of the “green” initiatives may have value, but I don’t think that they’re about to solve global warming one SUV at a time.
Burning less fossil fuels for example makes perfect sense, the pollutants that are put out by cars impact the environment in ways that can be directly seen. How many people remember what a fiasco leaded gas cause years ago?
Things like using less water or gas or almost anything are not only good for the environment, but for our wallets. Who doesn’t want to see a heating bill that is $30 to $40 less?
Global warming may be real, but it is far from the “crisis” that some would make it out to be.
I would put it about on par with the “crisis” that was the bird flu or west nile epidemics that keeps failing to materialize. Yes, it might kill you, but its more likely that you’ll be really worried about a slight cough until it goes away in a few days.
A week ago I heard the local meteorologist describe the conditions outside as an “unrelenting winter.”
Even the groundhog went along with it and predicted six extra weeks of cold and white.
While the words “global warming” are on the lips of every politician and half of all environmental scientists, why is it that it’s taking so long here?
After a recent column I wrote espousing the tentative nature of arguments for and against gun control, I received a letter which asked about my take on other big issues such as global warming and ethanol.
I’ll leave ethanol for another time, as global warming is something that is on my mind right now in light of the cooling I continue to see outside.
That having been said, I don’t think that any snowstorm or hard winter is evidence which contradicts global warming theories.
Anecdotal evidence about how hard a winter has been is a local focus, while global warming is on a planet wide scale.
I’ve reviewed a lot of published work on the warming of the globe, but I have yet to find anything that has convinced me that the world is in a crisis.
About four years ago while I was studying at the University of Minnesota-Minneapolis I took a course in geology to satisfy a science requirement.
The professor was a wise old man with a thick Indian accent and if you could learn to hear what he was saying he was a wellspring of information.
What it boils down to, in the end, is learning to think on a geological time scale.
First and foremost your have to understand that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old. I don’t have to tell you that that’s a lot. Now, life on earth didn’t start until circa 3.5 or 2.8 billion years ago.
Our early human ancestor’s Homo Erectus don’t show up on the timeline until 1.6 million years ago.
To put all of this in perspective, if the timeline of earth were the Empire State Building, human development and civilization would be a postage stamp at the top of the spire.
So that’s a lot of time and changes to this big ball of rock to make it to the point that we are at today. In all of that time two simple things have been happening.
The climate has been changing all the time. It periodically goes up and then back down. The reasons for this are subtle and complex, and best left to scientists with a solid background in ancient egyptian algebra.
The second thing that has been happening is that species have evolved to survive in one kind of world, only to have it change around them. They either die out or adapt to the new conditions.
Climate change obviously plays a large part in the roll of species survival. One of the competing theories for the great mystery of what killed all the dinosaurs is that massive climate change (cooling in this case) made the earth uninhabitable to giant lizards.
What I’m trying to say is that I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the climate of the earth is changing. There is good evidence to suggest that the earth is in the midst of a warming period.
I am much more skeptical of the connection drawn between the actions of mankind and global climate change.
Yes, the earth is warming, is that so bad?
There are two things that might happen. First, the trend reverses and scientists are suddenly scrambling for preventative measures to prevent global cooling. Second, it continues and there is a massive species die-off which wipes out all or most of the human race.
You’ll notice that even the second option didn’t involve the destruction of the planet. That’s because earth is more resilient than we sometimes give her credit for.
Whatever happens to us as a species, the world will go on turning until cockroaches achieve sentience, at which point global climate change will be debated by the new insect lords of earth.
More likely, a lot of people will someday die many will migrate toward the poles, Florida and Arizona will no longer be choice retirement destinations and the Canadian economy will boom.
There are a lot, possibly too many, people out there who want to tell you that “green” living is the way to save the planet.
If we only drove 20 fewer miles per day or washed our clothes with chlorine free detergent or bought only organic food then the warming trend is supposed to magically reverse itself.
Now, some of the “green” initiatives may have value, but I don’t think that they’re about to solve global warming one SUV at a time.
Burning less fossil fuels for example makes perfect sense, the pollutants that are put out by cars impact the environment in ways that can be directly seen. How many people remember what a fiasco leaded gas cause years ago?
Things like using less water or gas or almost anything are not only good for the environment, but for our wallets. Who doesn’t want to see a heating bill that is $30 to $40 less?
Global warming may be real, but it is far from the “crisis” that some would make it out to be.
I would put it about on par with the “crisis” that was the bird flu or west nile epidemics that keeps failing to materialize. Yes, it might kill you, but its more likely that you’ll be really worried about a slight cough until it goes away in a few days.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Humans are the animals that stress about stress
I often wonder if humans would be better off living simpler lives. Not just the kind of simple life we would lead if we had never invented television or the combustion engine, but rather the kind without medicine or the wheel.
What would it be like if we accepted that people have to die, and stopped using every little microbe as a method of staving of the inevitable encroachment of the Grim Reaper.
What would things be like if we had just our own two feet to get around.
I’ve spent some time at zoos watching monkeys play around, and they seem perfectly content even in a cage.
They also like to throw feces, but different strokes for different species, right?
There are some great things about being a monkey, you get a healthy mostly fruit diet, no one tells you where you can and can’t poop and your friends are only too willing to help you out when you’re infested with nits.
Somehow, I feel like monkeys have less stress than us sapiens. They don’t have jobs, marriages or mortgages. They can almost always find a babysitter even at the last minute.
I’ll bet that there isn’t a single monkey (other than those used to test medication) that has ever developed an ulcer.
I read a study about warring factions of chimps in the wild once, but that’s nothing compared to humans.
The very tool using skills that set us apart from our primate bretheren are our downfall as we constantly turn our genius against each other.
Even when our brains aren’t working to develop more deadly methods of species suicide, we’re developing deadly means of amusement.
Car racing, bungee jumping and lawn darts come immediately to mind, to say nothing of drugs or pretty much anything stamped with ‘product of China.’
Yet another bonus that is readily apparent anytime a person turns on the TV during an election year is that animals do not have politics, and hence no politicians.
In the animal kingdom there are leaders who survive based on their relative merits, and keep position only as long as they can remain fit and strong.
We humans who dwell in the region known as the United States like to pretend we have a similar system, but even when things start to fail, our elected officials continue along with a 70 percent incumbency rate.
Animals also don’t have to worry about the trading of money for goods and services. Life is simple for them. Find food or starve. Find water or dehydrate and die.
As the average life expectancy pushes its way past the 70 year mark, why does no one seem to be asking the fundamental question of ‘how long is long enough?’
In the quick scurry I’ve made though the first couple decades of my life, I haven’t really found a lot of things that make me think 10 extra years are worth a lot of joint pain, daily medication rituals and expensive surgery.
Of course you might be in a different position right now, and I could be as well by the time I reach 60 years old.
It seems sometimes that we really do believe that life is all about buying a bigger house or getting that next $300 bonus from work.
What is life about you ask?
I don’t really know, but I like to think it’s about finding the answer to that question.
What would it be like if we accepted that people have to die, and stopped using every little microbe as a method of staving of the inevitable encroachment of the Grim Reaper.
What would things be like if we had just our own two feet to get around.
I’ve spent some time at zoos watching monkeys play around, and they seem perfectly content even in a cage.
They also like to throw feces, but different strokes for different species, right?
There are some great things about being a monkey, you get a healthy mostly fruit diet, no one tells you where you can and can’t poop and your friends are only too willing to help you out when you’re infested with nits.
Somehow, I feel like monkeys have less stress than us sapiens. They don’t have jobs, marriages or mortgages. They can almost always find a babysitter even at the last minute.
I’ll bet that there isn’t a single monkey (other than those used to test medication) that has ever developed an ulcer.
I read a study about warring factions of chimps in the wild once, but that’s nothing compared to humans.
The very tool using skills that set us apart from our primate bretheren are our downfall as we constantly turn our genius against each other.
Even when our brains aren’t working to develop more deadly methods of species suicide, we’re developing deadly means of amusement.
Car racing, bungee jumping and lawn darts come immediately to mind, to say nothing of drugs or pretty much anything stamped with ‘product of China.’
Yet another bonus that is readily apparent anytime a person turns on the TV during an election year is that animals do not have politics, and hence no politicians.
In the animal kingdom there are leaders who survive based on their relative merits, and keep position only as long as they can remain fit and strong.
We humans who dwell in the region known as the United States like to pretend we have a similar system, but even when things start to fail, our elected officials continue along with a 70 percent incumbency rate.
Animals also don’t have to worry about the trading of money for goods and services. Life is simple for them. Find food or starve. Find water or dehydrate and die.
As the average life expectancy pushes its way past the 70 year mark, why does no one seem to be asking the fundamental question of ‘how long is long enough?’
In the quick scurry I’ve made though the first couple decades of my life, I haven’t really found a lot of things that make me think 10 extra years are worth a lot of joint pain, daily medication rituals and expensive surgery.
Of course you might be in a different position right now, and I could be as well by the time I reach 60 years old.
It seems sometimes that we really do believe that life is all about buying a bigger house or getting that next $300 bonus from work.
What is life about you ask?
I don’t really know, but I like to think it’s about finding the answer to that question.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Wherein I sound off on Gun Control
When it comes to the subject of gun control, it seems sometimes that there are only two opinions.
It’s as if half of the American population believes that the best bet for safety is for everyone to have a gun, and possibly a concealed carry permit.
The other half believes that strict laws should be passed against all guns, and that no one should have them.
As with most things, the truth, and probably 80 percent of the population, is somewhere in between those two extremes.
Now personally, I like guns. I also feel that I am a strong environmentalist, as is the case with most hunters.
I enjoy the tactile pleasure of killing and consuming the things I hunt. I feel it helps me understand the order of the world, and keeps me close to the fact that things die for my body to go on living.
Of course, as a hunter and gun enthusiast, I know a few things about gun safety. Rule number one, taught to me by my dad when he bought me my first BB gun, is that you never point a gun at something you don’t intend to kill.
I feel sometimes like they should have tacked that rule on to the second amendment when they wrote it, but our forefathers probably didn’t have any way of knowing that 200 years later men would have guns capable of firing 100,000 rounds per second.
A hunting argument only goes so far. It’s a simple fact that a person doesn’t need an M249 SAW machine gun to hunt ducks, a shotgun will do the job just fine.
Of course, as the old cliche goes, “a well-armed populace Is the best defense against tyranny.” Which means that citizens owning guns is the only way to ensure that a government doesn’t overstep its bounds and trample the rights of its citizens.
The problem is that, occasionally, a member of that populace utilizes their well armed status against the perceived tyranny of the guy who cut them off in traffic.
Tragedies like the recent shootings at Northern Illinois University and Columbine High School can serve to show what happens when guns get into the wrong hands.
However, in both of the cases mentioned above, the shooters were in possession of guns that were acquired through illegal means.
This is where another cliche comes into play, “when guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.”
This is a bit humorous in one sense in the fact that such legislation would indeed make a criminal of all gun owners, but is also a very serious admonision against violating the rights of responsible gun owners.
Currently laws are in place to keep a few very specific guns, classified as ‘assault weapons,’ from being legally sold to the public even though assault weapons are used in less than one percent of violent crimes.
Other legislation, such as waiting periods and background checks are aimed at reducing the sale of handguns, which are used in 57 percent of murders nationwide.
Despite these efforts, gun crime continues to rise, which makes me think that perhaps new laws aren’t what is needed. A person who breaks today’s relatively lax gun laws is just as likely to break stricter codes put in place in the future.
Now someone out there is saying that phrase which I hate, “think of the children.”
Statistically speaking there are about 1300 accidental gun deaths in the United States each year, including the 200 or so which claim the lives of children 14 or younger.
While this statistic is tragic, it is almost nothing when compared to the other types of accidental deaths such as bicycle accidents, drowning, electrocution and fires.
The fact is that a child is 14.5 time more likely to die in a car accident than from a bullet wound. As a matter of fact, car accidents claim far more people each year than guns. If we’re really worried about people’s lives then perhaps we should implement stricter automobile laws.
Simply put, the answer to gun violence isn’t more laws. Rather it is better enforcement of laws that are already in place coupled with better education for gun owners.
In the end a compromise must be reached between those who want to be armed and those who don’t want to be shot at, because the second amendment and the freedoms it represents are hopefully here to stay.
It’s as if half of the American population believes that the best bet for safety is for everyone to have a gun, and possibly a concealed carry permit.
The other half believes that strict laws should be passed against all guns, and that no one should have them.
As with most things, the truth, and probably 80 percent of the population, is somewhere in between those two extremes.
Now personally, I like guns. I also feel that I am a strong environmentalist, as is the case with most hunters.
I enjoy the tactile pleasure of killing and consuming the things I hunt. I feel it helps me understand the order of the world, and keeps me close to the fact that things die for my body to go on living.
Of course, as a hunter and gun enthusiast, I know a few things about gun safety. Rule number one, taught to me by my dad when he bought me my first BB gun, is that you never point a gun at something you don’t intend to kill.
I feel sometimes like they should have tacked that rule on to the second amendment when they wrote it, but our forefathers probably didn’t have any way of knowing that 200 years later men would have guns capable of firing 100,000 rounds per second.
A hunting argument only goes so far. It’s a simple fact that a person doesn’t need an M249 SAW machine gun to hunt ducks, a shotgun will do the job just fine.
Of course, as the old cliche goes, “a well-armed populace Is the best defense against tyranny.” Which means that citizens owning guns is the only way to ensure that a government doesn’t overstep its bounds and trample the rights of its citizens.
The problem is that, occasionally, a member of that populace utilizes their well armed status against the perceived tyranny of the guy who cut them off in traffic.
Tragedies like the recent shootings at Northern Illinois University and Columbine High School can serve to show what happens when guns get into the wrong hands.
However, in both of the cases mentioned above, the shooters were in possession of guns that were acquired through illegal means.
This is where another cliche comes into play, “when guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.”
This is a bit humorous in one sense in the fact that such legislation would indeed make a criminal of all gun owners, but is also a very serious admonision against violating the rights of responsible gun owners.
Currently laws are in place to keep a few very specific guns, classified as ‘assault weapons,’ from being legally sold to the public even though assault weapons are used in less than one percent of violent crimes.
Other legislation, such as waiting periods and background checks are aimed at reducing the sale of handguns, which are used in 57 percent of murders nationwide.
Despite these efforts, gun crime continues to rise, which makes me think that perhaps new laws aren’t what is needed. A person who breaks today’s relatively lax gun laws is just as likely to break stricter codes put in place in the future.
Now someone out there is saying that phrase which I hate, “think of the children.”
Statistically speaking there are about 1300 accidental gun deaths in the United States each year, including the 200 or so which claim the lives of children 14 or younger.
While this statistic is tragic, it is almost nothing when compared to the other types of accidental deaths such as bicycle accidents, drowning, electrocution and fires.
The fact is that a child is 14.5 time more likely to die in a car accident than from a bullet wound. As a matter of fact, car accidents claim far more people each year than guns. If we’re really worried about people’s lives then perhaps we should implement stricter automobile laws.
Simply put, the answer to gun violence isn’t more laws. Rather it is better enforcement of laws that are already in place coupled with better education for gun owners.
In the end a compromise must be reached between those who want to be armed and those who don’t want to be shot at, because the second amendment and the freedoms it represents are hopefully here to stay.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Who to take to dinner
1. Pick a single person past or present who works in the film industry you would like to have dinner with. And tell us why you chose this person.
2. Set the table for your dinner. What would you eat? Would it be in a home or at a restaurant? And what would you wear? Feel free to elaborate on the details.
3. List five thoughtful questions you would ask this person during dinner.
4. When all is said and done, select six bloggers to pass this Meme along to.
5. Link back to Lazy Eye Theatre, so people know the mastermind behind this Meme.
My good friend James (see his movie blog posted to the left) posted this a whiel ago and listed me as a person who should write a little something. I feel slightly honored that I'm thought of in this situation, but am also a bit shamed that I can't come up with a good answer on my own.
Part of my difficulty is that I don't really like participating in these responsorial type things. The other portion is that, like James, I have difficulty coming up with someone in a film whom I care about enough personally to want to meet.
I said that I couldn't come up with an answer by myself, but like most Americans I was assisted by a commercial.
The commercial was a radio ad for "Two and a Half Men" a god awful laugh-track ridden POS sitcom which, from what the commercial says, occupies the number one slot.
As I listened to the commercial I remembered this littler survey and thought to myself, "I wonder if Charlie Sheen is as big of a douchebag as I've always just assumed he is?"
Despite the fact that I'm sure the answer is yes, I think I'd like to sit down with him over beer and pizza to find out. I don't feel I need to get into what I would wear, I mean it's beer and pizza, not a five-star restaurant. As to which pizza joint, I don't think it matters, so long as they have beer and it's not a chain (not Godfather's then, sorry Collin).
What would I ask him? Questions that are likely to offend him no doubt.
How many hours do you spend on your hair every day?
What's it like to have a brother who is a more talented actor but not as big of a commercial success?
Do you think you'll ever be as good as your dad or are you just planning to sponge off of his good name for the rest of your life?
Couldn't you just get a corral of about 10 beautiful women and be content rather than passing around the STDs which no doubt plague your gonads?
What's with this fascination with child porn that I hear you have? That's really sick man.
I'd try to be a little more subtle about asking these questions than the way in which they are posed here. I figure if I manage to make it past the fourth, the fifth is garunteed to get him to slime his way out the door.
A pressing question of mine is who is going to pay for this outing. If he's paying then I may switch up that last question to get him to stay and pick up the tab.
Well, that's my anwer
2. Set the table for your dinner. What would you eat? Would it be in a home or at a restaurant? And what would you wear? Feel free to elaborate on the details.
3. List five thoughtful questions you would ask this person during dinner.
4. When all is said and done, select six bloggers to pass this Meme along to.
5. Link back to Lazy Eye Theatre, so people know the mastermind behind this Meme.
My good friend James (see his movie blog posted to the left) posted this a whiel ago and listed me as a person who should write a little something. I feel slightly honored that I'm thought of in this situation, but am also a bit shamed that I can't come up with a good answer on my own.
Part of my difficulty is that I don't really like participating in these responsorial type things. The other portion is that, like James, I have difficulty coming up with someone in a film whom I care about enough personally to want to meet.
I said that I couldn't come up with an answer by myself, but like most Americans I was assisted by a commercial.
The commercial was a radio ad for "Two and a Half Men" a god awful laugh-track ridden POS sitcom which, from what the commercial says, occupies the number one slot.
As I listened to the commercial I remembered this littler survey and thought to myself, "I wonder if Charlie Sheen is as big of a douchebag as I've always just assumed he is?"
Despite the fact that I'm sure the answer is yes, I think I'd like to sit down with him over beer and pizza to find out. I don't feel I need to get into what I would wear, I mean it's beer and pizza, not a five-star restaurant. As to which pizza joint, I don't think it matters, so long as they have beer and it's not a chain (not Godfather's then, sorry Collin).
What would I ask him? Questions that are likely to offend him no doubt.
How many hours do you spend on your hair every day?
What's it like to have a brother who is a more talented actor but not as big of a commercial success?
Do you think you'll ever be as good as your dad or are you just planning to sponge off of his good name for the rest of your life?
Couldn't you just get a corral of about 10 beautiful women and be content rather than passing around the STDs which no doubt plague your gonads?
What's with this fascination with child porn that I hear you have? That's really sick man.
I'd try to be a little more subtle about asking these questions than the way in which they are posed here. I figure if I manage to make it past the fourth, the fifth is garunteed to get him to slime his way out the door.
A pressing question of mine is who is going to pay for this outing. If he's paying then I may switch up that last question to get him to stay and pick up the tab.
Well, that's my anwer
The idea of a Wisconsin smoking ban is lighting fires.
You can hear about it all over the state these days, a debate over a smoke-free Wisconsin.
I’m a non-smoker myself. I long ago decided that I didn’t like the way cigarettes made my mouth taste the next morning.
If you listen to the radio these days you’ve probably heard advertisements promoting a smoke-free Wisconsin.
So far I’ve heard the same two ads repeated over and over again and I’m rather unimpressed with both.
The first commercial features a woman who took her daughter to a bowling alley after being told that it was non-smoking during the day.
She then proceeds to complain that the alley’s bar had patrons who were smoking. Apparently the alley made the distinction between smoking on the lanes and smoking in the bar.
While I agree that it was wrong for the bowling alley to be less than candid about their policy when she first asked, her next statements are where I get lost.
She claims her daughter was sick for three days after bowling in a smoky environment.
“It’s scary to think what second-hand smoke can do to your body.”
Regardless of the fact that this ad relies on a “think of the children” formula, which I hate, there are a number of reasons I find it to be ridiculous.
Now I’ve been to alot of bowling alleys, and have never seen one where the bar was less than 25 feet away from the lanes. They might exist, but I tend to think they’re rare.
I understand that the smell of smoke carries a long way, but at 25 feet I just don’t see it making someone sick, and especially not for three days.
The woman in the commercial never states how old her daughter was, but if I had to guess I would say she’s at least five if she’s strong enough to shove a bowling ball down the lane.
If your five-year-old is sick for three days after smelling smoke, then you should probably put them in a plastic bubble and have them under 24-hour medical care.
As a person who likes to consider himself quite logical, I find it much more likely that this woman’s daughter used one of the alley’s loaner balls which hundreds of other children had touched.
It’s a simple fact that objects out in the world and covered in germs.
So, to my mind, the arguement is that this little girl picked up a cold from a bowling ball and that’s why we should ban smoking.
Of course there is another commercial which I am more sympathetic to.
A gentleman who owns a bar tells the story of his battle with throat cancer. He says he has employees whom he cares about, which I find admirable.
At first glance this really does seem like a valid arguement for a smoking ban.
Only there’s a catch. Couldn’t this gentleman make his bar non-smoking all on his own?
It is the legal right of any establishment to ban smoking. There exist a number of bars which are non-smoking, and they continue to enjoy fine custom with a number of regular patrons.
Non-smoking establishments do tend to have four or five smokers standing right outside the doorway, but in general the inside of the bar, tavern or pub smells quite clean and fresh–or possibly like spilled beer.
Of course, not all bar owners are so generous to their employees, and the claim is that those employees should not be forced to put their life on the line for a pay check.
Being a journalist, I have news for you. Lots of people put life and limb and health on the line for a pay check. A drastically abridged list of these people would include law enforcement officers, fire fighters, nuclear technicians, demolitions crews, farmers and everyone who rides a bus or drives a car to work.
Bar employees just face a different sort of hazard.
Just because something is dangerous or unpleasent to some doesn’t mean that it needs to be banned.
Today they’ve come for the cigarrettes, tommorow they’re coming for the spicy and fatty foods. The day after that they’ll be coming for the alcohol, again.
Where does it all end? When we’re left with nothing but tofu and wheat grass juice. My tastebuds shudder to think of the day.
Not to mention that state legislators just raised the tax on cigarettes this year. If, in theory, a ban on smoking in taverns is carried out, wouldn’t that mean less people smoking and less money from the new tax?
With government spending continuing to grow, you just know that revenue lost on that tax is going to come back to bite your wallet in a different way.
Of course, the advertisements don’t stop on the radio. Other newspapers are carrying full pages of ads depicting Wisconsin as an ashtray between Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota.
It’s good advertising, there’s no doubt about that, but is it really fair?
I personally would rather see the flame of freedom burning brightly, even if someone does occasionally use it to light a cigarette.
I’m a non-smoker myself. I long ago decided that I didn’t like the way cigarettes made my mouth taste the next morning.
If you listen to the radio these days you’ve probably heard advertisements promoting a smoke-free Wisconsin.
So far I’ve heard the same two ads repeated over and over again and I’m rather unimpressed with both.
The first commercial features a woman who took her daughter to a bowling alley after being told that it was non-smoking during the day.
She then proceeds to complain that the alley’s bar had patrons who were smoking. Apparently the alley made the distinction between smoking on the lanes and smoking in the bar.
While I agree that it was wrong for the bowling alley to be less than candid about their policy when she first asked, her next statements are where I get lost.
She claims her daughter was sick for three days after bowling in a smoky environment.
“It’s scary to think what second-hand smoke can do to your body.”
Regardless of the fact that this ad relies on a “think of the children” formula, which I hate, there are a number of reasons I find it to be ridiculous.
Now I’ve been to alot of bowling alleys, and have never seen one where the bar was less than 25 feet away from the lanes. They might exist, but I tend to think they’re rare.
I understand that the smell of smoke carries a long way, but at 25 feet I just don’t see it making someone sick, and especially not for three days.
The woman in the commercial never states how old her daughter was, but if I had to guess I would say she’s at least five if she’s strong enough to shove a bowling ball down the lane.
If your five-year-old is sick for three days after smelling smoke, then you should probably put them in a plastic bubble and have them under 24-hour medical care.
As a person who likes to consider himself quite logical, I find it much more likely that this woman’s daughter used one of the alley’s loaner balls which hundreds of other children had touched.
It’s a simple fact that objects out in the world and covered in germs.
So, to my mind, the arguement is that this little girl picked up a cold from a bowling ball and that’s why we should ban smoking.
Of course there is another commercial which I am more sympathetic to.
A gentleman who owns a bar tells the story of his battle with throat cancer. He says he has employees whom he cares about, which I find admirable.
At first glance this really does seem like a valid arguement for a smoking ban.
Only there’s a catch. Couldn’t this gentleman make his bar non-smoking all on his own?
It is the legal right of any establishment to ban smoking. There exist a number of bars which are non-smoking, and they continue to enjoy fine custom with a number of regular patrons.
Non-smoking establishments do tend to have four or five smokers standing right outside the doorway, but in general the inside of the bar, tavern or pub smells quite clean and fresh–or possibly like spilled beer.
Of course, not all bar owners are so generous to their employees, and the claim is that those employees should not be forced to put their life on the line for a pay check.
Being a journalist, I have news for you. Lots of people put life and limb and health on the line for a pay check. A drastically abridged list of these people would include law enforcement officers, fire fighters, nuclear technicians, demolitions crews, farmers and everyone who rides a bus or drives a car to work.
Bar employees just face a different sort of hazard.
Just because something is dangerous or unpleasent to some doesn’t mean that it needs to be banned.
Today they’ve come for the cigarrettes, tommorow they’re coming for the spicy and fatty foods. The day after that they’ll be coming for the alcohol, again.
Where does it all end? When we’re left with nothing but tofu and wheat grass juice. My tastebuds shudder to think of the day.
Not to mention that state legislators just raised the tax on cigarettes this year. If, in theory, a ban on smoking in taverns is carried out, wouldn’t that mean less people smoking and less money from the new tax?
With government spending continuing to grow, you just know that revenue lost on that tax is going to come back to bite your wallet in a different way.
Of course, the advertisements don’t stop on the radio. Other newspapers are carrying full pages of ads depicting Wisconsin as an ashtray between Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota.
It’s good advertising, there’s no doubt about that, but is it really fair?
I personally would rather see the flame of freedom burning brightly, even if someone does occasionally use it to light a cigarette.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Marriage
“When are you guys getting married?”
It’s a question my friends know better than to ask, but one my girlfriend’s friends seem to have no trouble tossing around.
I think some of them expect me to have a real answer like “June” or “2014,” but it’s just not like that.
It seems almost blasphemous to ask, but what is the big deal with getting married? Can’t people just be happy that we’re not rushing into things?
One of my many opinions on the subject of marriage is that with just over 40 percent of all marriages ending in divorce, why not do my part to bring that number down by just not getting married?
That way, if for some reason (God forbid) one of us feels like walking away, there is no legally binding document to mess around with before we divide our assets and get separate homes.
Of course, one of my best friends, Joe, tells me that this is a stupid way to think about it. He might be right.
According to him I need to, “Lock that (expletive deleted) down.” In other words, I need to get a gold ring on her to keep her from leaving.
I’m really hoping that keeping her around doesn’t require expensive jewelry, that my personality and charm are enough, but maybe I should take my friend’s advice.
What is marriage though? I mean, sure it’s a great loophole in the legal systems which might keep you protected from certain uncomfortable questions in court and lets you pay less in taxes, but as far as the social ramifications go it’s not much more than a promise to stay together, one that about 40 percent of people don’t keep if you believe the U.S. Census Bureau.
Other, more practical and legally-minded compatriots of mine tell me that a prenuptial agreement is a must-have for any man thinking about getting married.
I’m not so sure though; seems to me like it’s admitting to failure before even trying.
Besides, those agreements are really meant for millionaires and movie stars who really have something to lose. I on the other hand don’t really own anything of greater value than my television, and if she really wants to divorce me to get half of that, then I’ll gladly take an axe and divide it myself, no lawyer necesary.
They say that love means never having to say you’re sorry, which must mean that I’m not in love since I find myself apologizing quite often–mostly for arriving late or forgetting to send a card on some special day or write a column that pokes a bit of fun at a hallowed social institution (like marriage).
It’s nice to know that my brain is safe from the mental malady sometimes referred to as love; it leaves me free to make
rational decisions which concern how the rest of my life will play out.
On the other hand there are many comedians who would tell you that love really doesn’t have much to do with marriage. I’m really hoping that isn’t true.
Of course no digression on the sacrament of marriage could be complete without some thoughts on religion.
It should surprise no one who has read my column in the past to know that I’m what is sometimes referred to as a “lapsed Catholic” or “recovering cathoholic” as a witty Mormon friend of mine once quipped.
Marriage in the Catholic Church is a solemn ritual of union with a number of rules. It is also a pain in the behind to be married in the Catholic Church to someone who isn’t Catholic. Since my girlfriend is of a Ukranian Orthodox background, a church wedding doesn’t appear to be in our future.
That’s fine by me–but not by my maternal grandmother–because I don’t want to get married inside of a building (another Catholic rule).
If I have my way–which I probably won’t– we’ll get married next to a river, stream, or creek and neither of us will be wearing shoes when it comes time to slide on the rings.
I’m also hoping to avoid that part of the wedding where the bride and groom smear cake onto each other’s faces, but that is also unlikely.
I suppose the desire to be outdoors for the joining process precludes a winter wedding (at least in Wisconsin) which means that I’m a bit closer to answering the “when” question.
As you can probably tell, I’m more concerned right now with the “how” and “why,” which I feel get left out of many marriage equations as I’ve watched friends try to budget and plan.
Suffice to say that I’m not in any big hurry and, luckily, neither is she.
It’s a question my friends know better than to ask, but one my girlfriend’s friends seem to have no trouble tossing around.
I think some of them expect me to have a real answer like “June” or “2014,” but it’s just not like that.
It seems almost blasphemous to ask, but what is the big deal with getting married? Can’t people just be happy that we’re not rushing into things?
One of my many opinions on the subject of marriage is that with just over 40 percent of all marriages ending in divorce, why not do my part to bring that number down by just not getting married?
That way, if for some reason (God forbid) one of us feels like walking away, there is no legally binding document to mess around with before we divide our assets and get separate homes.
Of course, one of my best friends, Joe, tells me that this is a stupid way to think about it. He might be right.
According to him I need to, “Lock that (expletive deleted) down.” In other words, I need to get a gold ring on her to keep her from leaving.
I’m really hoping that keeping her around doesn’t require expensive jewelry, that my personality and charm are enough, but maybe I should take my friend’s advice.
What is marriage though? I mean, sure it’s a great loophole in the legal systems which might keep you protected from certain uncomfortable questions in court and lets you pay less in taxes, but as far as the social ramifications go it’s not much more than a promise to stay together, one that about 40 percent of people don’t keep if you believe the U.S. Census Bureau.
Other, more practical and legally-minded compatriots of mine tell me that a prenuptial agreement is a must-have for any man thinking about getting married.
I’m not so sure though; seems to me like it’s admitting to failure before even trying.
Besides, those agreements are really meant for millionaires and movie stars who really have something to lose. I on the other hand don’t really own anything of greater value than my television, and if she really wants to divorce me to get half of that, then I’ll gladly take an axe and divide it myself, no lawyer necesary.
They say that love means never having to say you’re sorry, which must mean that I’m not in love since I find myself apologizing quite often–mostly for arriving late or forgetting to send a card on some special day or write a column that pokes a bit of fun at a hallowed social institution (like marriage).
It’s nice to know that my brain is safe from the mental malady sometimes referred to as love; it leaves me free to make
rational decisions which concern how the rest of my life will play out.
On the other hand there are many comedians who would tell you that love really doesn’t have much to do with marriage. I’m really hoping that isn’t true.
Of course no digression on the sacrament of marriage could be complete without some thoughts on religion.
It should surprise no one who has read my column in the past to know that I’m what is sometimes referred to as a “lapsed Catholic” or “recovering cathoholic” as a witty Mormon friend of mine once quipped.
Marriage in the Catholic Church is a solemn ritual of union with a number of rules. It is also a pain in the behind to be married in the Catholic Church to someone who isn’t Catholic. Since my girlfriend is of a Ukranian Orthodox background, a church wedding doesn’t appear to be in our future.
That’s fine by me–but not by my maternal grandmother–because I don’t want to get married inside of a building (another Catholic rule).
If I have my way–which I probably won’t– we’ll get married next to a river, stream, or creek and neither of us will be wearing shoes when it comes time to slide on the rings.
I’m also hoping to avoid that part of the wedding where the bride and groom smear cake onto each other’s faces, but that is also unlikely.
I suppose the desire to be outdoors for the joining process precludes a winter wedding (at least in Wisconsin) which means that I’m a bit closer to answering the “when” question.
As you can probably tell, I’m more concerned right now with the “how” and “why,” which I feel get left out of many marriage equations as I’ve watched friends try to budget and plan.
Suffice to say that I’m not in any big hurry and, luckily, neither is she.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
When I was born...
There are some decisions in life that, while relatively inconsequential, are still incredibly difficult to make.
It seems to me like many of these situations arise yearly right around my birthday.
One conundrum I encounter is the singing. Do it or not?
The Happy Birthday song is a perennial favorite around the nation since it was popularized by a hit musical in the late 1930s. You won’t see it in many movies or musicals today though, since the holders of the copyright charge an arm and a leg for it–look for characters singing “He’s a Jolly Good Fellow” instead.
Now I know I’m not a Jolly Good Fellow, but I think I might rather have that sung at a party in my honor rather than the “Happy Birthday to you” which used to get dusted off every time mom walked in with a dessert full of candles.
Speaking of birthday dessert, whether to have pie or cake on your birthday is another tough decision with almost no weight behind it.
Of course, birthday cake with candles and your family singing is an American tradition. It just wouldn’t be a party without it.
While you could stick candles in a pie, it’s much harder to get wax off of crust than it is to pick it out of frosting.
Considering that many guests don’t take to extremely sweet things, which cake with its sugary frosted goodness always is, pie may be a better option
Pie also goes much better with ice cream, another staple of the birthday party. The trouble is that you’re going to need more than one if you’re planning on having more than eight friends at your party.
But that brings up another highlight of cake, the fact that there are always leftovers.
Need a high energy snack in the next few days after your birthday? How about some cake? Feeling down and in need of a pick-me-up? I suggest cake–especially chocolate. Looking for an easy breakfast because you woke up late after your party? Cake?
There’s the sticking point though, cake isn’t nearly as good for breakfast as pie.
And with pie you can pretend you’re eating healthy because it has fruit in it. It won’t be true, but who cares, you have pie.
If you wanted to pretend to have a healthy cake you could get a carrot cake with cream cheese frosting. It’s still not quite as good as pie in the morning, but it comes close.
I know that it’s a personal preference, but I’ve always liked the texture of pie much better than cake. Where cake is spongy and soft, pie is slightly crisp with a gooey and delicious filling. If you time your party right, you can even have warm pie to complement your cold ice cream, which is much more difficult with cake.
If you absolutely can’t make up your mind, I suggest splitting the difference and making a cheesecake. Even though it includes the word “cake” it can still have that pie shape. Not only that, but you can make it as “healthy” as you want by choosing a topping from the multitude of delicious fruits or the decadent option of chocolate sauce.
If you don’t like cheesecake (are you crazy?) then you’ll be left with the unpleasant choice of having both cake and pie at your party.
Actually, that doesn’t sound so unpleasant at all. I need to get to a bakery.
Birthday Facts
There are more birthdays in August than in any other month, with July and September coming in close behind.
More people are born on Oct. 5 than on any other day, which is not surprising when you consider that their conception would have happened on New Year’s Eve. The least common birthday is May 22.
The two billion birthday cards mailed out every year make up 58 percent of the cards sent in the United States.
The biggest birthday cake ever made was created in 1989 for the 100th birthday of the city of Fort Payne, Alabama. It weighed 128,238 pounds and used 16,209 pounds of frosting.
It seems to me like many of these situations arise yearly right around my birthday.
One conundrum I encounter is the singing. Do it or not?
The Happy Birthday song is a perennial favorite around the nation since it was popularized by a hit musical in the late 1930s. You won’t see it in many movies or musicals today though, since the holders of the copyright charge an arm and a leg for it–look for characters singing “He’s a Jolly Good Fellow” instead.
Now I know I’m not a Jolly Good Fellow, but I think I might rather have that sung at a party in my honor rather than the “Happy Birthday to you” which used to get dusted off every time mom walked in with a dessert full of candles.
Speaking of birthday dessert, whether to have pie or cake on your birthday is another tough decision with almost no weight behind it.
Of course, birthday cake with candles and your family singing is an American tradition. It just wouldn’t be a party without it.
While you could stick candles in a pie, it’s much harder to get wax off of crust than it is to pick it out of frosting.
Considering that many guests don’t take to extremely sweet things, which cake with its sugary frosted goodness always is, pie may be a better option
Pie also goes much better with ice cream, another staple of the birthday party. The trouble is that you’re going to need more than one if you’re planning on having more than eight friends at your party.
But that brings up another highlight of cake, the fact that there are always leftovers.
Need a high energy snack in the next few days after your birthday? How about some cake? Feeling down and in need of a pick-me-up? I suggest cake–especially chocolate. Looking for an easy breakfast because you woke up late after your party? Cake?
There’s the sticking point though, cake isn’t nearly as good for breakfast as pie.
And with pie you can pretend you’re eating healthy because it has fruit in it. It won’t be true, but who cares, you have pie.
If you wanted to pretend to have a healthy cake you could get a carrot cake with cream cheese frosting. It’s still not quite as good as pie in the morning, but it comes close.
I know that it’s a personal preference, but I’ve always liked the texture of pie much better than cake. Where cake is spongy and soft, pie is slightly crisp with a gooey and delicious filling. If you time your party right, you can even have warm pie to complement your cold ice cream, which is much more difficult with cake.
If you absolutely can’t make up your mind, I suggest splitting the difference and making a cheesecake. Even though it includes the word “cake” it can still have that pie shape. Not only that, but you can make it as “healthy” as you want by choosing a topping from the multitude of delicious fruits or the decadent option of chocolate sauce.
If you don’t like cheesecake (are you crazy?) then you’ll be left with the unpleasant choice of having both cake and pie at your party.
Actually, that doesn’t sound so unpleasant at all. I need to get to a bakery.
Birthday Facts
There are more birthdays in August than in any other month, with July and September coming in close behind.
More people are born on Oct. 5 than on any other day, which is not surprising when you consider that their conception would have happened on New Year’s Eve. The least common birthday is May 22.
The two billion birthday cards mailed out every year make up 58 percent of the cards sent in the United States.
The biggest birthday cake ever made was created in 1989 for the 100th birthday of the city of Fort Payne, Alabama. It weighed 128,238 pounds and used 16,209 pounds of frosting.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The Cold
When you live in the northern half of the United States freezing temperatures are simply a fact of life.
A week ago a friend of mine summed up living in Wisconsin–“It ain’t upper Canada, but it’s not Maui either.”
Which is true, Wisconsin is neither Canada nor Maui and could never be mistaken for either. Well, maybe Canada, but once a person tried to go to a hospital I think they’d figure it out.
I grew up in Northeast Iowa, and lived in Minnesota for a while, so cold midwest winters aren’t really anything new, but they are to some people.
A few weeks ago for example Floridians were scrambling and preparing for temperatures that were *gasp* in the 30’s. From what I can see of folks around here, the 30’s are when it’s time to break out the spring wardrobe and start wearing cutoffs.
I’ve been wondering for a while what exactly causes this phenomenon. Are those of the southern climates smarter, dumber or just less tough than those of southern inclination. Actually, I really don’t think it’s any of those.
For years now I’ve harbored the idea that cold is really just a state of mind. Over the last two months I’ve decided that that state is Wisconsin.
It seems like not a day goes by when someone doesn’t ask me the rhetorical, “Cold enough for yah?”
If there was an answer I’d probably say yes. But lately I’ve been wondering what “cold enough” really means.
If it means that I can set fruit juice outside for two hours to make popsicles then yes.
Then again, it might mean it’s cold enough to keep my beer cold, which it isn’t. Leave beer outside in the Wisconsin winter too long and it will explode on you.
Which is really a shame since Wisconsin is also known for its beer consumption prowess. By gallon we consume more beer than any other state. Per capita we’re being beaten by New Hampshire, but that is a measurement of alcohol consumption, not specifically beer.
If Wisconsin were just a bit warmer just think of what taverns could save in refrigeration. If this were any other state they might have to worry about someone taking the beer they left outside.
Of course, the better angels of human nature tend to retreat when facing the demons of free booze; it’s a conundrum.
Speaking of angels, that’s another thing I like about Wisconsin, the churches.
While I’ve admitted before that I’m not really a church-going kind of guy, that doesn’t stop me from feeling reassured when travelling the less paved roads when I see a country church every 10 miles or so.
Also, there are bars about every 10 miles. It’s like God is really watching out for everyone, no matter what they thirst for.
What else is there to Wisconsin? Well I shouldn’t have to tell anyone about the state they live in, but there is some pretty good fishing too.
To me fishing is kind of like being in church and a bar at the same time. You get a lot of time to reflect on your life in a beautiful environment, but no one minds if you’re drinking a beer while you’re at it.
Growing up, one of my mother’s friends, a Badger State native, used to refer to Wisconsin as “God’s country” and now that I live here I’m sort of inclined to agree with her.
Of course, some days I think “Favre country” would be more accurate. I’m fairly sure that if I told people that the Packer’s number four was the second coming of Christ at least half of them would believe me.
I wonder if there’s any money in preaching? It’s a shame he’s got more of a bullet pass than a hail mary arm, that would make it easier.
It’s not the worst idea I’ve had this week. I think I’m going to call it the “First Church of Favre.” Then again maybe the “Number 4 Church of Favre” would be more appropriate.
A week ago a friend of mine summed up living in Wisconsin–“It ain’t upper Canada, but it’s not Maui either.”
Which is true, Wisconsin is neither Canada nor Maui and could never be mistaken for either. Well, maybe Canada, but once a person tried to go to a hospital I think they’d figure it out.
I grew up in Northeast Iowa, and lived in Minnesota for a while, so cold midwest winters aren’t really anything new, but they are to some people.
A few weeks ago for example Floridians were scrambling and preparing for temperatures that were *gasp* in the 30’s. From what I can see of folks around here, the 30’s are when it’s time to break out the spring wardrobe and start wearing cutoffs.
I’ve been wondering for a while what exactly causes this phenomenon. Are those of the southern climates smarter, dumber or just less tough than those of southern inclination. Actually, I really don’t think it’s any of those.
For years now I’ve harbored the idea that cold is really just a state of mind. Over the last two months I’ve decided that that state is Wisconsin.
It seems like not a day goes by when someone doesn’t ask me the rhetorical, “Cold enough for yah?”
If there was an answer I’d probably say yes. But lately I’ve been wondering what “cold enough” really means.
If it means that I can set fruit juice outside for two hours to make popsicles then yes.
Then again, it might mean it’s cold enough to keep my beer cold, which it isn’t. Leave beer outside in the Wisconsin winter too long and it will explode on you.
Which is really a shame since Wisconsin is also known for its beer consumption prowess. By gallon we consume more beer than any other state. Per capita we’re being beaten by New Hampshire, but that is a measurement of alcohol consumption, not specifically beer.
If Wisconsin were just a bit warmer just think of what taverns could save in refrigeration. If this were any other state they might have to worry about someone taking the beer they left outside.
Of course, the better angels of human nature tend to retreat when facing the demons of free booze; it’s a conundrum.
Speaking of angels, that’s another thing I like about Wisconsin, the churches.
While I’ve admitted before that I’m not really a church-going kind of guy, that doesn’t stop me from feeling reassured when travelling the less paved roads when I see a country church every 10 miles or so.
Also, there are bars about every 10 miles. It’s like God is really watching out for everyone, no matter what they thirst for.
What else is there to Wisconsin? Well I shouldn’t have to tell anyone about the state they live in, but there is some pretty good fishing too.
To me fishing is kind of like being in church and a bar at the same time. You get a lot of time to reflect on your life in a beautiful environment, but no one minds if you’re drinking a beer while you’re at it.
Growing up, one of my mother’s friends, a Badger State native, used to refer to Wisconsin as “God’s country” and now that I live here I’m sort of inclined to agree with her.
Of course, some days I think “Favre country” would be more accurate. I’m fairly sure that if I told people that the Packer’s number four was the second coming of Christ at least half of them would believe me.
I wonder if there’s any money in preaching? It’s a shame he’s got more of a bullet pass than a hail mary arm, that would make it easier.
It’s not the worst idea I’ve had this week. I think I’m going to call it the “First Church of Favre.” Then again maybe the “Number 4 Church of Favre” would be more appropriate.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Using the Internet to complain about the Internet. Ironic?
There are alot of reasons why I'm getting tired of the internet. One of them is probably the fact that I'm surfing the web at work too often.
This constant surfing has caused me to notice some things about internet users which are obvious to everyone. We all know that internet anonimity makes it easy for every pizza faced teenager swigging red bull and listening to Modest Moust to suddenly become a keyboard cowboy who posts irate commentary and horrible flames for sadly imagined slights.
It's a simple fact that there are too many people on the web who need a real life ass whooping to show them the consequences for not keeping a civil tongue inside your head.
But, enough of what everyone knows and on to what I've recently noticed.
The internet (among other things) has caused a false reality to rise among it's users as to the attractiveness of women. This has nothing to do with that old hot/not website, that's old hat.
No, what I'm talking about is the rampant disregard many internet users show toward relatively attractive women. They say insanely asinine things, my biggest pet peeve being the phrase "sharp knees."
Those of you who know me well know that I am a devotee of the news aggregation website Fark.com. It's users are especially vicious to women who's pictures show up with the story. The discussion forums are full of people letting everyone know if they'd "hit that" or not.
Putting aside the obvious question of "Who the hell cares what you'd hit and what you wouldn't?" I've found that internet users have unusually high expectations for female appearances.
I've been trying to understand why that is, and I can only think that a lack of real world interaction has led to a misconception about what real women look like.
I'm convinced that these hordes of unwashed young men are spending their time downloading pornography in their parents basement with a full supply of jergens and kleenex close by. They're convinced that the October playmate (or maybe the girl getting fucked by a horse) is going to walk through the door at any moment and have sex with them.
I'm not sure if the other side of the internet porn generation's insecurity is more or less sad though. In preperation for writing this column I did some chat room lurking (until today I wasn't sure that chat rooms still existed).
As disgusting as my journalistic efforts were, I found a very common trend among males (or people who claimed to be male). Pretty much everyone claimed to have a penis over 10 inches in length. The biggest claim (lie) was 20 inches.
Not that a 20 inch schlong isn't possible, but I'm pretty sure the guy who possesses such a monster has better things to do than brag about it in a chat room (star in porn videos for instance).
Meanwhile studies continue to indicate that the average male is between 5 and 7 inches when fully engorged. I feel like the only guy who's willing to admit to being average. I'm pretty sure it's somewhere really close to 6 and a half inches, but have never really felt the need to get out a ruler.
I guess my point is that it's sad. Sad that there are so many young men with views so grossly distorted. Sad that people feel the need to lie to impress strangers who they'll likely never meet in person. Sad that so many attactive women are being overlooked because of the fake titties of a legalized prostitute on a tiny screen.
Oh, a quick note: If you get paid to have sex, even on camera, even if the guy/girl/animal giving it to you isn't the one paying, even if someone yells cut every five seconds to bring in a fluffer, you're a prostitute (or sex-worker). Is there anything necessarily wrong with that? No, but don't be putting on airs like you're a movie star just because 50,000 people have seen your O-face while a Ving Rhames wannabee puts his thing where the sun don't shine.
This constant surfing has caused me to notice some things about internet users which are obvious to everyone. We all know that internet anonimity makes it easy for every pizza faced teenager swigging red bull and listening to Modest Moust to suddenly become a keyboard cowboy who posts irate commentary and horrible flames for sadly imagined slights.
It's a simple fact that there are too many people on the web who need a real life ass whooping to show them the consequences for not keeping a civil tongue inside your head.
But, enough of what everyone knows and on to what I've recently noticed.
The internet (among other things) has caused a false reality to rise among it's users as to the attractiveness of women. This has nothing to do with that old hot/not website, that's old hat.
No, what I'm talking about is the rampant disregard many internet users show toward relatively attractive women. They say insanely asinine things, my biggest pet peeve being the phrase "sharp knees."
Those of you who know me well know that I am a devotee of the news aggregation website Fark.com. It's users are especially vicious to women who's pictures show up with the story. The discussion forums are full of people letting everyone know if they'd "hit that" or not.
Putting aside the obvious question of "Who the hell cares what you'd hit and what you wouldn't?" I've found that internet users have unusually high expectations for female appearances.
I've been trying to understand why that is, and I can only think that a lack of real world interaction has led to a misconception about what real women look like.
I'm convinced that these hordes of unwashed young men are spending their time downloading pornography in their parents basement with a full supply of jergens and kleenex close by. They're convinced that the October playmate (or maybe the girl getting fucked by a horse) is going to walk through the door at any moment and have sex with them.
I'm not sure if the other side of the internet porn generation's insecurity is more or less sad though. In preperation for writing this column I did some chat room lurking (until today I wasn't sure that chat rooms still existed).
As disgusting as my journalistic efforts were, I found a very common trend among males (or people who claimed to be male). Pretty much everyone claimed to have a penis over 10 inches in length. The biggest claim (lie) was 20 inches.
Not that a 20 inch schlong isn't possible, but I'm pretty sure the guy who possesses such a monster has better things to do than brag about it in a chat room (star in porn videos for instance).
Meanwhile studies continue to indicate that the average male is between 5 and 7 inches when fully engorged. I feel like the only guy who's willing to admit to being average. I'm pretty sure it's somewhere really close to 6 and a half inches, but have never really felt the need to get out a ruler.
I guess my point is that it's sad. Sad that there are so many young men with views so grossly distorted. Sad that people feel the need to lie to impress strangers who they'll likely never meet in person. Sad that so many attactive women are being overlooked because of the fake titties of a legalized prostitute on a tiny screen.
Oh, a quick note: If you get paid to have sex, even on camera, even if the guy/girl/animal giving it to you isn't the one paying, even if someone yells cut every five seconds to bring in a fluffer, you're a prostitute (or sex-worker). Is there anything necessarily wrong with that? No, but don't be putting on airs like you're a movie star just because 50,000 people have seen your O-face while a Ving Rhames wannabee puts his thing where the sun don't shine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)