A Few Things I Heard on the Television

Television provides entertainment and education, but not all of the time. Once in a while, such as every single day, TV also provides idiocy. More and more each day it seems. Here are a few examples:

I was watching the news on Thursday morning, it so happened that it was also Thanksgiving. The parade hadn't begun yet, so I had the news on while waiting. The commentators were talking about the politicians they didn't like, or thought were failures. This is how they presented it, "In the Spirit of Thanksgiving, here are the top political turkeys of 2010." So, the Spirit of Thanksgiving is name calling? I could understand if it was gluttony, selfishness or consumerism, but name calling? I just don't see it.

I love toothpaste/toothbrush advertising. Just kidding, but I do like some of them. I think they overstate things just a bit. If you've been reading my blog from the beginning you might be familiar with a post I did regarding mouth cleaning back in March of this year (Sticking it to Tooth Decay, Cool Mint Style). This week brought another instance of entertaining advertising.

Isoactive Whitening Aquafresh is the product, a line from the commercial says "50% of cavities form between teeth." Immediately upon hearing this I thought about where the other 50% of cavities might appear. I came up with not in between teeth. Cavities can form between teeth or not between teeth. There are two options for where cavities can form on teeth. If they don't form in one place, they'll form in the other. A 50% chance that if they are not between teeth, they will be between teeth. Good enough.

Michael Jackson (I've typed about him before as well) had some great songs. He is as good as, better than or worse than many other musical artists. Now there is a Wii video game featuring his dancing and music. The tag line of the game is "His moves unite us, his game will electrify the world." Michael Jackson: The Experience is out in stores now. So enjoy the unity that his dancing has brought about and go get that game that will electrify the entire world. I'm thinking that anything I could say at this point would be redundant. You know, because the actual facts about this game are laughable without any humorous commentary.

Finally, last Saturday night I was fighting the urge to sleep and trying desperately to find something worth watching on the Television. It was a losing effort. Luckily I happened across a Christian talk show of some kind. The host was talking with the creator of a cartoon series that recounts the popular stories of the Bible. Just like any talk show with a person promoting their movie or series, this one showed clips from the show and the guy talked about it. He drove the point home that the stories were staying true to the text of the Bible. He said that they did the best they could to limit dialogue to actual words in the Bible. Adding only where necessary to keep the story flowing for the purpose of the cartoon.

They showed clips and he talked about the importance of staying true to the Bible. I don't know why I had stopped to watch this, and I didn't know why I continued to watch it, but then he said something that I am very happy to have heard. The man said something along the lines of "Our emphasis is on accuracy. We've kept it true to the Bible, and of course there's a robot and two kids in all of the stories." In the beginning there was Adam, Eve, a rotund robot, a young boy with an electric guitar and a girl with pig-tails. Yeah, that's exactly how I remember reading it. Accurate to a fault, Superbook, accurate to a fault.

There you have it. A few things I heard on the television recently that make me lose faith in human kind. We can do better than this. I know we can. Well, maybe not all of us.

A Few Facebook Statuses and My Responses

My brother coined our type of humor as conversational comedy. We don't make jokes or write sketches, we just respond to things we hear and incite laughter. You dig? We are both able to come up with funny things from scratch, but many of our jokes are responses to something someone else said. And not all of it is insulting to the person who said it. Some is. But that's irrelevant. You're right, that is an elephant. If you don't watch the Marx Brothers let me invite you to begin doing so now. Well, here are a few Facebook statuses from the news feed today, with my responses.

This first status comes from my BFF, Muffin Man:

"I believe in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. I believe it is possible — I saw this guy do it once in Cirque du Soleil. It was magical"

Here is what I had to say about it (this status isn't from today, it was yesterday, I commented on it before work and then again after work):

"I believe that in so doing you will fall on your bottom and possibly sprain something. I cite the following as evidence: I once thought it would be a good idea to jump-kick two kickball's at the same time. I have two feet so I ought to be able to kick two things at once, right? I dropped the kickball's, jumped and attempted to kick them - I don't remember if I did or not as this was about the time I realized I was parallel to the ground in a cartoon style pause-in-mid-air-and-defy-gravity moment before I fell on my bottom and jammed both of my wrists in my bodies futile attempt to save itself. Both wrists hurt for about a month. All I'm saying is that unless you really are magical, as the Cirque du Soleil folks are, be careful about pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.

"As I have had the day to think this over, I suppose that if you are able to exercise restraint and only pull one bootstrap up at a time you will be able to succeed. But watch where you put that boot after you pull it up. If you aren't careful you'll put it right back into whatever you are pulling it out of."

Here is status number two. I don't know the author, I only saw it on my news feed because Muffin Man liked it. The author's name follows the status:

"Has anyone else noticed that the Biggest Loser has a better track record of creating marriages than the Bachelor?" - D. M. Peters

And what I think about that:

It just goes to show you that money can't buy you love, and that looks are the most important thing in a relationship.

This is the time when I realize that what seemed like fodder for an interesting/humorous blog post really isn't. I will post one more status that I like, but I don't have anything to say about:

"You know it's probably time to turn on the heat when you can see your breath in the living room." - C. Sweet (one of my BFF's from days gone by, middle school to be exact)

All I have to say to that is that I agree.

This has been another failed/mediocre attempt at humor, brought to you by Ajax the Whimsical Revolutionary.

Happy Thanksgiving, Charlie Brown (and everyone else)!

Check Your Science at the Door

The creator of the phrase "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me!" needs to check their science.

Honestly, can't names do real damage? I think so. It is unethical, but you could try it out for yourself. Just find someone you interact with regularly and start calling them jerk all the time. It won't take long before you see the effect. I strongly recommend you take my word for it. Don't try this at home, it is dangerous. This is why I suggest the following alternative to the school-yard saying.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names may upset the chemical balances in my brain, thereby altering my emotions, cognition, and behavior." - Ajax

I'd go on about Becker's Labeling Theory, but I just don't have the writing spirit right now. Just know that deviance results from a label. A name. If you are called something you become that something. Meaning that names are powerful and can hurt you. It also suggests that names can uplift a person. And if we are going in that direction then we also have to allow that sticks and stones can not only break bones, but build houses. Sticks could also be used to splint the very bones they have broken. This is getting out of control.

I will recap: Sticks and stones may break your bones, but sticks might help them heal later, and furthermore, sticks and/or stones might be used to build a shelter in order to protect further damage from being done to your bones. Names will never hurt you, if they are kind and supportive names, which inspire a person to become something new and better. Names will hurt you if they are given in a mean-spirit. People react to how they are treated, unconsciously even, so they don't even have to decide to be hurt by names for those names to hurt them.

Well, it's not perfect, but I could revise it some time and then all of the kids could start reciting it on the playground. Actually, I think it is well-meaning, if ill-informed, parents who keep the "sticks and stones" saying alive. Those parents ought to read this post and change the world. I'll go eat something now. Cheers!

Tony Danza: He's Still Got It!

I just woke up. Prior to waking up I had been dreaming. In this dream I was watching Tony Danza do a stand-up comedy routine, so-called because he was standing up while he delivered the routine. Here's what he said:

Do you want to know why the world ends? I'll tell you. Human one-upmanship escalation. No, really, it's no joke. You know how you have a group of people talking and one person has done this or that and there is a constant attempt to top whatever the last person said? One-upmanship. Well, one day there will be someone in this group and they are going to come up with the ultimate topper, they'll say, "Yeah, well my day was so bad, I woke up and everyone else was dead!"

That was the joke that Tony Danza said in my dream. It seemed pretty brilliant, not so much funny, but brilliant, while I was asleep. Then I was awake and remembered it, and realized this is why Who's the Boss? was cancelled. Zing! It was a dream, I don't know.

Science: The Great "Distractor"

I have nothing against science so far as it is the empirical gathering of evidence in attempts to better understand the world around us. I do take issue with science becoming a "distractor" from living life. I suppose it is just my personal bias that makes me think this way. I just feel like there is a tendency for some people to focus so much on what science says that they miss the purpose for life. They spend their lives worrying about asteroids they see on telescopes millions of miles from the earth, or melting ice. These things may be real dangers, but is there really anything we can do about them?

In regards to global climate change, I personally don't believe the people are big enough to destroy the planet. It might be possible, but I don't believe it. I think that God created this planet for a specific purpose, which is to give his children (all people) experience, and that purpose won't be defeated by people. Part of our experience is to learn and make decisions and act as agents according to our own will. It is this freedom to act that makes me leery of saying it is impossible for us to destroy the earth. I don't think it will ever happen, but if we have complete freedom to act then we must have some ability to do it. I do think there is a degree of arrogance in thinking that we are going to destroy the planet because of our actions.

However, we are responsible for the earth. If we act recklessly and waste things ungratefully then we will destroy ourselves, but not in the way of climate control. We are stewards of the planet. Animals included. Other people included. We need to look at why we are alive and how we fit in with the environment, animals and other people. We do have the power to destroy, but we also have the power to build and encourage.

Don't be distracted by the stuff. I know I need to make some changes. There is a lot of focus on 2012 and whether or not ancient prophecies about the end of the world are accurate. I don't know. It might be. I'm not going to focus on it, but I think that perhaps 2012 can have an amazing impact on the lives of everyone on the planet. If we choose for it to be. Rather than focus on the doomsday theories, we can all look at our lives and make the necessary adjustments. 2012 could be life changing for the global population. Hopefully it will be for the better. It starts with each of us individually.

Does Fiction Have to Be Fake?

I decided to write a bit of "fiction" for Helium.com.end of sentence. Think about that a bit, I think you'll figure out what I'm going for. I've been writing articles and stuff for Helium.com for almost two months now. I enjoy the whole operation they have going on over there. I'm writing, which I love, and earning money, which I hate, but see as a vital necessity of life these days. I'm not earning a sustainable income, but it is just nice to get something. So far I have mostly uploaded my songs to the creative writing channel.
Writing for Helium.com is different from writing for this blog. They want professionalism and fact for their articles. I want exploring thought and humor for my blog. As you are well aware if you are a regular reader of my posts, or if you read the first sentence of this one, that I do not follow form or rule when it comes to blog writing. I type in the manner of speaking, or more in the manner of thinking, to be accurate. Blogging allows me to think in type. Article writing on Helium.com requires me to work a bit and do more than just relate what I'm thinking about. Which I think is good for me. It helps me really think about a topic. I also sometimes do some research, so it expands my understanding of various topics. Each forum is different, but those differences help to make me a better overall writer. I hope.
Anyway, I came across the title Flash Fiction: The First Kiss while rating articles and decided to submit an entry to it myself. Much of art is just reflecting real life, so I thought I'd just share an actual experience and call it fiction. Sometimes I think that my real life isn't as interesting as the stories I see and read in movies and books are. After writing this short story, and remembering the experience, I no longer think that way.

Packaged Deals

Sometimes you just have to take the bad along with the good. This is evident in variety bags of candy. Recently I purchased a hefty amount of discount candy, following Halloween. It is great to have a good sized box of candy on hand. As I eat away at the candy, I notice that there seems to be less and less of the Snickers and Life Saver Gummies, and more and more of the Milk Duds and Jolly Ranchers. I don’t know if the Duds and Ranchers were represented more proportionately than the other candies were, but I know they are now. The Duds are good, but too chewy. The Ranchers are tasty, but too hard. As I look at the candy box now I wonder if these two types were thrown into the variety bags to get them to sell. I didn’t purchase either of them intentionally; they were just part of a collection of something else that I wanted.
Do candy companies make candy that no one wants? Is it possible that these less desirable types were thrown into bags with more desirable types just to get them out of the warehouse? Could there be a more egocentric approach to candy distribution? The answer to all three questions is no. The point is that this is what I thought of when I was looking at the box of candy with all of the little yellow boxes and thin colorful wrappers. For no other reason than that I simply don’t like them as much, I thought the Milk Duds and Jolly Ranchers were disliked by everyone. Does this have any relevance? Of course not, candy is candy. Discrimination regarding candy is perfectly alright.
If I used my candy frame of mind as my people frame of mind then you can see where problems might arise. And if you can see it, then share it with me, because as I think back over this example I’m trying to figure out what I mean. I don’t mean that if I see a large population of people I think that they are disliked and the manufacturer is simply trying to move his product. I don’t mean that at all, but that’s what I seemed to be implying by my statement of comparison. Originally I was only going to comment on how I thought that less favored candy was paired with more favored candy to get rid of it. But then my interest in society crept in and I started making connections. It just so happens that in this case the connection failed. Now, on with the show.
Packaged deals can either be a win/win for the customer or a win/win for the manufacturer. In either case, when it is win/win for one it is probably a win/lose for the other. For instance, Conan O’Brien is doing a contest of some sort. I saw a commercial for it (see www.teamcoco.com for more information). In this contest he is giving away 20 pine tree shaped car air fresheners. But that’s not all! He is also coupling a new car with the scented dangly tree. It’s a package deal. Win/win for the winner, as they get two good products. Win/lose for the sponsor as they give out a cheap thing and an expensive thing. In sales, only slightly different than giveaways, a package deal usually tries to couple a great thing to a not-so-great thing in order to make the not-so-great thing sell, or couple two not-so-great things together to make them seem less not-so-great.
If movies featuring The Rock aren’t selling, perhaps you couple them with movies featuring John Cena. Zing! I don’t actually have much experience to make such an accusation, but I know they are both TV wrestlers, so probably good targets. I actually like John Cena, from what I’ve seen of his non-wrestling work. I haven’t seen his wrestling work outside of the incessant commercials. Cena was on an episode of Psych and he was entertaining. Also, I’ve seen The Rock in some movie or another, and he’s an actor, as good as can be for also being a TV wrestler. I’m having trouble recalling his name. I could just look it up, but I choose not to. Again, I’m getting way off track, the point of this (poor) example is that when you have one mediocre movie, it might not sell well, but if you couple it with another mediocre movie and call it a deal then you’ll have a better chance of moving both. Win/win for the seller and win/lose for the consumer. You might think it would be lose/lose for the consumer, but they are getting two movies, usually for the price of one, so that’s really not so bad, even if the movies feature TV wrestlers in the lead roles.
Now that I’ve alienated the TV wrestling fans, here are some other packaged deals I thought of that couple bad stuff with good stuff: winter and cold, great power and great responsibility, and eating donuts and failing health. I’d like to suggest a new combination. How about coupling eating donuts with great power? It only makes sense since great responsibility and failing health are already couple together. Think about it. Fin.

Recipe for Humor: Literal and Out of Context

I don't think this title makes any sense. I guess you can just eat it then. I'll just give you a general idea, I'd say gist, but I never know how to spell gist. Actually I spelled it gyst and then searched for it and found that that is not at all what I mean. I also searched jist, which is urban slang for just, apparently. Finally I tried gist, which is the main point, and I have subsequently replaced my initial typing of gyst with the intended gist. Feel free to eat that as well, if you would like.

Once in a while people say things that if you give proper attention to you will see that they didn't give proper attention to what they said. I give you that sentence for proof. What? Man, people just don't think before they speak. But that's alright. It gives me something to take out of context, or make overly literal, and then laugh at.

Tonight I heard someone say that someone took a nasty fall. Now, given the context, I know that the fall was nasty, but I wonder, aren't all falls nasty? Can you ever fall and not be injured or embarrassed? Perhaps, it depends on your emotional and physical constitution, but I know I've ever fallen and then remarked on how pleasant it was. Saying it was a nasty fall isn't necessary. I'm not so sure anymore if this is an example of taking something out of context. Let's just say it is and then leave it at that.

This post seems to be falling apart as I type. I had an idea, but now as it fleshes out, maybe it wasn't exactly how I thought it was. Whatever that means. I'll just give you an example of how I think literal scrutiny can alter the message of words. The local news was reporting on a traffic accident. The anchor said "they" (whoever that is) don't think that speed or alcohol were factors in the accident. Okay, I'll allow that they can rule out alcohol so quickly, but really, you don't think speed was a factor? What happens in a traffic accident? Something hits something else. Some form of speed needs to be a factor. If neither of the objects which collide were moving, then they'd never collide. Speed, no matter how slow it can be measured, is a factor whenever two things collide. It is physics, or something.

Speaking of physics. I was splitting wood with some friends a week or so ago and we got a huge, knotted-up log stuck on the wedge. In case you are not familiar with the process of splitting wood with a hydraulic splitter, I recommend watching a documentary about it. This one gnarly log was totally jammed, fused even, onto the wedge. We pushed on it, kicked it and even threw other pieces of wood at it. We put another piece of wood on the slide and tried pushing it into the jammed log in an effort to force it through. No dice. No success either. You see that? I used a phrase that, taken literally, wouldn't have made any sense. Of course there weren't any dice. Maybe this post is going to turn out okay after all.

Back to the stuck piece of wood and physics. I had the brilliant idea that leverage would help put more force on the wood. I grabbed a longer and thinner branch; thinner than what we were splitting, it was probably still 4 inches thick. I used the branch as a ram and slammed it into the stuck piece of wood. One hit knocked it off. Before I had swung it, I told my comrades that physics was the answer. So when my plan was successful I threw down the branch, raised my arms triumphantly and jubilantly shouted "Physics!" I think it was the first, and it may likely be the last, time I have ever jubilantly shouted that word. I remember thinking about working that physics story into a post, but I don't think I ever did. Now that I have, I hope it was worth it. If I already have and you are aware of that, thank you for reading my blog so faithfully. Cheers.

Cruise Ship From Hell

I opened my Yahoo! Mail and was presented with this top headline:

Passengers await help on crippled cruise ship (AP)
AP - The nearly 4,500 passengers and crew of the Carnival Splendor
have no air conditioning or hot water. Running low on food, they have to eat
canned crab meat and Spam dropped in by helicopters. And for at least another 24
hours, they have no way out.

No way out? "Trapped" on a cruise ship in the Pacific ocean off the coast of Mexico. No air conditioning, as the article states, but the temperature is 62 degrees, Fahrenheit I assume, so do you really need air conditioning? The report didn't clarify between Fahrenheit and Celsius, so I'm assuming Fahrenheit, but if it is Celsius then I'll retract my criticism. 62 Celsius is 140 something Fahrenheit. That would be hot.

It is too bad that they don't have hot water, all they have is cold, running water. That's rough. Thankfully, the United States Navy has diverted an aircraft carrier to assist the cruise ship. They are bringing food to them. They are getting spam, canned crab, Pop-Tarts, and croissants. It's like camping in the living room of middle class America. Brutal.

Tug boats are currently huffing and puffing along, working to get the ship back to port. The passengers will then be bussed to California and then helped home from there. Unfortunately it is taking for-ev-er! to get that ship back to land. But they'll be safe, thanks to the escort of the U.S. Navy, the Mexican Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard. Safe from that cool ocean air and bright warm sun. Safe from errant shuttle board game pieces (I don't anything about the game).

I suppose the rescue process could be expedited if a general announcement were made to the people of Mexico. If Mexico is anything like the U.S., there are probably scores of people who would rush out to that big boat. Cold running water and plenty of safe food to eat? There are plenty of people in the world working all day to barely get that quality of life, and here these cruise people are suffering with it. It isn't fair to blame the passengers, I don't know their views on this subject. It could just be the cruise line publicists who are catastrophizing the event for the news reports, or perhaps it is the news reporters trying to make a story out of nothing. Whatever it is, I think it is ridiculous.

Just another example of the backwards priorities of the world at large. Prior to turning on the computer and finding this story I watched the Frank Capra film "You Can't Take it With You" (1938). The general message of the movie is to live life and trust in God. The blurb about the movie remarks on the eccentric family of Alice (Jean Arthur) and their interaction with her love interest Tony (Jimmy Stewart). Their eccentricities of doing what they enjoy, being with family, and not worrying about status clash with the straight-laced, upper class, status-focused parents of Tony. Alice's grandfather Mr. Vanderhof (Lionel Barrymore) says the phrase "you can't take it with you" when talking about the importance of living rather than acquiring a fortune. A movie with a message, how about that?

The contrast between the movie and the cruise ship story is fantastic. I love it. I only wish that in this case the movie had been real life and the real life had been the movie. Regardless of the fact that if real life were the way it was in the movie then I probably wouldn't be watching a movie about this cruise ship disaster.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Alive and Well

The 8th amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Sometimes the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to figure out how it applies to life in this country. The Supreme Court has never set forth a ruling regarding solitary confinement of prisoners relative to the 8th amendment. What could we possibly do to people that is more cruel than keeping them locked in an 8' by 10' room for 23 out of every 24 hours? Perhaps it is time for the high court to do something controversial that I might actually agree with. That sentence sounds very self-serving. And so it is. I think solitary confinement is the cruelest punishment, worse than death, and it ought to be eliminated from the corrections system. It represents the selfishness behind criminal justice.
Why do we have a criminal justice system? To protect the innocent, maintain order in society and rehabilitate offenders. At least that's what it's usually billed as. Unfortunately, I think the emphasis usually falls solely on the efforts of protecting society and punishing offenders. I believe in the law of consequence, so I'm not anti-punishment, but I do like the idea of not making it cruel or unusual. Of course, I don't really know what unusual means, and I could do without that part of it. I think there are some unusual punishments that are not necessarily cruel and might be rather effective. I digress. I think punishment is acceptable, if it is done appropriately with the correct intention. But I don't think that punishment should be the only focus of society. Why not help people improve their lives along the way?
Sure, it is easier said than done. You can't force someone to change their behavior. Not without seriously damaging their brains. People have to want to change. Someone with tendency towards crime has to want to stop being criminal before they can really stop the deviance. This is what makes involuntary incarceration necessary. Some people are penitent and wish to change, but are still incarcerated, involuntarily. There doesn't seem to be any way around incarceration. I think there are some crimes that shouldn't bring with them a sentence of prison, but that's for another discussion.
Solitary confinement is for the purpose of punishing convicts after they are already in prison. Solitary is the prison for the prison society. My primary concern with the prison system in general is that it tries to teach people to live in civilized society while placing them in a perverted version of society with all new folkways and mores. How do you teach someone to play basketball on a baseball diamond? I think it is difficult, at best, to rehabilitate or properly socialize a person in prison at all. Then when you take them out of all social contact and put them in a small room alone for 23 hours a day, forget about it. Everybody needs somebody. We are social by nature, when the ability to socialize is taken away, the individual suffers.
I like to spend time alone, but the thought of being in a small room all day without any contact with other people makes me feel claustrophobic. I can't imagine being locked up in solitary confinement. Of course, I can't imagine being locked up in prison. On the surface it seems like I'd rather leave the general population to have some respite in solitary confinement, but that is a very superficial thought. The situation would have to be really bad for me to want to leave a community and enter into solitary confinement, even if that community is the prison population.
People act how they are treated, more than we recognize or want to accept possibly. If we treat people like they are good for nothing but to be cast off, and that is exactly the message of solitary confinement, then those people might begin to act that way. Supporters of capital punishment (which I am not) and those who support the tough on crime movements probably have some questions for me. One question might be regarding how I think we ought to treat criminals. I don't think we should pat them on the back and say "you killed that guy really well, good job!" Not at all. I just think we ought to offer some options for a person to truly reform their behavior if they are willing to. You might ask "what's the point?" That is the question to answer. We all have to answer it for ourselves individually as well as collectively. What's the purpose of life? To lock up people who offend us so that they can never offend us again? Is it just so we can make our lives more comfortable? Yes, we all make our choices and reap the consequences, but what of forgiveness, mercy and compassion? Do we just write people off? Who do we write off, and when?
I watched a National Geographic documentary about solitary confinement, which is what got me thinking about this. The way our prisons are now aren't working. It isn't the fault of the correctional officers, administrators and support staff, or really any individuals in particular. Society as a whole is the problem. We are beyond a quick fix for the correctional institutions. The underlying problem lies in the socialization of everyone in this country. It is a big problem, and it needs solving. The answers are available, but we are all too proud and selfish to put them into practice. True story. We are all in this together. How do you feel about that? Let's do something about it.

Newest Social Networking Site: AmnesiaCapsule

People have been asking questions about the prudence of sharing your entire life over the Internet through social networking sites. For a while it seemed like it wasn't a good idea to be so careless with personal information and ridiculous pictures of yourself. Many have tried to take back control by deleting personal content or deactivating social networking accounts. You might be contemplating this option right now. Before you do, consider this message.
This is the story of Rudiger, a young man who was very much against social networking sites. He didn't want the world to know where he went to school, where he worked or when his birthday was. He didn't like the idea that random strangers across the globe could see pictures of him opening presents on his birthday, or see video of him playing Dance Dance Revolution. It wasn't important, he felt, to let everyone know what TV shows, products, and ideas (such as Not Being on Fire) that he liked or was a fan of. Rudiger was a private man and felt that these types of things were best shared in person with only close friends.
Rudiger never signed up with MySpace, and then the Facebook explosion happened and he sat through that without raising an eyebrow. Twitter came and went without so much as an acknowledging nod from Rudiger. Then, one Thursday afternoon, Rudiger was walking through the park and an errant baseball hit him in the head. When he awoke some hours later he had no recollection of who he was or what he liked to do. He didn't know who his friends were or if he even had any.
The doctors called for specialists and neurologists to help this man remember, but medical science couldn't help this time. As the doctors lamented over their failure to recover the young man's memory, a bright, 17-year-old volunteer from the local high school suggested finding the man's Facebook page. The doctors were astounded and demanded a laptop computer be brought to the man. Certainly they could find his social networking pages and then all of the important information would be readily available. Alas, poor Rudiger, in his stubborn desire to remain a private individual, hadn't any social networking affiliations. His affinity for meeting people with his exact name was lost. He no longer could remember which of his friends he associated with which Disney Princess. He wouldn't know when to adjust his clock for daylight savings because he didn't have an event reminder notification. It was lost. All of it was lost.
Don't let what happened to Rudiger happen to you. Sign up with as many social networking sites as you can. Fill in every box of information, accept every invitation. Play every game and add every application. These sites collectively serve as your amnesia capsule. In the event that you lose your memory, all you need to do is view these pages and you will remember exactly who you are. You will know that you like to take pictures of yourself in the mirror making kissy faces. Through the history of status updates you will know exactly what you were doing at certain points in time. You will know where you work, and quite possibly whether or not you like it. Most importantly, you will be connected with people you met once at a friend's house or someone you haven't spoken to in 15 years and they will be able to tell you all about yourself.
If you don't put all of this information into social networking sites, how will you ever recover from amnesia? Do it for yourself, but more importantly, do it for Rudiger.
[The preceding events were entirely make-believe and not founded in any sense of reality. Also, the views expressed therein do not accurately reflect the views of the author, this blog or any sensible human being. The words are intended to inspire thought and invoke laughter. You might call it satire, but you don't have to.]

My Favorite Sound

My favorite sound is palm muting on distorted electric guitar. You might not be familiar with this terminology, action or resulting sound. I will explain. On a guitar, there are strings. There are other parts of the guitar, such as the body, neck, head and bridge. The strings attach at the bridge, which is attached to the body, and then they run up the neck to the head. Tuning pegs on the head hold the other end of the strings and allow you to change the tension, thereby tuning the string's resonance to a specific frequency. I think I used those words appropriately, if I didn't, don't tell me, I can't handle criticism. Well, now that you have a perfect understanding of the parts and structure of a guitar, I will now teach you how to use the technique of palm muting.
We will pick up from the point where you are playing the guitar. If you can't get to that part on your own, well, I can't help you. So there you are, playing the guitar. The sound is up and the distortion is cranky. Whatever that is supposed to mean. Play a C chord. No, that's an F, move the finger structure up one string so that your ring finger is on the A3 fret, your middle finger is on the D2 fret and your pinky is on the R2 fret...HA HA! Just kidding! There isn't any R2 fret, but imagine if there were and you played it before you played the D2 fret. Do you dig it? Your pinky is actually on the B1 fret to round out the C chord, leave the G and e strings open. I use the lower class e to signify that it isn't the upper case E string.
With the proper chording of C, now place the pinky side edge of your palm on the strings, parallel to the bridge. You can either use a pick or the nail of your index finger to strum the keys. It is your preference. I typically use a pick. Using that pick, while keeping the edge of my palm on the strings lightly, strum the strings with only down strokes. This is palm muting. The sound is something like a crunch, steady and rhythmic. It enhances songs. Either as a slow building introduction to a song, or a transitional bridge, or an accompaniment during a verse. Oh, I can't explain it, and I don't think there are any pictures of palm muting, so I can't post one of those and give you 1,000 words worth of thinking. However, to quote fine arts illustrator Markus Hannonen, "A picture used to be worth a thousand words. New technology has knocked that down to a hundred and forty spaces." Which means that if I had a picture, it might not be any more explanatory than what I've typed so far. Thankfully I don't have Twitter. Enough said.
I will now link to a couple of music videos from YouTube featuring palm muting. Had I the time, software and desire I would splice together just the appropriate parts of these videos to give you a palm muting montage. Without that, I will simply type a few words to tell you where to listen for the palm muting. Enjoy.
Calling All Cars by Senses Fail Palm muting ensues from the very start. Also, this video highlights how ridiculous lip syncing looks in some music videos. I do enjoy the song, good band. Here are two other Senses Fail songs.
You're so Last Summer by Taking Back Sunday Again, palm muting leads into the song. And this song has some crafty palm muting as well.
All the Small Things by Blink 182 This song features palm muting during the verses as well as a build-up before the final chorus. Another good one from Blink 182, palm muting in the beginning.
Cool Kids by Screeching Weasel Palm muting through most of it, plus a homemade cartoon to accompany the song. Here's a palm muting gem.

A Few Things

Check this: Thoreau said something about being true to your friend, your work, yadda yadda and other stuff, but he missed the part about being true to your school. While I don't particularly care for being true to your school, I do like The Beach Boys, and they said to be true to your school. So when I read the quote from Thoreau I thought about being true to your school as well as that other stuff that the guy said. Enough about this.
I'm watching 30 Rock, streaming it through the Wii. Pretty rad. Well, I love 30 Rock. It is fantastic. They come up with some of the best one-liners ever. EVER! So many good ones that I can't seem to remember any right now, but believe me, they are there. Just watch an episode and you'll laugh. I will warn you that some of the content gets a little risque sometimes; I'd put it on par with Seinfeld, as far as content. Liz Lemon is great. I like when she says "What the what?!" or just plain "what?" I'll answer the question of "what?" The answer is: great show. When I watch I laugh out, loudly even, and sometimes I clap.
I was thinking today about a strange thing I saw recently. About a month and a half ago recently. I was driving with some friends and saw a squirrel lying on the roof of a car parked on the side of the road. It was pretty obvious that the squirrel was dead. I saw it as I passed and was able to discern all of this. At first I thought someone put a dead squirrel on a car. That would have been mean. The idea came to me as I drove away. I looked in the rear view mirror and noticed the power pole right next to the car. I deduced that the squirrel electrocuted itself on the power lines and then fell on top of the car. I apologize for not making this story more entertaining. I probably could have. Oh well. I liked how I figured out the COD of the deceased, the unconfirmed, strictly assumed, COD (COD is the acronym for cause of death, in case you didn't know).

What Are You Doing Here?

Whatever happened to service with a smile? I'll tell you, it has been replaced by service with a snarl. Not in every case, but enough to notice, you will see customer service representatives showering you with contempt or retailers patting you on the back with one hand and picking your pocket with the other. The snarl can be because they hate you or because they are pretending to smile. I don't think the intent is to serve customers anymore. The purpose of business these days is to get rich and gain the advantage over everyone in sight.
But what is the world worth? Suppose you gain it all? Power, money and fame. So what? I'm not even talking about keeping up with the Jones', we all know that that mentality is based in simple-minded selfish pride. Does that sound harsh? I hope it does, because competition over who has the most expensive or just plain "the most" stuff is childish. What my neighbor has, that I wish I had, is of no consequence to me. It serves no functionality to covet. When has coveting ever been good? No, this isn't about keeping up with the Jones', this is about a desire that comes from within the individual that just wants more stuff. I don't even know what to call it. Of course it reduces to pride, but it seems that there has to be some name for it. Selfishness doesn't seem severe enough, but I suppose it does fit the bill.
What does fame, power and possession do for a person? These give a sense of fulfillment, but it is fleeting, much like the way drugs give a fleeting high. Like a drug induced high, the sense of fulfillment that comes from fame, power and possession builds thresholds. Subsequent exposure requires more substance to present a similar high. This is why power corrupts. It provides feeling of accomplishment and fulfillment, but eventually you get used to it. Then you need more. Attention (fame) works the same way. Do you think it happens this way with possessions as well?
There seems to be a drive inside every person which directs their choices. The desired end result focuses the drive. There seems to be no limit to the variety of desired end results. For many the end result desired is found through religion. Others find it in basic service and humanity. Others look to a career. There are countless goals. This is where fame, power and possession come into play. Some people place supreme importance on the gather of these things and status markers. It is in regards to all of this that I ask the question, "What are you doing here?" What is your purpose? If you don't know what you are doing here, then how do you decide what to do? Without a goal we are hapless creatures existed on instinct alone. We are no better than any animal on the planet. I believe we have divine nature, that we are children of God. We are on a higher plane of existence than animals because of this relationship we share with God. I wouldn't say we are better, as they too are creations of God, but there is a different relationship, which holds greater responsibility and greater privilege, held by humans.
I can only say subjectively that every person has a greater end goal than fame, power and possession. It is an objective truth to me, but I have only subjective experience to support it. I offer that it can become an objective truth to anyone willing to ask the right questions in the right spirit to the right source. I think it is important that we ask these questions and find answers. If I don't know have an end goal then what am I living and working for? There has to be some purpose. I suggest that it is a collective purpose, possibly unrecognized by some, but still worked for, that keeps anarchy at bay. It isn't political government that maintains the peace, it is a collectively shared purpose that does so. Yet so many of us, some always and others occasionally, just drift through life without purpose or reason, never knowing which way to go. I'll be so bold as to say that every problem in this world is a result of this drifting. If we each had a purpose and valiantly stuck to the attainment of that purpose, and it was a good purpose, then all problems would diminish. Not disappear, but diminish. There would still be sickness and accident, death and debate, but it would all be bearable.
This is the way to fix everything. Each person honestly ponders what they are doing here. They give it time, years if necessary. They develop a purpose that is good and then they do all they can to achieve it. At the expense of fame, power and possession. There is something that is greater than all that man has ever thought up or put together with his hands. To find that and then dedicate every resource to it is the ultimate path of life. Every person will take an individual path, but that doesn't mean that every path is unique. We will all be rewarded with what we want the most. We show what we want the most by our actions coupled with the intent behind them. It is easy to fool others, it is even easy to fool ourselves. We might profess that we want to do one thing, but then behave contrary to it, and then reason that we have to do the one as a means to the end of the other. I don't think it is that convoluted. It is simple. Determine what we want, and then do those things that lead to it. Don't go left to go right, go right to go right. This message is as much to me as it might be to anyone else. What am I doing here, and for what purpose am I doing it?