In my house, we have an unwritten rule. Well, it is sort of a guideline actually. OK, it is a just a habit...a lazy one. Passing gas is a cherished event. I was not raised to do it in front of others, but somehow it became my habit to do so. My wife allowed me to get away with it and she eventually followed suit. It was destiny for the kids to toe the line. Whatever. The fact is that flatulence constantly reminds me of politicians.
I don't mean to imply that Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul make a habit of floating stink biscuits in public. No, I mean the response to it. See, every time I let one loose, the wife makes a big stink about it (heh). Yeah, she carries on as if I just lit the bed on fire. And when she or one of my kids makes a foul gaseous emanation, I similarly claim nasal distress. At first, such responses were sincere. But these days I find myself claiming olfactory offense whether there is a foul aroma about the place or not. I just can't pass up the opportunity to complain. And neither can the rest of them. The family complains when I do it too, and we all get a good laugh no matter who slices the aromatic cheese. But the feigning of offense is the important feature here. Politicians never pass up a chance to hold their nose and point their finger. To be sure, they pretty much all stink like a refuse pile. But they do not wait until an opponent lets one rip. They declare stench alerts even when they know it was just some poor soul's torn pants making the sound.
This is why you get Chinese politicians claiming major indignation time after time when some world event shines a light on how poor their human rights record is (like when a jailed political dissident is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize) or the Iranian leaders blaming the West for every internal problem they face. They get an opportunity to rally the troops to their cause whether they give a fart about the issue or not. Even domestically it is the reason why politicians can't resist an opportunity to stick each other with a steaming poker every time one of them slips up over the tiniest thing, Outrage is a hot commodity in Washington. Having it on your side gets media coverage to your moral high ground. And it does not cost you a shred of political capital to engage in it. It's no wonder I had such a wealth of colorful adjectives to distribute throughout this entry. They all just seem to describe flatulence and politicians at once.
They all stink. They are all constantly pointing and fanning the air at each others' wind. Perhaps the rest of us should take a page from my 4 year-old and laugh long and loud at their absurdity.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Category: parenting
Babies are beautiful. My boy is very cute. And my baby nephew is clearly the handiwork of God himself. That kid is so comely that he can turn even the hardest atheist into a believer. But I am not really talking about any of that.
I mean that babies are beautiful from a design standpoint. They are such a marvel of engineering that MIT and Cal Tech would do well to offer classes on baby design to incoming freshmen. You probably know that a baby can not see clearly. Are the eyes still forming? Is that why? Nope. It is by design that a baby has blurred vision. The little one starts off only using the senses that have already been working for months. This prevents information overload in a new world. The womb has no light after all. The brain has no frame of reference to process vision at first.
A baby's smile has nothing to do with pleasure. They are programmed to smile at friendly faces to manipulate adults into paying more attention to them. Babies need attention from adults to thrive. Eye contact, familiar voices, mom's touch and smell are all part of how they learn. And we adults are ourselves programmed to give them this attention. That is - babies are cute on purpose.
My mom used to ponder out loud why it is necessary to feel pain. I know the reason. It is because of obesity and credit card debt. Heh. Didn't see that coming did you? I mean that there is no strong motivator for a person to stop spending money he or she does not have. Same with food. There is no immediate downside to over eating. Our rational self knows that it is bad, but the instinct to eat or buy all you can usually wins. Pain, on the other hand, is a powerful motivator. It demands that you immediately change your behavior. That is why babies cry too.
Baby cries are such a piercing annoyance that it actually alters our behavior. Even if you are not the parent, you strongly feel the urge to give the baby whatever it wants to shut it up. Again, this is by design. We are programmed to dislike that sound so intensely to mimic the effects of pain. Since babies can not do for themselves, nature needs a strong motivator to get others to do for them. Seeing a number on a scale or getting a bill in the mail just doesn't have the same punch.
Everything about a baby is a perfect adaptation to getting what they need from adults (well, that and learning like nothing else in this world). But there is one deficient area in a baby's design that I am reminded of every time I yank something from my son's hand. They put everything in their mouth. This is not the same kind of danger as covering wall outlets or not letting them near a swimming pool. They stick things in their mouth not out of ignorance of the world, but as part of this grand design. Even before modern civilization, babies would not have been able to procure food on their own. Babies are not able to distinguish food from nonfood by looking at it so it's not as if they are foraging like this. Why then is this trait necessary? In particular, how did babies who stuck everything in their mouths manage to survive more often throughout the ages than the ones who only did so only when they were hungry? Is sense of taste really so important to our development?
At any rate, I think this speaks volumes about the instinct of motherhood. Throughout the ages, moms have been so vigilant about preventing their children from choking on random objects that they have actually outmaneuvered natural selection.
Go moms!
I mean that babies are beautiful from a design standpoint. They are such a marvel of engineering that MIT and Cal Tech would do well to offer classes on baby design to incoming freshmen. You probably know that a baby can not see clearly. Are the eyes still forming? Is that why? Nope. It is by design that a baby has blurred vision. The little one starts off only using the senses that have already been working for months. This prevents information overload in a new world. The womb has no light after all. The brain has no frame of reference to process vision at first.
A baby's smile has nothing to do with pleasure. They are programmed to smile at friendly faces to manipulate adults into paying more attention to them. Babies need attention from adults to thrive. Eye contact, familiar voices, mom's touch and smell are all part of how they learn. And we adults are ourselves programmed to give them this attention. That is - babies are cute on purpose.
My mom used to ponder out loud why it is necessary to feel pain. I know the reason. It is because of obesity and credit card debt. Heh. Didn't see that coming did you? I mean that there is no strong motivator for a person to stop spending money he or she does not have. Same with food. There is no immediate downside to over eating. Our rational self knows that it is bad, but the instinct to eat or buy all you can usually wins. Pain, on the other hand, is a powerful motivator. It demands that you immediately change your behavior. That is why babies cry too.
Baby cries are such a piercing annoyance that it actually alters our behavior. Even if you are not the parent, you strongly feel the urge to give the baby whatever it wants to shut it up. Again, this is by design. We are programmed to dislike that sound so intensely to mimic the effects of pain. Since babies can not do for themselves, nature needs a strong motivator to get others to do for them. Seeing a number on a scale or getting a bill in the mail just doesn't have the same punch.
Everything about a baby is a perfect adaptation to getting what they need from adults (well, that and learning like nothing else in this world). But there is one deficient area in a baby's design that I am reminded of every time I yank something from my son's hand. They put everything in their mouth. This is not the same kind of danger as covering wall outlets or not letting them near a swimming pool. They stick things in their mouth not out of ignorance of the world, but as part of this grand design. Even before modern civilization, babies would not have been able to procure food on their own. Babies are not able to distinguish food from nonfood by looking at it so it's not as if they are foraging like this. Why then is this trait necessary? In particular, how did babies who stuck everything in their mouths manage to survive more often throughout the ages than the ones who only did so only when they were hungry? Is sense of taste really so important to our development?
At any rate, I think this speaks volumes about the instinct of motherhood. Throughout the ages, moms have been so vigilant about preventing their children from choking on random objects that they have actually outmaneuvered natural selection.
Go moms!
Friday, December 10, 2010
Category: government
It is a few minutes before 3 AM and I can't go back to sleep. The 4 and 6 year old girls burst in the room an hour ago, each accusing the other of kicking off the covers or some variation thereof. Somehow, my wife and I ended up talking about the government and I kinda knew I would end up here until I got this particular gripe off my chest.
She says "that Dream Act thing passed."
"Only in the House," I said. "It won't get passed in the Senate even though the Democratic backers have a majority."
This prompted a bit of discussion on bicameralism and the role of the filibuster. Ultimately I don't know if I am in favor of this tool existing or not. It is not elegant. It is the single most blatant measure that makes the old joke "If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con', what is the opposite of 'progress'?" so funny, and painful. The fact that the action of filibustering is itself intentionally talking endlessly about nothing, specifically so the government can do nothing, only adds to the silliness of it all. But this thing gives the important tradition of majority rule with minority rights some teeth. So what can you do? The question goes back at least until ancient Rome. Maybe even Greece. How do you get a government to have the power to do what you need it to without the governing persons taking advantage of their power? Democracy, of course. Well, sorta.
When I have the nationalistic pride part of me driving, I really think it is cool that the United States has never had a monarch. George Washington really and truly could have become one but the guy declined. The people pretty much expected him to. His contemporaries would have backed him if he decided to. But the man was Bilbo Baggins voluntarily giving up the One Ring. His allegiance was to the nation alone. And he felt that, after eight years as its leader, he had done his part to set it straight. So he...retired. If all leaders were as benevolent as our first, there would be little need for democracy. But for every Washington you have many Neros. So we have this elaborate system of balancing power by playing one branch of government off another. If you suck at your job you will lose it. The problem with that is that your employer is a nation of people who are educated about you and your job by the media. Consequently, all politicians are themselves ruled by protection of their own image so that their allegiance is to that image first and the nation second. That is at the heart of the problems with our democracy. But how can you inhibit power without this nasty side effect? I don't know. I suspect that there is no way to. You have tyranny at one end of the spectrum and a dead fish at the other. My complaint is that we are too close to the dead fish end. But because I am not just filibustering, I have a solution to offer.
We need a king. That's right.
Did you know that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life? No elections. They are not beholden to their public image the way a politician is. So a beautiful thing happens at the Supreme Court - governing. You have these nine people who keep each other in line and have only their legacies to protect. Because I am not completely off my rocker, I don't mean that I want to be ruled by an absolute dictator. But a ruling family that can stay out of the public eye like the supreme court has its advantages. They decide based on their own internal politics how to intervene when congress deadlocks or the president is clearly a nincompoop. At all other times, they would be relegated to observe and advise status. How can this be designed to always work that way? Hell if I know. But consider how beneficial it could be to have a leader who is not a politician. Perhaps the true Fourth Estate should be the American Monarch. It could be like having our own benevolent superhero with the with the superhuman ability to govern based on the needs of the nation and not the needs of his or her career.
She says "that Dream Act thing passed."
"Only in the House," I said. "It won't get passed in the Senate even though the Democratic backers have a majority."
This prompted a bit of discussion on bicameralism and the role of the filibuster. Ultimately I don't know if I am in favor of this tool existing or not. It is not elegant. It is the single most blatant measure that makes the old joke "If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con', what is the opposite of 'progress'?" so funny, and painful. The fact that the action of filibustering is itself intentionally talking endlessly about nothing, specifically so the government can do nothing, only adds to the silliness of it all. But this thing gives the important tradition of majority rule with minority rights some teeth. So what can you do? The question goes back at least until ancient Rome. Maybe even Greece. How do you get a government to have the power to do what you need it to without the governing persons taking advantage of their power? Democracy, of course. Well, sorta.
When I have the nationalistic pride part of me driving, I really think it is cool that the United States has never had a monarch. George Washington really and truly could have become one but the guy declined. The people pretty much expected him to. His contemporaries would have backed him if he decided to. But the man was Bilbo Baggins voluntarily giving up the One Ring. His allegiance was to the nation alone. And he felt that, after eight years as its leader, he had done his part to set it straight. So he...retired. If all leaders were as benevolent as our first, there would be little need for democracy. But for every Washington you have many Neros. So we have this elaborate system of balancing power by playing one branch of government off another. If you suck at your job you will lose it. The problem with that is that your employer is a nation of people who are educated about you and your job by the media. Consequently, all politicians are themselves ruled by protection of their own image so that their allegiance is to that image first and the nation second. That is at the heart of the problems with our democracy. But how can you inhibit power without this nasty side effect? I don't know. I suspect that there is no way to. You have tyranny at one end of the spectrum and a dead fish at the other. My complaint is that we are too close to the dead fish end. But because I am not just filibustering, I have a solution to offer.
We need a king. That's right.
Did you know that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life? No elections. They are not beholden to their public image the way a politician is. So a beautiful thing happens at the Supreme Court - governing. You have these nine people who keep each other in line and have only their legacies to protect. Because I am not completely off my rocker, I don't mean that I want to be ruled by an absolute dictator. But a ruling family that can stay out of the public eye like the supreme court has its advantages. They decide based on their own internal politics how to intervene when congress deadlocks or the president is clearly a nincompoop. At all other times, they would be relegated to observe and advise status. How can this be designed to always work that way? Hell if I know. But consider how beneficial it could be to have a leader who is not a politician. Perhaps the true Fourth Estate should be the American Monarch. It could be like having our own benevolent superhero with the with the superhuman ability to govern based on the needs of the nation and not the needs of his or her career.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Category: advertising
This may come as a surprise to a lot of people, but raising cattle for commercial dairy products is a relatively new phenomenon. Well, that is not entirely true. There have always been small and mid-sized dairy traditions throughout Europe and to some extent elsewhere. But these are almost exclusively for production of cheese. Today, when we think of dairy farming, we are thinking of cow's milk. But it was not always that way. The American cowboys of the late 19th century were not moving milk cows, those herds were steaks on legs. The entire milk industry only came about in the middle of the 20th century. This is the why and how in case the category heading has not already clued you in.
I eat my share of cold cereal with milk as a speedy breakfast. My kids all drink milk with some sort of vitamin supplement as a type of healthy snack. Lots of it. Frankly, I am not especially settled on the idea, but my wife was raised on it, and I am very settled on domestic tranquility. So milk it is. We go through several gallons a week in this way. But what about milk is so healthy after all?
Well, for one thing it has plenty of calcium. We all need the stuff, but especially the young and the old. It has some protein also. And it is spiked with vitamin A and vitamin D. Calcium is present in plenty of other foods including broccoli., almonds, oranges, most beans, eggshells, and lots more. Protein and vitamin A are plentiful in most meat. And vitamin D your body actually makes by itself. So don't think that milk plays some sort of indispensable role in nutrition. We cook with it, but let's be serious, water will usually do in its place. (Except for milk chocolate. Don't even THINK about messing with that.) Milk and cereal is a new trend. So are my beloved milk and cookies. How did milk go from a drink you only got on a farm to a commercial powerhouse and woven part of our culture?
Marketing.
Beginning in the 50's dairy farmers hired advertising companies to create a demand for milk where none existed because they could make more money selling cow's milk than the cheese it was being primarily used for at the time. An endless barrage of television and print advertisements depicted milk as a healthy drink for many occasions. They took advantage of the popular ideas of the time that country living was to be upheld as ideal. Milk was a farm product that could be delivered to your doorstep. Cold cereal has been around for over a hundred years, but it did not begin to look like the enormous industry of today until milk began to be viewed as a requirement in every household. You also saw the rise of milkshakes and similar concoctions in this time as people looked for new uses for it. But the view that milk is a natural and beneficial product borders on absurd. It is a fatty, sugary stuff that should properly be classified as a dessert. No other mammal drinks milk past infancy - it is not a natural part of life to drink the milk of a cow. So why do we? Because we have been told to by people who stand to profit from our belief that it is an essential part of our diet.
This process of inventing a market from thin air happens all the time and is the holy grail of marketers. Advertising agencies have actually been able to warp western culture to suit the needs of their clients on many occasions. This is one of them.
I eat my share of cold cereal with milk as a speedy breakfast. My kids all drink milk with some sort of vitamin supplement as a type of healthy snack. Lots of it. Frankly, I am not especially settled on the idea, but my wife was raised on it, and I am very settled on domestic tranquility. So milk it is. We go through several gallons a week in this way. But what about milk is so healthy after all?
Well, for one thing it has plenty of calcium. We all need the stuff, but especially the young and the old. It has some protein also. And it is spiked with vitamin A and vitamin D. Calcium is present in plenty of other foods including broccoli., almonds, oranges, most beans, eggshells, and lots more. Protein and vitamin A are plentiful in most meat. And vitamin D your body actually makes by itself. So don't think that milk plays some sort of indispensable role in nutrition. We cook with it, but let's be serious, water will usually do in its place. (Except for milk chocolate. Don't even THINK about messing with that.) Milk and cereal is a new trend. So are my beloved milk and cookies. How did milk go from a drink you only got on a farm to a commercial powerhouse and woven part of our culture?
Marketing.
Beginning in the 50's dairy farmers hired advertising companies to create a demand for milk where none existed because they could make more money selling cow's milk than the cheese it was being primarily used for at the time. An endless barrage of television and print advertisements depicted milk as a healthy drink for many occasions. They took advantage of the popular ideas of the time that country living was to be upheld as ideal. Milk was a farm product that could be delivered to your doorstep. Cold cereal has been around for over a hundred years, but it did not begin to look like the enormous industry of today until milk began to be viewed as a requirement in every household. You also saw the rise of milkshakes and similar concoctions in this time as people looked for new uses for it. But the view that milk is a natural and beneficial product borders on absurd. It is a fatty, sugary stuff that should properly be classified as a dessert. No other mammal drinks milk past infancy - it is not a natural part of life to drink the milk of a cow. So why do we? Because we have been told to by people who stand to profit from our belief that it is an essential part of our diet.
This process of inventing a market from thin air happens all the time and is the holy grail of marketers. Advertising agencies have actually been able to warp western culture to suit the needs of their clients on many occasions. This is one of them.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Category: television
When was the last time you heard a person use the word "rerun"? You know, the TV shows that are run more than once? That is what I thought. I, myself have not heard or used that word in ages...why?
Are they no longer around? Of course not. Networks and cable programming alike are so ruled by ratings and scared to part with a dime that they are typically only making six episodes of a new series instead of 24 like they used to. So that is what is on far more often than anything first run. It works for them to have a six-episode season too. Then they can squeeze three to five "seasons" in a calendar year and advertise how many episodes are left before the "season finale". Ooooh...how exciting. A minuscule story arc is coming to an end!
Where was I?
The reason the word is no longer in use is because we have been trained not to utter it or even think it. It has a negative connotation that is unseemly to advertising execs, so they have invented new words to replace it. Sound extreme? Let me ask you, then. What are syndicated television programs? It's meaning has nothing to do with a rerun, but in practice they are one in the same. Syndicated television programs are those that are broadcast to local stations directly, and not via a network. It is a word that deals entirely with who gets paid money to put it on the air, and the public really has no reason to bother with it. But advertisements have been using the word in place of "rerun" to alter our perception of the program itself. It's not the eleventh time this rerun of Everybody Loves Raymond has been broadcast at 7 PM, it is a syndicated show. I know it because the billboards are everywhere telling me as much.
But the one that puts the icing on the cake is the "encore performance". An encore is a request for an additional performance. It can also mean the additional performance itself as the result of such a request. Television stations apparently have an information capability similar to Santa Claus. They have been able to hear the one person on earth who actually requested to see a rerun every time their big money shows end. And then they manage to actually get it on the air right then and there. That's amazing! Or perhaps the station intended to run it twice to increase advertising revenue. The execs needed to avoid the word "rerun" so they purloined the definition of "encore".
To research this piece I looked up "encore" on dictionary.com and to my jaw-dropping amazement, I saw this definition amongst the real ones:
Are they no longer around? Of course not. Networks and cable programming alike are so ruled by ratings and scared to part with a dime that they are typically only making six episodes of a new series instead of 24 like they used to. So that is what is on far more often than anything first run. It works for them to have a six-episode season too. Then they can squeeze three to five "seasons" in a calendar year and advertise how many episodes are left before the "season finale". Ooooh...how exciting. A minuscule story arc is coming to an end!
Where was I?
The reason the word is no longer in use is because we have been trained not to utter it or even think it. It has a negative connotation that is unseemly to advertising execs, so they have invented new words to replace it. Sound extreme? Let me ask you, then. What are syndicated television programs? It's meaning has nothing to do with a rerun, but in practice they are one in the same. Syndicated television programs are those that are broadcast to local stations directly, and not via a network. It is a word that deals entirely with who gets paid money to put it on the air, and the public really has no reason to bother with it. But advertisements have been using the word in place of "rerun" to alter our perception of the program itself. It's not the eleventh time this rerun of Everybody Loves Raymond has been broadcast at 7 PM, it is a syndicated show. I know it because the billboards are everywhere telling me as much.
But the one that puts the icing on the cake is the "encore performance". An encore is a request for an additional performance. It can also mean the additional performance itself as the result of such a request. Television stations apparently have an information capability similar to Santa Claus. They have been able to hear the one person on earth who actually requested to see a rerun every time their big money shows end. And then they manage to actually get it on the air right then and there. That's amazing! Or perhaps the station intended to run it twice to increase advertising revenue. The execs needed to avoid the word "rerun" so they purloined the definition of "encore".
To research this piece I looked up "encore" on dictionary.com and to my jaw-dropping amazement, I saw this definition amongst the real ones:
any repeated or additional performance or appearance, as a rerun of a telecast or a rematch in sports.
Then I grabbed a paper dictionary from 1991 and found that particular definition missing. I'm telling you, the scoundrels are stealing words.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Category: parenting
The way I see it babies are like aircraft carriers.
If you are unfamiliar with naval strategy, let me give you just enough to have this make any sense at all. Aircraft carriers are the most powerful and effective combat unit the world has ever seen. They are forward bases and long range attack platforms. They can be used to bombard even inland targets for extended campaigns and they can move massive amounts of anything. However, they require enormous logistics to keep them doing their thing. A carrier is basically a floating city which means lots of supplies going to and from. There is a barber, a dentist, a vending machine repairman, everything. Also it needs to have its complement of fighters near its maximum to retain its punch. Moreover, a carrier on its own is fairly easily brought down by submarine attack. So it needs an escort of many smaller ships to form a perimeter. A baby is like that too.
My baby son is the newest bestest thing in my life. I love to spend time with him. So when I visit a friend with my family, you bet your butt I want him with me. He is the life of the party! But the biggest factor in my family doing anything outside of our home is how to manage the baby. Thanksgiving this year was a typical affair. There was the diaper bag with its diapers and wipes. There was a change of clothes in case of the mother lode. And don't forget the rash cream. A proper snack or two. Oh, and a sippy cup with water or juice. We decided not to try to stay past seven so our planning was kept relatively simple. We did not bring the portable crib, the bottle, the baby's special milk mixture, the fan for white noise, the blankets, and the long pajamas. And we did not have to procure a dark, quiet room in another family's home before we could leave ours. Pretty much none of these items are going to be available at someone's home, and if any of these things are not with us, the entire operation is a bust. Then once we are there, the wife and I must be in constant communication about the baby's status and whose turn it is to chase him around so that he does not hurt himself. The effort is monumental.
But partying with my little aircraft carrier is worth it.
If you are unfamiliar with naval strategy, let me give you just enough to have this make any sense at all. Aircraft carriers are the most powerful and effective combat unit the world has ever seen. They are forward bases and long range attack platforms. They can be used to bombard even inland targets for extended campaigns and they can move massive amounts of anything. However, they require enormous logistics to keep them doing their thing. A carrier is basically a floating city which means lots of supplies going to and from. There is a barber, a dentist, a vending machine repairman, everything. Also it needs to have its complement of fighters near its maximum to retain its punch. Moreover, a carrier on its own is fairly easily brought down by submarine attack. So it needs an escort of many smaller ships to form a perimeter. A baby is like that too.
My baby son is the newest bestest thing in my life. I love to spend time with him. So when I visit a friend with my family, you bet your butt I want him with me. He is the life of the party! But the biggest factor in my family doing anything outside of our home is how to manage the baby. Thanksgiving this year was a typical affair. There was the diaper bag with its diapers and wipes. There was a change of clothes in case of the mother lode. And don't forget the rash cream. A proper snack or two. Oh, and a sippy cup with water or juice. We decided not to try to stay past seven so our planning was kept relatively simple. We did not bring the portable crib, the bottle, the baby's special milk mixture, the fan for white noise, the blankets, and the long pajamas. And we did not have to procure a dark, quiet room in another family's home before we could leave ours. Pretty much none of these items are going to be available at someone's home, and if any of these things are not with us, the entire operation is a bust. Then once we are there, the wife and I must be in constant communication about the baby's status and whose turn it is to chase him around so that he does not hurt himself. The effort is monumental.
But partying with my little aircraft carrier is worth it.
Category: politicians
For the life of me, I can't figure out how we continue electing politicians to political office. Even more than that, I can't figure out why people are even interested in a word any politician ever has to say. When a politician tells the truth, it is because the truth just happens to serve his/her purposes at the moment rather than some sort of fealty to it. Their job almost demands that they be crooked to continue to get jobs. If you knew someone who even occasionally was so duplicitous you would have nothing to do with such a person. It may be that we subconsciously want a weasel working the system to represent us the way some people prefer the slick ambulance chaser over the diligent idealist to represent them in court. But then hearing these people bash each other for various misdeeds smacks of the pot calling the kettle black. Anyway...
My gripe is why news organizations continue to book them for interviews. Seriously, you would be hard pressed to find a worse source for actual information. At least when idiotic rock stars stumble their way through a drunken interview with Rolling Stone, they are sort of trying to answer the questions. A politician can be counted on to willingly use every question as an opportunity to spew their platform rather than answer the questions. What kills me is then hearing the interviewer, ostensibly a trustworthy figure, go right on with the next question as if he had not just been given the runaround. Scoundrels enabling scoundrels. Ridiculous.
My gripe is why news organizations continue to book them for interviews. Seriously, you would be hard pressed to find a worse source for actual information. At least when idiotic rock stars stumble their way through a drunken interview with Rolling Stone, they are sort of trying to answer the questions. A politician can be counted on to willingly use every question as an opportunity to spew their platform rather than answer the questions. What kills me is then hearing the interviewer, ostensibly a trustworthy figure, go right on with the next question as if he had not just been given the runaround. Scoundrels enabling scoundrels. Ridiculous.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Category: drug addicts
Today I got a call from someone I know who is living abroad. I have not had much contact with him for a few years, and really we have not been close for at least 10. I was working and the call went to my voicemail, so the information was brief. But let me tell you what the content was.
He wanted to borrow money. He carefully worded his message to appeal to my heart as he always does. He is good at that. And I know him to be cunning and eloquent enough to talk the fuzz off a peach so it was a good story. This is a person who received a giant sum of money in a settlement from a car accident with a commercial vehicle a few years back. This is a person whose life has been dominated by drug problems for more than 30 years. He has a long list of friends who will not speak to him. He has had more cell phone numbers than I can count. He has two grown children who have no life skills at all because he spent such a large percentage of his time high and trying to get high that he was unable to actually raise them.
And yet he is a great person to be around. He has something interesting to say about a variety of topics. He is intelligent and funny. He is caring, generous, kind. He has a lot of love in his heart, and I have a wealth of fond memories of him.
So when I got a message that he has no money for food, it was heart that immediately wanted to inquire how I can help. But when my brain chimed in with reason, I wanted to know how I can change my phone number. It was my brother's voice I heard in that message. It was his familiar style of creating a picture of a man down on his luck. Of a guy who has finally got his future in order, if only he can get some help in the short term. He would be able to pay it back this time. But there won't be a this time because it was the drugs that asked me for money, not my brother. It has been a long road for me to get here. Even just a couple of years back there was enough of my brother left that I might be convinced to lend a hand in hopes, albeit slight, that I can believe anything he says. But not this time. I hurts so bad, but my heart will lose this struggle with reason because I know the drugs have been the boss of him for many years now. They make the decisions and the phone calls. And I won't give anything to them.
He wanted to borrow money. He carefully worded his message to appeal to my heart as he always does. He is good at that. And I know him to be cunning and eloquent enough to talk the fuzz off a peach so it was a good story. This is a person who received a giant sum of money in a settlement from a car accident with a commercial vehicle a few years back. This is a person whose life has been dominated by drug problems for more than 30 years. He has a long list of friends who will not speak to him. He has had more cell phone numbers than I can count. He has two grown children who have no life skills at all because he spent such a large percentage of his time high and trying to get high that he was unable to actually raise them.
And yet he is a great person to be around. He has something interesting to say about a variety of topics. He is intelligent and funny. He is caring, generous, kind. He has a lot of love in his heart, and I have a wealth of fond memories of him.
So when I got a message that he has no money for food, it was heart that immediately wanted to inquire how I can help. But when my brain chimed in with reason, I wanted to know how I can change my phone number. It was my brother's voice I heard in that message. It was his familiar style of creating a picture of a man down on his luck. Of a guy who has finally got his future in order, if only he can get some help in the short term. He would be able to pay it back this time. But there won't be a this time because it was the drugs that asked me for money, not my brother. It has been a long road for me to get here. Even just a couple of years back there was enough of my brother left that I might be convinced to lend a hand in hopes, albeit slight, that I can believe anything he says. But not this time. I hurts so bad, but my heart will lose this struggle with reason because I know the drugs have been the boss of him for many years now. They make the decisions and the phone calls. And I won't give anything to them.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Category: duh
If you do not have kids, let me tell you something that is going to drive you batty when you do. "Sippy cups" are cups with a top and (if they are the expensive ones) a gasket thingie that prevents any liquid from passing through without suction. That is, the toddler sucks the way he or she would suck a nipple to get the drink. You end up buying these things en masse because the gaskets disappear like sunglasses or socks. So in time you end up with lots of big cups with lids and no purpose because they leak all over. Every brand has their own implementation of this technology, so there is no mixing and matching either. Here is my solution...sell spare gaskets. Duh! If one company did this, I would buy only their sippy cups for that reason alone since they are all basically the same thing. Then fire the dill weeds whose job it should have been to figure this out instead of me.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Category: advertising
I am very happy right now, so I am just going to give a out little morsel to chew on. It seems the curmudgeon in me doesn't come out when my wife is next to me and we are enjoying a quiet moment pursuing our interests in good company. So I will be brief.
How is it that you never actually read a critic rave when you are getting the review first hand? Raving is speaking or writing with wild enthusiasm. So who is in charge of classifying a critics' words as wildly enthusiastic? No one in particular of course. That, my friends, is free entry into the scoundrel zone for these guys. If a critic writes anything positive or even neutral about a restaurant, film, TV show, car, or anything, you can bet some enterprising scoundrel will find a way to spin it into a "rave". No matter how mundane the critic's original meaning, and no matter how obvious it is to the audience, his/her words can be spun into a "rave" when an advertiser mentions the review in a commercial. And it is not technically lying or even mischaracterization of words since their meanings are in the eyes of the beholder - the ad exec's eyes. Then he gets to change the meaning of those words into whatever suits him when he relates them to the rest of us. It's a twisted game of telephone.
"Rave" is a word that has been stolen by advertisers. There others...
How is it that you never actually read a critic rave when you are getting the review first hand? Raving is speaking or writing with wild enthusiasm. So who is in charge of classifying a critics' words as wildly enthusiastic? No one in particular of course. That, my friends, is free entry into the scoundrel zone for these guys. If a critic writes anything positive or even neutral about a restaurant, film, TV show, car, or anything, you can bet some enterprising scoundrel will find a way to spin it into a "rave". No matter how mundane the critic's original meaning, and no matter how obvious it is to the audience, his/her words can be spun into a "rave" when an advertiser mentions the review in a commercial. And it is not technically lying or even mischaracterization of words since their meanings are in the eyes of the beholder - the ad exec's eyes. Then he gets to change the meaning of those words into whatever suits him when he relates them to the rest of us. It's a twisted game of telephone.
"Rave" is a word that has been stolen by advertisers. There others...
Monday, November 22, 2010
Category: advertising
Have you walked into a store lately? It is three days before Thanksgiving and you can scarcely find a single piece of evidence that it is nearly upon us. By contrast, the Christmas advertisements have been in full swing since the very day after Halloween. The stores are elaborately displaying all kinds of items for sale. If you were relying on retailers to be your holiday calendar, you could be forgiven for forgetting Thanksgiving even existed every single year. I am confident that this would be just fine with the highly paid marketing departments of every single retailer in this country. Why?
The answer is simple: there is nothing to sell you at Thanksgiving. Oh, most gatherings will have some version of the traditional feast. There is the turkey that you pay for by the pound, that has been fed so many steroids that you would not want to square off with it in a dark alley. It had to be conceived in a test tube because its parents were so muscular they could not mate naturally. It is then injected with water and stuffed with dismembered, inedible parts (not even necessarily from the same turkey) to tip the scales at some completely unnatural number. Also the casseroles, cranberry sauce, stuffing, potatoes, greens, pies, etc. And perhaps a new table cloth. But that works out to a paltry figure compared to the shopping frenzy that is Christmas. Stores want the world to be one more reason to spend extra money after another. If a major holiday does not provide that they strive to remove it from the conscious of the public in favor of a more profitable one. And it works. Radio stations have been following suit for many years now, and we have become accustomed to seeing commercials as early as October for Christmas paraphernalia. By contrast, my kids' schools (which are not really even allowed to talk about Christmas any more) spend copious amounts of energy pushing the Thanksgiving myths upon them. They have nothing to sell. I wonder if this were somehow no longer going on in schools - if the active [mis]education of our children about the ways of Thanksgiving was happening as part of the curriculum - would this holiday slowly sink into obscurity alongside Groundhog Day and May Day?
Marketing trends control many more parts of our culture than most people are savvy to. Don't let them dictate to you what you should spend your money on. When I was a child, we made our Halloween costumes from odds and ends and we used a pillowcase for a sack. I can't remember the last time I saw a creative homemade costume. And my kids used plastic pumpkin buckets that we bought for their candy this year. Ghosts made of clothes balled up in a sheet have been replaced by increasingly elaborate Halloween spreads on front lawns. All can be purchased at your local big box store. Marketers are sculpting holiday "traditions" to encourage more consumerism. In the years to come, look for the "traditional" Thanksgiving gifts to relatives if they can't manage to get us to forget the holiday completely. And expect "traditional" New Years' dresses and suits to become fashionable.
The answer is simple: there is nothing to sell you at Thanksgiving. Oh, most gatherings will have some version of the traditional feast. There is the turkey that you pay for by the pound, that has been fed so many steroids that you would not want to square off with it in a dark alley. It had to be conceived in a test tube because its parents were so muscular they could not mate naturally. It is then injected with water and stuffed with dismembered, inedible parts (not even necessarily from the same turkey) to tip the scales at some completely unnatural number. Also the casseroles, cranberry sauce, stuffing, potatoes, greens, pies, etc. And perhaps a new table cloth. But that works out to a paltry figure compared to the shopping frenzy that is Christmas. Stores want the world to be one more reason to spend extra money after another. If a major holiday does not provide that they strive to remove it from the conscious of the public in favor of a more profitable one. And it works. Radio stations have been following suit for many years now, and we have become accustomed to seeing commercials as early as October for Christmas paraphernalia. By contrast, my kids' schools (which are not really even allowed to talk about Christmas any more) spend copious amounts of energy pushing the Thanksgiving myths upon them. They have nothing to sell. I wonder if this were somehow no longer going on in schools - if the active [mis]education of our children about the ways of Thanksgiving was happening as part of the curriculum - would this holiday slowly sink into obscurity alongside Groundhog Day and May Day?
Marketing trends control many more parts of our culture than most people are savvy to. Don't let them dictate to you what you should spend your money on. When I was a child, we made our Halloween costumes from odds and ends and we used a pillowcase for a sack. I can't remember the last time I saw a creative homemade costume. And my kids used plastic pumpkin buckets that we bought for their candy this year. Ghosts made of clothes balled up in a sheet have been replaced by increasingly elaborate Halloween spreads on front lawns. All can be purchased at your local big box store. Marketers are sculpting holiday "traditions" to encourage more consumerism. In the years to come, look for the "traditional" Thanksgiving gifts to relatives if they can't manage to get us to forget the holiday completely. And expect "traditional" New Years' dresses and suits to become fashionable.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Category: entertainment
It's way too early on Sunday morning. Baby DJ is only making the gentle moans that go on for about a half hour before he actually wants to wake up. The girls have not burst in the room yet. And the wife is not due back from her overnight shift for another hour. By all rights I should be sleeping, but damnit my body is trained. With one bleary eye opened, my hand fumbles around the large box that has served as my wannabe nightstand for over a year. I find the clicker and I am surfing. I am very familiar with what is on at 6:44 Sunday morning, but I go through the motions anyway. After going through every channel once or twice, my threshold for entertainment has sunk to the point that a music video seems appealing. I quickly realize that I am in the scoundrel zone.
I have no idea what the song is.
...or the "artist".
It sounds catchy though. I have never heard it before, and yet it is so familiar that it finds its way into the trite category along with anything by Kanye West or Justin Timberlake. The reason, of course, is that you have guys with expensive shoes and an ear for music that stops abruptly at the end of a purse string making creative decisions at somewhere along the line. And teenagers drive this market. Don't tell me the channel is aimed at that market. I know that. Everything is aimed at that market, and that is the problem. I can hear myself sigh as I realize there will probably never be a new song that is ever produced by the bazillion dollar pop industry that is to my tastes. Oh, there will be catchy tunes. They are good at that. But the content of the lyrics and the message of the songs will always be drivel. It's new to teenagers. It was new to me when I was a teenager.
I think that is why adults are drawn to the music of their generation. We remember the music of our youth because it was tailored by the New York suits for us. They needed us to like it because we were the youth demographic that made them money on advertising. And everything since then is the same crap repackaged and tailored for someone else. It looks like our suit. It has the same sleeves and cut. But it is made for minds and sensibilities that have not heard it all before. What I am saying is that all pop music is aimed at that market, not for artistic reasons. Not because that is the natural way of things. Not because the youth are the best at producing the highest quality music or demand it. But because that is what execs want. And they only want it because the advertisers do.
blecccccchhhhhhhhhhhh
It's way too early on Sunday morning. Baby DJ is only making the gentle moans that go on for about a half hour before he actually wants to wake up. The girls have not burst in the room yet. And the wife is not due back from her overnight shift for another hour. By all rights I should be sleeping, but damnit my body is trained. With one bleary eye opened, my hand fumbles around the large box that has served as my wannabe nightstand for over a year. I find the clicker and I am surfing. I am very familiar with what is on at 6:44 Sunday morning, but I go through the motions anyway. After going through every channel once or twice, my threshold for entertainment has sunk to the point that a music video seems appealing. I quickly realize that I am in the scoundrel zone.
I have no idea what the song is.
...or the "artist".
It sounds catchy though. I have never heard it before, and yet it is so familiar that it finds its way into the trite category along with anything by Kanye West or Justin Timberlake. The reason, of course, is that you have guys with expensive shoes and an ear for music that stops abruptly at the end of a purse string making creative decisions at somewhere along the line. And teenagers drive this market. Don't tell me the channel is aimed at that market. I know that. Everything is aimed at that market, and that is the problem. I can hear myself sigh as I realize there will probably never be a new song that is ever produced by the bazillion dollar pop industry that is to my tastes. Oh, there will be catchy tunes. They are good at that. But the content of the lyrics and the message of the songs will always be drivel. It's new to teenagers. It was new to me when I was a teenager.
I think that is why adults are drawn to the music of their generation. We remember the music of our youth because it was tailored by the New York suits for us. They needed us to like it because we were the youth demographic that made them money on advertising. And everything since then is the same crap repackaged and tailored for someone else. It looks like our suit. It has the same sleeves and cut. But it is made for minds and sensibilities that have not heard it all before. What I am saying is that all pop music is aimed at that market, not for artistic reasons. Not because that is the natural way of things. Not because the youth are the best at producing the highest quality music or demand it. But because that is what execs want. And they only want it because the advertisers do.
blecccccchhhhhhhhhhhh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)