Ponderings on Black Friday commercials

It's almost that time - the day that I am sure most husbands look forward to almost more than their wives, Black Friday. Women awake in the wee hours to get special 4 a.m. deals (meanwhile they could all wait until Cyber Friday and just order stuff online), and commercials advertising these sales and other Christmas deals are force-fed to us on every channel.

I kind of enjoy watching these commercials for a number of reasons - the approach used by companies, the cool items going on sale and the perception of buyers that companies seem to have. I also get to giggle a little about the impression most viewers are left with.

Car commercials: These ones get me - do people really buy each other cars for Christmas? I mean, maybe the 1 percenters do, but who else in the world awakens to a brand new lexus in their driveway. The absolute best part about the Lexus commercials, is the infamous big, red bow. You know the one, it sits atop of the luxury vehicle in a snowy driveway.

Here's a "did-ya-know" for you. You don't get to keep the bow. That's right - if you are planning on spending 50k to buy one of these bad boys for your significant other or spoiled teen, you still have to return the bow. I think you get it for like 24 - 72 hours then it must be returned to the dealer. For 50k, you get a terrible warranty and a false sense of excitement about a big red bow. It's kind of comical.

Toys: Toy commercials are the best; I think mostly because Christmas really is the most exciting when you have a child to buy gifts for or when you are a child yourself. I pick toys as one, but specifically, Crayola. I mean, we give kudos to NASA and Apple for innovation but what about Crayola. How do they make these special coloring tools that only react to certain paper and not your carpet? Glowing pens and pencils and neon light fixtures; we don't give props to Crayola quite enough but when you think about it - they are doing some sort of chemical reaction technology development over there that maybe we should consider for other things?

Department/All-in-one Store: I wonder when K-Mart is going to get it. There are so many issues with K-Mart it's no wonder America has been Walmartized. Though half the things I buy from Walmart come with Spanish-only directions or flimsy assembly parts, I'd rather deal with them then spend double at K-Mart. Does K-Mart not realize that their target audience is the low income class of America? That lack-of-realization combined with their stupid Blue light bulb who boasts Black Friday sales on bedding sets really makes me wonder if they hired a homeless person to do their advertising and marketing.

Now, while I can't stand Walmart commercials, especially the "match it" price matcher's commercials, they know what they are doing. Like K-Mart, they tend to reach a low income class of folks, and for them, a $199 flat screen TV is what they are looking for, not a comforter.

Okay, I am sick of griping - until I see new commercials to comment on for Christmas shopping, that's all.

OMG lame celebs the sequel

How excited is the entire world to go see the upcoming "New Year's" movie? I mean seriously, who is sitting there on the edge of their seat waiting for the release of this movie?

Remember "Valentine's Day?" Let's see how many high-paid celebs we can pack into one extremely lame movie. And, what is more bothersome is how these celebs end up in the movie. It can't be that they get the script and think, 'wow, this is riveting, oscar-worthy stuff. I need to sign on rightaway!'

No. They are all vain. I have no other explanation. It's like they all think it's fun to play around on sets with other celebs for a bit then look at themselves in HD in movies. It's not like they do it because it's what the world wants to see because, let's be honest, there is ZERO substance to these movies. Just a blockbuster cast of people who love to see themselves on big screens.

These idiots need to put their time to better use - volunteer, pay off the country's debt, do drugs...I don't care but STOP expecting us to share the same fondness for your faces in some terrible, commercialized movie. We are over it.

Ponderings: social views and celebutards

I haven't had a specific train of thought about one single topic in awhile, just a bunch of ponderings/annoyances about some observations I have had lately. I will try to organize as best as I can...

The art of being PC about sexuality/race/etc: Someone was telling me a story about how their coworker opened up a presentation with a light-hearted joke that mentioned "homosexuals" which apparently resulted in being repremanded. This individual was repremanded not for gender bias but for the term "homosexual" itself.

This strikes me as odd and hypocritical. The homosexual population declares themself just that, outwardly. There are parades boasting gay pride - without avail, we do not judge or hate - I could care less what sexuality these folks are - it is them who feel the need to celebrate their sexuality. Okay, no problem - you outwardly declare yourself something and celebrate it for the world to see, but if we identify you as such, it is offensive.

Are we supposed to acknowledge your sexuality but never refer to you as such though you identify yourself by it? The same kind of idea can be seen with BET or Miss African American USA - should we not refer to you as black or African American even though you seek to be identified as such?

We are all humans; people - however you want to identify the population as a whole - I would much rather think of us all as the same - but we are constantly desensitized to recognize the difference and when we practice differentiation, we are wrong?

The Hollywood art of bearing it all: Through photos and videos, some celebrities take it all off; in some ways this is quite annoying and in others it is a career-ender.

I hate the recent headlines about starlettes who get all up in arms about nude photos being leaked. I will say the same thing that I tell my friends' high school-aged sisters...nothing good comes from documenting yourself naked. If you let someone take a picture of you nude, or if you pose nude for a camera phone picture, then you probably deserve it be leaked because YOU ARE THAT STUPID.

Yeah, yeah the usual defense is that they are sharing with their partners - well your partner has the priveledge to see you in the flesh, why does he or she need physical, sharable proof of it? THEY DON'T. I will feel no pity for you when/if the world sees it if you were dumb enough to let it happen.

Okay - onto my theory about porn and celebs. I think that the longevity of a career and relationships is significantly shortened when celebs first get famous because of sex tapes. There, I said it.

Why? Well because the world has seen absolutely all there is to see already. What more is there? They have seen you butt naked and having intercourse. You may get a few years of unfounded publicity (ahem Paris and Kim) but really, you're not going to land a respectable man and you aren't going to be the next Silver Screen starlette.

Ride it until it dies - figuratively and literally. Though I can't stand Kim K, I can't blame her for dragging out the annoyance of her life in front of cameras while she can - what else can she do? She is famous for a sex tape.

The irony of modern day superheros

It has been said that the closest thing to a superhero in today's world are professional athletes. I find it ironic, especially when looking at the NFL. The NFL is a league filled with some of the richest, most athletic men in the USA. Additionally, some of these "superheros" have criminal records - not DUI, petty theft incidents but more severe.

I tried using google to find the actual number of NFL players who have spent time in prison, the most relevant result was found on yahoo answers from two years ago and reads:

Rae Carruth: Carolina Panthers, conspiracy to commit murder, 24 years

Cecil Collins: Miami Dolphins, burglary, 15 years

Dwayne Goodrich: Dallas Cowboys, criminally negligent homicide (hit and run accident), 7 1/2 years

Thomas "Hollywood" Henderson: retired from Dallas Cowboys, sexual assault, bribery, 4 years, eight months (was released after 28 months)

Terry "Tank" Johnson: Chicago Bears, probation violation relating to weapons possession, 120 days

Jamal Lewis: Baltimore Ravens, using a cell phone to facilitate a drug deal, four months

Dexter Manley: Washington Redskins, drug possession, evidence tampering, 4 years (1996) 2 years (2002)

Byron "Bam" Morrism: Kansas City Chiefs, drug trafficking, 30 months

Eugene "Mercury" Morris: retired from Miami Dolphins, drug trafficking, 20 years (conviction overturned - reached plea bargain and released after serving 3 years)

Nate Newton: retired from Dallas Cowboys, drug trafficking, 7 1/2 years (two separate convictions), released after serving about two and a half years

Robert Rozier (a.k.a. Robert Rameses): retired from Arizona Cardinals, multiple murders, convicted of four murders, served 10 years and placed in witness protection after testifying against Yahweh Ben Yahweh, later sentenced to 25 to life on check kiting charge under three strikes rule

Art Schlichter: Indianapolis Colts, forgery, theft, others, 16 years

Alonzo Spellman: retired/cut from Chicago Bears, interference with a flight crew, simple assault, 18 months

Stanley Wilson Sr.: retired from Cincinnati Bengals, burglary, 22 years

Michael Vick: Atlanta Falcons, dog fighting, 23 months

Mercury Morris, Wide receiver for Miami Dolphins, 1970's, Cocaine charges

Plaxico Burress, Wide reciever for the giants, 2008, had gun without permit

We look at the league today and see two very famous examples - Michael Vick and Plaxico Burress. One man drowned, and electricuted dogs for sport (oh and had a bit of a gambling ring based on these dogs ripping each other to shreds) - the other shot himself with his own gun.

I mean besides the cruelty of Vick's sport and the idiocracy of Plaxico's - imagine they were Joe Shmoe. The same two men wouldn't be able to get a job bagging groceries at your local supermarket.

Criminals in the everyday world can't even get blue collor, non-degreed jobs, yet put them in a colorful jersey and they are adored by their fans who sport their jerseys, chant their names and pay upwards of $100+ to watch them play.

They drive luxury cars, get VIP tables, free meals, apparel sponsorships, millions of dollars to spend as they please and are worshipped by sports announcers on any given channel.

Ironic, right? Our kids read comics about people with supernatural powers and spend weekends intently posted up in front of the TV with us watching these criminal "superheros" who have the life they only dream of.

Now I wonder why ADHD and youth gang memberships are on the rise - let's face it - these "superheros" aren't doctors or scholars; why pay attention in school? These "superheros" torture animals and tout guns - could it be that criminality and professional athletes are interchangeable in the eyes of the naive, adolescense?

Who knows...either way, there is something seriously wrong with a country that idolizes someone like Mike Vick - and we can only blame ourselves for our own competitiveness and entertainment-seeking lifestyles that we are willing to ignore how absurd the actions of these criminal players are for a good team and a superbowl title.

Media influences presidential election

Though I wrote about this 2 years ago on my other blog (the posting will be shared below), I can't help but feel deja-vu; sadly.

In last night's Fox News debate, candidates were given the following opportunities to speak:
Romney– 16
Perry– 11
Bachmann– 9
Huntsman– 9
... Santorum– 9
Gingritch– 7
Cain– 7
Paul– 6
Johnson– 5

For Ron Paul, this was a whole seven minutes

Well that's a bit of an improvement from 2008's MSNBC debate, where Paul spoke only 6 minutes and 31 seconds

Here's my posting from January 24, 2008 from my previous blog:

Proof the Media has picked your President

I can barely express how truly disappointed I am in the ignorance of the American people and the huge corruption of the news in this presidential election. Call me naive, but I also wasn't old enough to vote until Bush's second term.

First- I watched the MSNBC debates tonight. Censorship is brutal- I won't deny my acclaim for Dr. Ron Paul. But when his total time speaking is 6 minutes and 31 seconds, by far the least- the second least amount belonging to Mike Huckabee at 12 minutes, how can you justify feeding the Romneybot 21 minutes of face time? Sure I can bitch and moan till the cows come home about the blatant censorship of Dr. Paul and things probably won't change...

But, seriously Mitt Romney is the winner? He had the most time talking tonight and from the looks of it he also had a prompter. When asked if he would respond the same way Reagan did... a whisper is loud and clear "he raised taxes" and Romney starts "What by raising taxes?". Sure give me the bullshit answer to this like a good media pawn.

Who said it? Cameras don't have mics. In fact only the moderators and the candidates had mics. MSNBC is going to blame Russert, but did he need to whisper that in order to get a relevant answer from Mitt? If Mitt is a great economic candidate he would know that raising taxes is what Reagan did right? Since he name drops RR frequently enough would he in fact need Russert to add "he raised taxes" to the question? Doubt it. What's more disturbing is that along with his "help" and his 20% of the show air-time, the debate winner er I mean owner is...

Oh that's right- Mitt Romney. He purchased the media empire "Clear Channel Communications" in November of 2006. Those that say he is a good businessman are certainly correct. Clear Channel is an umbrella company consisting of 1200 radio stations, various billboard sites, newspapers and local cable channels like Fox and ABC.

So the news we are getting is from a station that's owned by presidential candidate Mitt Romney- I guess we have our very own explanation for censorship. So if you want to welcome today's soft Republicans in to change the ways of President Bush- with the exception of Ron Paul you are welcoming full control of your lives, even what you watch on TV.

*Another link to Romney's first-hand connection to Clear Channel has been posted, and as of January 11th Bain Capital, Mitt's company, has gotten FCC approval for the buyout- from the Huffington Post.

Conspiracies aside, I am just not certain I understand why the media whose sole purpose is to inform the public of the news instead tries to influence the outcome of an election - in term creating "news."

Oh and for you "journalists" out there, news is defined as follows:

1)a report of recent events
- previously unknown information
- something having a specified influence or effect
2) material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast
- matter that is newsworthy


Same gripe, different year.

I am a Darwinist...so what?

I once saw a variation of the Jesus fish on someone's car - difference was, it had feet and said "Darwin." I loved it. I really think the whole idea of "survival of the fittest" makes more sense than most things. Constantly carrying the weight of others who cannot survive on their own is apparent in many aspects of our livelihood - we can look at any element of humanity and see, i.e. politics: we constantly support every single person who cannot support themselves. In reality, we should be offering them opportunity not giving them a free ride...the government was not put in place to support every drug addicts,illegal immigrant, etc.

Though this topic is vague and I just led with a ramble, the Amy Winehouse death inspired me to write about it.

Since I saw the video of Amy Winehouse smoking crack, I have had a quasi-phobia of her. The sagging skin, sunken eyes and black beehive gave me the heebie jeebies. She literally looked decrepid, though she has been dead for years. I could not bring myself to hear her name or see a photo of her without having a chilling, unpleasant feeling.

Thing is, what did she really offer to society? It was already a sin that we put her on a peddastool for our youth to see - we used to praise her music; award shows honored her with trophies and live performances...all the while she is a drug addict who is mostly famous for a song that taunts those who thought she should get help for addiction. We were idolizing the worst possible example of a person for our youth and upcoming generations to be subject to. In fact, she didn't even try to hide it. At least in the 50's and 60's, it was a faux-pas to be a druggie, so celebs tried to hide it. Not anymore - and now we have become a celeb-worshiping country, despite the character and unlawfulness of the celebrity themself.

And now she's gone, and has been for almost a week now, yet at least one in ten headlines references her. Whether it's putting blame on her ex-husband for introducing her to drugs or her parents saying it's because she stopped drinking - either way, it's done and over and it's Darwin at his finest. She chose to marry a druggie, she chose to use the drugs; to drink the booze; she chose to go back to all of those things despite rehab. She was a weak person and not an example for anyone to follow. She sealed her fate. It's a shame when anyone dies; but it's part of life.

Instead of pointing fingers, make her an example. Should you be a weak person, you may very well end up as Amy Winehouse.

Ladies' Room Observations: the good, the bad and the ugly

I've thought about writing about this topic for awhile, but always feared publicizing my opinions and observations about a taboo topic. As women, we spend a lot of time in shared bathrooms - whether at work, at bars and nightclubs, our home bathrooms and even those we quickly venture into at events (sometimes this means port-a-johns). Over the course of the years, I have made observations in such shared space - some because of annoyances and others just out of curiousity.

General observations and ponderings:

- What determines which stall in a public bathroom a woman chooses? Though I have heard quasi-psychological interpretations I don't really know the answer. I have my own theories: women who go to the farthest possible stall from the entrance are either going to drop it like its hot or they are embarassed by the act of using a public bathroom. In terms of going for the deuce, I feel like these women have the unproven idea that less people will hear them if they are further from the door. This brings me to my second point.

- Different in-stall activities women partake in. Have you ever heard the constant rolling of toilet paper from the metal holder? When utilized, in a lot of cases, it is one of the first noises to come from a newly entered stall. It's like these particular women are preparing ahead of time. Considering the TP roll is typically 6 inches away from the seat, I don't quite understand it. Will these women be unable to obtain the necessary TP for the job if they reach for it during/after the act? Or, perhaps, these women don't like to multi-task - the idea of having to worry about grabbing TP while going to the bathroom is simply daunting. Maybe they are obsessive compulsive planners...I really don't know. But, I will say, this is one of the rarer activities.

More commonly, a lot of women seem to find ways to make rustling noises for the sake of covering up other noises. This may include the act (yes, act not necessity) of blowing their nose, repeatedly. Or, sometimes, just messing with the toilet paper holder or using their feminine products as a way to make a distracting noise. This is definitely more common - I think that women who have to go number 2 just don't like other women to hear. We are fine with peeing, in fact if we are in the presence of others who have to pee when we need to do number 2, we gladly welcome it is an opportunity to push. Similarly, we welcome hand-washers. Personally, hand-washing is the most effective means of drowning out the miscallenous sounds that may occur while doing number 2.

I would guess that close to 3/4 of women prefer a bit of background noise while going number 2 in a public bathroom - almost purely for the purpose of muffling their own noise.

Annoyances in Public Restrooms:

- Though most likely experienced at the public restroom at work, I hate when people wash their food dishes/bowls etc in bathroom sinks. Let's get real, these sinks most likely have a sifted drain - so if you had anything with any substance, there will be food floaters left behind. Those food floaters are disgusting - I am using the sink to clean my hands, not see an old peice of diced pepper. Additionally, there are enough smells in the bathroom, no need to add the stench of whatever you had for lunch. If there was somewhere to heat it up (i.e. a kitchen area), I am sure there is a sink in that area as well.

- Vanity in a busy restroom. Let's me honest if you are at the kind of bar that doesn't have a seperate powder area with a full length mirror, the crowd you are around probably isn't the kind you need to impress. I can't stand when you are at a busy bar, have to wait in a long line for the restroom and then you have to stand around and wait to wash your hands because there is some half-drunk girl thoroughly examining her face in front of one of the few sinks. Buy a compact.

There are other annoyances I have that I am sure are shared with the rest of the female population. Things like toilet seats covered in vomit or bloody feminine products on the floor, I won't elaborate on those. I do, however, wonder if there is a bathroom etiquette book out there and if so, maybe I can start some publicly funded program that places them on sink areas/tables in public restrooms nationwide. One can only wish.

Pro-Pot website slams drug war?

Though this isn't something I would normally blog about - the former journalist in me can't help it. A website, called "Toke of the Town," decorated with pot leaves, has a little section called "News."

To their credit, I am sure News has a different meaning in the world of avid marijuana users, but to my dismay, one specific article is being dugg on digg.com by too many people. If this website put their article, "U.S. Can't Justify Its Drug War Spending: News Reports," in their "views" section, I wouldn't be as peeved.

But it doesn't. And showing statistics as to how we have failed as a country to overcome a drug war, while informative, is simply a conflict of interest coming from a website that is pro-illegal substance. I am sorry it is.

Of course we are failing the drug war - and how does a pot-enthusiast, like those who probably work for Toke, explain otherwise if they are very publicly declaring an affinity for a DRUG. Pot calls kettle black, then criticizes kettle?

I mean seriously. Even more so, what do the U.S. Government budgetary experts at Toke (kidding) suggest we do? Cut funding designated to stopping illegal substances from entering this country? I assume so. And, if that's the case, I shouldn't be so peeved because the source of the subject at hand is surely lacking credibility and probably hitting a bong as we speak while waiting for their unemployment check.

How's that for conflict of interest? Oh wait, unlike this liberal, hippie-babble BS site, I don't have a conflict of interest because I make it pretty well clear that I will talk fact, fiction or opinion on any given topic rather than support something illegal then claim to give people the "News."

Hooker knows best

When I am driving I often find myself wondering a number of things about the drivers on the road with me, but most frequently: why is their time more valuable than mine? Or, why do they think (insert driving rule) doesn't apply to them?

After driving frequently enough, I found myself realizing that one bad driver (by bad I mean the practice of negligence for driving laws or even just common courtesy), can literally ruin a commute.

This thought itself brought me to obsess about a philosopher, whose name escaped me, that I learned about in a college course forever ago. Finally, after googling philosophy to death, I realized it was Brad Hooker and theory of rule consequentialism.

This theory basically says "follow rules' because they are the law rather than use reasoning that justifies you doing something because as one person, it won't impact those around you.

Take for example (non-driving related) there is a drought which stipulates you cannot water your lawn for two weeks - don't be the one idiot in the neighborhood that thinks it's okay to water your lawn because you are the only one doing so BECAUSE everyone in the neighborhood could actually use that same logic. Rather, don't water your lawn because it is a rule.

Back to driving. One person who neglects to use the left lane for passing while driving 10 MPH below the speed limit WILL EFFECT the other drivers around him. If the left lane is a passing lane, use it as that OR if you are a pokey driver, stay out of the left lane. This one person has the power to make a few hundred other drivers 10 minutes late to work.

Get my drift? Perhaps if we applied Hooker's theory to all aspects of our lives, there would be less corruption, less annoying commutes and less daily annoyances.

When it comes down to it, it's just common sense because, in all reality a law is a law, and none of us are above the law.

How about I stick you on my bumper?

You know what really, I mean really drives me nuts? People who put their stance on abortion on their car via bumper sticker. I know, bumper stickers are used as a form of expression - whether it be political or religious or to make sure the people behind you know you're kid isn't the biggest idiot in the school. But, when it comes to abortion, what is the purpose?

Think about it. Abortion is the taboo subject for politicians to make a statement about - mostly because it's not grey enough. People in America are either pro-life or pro-choice. period.

In fact, people are typically extremely passionately pro-either, never luke warm on the topic. You either think women have the right to choose or that every heartbeat is of equal importance. So, why put it on your bumper?

In fact, it seems almost insanely idiotic to put a pink sticker on your bumper that detests pro-choice. For one, your bumper stick is NEVER, I mean NEVER going to be that one deciding factor that changes someone to switch from their stance on abortion to yours. It just isn't.

Second, you are going to piss someone/multiple people off. Because people have such strong feelings on the subject, obviously, as with debates on the topic, the view opposite of theirs gets them extremely moody. So, unless you seek to inspire road rage or perhaps hope to have a teenage girl post-abortion kick your bumper, it seems there is no utility in displaying it.

Third, it's tacky. It just is. Conception/pregnancy are private, personal topics. You don't need to make some public affirmation saying you approve or disapprove about it. No one knocks on your bedroom door while your mid-coitus to voice their opinion about it...because it's private and done in the privacy of your own home...just as your beliefs about it should be kept.

In sum, it's dumb. Declare your redneck heritage, your disdain for the president or your breed of dog via bumper sticker, but don't mess with something so sensitive and private - it doesn't do good for ANYONE.

Besides, I figure half the people with these bumper stickers are evangelical Christians. The same ones who preach pro-life because of their belief in each human life having equal value. Those same people are the ones who have made many of the decisions to go to war. Soldiers' lives don't count? No, they do. Hypocrisy and idiocracy don't bode well together.

Pop culture turns adolescents rogue

I know, I know - rewind to Columbine and the long-standing argument about the role the game "Doom" played in that heinous event. I won't side with those who argued the game was to blame, it takes more than a few hours of simulated shooting to cause a national tragedy like that. I will, however, argue that the current teenage population, specifically the girls, aren't given many options for whom they look to to define "cool."

This isn't a new subject, just a recurring one that surfaced to me recently. Given the few non-country radio stations I am able to choose from, I find myself listening to the "pop" stations. It's a pretty dim outlook for people like myself who commute often and are tortured with Rhi-Kesha-Perry redundancy. Anyway, frequently a song called "S&M" is playing and although I can't say it's my personal favorite, apparently it is for the 13 year-olds that call in to request it.

What's more bothersome is that people like Rhihanna (if that's even how you spell it), know who their target audiences are; the teenage girls (say what you want Rhi Rhi, but you have no "hip-hop" or "rap" resemblance in your music). These girls love songs about S&M. These 13 year old girls, who you are making music for - and you choose S&M.

Not only are these girls watching shows like "Skins" that justify doing obscene things (and yes, this is a first, if only because of the age of the people on the show), but they are overly-exposed to people like Lindsay Lohan and Kesha and now even their music lacks any kind of resemblance to substance in addition to promoting sadism and masochism.

Good job guys, you are really setting out to re-corrupt an already filth-saturated generation. I mean, come on, it is possible to at least educate while appearing cool - see Billy Joel, "We didn't start the fire."

Careers for the Forever Young

It recently occurred to me that the positions that we entrust the most professional, educated adults to hold are the same positions that mimic childhood.
Such a thought first came to me when listening to a friend talk about his experience in a law firm. This friend’s story involved matrimonial law and a client’s soon to be ex who was basically prank-calling the office and sending “funny” mail that can be best understood by picturing a toddler throwing a temper tantrum because he was refused a cookie before dinner.
I pictured the court room between the client and the opposing party, imagining the judge as a parent at a dinner table or wearing stripes to referee a youth soccer game. In this sense lawyers are re-enacting a feud based on who deserves more or less from the other person based on a long series of disagreements.
Each side might argue, “irreconcilable differences,” citing instances in the marriage in which each party failed to uphold something or another – varying case-to-case. Ultimately, a judge will award one side with material and priceless items, having to choose who deserves what.
Translate to youth speak, assuming the Judge is a parent, and the opposing parties are siblings (let’s call them Tommy and Suzie)

Lawyer 1 (Suzie): “Mommy, Tommy stole my iPod.”
Lawyer 2 (Tommy) : “But Mommy, Suzie wasn’t even using it and I don’t have an iPod.”
Suzie: “But it’s my iPod, it’s not my fault Tommy doesn’t have one.”
Judge (Mommy): “Tommy give Suzie back her iPod. It’s hers you can’t just take it from her without asking.”
Tommy: “Not fair…I needed the iPod so I could listen to music when I do my homework.”
Mommy: “Fine. Suzie, let Tommy use your iPod if you aren’t using it.”
Suzie: “No. It’s mine and I want to use it too.”
Mommy: “Okay give it here. From now on, you will have to split time using it – I will decide who gets it and when.”

Maybe not the best illustration but, you get the idea. Lawyers act as children, ultimately defending the decisions of their clients using various tactics to elicit guilt or prove worthiness to get what their client wants. A judge gets the unfortunate job of sitting and listening to two grown adults nitpick one another for irrelevant things in order to determine should have what based on which child or lawyer can argue better.
Funny thing is, to be a lawyer, one must spend absurd amounts of time and money for school, ultimately to become a professional arguer for one deciding authority. This child-like behavior is also present in careers which have even more impact, like in the senate.
Take New Jersey for example, our county senators have a power called senatorial courtesy. Such “courtesy” allows them to block a person to any appointed position in the same county. They can block this person from appointment for any reason without having to explain otherwise. Such behavior of disallowing a person an appointed position through this block is exercised often. Why? No one knows, because no explanation is required. In fact, apparently this behavior is done frequently through spite as one of my professors said, “Senators have elephant-like memories.”
It’s a playground hierarchy. You can refuse to allow a classmate to play with you and your friends just because he didn’t share his pudding with you. No one remembers why this classmate no longer plays with you, except for you, and maybe this classmate would be the best kicker on your kickball team but, who cares – he or she stole refused you the delight of sharing his tasty treat.
Applying such cattiness to such an important duty makes you wonder. I mean what’s more important, the good of the people or the unshared snack pack? It’s not like this classmate (or senator) did anything to negatively impact the well-being of the people, but still you don’t like him because of one meaningless incident and so, like Heidi Klum says, “You out.”

Flying brings out the worst in everyone

Language, age, social status, destination – flying doesn’t discriminate. It doesn’t matter what airline you fly, where you are from or where you are going, as a passenger you will be a worse version of yourself.
It’s funny, I’ve flown to some of the more desirable locations in the states (mostly for work) and I’ve seen people, of all ages, even going to Disney World, the self-proclaimed happiest place on earth, in a form that I have to assume is not them. If I assume otherwise, I could stereotype all fliers, including myself, as impatient, hostile people. Rather than generalize, I will assume that many elements of flying bring out the “suck” in us.
Add a delayed flight to the mix and you can guarantee a rare experience, one I would assume is only found amongst remote tribes of women who share a monthly cycle. Intolerant, impatient and self-righteous. No I am not accusing, as I am too a flier, I am simply stating the facts.
The funny thing is that all of us engage in rude acts that are absolutely pointless. For instance, we all get boarding passes, and sometimes, we may have the destitute fate of being part of the last group of people to board a plane. Still, we ignore this boarding order. Add a delay to said plane, and welcome to amusement park hell. Long lines, red tape and constant reminders that we are not in the right place at the right time.
Maybe Zone 1 (the lucky folks) is told to board. People in zone 2 take their liberties. They either find their way into the line assuming no one will care because they will be next to board or they play the ignorance card; joining the line and hoping they will sneak through. Why? Because boarding early will obviously enable the plane to take off sooner, right? Wrong. A pointless act of inexplicable impatience.
One of my favorite rude habits is the carry-on bag bust. Somehow, I am a late boarder always – forget that I have frequent flier cards for most airlines and that I fly frequently; I am never in the early zones, so I am constantly haunted by these over-indulgent carry-on-carriers.
You know the type. They have luggage with a personal item and by personal item, I mean a suitcase. Regular luggage and a suitcase. They don’t intend to even begin to care if you can fit your carry on, which is actually a carry-on, in the overhead storage. You should probably keep it between your legs on your feet so they can save themselves a couple bucks by not having to pay baggage fees.
While I have many more gripes, I will keep those to myself and lastly touch on the actual flight. Is there some unwritten code of etiquette for fliers to ensure their co-fliers can actually tolerate the flight itself? If you are in the middle, who gets the arm rests? If you bring a baby or toddler – should you be required to bring something that will ensure you can actually calm it down after a 45-minute long screaming fit? If you are going to talk to your group, is there a level at which you should keep it – six inch voices anyone?

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Airports USA-wide