CleverDonkey.com …Musings, Commentary, Opinions, and Drivel

Well, it all started with that Anna Nicole Smith ad. Once the media flap started, I had to hear what the big shakeup was about the food we feed our cats and dogs. If you’re interested, here’s the big site dedicated to educating you about all the alleged abuses by Iams: http://www.iamscruelty.com/. Iam’s counterpoint site with video’s of “inside the pet facility” is here: http://www.iamstruth.com. The videos are very heartwarming and well, from my perspective, a bit hard to believe. PETA is a histrionic organization to be sure, but I’m more likely to believe what they say they found — or at the least the general tone of it — than a “damage control” belly-scratching video that Iams put out after the fact.

But regardless, that whole dust-up gave us a reason to search out a new pet food. The dogs hated Iams, but I wanted to feed them something “healthy” so that’s all we gave them — I figured Iams must be healthy since it was the most expensive stuff you could buy at the grocery store. I meant, the dogs would snarf up cheap stuff from the store but that’s hardly the best stuff for them, right? So, once Iams was out of the picture we started on a quest for a healthy food that they’d really like. Engineerboy came across the following link that rated pet foods by their ingredients:

http://animalark.eapps.com/animal/PetFoods.nsf/$$PetFoodsByRating?OpenForm

There were several dog foods in the four-star range that we thought we might try and find, with a couple local retailers listed. We ended up settling on Canidae, which we can buy locally at the yup-scale “hardware store” Bering’s (really a fancy gifts / chocolate / gewgaw store, but it does have feed store – type stuff there). Canidae sure sounded good — the first five ingredients listed were Chicken Meal, Turkey Meal, Brown Rice, White Rice, and Lamb Meal. I mean, I’m a vegetarian, but I know that dogs evolved as carnivores and believe they should be fed meat. Those ingredients sure seemed pretty healthy for the hounds.

As a bonus, the dogs loved it as much (if not more) than any junk food cheap-o stuff from the grocery store, easily making its $45 price tag for a 40 lb bag worth it. Their coats look wonderful and shiny, and I think Biscuit the super-shedder might even be shedding a little less. One can hope. We also got their cat food, Felidae, and the cats seem to be snarfing that right up. Even our picky “can I please have wet food” tabby has calmed down a little and begged a bit less for the canned stuff, so that’s a miracle as far as I’m concerned.

As a side note, the PETA Iamscruelty.com site does not list Candidae Corporation responding to a survey saying that their organization doesn’t do animal testing, so I may give another of the four-star foods a try, since there is one listed (Azmira) that’s also on PETA’s list of pet foods that doesn’t do animal testing. I need to do some more research on that.

• Leave a comment... (0)

From the perspective of science, evolution is a fact, in the same way that gravity is a fact. It can be observed through the fossil record, and the scientific community has no doubts that life on Earth has evolved over time. This again matches gravity, as scientists can readily observe that objects with mass do not float away from the earth and into space unless acted upon by an outside force.

The “theory” part of evolution has to do with the exact explanation of how and why organisms evolve over time. Nobody knows for certain the precise combination of factors that result in evolution over time. This again precisely matches gravity, where nobody really knows exactly and precisely how and why gravity works.

So, scientifically speaking, both gravity and evolution are described by “theories”, which are logical frameworks describing the behaviors, while also presenting possible or probable explanations for the phenomenon. However, the fact that the exact mechanisms behind gravity and evolution are unknown does not mean that they do not exist.

Also, science in no way excludes the possibility that evolution is guided by an unseen force or intelligence, any more so than it excludes the possibility that gravity is caused by individual angels assigned to hold every single person, animal, and grain of sand against the earth. However, while science does not exclude these possible explanations, it is not the realm of science to search for spiritual or supernatural explanations for phenomena. It is the realm of science to search for natural explanations to describe the world around us.

From my perspective, the following are true:

Evolution = Science

Creationism = Faith

Intelligent Design = Philosophy (or faith disguised as philosophy masquerading as science)

And here are some definitions used in the further discussion below:

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method.

Faith: (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion (3) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

Philosophy: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means.

There should be no debate about any of the above being taught in the appropriate venue. However, Creationism and Intelligent Design have as much place in a Science class as Evolution does in a Religion class. They don’t have anything to do with each other.

However, there is a constant hue and cry, mostly by conservative Christians, to either suppress the teaching of evolution in science class, or to include creationism and/or intelligent design in the same venue. One presumes that this is because many Christians reject evolution outright and so do not want it taught to their children. I fully understand the desire not to have one’s children indoctrinated with teachings that do not agree with one’s personal viewpoints, however it happens all the time, to everyone.

For example, I might think that all animal life is sacred. And yet in my child’s biology class, frogs are anesthetized and dissected for the study of life functions. It falls to me to explain to my child that although these procedures and teachings are condoned by the school and taught by their (authoritarian) teacher, they do not represent ultimate truths, philosophies, or behaviors that are condoned, accepted, or embraced in our family.

Similarly:

I might believe that our fates are controlled by the month of our birth and the position of the planets and stars.

I might not believe that the Holocaust happened.

I might believe that man never walked on the moon and that the whole thing was staged.

I might not believe that Oswald acted alone.

I might believe that the sun and stars revolve around the Earth.

I might not believe in the randomness of quantum physics.

I might believe in the Zionist Occupation Government.

I might not believe in capital punishment.

I might believe in gun control.

I might not believe that fractions will some day be important to me.

I might believe that we are “One nation under…Buddha…or under Elvis…or under Allah…or under L. Ron Hubbard…or under Yahweh…or under Vishnu…or under Zeus…or under Bikram…or under Jim Jones…or under Dogbert…or under David Koresh…or under Charles Manson…or under Beelzebub…”

Some of the above list will seem crazy to some of you, and some of it will make sense to some of you, and only some of it represents things that I actually believe. Nonetheless, every single child that goes through public school in America today will be taught about the above lists, and they will almost always be taught only one viewpoint.

So, what is a parent to do? Well, a parent should do what all parents do about such things, which is reinforce the beliefs and tenets of their family to their child, and to show through example that the teachings of the family are a good and strong set of beliefs.

Either that, or work to show that what is being taught in the public schools is somehow invalid or so controversial that it should not be taught. And, unfortunately, this can’t be done with evolution because evolution is sound science. Rock solid, in fact. Sure, there are knowledge gaps and conflicting viewpoints and controversial facets to evolution within the scientific community, just as there are with ANY OTHER AREA OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. However, this doesn’t invalidate evolution just as it does not invalidate any other science, as long as the brutal filter of the scientific method is applied, which it is.

For example, astronomers recently discovered what they say is most likely to become the 10th planet of our solar system, nicknamed Xena. And the new planet also has a moon. Xena is larger than Pluto, and since Pluto is designated as a planet then it is assumed that this new planet will be, too. However, there are some who call for a reevaluation of what constitutes a “planet”, and that Pluto shouldn’t be designated as one because it is so small and should more accurately be referred to as a planetoid or even a large asteroid.

So, “scientists” can’t even agree on how many planets are in our solar system, and can’t even agree on what a planet is? This must mean that we must reject the sciences of astronomy and cosmology. Right?

Wrong. What this means is that as humanity gathers new facts and applies the scientific method to those facts we end up expanding and refining the realms of scientific knowledge. See these pages for a more thorough explanation of the scientific method:

WikiPedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

University of Rochester: http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

So, lacking any valid reason for banning the teaching of evolution, some are now calling for the introduction of faith (creationism) and/or pure philosophy (intelligent design) into Science class. However, doing this would be a grave injustice to science, faith, and philosophy, because all would be diluted and diminished by this course of action. Faith and philosophy have no place in science class. Science class is for science. And evolution is good, solid science. Now, if a parent chooses to they can certainly sit down and talk with their child and explain how evolution does not match their beliefs, just as another parent can tell their child that just because their school makes them say the words “under god” that does not necessarily match their beliefs, either.

Now, I offer no argument against the validity of creationism or intelligent design, because none can be offered. Both are, at heart, matters of faith, and one cannot prove or disprove faith, one either has it or does not. One can also acquire faith as part of ones quest for understanding. I freely and humbly admit that I, as a puny inhabitant of a puny planet in a puny galaxy in a vast and unknowable universe, have absolutely no knowledge about the ultimate truths of reality. It is entirely possible that everything was created by an omnipotent being over seven days. It is also possible that the incredible beauty and diversity of the natural world was crafted by a guiding hand of unknown origin.

However, the pondering of these possibilities, while deeply valid, are not scientific pursuits, and so have no place in science class. I also find it noteworthy and compelling that while the teachings of the science of medicine state that the dead cannot return to life after three days, no one is calling for the banning of medical science classes, or for the teaching of alternate theories. Those who believe in the Resurrection of Christ accept it as a matter of faith and a miracle of God and do not quibble with the fact that it violates scientific knowledge.

Why is that? And why is medical science different from evolution? I could hypothesize that it is because medical science provides a very real, measurable, provable benefit to the lives of believers, and so they hypocritically choose not the challenge the science of medical theories out of selfishness, even though it is in absolute conflict with one of the core events of their belief system. But that would be an unprovable hypothesis, and my saying it, and even that fact that I might deeply believe it, would not make it true.

Update 11/8/2005 – The Kansas Board of Education voted to make it a standard that evolution be treated skeptically in their public school science classes. The Board also voted to rewrite the definition of “science” so that it is “no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.” I weep for our future, and hope that many brave colleges and universities opt not to recognize the diplomas generated by such a primitive, backwards, superstitious tribe of charlatans.

Update 11/9/2005 – Reaffirming my faith in America, voters in Dover, PA yesterday ousted eight school board members who had previously backed the reading of a statement in Science classes stating that evolution was “not a fact” and had “inexplicable gaps”. Huzzah, voters of Dover, PA, well done!

• Leave a comment... (0)

The NFL has blackout rules that impact what games can be televised in which areas. If your TV provider does not broadcast within 75 miles of a city with an NFL team, these rules do not apply and your local affiliates can show any of the games available from their parent network.

However, if your TV provider broadcasts within 75 miles of an NFL city, you are definitely impacted by these rules, which are shown in complete detail at the bottom of this article. Functionally, the blackout rules work as follows:

Rule Number One: If the home team is playing at home, and does not sell out by 72 hours prior to game time, then the local affiliates cannot show this game. The purpose of this rule is to get more people to the stadium to watch the game, which benefits the team owner. You see, the NFL divides up TV revenues among the teams, but the individual team owners get to keep all their stadium/ticket/concession revenues.

Rule Number Two: If the home team is playing at home and manages to sell out prior to 72 hours prior to game time, and the local affiliate shows the game, no other NFL games can be shown on other channels while the home team game is on. I guess that this rule is designed to drive more viewers to the affiliate/network showing the home team?

The stated purpose of these rules is to preserve/enhance the revenues for the home team (Rule Number One) and home network affiliate (Rule Number Two). However, this is extraordinarily flawed logic. I’ll give you an example of similarly flawed logic – my mother used to work for the County Tax Assessor/Collector Office, which also handled license plates for the State of Texas. At one time vanity plates were available for about $25, and the state sold a whole lot of them. Some brainiac in the state government said, hey, if we charged $75 each, we’d make three times more money! So they raised the price to $75, and ended up with vanity plate revenues that were half of what they were at $25, because so many people stopped buying the plates at the new, higher price. This is exactly what the NFL is doing…driving away lifelong fans (customers) in pursuit of short-term revenue (instead of long-term profit).

MTVFL?

The NFL does not seem to understand that their short-sighted blackout rules, while perhaps improving revenue for a weekend, or maybe even a season, has the long-term effect of driving fans away from the NFL. You see, today the American consumer is inundated with entertainment options. Movies, TV, music, DVD, TiVo, Pay Per View, Movies on Demand, etc. And television now has 100’s of channels with thousands of programs, and although most are unwatchable (in my opinion), one man’s dreck is another man’s favorite show.

In the midst of this cacophony, the National Football League struggles to maintain viewership and relevance. However, all the mic’ed players and overhead cameras in the world will not change the one simple fact that people want to turn on the television and watch the team that they like. If the NFL would simply allow this to happen, things would be much better for them from a ratings and relevance perspective.

However, the NFL does not allow this to happen. I am a fan of the Dallas Cowboys, and I have been since I was a boy. I live in Houston, which once again has an NFL team (the Texans). There is absolutely no legal way for me to watch all of the Cowboy games on my television at home. I could buy a DirecTV Sunday Pass, but DirecTV still enforces the NFL blackout rules (described above). My local FOX affiliate has most of the Cowboy games on their broadcast schedule, however over the last two weeks, as the Cowboys have fought to make the playoffs, the blackout rules have forced FOX to not show the games here in Houston. This is because the home team (the Texans) have sold out 72 hours prior to kickoff, so the local CBS affiliate showed the Texans game, which meant the local FOX affiliate could not show the Cowboys game that was scheduled to be on at the same time.

Fan Apathy? Who Cares

There are two direct results of this. One is that I do not feel involved in the Cowboys playoff quest, because I didn’t see it. This means that I have had one more layer of my NFL-Fan tendency eroded away, making me a slightly less interested viewer, the same as has happened every single year for the last decade or so. The second is that my wife, who this season was on her way to becoming a football fan for the first time, has been “baited and switched” by being duped into caring about the outcome of Cowboys games, and then suddenly, as the Cowboys fought to make the playoffs and the games really mattered, been denied the ability to see the games.

These blackout rules do nothing but hurt the NFL and I do not understand why they cling to these outdated strategies. For instance, there is no way that I would ever buy a ticket to see the Texans play. This is solely because the cost of attending an NFL game is outrageous. If ticket prices were even close to reasonable (about ¼ of what they are now) I might think about it. But the Texans have been selling out nicely, so the NFL doesn’t need to worry about me buying tickets. I think I fit the mold of the average fan, in that not seeing my team on TV will never cause me to buy a ticket. The way the NFL will make money on me is through my value as a member of a desirable TV ratings demographic and through the few licensed products (caps, jerseys, etc) that I may buy. I can only presume that stadium game tickets are bought by either the very rich or the very rabid, and those people will go to the game regardless of if it’s televised. So there goes Rule #1.

Also, although I will certainly be a homer when it comes to the Texans, it is highly unlikely that I will ever become a die-hard fan. Maybe, but probably not. I get kind of insulted that the NFL thinks (seemingly) that if they force me to watch the home team, and deny me the ability to watch my preferred team, I will somehow become a revenue-producing fan-bot of the Texans. Not gonna happen. And denying me access to the Cowboys games on TV is certainly not going to make me watch and pay attention to a Texans game. So there goes Rule #2.

So why do these rules persist? Well, it’s possible that I have completely misinterpreted the whole situation, and severely underestimated the marketing savvy of the NFL while also severely underestimating the sheep-like tendencies of NFL fans. But I don’t think this is the case. What I think is that the NFL has been backed into a corner, squeezed between increasing costs (salaries, stadiums, etc.) and declining revenues (shooting themselves in the foot), and they are trying desperately to wring out every single penny of possible revenue in the short-term, while mortgaging their future by creating a passive, fair-weather fan base.

Winning Strategy: First Sow, Then Reap

It also seems that they have long-term contracts and agreements in place, with TV networks, players, unions, concessionaires, owners, etc, and these contracts do not give the NFL the ability to gracefully scale back their operations in the face of declining interest/revenues. It would be heartwarming to see the NFL lift the blackout rules and accept the resulting (temporarily) lower TV revenues, and to see the NFL owners agree to putting butts in the seats by offering true entertainment value, rather than by blackmailing the locals, and to see players agree to normalizing their salaries to match the new financial realities.

Lifting the blackout rules would certainly result in reduced revenues in the near-term, but it would, in my humble opinion, allow the NFL to preserve and expand their fan base, which would also preserve and expand their long-term financial success. Unfortunately all I expect from the NFL are higher ticket prices, another division realignment, more expansion teams, an 18 game season, the Super Bowl in March, and a butt-cam for the center.

All my rowdy friends are doing something else tonight.

Official NFL Blackout Rules

Glossary of Terms

• Franchised Market – television market (ADI or DMA) that has an NFL franchise (i.e. Buffalo, NY or Phoenix, AZ).
• Secondary Blackout Market – television market in the home territory (with station(s) having signal penetration to within 75 miles of the game site) of an NFL franchise that is subject to blackout restrictions.
• Early Game – Game with kickoff at 1:05 p.m. (Eastern Time).
• Late Game – Game with kickoff at 4:05 or 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time).

Blackout Policy

To ensure an NFL club’s ability to sell all of its game tickets, and to make televised games more attractive to viewers through the presence of sellout crowds, the following policy is observed by the NFL:

For a home game to be aired locally in the franchised market and in any secondary blackout market(s), the game must be sold out 72 hours in advance of kickoff. If the game is not a sellout by the 72 hour cutoff, both the home franchised market and the secondary markets of the carrying network will air an alternate game.

Number of Games in a Market

With regard to the number of NFL games seen in a particular market on a Sunday afternoon, there are three different situations.

1. An NFL franchised market (i.e. New York, Chicago, Dallas, etc.).

On a week when the NFL team (or teams) in a market is on the ROAD Sunday, Monday or Thursday night or Saturday afternoon, the market will receive three Sunday afternoon games… two telecasts by the network with the doubleheader week and one game by the network with the single game week. When an NFL team in the market is playing at HOME on Sunday afternoon, the market will receive two games… one game on FOX and one game on CBS, regardless of which network has the doubleheader week. Unless 1) the home team’s assigned telecaster that day (CBS or FOX) is also on the doubleheader network and 2) the game is sold out 72 hours in advance. Then the three games would be the home team’s and two other games in the remaining early or late window.

All other television markets (including secondary blackout markets). Network affiliates in these markets will receive three games on Sunday afternoon, two on the doubleheader network (one early and one late) and one game on the single game network (either early or late).

Selection of Games to be Telecast Regionally

By network contract, all team road games must be telecast back to that team’s home territory (franchised market and secondary blackout markets).

Other than the above requirement, the televising network is the sole selector of which game(s) will be aired in all markets.

• Leave a comment... (6)

There is a class of people whom I’ve come to refer to as “Socialopaths”. These people appear to have no empathy, compassion, or sense of right or wrong when it comes to dealing with others. The male Socialopath is more commonly known as a “prick”, while the female is more commonly known as a “selfish bitch”. These people go through life with an apparent sole focus on their own selfish needs and near complete disregard for everyone else. The Socialopath differs from the true sociopath merely as a matter of degree. Whereas a sociopath may see no distinction between disliking someone and killing them, a Socialopath usually stops short of killing or injuring someone, not because they don’t want to but because they know that the potential repercussions are too large.

A Socialopath:

• Rarely uses blinker when turning or changing lanes.
• Blathers loudly on cell phone regardless of surroundings (elevator, airplane cabin, movie theater, restaurant, public transportation, grocery store, etc.).
• Wants to know the price of everything.
• Blames others when things don’t go their way.
• Drives a BMW.
• Steps in front of others if there is any question who was in line first.
• Takes two parking spaces.
• Lets breast size impact love life (him).
• Lets diamond size impact love life (her).
• Smokes cigars (him AND her).
• Takes the handicapped spot (because nobody uses it and/or they’ll just be a couple of minutes).
• Never thinks twice about making others wait.
• Is bothered by children and pets.
• Isn’t bothered by cruelty to children and pets.
• Is only happy with the latest and greatest, even if they don’t really know the difference.
• Has zero sense of humor about themselves.
• Undertips when nobody will know, overtips when everybody will know.
• Eats sushi because it’s cool, but secretly despises it.
• Insinuates themselves onto the side that is winning.
• Grabs credit for things they really had nothing to do with.
• Passes blame for things they really had everything to do with.
• Respects lawyers (from an income and personality perspective).
• Sees spending time with family as an annoying chore.
• Does the right thing only out of fear of consequences.
• Collects (art-watches-baseball cards-wine-comic books-etc) not out of love but as an investment and/or as an affectation.
• Regularly plans and throws their own birthday party.
• Litters.
• Puts others in danger for their own selfish reasons (drives like a maniac, leaves kids in the car to run into the store, shoots off firecrackers, etc).

Driving Us Crazy

The key element in most of these is a complete lack of thought paid to other people. A more complex example involves a pharmacy that we regularly frequent that is in a free-standing building with its own parking lot. There are plenty of spaces all around for everyone. However, there is a certain class of person who presumes to pull up to the curb right by the door, hop out, and run in to do their shopping. Their car is obviously not in a parking space, and it has obviously reduced the available driving space from two lanes down to one, meaning that all the through traffic must now alternate and creep around this creep’s vehicle. It’s not necessarily causing a total blockage, but it is quite an annoying impediment.

I can only presume that these Socialopath drivers thinks that since people can manage to get by them then there’s nothing wrong with it. However, the problem with that “logic” is two-fold. First, the sheer ego of thinking that it’s okay to inconvenience all other shoppers for one’s own convenience demonstrates a complete lack of social morality. Secondly, if all shoppers decided to park for their own convenience then we would have anarchy. So this Socialopath presumes to flaunt the conventions of a workable society because they know that the rest of us will not follow suit, allowing them to take advantage of our more mature social skills.

This scenario is played out over and over again. At the pharmacy, at the grocery store, dropping off or picking up riders downtown (stopping in moving traffic lanes to let people in or out, oblivious to their outrageous impertinence and selfishness!), all so they don’t have to be inconvenienced to find a parking space or garage.
In fact, I think that driving is one of the primary areas where Socialopathy manifests itself. The participants are fairly anonymous, most of the players follow the rules, and nobody wants to crash their car even if they have the right of way. This is the perfect milieu for a Socialopath to demonstrate their complete selfishness and lack of empathy. Cutting people off, gunning through red lights, not letting people out of parking lots, pulling up past slow traffic in a different lane only to cut into the head of line (a Sneaky Pete, described more fully here), yapping on cell phones, ignoring school zones, etc, etc, etc, etc. Maddening.

Particularly maddening because there is little that can be done, and the Socialopaths know it. If someone cuts in front of the head of a line of traffic, most of us will not hunt them down and confront them. If we see a car taking two spots (usually some over-priced, Euro-trash car that they don’t want “dinged” by the hoi polloi), most of us will not “key” the car (although even I, who attempts to always be a gentleman, have been sorely tempted).

The Socialopathic Boss

The second most common manifestation of Socialopathy, after driving, is as an authority figure, usually a boss or manager of some kind. Socialopaths gravitate towards positions where they can manage others, as their egos do not allow them to think of themselves as workers, only as bosses. They are usually successful in becoming managers because they are driven by an absolutely compulsive need to be seen as being in charge, so they are willing to do anything and everything to move up the ladder, including sacrificing their personal lives in order to achieve power. For a company that is always trying to become more profitable, a driven Socialopath can appear to be the perfect employee, willing to do anything, no matter how morally questionable or just downright wrong, to prove their worth to the higher-ups and so move into a more powerful position.

The problem with this model, however, is that it is not sustainable. Oh, sure, a Socialopath can sometimes produce amazing results, in the short-term, but over time their entire construct falls apart because it is not based in any way on doing the right thing for the company, the customers, or the employees, and is solely based on doing whatever it takes to please the higher-ups and to move up. The Socialopathic Boss (SB) burns through employees like a marathon runner grabbing Gatorade…snatch it up, drain all the usefulness from it, then crumple the empty cup and cast it aside. At first this purging process can be defended as house-cleaning by the SB, telling the higher ups that he has to clear out the slackers and the deadwood in order to produce results.

But eventually the SB starts cutting into known good people, people who are known and respected in the organization, and this can cause the higher ups to take a second look what is going on. Usually at this same point the results being delivered by the Socialopathic boss start to level off or decline, as the people who work for him start to flee his servitude, and this definitely caused the higher-ups to take a closer look. Also at around this point the SB starts looking for a new job, either in another department or outside the company. The SB is usually smart enough to make the move before the whole house of cards can crumble, and so can trumpet his initial, short-term success and use it as leverage in moving to something new. The SB gets out just in time, then looks back on the mess he left behind and might even convince himself that it is failing simply because he’s gone now, instead of seeing that it was destined to fail from the start and all he did was flee like a rat from a sinking ship (that HE sank).

Some of These Apply to Me, But I’m NOT a Socialopath!

Yes, you are. Trust me. You may not have all the characteristics of a Socialopath, but it’s a sliding scale, and you’re definitely on it. And really, you know that you are, don’t you? All your life you’ve had people tell you all these same things, but you’ve always brushed them off as being the other person’s problem, right? And you never accepted the fact that the one common element in all of the belly-aching by these losers is…you. You and your behaviors. It can’t be that everybody else is wrong and that you’re right. The truth is that you are a Socialopath. And here’s a secret for you…having a distorted and unrealistic (to the positive side) view of one’s self is a key characteristic of a Socialopath.

Here’s an exercise for you to demonstrate in a very literal sense just what we’re talking about. For one week, just one week out of your selfish and self-centered life, obey all the traffic laws and also drive and park with consideration for others. Just one week. Don’t blast through yellow lights. Don’t cut people off. Don’t cut in the front of backed up traffic lanes. Signal for every turn and lane change. Let people out of parking lots and into traffic with a friendly wave. Drive no faster than 20MPH in school zones (not 25 or 27 or 28 or 29 MPH, because staying below 30 is NOT the same as driving 20), slow down to let people merge onto the freeway, don’t race the train to the crossing, always park in a designated parking spot, etc.

And what you will notice after a couple of days is just how infuriating it is to see how the few Socialopaths take advantage of the rest of us good folks to selfishly drive however they effing please with no concern or care for the safety of others or for the fact that we all also have just as much of a need to get where we’re going as quickly as we can, but that we don’t sacrifice the smooth operation of the machinery of society simply for our own selfishness.

And, trust me on this one, these same Socialopaths take this same uncaring, unthinking, unfeeling, unkind attitude into every other aspect of their lives. If you have any doubts about the right and/or friendly thing to do, do the thing that you least want to do, because as a Socialopath, that makes it the right thing. You are unable to assess yourself fairly, just as you are unable to comprehend that as a member of a society you must treat others fairly, too, even if there’s no upside for doing it and no downside if you don’t. Do it because it’s right. Follow the slogan of the name brand that I’m sure is on at least some of your possessions…Just Do It.

• Leave a comment... (0)

So, Michael Jackson has been found innocent of all charges in his most recent court fight. As this drama has unfolded it has all smelled very fishy to me. The family was just a bit too questionable, for example, and had a history of grifting and shady dealings. Witnesses kept flip-flopping on their stories. The mother was quite a freaky subject on the witness stand. It kind of felt like the prosecution was supposed to fail.

Hmmm. That sure has the ring of truth to it, doesn’t it?

I mean, why would the prosecution go after such a high-profile, and hitherto untouchable celebrity like Michael Jackson when they would have to build their case on such a shifty foundation? It seems ludicrous, in retrospect, as if the final outcome was pre-ordained by the very fabric of the prosecutions case, which was the accuser and his family.

Well, bear with me for a moment and open your mind to an alternate theory.

What if Michael Jackson and/or his people staged this entire thing, with the prosecutors being unwitting/unwilling pawns?

Think about it for a minute. Here is Michael Jackson, whom I think we can all say is an indisputable freak. However, he has never been successfully convicted of any kind of freaky crime. Yes, there are rumors that he has paid off past accusers to silence them. But why didn’t he just do that here? I mean, I think we can all stipulate that this family would have loved nothing more than to score a few quick million from MJ and slink off into the night to blow it all raising emus or something, right?

Why did he choose to stand and fight this time? Why did he decide to allow the sordid details of his freaky existence to be dragged out into the light, confirming to most of us just how bizarre he really is? Why not just pay these people off? I find it difficult to believe that they would not have taken a cash payment. Did MJ finally decide to stand up for himself against false accusations? Or did he do something else? Did he choose to damn all his accusers with the faint praise of his current accusers? Think about it for a minute.

Michael Jackson (or his talking heads) can now point to these accusers as unquestionable rip-off artists who brought false claims to the public. They can then easily spin this to defuse any future claimants, and to discharge the built up negative static electricity of previous claims.

“See, Mr. Jackson has been set upon by money-grubbing liars, just like we told you.”

I think that a distinct possibility is that Michael Jackson bided his time and finally picked an opponent he knew he could beat, in the hopes of quelling some of the negative publicity and preventing future accusers from coming forward, based on their fear of suffering the same fate as the current scumbag family.

Think of it as a team of oil rig fighters, who actually blow out the rig fires by exploding dynamite in the middle of the conflagration. Or think of a team fighting a forest fire, who set controlled containment fires to try to subdue and control the out-of-control wildfire. It’s not exactly intuitive to think that something so destructive can have a positive effect, but I think it’s certainly possible that this is exactly what happened in the current Michael Jackson trial.

• Leave a comment... (0)

I consider myself an impartial observer of politics, religion, and sports. I don’t stake my belief system on any particular political party, deity, or team. I also don’t believe that my beliefs are right and other beliefs are wrong, but I do believe that my beliefs are right for me. There are certain philosophies which I categorically reject (e.g. terrorism, straight-ticket voting, designated hitters), but for the most part I am tolerant of other’s beliefs and do not think they are idiots for not seeing things my way (even though many are).

And from my lofty perch of impartiality it appears that American’s views on politics, religion, and sports are morphing into one giant pep rally. People label themselves and then adopt the trappings of their self-imposed pigeonholing. One says, “I’m a Conservative, Catholic, Red Sox fan” and you can just visualize almost all aspects of that person. How they dress. What they say. Where they live. What they eat. Whom they vote for. Which news network they watch. Etc.

Another says, “I’m a Liberal, Unitarian, soccer fan” and you can, once again, grok the gestalt of this individual.

On the one hand, I applaud people for being able to so narrowly define their views. I see good and bad most places, and can usually see the merits of both sides of an argument, and so find myself in a perpetual state of re-evaluating my personal philosophies. It’s very confusing, often tiring, but ultimately invigorating. So on the other hand, I find it difficult to understand how people can adopt a canned set of views and then go through life without constantly questioning themselves.

The World Is Grey

I’ll give you an example of a hot-button topic: capital punishment. Now, from a philosophical perspective I am both for and against capital punishment. How, you say, can you be both? Well, first of all because I reject the polarized views espoused over this issue in America. I am for capital punishment because there are times when a crime is so heinous and the proof is so incontrovertible that nothing short of execution is a fitting punishment. However, I’m also against capital punishment because the fallible nature of humans means that sometimes innocent people are executed, which is unconscionable.

I’ll use two hypothetical examples to explain. In the first, picture a man who is so angry with the boss that recently fired him that he pockets a gun and drives to his bosses house to confront him. The boss ends up shot dead, but there are no witnesses. The fired man says that they exchanged angry words and he pulled the gun, but then changed his mind and tried to leave. He then goes on to say that at that point his former boss attacked him and tried to take the gun away, and in the ensuing struggle the gun went off accidentally, killing his former boss. In this instance I wholeheartedly disagree with the death penalty, as there is no proof of what happened. Yes, he was angry, took a gun, and confronted his ex-boss. But there really is no way to know what really happened.

In the second example, a man puts on a flack jacket, loads up his car with a couple of rifles and a lot of ammo, drives to a tall building, climbs up onto the roof and begins randomly shooting (and killing) people in the streets below. This goes on for an hour, until the police can locate and corner the man, who drops his rifle and puts up his hands in surrender. In this case he is clearly the shooter, clearly premeditated, no question of identity or motive, no possible forensic or legal tricks to allow him to wriggle out of the charges. In this case the man clearly should be put to death.

However, death penalty cases are rarely so clear cut. Hence my statement that I am both for and against it. The fact that people have turned this into a Liberal vs. Conservative issue oversimplifies the complexity of the problem.

Patella Twitching

Another example is the movement afoot to “reign in activist judges” by removing lifetime appointments and/or using some other methods to make judges accountable to “the American People”. However, the entire purpose of the judiciary system in America is exactly and precisely to have judges who are NOT able to pressured politically, and who are NOT required to answer to “the will of the American People”. That’s called “checks and balances”, if one were to remember one’s GRADE SCHOOL teachings. However, a large percentage of self-described “conservatives” are backing this movement, seemingly without a second thought to the fact that it completely destroys one of the great founding principals of our country.

There is also the example of a movement afoot to implement a new tax system, such as flat-tax, national sales tax, or value-added tax (VAT). There is a hue and cry from the self-described “liberals” that such a tax would be “regressive”, meaning it would punish the poor and middle class with an unfair burden of taxes. However, the current tax system is so Byzantine and opaque that only upper-income folks can actually work the system to their advantage, meaning that the rich are always able to find loopholes in the existing system that skew reality so that it has no relation to published tax tables. A national sales tax that exempted basic necessities (medicine, rent, utilities, unprepared food, etc) would be unavoidable by all, however, and would allow lower- and middle-income folks to survive with little taxation on the basic necessities of life. The wealthier folks, however, will blithely pay the sales tax on their luxury purchases, as will criminals (who don’t file tax returns, but do buy over-the-counter goods and services). So the “regressive” argument seems like nothing more than the beating of a partisan drum for no good reason.

Team Spirit

In fact, all of the pontificating, boasting, and arguing in America today seems to me to be melding into a strange type of “Team Spirit”, where people’s political and religious personas are shaped by the “team” they choose to support, rather than on what the person actually thinks and believes. I always root for my favorite sports teams, and think they’re going to win (be right), and always look for favorable signs and trends, and disparage the opposing teams, and complain about the officiating, and feel elation or pain with each win or loss, and never think to question my devotion to the team, because they’re my team, and I love my team and support them, even when they lose (are wrong).

But I do all that because sports is, ultimately, meaningless. It is simply a pastime, an enjoyable diversion from real life. But religion and politics are important. They are a part of real life. They deserve and require deep thought and evaluation. There is no dogma that is always right or always wrong, and choosing one side without contemplation is simply taking the easy way out. However, I think that the powers-that-be are going out of their way to foment partisanship instead of critical thinking, because it’s easier to get people excited about a catchy slogan and an appealing spokesperson than it is to get them to read, evaluate, and understand a position paper or plan for dealing with real problems. It’s also easier to get people excited by pointing out the failings of their opponents and then uniting supporters against a common enemy.

But, unfortunately, our common enemy is blind faith. Faith that the people who say the things we want to hear will actually end up doing the things we want them to do. Faith that the people leading the cheers actually have the greater good as their goal. Faith that people who tell us things we don’t like to hear are wrong rather than just the bearers of unpleasant, but accurate, truths.

So remember that breaking with the status quo of your selected flock does not equate to treason. If everyone simply accepted the pontifications of their figureheads we’d still have slavery, women wouldn’t be able to vote, and nobody would be able to drink. Not even at a baseball game, and that would be positively un-American…wouldn’t it?

• Leave a comment... (0)

Terry Schiavo passed away recently, 13 days after having her feeding tube removed. Depending on who you ask, one of the following is true:

Terry Schiavo has been in a persistent vegetative state for over a decade, and prior to her demise she expressed (on multiple occasions) her wish to never be kept alive as a vegetable.

-or-

Terry Schiavo has been suffering from an untreated bout of reduced consciousness that could have been treated if only her husband would have spent her settlement money on it.

However, if you track the timeline of this case and include the relevant public information, one thing becomes clear, and that is that nothing about this case is clear. As far as I can tell from the public record, every single doctor that has directly examined Terry Schiavo, including dispassionate, court-appointed doctors, have confirmed the medical diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. However, a handful of other doctors, some also dispassionate, have said the exact opposite, or at least indicated that her condition should be re-evaluated before a final diagnosis is made, basing their conclusions on the available medical records and videotapes.

Ah, Those Videotapes…

Family members have reported that Terry Schiavo responds to them, smiles, tracks movements with her eyes, and even tried to speak when her feeding tube was removed. The news networks have shown (ad infinitum) the same 2-3 minutes of videotape showing Terry’s mother kissing her and holding balloons in front of her, and Terry smiling and tracking the balloons with her eyes. When I first saw that videotape I was stunned that anyone could think she was vegetative. However, if you look deeper at all the available video evidence, what you find is that even though her parents have had decades to videotape her and show her being aware and interacting, that one video clip is the only one I can find in the public record. However, there are also significant other medical videotapes of her examinations, showing her making the same faces and eye movements, but not in response to any of the stimuli in the area.

Many of the talking head doctors on the news, as well as those that have examined Terry Schiavo, have stated that her smiling, head movements, and eye movements are simply involuntary reflexive reactions and are not based on external stimuli. There are videotapes (which have been shown on the news, but only rarely, as they are not “controversial”) showing doctors clapping in her ears, talking to her, stroking her cheeks, shining lights, moving colored objects, etc, while all the while Terry Schiavo sat there making smiles and grimaces and head movements, but not related to any of the attempts to get her attention. They appeared random. In fact, in the context where they movements were not related directly to anything, they appeared to be a bit spastic. Which is exactly what one would expect from someone in a persistent vegetative state.

So, the Inescapable Conclusion Is…

Based on all of this, one can conclude without one shred of doubt that none of us in the general public is in any position whatsoever to proclaim that we “know” that Terry Schiavo’s circumstance was handled in the “right” way or the “wrong” way. Oh, we can all very easily project our own preconceptions and dogma onto her plight. We can all relate to her horrific circumstance and simply “know” that she would want what we would want. I mean, what rational person would want:

To be kept artificially alive in a vegetative state, left to slowly wither and die, with virtually no hope of recovery.

– or –

To be murdered by an activist judicial system and cold-hearted “husband”, who presume to play God with the most precious gift of all…life.

One would have to be crazy to want that, wouldn’t they?

My Opinions Are…

I, like most everyone, have definite opinions about this case. One thing that I strive to do, however, is never to proclaim my opinions as facts or my beliefs as truths. Here are my beliefs and opinions regarding the Terry Schiavo issue:

• I believe that Terry Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state.
• I don’t believe that Terry Schiavo ever clearly indicated her wishes regarding life support in such a situation.
• I believe that Congress and the President acted extraordinarily irresponsibly in passing emergency legislation intended to impact this already-decided case.
• I believe that every activist, public figure, and politician, on both sides, who inserted themselves into this fight and politicized it with their own agenda is a scumbag.
• I don’t believe that anyone involved in this issue acted purely out of the desire to do right for Terry Schiavo, and I believe that both her parents and her husband in large part acted out of greed, spite, and their own agendas (or the agendas of the opportunistic snakes they allowed into their inner circle).
• I believe it would have been appropriate to have one more round of brain-function tests before the final decision was made, but think they would only have shown that her official diagnosis was correct.
• I believe that the right thing to do in this case was to stop prolonging the life of Terry Schiavo’s body.
• I don’t believe that starvation and dehydration are a compassionate way to end the life of a terminal patient, and I believe that we should strive to find a more merciful way to allow people to die with dignity.
• In my opinion, Michael Schiavo should have given Terry Schiavo’s body to her parents for the final arrangements.
• In my opinion, the Schindlers (Terry’s parents) went too far in turning the tragedy of their daughter’s condition into a three ring circus.
• In my opinion, anyone who claims to know the right way to have handled this situation is an idiot.
• In my opinion, our adversarial-based court systems are not the correct forum to decide issues such as these — we should move towards a system of medical panels or committees charged with the responsibility and authority to make these judgments, and we should remove lawyers and legal shenanigans from such a life-and-death matter.
• In my opinion, the only absolute good that will come out of this tragedy is a heightened awareness of this issue which will cause more people to clearly state their wishes if they are ever in a similar position.

My Final Wishes

I also think that if I were in a similar situation, I would not want my life prolonged in such a way. That is not an unequivocal statement, because this is a difficult issue and there are a lot of grey areas, even when it’s just me contemplating my own fate. I think that if I had a flat EEG I’d prefer to be allowed to die. I think that if I were in a coma, but with significant brain activity I’d prefer to be kept alive. If my condition was questionable, or didn’t quite match any of my predetermined wishes, I would prefer a panel of non-dogmatic, dispassionate medical experts to review my case. Ultimately, the basis for my personal wishes would be to be kept alive if there were a chance of recovery of consciousness and of the ability to think in abstractions and have a sense of humor. Also, by “chance of recovery” I mean not only based on the medical capabilities at the instant I am being evaluated, but also in light of potential treatments or breakthroughs that have a non-trivial chance of applying to my condition in the foreseeable future.

So, there you have it, as clearly as I can state it, my final wishes. I have agonized over how to express those wishes. I understand that the above paragraph does not clearly state what to do in all circumstances. As I wrote it I came to the realization that it would be virtually impossible for me to create an end-of-life decision matrix that I would be comfortable with. I don’t want my life prolonged if I can’t (and can never again) enjoy it. However, I don’t want my life ended too early if there is any chance that I can fight my way out of it, or that the medical community might one day soon be able to fix whatever is wrong with me. In fact, I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way I could be absolutely sure that my exact final wishes are carried out would be to somehow be available to review the facts of my own case at the time when it would be impossible for me to do so.

And so in the final analysis I find that it is difficult or impossible for me to leave a precise enough definition of my own wishes to handle all the possible medical eventualities that might befall me. And I am of sound mind and body, and I have thought deeply about it. I believe that this would be true for many, if not most, people. If one contemplates the complexities of actually putting one’s final wishes down in unequivocal words (to be used for you or against you after you have lost the ability to evaluate your own condition and express your wishes), one may find that this is a difficult or impossible task.

And if it is that difficult to codify one’s own wishes, how is it that so many of us seem to think we know what Terry Schiavo would have wanted, or what would have been best for her? In the text above I have expressed my opinions about her condition. However, I do not claim that I know best, and I certainly don’t claim that those who disagree with me are wrong simply because they disagree with me. I am ecstatic that I did not have to decide her fate, as that was a thankless task and a lose-lose proposition, and the decision-makers will never know if they decided correctly. They will never truly know what it was like inside the mind (if it existed) of Terry Schiavo during her last days. They will (rightly) always have doubt about their decision, as this case is the very definition of a judgment call.

And those of us (myself included) who watch from the wings and judge the judges and the husband and the parents should all be ashamed of ourselves, as we truly are in no position to judge. What we should all be doing is taking the tragedy of Terry Schiavo’s life and death and using it for the betterment of us all, as her case pointed out the terrible flaws and gaps in the way our medical and judicial systems handle issues involving the life and death of people who are unable to express their own wishes. In her case the system worked as best it could, but the vast grey areas left too much room for debate and dogmatism. The legacy of Terry Schiavo should be that her case was the catalyst in forcing America to face this hard issue and make the tough decisions necessary to prevent this type of media-circus, feeding-frenzy, bully-pulpit, snake-oil situation from ever occurring again.

• Leave a comment... (0)

If you read much of this site you may pick up on the fact that I am not pro-smoking (he understated). I was born in 1961, and in 1964 my mother quit smoking because I would not sit with her or let her hold me if she had a cigarette going. My father smoked for many more years, and finally quit by going through a program that consisted of making the rounds of a lung cancer hospice with the attending physicians, and attending the autopsies of the folks who died while you were there. He told me about a particular emaciated living skeleton of a man who sucked smoke through his tracheotomy tube. My dad attended his autopsy and said the man’s lungs looked like a couple of deflated black balloons stuffed with marbles. Too late though, as my dad died young from cancer anyway.

All my life, through my late teens, I was surrounded by people who smoked. My entire extended family had about 70% smokers, and family gatherings were a fog-shrouded stank-fest. Slowly but surely my relatives either quit or died, until now there are no smokers left. Also, starting in my teens I started refusing to socialize with people who smoked, due to the combination of the noxious fumes and the gut-wrenching pity I felt when I realized they were powerlessly trapped by their addiction and wished to quit, but could not. When I was a child, television commercials told me to smoke, and touted the various positive benefits of the different brands. Doctors and stars (like John Wayne) shilled for the tobacco companies.

Everything I Needed To Know About Smoking I Learned BEFORE Kindergarten

But even as a three year old I knew that tobacco was a disgusting and unhealthy habit, and must admit that to this day I think that *anybody* who tried to rationalize their smoking by saying they “didn’t know how bad it was” is full of baloney, as the human body tells you everything you need to know from puff one. But through a combination of mercenary marketing and peer pressure, successive generations each had a non-trivial percentage of its members enticed into the darkness of smoking. And, in the interest of full disclosure, if I am brutally honest with myself (and you), I find smoking to be a character flaw, not only then but particularly now.

Fortunately, I think we can all look around and see that it’s all over for smoking in America, except for the shouting. The places where it is acceptable to smoke in public are quickly shrinking, and we are now down to the last stand. Smokers have been forced into a strategic retreat until now the only places they can smoke are outdoors, in bars and clubs, and in the few remaining restaurant smoking sections. But that is not enough. Smoking is a scourge, a plague, and 50 years from now our descendents will scarcely believe our stupidity.

Even the tobacco companies know that it’s over, at least in the US, and are following strategies of attempting to increase consumption in third-world nations and/or to diversify their interests. A prime example is Phillip Morris, who bought Kraft Foods (yes, the cheese people) and then tried to change their name to “Altria” to hide the fact that they are death mongers who are trying to look legit. I actually cannot believe that anyone continues to work at tobacco companies, given what we know in this day and age. I sincerely hope that the tobacco companies are crushed out of existence before they can diversify enough to survive without tobacco, and if there is any justice in the world the executives who continue to promote cigarettes today will be subject to their own version of Nuremberg.

Stop the Insanity

I also think it is time for the US government to do the right thing and begin to legislate tobacco out of existence. Right now, the government seems content to simply try to tax it out of existence, but I find that strategy to be hypocritical and somewhat diabolical. The government needs to draw a firm line in the sand that says tobacco is evil and unecessary, harmful and exploitative, and set a timeline to completely eliminate smoking in America.

And I think that the first step along that path should be the outlawing of all public smoking. Indoors, outdoors, anywhere accessible by the general public or anywhere that is a workplace…no smoking. Adults should also be prohibited from smoking in enclosed spaces where children are present, including in their own homes and cars, and should be charged with child abuse if they do so. Many, many municipalities in the US have already banned public smoking, and even some countries have done so (Scotland, Bhutan, Cuba…CUBA!!!).

The reasons for an all-out ban are plentiful. First and foremost, tobacco smoke is disgusting and unhealthy and should not be inflicted on innocent non-smokers who are simply trying to live. Also, smoking tobacco introduces no benefit to society that could counterbalance its downsides. For example, many industrial plants emit noxious and unhealthy fumes, as do automobiles. But factories and cars introduce tremendous benefits to society. Could we as a society do a better job of cleaning them up? Sure we could. But it would be calamitous to shut them down until they could be made cleaner. Elimating public tobacco smoking (and dipping, which has to be the most disgusting habit allowed in public), however, causes no detriment to society whatsoever.

Also, allowing public smoking implies tacit approval of the behavior. Every pathetic huddled mass of smokers that an adolescent has to stumble through reinforces to their impressionable minds that adults smoke everywhere all the time, from their perspective. Outside the mall, outside the school, outside their parent’s workplace, restaurant smoking sections (which, you may have noticed, are almost always where the restrooms are located…that’s because the owners hope the stench of human excrement will cover the stench of smoking, or vice versa…in any case it lets them use the same air cleaners to remove the sh*tty smell from the area), bowling alleys, golf courses, the beach, the park, the softball field, the local pool, etc, etc, etc. Everywhere. All the time. That sends an indelible message to kids, who, like everyone else, are much more likely to follow the examples they see than to heed any warnings they hear.

Kill the Weed by Pulling Up the Roots

Also important is the need to put the tobacco companies on notice that it’s all over for them. Currently big tobacco is beating a strategic retreat, paying for placements of images of casual smoking in public media (movies, magazines, etc), while at the same time paying lip service to trying to stop kids from smoking. Talk about getting smoke blown up one’s skirt. They know that cigarettes will never be as ubiquitous in the US as they once were, but I’m sure they hold out hope of maintaining a core market. It is time for them to be disabused of that notion. And a ban on all public smoking will certainly send that unequivocal message.

Another reason to ban all public smoking is to give restaurant and bar owners the clout they need to enforce no-smoking policies without the need to enforce martial law over their patrons. Today, if one wishes to have a completely non-smoking restaurant or bar, one has several problems. First and foremost is that people who are addicted to nicotine are much more likely to also be compulsive drinkers, so if one attempted to enforce a no-smoking ban in an area where one’s competitors did not, ones best customers (addictive compulsives) would just head down the road where they could smoke AND drink.

Also, if a bar attempted to enforce a no-smoking policy, or even just a no-smoking night, this introduces severe logistical issues. The first is that no matter how much you promote it, the majority of your patrons are not going to know about the smoking ban. This means they will come to your establishment expecting to be able to smoke, if they are so inclined. Many may choose not to patronize your establishment, but others will be with groups or have other reasons to stay. Many, many of these will then attempt to sneak cigarettes, either by cupping it or smoking in the restroom. This means that you will have to have your staff enforce the no-smoking policy. Having been in the restaurant business myself, I can tell you that there are few people less reasonable than a drunken nicotine addict who is being denied his or her fix. These events often quickly escalate into shouting, pushing, and shoving matches, with bouncers needing to be involved resulting in disturbance for most of the patrons as well as bruised egos for the pathetic, drunken nicotine addicts.

However, if there is an all-out ban on smoking, the bar can simply call the cops and/or throw you out as if you were an underage drinker or if you were trying to snort lines of coke off the back of the toilet. There would be absolutely no way for you to claim ignorance, and the club can rightfully protest that their hands are tied. Also, they can do this freely and easily while knowing that you won’t simply take your business down the road, because the place down the road has to follow the same laws that they do.

The Greater Good

And now we come to the reason that causes the most debate. Public smoking should be outlawed for the good of the individual smokers. I can hear the howls now, about how it’s none of the government’s business what you do..blah..blah..blah. However, it is the business of government to do exactly that. It is the business of government to serve the greater good. The government tells us what to do and what not to do every day. I’ll give you a hypothetical situation. Picture the outdoor patio of an upscale restaurant. Now picture a man climbing up on his table, squatting down, releasing a trap-door in the back of his pants, and taking a dump in the middle of his table. The trap-door is engineered so that he is not exposing himself during this act. Once finished he cleans up, closes the trap-door, then sits back down the enjoy the rest of his meal. Meanwhile the stench of his excrement is wafting across the patio, turning the stomachs of those around him, and disgusting most people in the general area.

Smokers, you are no better than Mr. Trap Door. In fact, in my opinion, you are worse, because at least excrement is something natural and normal. Now, it’s ingrained in our race memory that we don’t sh*t where we eat, and for good reason, because it’s not healthy. Well, neither is your incinerated weed that you so callously blow my way on that same patio. Or movie line. Or park. Or parking lot. Or covered mall entryway. Or beach. Or golf course. Or jogging trail (yes, there’s a regular CIGAR SMOKER that infests our local running trail). Or skyscraper entrance. Or airport sidewalk.

The list goes on and on, even in this current age where I hear you smokers constantly whining about how you can’t smoke anywhere any more. From my perspective, you smoke EVERYWHERE. That’s right…EVERYWHERE I go I have to brace myself to wade through the stench of your foul, pathetic habit. As does my wife. As does my daughter. It is not right.

And it’s beyond the point of compromise or manners, as the smoking community has proven that they refuse to admit that their habit is disgusting and so have refused to voluntarily curtail it in public. So the time has come for governments and municipalities to step in and do the right thing.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Last time I checked, the words flustrated, acrosst, and nucular were not included in Webster’s English Dictionary… but perhaps I am mistaken. I’m not saying I’ve never made up a word, or used a word in the wrong context, but I certainly don’t converse using a pseudo-dictionary. The only person who can get away scotch free with that is George W. Bush. I do believe his version of the Declaration of Independence has the phrase ‘uninalienable rights’. Irregardless to what he may say, uninalienable is not a word.

Still, it amazes me to no end how politicians and other public figures can butcher the language so terribly. Didn’t they go to school? Um, hello? We covered basic grammar skills back in elementary school. Sorry to say, but if you haven’t yet grasped the basics of this whole grammar thing, an Ivy League school might not be the place for you, my friend. And when I say my friend, I mean George Bush.

I’m sure we just come off to be a bunch of unedumacated hillbillies to foreigners. If the President of the United States uses non-words during public speeches, we are headed for trouble.

Contrary to popular belief, Saddam is not Bush’s biggest foe… that would be grammar. Subject/verb agreement is right up there with Weapons of Mass Production (Quote: Washington D.C., November 27, 2002). But as Bush says, “Education belongs to everybody. High standards belongs to everybody.”

But enough with the Bushisms for now. Lets talk about adults. Well, not so much adults, but just society on the whole. Who in this country is responsible for proofreading billboards and other advertisements? Whoever it is… they deserve to be pink slipped. Anyone who lets a billboard for Ikea advertise with “Come check out our stool samples!” should consider a new vocation. Or, my personal favorite, the warnings that say “Sharp, keep out of children.” Not that I don’t condone the keeping out of children part… although it is humerous to think of. But certainly, yes, keep sharp objects both out of their reach… and out of them, for everyone’s sake.

Personally, I find it embarassing and humerous all at the same time. I mean yes, it is disappointing that our President had to pay his way through college… but he does say some of the darndest things. Apparently to him, we just live in a processed world. Now, in my head, that registers as though we have all been pushed through a giant food processer, and are now all tiny slivers of our former selves… but I think he was aiming for some deeper meaning… but who knows with all of his malapropisms.

All I can say is that I feel pretty dern smart in this world. There is just no excuse for some of the things people in this world say and do. And, for once, I completely agree with George Dubya… “One year ago today, the time for excuse-making has come to an end,”… well, something to that effect.

• Leave a comment... (1)

Oscar 2006 Fashion Report!

Click here for the 2006 report!

Oscar 2005 Fashion Report Archive

Well, at least there was some color this year! There weren’t too many standouts – my favorite was probably Helen Mirren. She just looked utterly drop-dead gorgeous, no kidding – fun and elegant but unfussy. A close second was Catalina Sandino Moreno, who was the perfect mixture of classy and sexy with a white Roberto Cavalli and a long, sleek ponytail.

Likes:

• Beyoncé, for the two seconds she was wearing her “on the red carpet” dress looked great in black velvet — almost a disturbingly hourglass figure, but she looked very elegant — simple dress, big earrings, not-too-fussy hairstyle. I was sick of her by the end of the Oscar telecast, however – they should’ve gotten some other people to sing some of those songs.
• 
• Helen Mirren looked fabulous — sexy, eclectic, elegant, put-together, and utterly beautiful. Bravo.
• Virginia Madsen looked very elegant in navy blue Versace — the dress wasn’t a knockout but her overall look with hair, makeup, and earrings was just breathtaking.

Great First Timers:

• Catalina Sandino Moreno, nominated for Maria Full of Grace. She looked flawless in a white Roberto Cavalli body-hugging gown with jewel-encrusted straps.
• Malaak Rock in a gorgeous Pamela Dennis dress in beige with black eyelash lace (although I’m hoping that the collar wasn’t fur).
• Emmy Rossum, who could easily be the new Julia Roberts, looked classicly gorgeous in a red satin Ralph Lauren with some beautiful Harry Winston rubies.(Although hopefully Emmy and Sandra Oh didn’t stand next to each other at any of the after parties, as Emmy’s and Sandra’s Michael Kors dresses looked nearly identical):

Undecideds or so-so’s:

• Loved the color of Kate Winslet’s almost-sapphire dress, but the cut and decoration weren’t my faves. Overall she’s gorgeous, though.
• Scarlett Johansenn’s fuzzy blond, bejeweled hair and oddly gathered black dress.

Not a Big Fan:

• Laura Linney’s dress was ordinary and bland, but she did outstand in one area: her hairstyle was spectacularly unflattering.
• Cate Blanchett’s too-pale yellow silk chiffon with a wow-this-does-not-match burgundy belt. She’s so beautiful, I wish she’d choose brighter colors, like the deep crimson satin at last year’s Oscars.
• Similarly, Penelope Cruz’s too-pale Oscar de la Renta yellow-with-an-ugly-1987-prom-dress butt bow and train.
• Hilary Swank’s navy blue Guy LaRoche dress — the backless part was okay but the swathed front left a little too little to the imagination for my tastes.
• Clive Owen’s velvet tie.

Yucks:

• Like I even have to say it — Johnny Depp’s freaky blue tuxedo jacket. (Editor’s note, 3/6/2005: I saw in People magazine that the collar pin, not very distinguishable on TV, was actually a Hunter S. Thompson gonzo pin worn in memoriam. Okay, that was kinda classy.)
• Rene Zellweger’s emaciated Mrs. Claus outfit.
• Mario and Melvin van Peebles’ bowler hats.

The Red Carpet Coverage:

Ugh. First off — they kept saying it was commercial free and it was FULL of commercials, at least the first hour. Kathy Griffin and Star Jones start out the coverage by ask each other who they’re wearing. Kathy Griffin is pretty engaging but they didn’t use her at all! I guess maybe she said some things that were too shocking at the Golden Globes or Grammys? She’s funny but she was just stuck up in “The Tower” and was relegated to just making comments and not being able to actually interact with anyone.

So that left Star Jones Reynolds, who is somewhat beyond irritating. Oh, and Star Jones I SWEAR TO GOD wore Payless shoes with her Richard Tyler dress (because, of course, she is a paid spokesperson for Payless with her own line of shoes). Y’know what, lady? Who cares. Pimpy stunts like that just make you look tacky. I can understand why you got so much grief about all the sponsorship for your wedding.

More Kathy!! Bring her out more and I won’t even miss Melissa and Joan!

• Leave a comment... (0)