Tuesday, January 24, 2012

FAR SIDE cartoonist actually pretty down-to-earth and realistic

One of my favorite comic strips of all time would have to be THE FAR SIDE.

The combination of surrealism, dry-and-wry humor, and the metaphorical parody of certain aspects of real-life situations work to hit the right "nerves" of one's psyche so as to produce both comic effect and a kind of enlightenment simultaneously.

I guess if all of the FAR SIDE strips were available on-line I'd probably download them onto the DOCUMENTS file of my computer.

However Gary Larson---the strips' creator/cartoonist---has repeatedly warned that he would sue for Copyright Infringment anyone who reproduces his works without his permission without financial compensation for use of his creations.

As you can guess a few folks in "cyberland" have slammed Larson for being "greedy" and such...
(...like, how can someone who's "cool" enough to come up with such witty stuff be so "stuffy" and "uptight"?)

...a contention I, myself, consider a bit slanderous.

I beg those of you who would criticize or condemn Mr. Larson to think about the things they cherish---especially if it's something they came up with themselves...
...would you allow just anybody to freely access themselves to that which you hold near-and-dear to you to do-whatever-they-like with them?
...Or would you be inclined to "guard" and "protect" these items which you consider "sacred" and "intimate".
...Pride? ...or "self-preservation"?

So what's wrong with Mr. Larson's efforts to protect what's rightfully his?
...To see to it they're not subject to misuse or exploitation?
...Or to use, to his advantage, one of the few laws written to actually PROTECT an individual right---as opposed to so many laws that are written with either social-class factionalism in mind or just to merely appease popular social prejudices?

This individual, who grew up during a period of time when the concepts of protocol, boundaries, and proprietism were taken more seriously and literally than they are now, and who, thus, has a lingering "old-school" mindset concerning such matters...
...all he's asking is to respect HIS boundaries.

...And for this he's a "greedy ass-hole".

...Well, I think those who think such things are narcississtic myopic "high-tech and remote-control junkies" who probably just sit around on their lazy asses living on pizza, beer, pot, and cocaine...
...and are a little too used to "things coming to them too easily at the push of a button".
...Hence any time they may be expected to find something on their own one can expect them to get a bit irritated at being asked to perform such formidable tasks.

Gary Stevens at "Keener 13"

If you've been on the "Keener 13" website lately, you've noticed they've put up a couple new posts.

One of them has an 11-minute air-check of a 1964 broadcast of one of disc jockey Gary Stevens' shows.

Of course, having listened to "Keener 13" back then (when I was still in grade school) it was a chance to be "nostalgic" in a personal way.

However, it also brought to mind how professional and synchronized the media was "back in the day"
---and how automation and formulaic programming over the years has made everyone so lazy and bland-and-boring.

One listen to any aircheck of a top-40-style radio station from the 1960s and you have the ultimate definition of "synergy":
You had all these disc jokeys, sound engineers, radio programmers, news programmers, and so many others all interacting and coordinating non-stop for 3 to 5 hours straight,
with one main objective in mind:
To put on the best on-air performance possible while "on the clock", any way they could, whatever it took.
There was no time for any "personal issues" or any "personal crisis"
...those would have to wait until it was time for the next shift to come on and they could "log out" and return to their own private lives.
That's what used to be called "Professionalism".

Yes, the most impressive aspect of all that was the synergism---the cooperative joint efforts by individuals who, in their spare time might not even otherwise have enough in common to even get together for drinks and coffee afterwards---but this one common thread, the love of broadcasting and commitment to professional on-air performance, is what binded them together for the 3,4, or 5 hours they worked together.

I lament to think that spirit of cooperation doesn't exist so much among people anymore.
Everyone's too cynical anymore---there isn't the trust factor necessary to put together and pull off a creative venture of the sort which would require the joint efforts of numerous individuals at any given one time.
And radio programmers are so lazy anymore. Everything is either automation, or "pre-programmed" playlists where the disc jockeys merely announce whatever's on the written list they're handed.

What a shame.
Everything now is so boring and tiring.

Additional Adages and More Musings

I must be using the wrong materials, the wrong tools, or maybe I'm just hanging out with the wrong crowd
but somehow I don't get the cooperation I need and my efforts don't yield the desired results.


I don't understand "normal" people.
They always behave so predatory
yet whenever I approach them they act so frightened and back off like they're expecting me to pull-a-knife on them or something.


Why do people talk so loud in public?
Like, I'm not interested in your personal crap, okay?
Go home and keep it all among yourselves.
What ever happened to "Family business is OUR business!" anyway...


Independent self-expression...
Because God didn't give you a brain just so you could learn how to "agree with everyone else"
...it was so you'd have the aptitude for independent thought:
...even if it means thinking "wrong thoughts" ...or expressing "wrong viewpoints" ...or expressing "wrong opinions".

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Celebrity birthdays...

Okay...
By a stroke of luck I happened to run across a few celebrity birthdays (or, rather, birthdates) in the comics section of today's local paper.
No-one stole the section for the stupid "crosswords"---GOOD!  I wish they'd put those damn crosswords in some other section besides the comics.  Half the time when I go into a restaurant where they still have a "house paper" the comics section's always missing.  My favorite part of any newspaper (well maybe not THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. But that's because they don't have a "comic section").

Anyway, here are today's birthdates of a few "well-known" type individuals:
...Jean Stapleton---89-years-old today. In the sitcom ALL IN THE FAMILY Edith died during the 3rd (or 4th) season, leaving Archie a widower. In real life, though, "Edith" ended up outliving "Archie".
...Phil Everly---73-years-old today.  Congratulations, Phil---for being among those early-rock n'rollers who "are-still-around".
...Dolly Parton---66-years-old today. "Jill-of-all-trades": singer; songwriter; actress; variety-show host; entrepreneur (and a successful one at that.)

Cyber-lacklusterism

I think I've mentioned before in one of my previous posts how I'm losing my enthusiasm for the internet.

How anymore it seems to be filled with a plethora of "catch-phrase" style terms and stereotypical imagerisms:
"liberals"; "conservatives"; "democrats"; "republicans"; "GLBT"; "sex offenders"; "trickle-down"; "occupy"; "talking heads"; "emos"; "women drivers"; "going green"; "global warming"; "social class warfare"; "the corporate elite"; "religious right"; "left-wing"; "right-wing"; "the 1-percent"; "the 99-percent"; "the homeless"; "celebrities"; "unemployment statistics"; "the economy"; "the recession" ...
...and the list goes on and on and on---endlessly.

I'm disappointed...
...one would've thought with the internet and it's "window-to-the-world" aspect the result would be the potential for more enlightenment as people would come across more individuals with their wide array of personal interests and viewpoints...
...instead I'm seeing a further re-establishment and reiteration of the-same-old stereotypes and prejudices.

People still try to "fit in" with select demographics and social/political factions instead of using a golden opportunity to develop and expand their in-born individualism.

Why bother with expensive computers and internet services if the results are not going to be all that much different than what you run into in the real world itself anyway?

Monday, January 16, 2012

Gentrify Me!

There are reasons for all the bad blood between the "average" person and those considered to be among the "elitists".
For one thing, the way this society has morphed from one which used to celebrate the "average Joe and Jane" to one primarily focused on the upper-middle-class and most-prosperous.

Take a look at commercials and advertisements from the 1950s,1960s, and 1970s.
...Then compare those to the current-day commercials and advertisements.

Everything these days is about way-overpriced trendy fashion clothes, fancy high-tech gadgets, fancy nightclubs, live concert venues, fancy elitist specialty restaurants with high price tags...
...nothing related to a modest middle-of-the-road day-to-day living experience.

Everything is so flashy and extremist anymore.

And it's all geared primarily to the well-off overprivileged who can afford to focus on frivolities and excesses, who don't have to worry about the necessity of "being careful with one's finances" since they're the kind who've never been "in want of anything".

One might think:  It's their money. They've earned it. It's their business what they do with it.

However, we're not talking about those who've earned their wealth through hard work or by having "special talents";
we're talking about mostly "torch-bearers", the offspring of prosperous parents whose money paid for their trip through medical school, or business school, or even law school.
These are the kids who, when they wreck their brand-new BMW, never fret the consequences---for their parents simply but them another BMW and also take care of the higher insurance rates.

It's not enough that such types have taken command of American society---they've also infiltrated the social and cultural climate as well...
...and with that came overhauls in the physical make-up of this society as well.

Once upon a time there were corner sandwich shops, local and regional drug store chains, full-service restaurants which offered medium-price full meals most anyone could afford.
There were plenty of specialty stores: hardware stores; stereo and appliance stores which specialized in home electronics from TVs to vacuum cleaners; dime stores; toy stores which sold nothing but toys; local and regional department stores; record stores; book stores.

But they're long-gone...
...replaced by elitist-type fancy specialty-coffee shops; illustriously grandiose bar-and-grill establishments with prices to match; "high-class" commercial modern-art museum-stores; specialty night-club/bars; specialty ice cream parlors...
...and condominiums and apartment buildings with top-dollar units whose monthly rent is in the four-digit range.

So, with everything these days catering to the most-fortunate where do the rest of us go?

I mean, even the local free publications are all about suburbanites and fancy nightclubs and the varieties of fancy drinks they serve...
...but these days all these haughty overprivileged are infiltrating the bulk of the city limits as well---displacing both the "disadvantaged" and the middle-brow sectors.

And that's what ires so many of us...
not only the way so many of our liberties have been hijacked by these domineering snobs, but also the way our former physical domain has likewised also been hijacked by factions and demographics who could easily afford to build their own designated domains.

You see, we'd like to try to "blend in" if we could...
...but some of us just simply can't afford to pay $40-a-meal-plus-beverage when eating out.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Killing dreams...

Today is the birthdate of the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
The "dream" began this date in 1929 and ended 39 years and 3 months later on April 4 1968.

I don't know what to think about all these assassinations.
The whole concept seems so "communistic".

That someone assumes the liberty to end another person's life single-handedly because they don't like the way that other person dresses, or because that other person looks "weird", or because that other person says things they don't agree with:
"I don't like the way you talked to my friend just now---therefore you're not fit to go on living. So I decided I'll just shoot you in the head and end your whole life right here and now!"

One man autocracy...
...and done by one born and raised in a country that professes "freedom of speech"; "freedom of thought"; "freedom of movement"; "freedom of lifestyle".

"You look 'funny' and act weird. Therefore I think I'll just beat the crap out of you just for fun."
..."liberty" and "rights" are the monopolies of just them and whoever they happen to favor.
If they find you "offensive" it's their right to terrorize you---or even end your life right then-and-there.

Sometimes it's not "government" who's the problem
...sometimes it's the individual private citizen.

But...
We don't have any "occupy" movements protesting any private citizens who take "bonus" rights and privileges at the expense of other private citizens.
...nor do we have any "protests" against those who assume "command" over others the way they had all those "anti-war" protests in the past.

But it IS intriguing:  you say or do something that offends ONE person and it's an instant "death penalty"...someone actually has the right to end your whole life right then-and-there.

...WOW!!!!!!!

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Civilization's Past? Who knows for sure?

When it comes to speculating about mankind's past the imaginations run wild.

First off, you have "Evolutionists":
Based on years of studying plethoras of various relics dug up from locations from just about everywhere on this planet---many quite unrelated to each other---with the overall findings yielding ambiguous affirmations at best as to just what exactly transpired in the past dozens of millenniums of this planet's history, especially that involving human existence and activities, these elitist groups of academiacs have nevertheless managed to draw resolute conclusions of not only how-humans-came-into-existence, but they also conclude how all other living creatures "came to be" as well.
Quite a feat, considering the fact that we're STILL discovering species of both plants and animals we didn't even know existed before.
If we don't even know about each and every type of animal and vegetative life form on this planet of ours how can one be so smug and sure about "the history of all life forms"?

Next up, another group of cultish hubristic know-it-alls:  The "Creationists":
These groups, convinced the Bible is absolutely "The word of God", take a "bureaucratic" approach to the "good book".
That is, they interpret anything-and-everything written in it at face value. To the letter, every word---in chronological order, no-stones-left-unturn.
Thing is, of course, that, while no-one should dispute that the Bible is a-book-of-truths, most of it is written primarily in metaphors and parables.
That, while the underlying messages in it are meritable and can also be applied universally, a lot of the Bible's contents are either fables or exaggerated loose-knit accounts of actual events.  But that the moral and practical points made throughout are what's essential and to be dwelled on.
But the "creationists" are hell-bent on regimented "hell-and-brimstone"-minded interpretation, going so far to contend that everything in the universe, including earth itself and all life on it, was, in fact, brought about in literally seven days.
Well, if we all really ARE descendants of Adam and Eve, doesn't that make any kind of sexual relationship incestuous?
And they only had two children themselves: two sons, Cain and Able.
...so where did Cain and Able find wives to marry and sire children with?
See what happens when one takes the figurative for face value?

Me?
I have my OWN myopic theories on "mankind's history".
How about this?:
People have always existed, much the same way they do in this current day-and-age.
...And they pretty much looked the same way they do now.
...and had the same personalities and character.
...and mankind has existed in his present form for millions of years. No "evolving-from-birds-and-fish".
...And all societies in the history of this planet have all been pretty much the same---including present-day societies.  Whether we're talking about ancient Egypt or Crete---or ancient Rome---or the ancient Incans---or medieval European societies, or even the Han dynasty of ancient China...no government, in spite of it's outer facade, is really much different from any other---including all present-day governments.
That---with respect to customs, religious beliefs, and progress made in industry, technology, and medicine---the only thing which separates one culture from another, or even one time frame from another, is that of whatever type of government said society professes to rule by...that is, whatever government form it fronts itself with.
Otherwise the mindset of rulers have all been pretty much alike: power-and-control junkies who present themselves as "leaders" and "servants of the citizens"---when their true goals are to control the populace and reform the country they rule over to either their personal liking or to the liking of whatever factions they represent or whoever they owe favors to.
...and that there have always been social class, established "norms", loyalty to country family and comrades, laws to follow with strict penalties for disobedience and heresies, religions and their ritualistic practices and customs, amusements and entertainment in some form, social/governmental henchmen hired to carry out rule/law enforcement, xenophobic discrimination towards outcasts heretics and "minority" groups.
And that all this is not only mankind's ultimate history, but also his ultimate future and fate as well.
...and that all technological advancements do is just give him a different way of carrying out what he's always carried out before, only in a more refined and sophisticated manner.

There---does that or doesn't that sound like a more viable assessment of mankind and his overall universal fate?
Maybe I should start a belief "cult" of my own, just like the "evolutionists" and "creationists" have.
...But I don't have that "spirit of Jim Jones and David Koresh" in me, so instead I'll simply profess this to just be my own perspective version of "collective human history".

Draco lives!

One social phenomenon of the last 20 years, give-or-take, has been a consistent toughening-up of laws and/or penalties---all done on the premise of combatting "the steady increases in serious crimes" and the need for "a response equal to these threats".

Theoretically speaking, the premises seem logical enough on a fundemental level.
However, such simplistic reasoning fails to take into consideration the more complex and circumstantial nuances which comprise most situations involving any kind of illicit actions or activities.

Like, for example, the fact that the motives for committing certain types of acts may differ from individual to individual.
One person may do something cruel and malicious because they simply enjoy seeing others suffer---whereas another person may do something equally as bad out of revenge targetting a specific party who they feel has wronged them in some way.
Hence, the mindsets behind each act are different, even when the acts themselves are equally despicable.

Another point to make:
Social class and the inequitable and disproportionate way different people from/of different backgrounds are generally treated.
...and the fact that some of the worst offenders are among the most "favored" of the general populace:
those with the most money, or the most friends, or among the best-looking, or the most charismatic.
...people like them are always going to be able to convince others to "give them a break" or "a second chance".
They either can afford the most cunning lawyers who are adept at manipulating both the written laws as well as people's emotions...
...or they have a strong "support system"---friends and colleagues who can vouch for their character and such.

In short, such individuals are most apt to "get let off" with either minimum penalties or even have their charges reduced to lesser offenses with lesser penalties.

And, after enough occasions like the above, the whole legal system is going to start having the appearance of being chronically ineffectual.
And power-and-control junkie opportunists are going to start playing on the emotions of the impressionable and clueless among the bigoted majority, running off Gregorian rhetoric about how "the criminals are getting off easy" or "how soft our judges are" and how "crime is out-of-control" and how imperative it is to "toughen existing laws as well as stiffen penalties and legislate newer and tougher ones as well".

But the above doesn't work, never has, and never will.
...Because, as mentioned above, the "favored" among us will always be cut plenty of slack, no matter what.
...It's the "lesser" people who take the brunt of society's iniquities, including the vises of it's legal system.
It's always the social misfits, the aesthetically unappealing, the pariahs, the heretics who "get the book thrown at them"---who always get the maximum sentences, who are prosecuted and convicted on trumped-up charges, who have to settle for "public defenders" because they can't afford REAL lawyers ("public defenders" defend the public---not the client. Hence, they're working for the opposition---the community who's now "out-to-get-you". Sort of along the same line as asking the prosecutor himself/herself to stand up for you).

In short, any time society introduces a stern law---or toughens the penalties for existing ones ...or broadens the stipulations comprising what constitutes a certain already-present offense on the books...
...what ends up happening, essentially is that those who are already getting the worst punishments---those who already have to be "the most responsible for" whatever's wrong with society---stand to endure even harsher punishments in the future for the the same or similar offenses and infractions.

...while those who have-the-advantage will continue to keep "getting breaks" no how much or how often the legislators keep passing one bill after another to further stiffen laws and penalties.
...and the worst offenders are often among those who have-the-advantage.

This is why all that "War-On-Crime" stuff doesn't make much sense or hold much water.
The premises are all wrong.

Replacing the gas lines...

I just got notice in the mail recently that Columbia Gas is fixing to replace all the old underground pipes in the neighborhood I reside in.
Which, I'm sure among other things, involve periods of interruption-of-service...i.e.: no hot water for showering or washing dishes; can't run the furnace to keep the place warm---and the like.

I must say, they sure picked a good time-of-the-year for a project of this nature.
I mean, sure, Columbus Ohio may be blessed with normally mild subtropical weather, but even WE get that occasional "cold front" from time-to-time.
At it's at times like those when one might need to kick on their furnaces to, sort of, "warm the place up" a bit.

Another matter---Do they have a crew on hand whose job it is is to relight residential pilot lights, especially rental properties owned by absentee landlords/landladies?
...or are the tenants to persistently badger their landlords/landladies to make daily trips from their kosher suburbs into the greasy/slimy "urban-decay oasis" to actually "tend to property they also own as well as their elitist ranch houses"?

These next few weeks ought to be quite interesting.
...and I don't mean that in a positive way either...

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Secular Dogma

These days one comes across a lot of articles about "The War On Religion"...or "The War On Christianity".

The notion is that through the ages religions have imposed their beliefs and wills on the general populace, influencing attitudes on everything from social mores and customs to those of sexual matters, as well as social ethics.
...and also that each religion holds it's own rituals and doctrines in highest esteem---to the point of requiring their practitioners to literally engage in self-repression in order to hold true to their professed beliefs.

In recent years, however, certain groups---a.k.a.: atheists, agnostics, materialistic---have disavowed and discredited not only traditional religions but even Christianity as well as the mere belief in God itself, declaring such to be not only "unfounded superstitions", "medieval", and "purely dogmatic", but they also decry the presence of such as of being "a violation of the rights and sensitivities of" those whose belief systems do not include anything of a spiritual or religious nature.

On the surface one might figure "Okay, so be it. This is a world of many beliefs and concepts and priorities."
However, a lot of these secularistic types seem to have gone over-the-top in expressing their disapproval of "anything reeking of belief in a 'supreme being/creator'".
There are atheists who "get so offended" at even the mention of the name "God" that they fly-off-the-handle at the mere mention of the word---even a casual and/or metaphorical reference to "the Almighty"...even if uttered in a secular vein.
They're like: "Don't ever even USE that word around me!"

Recently there have been lawsuits filed against churches---for exhibiting everything from "Nativity Scenes" to statues of Jesus and  front-lawn signs quoting scriptures
...and on the church's own property, no less.
...simply because it was "in full view of the general public"---hence also "invading" the visual sphere of those whose beliefs don't include "God" or "Christianity", presumably "constituting a violation of the sensibilities of" the more "worldly" of the general populace.

Now, before I continue on, let it be known that I myself am not particularly religious.
I may believe in a God in a general sense, but my life is not dominated by such entities.
MY "God", so to speak, is primarily "oldies music":  single hits of the 1950s;60s;70s; and 80s---accentuated by select B-sides and chestnut non-single album tracks.
So, you can see, I'm actually a bit secular myself.

However, this is more of a "freedom-of-expression" issue more so than one about religion, Christianity, or whether-or-not one chooses to believe in a "God".
Common sense would dictate that if a certain institution is of a Christian or religious persuasion it should be expected that what they display, even to the world at large, will most likely be that of a Christian-themed or religious-themed nature.
...and if that's not the kind of subject matter one is interested in then simply either ignore it or look away ...the same way one "tunes out" someone's music or TV show if such doesn't interest them.
It's just that I think it's wrong to be telling others they "shouldn't be doing" whatever they're doing (or saying/stating) simply because it's not what you would do yourself---or that whatever the other person is saying isn't something you agree with.

This time around it's the secularists, atheists, materialists and such who are being dogmatic and stigmatizing.
They're the ones who are putting forth Inquisitional propositions and displaying attitudes of intolerance towards anyone who doesn't share their doctrines---this time around doctrines based on the carnal and physical aspects instead of the superstitious and/or spiritual ones.

But oppression is oppression, no matter who it is who's doing the oppressing or who it is being oppressed.

If this really IS a diversified culture comprising a wide range of lifestyles and belief systems, then we need to figure out a better method of co-existing than the ones we seem to be currently abiding by.
Because, to me, it looks more like obsessively "creative intolerance" than anything else.
When we all need to unconditionally be more accepting of each other.

These crybaby secularists seem, to me, to be little more than just another bunch of power-and-control junkies.
And you know what those kind are like:  they just live to "one-up" others, any way they can.

Therein lies this country's TRUE "religions":
Power-and-Control Obsessiveness;
Arrogance;
Materialism;
Getting one-up on others;
Xenophobic assumptions about those who think and live differently;
Hubris---the feeling that one's "always right"/"never wrong";
Social statusism/reputationism;
Obsession with sports;
Unbridled hedonism.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Weekly Specials

Every week stores have their "specials" in which those who have their "loyalty cards" get $5 off a select product---or, maybe, they can get 10 items for $10 ...or what-have-you.

Which doesn't mean much to me, personally, because I usually buy the same items and the same brands of certain items every time I go shopping anyway.

However, if I see an-item-I-normally-buy-anyway advertised as one of the "weekly specials" I think to myself:  That's cool.  10 items for $10.  And it's something I buy all the time anyway.

However, the notion that one stands to "save a little money" on the same item this time around is essentially a theoretical one.  That is, one which should hold water from a logical point of view.

But the reality is a different story altogether.
For the next time I go to the store, lo-and-behold---my item is completely sold out!

Yes, folks.  Most people are both seduced and cajoled by the concept of the money-saving "weekly specials".
Anything that's $5 off or 10-for-$10 is what they'll gravitate toward.
Even if it's something they don't ordinarily buy, they'll still "stock up" on it while it's still on special.
"I usually never buy this stuff, but since it's '10-for-$10' let's go for it---in case we might need it sometime up the road. Hey, we're saving money this way."

"Saving money"(????).
If one wants to save money, then don't buy anything at all---save a bundle that way.
Like the legendary Will Rogers once said:
"If you really want to double your money, take each dollar bill you have, fold it in half, then put it back in your pocket."

As for me:
Sometimes I'd rather the "regular" items I buy not be on "special" even though it means paying full cost for them---simply because it means at least they're most likely to be available.  Availability is more important than having an extra $7 in my pocket.

However, sometimes I DO luck out and there are enough of the items I"m after that are also "on special" that week
...in which case:  More power to me!

Reclusiveness

Have you ever noticed that when a person is secretive and reclusive everyone automatically assumes one of two things:
Either this person must have something to protect that's of great value---or, maybe, they have something to hide. Some hideous dark secret. A sordid past or reputation.

It never occurs to anyone that said person might simply value their own privacy.

You know, the right to live one's own life as they see fit, to pursue one's own interests and take care of one's own needs in a matter best suited for one's own self, carried out in one's own style and fashion.
Without interference from others, who would be constantly "correcting" this person and pushing their "advice" on him because his way of doing things don't match the way THEY would do things.
And, people being the despotic power-and-control junkies they are, their way would always be "the only right way to do things".  So there'd always be fights, arguments, conflicts, insults, and maybe assaults as well.

The right to live freely, to be an individual, to be your own person.

Maybe THAT'S why some people keep to themselves so much.

Maybe that's what they're "hiding".
They're simply living-their-own-life
...but, in order to ensure the right to do so unobstructed, they have to do so "on the sly".

Disgruntled Wall Street Employees

                             Did you see the Jan. 10th Huffington Post article: 
 WALL STREET EMPLOYEES THREATEN TO QUIT IF BONUSES AREN'T UP TO SNUFF?

I tell you, if I was a highly paid "wall street" executive I'd just keep quiet and try to stay under-the-radar given the current social climate and collective attitudes towards the typical over-paid corporate crony professional types these days.

And, being single, I might just figure that, all things considered, I'm more-than-doing-quite-well by most any standards.

In fact, I'd even go so far as to move overseas to live out the rest of my life---AND change my identity to boot, so none but a select few would even know who I was.
I'd be trying to live as private a life as I could if possible.

The last thing on my mind would be to put on such ostentatious public displays of protesting "having to settle for shrimp every night instead of the sirloin steak I've gotten so used to over the years." ...or of "having to settle for a LEXUS after having owned PORSCHES for so many years."

I'd figure what I have is still SOMETHING and just run with that. And just tend to myself and my own affairs and try to have myself a decent private life.

Apparently these educated corporate professional types never took any classes in philosophy or any of the other subject matters dealing with wisdom and the art of making sound judgments.
How else can one explain their obvious inaptitude for discretion and common sense?

Sunday, January 8, 2012

ANOTHER adage for you

There are usually two types of persons one has problems with in life:

Those who conspire against you...

...and those who are convinced you're conspiring against them.

The "King" and "Ziggy"

Today is January 8.
The 77th anniversity of the birth of one Elvis A. Presley.
...and a annual pop culture ritual, celebrating the birth of "The King of Rock n'Roll".

But, while we're celebrating the life of the late Elvis Presley, let's not overlook the fact that it's also the birthdate of another---still-living---"rock n'roll legacy":
David Robert Jones, born in London on this date in 1947.

Yes, David Bowie turns 65 today.

It's a double "rock n'roll celebration":
The "King" and "Ziggy".

Friday, January 6, 2012

These Shoes Are Made For Walking...

What's with all these "fashion-obsessed" women and their fanatical fixation with shoes?

It's not unusual to hear about one of them personally owning 300 or more pair.

Why SHOES?
Why not pants, or shirts, or skirts?

You have to forgive me, but I've always thought of shoes as simply being a necessary piece of footwear that protects one's feet from some of the atrocities of public walkways (like...broken glass...dog feces...other sharp objects...)
Something you put on your feet as part of one's wardrobe.

Of course I'm just a simple-minded type anyway.
...and, given what a freak and odd-ball I've always been, I could never be expected to understand the sane, rational, and mentally-stable mindset of you perfect "normal" type folks anyway.

2012

So, it's a new year.
So what?
My only "resolution" was to "not forget, when dating documents, it's now '2012' not '2011'".

Other than that I'm not doing anything different.
Just "business-as-usual".

more musings

The situation is beyond ridiculous.
You look around waiting for the punch line.
Everyone keeps on acting normal like "nothing's up".
You keep waiting---
---everyone looks back at you strangely.
Finally you can't stand the suspense any longer---
---"Look, I know you're not serious. Just tell me the punch line. I'm busy and I have things to do and can't just keep hanging around wasting time."
They just look at you perplexed---
---Then it hits you...
..."These people are NOT joking, are they? They really mean what they do and say!"


Why is it, every time I log on to my blog site, this grey panel comes up asking me if I want Internet Explorer to "remember my password"?
And I always tell them "Yes".
...but it never does...
...because every time I log on that grey panel comes up AGAIN---and AGAIN---and AGAIN...
...Look, if Windows 7 can't remember the damn password, then quit bugging me with that stupid question already, alright?


You know how cats, when using their litterboxes, walk around in their own shit when they've finished---then roam around afterwards, jumping up on everything?
...People are like cats. They're always walking around in their own shit. Then they take off, bringing their shit with them in public---and getting it on everything and everyone they make contact with.

You know, the concepts of liberty and justice are such futile ones as they usually get hijacked  and handed over to the favored and overprivileged as "gifts" anyway.
As the saying goes:   Favors are reserved for friends, prospective lovers, and demanding relatives who need appeasing.

I remember a SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE skit starring Eddie Murphy as Stevie Wonder and Joe Piscapo as Frank Sinatra.
In this particular sketch they were dueting on the song EBONY AND IVORY.
When Sinatra mentions that he "doesn't get" the song Stevie tries to explain how it's an anthem about racial harmony...
...to which Frankie exclaims "All I know is IVORY is 'a soap that floats' and EBONY is a magazine no-one ever reads."
Which gets me to thinking:
Is this blog site the same way?:
THE SILENT FORUM---"the blog site no-one ever reads"
One problem? It uses too many late-20th-century American English words.
No-one ever uses words like those anymore, you know.
Nowadays it's all baby-talk and current vernacular as rag-tag as the dress codes of the people themselves who use it.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Socialized Medicine

Yes, I'm a believer in the concept of socialized medicine (in it's purest form, mind you).
Not because I necessarily wish to align myself with any "liberal" factions or anything like that...
...but because I think it's a practical concept.

Picture, if you will, you're driving along and you go through an intersection and the light's green
---and, lo and behold, some ass-hole running-a-red at high speed smashes into you, putting you in the hospital.
...and, on top of that, it comes to light this guy was on meth at the time as well.

And, following a prolonged hospitalization, you know you'll probably get a huge bill, right?
Now...does this seem fair?
You did nothing wrong, but now you're to be penalized for someone else's mistake?

This is but one good argument for the concept of socialized medicine.

And, if not socialized medicine, at least bill the meth-head dumbass who caused all this hardship in the first place instead.

Where to go?

When counting down the top billion-dollar weather disasters of 2011, one of the meteorologists on The Weather Channel expressed perplexity about the number of fatalities incurred by a couple of the disasters.
He asked how it is, given the advances made in weather prediction and warning systems, there could still be so many fatalities.

Frankly, I think the speculation is a bit shallow myself.
The advances made are of our ability to predict potential storms, track them once they do form, and figure out where they're liable to end up as well as how much intensity they're most likely to have when/as they enter certain areas.

But, we still can't control nature---she still does whatever she damn well pleases. We can only slightly outguess just WHAT it is she's most likely to do---and nothing more.
All they can do for those in a storm's path is just to tell them, essentially: Watch out! It's coming your way!
That those in the storm's path know they're "in trouble" is about the max even the best forecasters can do to this day.

As for the fatalities:
How DO you excape a monster storm?
...especially when all there's available for the most part are the usual lamely constructed houses, buildings, and other structures?
Most structures---houses, apartments, businesses---are those "slapped together" in a generic mass-produced manner.
Often whatever was "trendy" for whatever time period they were built.
We're not exactly talking about finely-crafted marble-and-stone structures built to withstand intense seismic activities or Category-5 hurricane-force or EF-5 tornadic-force winds...we're merely talking about the typical wood and brick houses, brick buildings with huge picture windows---your standard residential and business structures.

And, frankly, they're not quite enough as far as shelters go. Especially when talking about the type of bizarre weather occurrences which regularly plague a good portion of the U.S..
They say, like in the case of an approaching strong tornado, to "take shelter in the lowest portion of your structure".
Fine, but often the basements in a lot of these paint-by-number structures get flooded as well.
You'll start down the steps only to find 3 feet of water staring up at you. Go any further and you're liable to drown---or even get electrocuted.
And even if the basement IS dry enough to inhabit, you look above yourself and you're looking at a wooden floor and wooden structure laiden with wires and pipes.
If this damn storm IS as bad as they make it out to be you'll most probably get buried alive anyway.
The structure's simply not strong enough to handle anything excessive.

Hell, a lot of structures can't even handle strong winds (45-MPH-plus) without the awnings or gutters blowing down.
Just what do you think such a structure will do when faced with a storm of some REAL magnitude?

As you've probably gathered there really ISN'T anywhere anyone has to go when/if something intense DOES occur weather-wise.

So I'm not particularly surprised at the fact that, in spite of all the progress made in the meteorological department, there are still significant weather-related fatalities.