On Being Told How To Use A Product You've "Bought"

I don't own a smartphone. But I know more or less how they work, and the way in which they work (at least in a fundamental sense for the latter point). I don't think it's any secret that the various telecoms run their businesses in some pretty shady ways, and I think they feel like they have to. Like most other large scale, global conglomerates, they've failed to innovate when they needed to the most.

One of the ways people use their smartphones is as a mobile hotspot. This is called tethering, which basically uses your phone's data plan as a means to connect to the internet on another device, such as a laptop or a tablet. The name comes from "tethering" your laptop or tablet to your smartphone.

Verizon and AT&T are essentially a duopoly; sure there's T-Mobile, but AT&T wants to buy T-Mobile (which is another post entirely). But when a company sells you a product and a service and then forces you to use it in only the way they intend (which can change at any time, taking away a necessary or beloved feature) because they realize they can make additional profits from said feature.

Tethering is one such example. There are apps that allow you to tether on Apple iPhones and Android phones. AT&T and Verizon don't allow these applications to run. In the past, Apple even took apps out of the app store because they'd take away potential profit (Think: Shype).

To me this seems bizarre. AT&T and Verizon are offering a service to a customer. In this case, they are selling us phone service. This is not new; they've been selling us phone service for a very long time. What bothers me is that this is an unprecedented smack in the face to customers.

Imagine back when you had a landline if the phone company blocked you from using your modem to connect to the internet because you didn't use them as your portal or ISP. Or, imagine having to use their modem to even connect.

Or imagine they tried to disable the use of modems to connect to the internet entirely, demanding you use their DSL (or cable) internet instead.

This is basically the same thing. Back then, this kind of crap wouldn't be tolerated. Sometimes, regulation is a good thing.

Except of course when regulations are written by the corporations we're supposed to be protected from by regulations. (Think: Making a mixed CD, or backing up a movie you purchased licensed).

What The Fuck, New York City

So I'm reading this article about the new World Trade Center. The mammoth monument to celebrate America's ability to bounce back. Obviously, we're not that good at bouncing back since, you know, the building isn't built yet and it's been nearly ten years. I'm intrigued by it because it's architecture, and architecture fascinates me. I don't particularly care that it's a monument, nor do I feel like a monument means people will "remember" that bad shit went down that day. Really, it just reminds me of bureaucracy. And architecture. I prefer to think of the positive aspects-- you know, the architecture.

But of course, that is nearly impossible when reading about the defense of the not-yet-built milestone that is a giant penis the length equal to this nation's incorporation.

If you want to go visit  this monument when it opens, this is what you have to contend with:

670 police officers devoted solely to the defense of the structure. Think of how many police officers your town or city has compared to this one building.

400 closed circuit cameras monitored by even more NYPD officers and software designed to detect things like unattended bags and other threats.

Any vehicle will be screened before entering the site. Tour buses, deliveries, cars, trucks-- they are all screened. I imagine if you walked up in a wheel barrow or a jet ski they'd screen them too. You won't be able to escape screening by walking in either, because walk-ins will be screened as well. I imagine this will be similar to the joyous occasion that is boarding an airplane. By the way, this screening happens before getting into the building.

Police plan to use a vehicle security center to screen tour buses, trucks and cars before they enter the site and park or makes deliveries using an underground roadway. Pedestrian traffic, including visitors to the museum, also will be screened before they can enter the central plaza.

Ticketed visitors to the memorial will be funneled into a security screening room with airport-style metal detectors and X-ray machines. Employees and frequent visitors will be pre-screened so they can bypass regular checkpoints.

Sounds like potential terrorists just need to try and get a job at the future world trade center if they really, really want to be persistent.

This is all mostly fine to me. I understand why they do this kind of crap. I personally find it to be a waste of resources and pointless, but I get why they do it. Throwing money at a problem makes people feel good, and what they're doing has a very "we're taking it seriously" feel to it. But how far is too far? Is there a point where you lose something with extra security?

Once upon a time, people dressed up to go on a plane. You basically wore your Sunday Best. Now, that'd be asinine because you'd have so much to worry about. Take off your shoes, your belt, empty your pockets, so on and so forth. At this point, flip flops and sweats are the best option for flying, in my opinion. (For convenience purposes only, of course).

But then there's this nugget:

Final touches are also being put on another ambitious piece of the plan: Screening every car, truck and other vehicle for radioactive materials – evidence of a possible dirty bomb – and other potential threats as they enter lower Manhattan. To achieve that, police are installing cameras, radiation detectors and license-plate readers at the 16 bridges and four tunnels going in and out of Manhattan.

Not only is the NYPD attempting to "secure" the building that will become the world trade center, nor just the surrounding area, but they are also attempting to secure essentially the entire island of Manhattan from anything resembling a threat.

So what happens when a camera or detector detects something? I'd hate to have the FBI busting down my door because some sensor detected something it didn't like. Generally the response to these types of things is to act first and ask questions later.

I feel bad for the New Yorkers whose toll costs are about to double to help pay for this surreptitious screening. (Approximately $2 billion out of $33 billion over a 10-year plan)

More selfishly, I'm disappointed that it will now cost even more to visit my brother; I may not be able to put a price on it, but it's worth $15 to New York.

I Don't Understand What Borders Is Thinking Or Doing

Let's face it, Borders bookstore probably isn't going to be around much longer. They've been struggling for years now, and have been barely scraping by. And it makes perfect sense.

Borders, I want to like you, but you make it so damned difficult.

Krissy got a Borders gift card for Christmas, so we decided to look at their books in store and online. We make it a point to visit Borders regularly, because we are unemployed and it is an inexpensive way to have fun and get out of the house.

We found this book:




We like Phaidon. I have one of their books on Platon, the photographer. The pages are high quality, the books are bound well, and the photography is always superb. They are also really well designed.

In the store, the book was priced at just under $40, this just would not do. If there is one thing I know, it's that the price on ta book is not what you pay. I would think that a company that buys as many books as Borders could get a better deal. Of course, that probably won't happen anymore since they can't pay off the publishers for the books they've bought already.

So we tried buying a book from the store directly, and it's the worst price we could have gotten, lest someone charge more than the price on the book. So we decided to go to their website. We figured, the store's website ought to have a better deal, and we figured wrong. The price was the same. Yes, the biggest or second biggest brick-and-mortar bookstore in the country had the book for its MSRP. Oh, and shipping cost like $4 or something.And yes, there's still tax, because there is technically always tax.

So we were at something of a crossroads.I mean, we really wanted this cookbook. We don't have any general, all-purpose cookbooks, most of them are baking related. Okay, all of them are baking related. But $40 is a lot to ask when it's nearly half that price on Amazon. If you are curious, it's a wee bit less than $25 on Amazon. But Borders wants almost $46 for the same book.

I will tell you one thing: if we didn't have a gift card we would not have even considered buying the book from Borders. There is no reason why anyone should want to buy something from Borders when you can get the same thing quicker and cheaper from Amazon, or anywhere else. We didn't even have to spend our own money, and we still had to think over whether or not we should get the book with the gift card or just get it from Amazon, that's how ridiculous and weird we are.

Shipping from Amazon is free. I'm a prime member, so I get free two-day shipping. I order a book and it feels like it's here the very next day. I ordered the book from Borders days ago and it's not here. It feels like we've been waiting forever compared to buying books from Amazon.

I did find a coupon to save 33% on any book, and still we had to pay almost $33, which is still more expensive than Amazon.

I also don't like the Borders website. I felt like I was constantly being upsold on something. They mention free shipping all over their website, and then mention free 2-day shipping in other places. The free 2-day shipping is actually them offering a month free of some third-party program that is similar to Amazon prime (in price, too). So I felt like that was a tiny bit scammy. Members of the Borders Rewards program get free shipping over $25, and any order $40 or more gets free shipping. This is standard shipping, by the way, nothing expedited. Standard shipping apparently takes forever, since it's Fed-Ex Smart Post.

But I'm kind of annoyed that we still didn't qualify for free shipping. We are Borders Rewards members. I entered in the card number, which was required for the coupon anyway. We spent over $25, so shipping should be free, but it wasn't.

There is not a single quality about Borders, and the process of buying a book from them that could be described as either positive or redeeming in any way. Sure, I can go in and look at books before buying them from Amazon, but that's not really that big of a plus. I do like looking at books, though, and now and in the future that's all I will be doing at Borders. They just obviously do not want my business, because they seem to be trying awfully hard to not get it.

For the record, I have no problem buying books for their MSRP. I think the book is worth $40. I think the Platon book I have is easily worth much more than I paid for it (like $5, from an Amazon merchant). But if I am going to pay more for a book than I would at Amazon, I'm not going to be doing it at a giant company like Borders. I'm not going to reward them for doing a horrible job at running their business. No, I'm going to go to a local, independent bookstore and give them the $40. And until I can do that, Borders will get my foot traffic, and Amazon will get my money.

Good luck in the future Borders, because you're going to need it. Besides, we all know Barnes and Noble is just going to buy you anyway.

Have You Heard Of BlogHer?

I don't think I respond to things the way most people do. Sometimes, I feel bad because of how I respond, because I wonder if I am fair, or just whiny. For the record, I'm not whiny, though I am a critic. I, like most, have an opinion about everything, and I tend to share it.

I don't praise everything, either. I tend to point out the flaws in things. I don't do this because I'm a Negative Nancy (sorry if anyone named Nancy reads this, it's nothing personal.) I just feel that everyone points out what's good. Look at competition shows: what good is telling people on American Idol they are all talented, or bakers on TLC (don't get me started...) that they're all talented. Of course they are. That's like telling someone on Jeopardy that they are all intelligent. The rounds and rounds of testing they need to pass to get on Jeopardy proves that. Only one person can win.

So I point out what is wrong with things, because I think people tend to overlook them. Not that flaws are bad, mind you. I like flaws, they add character. But sometimes, these grievances need to be aired.

BlogHer is a blogging network of sorts. Basically, it's a collection of blogs that they think women would be interested in. I don't like this. I don't like a men's version either. They are stilted. I'm willing to bet I like more websites on the BlogHer network than the College Humor or Asylum network of sites.

Apparently, men like the following things:

- Women. Lots of them. The less clothing, the better. Some sites offer scantily clad one, others offer naked ones, while others offer celebrities.

- Vehicles. The more horsepower, the better.

- Tools, clothing, video games, movies, music, et cetera.

I don't agree with this. I don't care about looking at things like AskMen or Maxim and seeing women in them. And anytime I click a link to one of those websites that does interest me, I'm inundated with women everywhere, and Krissy facetiously asks me why I'm looking at sexy ladies. But I'm not; she's my sexy lady, so I look at her.

Then there's cars. I don't really care about cars. I have one, it gets me from A to B. I don't need a cat that costs a million dollars, or goes 200 MPH. I don't need to tow a house through the Grand Canyon. I just don't. I have an interest in tools, but I'll get what works and what's needed, it's not an obsession. The rest are really applicable to anyone. In fact, it all is.

Women like movies. Women like music. They even, gasp, play video games. Not just wussy ones, either. They play things like Halo and Call of Duty. True story.

It is in this vein that I disagree with BlogHer. Here is their information page for bloggers and what it says:

• over 90 days old
• open to comments
• that are updated weekly (preferably twice a week, or more)
• free of any advertorial or sponsored posts, and compensated product reviews
• that are not password-protected
• without profanity in the title and/or URL
• that don’t publish adult content
• that don’t belong to another ad network, requiring “above the fold” placement
• hosted by a service that allows advertising (some do not)
• not hosted by a service that places graphic banners at the top of the page
• written by women, or with a demonstrated female audience
• that adhere to our Editorial Guidelines

First, I must add that they randomly made some words bigger than others. Much bigger. This hurts my eyes, and is obnoxious. This is not dynamic, it is stupid. Reading is not a roller coaster ride, it doesn't need to be more exciting. They are guidelines, treat them as such.

They want blogs that have been around for a bit, I understand, they want people to be able to comment, fair enough. They want people who actually blog, and that people can actually see. This all makes sense.

But here's what I don't get. adult content, profanity, and written by women for women. I'm sure there are women that like adult content. They are alienating a large group of women with this. Adult content is exceedingly vague, too. Does this mean no penis? No vaginas? Women love vaginas though, they are beautiful, like childbirth. What about breasts, is that "adult content?" Is a woman grabbing her breasts adult, but checking for breast cancer okay? If so, what is the difference, a woman is touching herself either way.

Profanity. Women curse. Yes, we curse too much as a whole, but profanity hardly should be censored. Women, or anyone else for that matter, do not need to be shielded from language, coarse or otherwise. Fuck isn't going to hurt anybody. Shit, either, unless someone flings poo and it gets into your eyes. But not the word; it's just letters. Maybe copulate and excrement are more suitable. But we all know they just mean fuck and shit. Even women; especially women.

The big one: written by women for a demonstrated female audience. I don't qualify, I'm not a woman. Apparently, men do qualify, though, because David Lebovitz is a member. They just appear to emphasize  women writers, literally, "women" and "female audience" are several sizes larger. I get wanting female writers, though. Women are interested in other women, and simultaneously hate every single one of them. But how does one demonstrate a female audience?

Does blogging about food do it? What about politics, does that do it? Does one need to post about feminist ideas, or emasculate men? Can you write about sex without breaking the earlier rules about adult content? Jezebel certainly doesn't apply, because their writers use profanities and talk about all kinds of adult content, yet they are a blog about and for women. In fact, Krissy makes fun of me when I read it. Blogging for a female audience seems awfully vague about a very specific idea.

Then there are the editorial rules, most of which are fair, and the heart of why I started this post. Their editorial guidelines stipulate:

We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked that:

Contains editorial content that has been commissioned and paid for by a third party, and/or contains paid advertising links and/or spam. 

except, they actually encourage it through their reviewer program. Let me explain. BlogHer has advertisers. These advertisers give BlogHer money and products for their bloggers to review and give away. This clearly violates the whole "no sponsored posts" rule, and is, frankly, disappointing.

Here's an example: Right now, BlackBerry is a sponsor, so if you head here you get a page of BlackBerry ads. Also on that page are links to blogs, like this one, which are really just advertorials. Maybe that's not fair, or being too fair. Advertorials are written by the ad agency to look like editorials, and we recognize them as such. No, these paid reviews are more like payola in the music industry.

I clicked one of the BlackBerry posts which led me to a site about baking. What does a baking blog need to review a cell phone for? Computer magazines don't review chocolate. Of course, this isn't really a review either, it just praises the phone.

Uh, I couldn’t be more wrong. This new BlackBerry Style phone is rocked. It features a full QWERTY keyboard and it’s one of two BlackBerry(s) to run on the BlackBerry’s latest OS 6, the best part—it is the only one to sport a 5 megapixel camera. How’s that for being dead wrong? I’m a BlackBerry user and always have been. I love its functionality for work and for play—most importantly, it’s a hardy phone. No cracked glass screen when I drop it. Yes, I know there are sleeves to prevent that, but I firmly believe a phone should be able to withstand a drop without going bust. I’m also a working mom who needs functionality and form to work hand in hand.

Okay, so first impressions are that...it's one of two BlackBerrys with the new OS? That excites her? oh, and a full QWERTY keyboard, because that's unique. It also has a 5 megapixel camera, because when it comes to cameras, megapixels is all that matters.

Here are the things that I look for when I’m phone shopping:
Size
Yes, size does matter. I love that the BlackBerry Style is even smaller than my work issued BlackBerry Bold. That means I can easily slide it in my back pocket for convenience and since it’s a flip phone I don’t have to worry about any accidental butt dials!

Okay, it's smaller. This is a plus? It's smaller, has a full QWERTY keyboard and a 5 megapixel camera?  Anyway, the real benefit here is that the camera is smaller than her old BlackBerry, so she can place it in her back pocket no problem. I can thus only reach one conclusion. Her old BlackBerry must look like this:

Zack Morris, you have a phone call.

The best thing about flip phones? You can totally put them in your back pocket, sit on them all day and not dial old ex-boyfriends with your ass. You might have a nasty case of hemorrhoids, though, so I don't think the back pocket is the ideal place to put a phone. Just sayin'

Camera
Camera. Lights. Action. Go. Okay, so my son doesn’t get this kind of preamble, usually it’s me just shoving my phone’s camera in his face to capture a moment. I don’t carry a point and shoot everywhere but I do carry my phone everywhere. Having said that, I’m loving the 5 megapixel with flash. That’s right five-five megapixels on a phone!

Lights! Camera! Action! Wait, this camera does video? Oh, no, it doesn't. Now I'm confused. Okay, so maybe she confused video and still photography, no biggy. She does have an amazing camera in her phone though. I mean, it's five megapixels! That is unheard of in a phone. Wait, didn't the Nokia N95 have a 5 megapixel camera? When did that come out again? Oh yeah, that's right, 2007. 

Speed
This BlackBerry-baby is fast. For a working mom, time is a commodity—so yeah, I need speed. The load time for switching between web based applications is nil and the search time on the web browser moves at the rate in which I can inhale a cupcake—Ahem, that pretty much means a little under a nano second.

It's fast. Blazing! But the Torch (AT&T) is faster. And then there's the iPhone and many Android based phones with a processor nearly double this ones speed. And the BlackBerry app platform is hardly robust compared to that of Apple or Google. This sounds like total pandering, and I don't like it.

Needless to say, I love this BlackBerry Style phone, so I’m excited that in conjunction with Blogher, BlackBerry is offering this phone with Sprint’s network to (2) lucky winners.

Great! except, they are only giving you the phone, you're on your own for service. And it only works on Sprint. How much does this phone retail for? $399. Yikes! This must be a pretty good prize, no? What's that? You're telling me this phone is only $20 when you sign up for a contract with Sprint?

You can enter thusly:

• Leave a comment letting me know the most important feature you look for when shopping for a mobile phone.
• Tweet about this promotion and leave the URL to that tweet in a comment on this post. 
• Blog about this promotion and leave the URL to that post in a comment on this post.
• For those with no Twitter or blog, read the official rules for alternate form of entry.

Commenting is easy, although clearly this is so BlackBerry knows what people want. That's fine, we all want better phones. Maybe they can give us a phone that the wireless providers can't cripple with their own software? Android is supposed to be open, and it is, but AT&T and Verizon cripple them with their own, closed software. We shouldn't be at the mercy of the providers.

Tweet! That way, #BlackBerry #Style can be trending on #Twitter and people will  be #curious about this #Payola! As they say, any news is good news.

You could also blog about it. I wonder if this counts? Does a blog criticizing the company, the product, and the network count? After all, there was not one flaw reported in that entire "review" Maybe she could have mentioned how the app market is poor compared to competitors. Or that the browser is slower than Apple or Android. How web pages look tiny on the itty-bitty screen? The incessant scrolling and zooming you need to do to read the pages could have been pointed out.

FYI: I just checked, it actually does do video. How could she leave this out?


Here's a real review on the camera courtesy of PCMag:

The Style's 5-megapixel camera could be better. Its awkwardly placed, so it's easy to cover it with your thumb. The continuous autofocus can make for some blurry pictures if you don't wait a second or so for it to lock in. And images are a little bit dark, and show slightly too much color noise. It's not hideous by any means, but there's better out there. The video mode takes 640 by 480 videos at 20 frames per second with a slight pulsing effect; that's behind the 30fps we see on top-of-the-line Android and Apple phones.

 So the camera is actually just okay, and can be kind of annoying.

Anyway, I'm done. I just wanted to dissect BlogHer and their advertorial/Payola system, because this kind of stuff really bothers me. I don't like pandering to companies, and how mommy blogs were kind of founded on it. I'd hate for someone to have read a less then genuine review on a blog only to buy that product and be disappointed.

On Consequences: When What You Do Provokes Death And Crazy People

First and foremost, the fact that this is necessary sucks, but it is. There are crazy people in the world. Lots of them. There are lots of stupid, idiotic, morons out there, who misinterpret, misunderstand, and otherwise just don't get it.

This is about Congresswoman Giffords who, in case you aren't aware, was shot in the head yesterday, along with several others. The congresswoman is alive but a judge who was passing by to say hello is dead, and so is a little girl. There is no denying that the person who did it is imbalanced to say the least, but a small part of me has to believe that this wasn't a totally random act of violence.

Before the election, Sarah Palin famously marked various congressional seats up for election as targets. These were very literal targets, using crosshairs (wouldn't a circle or a square have sufficed?). Naturally Sarah Palin's camp denies that this has anything to do with the shooting, but what are they supposed to say? "Whoops, our bad!" I'm sorry but that's not going to fly, so all they can do is condemn the action, and duck the blame.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't Sarah Palin's fault. Or Republicans fault. There are far too many aspects of the crime to point to any single fault. But it didn't help any by putting a target on her head, and the heads of nineteen others. Remember when the graphic first came out? Remember how bricks were thrown through windows, bullets were shot into offices, and so on? One of those offices was congresswoman Giffords. And now a bullet is in her head (actually, it went straight through her brain).

So rather than be politically correct, why doesn't Sarah Palin and her aides admit that maybe they might have played a minor, inadvertent role in this? I know they didn't intend on anyone shooting anybody, but when you place crosshairs on people, someone is going to take the message the wrong way.

There is no denying that conservatives love guns. That's fine, they are entitled to them. But when conservatives bow to the bastion of gun lobbyists that is the NRA, and the conservative princess paints crosshairs on democratic "targets" can anyone blame someone for getting a mixed message? I'm not surprised this happened, which is what makes this whole scenario so frustrating. A lot of "liberals" saw this coming, or more accurately, were afraid of it occurring. This fear was unnecessary and could have been avoided.

By the way, if Sarah Palin's Take Back The 20 campaign "had nothing to do" with this, then why is it all of a sudden taken down? Sure, the election is over, but it was over two months ago, why now? Palin also argued that the symbols on the map aren't gun sights, but map crosshairs. But she tweeted this:

Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: 'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!' Pls see my Facebook page.

and then later congratulated herself on 18 of the 20 on her bulls-eye list being defeated. What kind of message does this send? Reload? Bulls-eyes? Crosshairs? This may not be calling explicitly for violence, but at the very least does so implicitly.

But this isn't Palin's fault. Nor is it the fault of conservatives, republicans, gun owners, or gun rights advocates. This person is imbalanced, and he is to blame. But would he have done it otherwise? We can't be certain, but the rhetoric surrounding the mid term elections cannot have stayed this attack. Journalists are pointing out that he read Karl Marx, and Hitler, and that he wants a return to gold and silver currency. But I don't think that's relevant. Lots of people read Marx, I would read Marx if I read more often. And I remember picking up the biography of Hitler and being earnestly interested in reading it after reading the introduction. But I am the last person who would shoot anybody. And wanting a gold standard? Lots of people want that; Ron Paul for instance.

So if people want to peg his reading material on why he did this, then they should be fair and equate equal blame to the hateful political rhetoric of late. Hate, violence, aggression, these are all things that don't belong in politics. Politics is and should be all about diplomacy, but it's not. Political ads do nothing but attack, attack, attack their opponents. Rarely do these ads talk about the merits of a politician. Instead, we are left with a mentality of "who isn't worse than the other" rather than "who is the best."

The best example of this rhetoric that we need to avoid? Congresswoman Giffords's opponent last election, Jesse Kelly, held a campaign event to supplant her. Actually, the event was more specifically themed with removing her from office. This, from the Arizona Daily Star:

Kelly’s campaign event website has a stern-looking photo of the former Marine in military garb holding his weapon. It includes the headline: “Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.”
The event costs $50.

Yes, a photo of a marine, in uniform, holding his weapon, asking supporters to come fire an M16 for crying out loud, under the guise of removing her from office. Not only is this in extremely poor taste, but this does not strike me as behavior a Marine should exhibit. No one should, but a Marine especially. This is madness (cue 300 references "This. Is. Sparta!) This kind of garbage needs to stop. It shouldn't be tolerated, by anyone regardless of where they stand on issues. And I don't care how badly you disagree with someone, you don't take it into your own hands with a weapon, you do it at the ballot box.


Here's the original graphic, judge for yourself whether or not they are crosshairs or not. I certainly hope those crosshairs were worth a little girls life.

On Minimum Wage

Minimum wage is kind of misleading. One would think, by its name, that it is the very least you could make and survive, but that's just over $17,000 before taxes in Connecticut, and ours is higher than the rest of the country's. I can't think of a single place you could live in Connecticut on that. Maybe you could hope to find a couch to sleep on at someone else's home, and hope they don't charge you rent?

I understand the argument people will make; minimum wage isn't meant to live on, it's for 16-year olds who are working their first job. Maybe that's true, but I believe there's a better way to go about it. Technically, for the first forty-five days (give or take, I'm not an HR person) they don't even have to pay minimum wage.

So how about we make the minimum wage something a person could actually survive on? Connecticut is expensive. Our taxes are high (we have the third highest tax burden of the country, go us!), homes cost a fortune, and land is exorbitant. So make the minimum wage something like $20/hour. Don't think I don't understand what that means though. Believe me, I know that people would argue that that wage would crush small businesses, but I think those people are wrong.

I realize that that is a lot of money; it's a bit over $41,000 before taxes, and I understand that costs three times more per employee than it does now. I can add up the numbers and figure what that would do to our local grocery store (who pays minimum wage) and realize the costs that would add on. I do realize that this would cost billions of dollars across the country and cost large companies like Target and Wal*Mart millions. But that's okay. I don't mind.

For what it's worth, if I ever employ someone, I am going to pay them a fair wage, not minimum wage, and here's why. Do I want someone doing the bare minimum for me? Say I owned a grocery store, does paying my employees minimum wage inspire them to care? There are a lot of theories in running a business, and I don't know any of them, but I know how I'd run mine: I want everyone to care. When I see school pictures from Lifetouch (or any of the other studios) I can tell the photographer doesn't care. The entire process is filled with people who don't care.

Lifetouch could actually use a pre-school photographer right now; let's look at what they want:

Requirements
• High school diploma or equivalent
• Customer service experience strongly preferred
• Excellent communication and interpersonal skills
• Previous experience working with children preferred
• Ability to work with minimal supervision as well as in a team environment
• Willing to work a varied seasonal schedule, including early mornings
• Demonstrate a positive and professional image
• Ability to effectively interact with preschool age children and adults
• Accessibility to reliable insured transportation to reach assigned locations. Vehicle insurance must be current and in compliance with state law.
• Must have a valid driver’s license
• Ability to operate camera equipment
• Ability to travel up to 75 mile radius

First and foremost, they want someone who graduated high school, fair enough. They want someone who has customer service experience. I can see that being useful, but for pre-school kids? I kind of don't think customer service helps you deal with pre-schoolers. Communication and interpersonal skills are great, too, but four and five year olds require far different approaches with regard to interpersonal skills than, say, teenagers or adults. Just sayin'. Finally, they get to working with children. I think this is more important, personally. Children are very fickle, and can see right through you; knowing how to approach them and deal with them is paramount, in my opinion. The next few make sense and are basically par for the course with any job. Eighth on the list is the ability to interact with teachers and students, really? Again, I'd suggest this would be more appropriate at number two or so, certainly not eight. Astonishingly, though, is that second to last is the ability to operate a camera, which unto itself is incredibly vague.

If you think about it, though, you realize what their priorities are. Lifetouch doesn't want to hire photographers. No, photographers are expensive. They want someone who can take a picture the way they tell them to. Notice, they don't look for photography experience, just the ability to operate a camera. My niece is four and can operate a camera; alas, she doesn't have a high school diploma though, their number one priority. It doesn't talk about pay, but I'm going to assume it's not a lot; they're looking for, arguably, the bare minimum.

Think about when you go to retail stores and how unhelpful people are. Sure, you get that one really helpful kid that you always look for (that was me!), but most of the people seem like they could care less, right? Well, why should they? These kids generally get treated like garbage (I've seen it, and it's been me), they need to do the jobs of three people, and they have to deal with customers who are usually upset for a reasons that aren't their fault. So for $8.25 an hour, how much do you think they are going to care? Not much, they just want their shift to end.

Imagine if they were paid $20 an hour though. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I think it's worth it. Consider how expensive training employees is; companies hate having to hire people because of that cost. Most of the time they have to go through the pain that is hiring someone because someone quit or was fired. If a business owner needs to hire someone new because business is going so well, I doubt they'd be unhappy. I bet business owners would treat that process better if it cost them $20 an hour, but more importantly, they'd put more effort in because the quicker their employee can work, the better.

Anywhere I have ever worked, training has been an afterthought. They stick you in front of a computer, or have you listen to a CD, or watch a video. That's hardly effective training. It's like going to college. Book knowledge is great, but the real learning is the first six months on the job (from what I hear, I wouldn't know). You had better believe anyone I hire, will be trained by me. I want to know them and I want to trust them. An employee for your company represents you; would you want that person to honestly care, or be there for spending money, because that's what minimum wage is at its current rate.

At this point, I've discussed why I would pay someone a fair wage, but am I right? Moral obligations to your fellow man aside, what about financially? It is awfully expensive to be a human being sometimes, you know. Maybe I am a dreamer, and what I envision in my mind is utterly wrong, but this is how I see it.

I live in Woodbury, it is a small, but affluent town. We have a lot of elderly people here and probably more antique shops than I can count. But let's pretend it's your town. Think of all the business and workers in your town, think of the people spending money. Imagine they all made $40,000 minimum. Most who retail jobs shop where they work. It's convenient because they are there all the time and they know where everything is. Plus, I bet if they were paid well, they'd like the store more (and care about being there more). There are a lot of little shops here in Woodbury. We have a really awesome indie toy store, Geppetto's, but it's expensive. That is, I can't afford it, unless I really think the recipient will appreciate the gift. But I'd rather shop there than K-Mart. Actually, I wouldn't buy a toy from another store (unless it was similar in style). I do this because their toys are well constructed and will last, unlike those from most stores.

There's a grocery store here too. It's different than your average grocery store, though. There are two checkout lanes, they use a wood stick for an order divider. They offer local produce, and local handmade items. I can buy chocolate goat milk there (yum!), along with all kinds of spices and baking goodies I've not found elsewhere. But I can't afford it, although I really wish I could. I want to give them my money (and indeed I sometimes do), but just not enough of it.

I could do a lot with $40,000 a year, though. Combined with Krissy, we'd make no less than $80,000 pre-tax. That's a number I like, and it's just above the number surveys have shown is what it takes to make people happy. (Technically the survey is $75,000 a year per person). We could do a lot with that money, we could, you know, actually live a life. We could, and would, spend money at local businesses. We would buy handmade crafts from local (and not-so-local, thank you Etsy) crafters. We might go out to eat at one of the few nice local places once a week instead of cooking. Ayla's is good for lunch, too. What I'm trying to say is that we would inject a lot more money into the economy, specifically, the local economy. So while it may cost businesses more to pay $20 per hour, in the long run they will reap the benefits.

I wonder what's better for the economy, money circulating or sitting in stocks. Does it really help small businesses when people own billions of dollars in stock? I'm pretty sure if we all had more money, we'd be likely to spend it, no?

Good For Youth?

Something that I think might be even more important, though, is for the younger workers. Teaching kids financial sense aside, a higher minimum wage is common sense. There's no denying that we've become indebted to credit card companies. But what might surprise you is that student loan debt has surpassed that of credit card debt.

Americans owe some $826.5 billion in revolving credit, according to June 2010 figures from the Federal Reserve. (Most of revolving credit is credit-card debt.) Student loans outstanding today -- both federal and private -- total some $829.785 billion

Yeah, we have a combined $1,656,285,000,000 (that is, one trillion, six hundred fifty six billion dollars) in debt between the two. Considering also that 84% of students had credit cards in 2009 with an average debt of $3,173, maybe having the option of saving is a viable one. I figure even working part-time, a student could feasibly save quite a bit before school, and work some during school part-time as well. I don't see how slapping graduating college students with anywhere from $50,000 to $400,000 in debt is a good idea. Perhaps a better, more honest, minimum wage could alleviate some of that. (The larger problem of tuition costs and banks shelling out awful loans could use a revamp, too).

Good For The Elderly?

I've had the pleasure of working with some amazing older folks. Granted, some were a bit ornery and obnoxious, but most of them were happy people who I'm glad to have worked with. But I don't think we ought to have people working until they die. I'm all in favor of people working because they want to, but they shouldn't have to work to pay bills at seventy or eighty.

Let's face it, the older we get, the more our health, and that of our loved ones, suffers. Healthcare is, regrettably, far too expensive. Social Security isn't exactly an amount one can live on, so we have to use savings. Healthcare can obliterate savings in a matter of months to a few years. Increasingly, people are working longer than they have to just to survive. What if those older people, instead of making a paltry $8 or $9 per hour made over twice that. They are capable, and work harder than most people I've worked with. And, hey, they may even enjoy going to work, too.

Unfortunately, I don't see this ever happening. Minimum wage has stayed the same for fifty five years once adjusted for inflation, but the cost of living has skyrocketed. Minimum wage is supposed to combat poverty, but politicians who decide minimum wage don't have to worry about ever earning such a pitiful wage. Maybe they should.

Perhaps having public service jobs pay minimum wage could make a difference. Public service is, after all, a service, not a career. (FYI: most members of congress are actually millionaires). At minimum wage, politicians wouldn't be doing the job for the money, but for the people they represent. It's hard for me to imagine that a millionaire can understand my plight and where I am coming from on a daily basis.

For what it's worth, poverty, in Connecticut, is defined as $21,027 for a married couple with two children. I'm not even going to address how ridiculously low that is. I actually kind of wrote about it here, with some caveats. First, the numbers I used are for a married couple with no children. Second, I used $40,000 in annual salary, almost double the poverty level. My question is, if a married couple in Connecticut can't survive on $40,000 a year, then how can we expect a family of four to survive on $21,027?

Be Kind.

Tax Cuts Don't Always Result In Paying Less Taxes

It really bothers me that the tax cut deal will actually increase taxes on poor people. It's kind of ironic, considering that of all the people who could use the money, they are the only ones who will pay more.

I don't think billionaires need the million-upon-millions of extra dollars. Sure, for the poorest, taxes may only go up by a very small amount, but that very small amount is a much larger percentage of their income. (Fun Fact: The Walton Family would save over 23 billion dollars with the estate tax portion alone. That doesn't even include the income tax portion.)

Anyone making $20,000 or less a year, or married couples making $40,000 or less will actually pay more taxes this upcoming year. Beyond being unfair, it just doesn't make sense. Consider that in Connecticut $20,000 is already hard enough to live on. A married couple making only $40,000 for the most part cannot survive.

Let's do some simple math:
$40,000 a year equals $769.23 a week for two people pre-tax.
Taking out takes would leave that couple with around $30,600 a year or $588.46 a week.

That brings us to around $2,353 a month. Let's pay some bills and, hopefully, buy some groceries.

Rent: $1,000 ($1,000)
Electricity (Second highest in the nation): $100 ($1,100)
Internet: $$40 ($1,140)
Cell Phones: $60 ($1,200)
Car Insurance: $200 ($1,400)
Car Payments: $350 ($1,750)
Gas: $160 ($1,810)
Groceries: $160 ($1,970)
Monthly necessities: $100 ($2,070)

That leaves about $300 a month leftover, and I am sure I am forgetting things. Of course this doesn't include buying new clothing, gifts, entertainment, or other necessities. Nor does it include renter's insurance, property insurance for two cars (probably $750-$1,000), or other random miscellany. This doesn't include doctor's appointments, prescriptions, car repairs, or other unforeseen circumstances.

Perhaps most importantly though, this offers no room whatsoever in a budget to actually save money for a future. This doesn't include having children and their associated costs. This doesn't account for buying furniture or anything else like televisions or kitchen gadgets.

Fact is, in Connecticut, a couple cannot live on $40,000 dollars just as a single person can't live (on their own) on $20,000. It just doesn't add up. At best, you'd spend exactly what you take in, living week-to-week praying that nothing goes wrong. No chance at having a family and no chance to save towards a future. No vacations or getting sick.

But these are the only people who will pay more taxes; the people who can afford it the least. To call the fact that the very richest of Americans would pay less goes so far beyong a slap in the face. It kind of feels more like a door mat. But not a nice, fuzzy new one; no, an old ratty one they just want to throw away. That's us: garbage.

Why Are Some People Such Bastards? Part One: Holier Than Thou

I'm a firm believer in a little philosophy I call being human. I'm not perfect, nor do I expect others to be. I have my views, and likewise you have yours. I respect that. If we have some things in common, great, if not that's okay. Maybe we completely disagree, that too is okay.

But there are some things that are just not okay. And I'm going to talk about some of them in a continuing series named "Why are some people such bastards?"

It takes a lot to make me angry or upset me. I'm a really low key person. I don't excite easily and I dislike confrontation. Well, the kind of confrontation that isn't civil, anyway. But sometimes things happen that really disturb me, and one of them happened today.

I have a deep respect for religions and churches. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I respect them all, mostly. One such "church" is the Westboro Baptist Church  In case you didn't click on that link, their web address is GodHatesFags.com. Yes, the way they decide to represent themselves, their storefront on the world wide web is to proclaim that God, apparently, hates homosexuals.

I'm a big proponent of the freedom of speech. I don't think anyone should be censored, or made unable to speak. But, I think that people, before speaking, need to be a human being. I don't often remember many quotes from famous people, but one I often think about is by Evelyn Beatrice Hall:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

Most people assume Voltaire said it (I seem to recall being told it was Voltaire in school, actually). But it was actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall (writing under a pseudonym) about how she felt Voltaire felt. And I like it. I think the moment we restrict people's speech is the moment a people fail, so what I'm going to say, I say with much trepidation.

Maybe some people just shouldn't speak. It's the only way I can reconcile my beliefs. I can't and won't tell people what to say, or censor what they say so no one sees it. So maybe they just should say nothing. Maybe they should keep quiet. Maybe things like this should stay hidden away and never see the light of day:

Now, I'm no expert, and I don't know if there is a hell, but I think if there is a heaven, Ms. Edwards will likely make the cut. I don't know much about her, but what little I know is rather admirable. To condemn her for having children after one passed is just stupid. And to be so joyous over a woman's death is just cold. If you aren't familiar with this group, they've made a habit of picketing funerals, particularly those of dead soldiers, students, church leaders, plane crash victims, celebrities, and now Elizabeth Edwards, among others.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the God I've learned about my whole life in Catholic schools would approve of signs reading: "Thank God For Breast Cancer." Even if she were Adolf Hitler, to thank God for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of good, honest people to rid the world of one horrible one is not an even trade. But of course, Elizabeth Edwards wasn't anywhere near that; she was a good woman.  For all I know she was a good mother, and a good wife. I cant imagine how she could have been a more patient wife.

Perhaps (at least to my knowledge), her biggest fight was healthcare and the fact that no one should be without it (I agree). She argued that not everyone could afford good, high-quality healthcare like she could, but that everyone ought to be entitled to it, and I agree. Health care is exorbitantly expensive; operations shouldn't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and especially not if you have insurance.

I didn't know her, or anything much about her really. Though, I do approve of her sentiment on gay marriage:

I don't know why someone else’s marriage has anything to do with me. I'm completely comfortable with gay marriage.

but I do know that I was sad to hear of her death. I'm always sad to hear of death though. I don't like it, especially when people die before they should.

So are these the kinds of people God wants representing him? Maybe God really is against murder, homosexuality, adultery, and lying; but I'm fairly certain he's never been for hate. The Golden Rule is oft quoted, but I believe any God would approve of my statement to be a human. Treat people the way you want to be treated? Sure. Treat people fairly. What is worse, anguish and the reaction over a God taking your sixteen year old son or the anguish people cause to the family by picketing that funeral.

What does it accomplish even? They can hate Elizabeth Edwards and people like her, but their protests aren't going to stop people from having more children after losing one. They can do everything in their power to protest that there are, in fact, gay people; but it's not going to change anything. They can spread all the hate they want, and the only place it's going to get them is, I'm afraid, the same place they condemn all their enemies to.

In the end, it won't matter, anyway. No one cares now about the day-to-day of people hundreds or thousands of years ago. And years from now what these people do won't matter either. But what does matter to us is today and for our sake we should all just be human; not for history's sake, but for our own. Just be fair, it's the least we could do.

To Middle-Aged People: Ignorance Isn't Bliss

Let me begin by apologizing if you are middle-aged and this does not apply to you. If you are not afraid of technology, then I salute you; you are my kind of person. By no means am I lumping any group of people together, other than the group of people who pride themselves on their ignorance. That said, I hope you read and enjoy, nonetheless; maybe you will feel my pain. I'm sure we all know a few of these types of people.

Ignorance Is...Well, Ignorant

You know the maxim, "Ignorance is bliss"? It's total crap. Really, when is ignorance ever bliss? Sure, for the person who is ignorant, it's kind of nice, but they are ignorant, so why should that count for enough to coin a phrase? No, ignorance isn't bliss, because the rest of us, unfortunately, have to put up with it. But what's even worse, is sometimes we have to defend it. Oh, don't hold it against her, she's just ignorant. Well, maybe she should be educated. (For what it's worth, I didn't intend to suggest with that statement that women exclusively are ignorant, I just needed a gender and it came out, if you are offended, change "she's" to "he's" and "her" to him.")

I have, in the last five years or so, come across a lot of people who claim to be horrible with technology. Any technology. The number of people who use the same excuse kind of bewilders me. What is even more odd, is that I don't talk to that many people, although I did work at CompUSA. That said, I have never liked the phrase "I'm not good at". We all have things that try us more than others. I have struggled with math for most of my life. Am I no good at it? No. I'm pretty sure if I really applied myself, and had the right person to help me, I could get it. Besides, my trouble was mostly with physics, which is another beast altogether. But technology, computers, et cetera, how do people get away with it?

What is even more...infuriating, is that these people actually pride themselves on their ignorance. How is the inability to operate a cellphone a point of pride for some people? It's kind of like being proud that, as a man, you don't put the seat down, you proudly piss all over it (and the floor). (There you go ladies, there's your redemption from earlier. Are we even now?)

What ultimately bothers me though is that I worry for these people. The future is unavoidable. Five years ago, sure maybe you could get away with this kind of attitude. Cell phones weren't nearly as ubiquitous as they are now, computers could be avoided, Twitter didn't exist, and Facebook still required an e-mail address from certain colleges. But what if they get into an accident? What if something happens to them and they can't get help because they can't make a phone call and proudly never got a cell phone. Maybe these people haven't realized it yet, but pay phones don't exist anymore. I think in my travels across the fine state of Connecticut, I've seen maybe two.

I think that we have lost our way as a people. I think there was a time when people did things for themselves, learning and knowing a bit about everything. I'm not expecting the Renaissance, no, but maybe we can be more than one-trick-ponies. No, that sounds a bit unfair. Maybe we shouldn't be so scared of things that are new. Why do new things scare us?

Why So Scared?

I understand newness is scary; we like the familiar. But isn't there at least some exhilaration to cracking something new? I am not a car guy. Cars really don't interest me. I don't need to drive two hundred miles-per-hour, nor do I need a vehicle with six hundred horsepower. Truth be told, I really want a Vespa. But, if something goes wrong, I'd kind of like to give fixing it a try if it's easy enough. Case in point, a battery died, not on my car, but it died nonetheless. I thought to myself that I'd like to deal with it. Changing a battery isn't rocket science (despite what some people may think), so I figured I'd look up what I needed to know and spent an hour or so fixing it. And you know what? I liked it. Maybe it made me feel a little manly, but most of all I was pleased to do something myself and not have to pay someone else to do it. Am I now a car guy? No, not in the least, but I'm still going to attempt to be one.

As the ranking computer person in my family, and the ranking boy in another, I've found myself on the receiving end of this type of unapologetic ignorance. I have changed quite a few batteries, and screwed things that needed screwing (get your mind out of the gutter, mind you, they were screws). I've carried bags, plugged things in, and opened computer cases and that hardly scratches the surface. It's not that I don't mind helping. Honestly I like helping people. What bothers me the most is when someone asks for help because they don't want to try something. I can't tell you how many times this happened at my jobs. Every single one of them, too.

To be honest, I understand the elderly who don't want to deal with computers. I think that maybe they've earned that right. I'm not going to fault them for their stubbornness, but I know of quite a few elderly people who absolutely love their technology now that they've embraced it. But if you are in your forties or fifties, it kind of boggles my mind to ignore computers and technology as a whole.

Looking Forward

I worry for these people. What happens when you are at your job, which you feel secure in, warrants this technology you so fear? Consider for a moment that jobs are being consolidated. Companies figure why pay two people what one can do? Truth be told, the larger the company the more it seems like they want to consolidate four or five jobs into one, but that's a blog for another date.

Technology isn't going anywhere. Technology is here to stay and evolve, and the longer anyone avoids it, the further behind they find themselves. There are a lot of people who dislike math. Like I wrote before, it's not been my strongest subject in life. But you know who doesn't have problems with math? Mathematicians. It's not because they're geniuses. Sure, I bet many of them are, but I think it's for a different reason. Consider the fact that the people involved in the forward motion of math are mathematicians. They don't need to relearn everything, because they are travelling with math as it evolves. This same is true with computers and technology.

Once upon a time, computers were harder to learn than now. Instead of a nice, usable user interface like Windows 7, we had only console screens. Nothing but text. Did you want to plug something in? Well, lots of plugs were proprietary and there were a great many ports on a computer. There are still some remnants left on the back, too. You likely still have a printer port back there. It's, frankly, huge and takes up space. You may have a serial port too, which is much smaller. You may have a floppy drive, too. All of these have been replaced of course to become easier. Most peripherals connect now via USB ports. Fortunately, computers (and most technology) has actually gotten easier to use over time. Computers are actually incredibly easy to use, especially compared to twenty or more years ago. Cellphones, too, are really simple to use. Frankly, I'd hate for something terrible to happen to someone because they couldn't operate a cell phone. So, too, would I hate for someone to lose a job, or be unable to get a job, because they opted to ignore computers.

Looking Back

I remember the beep beep pang whizz of my modem dialing up AOL. I remember the first time I surfed the internet on a decent connection. I remember LAN parties at ten years old. Suffice to say that I am a nerd, a geek, whatever your word of choice for me, I am that. I grew up in a home that wasn't afraid of computers or technology. We had an IBM PS/2, an archaic bit of technology now, but it worked, and I learned on it. To this day I have fond memories of five-inch floppies and the games I played on that machine. As much as I love the new, fancy look and feel of games, I feel that that love is indebted to DOS games and that IBM PS/2.

I remember my brother, Chris, got a computer for Christmas or his birthday one year. Finally, I was moving on up. Yes, it was his computer, in his room, but it was as good as mine. I used it a lot, especially at night. I remember the rise and fall of Napster on that computer, the ever familiar "You've Got Mail" on that computer, and the beginning of my fascination with the internet in general on it. I don't know when it was, but I got a computer eventually, too, from my dad. It's kind of funny in a way, I only got rid of that computer a few years ago. I have a problem discarding computers.

The thing is, I like the environment, I care deeply for it, and I hate to know that I'm hurting it by throwing a computer in the garbage. But my computers have largely been my amigos, so to speak. I've lived through events in my live with them being a part of it. I feel like a lot of my views on life have, at least in part, been formed by my life on the computer.

In The End...

I'm not asking the uninitiated and ignorant people to delve deeply into computers and technology. I don't expect them to understand that everything is ones and zeroes, nor do I want them to understand gates, NAND operations, or the like. No, I just want them to be able to plug one in and turn it on. I want them to be able to take a cell phone and make a phone call. I don't require that they make accounts on Facebook and Twitter (though, I bet a lot of them would like Facebook).  I just want them to try and to realize that, ultimately, computers and all modern technology is precisely that: modern.

I suspect that back in the fifties when televisions were new people weren't so scared. Didn't watching tv together become something of a family event where everyone would gather to watch? It was new, it was exciting! How about microwaves? They were a technological innovation at the time. Cooking food quickly and easily? No need to fire up the oven? Yes, please! But now, all of a sudden, where is this enthusiasm? Aren't the people who are so afraid of modern tech the same who grew up with these innovations? How would they have felt if their parents were afraid of television, and instead held onto their radios like television would be the death of all things good?

Truth is, computers can be daunting. The internet invites us, our humble little selves, in our humble little towns, into the larger, grander world. There are a lot of awful and dangerous things on the internet. There's a lot to fear: viruses, porn, liberals, conservatives, Jesus freaks, atheists, hate mongerers, hippies; they're all there. But that is kind of the beauty of the internet, too. Everyone is represented.

I like vintage things. I like the idea of taking something old but functional and keeping it around. I'd rather reuse something than buy something new. And when I do buy something new, I like it to be something that will last forever. It's very difficult to find that kind of stuff around here though. I also like handmade things. No offense to big corporations, but I like being able to meet the person who made my (fill in the blank), or at the very least being able to talk to them. I don't know where my socks came from, or my pants. Nor do I know who made my television or my mirror. But if I buy hand towels from Etsy or a craft fair instead of K-Mart I feel more of a connection. What I'm trying to say, in an extremely roundabout way, mind you, is that for all the bad that is on the internet, there is an infinite amount of good to counter it. I can now find like minded folks, without having to move to a place like New Haven. But what about those people in the middle of nowhere? Where can they turn? What about gay people who live in fiercely conservative areas? The internet could provide the only solution for them. Sure, there's a lot of hate and controversy on the internet, but there's just as much if not more in real life.

So don't worry. Technology isn't all that scary. And if you need a hand, I don't mind helping you. I'm sure there are others, too, that want to help. All I ask is that you make an effort. That's it, just try. I want you to learn. I want to help you do just that. It's a crazy place out there, but it's the same crazy we're all used to.

"Happy" Thanksgiving

Hello, and happy Thanksgiving. I hope you are enjoying this Thursday and having a happy holiday. I've never much cared for Thanksgiving. I've actually never been a huge fan of the holidays. Maybe it has something to do with the lead up to holidays and people stressing over them. Maybe it has to do with being surrounded by people, having to travel from place to place where ever a new crowd of people await. While I'm sure there are numerous reasons for a dislike of holidays, I think a more appropriate term is distaste. You see, quite literally, I don't like the taste of holidays. Easter brings ham, Christmas brings ham, and Thanksgiving offers a veritable smörgåsbord of foods that, to me, are basically unpalatable. Turkey I have to slather in barbecue sauce to get down, potatoes (of any sort) are a big no-no, yams, sweet potatoes, and stuffing couldn't be more repulsive. I definitely don't eat corn, green beans, or ham (which maybe some people eat on Thanksgiving?). Want to know a secret though? I like cranberry sauce. It's bizarre, I know. Growing up, cranberry sauce is the one think no one could stand and, for some reason, I liked it. I know know why. Cranberry sauce is sweet but tart, and has a weird smooth texture with it's edges ribbed from the inside of the can. Maybe, just maybe, that's all apart of its charm to me; it's the one thing no one else liked, so I gravitated to it. Then there's the other aspect of cranberry sauce I like. Care to take a guess as to what exactly that is? Give up? You open it up backwards. It's the one canned good (to my knowledge, anyway) that you open from the bottom. It's backwards, like me.

The other bad taste I get in my mouth from holidays is probably due to the massive over-commercialization of them due to our capitalist society. It's right there in the name. Capitalize. Where other cultures have centuries of spiritual traditions celebrated from carnivale-like proportions to the most humble ones, ours seem to be indebted to the other almighty: the green back, and as many of them as possible. Even the circumstances under which these holidays are celebrated have been twisted and mutated to fit the ideals of a capitalist society. Let's take a look, shall we?

Thanksgiving, oh a lovely holiday celebrating the pilgrims who sat down to a lovely, peaceful meal with the native Americans giving thanks for all that they had. Like a giant turkey in the middle of the table. Maybe the "indians" were thankful to the pilgrims for bringing their firearms, which undoubtedly made catching and killing the bird that much easier. Or maybe the Quakers brought their guns because they wanted the natives to know who at the table held all the cards, who was boss; the meal was, after all, to establish an alliance. Naturally, women weren't in attendance. Not exactly what I'd call a happy thanksgiving. So how did Thanksgiving become what it is today? The good old-fashioned way: lobbyists.

According to NPR, magazine editor Sarah Joseph Hale petitioned every level of government lobbying governors, every member of congress, and even the president for a national day where she, and the readers of her magazine, Godey's Lady's Book (I know, right?), could slave over an oven and stove for three days making far more food than necessary to give thanks for such a lovely bounty. Oh, and Lady Hale really liked turkeys. With that, Thanksgiving was born some three hundred (or so?) years after the "original" dinner.

And that, my friends, is how you create a holiday, and capitalize upon it.

Seriously though, enjoy the holiday at least for its most basic meaning: to give thanks, for whatever means something to you.

I leave you with this passage from Fox News host, John Stossel:

Had today's political class been in power in 1623, tomorrow's holiday would have been called "Starvation Day" instead of Thanksgiving. Of course, most of us wouldn't be alive to celebrate it.
Every year around this time, schoolchildren are taught about that wonderful day when Pilgrims and Native Americans shared the fruits of the harvest. But the first Thanksgiving in 1623 almost didn't happen.
Long before the failure of modern socialism, the earliest European settlers gave us a dramatic demonstration of the fatal flaws of collectivism. Unfortunately, few Americans today know it.
The Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share the work and produce equally.
That's why they nearly all starved.

Of course, the truth is a bit different. If there was hardly any food as Mr. Stossel suggests, how and why would the pilgrims have had a three-day-long feast? Truth is, there was plenty of food, and the whole socialism thing? Yeah, not quite, it was more of a co-op which each farmer owning a share of the crops and farms. But to Fox, everything is socialist; and socialism is very, very bad.

Man Cat Watches Anderson Cooper 360

Man Cat Watches Anderson Cooper 360
Photo by:Dennis

I used to like CNN. How could one not like a news organization who employs someone named Wolf Blitzer? And Anderson Cooper seemed like a fair and good news anchor. That said, I'd never really watched CNN then, so I just assumed I'd like it. I've been watching CNN as of late and I've got to say: I'm not impressed.

For the last ninety-something days, Anderson Cooper has covered almost nothing but the Oil Spill. I get it, it's a horrible horrible travesty that should have been avoided. Unfortunately, I don't understand why he needed to give the same exact report for ninety straight days.

Then there's the problem of Anderson's wardrobe. I noticed it on one of his marathon We're going to show clips of me asking BP to talk on air for the last 40 days straight. And what I saw befuddled me: Anderson only appears to own 3 shirts (he's especially fond of a certain black v-neck).

Any time I've watched any other CNN show they seem to have this unorthodox obsession with Twitter, reading from their blogs online, and their touchscreen TVs. Really, reading what people say on Twitter doesn't much contribute to the news, nor does constantly scrawling on your touchscreens simply because you can. I can certainly appreciate their embracing technology, but they're acting like a kid who's just discovered markers and a white wall.

Speaking of crazy, obsessive, and Twitter, let's talk about CNN's sister network Head Line News (HLN). I'll start with Showbiz Tonight, "TV's most provocative entertainment news show." I'd like to know how they came up with that tagline. Provocative? How? All they talk about is Lindsay Lohan. In fact, that's all most of HLN's shows talk about. This show is utterly pointless, not remotely entertaining, and the furthest thing from provocative; I'll take E! News over this any day (and that's not to say that Giuliana and Ryan's show is much better).

Next up is Joy Behar. I like the View, it's an interesting show that educates me on how 4 different women feel about current issues. You've got Conservative blowhard Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Whoopi Goldberg (who is the most sane person on the show), Joy Behar who tends to make pretty good sense, and Sherri Shepherd who I can't say is all that memorable, but seems okay. Then, I tune to Joy Behar on HLN and she has managed to create a show that is somehow always 3 days behind on the news. Not only that, it's kind of painful to watch, she says some of the most idiotic things. The only recent show I enjoyed was Leonard Nimoy's show about his photography exhibit which I'd already read about on NPR

Finally, there is the batshit crazy Nancy Grace. I don't know where to begin, but I'll summarize the show for you. Nancy will mention a topic, which she will then rant on about for awhile. She will then invite a guest on to talk, and she will yell at them (and thus the audience) until she takes calls and e-mails. These e-mails are all seemingly from bible-belt stay-at-home-mom's. For about a month and a half straight all she talked about was Joran Van der Sloot. Then she talked about Lindsay Lohan for a month. Most of the time, however, Nancy talks about cases of child abductions and murderers, but mostly missing and dead children. Oh and Mel Gibson; they all seem to love hating on Mel Gibson.

Man Cat does not approve. Not of black V-necks (unprofessional); repetitive news mongering; taking calls from lonely, angry women; repeatedly yelling about celebrities and how out of control they are; and missing/dead children and murderers. Why can't HLN talk about something a little happier? News doesn't have to be so depressing all of the time. Why so hard over Mel Gibson and his wife? I understand ratings are all that matters, but frankly I'd rather sit back with a nice cup of tea and listen to my NPR than be berated by HLN all day which is precisely why HLN goes on when everything else worth watching has gone to commercial.