And now for the snorting beer labels story

Usually I use this forum to discuss, rant, yell about, issues in the news that are just sitting there weighing on my mind. This may not quite fit in that category, but I just don’t get it….When did the fact that something is cold become a selling point for anything other than a ski resort? Driving along Route 95 today I notice an ad for Bud Light featuring beer bottles turned upside down with the caption ”Flipping Cold”. Not “It tastes good”, or “You’ll get hot chicks in bikini’s” or even “Bud……Weis….eeeeeeer” with some weird-ass talking frogs on a log. Isn’t the fact that beer is cold a lot more dependant on the temperature of your refridgerator? So I get home and turn on some reality show about a tennis player picking a girl from a group of 20 year-olds and 40 year olds competing against each other (it’s a really odd phenomenon on this show. All of these attractive women, but there is something quirky about every one of their faces. Like a nose pointing too far upwards, or too much teeth, or they are just a bitch) and I grab a beer. And thank God I checked the label, for the mountains had turned blue!, assuring me that my beer was, in fact, cold. Whew. That was close. So as I sat down I wondered “If the label turns blue when it’s cold, is it scratch n’ sniff as well?” So I spent the rest of the evening looking as if I was snorting crack off a beer bottle watching tennis players chase hotties thinking of the next Maytag commercial that tells me how good the fridge tastes. I can’t believe I just snorted a beer label. I think it went to my head.

And now for something completely different......

I just spent the last hour reading literally hundreds of submissions to the editors of a new website that should, hopefully, be up and running soon. Many were intelligent, funny and generally engaging; some were just brutal. In any event, I have come to one conclusion: It is far easier to respond to another’s opinion than to develop your own. In my years of writing, I have come to see, although begrudgingly, that there is more than one right answer to everything. No one starts off knowing this. As a child, everything our parents say is fact, until we realize how we were lied to about the whole Santa Clause debacle (yeah, finding out when your 7 years old from the 4 year old next door that Santa doesn’t exist really sucked. Thanks, mom. I just lived that down yesterday). It’s not until years later that we see, not only that there is more than one way to think about a topic, but that more than one is correct. But so often instead of doing the research, gathering facts, and coming to a logical conclusion on one’s own, we look for the first opinion we see and decide whether we agree or disagree with that opinion. So is an opinionated person one that has an opinion about a topic, or someone that has an opinion about another opinion? (I know that just set some record for the use of the word opinion, a fact of which I will get about a million editors reminding me.) It is far easier to critique a conclusion arrived at by another, which usually takes a matter of seconds to do, than to develop a good, valid opinion on our own. The opinions I respect don’t begin with “I think….” but, rather, the words “I have concluded….” presumably after much thought and research. (By the way, for the purposes of this blog, I am my own editor. I know I suck at it, and that is why in my other life I have a professional handling it. We have heard from a few volunteers for the position, and you may be getting a call soon, but not that so-called editor that called me an “ass-clown.” What’s that about? Ass.) Perhaps this explains the popularity of a Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh. We enjoy either loving or hating them and the opinions they spew, but would never take the time or, perhaps, even care enough to think of our own. I think this might also explain the popularity of religion. How many, in the search for the answers to all the great questions of life, have even read the bible? Wouldn’t we just rather pick whatever opinion of the book we like best and sign up? How different would are life be if we stopped asking what others thought until after we considered the issue ourselves? What would we believe if there was no religion, but just the bible, prayer, and are own conclusions? And so I come back to reading all of these submissions. Try making me think. Not about how ridiculous or stupid or uninformed my opinion is, but give me something worth replacing my opinions with. I don’t need to be told how stupid I am. You write something worth reading, and I’ll come to that conclusion on my own.

Place your ad here!

I must say I am amazed at the replies to some of my posts, but glad to see so many opinions out there. But regards the media and what is aired, lets make one thing perfectly clear: The audience ALWAYS decides what is broadcast. What is aired has nothing to do with decisions made by editors, producers or authors. Why are there Paris Hilton stories all over the place? Because we will watch. How is that known? Because just 3 months earlier, we watched the Anna Nicole Smith story every waking moment. Television stations are run by advertisers, no one else. In order to get an advertiser to buy time, a station needs ratings. To get ratings, they will use whatever tried and true means necessary. The ones that try something new are either called geniuses or are fired, depending on the outcome. What makes the steroid issue so interesting is that it DOES NOT PULL IN RATINGS. ESPN in the past has aired more than one 30 minute special on the topic; NOBODY WATCHED. News organizations can air Hilton and Lohan clips endlessly because it is well known they will get ratings. To say someone cares about a topic denotes that it moves them to a particular action. In the case of these no-talent tabloid stars, people are moved to watch, as indicated by the increase in ratings. With the steroids issue, no one is moved to watch, no one has stopped watching baseball, no one has stopped buying tickets. When the subject is broached on a radio talk show, it lasts for about a minute because no calls come in on the topic. Steroids in one of the few issues I can recall that is forced fed to us, slipped in between items we do care about (sports scores or Hilton stories), and provides the perfect time to get that second cup of coffee in the morning. While a normal reply to “I am sick of_________” is to turn the channel, steroids is the exception to that response. Show me the advertiser that wants his commercial to run during the “performance enhancing drugs” special, and I’ll change my opinion.

Thank you all!

I want to take a moment to thank all that have replied to the posts either here on the blog or through email. We are working to get the new site up and running and all of your articles will be read as we search for the best talent out there. Just remember that we are not necessarily looking for a reply to one of my posts but rather a completely different look at the topic. Try to write as though you never read my original posting, and put a spin on it that is unique, and, most importantly, convincing. We have been amazed at the amount of replies, and we look forward to finding that work that will stand out for the website. Thank you!

Just shove the needle in my a** already

This never ending issue of steroids in sports has been shoved down my throat now for at least the last 2 years. Every major news network runs almost hourly stories on it and ESPN is running this nonsense like a stock ticker. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with the media reporting the news, even if it is as insignificant as say, a Paris Hilton story. But there is one huge difference between the steroids “scandal” and the Hilton joke; people care about the Hilton story. Every network ran, not only the story of her prison sentence, arrest, release, re-arrest, re-release, and mother-daughter hug; but also editorials on the internal debate to run those stories at all. The fact is they HAD to run this garbage. Why? Because we CARED. Why? I have no idea. All I know is that everyone I know was talking about it, and not just women and the gay community. On the golf course you hear “What do you think of the Paris arrest?” and at the gym “Do you think they over did it with the sentence?”. Everybody cared. There is no rhyme or reason to it, we just all love a train wreck, and this was it. The problem with the steroids thing is this: NOBODY CARES. Have you watched a major league game recently? The stadiums are packed. TV ratings are not just up, but WAY up. Barry Bonds was voted a starter by the fans in the All-Star game. While the media keeps gagging us on this steroid nonsense, we are busy changing the channel to watch Lindsay Lohan drive into trees. If these player want to keep sticking a needle in their arm and watch their heads blow up to the size of watermelons and their balls looking like M & M’s (the plain ones, cause those peanut ones are huge. Have you noticed that? When did they get so big?), fine. I don’t care. Just keep hitting balls out of the park, and I’ll keep watching and buying tickets. But to all those media outlets that want to keep running this crap the fact that I could care less won’t stop them. But eventually this will: No one else cares either.

The Supreme court ruling

I have no choice after reading the ruling and many of the facts surrounding it to be puzzled. The Supreme Court voted this week to ban so-called (named so by it’s opponents) partial-birth abortions, despite the fact that abortions, though remaining a controversial topic, are legal. In this country, it is estimated 1.3 million abortions take place annually, while only a small portion of these are “partial-birth”. However, the details of this procedure are particularly gruesome. It entails a fetus being removed from its’ mother until only its’ head remains inside, then a hole is made in the head of the fetus, followed by a suction device which is inserted to suck out the brain, causing it’s head to collapse. No, really. It took me about 20 minutes to type that sentence, and I am not sure when I will be able to sleep again. That being said, it is still difficult to comprehend the decision, especially when one looks at the procedure of a more conventional abortion, which involves the entire fetus being suctioned out of the mother, thus suffocating. Both of these are so horrific that one wonders how many involved in this debate actually know and understand the details of either of these procedures. However, if one is legal, how can the other not be? Granted, typical abortions happen on or about the ninth week, while “partial–birth” ones are much later. But if we have already played the role of God and decided that a fetus having not been born is not yet worth being considered a “human” (and thus making it’s death murder), how can we decide one is so wrong while the other is perfectly acceptable? Both of these procedures are cringe-inducing nightmares, but now we are deciding between the lesser of two evils? Interestingly, the decision included 2 pages on the prospect of an abortion patient realizing later the details of this “partial-birth” procedure and feeling regret. So why is disclosure not the bigger issue here as opposed to prohibition? I have never been a proponent of abortion, and would never be in favor of having one if included in any decicion making process. However, the conclusions that others make is their business, and is to be taken up with their conscience. But now we have decision handed down that takes the authority out of the hands of God or an individual and puts it squarely in the hands of 9 people I have never met and hardly know. If abortion is legal, then it’s legal. If it’s not, it’s not. We can debate that issue all day. But don’t split hairs, especially when the way they are split are not based on any laws but rather political affiliations. If the conservatives believe it is wrong, based for the most part on religious reasons, should they not leave it up to God to judge our decisions? What is it about religious people that they feel so compelled to make, not only personal decisions, but to shove those decisions down everyone else’s throat as well? The decisions we make should have nothing to do with government so long as the health and safety of others is not impacted. So go worry about a war, handle the taxes, and pave the roads. No one needs you to make up their mind for them. In the off chance we want your opinion, we’ll ask.

Thanks, NBC

So as the controversy regarding NBC showing the clips and pictures sent in by the Virginia Tech shooter continues to heat up faster than a born-again Christian at an abortion clinic, we are forced to ponder the following: What effect does showing these things really have? NBC has stated that it has helped answer the question as to why this act took place, and what was really happening inside the mind of young Cho Sueng-Hui. So that’s the reason? Like we didn’t know already he was a little crazy?Lets, just for a second, be honest. It was about one thing: ratings. That’s it. The FBI had asked that it not be aired, and if you really cared about the reasons behind the massacre, you would have complied. If your reason was anything other than ratings, why did you not share your little videos with your competing networks? I am sure Ms. Couric would have had no trouble airing them at all. Instead, CBS led Wednesday nights broadcast with the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling, not that anyone watched anyway. You can certainly count your lucky stars that this nutjob decided to send you this little “package”, and while you were certainly free to use it as you wish, lets not pretend you give a damn about anything other that the Nielsons. All you did was give a bunch of grieving families a little more stress and agony, and delay their grieving process even further. Does anyone feel better after seeing this? What do we know now that we didn’t know before? What was so wrong with waiting a while before pounding this killers ugly face down our throats? Even so, after seeing this, what do we gain? Just this: The knowledge that there is no way at all to stop this from happening again. This boy had the attention of the legal system, had teachers recommending assistance, spent time with a psychiatrist, and showed, in writing through his scripts, his innermost thoughts. So all these clues were out there, but with no way to connect them, the puzzle was never complete enough to act apon. Haven’t we heard this before? The worst terrorist attact in our nations history could have been avoided if there had not been such an inability or unwillingness to share information between agencies. If a teacher goes to school authorities with a concern for a student, shouldn’t their investigation involve questioning other teachers as well? Or maybe even check with his roommates and classmates? Should a psychiatrist, concerned enough to realize suicidal tendencies, take at least a few minutes to check the opinions of others that know the individual? How many times can the buck be passed? While we cannot imply that this was the fault of anyone other than the shooter, certainly if we are charged with the responsibility with deciding the mental stability of a patient, or with the well-being of a student body, should that not involve a little more than checking a box on a medical form? A judge actually ordered outpatient mental health treatment for Mr. Sueng-Hui. Enforced by whom? We allow an obviously troubled individual back on the street, with no one responsible at all for the repercussions. If a doctor were to prescribe the wrong medication for a patient, causing perhaps one’s death, would they be responsible? Of course. But what if they prescribed no medication or treatment when it was needed? Are they now without blame? As long as there is a system, there will be cracks in the system. There will always be another Cho Sueng-Hui to fall between them. So, thanks NBC, for telling us what we already knew. I just could have waited a few days for the reminder.

Is this really what we have come to?

It is just 2 days following the horrific events of Mondays Virginia Tech events, and it seems we have already moved on. This morning the headlines on yahoo.com had to do with tax extensions and presidential candidates, with hardly a mention of our troubled shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, and the tragedy. Perhaps, as we delve deeper into his life, we are afraid of what we will find. Stories of teachers pulling him from class and directing him to counseling after some admittedly deranged writing, the fact that he had few friends and signed his name with a question mark, and the ever present query as to why a man wanting to take his own life felt compelled to take so many others with him. It seems so incomprehensible, but is it really? The English major wrote of mothers with chainsaws and step-fathers killing step-sons, and an overwhelming desire by students to kill a teacher in his plays. This is shocking? If you were a teacher, and a student had turned in “Pulp Fiction” as a homework assignment, what would you think? Would you run to a counselor to get a young Mr. Tarantino help, or pay $10 bucks to go see the movie? Last weekend, “300”, a movie based a Frank Miller graphic novel, passed the $200 million mark in the US and has grossed over $400 million worldwide, despite some of the more deranged killings ever seen on screen. Did we miss the “warning signs”? And this is just the start. Every weekend features a new horror movie with more torture to “push the limits”, with lines, usually made up of, say, 18-24 year old males, stretching around the block to buy tickets. Are we really shocked that a 22 year old college student would write this way? No. We will hear those that will sadly state that they should have said something, or could have done more to help. He obviously had some serious issues which called for professional help. We know that now. But could we have admitted that beforehand? How could we sit through and be entertained by a movie like “Hostel”, which features clients paying upwards of $25,000 to torture and kill Americans with chainsaws for sport, and then question Mr. Seung-Hui’s writings that feature similar themes? These may just be movies, but they all started in someone’s mind, and that someone in now holding millions of our dollars for having “entertained” us. And is the fact that he was a loner bothersome? Living in a age of severely diminished social skills, where are best friends are Sanjaya and Jack Bauer, and Friday night is spent huddled over a laptop with an oversized cup of coffee, why are we surprised? The fact is, we’re not. There is no way to forsee this happening, especially when the line is so blurred. All the “warning signs” show us is that we can’t tell anymore the difference between a brilliant director or a serial killer, an incredibly creative mind or a student on the edge. If we really want to notice the warning signs, we have to change the way we are entertained, the way we look at art and creativity. Perhaps the recent events in Virginia will do that, but it is unlikely. This, for a while, may change the way we look at others, the way we look for warning signs. But for real change, we need to change the way we look……..in the mirror.

The whole Imus thing

It has been awhile since I spent much time watching the news, at least on a so-called real news channel, not with John Stewart still on every night at 11. But I figured it had been way too long, like over 24 hours, since I had heard of any soldiers dying in Iraq or some stupid comments from the White House, so I tuned in. And while there were no dead bodies to show, there was what looked like a breathing cadaver plastered on every channel in the form of Don Imus, who apparently had said something that someone heard and then told someone who emailed some black female basketball player at Rutgers. That had to be what happened, since the odds of a 20 year old intelligent hard working African-american athlete at Rutgers even having a clue who Don Imus is are about the same as his wife marrying him for his looks. As I hear the details of this complete stupidity, I am forced to contemplate the most obvious question. Who the hell cares what Don Imus says? Are these girls really upset with what was said, or just pissed off at the 3, 285,058 members of the god-forsaken media that keep pounding them with questions every 3 seconds? There is no excuse for the idiotic comments in the first place, but it this really the first time it has happened? Imus has done this for years. Now we all care? The phrase that was used was “nappy-headed ho’s.” So as I see it, there are 2 groups that have any rights to be offended: first, the Rutgers women basketball team and their families; and second, actual nappy headed ho’s. And I am not really sure if the latter would speak up anyway. Instead of hearing from either of these groups, we get to hear the Reverends’ Sharpton and Jackson, both with those spotless records, yelling some insanity at every possible moment a camera is in front of them. I wonder, How much time did they spend talking with the young women before their respective public tirades? What gives them the right to demand the head of Imus, when these girls had not yet said a word? Did they realize that these comments, while incomprehensible, came from a man that has raised millions for children of every race imaginable? Not only did they ramble on like madmen, but looked even worse following the Rutgers press conference. Who needs the Rev’s as a voice of the African-american nation when you have C. Vivian Stringer and Essence Carson handling themselves with more grace and class than those two men have ever shown. In the face of an insane media outcry and a ridiculous amount of unwanted publicity, these 2 women stood out as examples of what all humans should be. Did all of this attention bother them? Of course. Would they rather have had the focus be on their remarkable tournament run, and their individual accomplishments as African American women? Absolutely. Did they wallow in self-pity because some idiot opened his mouth? Never. There was no question after that news conference that anything ever said about them could slow them down, no matter how popular the source. These women don’t need anyone to stand up for them, especially some media hungry self-appointed spokesmen. This is the most over-blown non-story in years, destroying the career of man that does far more good than harm, and putting amazing women in a completely unwarranted pressure filled mess. I don’t respect a black man for being black, I don’t respect a white man for being white. I respect those that work hard, have self-respect, and don’t let anything stand in the way of greatness. I respect the Rutgers womens basketball team.