|
|
Sunday, January 8th, 2006
| |
4:00 am - Bottle Rocket (and other smoking objects)
|
It has been two months since I have contributed to my journal. Looking back it might appear as though nothing at all has happened in that time. This is, of course, untrue. Christmas and New Years are just two things I have failed to report on.
However, I did not come here today to account for all the things I have missed. Except to say that this Christmas was an absolutely wonderful time. I spent time with many family members, and also had time to have a Christmas dinner with Beth and her family. Through rigorous saving and conservative spending, I was able to give nice gifts to my family (and Beth, who I feel is part of the family).
Christmas is not about gifts. Well, not entirely. Allow me to put this another way. Christmas is about celebrating the coming of the savior of Christianity. However, the wise men brought gifts for him and this is a loose explanation as to why gifts are exchanged. Aside from that, Santa Claus complements the majesty that is this time of year. Remember, for every present received there has been a present given. Aside from presents, love is the gift that matters. And presents, might I add, are one way to express that love.
Unless of course you just buy things for people out of necessity; then I guess my rationale doesn't apply. Which leads me to another good point: for every good rule, there is an asshole who is the exception.
Back to the present.
Today (actually yesterday as of midnight) is my mother's birthday. I want her to know the extraordinary degree to which I love her. A love that her and my father taught me, and that I reciprocate. Come to think of it, my father's birthday was two weeks before Christmas. Happy birthday to the parents.
Beth has been in California since New Years Eve. This means that I have not seen her since last year. Also, it means that she is three hours behind me. And you thought time travel wasn't possible. Her parents are celebrating their anniversary with a vacation to the left coast. Each has a brother out there, and in fact both used to live there. They are having a great time; a well deserved one at that.
Come to think of it, my parents anniversary was Dec. 3rd. Happy Anniversary to them. Damn, did I miss anything else? Shit this is getting crazy.
Ok, ok. What I came to talk about today is the movie "Bottle Rocket" which is based on a 1992 short by the Wilson brothers. Owen and Luke. The short caught the attention of Wes Andersen and was made into a full length movie in 1996. Let me say first that it would be very easy to not appreciate how great of a movie this is.
By practical sense, nowadays what makes a great movie is how much money is dumped into the project. The more money, the more famous the actors. The more money, the more established screenwriters and directors. And so on. But most movies have to fit through a funnel of "things that have worked." That's not to say that Hollywood isn't pushing the envelope; they are. But they're not doing anything creative so much as they're trying to shock us. Shock value. It's an incredibly appealing form of entertainment. How many swear words, how much nudity can you fit into a movie?
Certainly these things are entertaining. And they are pushing the proverbial envelope. But aren't they played out and used too much? How many American Pie movies can we watch before the jokes are too old?
Don't get me wrong, there are still great films being made as we speak. I just saw Wedding Crashers and I thought that was one of the best movies I'd ever seen. Anchorman is another movie that instantly comes to mind for being great. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that we're living in a pretty lucky time for comedy movies. Will Ferrell, Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller, the Wilson brothers, etc. etc.
But Bottle Rocket is a great movie for different reasons. I know what you're thinking, and you're wrong. "Oh, here comes the-little-engine-that-could bullshit." No, it's not about that at all. I've seen many independent movies that suck.
Bottle Rocket is an awesome movie because we have two future greats, Owen and Luke Wilson, appearing in their movie debuts. Both had a hand in writing the movie; both had immense artistic direction in the movie. Neither one could be recognized in public, even by the extreme movie buffs.
What is the movie about? That's not an easy question to answer. The obvious response is that it's about a couple criminals and the wackiness that ensues.
This explanation does zero justice to the film itself.
This is a movie where the main thing that matters are the characters. On one hand, we have Dignan (Owen Wilson). Dignan is a lazy bum who has only ever had one job; that he was fired from. His main focus in life is to be a criminal mastermind because of the Hollywood-based notoriety. On the other hand, we have Anthony (Luke Wilson). Our film begins with Anthony being discharged from a mental institution, though Dignan believes he's actually helping Anthony escape.
You watch so many movies and you want to be the main character. Don't you want to be Clint Eastwood when he's kicking all that ass. Or Gregory Peck in "To Kill a Mockingbird." What if you were Dignan? You don't work; you sit around and plan crimes. In a way, it's a lot more realistic than Clint Eastwood.
Anyway, Dignan is the coach; the Capone in his own right. He plans the dirty stuff. It should be noted that there is not a single point in the movie that Dignan strikes you as a hardened criminal. That's part of the beauty that makes this movie work. It's all about irony. What does he do with all the loot? He uses the money to buy bottle rockets and fire crackers.
A third team member is recruited, simply because he is the only one that has a car. Bob (Robert Musgrave) is the rough and tough getaway man, routinely abused by his jock brother.
Luke Wilson's character, Anthony, winds up falling for a latino hotel maid. He is presented with a very realistin conflict; the love of a woman, or the loyalty to a friend. Watch all the mayhem unfold as these three losers (yes, losers) hone their skills before attempting to pull off the grandaddy of all heists.
I finished up reading the latest from Al Franken, "The Truth (with jokes)." This is the long-awaited sequel to his masterpiece and bestseller "Lies (and the Lying Liars who Tell Them)." My sheer disgust with the Republican Party was incensed, but let's not get into that. Except to say that they rely on your blind faith; really.
One thing that I haven't done much of lately is listen to music. I don't really know why; just not in the mood, I guess.
Ever notice how I like to use semi-colons? Why am I talking to myself?
It's going on five o'clock in the morning and I still can't go to sleep. I don't know why this happens. One day I slept in and since then my entire biological clock has been out of whack. It's nice to be up early in the morning, but the problem is lately I haven't even gone to bed until then.
Oh, one thing I forgot to mention before. I had a very nice lunch with my Aunt Kathy a few days ago, who I believe is coming over for breakfast tomorrow morning (perhaps an incentive to actually wake the fuck up). We spent two hours talking over at the Cracker Barrel in Austintown, roughly halfway between Girard and her home in Boardman. I like to refer to these such places and rendezvous points. Rarely do I ever use that term in real-life, but in the journal... it just makes for better reading.
Well, I guess I might try to get some sleep here. I'll talk to you later. Peace.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, November 8th, 2005
| |
3:56 am - The West Wing, and other musings
|
My faith in "The West Wing" has been rekindled as of late. Mostly because of the live episode that aired a couple nights ago, in which political rivals played by Jimmy Smits and Alan Alda squared off in a presidential debate. Which ever candidate wins the eventual election, the show will have some interesting tiwsts and turns.
Certainly, a win for the Republican candidate Arnold Vinick (Alda) is sure to bring sweeping cast changes, as we will be switching parties in the Whitehouse. A win for Matt Santos (Smits), a latino Democrat, will also bring new ideas to the forefront; a minority will be the President.
I think it's very interesting to point out the stark contrast that the show has displayed as opposed to real life. It seems as if the characters on the show consider the human element more than actual politicians do. It seems like the characters are more "real" than the actual people.
If you caught the "debate", you actually saw a debate. A difference of opinion, although scripted, that got to be somewhat heated at times. You saw candidates arguing, confronting one another. We actually saw candidates opening up and being real. They were saying things that were taboo in the real political world. By not holding anything back, the candidates actually seemed more statesmanlike and sincere than if they were to kiss one another's ass for an hour.
Of course, with absolutely no political fallout to be risked it can be considered easy to get up there and say whatever the hell you want. Neither Alda or Smits was ever in danger of losing an endorsement, a contribution or even a single vote. But wouldn't it be great if this shit actually happened in real life?
Maybe if we actually knew where candidates came from, behind the makeup and phony personalities, we could feel a little better about them. Even tough-guy George W. Bush, who is supposed to be an edgy hardass, puts on a front. I mean, come on, he's from Connecticut for God's sake. How big of a cowboy can he be? What's with the most phony southern accent to date? I doubt they teach that at Yale; what's more I'm absolutely certain he didn't pick it up in Kennebunkport, Maine.
And then we have Kerry, who had the brains to be the President, but not the brains to run for President.
Allow me to slander the primary election system in America. It's a brilliant waste of time and money. The theory is that states are given more attention if we spread the entire process out over time. This way, states like Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina can be given consideration that they may not have otherwise received. The theory is that candidates will be able to focus on a few states at a time so that each individual state can receive a fair amount of political attention.
I stress that these are merely theories, and bad ones at that. Dubbed the "Hawkeye Cockeye" by lifetime asshole Rush Limbaugh (hey, they have primaries, too), the Iowa Caucus should not determine which candidates get a head start for the nomination. Nor should the New Hampshire primary, a state that I can place a toothpick on the map and have it disappear.
Why can't every state hold their primary on the same day? It sure seemed like John Kerry won the Democratic nomination by a snowball effect. All we heard after the convention was that people didn't know who Kerry was, but enough of them selected him as their man. (*I'm not talking shit about Kerry, I liked John Kerry and I voted for him in the Ohio primary... naturally, I again voted for him in the general election... I am merely making a point).
The bottom line is that it sure seems like our current primary system is designed to pit two extremists against one another in the general election, and in the end, you have to pick the against the evil of two lessers.
Aside from my sweeping changes to the American elecorate, I want to stress the brilliance of The West Wing. Here is a show that is truly living out an experiment, and inviting all of us along for the ride. Somebody probably said, "What if candidates had hearts and brains and seemed human?" And here they are, in a magical place, that only looks and tastes and feels like the real Washington, D.C. living out this dream. It's kind of like when you mix vinegar and baking soda, just to see what happens. Only this experiment is being done on national TV.
And who knows, maybe in some small way this television show could change America. Afterall, television seems to be the one thing that can change the world today. Television has created the supermodel image that has been cause for many eating disorders. Television has created reality TV, which can build you a new home or pimp your ride. Television has also been adopted by preachers as a viable way to conduct a sermon.
Not to mention that most Americans get their politcal news from TV (I use the term "news" loosely).
Since I was very young I have wanted to be President. I'm sure I've mentioned that somewhere along the lines in this journal. If I haven't then you have probably noticed my avid interest in politics. The odd thing is that I really dislike politics; the thing is that I'm drawn into it. I have always felt the need to fight for what I believe, and call me a member of the vast minority but I do believe that changes can be made through electoral politics.
I certainly believe that corruption and incompetence are two things that are closely related to our government. But I am holding out hope that one day this will change. That one day we will have real discussions about ideas instead of talking tough to make sure a special interest group is going to give us money.
One day, politicians will be accountable for their lies and actions just as they once were before. Harry Truman used to flaunt the plaque on his desk that read, "The Buck stops here." Now, it seems that politicians might as well have plaques that read, "Don't Blame me."
Scooter Libby is indicted for revealing the name of an undercover CIA agent. But that has nothing to do with the President. It's not like the President should have any clue or control over what his staff is doing. It's not like Libby and Dick Cheney rode to work in the same car every morning. They didn't discuss any of these things. It would be foolish to think that the President, who is always the best person in the whole wide world, would be associated with such a horrible thing. I hope you note the heavy sarcasm.
Allow me next to abruptly change the subject. Each night when I drive home from my girlfriend Beth's house, I come to the intersection of Davis and Trumbull. Beth lives a block down Davis Street. It was at this very intersection, some years ago when I was a kid, that a man by the name of Charlie Lamancusa was murdered in his corner store.
Police have never found the man who was responsible. Mr. Lamancusa was a brilliant, caring man. I've never heard one bad word spoken about him, even before the tragedy happened. I remember when my big brother, Luke, would ride his bike all the way across town into Parkwood where the store was. Lamancusa's Market sold penny candies. Lemonheads were one cent apiece. I don't think Mr. Lamancusa ever actually counted the candy from what I could remember. He would just grab handfuls and stuff them in a bag. For a dollar, you could walk away with enough Lemonheads for a month.
I hear people say that if someone was ever short on grocery money, Charlie would let them take what they needed and let them pay him when they had the money. Beth tells me that she used to go to the corner store, a block down the road, all the time. I don't understand why this shit happens.
From my car, under the guise of a dark after-midnight sky, I sometimes find myself glancing over at the store. It's empty now, and it has been since this all happened. I find it hard to think about, or even imagine. I just look, almost thoughtless. Stuck at a red light, wondering how I should feel.
Shouldn't we celebrate these people? Shouldn't we all wake up and be happy to be alive? Shouldn't we all treat each other this way? Wouldn't life just be great if people gave each other love instead of hate. What if you could leave your doors unlocked at night? To take a line from Sam Cooke, "What a wonderful world it would be."
My job at Tops is absolutely wretched. Call me a cock, but I am sick of working for people that I am smarter than. I am sick of working for people whose job's I could do better myself if I actually wanted their job in the first place. I don't mean to sound terrible. I know I just got done daydreaming about love and happiness, but it's a little difficult when you work hard and get nothing in return.
For instance, yesterday I came in an hour early because we were short on help. Today, I stayed two hours over because we were short on help. What do I get? Overtime pay? Comp time? A fucking pat on the back? No, I get yelled at for being two minutes late.
I decided to take this offense with a grain of salt, as I have taken every other one. I have now consumed so much of this salt that the Lake Erie mining company is trying to patent me for drilling purposes. See, I would rather be off changing the world one huge project at a time. Decrying free trade in the streets or advocating tax reform. Prosecuting white collar crime, swift and merciless.
Instead I'm asking nimrod customers if they have their Bonuscard, whilst listening to them gripe about the prices and long lines.
There's a mold that you have to fit in today's world. You've got to be a cookie-cutter product in order to be successful. Forget that Abraham Lincoln didn't have much formal education, nor did Harry Truman... two of the greatest Presidents in history.
Well it's getting late and I have said too much. Goodnight all and I will talk to you soon.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005
| |
4:15 am - The fucking law of averages.
|
A quick salute the Senate Democrats for closing session today. This is actually a meaningful move, and rarely will you come across me when I am prepared to salute a large group of politicians. This is a victory, no matter how large, and should be considered as such. Keep it up.
Beth and I are discussing a trip to Niagara Falls, provided that we can afford it. I would love to take a trip like that with her. We could be on our own, somewhere new together. She has been there before but my ass has never been out of the country. We're shooting for May 14th, which is when I turn. Also, we talked a little bit about spending the night at a bed and breakfast sometime soon. There is one about five miles up the road in Hubbard (literally, it's on the same road I live on) which is really nice. Also, Bethy tells me her aunt's sister owns one just across the border into Pennsylvania. I will let you know how things work out.
I want to talk about a new business venture that I have devised. But first, I want to say that I had almost completed this very entry when suddenly all the text disappeared and I could not retrieve it. It was funny, edgy... it may have even been enlightening. But now, in the wake of the loss, I have not the strength or courage to be any of those things. I'm just saddened that someone like Bill Gates did not provide me a safeguard for this terrible, terrible problem.
If you're reading this (the odds are you're not, and that "you" are just a figurative metaphor) and you have some technical savvy, come up with a way for this tragedy to be prevented. Just remember to cut me off a slice of that ooey gooey apple pie, that's all.
This business venture that I speak of. It all seems legitimate, particularly in comparison to the other, more shall we say "illegal" business ventures I have devised in the past. I'm not talking about an underground lottery here, I'm talking about an oxygen bar.
Cue the William Tell Overture.
I'm serious here, and allow me to reach far into the depths of the twisted cavity otherwise known as my asshole to explain why. I know what you're saying... "these things have been tried before, and with little success." Well lick my ten foot pole of a dick, and I don't mean maybe.
I haven't done much research on the topic yet, but I do know that some (has-been) celebrities have decided to open oxygen bars and have failed miserably. This idea should have seemed idiotic from the start, because it's simply a parody on a real oxygen bar.
You've got to ease a new idea like this into the economy. You've got to strategically place these bars so that there is a dependable market. You absolutely cannot be a celebrity. Save this idea for opening a restaurant or something.
It's no secret that the Youngstown economy has been ailing, if you will, for quite some time now. It seems like they've never had that one major business idea to put them back into contention. To put them back on the map. It also seems that the crown jewel of the city (not exactly a very prestigious piece of jewelry, and I might also add the award was won by default) is Youngstown State University.
A good idea would be to focus more on the economy around the campus, and build out from there. Nobody's going to a fancy, new eatery on the East Side. The only reason people go to the South Side is to go to Shenanigan's, a horribly run-down and mediocre dance club that makes tons of money each Thursday throughout the year. People literally drive into the South Side, to drink at a lousy bar.
You can't necessarily blame people for aspiring to be drunk, really. The truth is that drunkeness is in favor, perhaps now more than any time in recent memory. This is because reality seems a little less, oh I don't know, "fun" right now.
Yes, I'm afraid that's true. Morale is low. But when morale is low, the one thing that can soar is vice.
And when vice, in this case an oxygen high, can be construed as responsible and hip... well you've got a potential bombshell.
But this bombshell must be handled very carefully. Marketing decisions must be precise.
Now, Youngstown has just opened up a new Convocation Center. I am told that this place is beautiful; a state of the art facility that hopes to bring major entertainment acts to the area.
A potential gold mine, if handled properly (a big, juicy "if"). The one business idea that remains constant is the economic well-being of your neighbors is directly relative to your own economic well-being. It's a very basic thought. The more money you make, the more money you spend. If only the opposite were true...
The timing is right for an oxygen bar near campus. There is an intellectual crowd that is thirsty (or gasping?) for some new ideas.
The one great paradox of our own Mahoning Valley is the attitude toward debt. Students of all walks of life pass through the doors of Youngstown State University each day. And each day, their debt accumulates. Some have received scholarships, others still grants. A small percentage of others can pay as they go. But a vast number of students deal with debt on a daily basis. They know that upon graduation, they will be below zero. Presumably, they are happy to have made this sacrifice.
To the contrary, debt as far as starting a new business is concerned is feared greatly. This is considered a horrible investment, probably because of the level of stress in knowing that your business better do good or you've had it. This is precisely why the richest of the rich in this valley have reaped all of the economic benefits. The Cafaro's, the Debartolo's. They are the ones willing to make the moves, because frankly they can.
Think of Youngstown State as a shameless whore you may have known in high school. You don't really like her that much, but she'll do. You get what you want from her, and then move on to bigger and better things. This is precisely what students do in Youngstown. They graduate and many of the graduates leave. This would be fine if graduates from other areas moved into the area, but we all know that's not happening.
What's going to make this area grow? It's not the weather or the vacation destinations. There have to be people willing to stand up and make things happen. Call it wishful thinking, but there's got to be somebody somewhere who would encourage the growth of business around the university. Grants? Low interest loans? Perhaps some kind of protection in case the new business project fails. We should be rewarding the people who are trying, instead of leaving all the responsibility in their hands.
Well the time has come for a new business philosophy, whether or not it is recognized in a local political forum. The great idea is to take to the streets and assemble; not necessarily to literally gather and plot. But instead to do business; real business to empower the little people.
Where the rich and conservative are well-measured and elite, let us be daring and tolerant. Let us grow together, even if that means one dollar and day at a time.
I've always been reminded of George Bailey, the James Stewart character played in the Frank Capra movie, "It's a Wonderful Life". Seldom can I say that watching a movie has helped me identify with who I am. Seldom can I say that a character so closely resembles the triumphs and tribulations that I feel in my own life.
Here we have a young, capable man with visions of siezing the world. He is devoted to everyone else, and has spent so much time helping others that he forgot about number one. He was the only thing, the only outlet, that kept everyone else from crawling to Potter.
There are indeed many Potters in the world. There are many people who step into bad situations as the only alternative and reap all the benefits. Take the big businesses "rebuilding" Iraq. Take the mergers between the telecommunications companies. Insert your own examples, the list goes on and on.
Perhaps what is most satisfying is stopping these mammoths, these scoundrels of men, from owning everything.
Perhaps there is still valiance in not selling your soul to the devil.
What does this tangent have to do with an oxygen bar? We're not talking about an oxygen bar, here. The oxygen bar is just the vehicle. We're talking about using new ideas to stake our own small claim in the world. We're talking about giving up on the "I quit" attitude. We're talking about making people's lives better.
Maybe we can't do that in one election. Maybe we can't do it in any election. Maybe we can bring happiness, bring new options, to just one person at a time. But the point is that the work will make us happy. The work will keep us going, because good guys win sometimes. God damn it, it's the fucking law of averages.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Monday, October 31st, 2005
| |
3:26 am
|
I have been on an almost unhealthy Weezer kick lately. Particularly the Green album. Rivers Cuomo is probably my favorite rock and roll figure of all-time. Allow me to qualify:
I grew up with him. While it's very hard to put him against other legends of musical fame, he will always have an edge when it comes to sentiment and nostalgia. I remember being addicted to Buddy Holly, and I think it's the reason I watched Happy Days on Nick at Nite.
Could you imagine if Pinkerton was Weezer's original release? I hesitate to say that they never would have made it big... because with all the shit that went down in Seattle post-Nirvana, I could probably have been signed as a viable act so long as I had two other members in some sort of band.
But they never would have been huge. They would have been great, because Pinkerton is probably the strongest piece of art that the band has ever constructed. But they wouldn't have been embedded in my memory as the one band that takes me back to little league playoffs, sleepovers at the grandparents' and secretly watching TV in my room when I was supposed to be in bed for school.
Instead that distinction might belong to an array of gangsta rappers whose names I would probably combine and confuse, or it would belong to Oasis. Fucking Oasis. If this fucking band would have made more fucking music. Don't get me started.
Let's talk about enduring rock bands from the 1990's and see how many we can count. If you don't count Weezer, your more than likely a moron.
Traditional thought suggests that the band's career has been very predictable. Signed as a result of rock and roll's so-called resurgence in the early 1990's, Weezer was given a deal they may have never landed had it not been for Kurt Cobain.
Cobain, a talented musician with a great rock and roll persona, is probably the most overrated music figure that crossed my mind. Nevermind has been called the best album in rock history, and that's too much. It was great, it was epic, but it was by no means the best. Was Cobain great? Yes, extremely. But he did more bad for the music industry than good, and I think he understood that. Afterall, he opened the door for many horrible acts; including Courtney Love. Plus, he called Eddie Vedder a phony, and even if that's true Eddie Vedder might be the smoothest character ever... this offense alone is worth three strikes.
(I own Nevermind, and it is one of my favorite albums. I happen to love Nirvana, and am a huge Dave Grohl fan. Just putting things into perspective here, that's all).
Back to Weezer. Rivers Cuomo is probably the antithesis to Kurt Cobain. Had it not been for sheer musical talent and a knack for catchy tunes, Rivers would have been a perpetual nerd. He would probably be managing a grocery store or arguing common pleas law if a deal would not have went down.
A product of the grunge era, I'm not sure if Weezer was ever a grunge deal at all. Sure they made their names playing in a Seattle garage like many grunge acts did. But in that respect I'm sure some people keep sedans in their garage while others keep pick-up trucks.
Many people like to draw comparisons between the two untitled records, (Blue and Green) because they're supposedly very similar and popular.
I find hardly any similarities between these two albums, and maybe that's just because I'm an asshole but still. Blue opens up with "My name is Jonas", a far cry from "Don't Let Go", which kicks off the Green album.
"Buddy Holly" was a popular track, and received tons of airplay on MTV. "Hash Pipe" was a popular track that received a lot of airplay, too. If this is the best comparison you can provide for these albums being similar, then let me also suggest that Naughty by Nature and Yellowcard are similar artists for that same reason.
Also, I think a lot of the comparisons come because each album was followed by a less popular and more introspective work; respectively, "Pinkerton" and "Maladroit". These two albums represent, for the most part, a different side of Weezer. Or rather, a different side of Cuomo. Weezer is, afterall, the vehicle driven by Rivers Cuomo.
Cuomo's genius is his sardonic approach to traditional music techniques. Listen to "In the Garage", the music almost mocks itself. Listen to Don't Let go, the ooh-wee-ooh seems to mock bebop music in general. And if that seems insulting, it should instead seem sincere.
I don't think it's a doubt that this band aims to be popular. On the same level, Franz Ferdinand does this, too. They're not trying outsmart people or pick a selective audience. The more people that hear them the better. It's not an exclusive club (no slight to musicians who do this like Pink Floyd, Interpol, etc.). Like the old saying goes, the more the merrier.
The most recent effort is titled "Make Believe" and has been the hardest for me to get used to. Historically, when Weezer comes out with another CD, I have some soul searching to do. It seems like they always want to change their style. Or that the point is they don't have a definitive style to begin with. Whatever the case, I still haven't fully embraced this album. I don't know exactly why. But I will continue the push to bring this into my musical lexicon, if you will.
Well, it seems I've put a decent-sized beating on the keyboard again for the night, so I'm gonna go ahead and wrap this up.
Rivers Cuomo is my go-to-guy. And yes, "Don't Let Go" is my favorite song right now.
Goodnight all.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Sunday, October 30th, 2005
| |
4:22 am
|
Today was an interesting day. I cringe at actually having to announce that a particular day in my life has been interesting, but that's beyond my reach. I can only wish that every day in my life was interesting, and then it would be redundant to actually have to go on record.
The truth is there are many, many uninteresting days in my life.
Probably that's the case in everyone's life... at least I hope it is because I'd hate to be missing something that important. And besides, misery loves company.
Twenty-four hour news networks have not caught on to this notion yet. To them (those?), all days are interesting and newsworthy because important things happen every day, between commercials.
Back to me. I attended a beautiful wedding reception in New Castle, Pennsylvania. My girlfriend, Beth, whom I have been with for three years, had invited me to her cousin Anthony's wedding. The function was held at the Scottish Rite Cathedral; a gorgeous, old-fashioned building.
There were about 600 people on hand, and from what I could gather there was also some alcohol present. Or so I was told. The bridal party and groomsmen numbered 13, which was awesome.
Not very long ago, my brother Luke was married. With these two latest events, it seems that the time has come for me to confront my own relationship.
My girlfriend and I, whose beauty is matched only by her heart in quality, have had many memories together. We have had many wonderful times, and we have also been through adversity.
I used to watch romantic movies as a kid and I remember being taken by the special bond that our two characters would share. I would hope against hope that the headlining actors would end up together. Of course, I understood nothing about love and lesser still about sex.
Then I became a teenager and I forgot about romantic comedies and discovered the interesting world of pornography. From this point on, I could care less whether these two (and sometimes three) people knew each other.
Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about.
I used to tell my girlfriend I loved her, and I always believed that I did. But with adversity comes uncertainty. Tough times are tests of relationships. What good is love if it's never put to the test? How can you even recognize it?
Maybe people never understand love. I see the Dr. Phils on TV and they pretend to have it all figured out. Some experts even write books of love, which until recently was considered comical.
Maybe you don't need to understand love. Maybe you just need to feel it.
No matter how cynical someone is; no matter how pragmatic one can be... I think everyone can agree that love is the most powerful ability that people have. Even if you're not sure whether love exists, your idea of what love is made of should be similar.
The best thing I can tell the world is that love does exist. Even if I can't tell you where to find it, or even how to start looking for it... I can tell you that it's out there.
It's not a wonder that our world is going through tough times. All of our news is bad. We're being led by people who believe that war is peace. We are being led by people who believe the less we know the better. We are being led by people who have no faith, but promote themselves as devoutly faithful.
We turn on the news and someone was killed, someone was robbed, someone was wronged, and someone was arrested. We read the papers and somebody lost money, somebody lied, somebody died, and somebody was accused.
This world was envisioned by then-Beatles frontman, John Lennon. A world where the news you receive is only bad, because only bad news is fit for print.
Underrated musician, Rufus Wainright asked in one song "Wouldn't it be a lovely headline / Life is beautiful on the New York Times?"
How lovely indeed.
For once, people could talk about hope and happiness. For even one day, optimism might be in favor. For one day, maybe we could all feel a little better.
Now, let me make perfectly clear that Thomas Jefferson has always been an interesting figure for me. I stop short of calling him an idol, because afterall he was a slave owner (we'll leave it at that). But one problem I had always had with him was the belief that Americans are entitled to a pursuit of happiness. Here was a man, extremely intelligent and corageous, believing that happiness is something that must be pursued. Happiness, in effect, is not anything entitled to people... not an inalienable right, as it were... but it takes a pursuit in spite of your government to achieve.
Here we are, 200+ years later, doing our best to pursue happiness. An interesting strategy is to sometimes forget the pursuit of happiness and just be happy instead.
There are plenty of things in life that need pursuing. Money, lovers, status, etc. Here's hoping that the pursuit of these things are happy and worthwhile. Not just happy as a result, but happy as a whole.
Machiavelli (I hate Machiavelli) once said that the ends justify the means. If this is the case, then your life will only be happy if you are successful in all of your pursuits.
A real person understands that life brings with it failure. "You've got to lose to know how to win." It's the thrill of the chase, the fact that you tried and did your best, that drives these people on. Not winning at all costs. Instead, learning from the mistakes.
Of course, Machiavelli was insane... a conservative idealogue who would probably be in George Bush's cabinet today.
Why don't we ever see happy, heartwarming moments of zen on the nightly news. Why don't we ever celebrate the every day tasks, like stopping at a coffee shop to catch up with friends. This is certainly something that many people do, and a lot of the time.
But it doesn't fit through a TV screen, the way that tight jeans don't fit a fat person.
Wolf Blitzer can't report about how happy everyone is at Joe's Pub in New Castle, because that doesn't appeal to your fears or your outrage.
There's nothing for Crossfire to argue about when it comes to walking your dog, or other worthwhile hobbies.
We're more likely to see the headline, "Life is Terrible" on the New York Times banner than we are to see the alternative.
The horrible thing about our media is that it has become so fixated on making people look bad, that it actually makes people feel bad. You shouldn't put faith in Crossfire. Robert Novak is a terrible man, and to tell the truth so is James Carville.
All these people want to do is argue. That's not fun... it's not even interesting. They show up to work each day and argue in front of a camera. Not only is it news in the worst degree, but it's also voyeurism in the worst degree.
But it sells.
And like any other product (which is precisely what the news is), it will continue to be sold until people stop buying.
The bottom line is this (if you've made it this far): I was born with the power to love and I have learned to use it.
I love you, Beth.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Friday, October 28th, 2005
| |
2:41 am
|
I briefly read a recent study on the internet about George Orwell's horrifying novel "1984." It was, I believe, a footnote off of MSN.com. A couple of backdoor clicks away and I would come to understand that George Orwell just might have been insane... at least at the time he wrote this book.
One of either two possibilities come to mind:
He was insane, and that explains why reading this book ruined my life.
-or-
He wasn't insane, but instead has become just another discredited detractor along the annals of history. And this explains why the book ruined my life.
Oh, yes. I was doing just fine going into my senior year in high school. And by fine, of course, I mean I was regularly drunk, doubly high and somehow maintaining good grades while rarely staying awake through class.
Enter the feels-like-the-cold-hand-of-death-checking-your-temperature-and-telling-you-everything-is-alright thriller that politicians have come to cite whenever they feel government has become intrusive. I rarely read any school books, but I would dabble in this shit/that shit if the mood struck me. Until this point, I would read pop-culture books, Michael Crichton books, Kennedy assassination books, porno magazines. But I picked up 1984 and could not stop reading. It's not that I enjoyed the book, it's more like I had a fear to set it down.
In class, at home, at the girlfriend's... I read the book day and night... and day. After all, I finished it on the second day (not very long).
Immediately the similarities were drawn between this Big Brother fella (a truly compelling, if a little ticklish kind of guy) and our beloved President, Mr. George Walker Bush. Bush, and perhaps more accurately the Republican agenda, made me afraid. I lost faith in my government, I lost faith in the American people, and I smoked some more ganjer for good measure.
My grades literally dropped tenfold. My interest in politics soared, but my faith in the system crashed.
I lost my sense of humor; there was a time when I distinctly remember making people laugh. I became bitter, and up to two years later I was diagnosed with depression.
Depression is very serious, but highly treatable. There are several therapies, not all of which include formal medical practice. I chose to take drugs. At first this made me feel worse, because it made me feel like I had let George Orwell down.
A voice said: "Has life got you down? Having trouble conforming? Take pills that have been designed to make your worries go away."
It really felt like the cold hand of death, and somehow that was good enough.
I can honestly point to my reading of this one book as the watershed for my being diagnosed with depression. This alone probably makes it one of the best and worst literary works of all time.
Since that time, I have completed the prescription and have probably learned more about life in the past two years than I could have ever imagined. Maybe, just maybe 10% of that was received through formal schooling.
There's a strange beauty about the darker things in life. To one degree, incense and black lights and Street Spirit by Radiohead. And to another, the lucid nightmares when only half of you wakes up. The beauty is in the mystery. You never can put your hand on it, but you can always feel it. You can't identify it but you still understand it.
Don't get me wrong, sometimes it's just what you need to rent America's hottest movie, eat butter-flavored popcorn and drink a cold Coca-cola. That's perfectly fine, too. I enjoy as much as anyone to watch a romantic comedy that I could probably recite the next few lines having never seen it before. There's comfort in familiarity.
But other times, it's great to look at the stars and create theories and find the meaning of life, only to forget it all before you have the chance to write it down.
I like to think about history. History, to me, is the most rewarding of all studies. A knowledge of history is ultimately a knowledge of truth. And a knowledge of truth is, well, intelligence. I think that the greatest power that human beings have is the ability to learn from the past. This also means that the greatest failure is to repeat a mistake.
A psychology professor of mine (extremely intelligent, a little arrogant, and consumed his own urine) once taught me that the first and most important rule of thought is, "Belief creates reality."
Literally, this mantra has been pounded into the skulls of all of his students. It's a very simple phrase for a very complex thought.
What if the color yellow appears different to you than it does to me? What if, when the school bus comes, your yellow is my blue, and vice versa. How could we ever know?
What if, by that same stretch of the imagination, the world appears lighter and happier to some? What if it appears darker and more mundane to others?
Maybe that's why some of us like shrimp cocktail and others despise it.
Maybe I've fried my brains out like the commercials with the eggs from back in the day.
When people ask me, I tell them I am liberal. This is probably because I have an utter distaste for the Republican party; past, present and, by all accounts, future.
But in general, I oppose a lot of government interaction at all. It seems to me that today in Washington, Republicans are for big government. I'm reminded of a quote by a famous moderate who said, "Republicans don't like big government unless it's their government."
The next amazing thing is the poor fiscal management that the boys in D.C. have displayed. For years, the Democratic Party had been denounced as "tax and spend." But what I really can't understand is that today's Republicans are famous for "borrow and spend."
By now you've lost interest... actually that probably happened a long time ago. Your probably not reading this. In that case, fuck you. If not, still fuck you, because that's how I roll.
I don't mean to continue about like this. It's really frustrating talking about politics... especially when the only one that will listen is a private blog on the internet. This is no more than one step above talking to myself, and qualifies me as a loser on at least two different levels. And that's fine.
I should stop back in tomorrow and have some interesting thoughts to throw down. Until then, I strongly recommend watching terrible TV... like Dog the Bounty Hunter. Because when up is down, this just might be the best thing on television. Seriously.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, October 25th, 2005
| |
1:15 am
|
The struggles of being a college kid...
We're broke and there's no denying it. The bottom line is, we go to college to save money. But for the four to five years we go, we have no money. We have to work to get through school, but we're competing for minimum wage jobs with people who have been laid-off from higher paying jobs. In turn, we have trouble finding employment because we don't have much training, and employers are reluctant to hire people they know will not be working for them very long.
Most of us have to take loans out to pay for school, which puts us well in debt as soon as we graduate.
The future is not looking so bright. In the fields of public service (teaching, policing, etc.) many employees who are eligible to retire are not doing so because they believe the economy isn't looking too good. In turn, we don't have many job opportunities for after graduation. As a criminal justice major, I am expected to have a job no less than one year out of the academy. If not, I have to retake it. It is not free... nor is it discounted. And the training is only good for the state of Ohio. This trend is not exclusive to public service. Also, take into consideration that more and more jobs are being lost, and this is a huge negative, too.
We have no time. Unless we were blessed with rich parents or loads of scholarship money, we have to work to get through school. Does academic performance suffer because we spend so much time at work and still try to have a social life? Sure it does, but try calling off work, where you're lucky to make 6 bucks an hour, and see how much money you have left after that.
We are advised that for every semester hour we take, we must study for three hours per week. Traditionally, students take 15 hours of school. This means that we should study for 45 hours. In order to afford 15 hours of school, we need to work about 30 hours. This means that 90 hours of our week are for obligations. Add 56 hours for sleep, which is a laugh because we're so exhausted from work that we need more than eight hours a day, and that puts us at 146 hours per week for necessities. There are only 168 hours in a week. This leaves 22 hours to shower, drive to school and work, run errands, see your boy/girlfriend, see your friends, see your family.
We have to go to school full-time, because if we don't then we lose medical coverages, and it will also take us even longer to graduate. By losing coverages, this means we have to pay more for them, which of course means we have to work more. So we stay in school. But the cost has risen for at least nine years running, yet the minimum wage has not been raised once in that time.
Because we have to drive to work and school, and still go out, we have to pay for a lot of gas. It's funny that the prices of tuition and gas, the two main things we college students purchase are continuing to rise. Are we making more money? No... I worked at the university and at a gas station and I never had a single raise. Instead, the exact opposite happened when I earned too much money at the university and was forced to quit my job because I ran out of eligible money through the work study program.
A lot of us are under the age of twenty-one. This means that our lives are free to suck as much as the rest of the adults, but we can't buy a beer. On paper, we are expected to attend class, work, and socialize without alcohol. As interesting as that sounds, we could always sign up for the army where you only need to be 18. Also, we could get arrested for drinking beer and serve a jail sentence, where you only have to be 18 as well (I was charged with underage drinking on my 20th birthday, by an officer who grew up when you only had to be 18 to drink).
Officers will also frequently write us parking tickets on campus, which is a laugh because there are more registered student parking passes than there are student parking spaces on campus. How does the university get away with this? The world may never know, but I'm guessing they make more of our money off of it. What are we supposed to do when we can't find a parking space?
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Thursday, October 6th, 2005
| |
2:29 am
|
Remember me? I used to foster all of my brainchildren here with you. It has been long since I have shared my thoughts. Many moons have passed. Let's see if we can't work out a more regular schedule again.
A lot of very exciting things are going on right now and I couldn't be more anxious to record them here. Firstly, the successful Halo series on Xbox is being made into a full-length Hollywood production, and I have pissed my pants, not once - but twice - in anticipation. Peter Jackson of LOTR fame will be a major consultant. I'm not really sure of the format, or how close the movie will be to the game itself but nonetheless that's extremely exciting.
Halo 2 will go down as my favorite video game in history (at least in the new generation). It's that good.
Speaking of video games, we are nearing the release of Xbox 360, the first of three NexGen (next generation for the gamer illiterate) consoles that are scheduled for release in the next year.
I am buying a 360, though I'm probably going to wait for the second round of shipments because the launch titles aren't really that enticing. In fact, the original Xbox will probably outplay the newer, improved system until more games are published. It might be that Microsoft rushed the release of it's console in order to get a jump start on Sony's Playstation 3.
The Playstation 3 will be the second console on the market, sometime I believe in early spring. I am told that the hardware is shitty as hell, but the games and graphics are not going to dissappoint. There are concerns about freezing that I have heard but I cannot legitimize those claims anymore than a horse's ass could. Anything Sony touches turns to gold, though, so right now they're the king until somebody knocks them off.
Nintendo has a lot to prove, and a huge deal to lose. This might be why they have kept almost the entire Revolution project under wraps and fully intend to keep it that way. Victims of a horrible third-party conspiracy, both Microsoft and Sony teamed up on Nintendo to defeat the Gamecube and despite good gameplay and formidable graphics, they succeeded. There just weren't enough games on the system. Forget the myths about interactive/on-line gameplay, or the lack of a DVD player, etc... Nintendo had to make nearly all of it's own games because companies were sold on the idea that only Microsoft and Sony would make money.
Originally, the Gamecube was never supposed to have existed. Nintendo's original product was either titled the Delphi or the Dolphin depending on who you speak with, and would have played cartridges as the N64 did. Supposedly, the graphics would have been better, and the system would have been scheduled for many, many more games. The problem was that it was too expensive to produce, and in the end they needed to get a new system on the market. All things considered, they got the job done with the Gamecube.
Say what you want, but Nintendo is definitely the master of the video game domain. Certainly Sony has held a corner on the market recently, but where were they when Mario was throwing fireballs at flying turtles? Making TV's and boomboxes.
The Nintendo Revolution will utilize a one-handed controller, not at all unlike a remote control for the TV. The reason is to maximize co-ordination, and yes, attract an older audience. Nintendo execs feel that parents have no problem changing channels on a TV, when will they ever lose their fear of playing video games.
The Revolution project is extremely risky, and Nintendo understands that. If the project is not a huge success, Nintendo might resort to what Sega had to do. Sell off all their ideas, and make games for the competitors. But the revolution won't fail, and will emerge as the clear winner in what will be the most exciting video game derby to date.
In other news, now ex-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been indicted on a few counts of money laundering and conspiracy to launder money. Republicans are dismissing the charges as baseless and feuled by a Democratic Prosecutor. People, Attorney Ronnie Earle has prosecuted Democrats, too. In fact, he even cited himself for failing to report a campaign contribution and was fined $200. Besides, if you really think Tom DeLay hasn't been playing around with money then you're lying to yourself. This isn't even news! It's what the Republican Party is all about! Why do you think they opposed so strongly campaign finance laws?
He accepted $100,000 dollars from EnRon. Shall I go on? It's illegal to use corporate money for state races in Texas. What the Republicans did was set up a political action committee that would accept the corporate donations and would in turn give them to candidates in Texas state races.
That is the very definition of money laundering. Usingmultiple transactions to give money the appearance of being credible, or at least untraceable. I know that, and I run a fucking Western Union machine. Clerks all across the country are aware that this is the very basis of laundering money. That's why they call it laundering. What do you do when your socks are dirty? Throw them in the laundry.
Now it's no secret that I'm a Democrat, but I never really liked Jim Traficant. In fact, I didn't really like him at all. But if the improprieties that he was guilty of (which he definitely was guilty) were worth eight years in prison, DeLay's actions have had far worse and more damaging implications than Traficant's ever did. Think about it. He funneled illegal money into races. He helped redraw the district map in Texas, adding five seats to the Republican house both at the state and federal level. He used the money to aid in the close races to assure victory in the redrawn districts. Isn't that seriously pure evil?
Also, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is set to undergo a fuill-scale investigation into his shady business transactions regarding the very timely dumping of stock he owned in a health company that his family had founded. At the time, his brother was a high ranking executive in the company. After Frist sold off all his shares, a couple weeks later the company went under.
Yes, this is what Martha Stewart did. Yes, it is very illegal. Will it be proven? Probably not, because even if Mr. Frist is guilty, insider trading is the absolute hardest law to prosecute successfully in the legal system. Besides, the five member SEC is made up of three Republicans and two Democrats and a majority vote is required to pursue further legal charges. While the chairman, a Republican, recused himself from any involvement, this means that one other Republican must vote to formally charge Frist with wrongdoing.
And in other news, longtime Republican counsel and friend to many prominent Republican figures Lewis (Scooter) Libby has been confirmed as one of two men responsible for leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative to the press. The other is Whitehouse Chief of Staff Karl Rove. Yes, Rove is George W. Bush's top advisor. Yes, Scooter Libby is Dick Cheney's top advisor. Yes, it is illegal to leak the name of a CIA agent.
The whole defense in this case had been that sources name shouldn't be revealed so that they can be protected. Well what about the CIA agent? Shouldn't Valerie Plame's name not have been revealed so that she could be protected? Afterall, undercover CIA agents probably have more dangerous jobs than news reporters. At least I would imagine so, right?
On top of that, Ohio Governor Bob Taft has been convicted of improprieties regarding gifts and other personal donations. He has recorded the lowest popularity rating in the history of polls... even lower than Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal. It's a shame that the idiot voters of Ohio elected Taft, not once - but twice - to be their leader. And all the stuff about the Coingate scandal hasn't even broken yet. Look for that late in the fall.
At the federal level, George W. Bush's popularity rating is much better than Taft's, as it is on the rise. Bush is sitting all the way up to 40%, the highest it has been in a while. And for the record, 40% is horribly dismal, especially for a President who has just begun his second term and has already had the power to nominate two lifetime Supreme Court justices. Also, fear of inflation caused the Dow Jones Industrial average to plummet another 130 points today.
In my own personal news, I am a full-time college student paying rising tuition costs. I am working without a contract at Tops Friendly Markets, and we could close any day. I am paying almost as much for a gallon of gas as I make an hour after taxes, and all intelligent signs point to the fact that my expenses will only rise as my wages will not... perhaps they will even drop or worse.
Anybody who has one good thing to say about George W. Bush is weakminded, and is sadly drowning in their own pool of stupidity.
I had thought that the Republicans were supposed to be highly moral examples of good clean, biblical leaders. Instead, they have been disastrous, money hungry, hypocritical and immoral even more than the Democrats at their worst.
Ladies in gentlemen, there are no Democrats left to blame. The power hungry Republicans are fighting amongst themselves here. Even their ongoing war has not helped the economy. After five years, don't you understand that this is the very design of the Republican economic system? Put the tax burden on the small people, feed money to the rich, increase unemployment and cut government assistance. Implement a corporate welfare system, reep the benefits of lobbyist money and campaign contributions. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It's not a cliche that fell out of someone's ass, it's what's happening.
And if you're offended because you consider yourself religious, I implore you to research William Jennings Bryan's speech on-line called "The Cross of Gold." For those who consider themselves very religious, you might know that Bryan is the man who represented the original argument to keep evolution out of schools, as he clashed with Clarence Darrow of the ACLU in the famous Tennessee court case.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, June 21st, 2005
| |
3:30 am
|
I had written a somewhat lengthy entry here not too long ago, but for some odd reason it would not post. I do not know why. But, really, I don't have that much faith in computers to begin with. Do I like them? Sure, I like e-mail, I like websites, talking to people... and the works. But would I trust the internet to, say, manage finances? Fuck no, I would not.
I had been doing a little bit of thinking what with the Father's Day holiday which we have just celebrated. My mother came up with a great gift idea from my brother and I... a copy of a 30-year old bootleg of a Bruce Springsteen concert.
What was so special about this concert is that it was in Cleveland and broadcast live on WMMS, which was for a very long time the best radio station in the country. Tune into 100.7 on your radio dial. The DJ's name at the time was Kid Leo, of vast rock and roll fame, and this was something that the station would do from time to time... broadcast announced or even unannounced concerts over the radio.
My dad had been working at a bar he and my uncle Rich ran at the time. He taped the whole concert then, but some standard wear and tear did take its toll over time and the tape lost quite a bit of sand quality. Alas, my mother found somebody who had a copy of the concert. We made a copy of our own to cassette, and we are also going to have it converted to CD very soon as well.
My mother always seems to know which cords to press. She is a glue for our family, flexible and strong. I am very proud of the relationship she has with my father.
Which brings me to a major area of interest for this journal entry. I gave a little thought to the gesture of buying a card for special occasions like Father's Day or birthdays or whatever. I find that it's kind of interesting to think that the way we show our love and intimacy is most typically through some mass-produced message, lacking much real intimacy at all.
Is Hallmark a nice, heartwarming store? The better part of me says yes. Picture frames, teddy bears and cards are all nice ways to remind someone that you care. But is there anything remotely intimate about a thousand copies of the very same card sent to a thousand different people? It doesn't seem likely to me.
I'm not being overly critical here... I'm getting to a larger, less judgemental point.
I understand that historians and analysts and media figures want to spend a lot of time and energy to discover who we really are as Americans. That really does seem like a noble and worthy cause for which to devote resources. But probably every single in-depth study or report that I have seen has always focused on the larger parts of life.
ex) In order to find out who we are, let's study our largest religions to uncover our value systems.
And much energy will be put forth to learn about, say, Christianity. The problem I have with that is that scholars of a certain faith might possibly know more about the actual faith then a lot of the people who practice it. I am Catholic, and I readily admit that there are scholars of a different faith who know more about the teachings of the Catholic church.
To say the least, it would be a little difficult to understand how religion shapes the every day lives of the American public. More than likely, many questions of religion are left unanswered and remain open for individual interpretation. It seems like sort of a longshot to find identity by speculating that which is almost surely ambiguous.
What's the solution? Allow me to talk out of my ass. To me, at least, it seems a little more practical to study the very small things in life as opposed to the very large things. What is interesting to me is that in our society, we like buying cards for people to show them we care.
It doesn't matter whether quantum physics suggest that the universe is expanding, because none of us know what the hell the universe is. That's like me telling you the West African Horn Bull has red spots. Does it really? We don't know, and the truth is it doesn't matter.
The key is to understand the very small things. These are the things that have the biggest impact. Remember the first time you tried ice cream? Do you sleep on your side? Is $2.00 too much for gas?
What's important is that we're always on the go, and we like the idea of driving up to a window and scooping up some ready-made food. Does that make us infidels? No, because religion really isn't much of a factor, is it?
I mean, really, would Jesus have boycotted McDonald's because he thought people weren't being intimate enough? In my humble opinion, he would have made sure everyone had filet-o-fish and that intimacy was displayed through caring and kindness... not over a large drink and a McValue fry.
Who are we as Americans? The answer is really complex, yet on the surface very easy. We are who we choose to be. Does everyone have to eat at McDonald's? No, you can try Burger King.
What if you don't like fast food? Well, you can go to the grocery store and cook your own dinner.
Or maybe you choose not to eat at all.
Whatever the case may be, it's in this diversity of ideas that we celebrate our true and lasting legacy.
Afterall, the only true diversity that exists is of ideology.
Colonists from Georgia evaded taxes, making them crooks and fugitives... a stark contrast from the religious northern colonists. But they all hated the British, so even though they had very little in common, they joined forces.
Diversity, as we know it today, is a mixture of races, genders, creeds, and anything else you might be able to insult about a single group of people.
Diversity initiatives, while stemming from incredibly moving ideals, are in themselves racist, etc. at the core.
Think about it. A racist white man hates colored people? WHY? Because they are colored.
On the other hand, another white man wants white people to get along with colored people? WHY?
Am I wrong or does that not follow?
Martin Luther King, a wonderful man and noble and brave leader said that his children should be judged "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Aren't we judging by the color of skin when we say, "Ok, you blacks and you whites all get along now."
I mean, what's the message? Sure, you have different colored skin, but you can overcome that?
Is there something inherently evil about having a different colored skin than someone else?
My girlfriend is white, and so am I. But we're not the same tint of white. In fact, we're not white at all so much as we are peach, or tan, or fucking blue with purple polka dots.
Really, what if there's a black person who is a total asshole? Am I racist if I don't like him? Maybe against those of the asshole race, but not the black race.
There is a much easier way to say this and get the message across. We can't claim to be free of racism if we're still identifying based on race.
Uh oh, you're thinking. Did I just diss Affirmative Action? Isn't John Kennedy my hero?
Is affirmative action a bad thing? Absolutely not, and for one reason alone. The 40 acres and a mule clause which was never delivered to the black people as promised. Is it okay for the government to help minority students get into college? Yes, because had they inherited forty acres, they'd more than likely already have the money to do that.
What does this mean? It means that there is a huge and understandable argument against the program. In fact, the sole reason that I support Affirmative Action is that the government lied to and cheated the minorities. Is it reverse discrimination? Surely not... when was the last time you got thrown out of a restaurant for being white?
But Affirmative Action does need to begin to phase out slowly and over time. As the generations have passed, so has the impact of slavery and the impact of segregation. There should be a day when the program is not needed. When true wealth is not relative to the size of your parents' bank account, or the color of your skin... but to the content of your character.
Is that what some folks call a conservative view? I don't know. And really, I don't care.
For all I know, George W. Bush is too liberal for me. Let me semi-briefly explain why.
George Bush believes firmly in what he calls faith-based initiatives.
In very simple terms, he believes that the government should give money to the church in order to help people.
Let's talk about why this is too liberal for me, and also why this is wrong.
First of all, is it wrong to give money to a church? No... I've done that before. Every Sunday at mass they pass around the baskets and the parishoners voluntarily donate to help keep their congregation in shape.
So what's wrong with the government giving money to the church?
Well, the first thing is that we don't tax the church... and rightfully so. Technically, the United States has donated more money to Churches than anyone else. The government pays a penny for each cent the church would be taxed.
It gets more simple, though.
Almost everyone agrees that it is wrong for the church to tax its parishoners. Why then should the church, through the government, be able to tax all people and not just its parishoners?
It gets less harsh than that, though.
What programs are we talking about running in our churches? Not many people know. I sure don't.
Is it wrong for people to seek help from God in times of need? No... in fact it is courageous... but the argument isn't about whether or not people are allowed to seek guidance from God. It's about whether or not the government should give money to the church.
But, how is George Bush too liberal for me? Well, liberals supposedly believe in big government. Isn't government involvement in the practice of religion about as big as it gets?
Well that's about it for me tonight, but I'll be back soon enough with some more shit to write about.
By the way, Jen, if you're reading this... I gave you a shout-out in the last post but it never actually made it on the website. How's everything going?
Peace all.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Sunday, June 12th, 2005
| |
4:23 am
|
It really amazes me to consider exactly how much video games have evolved even since I began playing them as a kid.
My first memories were of my brother Luke and I playing Super Mario, running across the bottom of the screen in one direction only... right to left.
In retrospect, the graphics were god awful. But at the time, the fact that Mario could simply pass as somewhat of a human-looking being was enough to mistify an entire generation. Of course, you won't find much of an argument against Super Mario being the greatest video game ever made. And the reason for that is cultural impact.
Nowadays, not only can video games move in more than one direction... they all tend to generally move in directions that are not even humanly possible.
Levels on early games like Mario were very simple. Everything was organized with little confusion, and each stage was probably made out of the same cookie-cutter. The opening stage was called 1-1 and so on. Each level mostly had two light stages and one dark, underground stage. The castle would follow on the third stage of the level. Once in a while, you'd get a curveball and go underwater or up in the air.
Now, the opportunites are endless.
One semi-legitimate argument I hear about newer video games is that most tend to be the same. What's the difference between one shooter-game and the next? The answer for that is actually a lot more obvious than most would like to admit.
It's the storyline that makes the difference. It's hard to say that many games on newer consoles have bad graphics. For the most part, no matter what game you're playing, everything is animated down to a T.
I've also heard that a video game's commercial success depends largely on it's mature content rating. This is entirely untrue. Mature-rated games still make up less than one-fifth of the entire game market, and many adult-themed games turn into box office bombs compared to other genres of the game persuasion.
Enough of the proverbial hogwash. What I want to talk about is, all things considered, what's the best video game going right now?
I probably don't have a realistic answer, but it never hurts to talk out of your ass. There is an immense argument for Grand Theft Auto - San Andreas to be the top game, but I'm not sure I agree. It's too addicting to be as engaging as some other games. Not that there is a single thing wrong with GTA 5, but I think there needs to be more computer involvement in the next one for this game to really come full circle. Rather than simply seeking out missions, players should be prompted more often by random characters to accomplish goals, (e.g. survive a tornado, unintentionally cross paths with henchmen, etc.)
There is probably not as solid of a character to define these times the way that Mario defined the early Nintendo years. After Mario, most could argue that Sonic the Hedgehog carried the 16-bit systems through, but really since that point it's been sort of a no-holds-barred for top dawg.
Crash Bandicoot, while a fucking cool dude and a great adventurer, is not a Mario or Sonic. Nintendo has stuck with Mario through some bad times, even if things have gotten a little redundant. That's respectable, but very tired, too.
Racing games are for adrenaline junkies who are too lazy to leave the house, and that's actually intended as a compliment. It's very hard to write an original storyline and keep a racing game interesting. Interest can be lost easily if there isn't a wide selection of gameplay. All racing games are pretty cool, but you can't pick a one-dimensional game as head honcho.
More than likely, the honor has to go to Halo 2. I will concede that the Halo title does not have the mainstream cultural impact that Mario did in his hey-day, but that type of popularity will likely not be revisited for some time. That's not to say that Halo has not had extreme commercial success, because it clearly has.
But what seperates Halo from a Medal of Honor, or Star Wars, or other shooter-happy games?
Halo 2 would be interesting to watch as a movie. The cinematics are unmatched, and the storyline is beyond intense. I'm not simply talking about how the fate of the earth is at stake, or whatever the hell else is all boiling down to the final stage. That's all fine and dandy. But give the Halo technical team all the credit in the world for painting such vivid pictures of characters. The bottom line is that in a game where gigantic aliens fight humans in intergalactic battle, using weapons that Captain Kirk could only have wet dreams about, the developers made the game believable. A daunting task to say the least.
You get the feeling that the workers had fun creating this game, and it translates in the gameplay. Afterall, that's the reason we play video games. If we can't fly to Florida once a month, at least we can blast off into outer space conveniently from the comforts of our own home.
I mentioned earlier about how simplistic the Mario gameplay was. Really, it was one game of dodging bullets and jumping over holes. There wasn't any more to it. If the level was supposed to be harder, then there were more bullets and holes. That's it.
Halo 2 stands at a polar opposite in this respect. The game involves just a pinch of strategy on top of shooting and ducking and avoiding holes. You have to know where you're moving on a map. You don't just start at the left side of the screen and understand that you've got to move toward the other side. You have to do a little thinking (not too much, though, don't be a nerd). The levels change like a scene changes in a movie... quickly, smoothly and sometimes un-noticed.
The list of contrasts between the two games goes on and on, but it's important to understand that the games do share a lot in common.
Virtually all "adventure games" follow the Mario style. They all tend to be made from the same trusty old mold.
Ok, I'm tired and I've got to be up early tomorrow to help out for my girlfriend Beth's graduation party.
Goodnight and I'll talk to ya later.
P.S. Hey Jen if you're reading this, how the hell ya been?
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| |
3:39 am
|
It really amazes me to consider exactly how much video games have evolved even since I began playing them as a kid.
My first memories were of my brother Luke and I playing Super Mario, running across the bottom of the screen in one direction only... right to left.
In retrospect, the graphics were god awful. But at the time, the fact that Mario could simply pass as somewhat of a human-looking being was enough to mistify an entire generation. Of course, you won't find much of an argument against Super Mario being the greatest video game ever made. And the reason for that is cultural impact.
Nowadays, not only can video games move in more than one direction... they all tend to generally move in directions that are not even humanly possible.
Levels on early games like Mario were very simple. Everything was organized with little confusion, and each stage was probably made out of the same cookie-cutter. The opening stage was called 1-1 and so on. Each level mostly had two light stages and one dark, underground stage. The castle would follow on the third stage of the level. Once in a while, you'd get a curveball and go underwater or up in the air.
Now, the opportunites are endless.
One semi-legitimate argument I hear about newer video games is that most tend to be the same. What's the difference between one shooter-game and the next? The answer for that is actually a lot more obvious than most would like to admit.
It's the storyline that makes the difference. It's hard to say that many games on newer consoles have bad graphics. For the most part, no matter what game you're playing, everything is animated down to a T.
I've also heard that a video game's commercial success depends largely on it's mature content rating. This is entirely untrue. Mature-rated games still make up less than one-fifth of the entire game market, and many adult-themed games turn into box office bombs compared to other genres of the game persuasion.
Enough of the proverbial hogwash. What I want to talk about is, all things considered, what's the best video game going right now?
I probably don't have a realistic answer, but it never hurts to talk out of your ass. There is an immense argument for Grand Theft Auto - San Andreas to be the top game, but I'm not sure I agree. It's too addicting to be as engaging as some other games. Not that there is a single thing wrong with GTA 5, but I think there needs to be more computer involvement in the next one for this game to really come full circle. Rather than simply seeking out missions, players should be prompted more often by random characters to accomplish goals, (e.g. survive a tornado, unintentionally cross paths with henchmen, etc.)
There is probably not as solid of a character to define these times the way that Mario defined the early Nintendo years. After Mario, most could argue that Sonic the Hedgehog carried the 16-bit systems through, but really since that point it's been sort of a no-holds-barred for top dawg.
Crash Bandicoot, while a fucking cool dude and a great adventurer, is not a Mario or Sonic. Nintendo has stuck with Mario through some bad times, even if things have gotten a little redundant. That's respectable, but very tired, too.
Racing games are for adrenaline junkies who are too lazy to leave the house, and that's actually intended as a compliment. It's very hard to write an original storyline and keep a racing game interesting. Interest can be lost easily if there isn't a wide selection of gameplay. All racing games are pretty cool, but you can't pick a one-dimensional game as head honcho.
More than likely, the honor has to go to Halo 2. I will concede that the Halo title does not have the mainstream cultural impact that Mario did in his hey-day, but that type of popularity will likely not be revisited for some time. That's not to say that Halo has not had extreme commercial success, because it clearly has.
But what seperates Halo from a Medal of Honor, or Star Wars, or other shooter-happy games?
Halo 2 would be interesting to watch as a movie. The cinematics are unmatched, and the storyline is beyond intense. I'm not simply talking about how the fate of the earth is at stake, or whatever the hell else is all boiling down to the final stage. That's all fine and dandy. But give the Halo technical team all the credit in the world for painting such vivid pictures of characters. The bottom line is that in a game where gigantic aliens fight humans in intergalactic battle, using weapons that Captain Kirk could only have wet dreams about, the developers made the game believable. A daunting task to say the least.
You get the feeling that the workers had fun creating this game, and it translates in the gameplay. Afterall, that's the reason we play video games. If we can't fly to Florida once a month, at least we can blast off into outer space conveniently from the comforts of our own home.
I mentioned earlier about how simplistic the Mario gameplay was. Really, it was one game of dodging bullets and jumping over holes. There wasn't any more to it. If the level was supposed to be harder, then there were more bullets and holes. That's it.
Halo 2 stands at a polar opposite in this respect. The game involves just a pinch of strategy on top of shooting and ducking and avoiding holes. You have to know where you're moving on a map. You don't just start at the left side of the screen and understand that you've got to move toward the other side. You have to do a little thinking (not too much, though, don't be a nerd). The levels change like a scene changes in a movie... quickly, smoothly and sometimes un-noticed.
The list of contrasts between the two games goes on and on, but it's important to understand that the games do share a lot in common.
Virtually all "adventure games" follow the Mario style. They all tend to be made from the same trusty old mold.
Ok, I'm tired and I've got to be up early tomorrow to help out for my girlfriend Beth's graduation party.
Goodnight and I'll talk to ya later.
P.S. Hey Jen if you're reading this, how the hell ya been?
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| |
3:39 am
|
It really amazes me to consider exactly how much video games have evolved even since I began playing them as a kid.
My first memories were of my brother Luke and I playing Super Mario, running across the bottom of the screen in one direction only... right to left.
In retrospect, the graphics were god awful. But at the time, the fact that Mario could simply pass as somewhat of a human-looking being was enough to mistify an entire generation. Of course, you won't find much of an argument against Super Mario being the greatest video game ever made. And the reason for that is cultural impact.
Nowadays, not only can video games move in more than one direction... they all tend to generally move in directions that are not even humanly possible.
Levels on early games like Mario were very simple. Everything was organized with little confusion, and each stage was probably made out of the same cookie-cutter. The opening stage was called 1-1 and so on. Each level mostly had two light stages and one dark, underground stage. The castle would follow on the third stage of the level. Once in a while, you'd get a curveball and go underwater or up in the air.
Now, the opportunites are endless.
One semi-legitimate argument I hear about newer video games is that most tend to be the same. What's the difference between one shooter-game and the next? The answer for that is actually a lot more obvious than most would like to admit.
It's the storyline that makes the difference. It's hard to say that many games on newer consoles have bad graphics. For the most part, no matter what game you're playing, everything is animated down to a T.
I've also heard that a video game's commercial success depends largely on it's mature content rating. This is entirely untrue. Mature-rated games still make up less than one-fifth of the entire game market, and many adult-themed games turn into box office bombs compared to other genres of the game persuasion.
Enough of the proverbial hogwash. What I want to talk about is, all things considered, what's the best video game going right now?
I probably don't have a realistic answer, but it never hurts to talk out of your ass. There is an immense argument for Grand Theft Auto - San Andreas to be the top game, but I'm not sure I agree. It's too addicting to be as engaging as some other games. Not that there is a single thing wrong with GTA 5, but I think there needs to be more computer involvement in the next one for this game to really come full circle. Rather than simply seeking out missions, players should be prompted more often by random characters to accomplish goals, (e.g. survive a tornado, unintentionally cross paths with henchmen, etc.)
There is probably not as solid of a character to define these times the way that Mario defined the early Nintendo years. After Mario, most could argue that Sonic the Hedgehog carried the 16-bit systems through, but really since that point it's been sort of a no-holds-barred for top dawg.
Crash Bandicoot, while a fucking cool dude and a great adventurer, is not a Mario or Sonic. Nintendo has stuck with Mario through some bad times, even if things have gotten a little redundant. That's respectable, but very tired, too.
Racing games are for adrenaline junkies who are too lazy to leave the house, and that's actually intended as a compliment. It's very hard to write an original storyline and keep a racing game interesting. Interest can be lost easily if there isn't a wide selection of gameplay. All racing games are pretty cool, but you can't pick a one-dimensional game as head honcho.
More than likely, the honor has to go to Halo 2. I will concede that the Halo title does not have the mainstream cultural impact that Mario did in his hey-day, but that type of popularity will likely not be revisited for some time. That's not to say that Halo has not had extreme commercial success, because it clearly has.
But what seperates Halo from a Medal of Honor, or Star Wars, or other shooter-happy games?
Halo 2 would be interesting to watch as a movie. The cinematics are unmatched, and the storyline is beyond intense. I'm not simply talking about how the fate of the earth is at stake, or whatever the hell else is all boiling down to the final stage. That's all fine and dandy. But give the Halo technical team all the credit in the world for painting such vivid pictures of characters. The bottom line is that in a game where gigantic aliens fight humans in intergalactic battle, using weapons that Captain Kirk could only have wet dreams about, the developers made the game believable. A daunting task to say the least.
You get the feeling that the workers had fun creating this game, and it translates in the gameplay. Afterall, that's the reason we play video games. If we can't fly to Florida once a month, at least we can blast off into outer space conveniently from the comforts of our own home.
I mentioned earlier about how simplistic the Mario gameplay was. Really, it was one game of dodging bullets and jumping over holes. There wasn't any more to it. If the level was supposed to be harder, then there were more bullets and holes. That's it.
Halo 2 stands at a polar opposite in this respect. The game involves just a pinch of strategy on top of shooting and ducking and avoiding holes. You have to know where you're moving on a map. You don't just start at the left side of the screen and understand that you've got to move toward the other side. You have to do a little thinking (not too much, though, don't be a nerd). The levels change like a scene changes in a movie... quickly, smoothly and sometimes un-noticed.
The list of contrasts between the two games goes on and on, but it's important to understand that the games do share a lot in common.
Virtually all "adventure games" follow the Mario style. They all tend to be made from the same trusty old mold.
Ok, I'm tired and I've got to be up early tomorrow to help out for my girlfriend Beth's graduation party.
Goodnight and I'll talk to ya later.
P.S. Hey Jen if you're reading this, how the hell ya been?
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Thursday, June 2nd, 2005
| |
1:31 am
|
One thing that's very easy to target as a problem in our culture is materialism.
I am an avid attacker of materialism; there can be no mistaking that notion. But in order to be a little more objective, I think it's important to look at the positive things that material objects offer us.
I was reading a commentary in Newsweek written by George F. Will. Will is by all means an intellectual and by all means a conservative Republican. Though attacking materialism usually comes from the socialist left side of the political spectrum, Will was deploying the faith-based approach.
It was the single worst commentary I have ever read, for so many reasons. Citing both the Pope and Teri Schiavo, Will spoke of the dangers of misunderstanding that the body is merely a vehicle for the soul.
Is George Will a dumbass or what?
Who really wants to think of their body as a vehicle? Like anybody honestly wants to consider their entire life a complete waste and test to see if whether or not they can get into heaven and then be happy.
It really does astonish me how some people can live their entire life in a self-imposed state of abstinence in hopes of reaching heaven, where if my imagination serves me right, abstinence is non-existent.
How can people live a whole lifetime avoiding things and then die and go to a place where they will do these things all the time?
Can you sin in heaven?
That's the bottom line; the underlying theme for this entry.
I remember being a little kid and always thinking about how I would ever go an eternity without doing one thing wrong. Would Saint Peter shun me to hell if I accidentally let a cuss word slip while in heaven?
Now, back to the original thesis of the whole entry here. I am materialistic in many ways. What sets me apart from the type of person that I despise the most is my attitude regarding that idea. I don't purchase stuff or wear stuff, whatever, to intentionally outdo somebody else.
I don't wish to be in the class elite. I believe that people who are pre-disposed with being better than other people have internal issues that they should resolve. I think that success should be widespread. I do not like when the people on top take satisfaction out of the strife of the people below.
Anyway...
I stated in the previous entry that my dad and I are going up to Geneva to stay the night at my uncle's (his brother). This is also where I am planning to have my brother's bachelor party later on in the month. So, tomorrow I will be surveying territory and assessing utilities.
My cousin is also going (my uncle's son). It's going to be a blast. Four Watts boys together spells trouble.
Another camping trip is in the making as we speak. Needless to say I am very excited about it.
My puppy Molly is laying on the bed which is right next to me, and I think she wants to play. I love my baby girl. Even though she is almost 50 pounds.
Speaking of baby girls, my girly girl Bethy (why am I talking so gay?) has one more day left of school ever. Tomorrow is her last day of school in her senior year. I'm proud of everything that she has done and I am very happy to have been with her all the way. She was there for me when I went through all the changes and now it is my turn to return that favor. I wish her nothing but the best of luck. I hope we are happy and together for a long time.
Well I'm gonna go wrestle with my puppy a little bit and see what's cookin on the Food Network (no pun intended). We shall meet again shortly. Goodnight.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, June 1st, 2005
| |
1:28 am
|
Tonight's a good night to write some shit down. There's a lot going on right now to talk about, and I'm pretty bored.
Let's talk about video games for a minute. Video games, when they became a sort of in-your-home kind of thing, were almost exclusively intended for kids. Games like Super Mario and Tetris were specifically geared towards kids, almost really as an experiment at the time. I think it brings justice to the concept of game consoles to understand that large corporations like Nintendo and Atari were really gambling when they made play-at-home systems.
Ultimately, at the time, these appliances were perceived as arcade systems that you could take home. The video game market was largely dominated by arcade and game rooms, or individual arcade machines in local stores. A video game experience meant leaving the house and usually bringing a crew of kids along with you to see who could get the highest score on Frogger.
But there came a time when someone figured, "What the hell... why not bring the games to the kids?"
There is a good argument for Atari to be the first mainstream game system. There were a handful of early systems that had some market success. But if you want to look at where the video game revolution really began, you have to look at the original Nintendo Entertainment System.
Mario is undeniably the all-time face of video games. Not Sonic the Hedgehog, not Mega Man, nobody but Mario.
I'm not all that concerned in discussing the way that graphics have changed, or how dimensions have expanded, or whatever serious game junkies like to talk about.
I play video games. I don't need to dissect them.
What I want to talk about is cultural impact (what else, right?) What I want to understand is what type of significance do video games have on society as a whole?
It's easy to sit at some big mahogany desk with stacks of important papers and conclude that video games that are violent in nature contribute to violence in society. Certainly, whether or not this claim is accurate, it does bare cultural significance.
I tend to disagree with this notion because it seems far too shallow of an idea to put much faith into. Certainly there are a few jackasses who will mimmick what they see on TV, but they're not doing it to translate the video game into real life... they're doing it because they have a trait which makes them vulnerable to violent exposure in the first place; video game or not.
Perhaps the cruelest idea of circular logic I have seen regarding the media and violence came from Michael Moore's documentary "Bowling for Columbine." A group of pro-censorship activists were holding a rally in protest of Marilyn Manson's concert in Denver, some time after the horrific tragedy.
One jackass said something to the effect of... "Will everybody who goes to the Marilyn Manson concert go out and pillage and kill? No. Will everyone who sees a Lexus commercial goes out and buy a Lexus? No, but a few will!"
That's just stupid in nature.
Here's the difference... Lexus wants you to buy cars. Marilyn Manson doesn't want you to kill people. Get over it.
Ok, back to video games... I guess I got sidetracked.
I think something that is rarely or never discussed about video games is how they level the economic playing field considerably.
And the internet does this, too.
I mean, really, you could have two totally different people. One who lives in a one room studio apartment, living from paycheck to paycheck. Another who lives in a four-story mansion and never worked a day in his life. And they could both be playing the very same game; spending their time the very same way.
Really, when you're watching TV or playing a video game, if it's very interesting you tend to lose yourself in it. That's the utter brilliance of the television. It can take you places without you moving or even expending very much energy to begin with.
Video games are not intended for poor people or rich people. Even if one makes the argument that games are expensive, there is still a vast amount of people who don't have much money that make the investment.
It might be very interesting for some folks to do an extensive study on why people spend so much time trying to escape their own reality.
Seldom if ever do you play a video game without focusing all of your attention to it. Just like reading a book... taking a Calgon bath, whatever.
This same reason is why many people take drugs. Not that the Mario Brothers and Calgon are considered narcotic paraphernalia, but you understand the idea.
What is it that sucks so bad about reality that makes people want to get away from it? And if everyone is trying to get away from it, then why don't we just make reality cooler?
I don't even have the usual bullshit guess at that one.
I wish I knew why it was so exciting to shoot heads off on Halo 2 or any other shooter game. My best guess is that it allows a player to do things that they would never do in real life. That's why it's fun; because it literally adds a new element, a new dimension even, to your life.
Guilty pleasures are, afterall, the most fun.
The odd thing is that I've never heard one Congressman, or so-called advocate, ever argue that violent video games might be helpful. Maybe by allowing for an alternate medium to act out sinister plots, we find a place to relieve ourselves of their inherently negative energy.
Well, anyway, my girlfriend Beth and I have began talking with a few friends about setting up a camping trip. We haven't gone since last year when I wrote about it here (which was only a few entries ago) but we're looking to get back into the swing of things now.
I'm in the process of changing jobs as I have been working at McQuaid's for the past eight months. The new manager is a total douche bag, though. He is the worst boss ever. Not only is he a dick, but he's also stupid and not qualified. What a prick.
Luckily, I have quite a few options. A regular customer from down there offered me a job in Youngstown working on window frames for $7.50 an hour and all day-turn.
One of my buddies has an aunt who owns a convenience store one block down from my house, and he said he could get me in down there.
Another one of my buddies works at Best Buy in Niles, which would be a cool job.
And then we have the world famous Jib Jab Hot Dog Shoppe where Beth and the rest of Girard works.
I'm not in a hurry, though. Something will work out.
You should hear from me soon again, but I'm itching to play some Xbox.
I've got a big trip up to Geneva on Thursday planned with my dad and my cousin that I'll probably elaborate on tomorrow. I'll talk to you guys later, and take it easy.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Friday, May 27th, 2005
| |
2:47 am - You know what really pisses me off...
|
Actually, there's an endless list of things that piss me off, really.
Now, I'm a Criminal Justice major, so that qualifies me to be somewhat of an expert on the topic of Criminal Justice (sadly). Personally, I don't think that a person's level of education has any baring on their actual level of intelligence, but that's just me.
It's amazing to me the level of policing that our country has adopted recently. And, no, I'm not simply talking about terrorism or the PATRIOT ACT or all of that other useless garbage. I'm talking about good ol' fashioned po-licing here.
My city, the staple of Americana (ahem), is seriously considering implementing the use of traffic cameras to moderate traffic violations through town.
...
Now, I grew up in Girard, Ohio. And no matter how much I try to hate this city, this is where I am from. This is my home. I am proud of her, as only the mother of a red-headed stepchild could be.
But let's get real. We can't put more policemen on our streets, but we've got wonderful ideas of putting tiny robots on telephone polls, acting as policemen.
I'm not going to speak of how Orwellian this really is. That's another debate entirely.
The bottom line is that do you seriously want to live in a town where every single time a person jumps a yellow light, they get a ticket?
Let's say you let me borrow your car, and I run a red light... who gets the ticket?
Not me, it's not my license plate that was photographed.
Do we have better things to do then think of cool, techno ways to give out traffic tickets?
Why do we have to go to council meetings and even discuss all this bullshit.
Why can't we ever have a council meeting that goes something like this.
"Well, there's absolutely nothing to do. Nothing at all. The chair entertains a motion to adjourn."
No, we can't have that, because Councilman Freddy Fuckerface wants his name in the paper. "Oh boy, cameras on the streets! Yay! I'll clean those streets of petty traffic offenders!"
I could go on, but if you're not with me by now, then there's no hope.
How about underage drinking laws. Now, I'm not talking about 15 year olds running around town with tall boys of Steel Reserve. I'm talking about 18+ year olds drinking alcohol.
We have all heard about how you only have to be 18 to fight a war, but you have to wait three years to drink, so there's an easy way to start.
But there's so much more to it than that.
Most politicians are old. They have nothing to do with their time, except for think of new ways to save the world. One way to save the world, naturally, is to get kids off the streets.
You tend to hear this from time to time. "Get kids off the streets." "There's too many kids on the streets."
And, afterall, the streets are a horrible place for kids to be. They belong indoors, preferably in their own home, watching educational TV, not eating fast food and avoiding violent video games.
After school programs are a great way to get kids off the streets. Politicians remember fondly just how fun it was to take classes after school... only they referred to it as detention.
What if we made the streets safer so that the kids could enjoy the streets? Just a thought.
I wonder how much media attention was focused on the youth of generations past. Today, we hear about how horrible the child obesity rate is, how horrible violent video games are. We definitely need metal detectors in schools because every child is capable of declaring war on the cafeteria.
Violence is, afterall, a terrible thing. There will be no wars in the cafeteria, unless you walk over to the Navy recruiting station right next to the a la carte line. The nice navy man will let you in on all the hot tips. Earn money for college! See the World! Meet Interesting People (then kill them)!
History has a kind of odd cycle to it. Take technological booms out of the equation. One thing of interest in American history is that generations of youth tend to sway from vastly patriotic to horribly disillusioned.
Perhaps the worst case of disillusionment came in the aftermath of WWI, when many young Americans moved to France. A liberal revolution took place in the hearts and minds of young Americans. The next generation, the WWII generation, united under a flag, right or wrong, for a single cause. These heroes really did save the world.
Then, Viet Nam happened. Instead of fighting off a brutal dictator with plans of taking over the world and genetically cleansing it, we had to settle for fighting for a democracy in a country that was inevitably going communist.
Let's get one thing straight about Viet Nam that many people don't understand. We didn't lose that war. I hate Nixon as much as the next Kennedy, but he did not lose a battle of brute force. The American military vastly overpowered any Viet Cong enemy in it's sights, aside for the tragic Tet Offensive. The problem was that 8 out of 10 American deaths in that war were so-called "friendly fire." The problem was that no matter how many villages burned, no matter how many enemies killed, we couldn't win a battle of metaphysics.
In the 1980's America fought no wars of significance. We invaded Grenada. Military enrollment soared. Patriotism flourished. Ronald Reagan is credited for restoring faith in the military. This is when America really fucked up. Ronald Reagan was a second-rate actor, who came from a modest upbringing and was raised a Democrat. Then he got rich by being a second-rate actor and he was like, "Shit man, fuck all that." He was the President of the Screen Actors Guild, which is a union. I mean seriously, though, does anyone consider an actor to be a beast of burden?
Ronald Reagan made the military enlistment rise, though no one ever explains why. "He was just so charming", is the most common answer. Anyone that believes that a President's charm makes kids want to join the military doesn't understand kids at all.
There weren't any fucking dangerous wars! Hello.
Anyway, patriotism flourished in the 80's and early 90's.
Then Bill Clinton took office and drastically reduced the size of the American military. Republicans said he was a fucking pussy. Then he invaded Kosovo and didn't suffer a single American casualty. What a loser!
Then George W. Bush, a founding father, took Bill Clinton's military into Afghanistan (yes, it was Clinton's military as not a single Bush military initiative had yet made it through Congress). Those Republicans hated Clinton's military so much they decided they'd lend it to go fight the Taliban.
Anyway the bottom line is that this generation, the late 90's and on, is stuck in a serious limbo.
If there's only one thing you read, let it be this.
Historically, the current generation should be disillusioned if you believe in the viscious cycle. But, September 11th changes this way of thinking. It would be like if Viet Nam had been started by Pearl Harbor.
I think that almost all people understand that Iraq had next to nothing to do with the horrible attack, but patriotism has been resilient as a matter of principle.
I'm not calling this mantra idiotic. I surely don't agree with it, but it is entirely understandable.
It is very difficult for many to disagree with their military after suffering a huge militaristic defeat.
Anyone who claims that George Bush would have had as successful a tenure without 911 is lying. That should be understood. Even the Republicans campaigned on the fact that George Bush is stronger on terrorism than anyone else.
In 2000, did Bush announce plans to rid the world of terrorism. No. How about plans to spread democracy all throughout the world? No.
How about how horrible the Taliban is? How about how much he wants to free Iraq and build a democracy? No, no, no.
Is the average American voter stupid? No.
How can they re-elect a man who has had clearly the worst economic record in decades?
How can they re-elect a President who invades a country to sieze their weapons and then never finds them?
It's easy. He was the shoulder to cry own, and it's a thing called sheer loyalty.
Have you ever stood up for a friend or relative you knew to be wrong? Most of us have.
Now I'm as far away from this line of thought as can be. I hate it, but that's the way it is.
Love is blind.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Saturday, April 30th, 2005
| |
2:38 am
|
My girlfriend Beth has had her eye set on the Dooney and Bourke purse line which is sold, exclusively, I believe, at Dillard's.
For her insuing graduation in a couple of months, I had been planning on buying her one as a gift because I knew she would really love it. I remember for my graduation that she bought me a DVD player along with a gift of cash and that was really thoughtful.
Things changed, though, when we were on the phone one night and we were joking about the purse. Keep in mind I was planning on buying it for her as a surprise. Jokingly, she said to me that I should drop what I was doing and go out and buy her one.
Something snapped in me. How perfect an opportunity would this have been to say what the hell and go for the gold.
So without another word, I hung up the phone. It was 8:30 and the mall was closing in a half hour. I made my mind up that the time was now. Who else would do something like this? She'd fucking flip.
I had to try and be smooth about it, so after I picked up the purse (which is a story all in itself), I was trying to think of the best way to get it to her. I didn't want to wait another day. It would lose just a tiny bit of luster. It had to be spontaneous. For me, timing is indeed everything. The time was right and the mood was proper. It was time to go.
I couldn't think of a nifty way to seal the deal. Just showing up at her house and handing it to her would have been nice, but also a little lame. I didn't want to be there when she got it. I wanted it to be a total shock.
So I drove close to her house and parked at the end of the next block. I could see her from a distance in the window sitting on her couch, and I think for a second she recognized my car and got up to look out. I froze, trying not to move. Her living room lights were on, so naturally that impedes your vision. I escaped a close call.
I ran like all hell to her front porch, using this big ass pine tree in her front yard to hide out of sight. The whole time her huge ass dog is barking and blowing my cover. The next thing I know, I'm there on the porch and I set the Dillard's bag down at the precise moment that her mom opens the side door. Luckily, I was at the front of the house, but still this was close. The heat was on. I took the fuck off out of there, as I could hear her mom barking at the dog.
I flew to my car, got in, threw it in gear and fucking dipped. When I finally talked to her after getting home, I guess she was out on the porch so quick that she actually caught my car racing down the street. In my head, I thought the perfect case scenario would have been for me to get home and for her still not to know. This way, I could call her and tell her to come outside.
But the actual chain of events worked out just as well, and Beth was shocked and amazed. She told me she loves the gift and that makes me feel good. I like to see her happy, and I know that she deserves moments like that for being such a good girlfriend and everything else, too.
That's the good news that I have to bring you for this chat. There is, however, also some bad news that I feel is imperative to address.
For the past seven months, I have been working out McQuaid's, a local gas station. I've been pumping gas as well as running the cash register on the inside and I can say with a great deal of confidence that this is one of the best jobs I have ever had.
I enjoy the regular customers, I love the co-workers, and I don't find the work to be very stressful. This is the ideal job for a college kid like me to have as they're going through school. The pay is pretty good considering where I'm at, and the job doesn't demand too much that it would take away from school or my social life.
On October 1, when I began working at McQuaid's, I got to know a man by the name of Allan Crain. Allan was the manager of our store; a down to earth guy with a good sense of humor and a tremendous deal of patience.
At one point, we needed another employee to hire down there and Allan took my reference when I told him that my buddy, Tom would be a good fit. To me, that displayed an amount of trust that I appreciated immensely from someone who was ultimately my superior.
I don't think that Allan in any way ever thought of himself as a "superior" to any one of his employees. He still worked outside most of the time, pumping gas. He stocked the coolers like everyone else; actually, he probably did more stocking than anyone else.
You would take his word and his advice because you really believed he knew where he was coming from. The greatest testament to his legacy is the fact that for as long as I worked there, I never saw him flustered or angry. In fact, no employee there had ever seen him flustered or angry.
I can only begin to imagine the added stress that a manager has to endure. It's a far cry from simply showing up and running the register for a few hours. It was his responsibility to make sure everything was in order. From work schedules to new product orders and everything in between, the burden rested on his shoulders.
He dealt with it much better than I believe I could. Even if he was frustrated about even one thing, he never let on to his employees.
Sadly, a man of his high ideals can be mistreated and used in today's world. It was an eye-opener to me that Allan had never enjoyed a raise in the last six years. I heard from those close to situation that of all the McQuaid's managers, Allan was the one left to do the most work.
Allan would have never have said any of this to me, because I don't think it was his nature to complain. He certainly deserved raises in pay; even promotions.
After nineteen years with the company, since he was in high school, Allan Crain decided to leave McQuaid's for a job with better pay, better hours, and better benefits.
My reaction is mixed, but mostly I am proud of and happy for him. It's the selfishness in me that misses him and wishes he would have stayed, but my more intelligent half understands wholeheartedly his position.
It's a shame that such a hard, dedicated worker can be treated so unjustly. Anymore, it seems that legitimate complaints such as these fall on the deafest of ears, in the name of the almighty dollar.
Our new manager, whose name I care to not to mention, is a total dickhead. As my good friend, Ben Lydic would say, "I have my reasons."
It's an utter travesty that the prevailing mentality in the workforce today seems to be that the boss must be adversarial in nature, and use negative energy to motivate workers to do well. I find this line of thinking an insult to my intelligence and the insult to the intelligence of all workers everywhere.
I know now firsthand that it's much easier to work hard for somebody that you don't want to let down. You're more likely to do more work for somebody that doesn't make it hard for you to work for them. You want to work for the nice guys, not the bad guys who operate on a one track mind locked on money.
Customers loved Allan as much as his employees did, and I'm sure to some extent that McQuaid's will lose business out of the deal. It was now and should always be remembered as a collossal error in judgment on the part of the McQuaid's front office not to retain Allan.
Sure a good deal of customers while remain loyal to the store, mostly out of necessity or routine. But if asked under whose management they'd prefer, I am certain the overwhelming response would be a resounding victory in Allan's corner.
The effects have already taken a toll on the station's staff. One employee has decided to leave the company after seventeen years of service. A greater fallout is imminent.
As soon as I find a job that pays comparable to what I make now, I'll be gone as well. As many as four other employees have discussed seriously they're desire to leave. If this were to happen, that would mean that six out of seven members of the staff would leave in the aftermath of the departure.
The only other employee in question has said in confidence that he intends to "see what happens." Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
The bottom line through this whole story is that Allan Crain should have never been treated so poorly by a company that he always put at the forefront. He was a true team leader, and a great team player.
I wish him only the best of luck at his new job, and I'm delighted that he is in a better position for himself.
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, April 26th, 2005
| |
1:42 am
|
If this journal were ever looked upon through some kind of time capsule, it would be interesting to note that in the last year I haven't really written much. It would appear historically that very little happened in my life over this course of time which is always untrue.
It's the same sort of idea that you get when you think about television shows and the season finales. Like the Friends episode when Ross was going to marry that one girl and he accidentally said Rachel's name at the altar. Then, for the entire summer, absolutely nothing happened until the next season started and they were right back at the wedding.
Therein lies an interesting problem in history, and ultimately in the media in general. It's very tough to document what has really happened and convey it clearly.
Think about what you know about American history for a second. The odds are that almost everybody, aside from historians, has the same concept of the story of America.
George Washington was the greatest man who ever lived. The forefathers were untouchable, perfect in every way, and the say all end all on everything that has to do with politics.
The truth is that probably nobody knows really even one of George Washington's policies; including me. I can guess though that he wasn't perfect because the Articles of Confederation were deemed entirely unacceptable and scrapped in order to salvage the nation.
George Washington was elected unanimously to be the nation's leader. This much we know as truth. But we don't know if all of the voters actually liked him, or if there were deals made that would assure whoever won the election would get every single vote in order to show solidarity.
History would seem kind of odd if the founding father won by a single vote. It sounds a lot better if the founding father didn't have a single vote against him.
I've got a long way to go, here.
Move forward and think about President William Howard Taft who holds the distinction for being the only man to ever serve as both President and Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. If Taft had to fill out an application for any job, his credentials would stand far ahead anybody else's in the nation's history. But, instead, he is known for being the fat guy who got stuck in the bath tub.
That's another thing that bothers me about history. The vast majority of people are known for one single feat that they accomplished at any point in their life.
Orville and Wilbur Wright invented the airplane. This was of course the only interesting thing they ever did.
But a diary entry written by the brothers' father reads:
"This morning at 3:15, Wilbur passed away, aged 45 years, 1 month, and 14 days. A short life, full of consequences. An unfailing intellect, imperturbable temper, great self-reliance and as great modesty, seeing the right clearly, pursuing it steadily, he lived and died."
The father, Bishop Milton Wright, says nothing about inventing an airplane in what we can assume is a sort of obituary in his personal diary. A father saw his son as so many things, but history sees him as a man who did one great thing.
I'm not suggesting that we should know everything about the life of Wilbur Wright, like what he ate for breakfast or any of that shit. I'm merely pointing out the irony that people can gain historical notoriety through one single deed as opposed to a lifetime of work.
What if Wilbur Wright was a total asshole? How ironic is history then? Maybe if we knew for sure, our tune would change. "Sure, he invented the airplane but he was a douche bag."
History is an integral part of our culture of education, as it certainly should be. But I think we take everything read in a history book for granted. Think about it. We're teaching fourth graders that Spanish conquistadors came to South America to conquer Indian nations, take their gold, and force them into converting to Christianity at the point of a gun.
We don't consider if that actually means anything. It's simply been deemed appropriate as something that our students should know about.
We don't consider if that story is actually even the way it happened at all. Nobody can account for what happened to some of the ancient tribes, they just kind of dissappeared.
What if somebody with a brilliant imagination and the means necessary simply made it up? I don't mean to sound cynical, I've been practical throughout this entire entry here. Just bare with me. If we're not talking about Mayans or Aztecs, then we could be talking about something on a much lesser scale.
Take the Kennedy assassination for example. While many (not all I should mention) laws of physics defy history's explanation of who killed JFK, history still points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone gunman. This is the way it was explained as the time, and in the face of dissent this explanation has remained consistent over time.
Don't get me wrong, let's not rule out that Lee Oswald did act alone. But we certainly don't know for sure, even though history claims to have the answer.
The funny thing about science is that in never ever changes. However, the study of science changes constantly.
Think of a small rock. Let's take a caveman and give him this rock. He would know that the rock is light enough to carry, has a hard surface, and he might be able to use it as a weapon.
Fast forward into modern times: Give a doctor the same exact rock and he could tell you how old it is, if there is anything growing on it, what it is made up of, if it could be used to help cure any diseases, whether or not it was used as a murder weapon, who has come in contact with it lately, and so on.
The rock never ever changed. The way the rock was looked at and examined changed drastically.
And that's the problem with history. History doesn't stand up to the test of science. History cannot change over time, whether it is indeed true or false.
What if, in some kind of abnormal sacrifice for what he perceived as the greater good, President Kennedy conspried his own assassination to win over support for his policies and political legacy? We didn't know it at the time, and with no information to pass on we wouldn't know it now.
We're not finished here.
History also has a way of depicting characters as either heroes or villains depending on the level of their success.
Daniel Shays was a man who at one time got pissed off that his money from one state was no good in another state. He got so pissed he organized what we know as Shays Rebellion and siezed control of a courtroom. This icident is pointed to as a spark for the abolishment of the Articles of Confederation which would spawn the drafting of our Constitution.
Ultimately, history points to Daniel Shay, a man who held up a courthouse and incited a riot, as a key figure in the inception of our entire way of government.
Could you imagine if Daniel Shay tried to pull this shit today? He would never have gotten past a metal detector. If he did, he would have been arrested by a tremendous police force inside the courthouse. If he got past them, he would have been surrounded by swat teams while sky choppers for the news networks were busy flying around outside discrediting him and painting him as a maniac.
But, Daniel Shay is ultimately viewed as a positive force in our society. We have him to thank, a man who led an invasion of a courthouse, for being able to go to places like Disneyland, the Quaker Stake and Lube, and anywhere else that involves money crossing state lines.
The scary thing about history is that we are made to learn about it, but not made to learn anything from it.
We are made to learn that when the new Constitution came about, civil libertarians fought bravely for blessings secured in the Bill of Rights. These blessings are cherished by every American, whether it's the Republican-leaning gun supporters, the liberals who demand warrants for entering their property, or virtually anyone else.
Today, though, civil libertarians are wusses that support terrorism by making it easier for terrorists to attack. Forget the fact that the British, who we just got done rebelling from and that we shared a mutual and unconditional hatred with, had the strongest military in the world. The British, our enemy at the time, were terrorists capable of terrible harm to our country. Still, in the face of this fear, civil libertarians from either side of the political spectrum demanded more freedoms.
We didn't have to learn anything from the Viet Nam war, a war that we had to win so many times before we realized that we actually lost. We killed many people who were our enemy and did a lot of damage to their land, but this was a war that involved winning a political battle, not a physical battle.
Instead we decided to invade Iraq, a war that we have won many times by chasing the enemy out of cities and into the dessert. But we're building a government, and trying to hand over power to an Iraqi nation that knows as much about democracy as we do about dictatorship.
The first part, for better or worse, can be completed successfully by what is far and away the most advance military force in the world. The bravery of the many soldiers cannot be questioned. The second part is increasingly hard to understand: how can we build a foreign nation from scratch when we are having so many of our own problems running our own country?
How can we win over the hearts and minds of foreigners when we are having so much trouble winning over our own hearts and minds?
Afterall, it took George Washington and the boys a couple decades at least to build a strong nation for themselves. How long can we expect it to take for George W. Bush and the boys to build a strong nation for somebody else?
History will have it's own story about what is happening here today.
Either George W. Bush will be looked at like Abraham Lincoln, a man who everybody loved because he put an end to slavery. Or Bush will be looked at like Richard Nixon, a man who was shamed into resignation because of a re-election campaign scandal where he was spying on his opponents.
History forgets the fact that Abraham Lincoln was the only President to ever see a single state leave the union while in power, and that he was ultimately assassinated by a Southern sympathiser. History also forgets that while Richard Nixon was accused of cheating in his re-election campaign and was shamed out of office, he won 49 out of 50 states in that same election.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Friday, February 4th, 2005
| |
11:42 am
|
I think that our society has transformed, from an economic standpoint, into a clouded abyss of information filled with marketing tool after marketing tool.
This is probably not the most romantic way to begin a journal entry.
I'll concede this much: To believe that our society manufactures demand instead of manufacturing genuine product probably qualifies me as a cynic. That is, I believe that anymore we are no longer buying new products and technology so much as we are buying the hype and marketing around them.
There has been a fundamental shift in our economic philosophy in this country, at least where I am standing.
I've often heard tales about how our parents used to scrape dimes by scraping the insides of blast furnaces in the valley. I heard all the stories about how the high school graduates would get hammered the weekend after commencement, and then the following Monday they'd be applying for a job in one of the mills where their father could get them in.
They were making steel. Steel. The absolute infrastructure of that society at that time. Everything was steel, and they were making it.
Let's fast forward some thirty years into our new age and compare ourselves with our predecessors. I know that before its closing, the market research firm called TNS (Taylor, Nelson, Sofres) Intersearch employed a proportionately high percentage of area high school and college kids.
I, myself, worked there briefly. Twice.
The point is that while our parents were making steel with blood, sweat and tears, we were sitting in air conditioning asking empty faces how many domestic flights they take in a year. There might be no better comparison than this simple piece of evidence.
Market research in the first place is a field devoted only to understanding the customers. It is a field that relies on the notion that companies must understand their customers in order to sell them something. Similarly, the logic operates on the fact that customers will be more likely to buy something if the people selling it know them.
The problem is that even after calling a customer and asking them five hundred questions, you still don't know them. Even after throwing all of their demographics in place, you still don't know them. Supposedly, and perhaps ideally, these people you interview are supposed to represent middle America. A bunch of regular Joe Six-Paxes.
As our parents were slaving over hot steel that might be used in a door, or a car, or even a military vehicle, we were busy asking strangers if they liked their martinis shaken or stirred.
If I'm wrong, and maybe I am, then we still know at least one thing for sure: That American ingenuity is taking a beating like never before. Really, who was the braniac that first believed society operates on market segments and marketing devices? Shouldn't we trust that our inventors and innovators can take care of business without having to look at demographics and statistics?
Aren't we talented enough to develop new ideas on our own, instead of having to guess what America will want to buy next?
It's no shit that society is tied together through economics. We all know that, and we can all accept that. But let's think about how much that society has changed since the days of our parents. No longer do we have steelworkers who double as neighbors. We don't see entire communities based on one industry. Hey, it wasn't just the Mahoning Valley that relied on a single type of good. Akron is the rubber city; Toledo is well known for glass.
Whole communities were comprised of people who worked together and played together. There was a huge sense of pride in that, too. We even named our premeire high school athletic conference for the steel industry. Now, we're left to think that maybe that name is just some kind of metaphor for what we used to have.
So society has indeed changed, hasn't it? I guess it's up to us to determine whether or not that change has been positive.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, February 1st, 2005
| |
11:45 am
|
I was sitting in class today when suddenly an idea came to me that might be worth looking into a little bit. I think I heard from somewhere that the city of Youngstown is looking to develop the Meander Resevoir in order to open it for public use. Meander is of course where folks in this area get their water from, so therein lies a conflict for the city of Youngstown:
How can they make the land and water accessible without contaminating it to the point where it is no longer safe to drink. Or, at least, how can they still provide safe drinking water if they choose to open the area for recreation?
I thik it might be of some interest to consider the problem that is going on in my hometown, the (lovely) city of Girard. Right now, we own quite a bit of land around the lake area going toward Pleasant Valley. The land was purchased in 1995, I believe, and has since been virtually left alone. Even fishing has been shut down because the lakes are not generating enough revenue to operate it. Meanwhile, it city itself fell into fiscal emergency and has been placed under state supervision for one reason or the other.
Originally, the plan had been to develop the lakes into a source for drinking water, and private contractors had been called in to give estimates on how much the project might run. But after time, the federal government stepped in and said that if Girard wants to do anything with these lakes then they have to fix the dam first. The dam is said to pose a serious threat because it is not durable enough to last much longer.
The city has done nothing to target the threat, except for drain the lower portion of the lake (which has created more problems).
Anyway, what I'm getting at here is that it seems as though the cities of Girard and Youngstown could learn some valuable lessons from one another and perhaps even strike some kind of deal to put both projects in motion.
It's not as if Youngstown hasn't worked with Trumbull County before; afterall, the Youngstown Airport is located in Vienna. In fact, Youngstown seems to depend on Trumbull County, and vice versa.
If Youngstown wants to move on the development of their resevoir, then they have a vested interest in talking with Girard about an auxillary water source at the Girard Lakes. If Girard wants to use their lakes for water to make money, they need to talk to anyone they can to put the wheels in motion.
The details of a deal are not for me to discuss, or even speculate. The odds of the negotations actually taking place, even if they really should, probably are not that good anyway. But it certainly seems that Girard and Youngstown stand to lose absolutely nothing by asking each other a couple of questions.
Let's examine, for the fuck of it, where the two communities would stand after everything were to be in place. Girard's vision of selling water to attract more business and make more tax money would be a reality, and they would still have ample land around the lakes for development. The possibilities with more tax money are endless, and who's to say that Girard couldn't buy even more land after that? Also, the city of Girard would boast a positive reputation for it's importance in the valley.
Youngstown would be able to make money from Meander Resevoir, which is a very clean and healthy body of water. The possibilities for revenue are endless here, also, because Youngstown could literally build it's own market. Burger joints would be chomping at the bit to have exclusive rights to set up shop on the grounds. So would other businesses you might see at tourist attractions. Youngstown could charge admissions or licensing fees and make money that way, among any other way (such as parking) that they deemed acceptable.
If you would have asked me not so long ago what the best vision for the lakes in Girard was, I would have told you that I wish Ohio had legalized gambling because the area really should have a casino up there. It's just the absolute perfect place for a resort, and it would be an easy money maker because we lose all of that disposable revenue to West Virginia's Mountaineer Race Track anyway.
Eventually, maybe that will happen, but I highly doubt it. Instead, Girard ought to shift it's attention to talking with Youngstown to set up a deal. Both cities really could use a boost, and they might be able to help each other. While it certainly seems that either city has a great deal of its own problems, the total can be greater than the sum of the parts.
Just another musing and abusing I thought I might throw down.
Take it easy, and fuck you.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Monday, January 31st, 2005
| |
10:40 pm
|
As a society, our problems tend to come from our affluence as opposed to our poverty. Common wisdom might teach us about the fears of hunger and unemployment, but there's little preparation for bracing yourself for the impact of ailments like buyer's remorse and obesity.
One must ask themself where to draw the line. When does a society cross the line from ingenuity and prosperity and fall into the depths of greed and excess?
If time constraints and boredom really are the worst things that happen in the life of average Americans, then when is the right time for reform? This country was born from refuge seekers, many of whom were tax evaders, who fled to a new land for a second chance. This country was built from the ground up; many brave souls fought and died to secure her blessings.
As time progressed, America grew on the backbone of immigrants who had come to America for opportunity. Many of these immigrants still spoke their own native language, and that made it hard for them to fit in. Still, they pressed on and found jobs as floor-moppers and car washers. They fought their way out of poverty in order to put a roof over their head and provide food for their families.
But times have indeed changed in our great culture, and while poverty still remains a plague today as it was before, a new era has dawned and with it have come the trials and tribulations of a society entrenched with triviality.
Isn't it trivial to buy a new sofa, only to regret having made the purchase and hope against hope that you could take it back? Isn't that trivial when you understand that there are so many people who don't even have a home to put the sofa in?
Our freedoms and prosperity are blessings that have never been afforded to anyone before. America is today a beautiful land filled with the richest people on earth. Working middle class households, the veins of our great society, can afford to buy computers, cars and big screen TV's with little trouble.
I certainly don't intend to argue against having a computer or a big screen TV... certainly I enjoy all of life's pleasures. But the bottom line is that our affluence has desensitized our sympathies for the less fortunate members of our community. It's easy not to care about homeless people, or war-torn and third-world countries when you're too busy complaining about gas prices... but that doesn't make it justifiable.
Perhaps the underlying theme throughout the entire argument is that Americans simply aren't confronted with the problems of poverty as they have been in the past. Throughout the course of her glorious history, America's strong economic prosperity ascended from the shoulders of the many men and women who took the initiative to carry her. And as she grew, so did her working middle class. Soon, the poor acquired some buying power. And the trend progressed over time, as more and more people broke into the working middle class, inching closer to a society of fairness.
There must have been a time when we forgot where we came from. When we forgot where our grandparents went to work after they got off the boat. When we forgot that we had to bleed and sweat and cry in order to build our monumental skyscrapers. We forgot indeed. Because soon, America's working middle class stopped growing. Somebody decided to pull the lifeboats out of the water and let all of those who remained submersed in economic despair to fend for themselves.
What needs to be said is this: That we are not a society of deficitis. That we have enough resources for everyone to have a chance. That even if we didn't have one homeless person in the whole country, we could still protect the ideas of self realization. Rugged individualism can live on, even without the likes of poverty pushing its sails.
The course of action is plain and simple, but that doesn't mean that it's easy. America must choose to set aside the petty problems of everyday life and focus more on bringing more hope to more people. America must choose to forget about counting their calories, and focus instead on making sure everyone has a shot to have a decent meal.
America must do this not because it is easy, but because it is hard. America must never back down from one challenge just because it would be easier to avoid it. No one ever said it was easy to throw off the tyranny and oppressive British government, but it was done just the same. No one ever said that it was easy to unite a divided country in the wake of Civil War, but it was done just the same. We have never chosen to take the easy way out before, and now is not the time to begin.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
|
|
|
|