Well, There's Your Problem

From capitalism to communism, liberalism to conservatism, there are plenty of -isms to blame for all of life's woes. Here's one you are probably familiar with, but don't know it yet: mine-ism. It isn't a political ideology, but people are loyal to it. It isn't a theological ideology, but people reverence it. Mineism takes the worst bits of all of the other -isms and rolls them up into one nasty bit of personality deficiency.
Capitalism lends the desire to succeed and accomplish and gain more. Capitalism provides the freedom for people (who put forth the required effort) to succeed. When it gets out of hand, capitalism can become a hot-bed for greed. Greed is the downside and greed is what capitalism shares with mineism. What can I get? That is the mineist's question. Actually it's more like "What can I get?" and "Give it to me now." I think give it to me now is the motto of the mineist.
Communism lends the need to pull other people down. In communism, it isn't enough for you to work hard, you need to make sure that everyone around you is working just as hard. There are no rewards for those who are willing to put in extra effort, only punishment because their work isn't rewarded. Mineism has the attitude that no one else is as good as you so they don't deserve what they have, and instead you deserve it because you are you. After all, who could be better than you? Self is supreme. So take that piece of communism that says no one deserves more than you and add it to that "Give it to me now" mentality.
Liberalism lends entitlement. You have a right to housing, food, education, nutrition, automobile safety, a job, etc, etc, etc. You are entitled to everything, says liberalism. You needn't work for it or put forth any effort. This is the bad side of it. It is good to support other people and for all of us to take care of one another, but it is not right when it comes as a mandate from the state. Social programs and entitlement programs are essentially state mandated care for others. It takes the ownness off of the individual and puts it on the collective. When you take responsibility away from the individual you hurt their ability to be self-reliant; you destroy their ability to be independent. Mineism thrives on entitlement.
Conservatism is harder to pinpoint the bad side because it is where my bias lies. To me conservatism is what society now calls "traditional values." To me it is faith in God and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (also the originally planned word "possessions"). Of course there are no perfect -ism generalizations, so I'm not saying that all non-conservatives are god-less and don't support the basic inalienable rights factored into the founding of the United States of America. I am saying that this is the way I view conservatism and as it is the politically related label that I would apply to myself, if I were to apply any, so I am less likely to look for and notice the bad aspects of it. But they are there. I guess it isn't harder to find, I'm just less likely to see it right away. Enough of that, here's the mineism-conservatism connection: close mindedness.
Conservatism gets a reputation of close mindedness partly because some people labeled this way are very dedicated to their beliefs which they have put a lot of work and thought into developing, and the other part is because some people are just close minded. Again, I don't think being close minded is a monopoly held by conservatism, but I do think that it is the biggest downside of the -ism. Mineism is completely close minded. Mineists don't care what you think or what might be better. To a mineist, if they think it or they want to do it, it is the best way. Take your empirical research, science and testimony based on personal experience and throw it out to sea. The mineist knows whats best (for everyone).
Mineism is the worst -ism of all. We are all mineists to some degree. "Mine" is a dangerous word, with and without the word "land" attached to the front of it. With it, well, you get the idea, but without it it can be just as explosive and fatal. Other than our ability to be agents for ourselves in making moment-by-moment choices, what can we really say is our own? What really is mine other than agency? Even the power of agency has been given to me by God, so while I exercise it, it wouldn't be mine without His gifting it to me, so is it fully mine? I guess it is, but the resultant consequences aren't fully mine, if I accept Jesus Christ and allow his atonement to cover me (for an explanation of what I mean here, leave a question in the comment section).
To me, the sum of all of this is that we have to do as John F. Kennedy suggested and ask what we can do for our country. But not just our country, also our family, our friends and everyone else we see. It is good to work hard and acquire items that make life livable and comfortable. It is good to seek to improve the lives of all people around us. It is good to be understanding of people and their individual situations. It is not good to seek gain for pride, or to push people down to make ourselves feel higher, or to ignore the needs of others in pursuit of our own interests, or to take away someone's independence and give them everything for nothing.
I don't fully know what mineism is. I had the idea tonight and I've tried to brainstorm a definition in the typing of this post. There is something plaguing society today, and at the very rootiest rooty root (I can't type seriously for very long without having to throw in some bit of nonsense) of it is pride. Pride is the easy culprit, to which humility is the easy antidote. Though not easy in doing, only easy in defining. It seems too broad to be able to generate a solution for it, but since pride is the root, and pride is an individual issue, maybe it is the best target to aim for.
What do you think?

The Last of the Red Leaf-hicans

Fall is having a midlife crisis. About a month into it and just under two months until it is officially over. In the picture, as you can see, at least, I assume if you can read this you can see the picture, I hope that's not overly presumptuous, if it is, so be it. That sentence got hijacked by my tangent. I'll just resume it as though none of this happened. The red leaves picture here are the last ones in the area. I saw them hanging solo and decided to get a picture. Then I noticed the tree across the creek that is full of bright yellow leaves. I think it turned out to be a pretty solid picture. I like the greyish-blue appearance of the water in the midground with the red in the fore and the yellow in the back. Primary colors, right? Dig it.
Now for something entirely different. A few days ago I was chatting with Bugsy. We got on the topic of movie content ratings and decency standards on television. I guess that's what we were talking about. We talked about how smoking used to be cool in movies and on TV, and now they are thinking about making smoking a reason for a restricted (R) rating for movies. If you have too much smoking in your movie it will be rated R. Then Bugsy suggested that they'll have to start blurring cigarettes when they play those movies on TV. I think that is a funny concept, but with these nut jobs out there it seems plausible. Think about it. Every year the content on TV seems to be getting "edgier" and more risque than the year before. People are wearing less and less clothing and using more and more abrasive language. So I see this change coming to movies on TV. The blurred spots will leave naked bodies and occur over a lit cigarette. Then rather than bleeping swears they'll start bleeping the word cigarette. I guess it depends on what you see as the more dangerous image, people smoking or people naked. I have a solution.
My solution is this: specialized television channels. When you order cable or satellite you pick out specific channels you want. No more of these package deals with 6 versions of the home shopping network and 4 different CSPANs. In this way, you can control what types of shows are being brought into your home without impeding the entertainment desires other people. I think the best case scenario would be when the worst stuff on TV just wasn't being made, but realistically, I don't see that happening. Rather than censorship, just change the way the product is obtained. ESPN is strictly sports and CNN is strictly news; CSPAN is strictly boring and MTV is strictly idiotic. They can then make channels that are strictly high decency standards and ones that are low decency standards. You might be thinking, "well, don't they already have that?" Have you watched the channels that are supposed to be targeted towards children and families? The ABC Family channels plays a lot of stuff I wouldn't watch with my family.
Maybe this solution is terrible. The home shopping channels probably think it is. Who would ever request those channels specifically? Three people. That's probably it. I suppose that is why they get grouped into the package deals. Well, tough luck. Why should people have to pay for 70 channels when they only watch 6 of them? So 5 dozen or so channels go off the air? No one else has jobs these days, so they can just join the crowd. I don't mean that, I'm just typing things. Correction, I was just typing things.

Where is the Line Between Flattering Imitation and Legal Plagiarism?

Some movies are remade after a few decades to bring a story to a new generation. Some of these movies are successful. Others ought never have been made. One of these remakes was the 1997 made-for-TV version of the 1957 classic 12 Angry Men. I have not seen the remake, so I guess I can't slam it too much (not that lack of knowledge has ever stopped me from expressing opinion before), but I am a fan of the original film version. The original movie was nearly perfect, so I don't see any reason for it to have been remade. It seems to me that it is just an attempt at profiting from old success. 12 Angry Men tells a timeless story of integrity and humanity. How can you improve on perfection? Well, I can't think of any other movie remakes that weren't necessary except for Miracle on 34th Street, Annie and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (you know what I'm talking about, I don't remember the exact names of the Gene Wilder and Johnny Depp versions). Each of these movies were sufficient in their original states. This is a pretty subjective topic though. And a case could be made that the newer Chocolate Factory with Depp as Wonka is more accurate based on the book, which I haven't read, but I'm going to stick with my preference for the Wilder version. Anyhow, flattering imitation or legal plagiarism?
This process also shows up in television when a popular series is turned into a movie. This line of thinking has nothing to do with my original intent behind this posting, I'm just using it as a segue to mention something. I thought McHale's Navy was a remake of a movie, but it is a movie version of an old TV show. So I had to change the subject slightly so I could say that anything with Tom Arnold is unnecessary. That being said, we return to the intended topic.
I am a romantic. Whatever that means (according to the second definition of the word romantic at dictionary.reference.com it is to be fanciful and impractical). I like the movie You've Got Mail. I think it is a nice story. I don't know how relatable it is to me; I'm not a rich bookstore owner like Tom Hanks' character, nor am I an out of work former little bookstore owner woman like Meg Ryan's character. Regardless of being able to directly relate to the characters, I like the story. I only learned recently that it is a remake of the movie The Shop Around the Corner. If you are familiar with Got Mail you will know that Ryan's store is called The Shop Around the Corner. Now that name makes sense. I finally watched the original movie last night. I like it.
Jimmy Stewart played Tom Hanks (use your imagination, you'll follow what I'm saying) and Margaret Sullavan played Meg Ryan in the 1940 film. The story had some subtle differences. Strike that. The two stories had some subtle similarities, but most of the details were entirely different. Could you watch one and then the other and not realize they were the same story? Of course not, but you can watch one and then the other and not feel like you just watched the same movie twice. Both are good, but The Shop Around the Corner is probably a little better.
I would say that in the battle of Hanks/Ryan vs. Stewart/Sullavan, the verdict is flattering imitation. Whereas with 12 Angry Men, the verdict is legal plagiarism. Since this is my blog, I am not going to give evidence for either declaration. I've grown tired of typing at the moment.

Farming...The Wizard of Oz...Halloween

I was just wondering, is it still a scarecrow if it scares me? Does it become a scareman at that point?

Forbes' 2010 Most Powerful Women List

First of all, this is a stupid list. Most pop-culture lists are stupid. That's not fair. The lists aren't stupid, they are just unnecessary. As is most stuff, like this blog, but don't stop reading now, you might find something entertaining.
A few months ago I wrote about the Forbes.com list about best colleges or something, read it here. I'm not familiar with Forbes and their lists, other than that I read the college one (only so I could later ridicule it) and I happened upon an article about the new most powerful women in the world! list. The article is from the Daily Caller, and they explain the insanity quite well. I recommend clicking on that hyperlink and reading about it yourself. All I want to say is that a list of this nature with Lady Gaga in the top ten is unreal. She wore a dress made out of steaks to an award show. She is powerful? Powerful in what way? Like Pavlov? I don't get it. The list should have been made up of 50 mothers who put their children and families first. Mothers who shape the lives of their children and give their kids the best shot at being well adjusted and successful in life are the powerful ones. Not pop-singers with personality disorders.
I had something else on my mind to share, but I've forgotten what it was. This will have to suffice for tonight. NO. I remember, I wanted to call out Forbes for making shoddy lists. Hey Forbes! You make lousy lists these days. You should get better at it, whoever you are. I don't even know what Forbes is or who they represent. Now that will have to suffice.

But Who Will Critique the Critics?

If you read only one of my blog posts during all of today, make this the one, it is critical. Everyday there are food critics who make a living on television shows. Some go to restaurants, some make the food in their own television-studio kitchens. I like these shows. They are entertaining, for sure, but the hosts are committing crimes against language. My favorite TV food folks are Adam Richman, Alton Brown, Guy Fieri and Giada De Laurentiis. I like their shows, but they are all guilty of these criminal colloquialisms.
I imagine it isn't easy to conduct a television program based on food reports. We aren't able to smell or taste the food for ourselves, as the audience, so the host assumes the responsibility of describing those sensations for us. Here lies the problem; there are only so many words to describe taste and smell. Delicious and scrumptious are nice, but they can't be used for every type of dish, nor can they really relate the particular flavor signatures. These TV personalities, in the interest of having something else to say, make up absurd adjectives, but it isn't even that they are absurd (I just wanted to use alliteration again), it's more that they are repetitious. Well, some are plain absurd, I give you "The meltiness of the cheese." The repetitious ones include "The nuttiness of the nuts," "The hotness of the jalapenos," and "The meatiness of the steak."
I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, if you've ever watched any of those shows. I don't mean to harsh on these people, I like to watch the shows, but sometimes I just find the words they use laughable. I laugh at it. And sometimes it annoys me.
Perhaps there isn't any better way to describe potatoes than by saying "the starchiness," or salted meats than by saying "the saltiness," or lettuce than by saying"the crispness." Maybe it is just the crankiness of me.

New Gap Logo Uproar: Are People Really This Stupid?

Apparently Gap decided to change their logo and not tell anyone. Okay. Now all the people talking on the Internet are feeling left out, or something. The buzz is that Gap made the change and didn't give sufficient warning to the public, also, the change was too dramatic and quick. I'm really not sure about the need for public warning, this wasn't a fire drill, they changed the way they write their name on their clothing labels. Why is that anyone's business but their own? I just don't get it. What I do get is that the change was extremely drastic and fast. There wasn't any working up to the change. I don't know if I'm allowed to post the logo here, copyright stuff or whatever, but I'm not trying to "dis" on the Gap, so I'm just going to run with it, here are the logos:

I am borrowing this image from here, it shows the new one on the left and the old one on the right, but you probably already knew that. When looking at them side by side, all I can say is wow. What a difference. Seriously (not). I can't believe how brash the Gap is with this change, didn't they think about the children...the children who loved the old logo and depended on it as a rock of stability in this uncertain time we live in?! O, Gap! Your new logo looks like a high school graphic design class assignment! (I've never bought from you before, but) I'll never buy from you again! You spurned my loyalty (is what I might say if I was as insane as all of the people who are offended by this change, and if I had ever been loyalty to them before, there's that to consider, too)! I can never trust you again. If I buy a pair of pants from you, how can I be sure that tomorrow they will not be all different, like, have another different presentation of your name on the label. Your clothing, which is the real product, hasn't changed a bit, but the appearance of the name on the label, which will remain hidden inside the waist line, has changed, albeit only slightly. And you never consulted me. Didn't you know I'm entitled?
Well, my friends, what you have just read is an example of satire. The human folly I have derided with my wit (I just defined the word satire, based on the definition given by the American Heritage® Dictionary) is that of the people all over the web who have complained about the Gap logo. I don't see how it falls to anyone to complain about a business changing their logo. I'd understand if their product was changed, but I don't see how it is. If you do, let me know. I guess none of it really matters because after a few days of criticism, Gap folded under the pressure and reverted to the original logo. Which leads me to the real meat of this posting: CONSPIRACY THEORY!
Gap is smarter than everyone who complained about this change. Why didn't they tell you about it? Why didn't they do sufficient focus group marketing research? Because this was the marketing campaign! They used you, chump! Gap was broke (just like the old Black Power Ranger actor, Zach Taylor, who I just saw on a banking commercial) so they decided to stir up some business-by-controversy (a trick they learned from the government, zing!) and made some stupid looking logo during a lunch break, plastered it on the web and the whole thing was done in five minutes, for no cost. They left the rest to you. Do you realize how much free advertising Gap just got? To sum it up: Gap was broke, they made a small change to their website, people with nothing better to be concerned with and who like to complain lit up the web forums and comment boxes with criticism, Gap "gave in" to popular consent and now Gap has a boost in store visits because they fixed their mistake and followed the voice of the people.
Okay, I don't know if my conspiracy theory plays out. But if this was planned, it was a genius bit of marketing. My final thought is directed to the haters of the short-lived new Gap logo, that thought is this: YOU GOT PUNKED!

Fun With Microsoft Paint

A long time ago, maybe a year or more, I decided to become an animator (the drawing kind, not the spooky type that tries to revive life, or is that a re-animator?). I don't have any fancy software, knowledge or ability, but I have patience with long and boring tasks. I understand the concept of animation, as I have had some stickman flipbook cartoon drawing experience in my past. During middle school, Chris and I were avid drawlers (the l in that is not a typo) of stickmans (the pluralization of the individual term also not a typo), this was specifically true in Reading with Mrs. Santowasso and English with Ms. Cianci. Anyhow, those cartoons we made back then were on the edges of the paperback novels we were reading in the classes. It was my first experience with cartooning, and taught me that apparent motion was possible with still pictures. Years later, and now years ago, I'd learn more completely about apparent motion and how the visual system works with turning still images into moving ones. I'm so wordy, all I wanted to say was that I made a cartoon using Microsoft Paint to draw the frames and then Windows Movie Maker to put them into a slideshow and create motion.
I can't find my first cartoon, so I can't post that, but I have my second cartoon:
(music: The Gang's All Here by the Dropkick Murphy's)

Unemployed is a State of Mind

Last week I decided to make an official declaration in the revolution: I am no longer unemployed. I don't have a job, exactly, but I am not unemployed. I am constantly employed by various activities. Unemployment in the job market is a problem, as it means people aren't able to financially support their families, but no one should ever be wholly unemployed. There is always work to do. Being unemployed is a choice that needs to be made by the person being unemployed. I've been unemployed financially for a few months, and I've decided that I'm not going to be anymore. If that doesn't make any sense, don't worry, this won't either.
In order to reconcile my unemployment, I've decided to call myself a writer. If people ask what I do for work, I will reply that I am a writer. Technically speaking, I am a writer, but so are you, anyone who knows how to draw symbols for the purpose of communication is a writer. Purposefully speaking I am also a writer, because I write things, like this blog. Financially speaking is the way of speaking which I need to incorporate into my being a writer.
I am trying to get the financial aspect incorporated through a web page called Helium. I've spent a week participating in the Helium community and I have earned 19 cents. Not a living, by far, but it is a start. The program works with your participation in two tasks: writing articles and rating articles. It is a community operated business, a co-op. All of the people associated with Helium write articles, on thousands of titles across hundreds of topics. Some of the writers are professionals, some are enthusiasts, and I imagine many are like me, nobodies. I don't have any specialty, I am not an expert on anything, yet I am writing articles that are used to answer peoples questions when they do a web-search. I suppose. I think that's how it works. All I know is that I can write articles about anything I can think of, and if those articles are good enough, I get a few pennies for them every month representing revenue sharing with the web site. For me, it is an enjoyable hobby. I don't expect to be able to earn a living with Helium, but getting paid to write is one of the career choices I had around the age of 12, and to see it come to completion now, even for a simple 19 pennies, is fulfilling.

Character Commentary: Charles Brown

In Small Town, USA, that's in Status-Quo County, there resides an odd looking child named Charles Brown, Charlie for short (using that word loosely, as Charles and Charlie feature the same amount of letters and syllables). This boy wears a yellow shirt, possibly a collar-less polo shirt, or non-buttoning Hawaiian style, but most likely a frock. There is one black stripe around the shirt just above navel level. The stripe on the shirt is jagged, not unlike the line on an EKG meter. His dog is constantly upstaging him; making Charles appear more hopeless than he actually is. Even with a solid set of friends, he still mopes around quite often. His most frequent expression, other than "AAARRRGGGHHHH!" is "Good grief." Here I stop to wonder. What is good grief? Isn't 'badness' implied by grief? If there is good grief, is there bad grief? Think about that tonight while you are sipping on your hot apple cider, I will be.

Treasure Hunting Never Gets Old

As I was out cutting some weeds and tree branches today to clean up the perimeter of the yard some more, I took a break to look for gold. Seriously. I'm not trying to write some cutesy piece of fiction, I really went to look for gold. There is a creek that runs alongside our yard. Technically it is a brook, at least that's what it says on the topographic map for this area, but I still call it a creek. There hasn't been a great history of finding gold in VT, but there has been some gold found. To my knowledge, there hasn't been any gold found in or around my yard. Yet.
A few days ago I saw a show on the History channel about the California Gold Rush. They explained the process of gold traveling down a river and being deposited on the inside banks of curves in the river. I don't remember if they said why, but the gold is found among black sand. They used some great computer generated imagery to illustrate. It was helpful in making me think I know how to find gold.
I remember as a kid I always had hopes of finding treasure. I've never lost that interest, but I have accepted the reality that I probably never will find treasure. Wouldn't it be great to find a huge chest full of crowns, scepters, goblets, rings, coins and assorted jewels? Yes, yes it would. But that's unrealistic, so I just go looking for gold nuggets in the creek that runs alongside my yard in Vermont.
No success today however. I did not find any gold. That might be because it was cold and I didn't want to touch the water. I'm sure the gold is there. I'll get it eventually. As I gave up the search for today, I came across a license plate lying among the weeds and leaves and stuff. Though rusted so that no paint is visible, you don't need paint to read the imprinted lettering of the plate. It is a Vermont registration tag from 1942. I'd rather have the gold, but this was pretty neat to find as well. There is a lot of rusting metal on the slope from the yard down to the creek. I wondered how long it had been there, now with the discovery of the license plate I have an idea.
So, uh, that's what I did today. What did you do?

Fast Food and Mental Health

Probably not what you are thinking from the title, but last night I went to Burger King and picked up "A QuickGuideTM to Depression" sponsored by http://www.myquickguides.com/. I was headed to an appointment, and was going to be unrealistically early, so I decided to stop for some food, but settled on Burger King instead (ZING!). The young fellow working the counter was very friendly. I was pleased with his customer service. As I was waiting for my food bag (just trying to make this report as classy as possible) I noticed a small display with about a dozen little pamphlets about various health issues. Some were about cancer, heart disease, quitting smoking; however, the one that caught my attention was the one about depression. As a student of psychology I find it interesting to see how mental health is treated in our society. From the drug commercials on television to the way that mental illness is portrayed in shows and movies, they don't always get it right.

I didn't have high expectations for the information provided by the Burger King counter pamphlet, but it was simple, provided a disclaimer and cited a valid reference for it's information. I thought it was good that the recommendation is to talk to a doctor, unfortunately, some doctors are quick to prescribe medicine without an accurate diagnosis. But, being that depression is real, going to see any legitimate doctor is a good idea. Psychologists are best, however, because they have the specific training and are better schooled in the current research, at least in comparison to psychiatrists and certainly more than a family physician, generally speaking.

Come On, Shoes!

I have spent the majority of the last 8 hours sitting at this table. I'd say dining room table, but I don't know that this area of the house where we have the table we dine on can really be classified as a room. It's more of a "way" than a "room." Perhaps a "space." I've been sitting at the dining space table all day. What have I been doing? Retying my shoes. Seriously, I've retied each shoe twice while sitting here. I can't even begin to understand how a shoe unties itself while on a foot that is just hanging around under a table while the owner of that foot types on a computer. If it was one retie I wouldn't give it any thought. Even if it was two reties on one shoe I might just dismiss it as an anomaly specific to the shoe, but two reties on each shoe? That's unreal. Especially since I always double-knot my shoes and I never have to retie my shoes while I'm out and about. But, an epiphany, the running round that would logically seem more likely to disengage a shoelace knot probably enacts forces on the laces which secure the knot, rather than loosen it. Those forces are not being applied in the same way as my feet rest restlessly under the table. Or maybe the dog keeps sneaking over and untying my sneakers.

One other thing, last night I was thinking about how people always complain about being at the end of their rope. I don't know why they complain, I was at the end of my rope and I found a kickin' tire swing.

Quote of the Day

The whole point of getting things done is knowing what to leave undone. - Oswald Chambers

I don't get it. That might come as a surprise to some of you, but I don't get a lot of abstract quotes. I don't know what makes a saying quotable. I assume it has to do with universal generalizability of the wisdom being shared, but then quotes like this one sneak by. The "point of getting things done," meaning, the end result of doing things, "is knowing what to leave undone." Why would I do things just for the sake of knowing what not to do? It plain doesn't make sense. I do things to get them done, not to know what not to do. I didn't go to school to learn what I didn't learn, I went to learn what I did learn. What do you think this quote means? Let me know. I'm lost on it.

Watch Out for Cats

A few weeks back my friend Bugsy was telling me about a pond nearby that is man-made and stocked with some fish. Apparently, putting fish in a water-filled hole in your backyard attracts heron. The heron that have come scoping out this new fish pond are from the other side of the tracks, or clouds, whatever the bad type of birds are on the other side of. These birds murder fish. The pond owners started finding their fish dead, stabbed right through. I'm not sure if they saw the birds doing it or not, but that's the story being relayed (I apologize for not checking my facts on this story, but given the possible danger, I think it best that I keep myself under the radar. You might wonder if it is good for me to be blogging about it then, but don't worry, birds don't read blogs). So the fish are dead. The birds are killing the fish and not eating them. This means that birds are murderers.
At this point in the story that Bugsy was giving me, I wondered out loud, "I thought humans were the only animals that murdered." We laughed and that was that. But then it wasn't that. It became a serious discussion about murderous animals. It seems on first consideration that animals typically only kill when they need to defend themselves or their young, or when they want to eat something. Humans kill for those reasons, but some, possibly defective ones, kill for other reasons, such as anger or injured pride. Based on the brain structure of animals, when compared to humans, it doesn't seem like they have injured pride, or even pride at all (have you ever seen them eat? or not wear clothes? no pride). So animals should only kill for "legitimate" reasons, right? Why are these birds killing fish then? It makes no sense. Especially since I've never seen heron around here before, they must be taking a long flight to get here, and then they just kill the fish and leave them lying around. Horrible. Anyway, we tried to come up with other animals that killed for more than just food or defense. Cats.
Cats will kill squirrels, birds, rodents, anything small and weak, like themselves. Then they will take the corpses and put them on your doorstep, kitchen table or bed. They almost seem like they are showing off. You might think, that's pride, cats kill out of pride, but I suggest that they don't kill out of pride, they kill for the pride. Cats have instincts to kill and eat. Domestication hasn't taken that out of them completely yet. The killing drive remains in tact in cats. Here's the catch, they don't need to kill because they are fed by their loving owners. Why kill and eat a nasty mouse when you have gnarly smelling cardboard cold cereal stuff? Exactly. Cats are well fed, but they feel the need to kill, so they do. They are programmed to kill and bring food back to their pride, their family, so that's why they put the dead mouse on your bed. You are their family. Cats and humans are the only animals that kill for the thrill, but really only humans, because cats are just doing what genetics tells them to do. That should suffice.
Given this overwhelming collection of facts (not facts) lets return to the fish-stabbing heron. If they don't have pride issues like humans, they must be being fed somewhere else, and therefore are not hungry, but feel the need to kill, like cats. It's gotta be one or the other, right? The real question now is this, where are the heron being fed? This is the investigation that I need to do. If I don't return, avenge my death.

Swivel Sweeper G2

I was thinking about doing a separate blog to do reviews and advertising through a place called blogadvertisingstore.com. I signed up for their program, but it doesn't seem to be working. Anyway, I created a separate blog and did this review as practice, but now I've decided to delete that page and just put reviews on here if I end up doing them. Why make it more complicated than I already do? And I'm not an advertiser, I'm a court jester. Well, here's a product review wrapped up in an anecdote. I hope you enjoy.
One morning I turned the TV on before ever getting out of bed. I saw an infomercial for this product, the Swivel Sweeper G2. It looked too good to be true. This little cordless vacuum was weaving effortlessly under and around furniture and picking up everything in its path. Nuts and bolts were no problem for the SSG2. Spilled cereal? Forget about it! This thing grabs it all. And emptying the dirt trap, well, let me tell you, simple as pie. I was enamored by the claims of the spokespeople. Perhaps it was the fact that I was hardly awake, or maybe the bright color of the sweeper along with the gentle hum of its motor hypnotized me, either way, I went to the website and ordered the product. I think what tipped the scales in favor of me making the purchase was the 2 for 1 deal at the end of the commercial. 4-quad-brush technology is good, but is it $40 good? It doesn't matter because I could have 2 x 4-quad-brush technology for the price of 1 x 4-quad-brush technology. That seems like an awfully inefficient way to say it, yet it has been said, no take backs now, unlike the 60-day money back guarantee (minus fees for shipping and processing) of the SSG2. I am now the owner of the SSG2, and I have used it. There are two questions that I wanted to answer with my purchase: does it do what the advertisements claim it does? does it do it well? I will first explain why I thought the product would be beneficial to me. My family has a dog, a black lab, a big guy with lots of hair that he leaves all over the floor, everywhere. I also have an autistic brother who tends to shred paper and advertising circulars that come in the mail. It is not uncommon to find the floor around the dining table covered with inch deep shredded paper strips. One last area of the house was on my mind when contemplating this product, the hallway just inside the back door. Jasper (the dog) uses that door to go in and out, with our help of course, he doesn't have hands. We also use that door to go in and out. Grass clippings get tracked in as the grass in the yard comes right up to the back step, there isn't any patio or deck buffer zone. So for a few days after the lawn is mowed there usually accumulates a good amount of grass clippings just inside the door. You might be asking why I can't just use a broom for these issues, why do I need a special little vacuum? Hang on to that question. The SSG2 arrived and I assembled it quickly with the included instructions, it was a basic task. I read through the user guide and charged the battery as directed. The next day I tried the product out. I was both pleased and displeased with it. Does it do what it claims? Sure, but does it do it well? I suppose. Is it worth the money, I say yes, if you get the 2 for 1 deal. I would part with $20 for the unit, but not $40.
Pros:
-works on hard floors and carpet
-picks up hair very well
-can pick up nuts and bolts
-swivels with the best of them, I'm talking moves like Fred Astaire
-maintains charge sufficiently long for going over floors
-light weight and easy to use
Cons:
-hair and strings get wrapped around the spinning brushes like nobody's business
-while it doesn't blow things around like a standard broom it does kick up a lot of dust
-can't pick up heavy flat things like pennies, I don't know if you'd want to, but if it can grab a bolt I think it ought to grab a penny
-it doesn't have enough power to pull things out of carpet fibers very well
What it comes down to is that the SSG2 can have a place in your cleaning arsenal. In my case, it won't replace a standard broom because it can't pick up shredded paper. It won't replace a standard vacuum because it doesn't have as much power on the carpets. I've never used a Swiffer Sweeper, but I assume that these two are going to be similar in function. The SSG2 gets points because it doesn't have a one-use pad that needs to be changed every time you want to sweep, but it loses those same points because of the film of dust and dirt that is covering it after you run it for a few minutes. Crumbs, pet hair and dust will get sucked up by the SSG2, and they are all easily disposed of with the pop-open trap door on the bottom. But with the amount of dust covering the unit after use I can only imagine how much more is going up my nose. Perhaps the Swiffer-types with their employment of static will send less particulates into the air, but they won't be able to pick up as much stuff without needing to replace the pad. All in all, I don't think the product is worth $40, nor do I think it adequately replaces a standard broom and vacuum. I like it for picking up dog hair, but I could do the same job with a hard floor vacuum, probably more efficiently. Too bad I didn't read my own review before I bought it, I might not have bought it. Interesting.