The debate for a Casino in Kenosha is back on and blazing away. I've heard the commercial and listened to both sides, and very well both sides have got some mudslinging to do. I've chosen to grab one point from the pro side, and a couple from the con side and shed a little light on them. So the record is straight, I am in support of the Kenosha Casino, and they why will be touched on in one of my points
"Just vote yes for the Kenosha Casino, Governor Walker": Well, see, the thing is, if it was that simple, we would have done this 9 years ago when it passed the general election the first time. The problem that we are having is that the State of Wisconsin has a contract with the Potowatomi Tribe that only they can build a casino in the southeast region of Wisconsin, and they don't want to build another one so close to their Milwaukee location. The Menomonie tribe is the tribe that wants to build the Kenosha Casino. Now, I know that between the income and the jobs and the taxes, a Kenosha Casino will move Wisconsin forward, but it will be a gigantic step backwards from our balanced budget if we get sued by the Potowatomis
"The project has a history of corruption. One key developer even had ties to the mob": News flash, anyone who has lived in Kenosha for more than a year already knew that. Anyone who's lived in Racine for more than two years already knew that. Anyone who's lived in Lake County for more than two years already knew that. Kenosha has a very strong mob presence and everyone knows that. It's also not a big secret that the family that was tied with that project also has its fingers in Potowatomi, so just relax.
"The Kenosha Casino will take over 3000 jobs away from Milwaukee. How is that moving Wisconsin forward??": This one really pissed me off when I heard it, so forgive my rant. What all of you Milwaukee people need to understand, which you don't understand, is that Wisconsin is more than Milwaukee. The Metro of Milwaukee, Waukesha, Mequon, and Racine and it's surrounding smaller communities makes up less than 10% of the real estate that is the State of Wisconsin, and even all of those cities combined, even being the largest metro in the state, are just over a third of the state's population. There is much more to Wisconsin than that. Now, I understand that some of your business from the south is going to go away. But you still have the rest of the Milwaukee Metro to serve, and tourism from the North and West. 3000 jobs are not just going to go away, and the people who live south that work for Potowatomi will most likely try to get into Kenosha, freeing up jobs for other Milwaukee Citizens. I also understand that many people from Lake County and Cook County will probably try and get jobs there, and that's not the downside that you think. Having worked out of state, I know that your income taxes are still paid to the state you work in. Yes, your income goes out of state, and frivolous spending will go back to these counties, but also keep in mind that gas is cheaper up here, so any Illinois Citizen working in Kenosha will gladly fill up here before going back across the state line, and that is more taxation in Wisconsin's pocket. Our tax rate on groceries is also lower, so they will also gladly stop at Woodman's (on the way back to Illinois from the proposed site) and get an armload of groceries at 5.5% tax or no tax, depending on the item. The final key here is Milwaukee Traffic. Many outside visitors from Burlington, Walworth, Lake Geneva, and more importantly, Illinois, don't like driving in Milwaukee. The lower traffic and more remote location will be more than enough invitation to make an impulse trip to the casino to burn 50 bucks than planning a trip to National Ave to try and get into Potowatomi.
One small idea I had when I started thinking about this was rather than the Menomonies violating contract, why not have the Potowatomi tribe build a small extension on the proposed site. While I like the glamorous casino with stages, waterparks, and restaurants that the Menomonie tribe has proposed, a small extension, like Ho-Chunk has outside of Stoughton, would be a welcome compromise and would still utilize all the benefits I noted in my last point. Some food for thought. This is an idea that will truly bring Wisconsin forward
Monday, October 7, 2013
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Rules on Dating 6: Terrible Questions To Ask On a First Date
In all of life's high pressure situations, very few carry the same pressure as a first date. As well as setting the tone for the way a relationship can go, but the conduct that each person carries on the first date also determines whether or not you will be called again, seen again, or just another joke passed around the bar. Now, every person in the world is very very different, so you do have to be dynamic as you date. But there are just some topics that a person who is attempting a relationship should avoid on the first date or even the first few dates. I am also talking about "true" first dates. The dynamic is very different if you and a long term friend are shifting paradigms from friendship to relationship. A lot of the questions I'll be laying out are fair game in that situation.
What I have compiled here is a short list of questions I've actually been asked on a first date or the first few dates that I found wildly inappropriate, along with a few questions that some female friends have brought forward to my attention that they disliked answering as well.
QUESTIONS WOMEN SHOULDN'T ASK MEN
"Why are you single??" - On a first date, or even on the first few, a person should never talk about his or her ex or exes, and yet this question is basically saying to a person "Tell me how your last relationship ended, please". Now, dependent on tone, a person on the outside could see this question as a sign of admiration. However, on a true first date or even the first two or three, the asking party would barely know enough about the other to admire more than physical appearance. Perhaps a level of arrogance, an odd hobby, or emotional or physical abuse was the cause. Now, as a couple is approaching relationship and the personalities are meshing, this question comes with a great level of admiration, but right in the beginning, it can bring you information that can easily drive both parties away from each other. For both men and women, using this question can be great, but wait a while before you ask it.
"What are you looking for??" - Oh my God, I can't tell you how much I hate this question on a first date. I can agree with anyone that there is a time and a place for this question, and it will need to be asked eventually, but it has no place on a first date. Even worse, in my experience, is that when it does come out, it's almost ALWAYS one of the first questions that a girl asks. When I hear this question on an early date this is what I hear: "Now, you barely know me, but are we gonna hook up, or commit??" When I date, it could honestly go either way, but I don't know that early. I'm not gonna commit to a person I have no connection with, can't stand to be around, or intends to emotionally abuse me. On the other hand, I'm not gonna go in looking to score, and miss out on the opportunity to have an intellectual connection with an amazing woman. I'm just out to go with the flow and see what happens.
"What kind of girl are you looking for??" or "What kind of girl do you normally go out with??" - This is fairly self explanatory. This is a terrible question, because the girls I normally go out with keep breaking up with me. That's why I'm dating.
"Can you describe the worst date you've ever been on??" - This isn't a horrific question, but I don't feel it's first date material. This can be a great conversation piece, or even an explanation to trauma, but I feel as though it's more geared to a more comfortable paradigm. I think this question would be great on the cusp of a new relationship. You can get a laugh, or find comfort in your new lover, but explaining it to a stranger makes me uncomfortable, and I can't imagine a girl being comfortable hearing about an ex, especially when she's just getting to know the guy
"How many women have you slept with??" - This is not a first date question. This is not a second date question. This is not a first anniversary question. This is not a golden anniversary question. This is not a question that should EVER be asked. I can't imagine a situation where the answer to this question will EVER strengthen a relationship. To be honest, I don't think the answer is anybody's business as long as the number stops going up while the two are together. There is only one situation where this is relevant and reasonable to know...and that is when the number is 0.
QUESTIONS THAT MEN SHOULD NEVER ASK WOMEN
Thank you to Jessica, Susan, Cami, Ashley, and Lauren for providing me with insight on this. I'm skipping over the questions that I have already covered on the men's side, and you would be surprised at how many came up. But there are a few others that seem to be unique to women.
"What's your favorite position??" - It's a date, you're not paying her. There is a chance that you'll have sex at the end of the night if you make a good connection, but you're not going to get it, or a second date, if you go into it expecting that. I'll admit, I'm the last man alive worthy of preaching no sex on the first date, but every time I've done it, it's been a total surprise to me. Leave the mystery out there, and stick to learning about her mind.
"How much do you weigh??" - I don't think I really need to explain to any man why this is a bad question to ask a woman on a first date, or at any other time
"Do you still have feelings for an Ex??" - This is like the question about what you're looking for. It seems that by asking this question, you're looking to figure out where the paradigm will lead before getting to know a person. If you are concerned about this, it seems that you are not comfortable in your own ability to make a a first impression and a relationship, and also that you want to know if your partner is free and clear to pursue a relationship as well. Once again, this is a good question and important information for down the line, but it's definitely not first date material. Exes should just stay out of a first date, period
"How much money do you make??" - First off, if you have any knowledge of the world, you should be able to estimate this by a person's career or job. But more importantly, it's irrelevant on a true first date. Since this is a men to women subject, I'll say it right out. Be a gentleman, pick up the check, open the door, buy the drinks, and get to know your date.
"Do you want children??" - I've beaten this horse to death...This is a down the road question for obvious reasons. The big question is, do you want to make a child and have it raised by someone who is crazy. You should know your partner before you ever consider this
"Are your boobs real??" - Honestly, this goes back to the way I started the women's side. Don't delve into the sexuality openly, and you'll be surprised at how well it goes for you. On another note, if you have to ask a girl if her boobs are real, I don't honestly believe that you've ever seen a fake pair. They're generally pretty obvious, and in the age group of the people who submitted questions for this, easily identified by a girl with an excessive cup size built on a frame that can clearly not handle it.
The summation of this list of questions really boils down to "Take your time". Most of the information here will eventually come in time, if you get lucky enough to start a relationship with the person you're dating, and if you don't get it, you didn't really need it because the relationship isn't going anywhere. So go in with a good mind, and you'll see just how far it can get you.
What I have compiled here is a short list of questions I've actually been asked on a first date or the first few dates that I found wildly inappropriate, along with a few questions that some female friends have brought forward to my attention that they disliked answering as well.
QUESTIONS WOMEN SHOULDN'T ASK MEN
"Why are you single??" - On a first date, or even on the first few, a person should never talk about his or her ex or exes, and yet this question is basically saying to a person "Tell me how your last relationship ended, please". Now, dependent on tone, a person on the outside could see this question as a sign of admiration. However, on a true first date or even the first two or three, the asking party would barely know enough about the other to admire more than physical appearance. Perhaps a level of arrogance, an odd hobby, or emotional or physical abuse was the cause. Now, as a couple is approaching relationship and the personalities are meshing, this question comes with a great level of admiration, but right in the beginning, it can bring you information that can easily drive both parties away from each other. For both men and women, using this question can be great, but wait a while before you ask it.
"What are you looking for??" - Oh my God, I can't tell you how much I hate this question on a first date. I can agree with anyone that there is a time and a place for this question, and it will need to be asked eventually, but it has no place on a first date. Even worse, in my experience, is that when it does come out, it's almost ALWAYS one of the first questions that a girl asks. When I hear this question on an early date this is what I hear: "Now, you barely know me, but are we gonna hook up, or commit??" When I date, it could honestly go either way, but I don't know that early. I'm not gonna commit to a person I have no connection with, can't stand to be around, or intends to emotionally abuse me. On the other hand, I'm not gonna go in looking to score, and miss out on the opportunity to have an intellectual connection with an amazing woman. I'm just out to go with the flow and see what happens.
"What kind of girl are you looking for??" or "What kind of girl do you normally go out with??" - This is fairly self explanatory. This is a terrible question, because the girls I normally go out with keep breaking up with me. That's why I'm dating.
"Can you describe the worst date you've ever been on??" - This isn't a horrific question, but I don't feel it's first date material. This can be a great conversation piece, or even an explanation to trauma, but I feel as though it's more geared to a more comfortable paradigm. I think this question would be great on the cusp of a new relationship. You can get a laugh, or find comfort in your new lover, but explaining it to a stranger makes me uncomfortable, and I can't imagine a girl being comfortable hearing about an ex, especially when she's just getting to know the guy
"How many women have you slept with??" - This is not a first date question. This is not a second date question. This is not a first anniversary question. This is not a golden anniversary question. This is not a question that should EVER be asked. I can't imagine a situation where the answer to this question will EVER strengthen a relationship. To be honest, I don't think the answer is anybody's business as long as the number stops going up while the two are together. There is only one situation where this is relevant and reasonable to know...and that is when the number is 0.
QUESTIONS THAT MEN SHOULD NEVER ASK WOMEN
Thank you to Jessica, Susan, Cami, Ashley, and Lauren for providing me with insight on this. I'm skipping over the questions that I have already covered on the men's side, and you would be surprised at how many came up. But there are a few others that seem to be unique to women.
"What's your favorite position??" - It's a date, you're not paying her. There is a chance that you'll have sex at the end of the night if you make a good connection, but you're not going to get it, or a second date, if you go into it expecting that. I'll admit, I'm the last man alive worthy of preaching no sex on the first date, but every time I've done it, it's been a total surprise to me. Leave the mystery out there, and stick to learning about her mind.
"How much do you weigh??" - I don't think I really need to explain to any man why this is a bad question to ask a woman on a first date, or at any other time
"Do you still have feelings for an Ex??" - This is like the question about what you're looking for. It seems that by asking this question, you're looking to figure out where the paradigm will lead before getting to know a person. If you are concerned about this, it seems that you are not comfortable in your own ability to make a a first impression and a relationship, and also that you want to know if your partner is free and clear to pursue a relationship as well. Once again, this is a good question and important information for down the line, but it's definitely not first date material. Exes should just stay out of a first date, period
"How much money do you make??" - First off, if you have any knowledge of the world, you should be able to estimate this by a person's career or job. But more importantly, it's irrelevant on a true first date. Since this is a men to women subject, I'll say it right out. Be a gentleman, pick up the check, open the door, buy the drinks, and get to know your date.
"Do you want children??" - I've beaten this horse to death...This is a down the road question for obvious reasons. The big question is, do you want to make a child and have it raised by someone who is crazy. You should know your partner before you ever consider this
"Are your boobs real??" - Honestly, this goes back to the way I started the women's side. Don't delve into the sexuality openly, and you'll be surprised at how well it goes for you. On another note, if you have to ask a girl if her boobs are real, I don't honestly believe that you've ever seen a fake pair. They're generally pretty obvious, and in the age group of the people who submitted questions for this, easily identified by a girl with an excessive cup size built on a frame that can clearly not handle it.
The summation of this list of questions really boils down to "Take your time". Most of the information here will eventually come in time, if you get lucky enough to start a relationship with the person you're dating, and if you don't get it, you didn't really need it because the relationship isn't going anywhere. So go in with a good mind, and you'll see just how far it can get you.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
The Pickup Truck Wars
My blog was intended to be a lighthearted look at dating and society, and something for me to have fun with, but it very quickly turned into a very serious criticism on modern society. After writing about being yourself, and sharing my chilling vision about where political rivalry could lead us in the worst case scenario, and adding to my musings on being yourself, I thought that it was time to try to do something fun again. I've been wanting to write this for a while, but a couple of articles took precedence. My disclaimer is that I'm not out to offend anyone by writing this, but I hope that we get a few laughs because we all know someone who fits each one of these description, especially those of us who work around automobiles. When I first wrote this in my head, I was gonna use the word "Asshole" and because of that I am glad it took me so long to get around to it. I toned it down to "jerk" because I don't want anyone to take it too seriously. I'll even be poking fun at myself a little, because I'm just as guilty of being one of these "stereotypes" as any other gearhead who likes pickup trucks. So read on and enjoy, and laugh a little bit as you realize that you, too, know someone like these classifications...and it might even be YOU.
Chevy Guy - Chevy guy very often doesn't do any modifications to his truck, but either secretly or openly longs for a big lift kit or a higher performance engine. Many times Chevy guy has multiple trucks and a few cars for fuel economy, because generally he's a really sensible guy. They usually have a purpose (daily driver, wood hauler, plow truck, long distance truck) and are only used for their intended purposes. Chevy guy can see the strengths of Ford trucks and will own and drive them if he can get a deal, but in general dislikes them. However, he has a strong distaste for Dodge trucks, seeing them as an overpriced status symbol, but cites transmission issues as his reasoning. Chevy guy's daily driver is generally a 3/4 ton or 1 ton pickup with a Duramax, and he will tell you at length how much better the combination of his Duramax and Allison is than anything you'll ever own. As I mentioned, he often has several other trucks..most of them older, most of them he got for under 3 grand. He's generally a salt of the earth guy, working either retail or factory, and generally loves to work.
Chevy Jerk - To Chevy Jerk, there is no make other than Chevrolet, Pontiac, GMC, Buick, Oldsmobile and Cadillac. Hummer is passable to him, as they have GM engines, but he will adamantly deny the involvement of Isuzu, Toyota, and Saab in spite of the fact that EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD knows that all three of those makes are GM interests and Toyota and GM have been sleeping in the same bed since the late 70's. You also can't quite convince him that the Duramax is built by Isuzu in spite of the fact that the Engine ID tag says Isuzu right on it. To Chevy Jerk, your Fox Body Mustang with a supercharged 351 Windsor is no match for his 1998 Chevy Silverado that's bone stock because his truck has a 350. And when you do win by a large amount, it doesn't matter anyway because you have a Ford. If Chevy Jerk is your mechanic, and you bring your Cummins powered Dodge to him complaining of low power, he'll tell you that the problem is that it doesn't say 6.6 Liter Duramax before you can say another word. The problem with this is that Chevy Jerk is generally a career auto mechanic. Chevy Jerk usually has a half ton or 3/4 ton truck that's heavily modified in one way or another, whether creature comfort, engine, or a huge lift kit. His truck got this way because as soon as he gets every paycheck, he takes out the bare minimum that he will need to live, and turns around and pours every cent he has left over into his truck.
Ford Guy - Ford guy has a lot of similarities to Chevy Guy. He's generally a laborer, and loves to work. He also is not opposed to buying a Chevrolet if he can get a deal on it. The thing about Ford guy is that he generally has only one truck. He might have other cars, but just one truck. Because he only has the one truck, though, he tends to overload it and overwork it as much as he can. The frame rails on the back of Ford Guy's truck often spend as much time on the axle stops as they do off of them. Ford guy understand the need for the complexities of the new modular engines, and even the Ecoboost engine, but he still longs for the days of pushrods, big blocks, and an inline 6 engine that the truck body generally fell right apart around, while there is still plenty of engine life left. Ford Guy was curious about the new diesel engines as they came out, including the new 6.7 Ford diesel. He understands the weaknesses of the 6.0 and 6.4, and he didn't tout them until he knew what they would do long term. He will, however, still do anything to get his hands on a 7.3. Typically, Ford Guy drives a late 90's or early 2000's F150 or F250.
Ford Jerk - Ford Jerk usually comes along when Ford Guy comes into a whole pile of money, but he also has some of his own standalone quirks. Ford Jerk is like Chevy Guy in the fact that he generally owns several trucks, and they are mostly purpose driven. But you also have to take into consideration that he has multiple older trucks because his brand new F250 Diesel 4x4 will never be loaded, off-roaded, or see a flake of snow. Depending on the individual Ford Jerk, he will either tune the absolute Hell out of every single truck he gets his hands on, or, more commonly, will tell everyone who will listen how pointless any sort of modification is and how perfectly the Ford Motor Company does absolutely everything. Ford Jerk is usually in management of some sort. He owns Chevrolets, but they are generally never driven on road, or anywhere that someone will see him driving them.
Dodge Guy - To put it bluntly, Dodge Guy is Forum Guy. Dodge Guy has a million reasons why his truck is better than yours, and he read all of them on the internet. The internet told him that some naturally aspirated V6 Rams can do better on fuel economy than Ford's Ecoboost and Chevrolet's 5.3, so he assumes that it means that his Hemi does also. Dodge guy generally has a very professional job, and his truck is often almost stock, with the exception of an exhaust, and is more like a luxury car status symbol. Dodge guy loves hunting and sports that will take him off road, but as soon as his truck is back in the driveway, it's washed and perfectly waxed. Dodge guy usually has the newest Ram 1500 that his budget will allow him
Dodge Jerk - When it comes to Dodge Jerk, I have one person in mind. Dodge Jerk has a Cummins, and he's been pouring every penny he has into it since he bought it. Dodge Jerk believes that the only way to make a statement is to pour as much black smoke as he can everywhere he can. The guy I'm thinking of went as far as to put his dual tail pipes right around his hitch pointed down and straight back so that he can brake check and pepper every car that gets behind him with smoke. Between his oversized injectors and his Banks Power Pack, it's a wonder he isn't melting a set of pistons every month. Dodge Jerk wants to be a performance mechanic, and when people try to tell him that they know more than he does, and prove it, he runs off and sulks, usually leaving a trail of black smoke behind him, so you can just imagine what happened when he went to diesel school.
And that's what we have for the first round of Pickup truck wars. There is a completely different set of subcultures that I can go into on a later article. But for now, as you have read these, your mind is formulating who it is that you know who fits these characteristics. I bet each and every person who reads this will be able to think of people who fit at least two of these categories, and some may even be scratching their heads thinking, "Oh crap, that's me". Please do note, these six categories do not encompass ALL pickup truck owners. These are just traits that I've seen that are noteworthy, and generally have a group of people associated with them. Chevy Guy isn't all Chevy guys, he's just THAT Chevy guy, and so on down the line. In a few months, when I revisit this topic, we'll look at racers, off road guys, lowriders, and posh truck guys.
Chevy Guy - Chevy guy very often doesn't do any modifications to his truck, but either secretly or openly longs for a big lift kit or a higher performance engine. Many times Chevy guy has multiple trucks and a few cars for fuel economy, because generally he's a really sensible guy. They usually have a purpose (daily driver, wood hauler, plow truck, long distance truck) and are only used for their intended purposes. Chevy guy can see the strengths of Ford trucks and will own and drive them if he can get a deal, but in general dislikes them. However, he has a strong distaste for Dodge trucks, seeing them as an overpriced status symbol, but cites transmission issues as his reasoning. Chevy guy's daily driver is generally a 3/4 ton or 1 ton pickup with a Duramax, and he will tell you at length how much better the combination of his Duramax and Allison is than anything you'll ever own. As I mentioned, he often has several other trucks..most of them older, most of them he got for under 3 grand. He's generally a salt of the earth guy, working either retail or factory, and generally loves to work.
Chevy Jerk - To Chevy Jerk, there is no make other than Chevrolet, Pontiac, GMC, Buick, Oldsmobile and Cadillac. Hummer is passable to him, as they have GM engines, but he will adamantly deny the involvement of Isuzu, Toyota, and Saab in spite of the fact that EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD knows that all three of those makes are GM interests and Toyota and GM have been sleeping in the same bed since the late 70's. You also can't quite convince him that the Duramax is built by Isuzu in spite of the fact that the Engine ID tag says Isuzu right on it. To Chevy Jerk, your Fox Body Mustang with a supercharged 351 Windsor is no match for his 1998 Chevy Silverado that's bone stock because his truck has a 350. And when you do win by a large amount, it doesn't matter anyway because you have a Ford. If Chevy Jerk is your mechanic, and you bring your Cummins powered Dodge to him complaining of low power, he'll tell you that the problem is that it doesn't say 6.6 Liter Duramax before you can say another word. The problem with this is that Chevy Jerk is generally a career auto mechanic. Chevy Jerk usually has a half ton or 3/4 ton truck that's heavily modified in one way or another, whether creature comfort, engine, or a huge lift kit. His truck got this way because as soon as he gets every paycheck, he takes out the bare minimum that he will need to live, and turns around and pours every cent he has left over into his truck.
Ford Guy - Ford guy has a lot of similarities to Chevy Guy. He's generally a laborer, and loves to work. He also is not opposed to buying a Chevrolet if he can get a deal on it. The thing about Ford guy is that he generally has only one truck. He might have other cars, but just one truck. Because he only has the one truck, though, he tends to overload it and overwork it as much as he can. The frame rails on the back of Ford Guy's truck often spend as much time on the axle stops as they do off of them. Ford guy understand the need for the complexities of the new modular engines, and even the Ecoboost engine, but he still longs for the days of pushrods, big blocks, and an inline 6 engine that the truck body generally fell right apart around, while there is still plenty of engine life left. Ford Guy was curious about the new diesel engines as they came out, including the new 6.7 Ford diesel. He understands the weaknesses of the 6.0 and 6.4, and he didn't tout them until he knew what they would do long term. He will, however, still do anything to get his hands on a 7.3. Typically, Ford Guy drives a late 90's or early 2000's F150 or F250.
Ford Jerk - Ford Jerk usually comes along when Ford Guy comes into a whole pile of money, but he also has some of his own standalone quirks. Ford Jerk is like Chevy Guy in the fact that he generally owns several trucks, and they are mostly purpose driven. But you also have to take into consideration that he has multiple older trucks because his brand new F250 Diesel 4x4 will never be loaded, off-roaded, or see a flake of snow. Depending on the individual Ford Jerk, he will either tune the absolute Hell out of every single truck he gets his hands on, or, more commonly, will tell everyone who will listen how pointless any sort of modification is and how perfectly the Ford Motor Company does absolutely everything. Ford Jerk is usually in management of some sort. He owns Chevrolets, but they are generally never driven on road, or anywhere that someone will see him driving them.
Dodge Guy - To put it bluntly, Dodge Guy is Forum Guy. Dodge Guy has a million reasons why his truck is better than yours, and he read all of them on the internet. The internet told him that some naturally aspirated V6 Rams can do better on fuel economy than Ford's Ecoboost and Chevrolet's 5.3, so he assumes that it means that his Hemi does also. Dodge guy generally has a very professional job, and his truck is often almost stock, with the exception of an exhaust, and is more like a luxury car status symbol. Dodge guy loves hunting and sports that will take him off road, but as soon as his truck is back in the driveway, it's washed and perfectly waxed. Dodge guy usually has the newest Ram 1500 that his budget will allow him
Dodge Jerk - When it comes to Dodge Jerk, I have one person in mind. Dodge Jerk has a Cummins, and he's been pouring every penny he has into it since he bought it. Dodge Jerk believes that the only way to make a statement is to pour as much black smoke as he can everywhere he can. The guy I'm thinking of went as far as to put his dual tail pipes right around his hitch pointed down and straight back so that he can brake check and pepper every car that gets behind him with smoke. Between his oversized injectors and his Banks Power Pack, it's a wonder he isn't melting a set of pistons every month. Dodge Jerk wants to be a performance mechanic, and when people try to tell him that they know more than he does, and prove it, he runs off and sulks, usually leaving a trail of black smoke behind him, so you can just imagine what happened when he went to diesel school.
And that's what we have for the first round of Pickup truck wars. There is a completely different set of subcultures that I can go into on a later article. But for now, as you have read these, your mind is formulating who it is that you know who fits these characteristics. I bet each and every person who reads this will be able to think of people who fit at least two of these categories, and some may even be scratching their heads thinking, "Oh crap, that's me". Please do note, these six categories do not encompass ALL pickup truck owners. These are just traits that I've seen that are noteworthy, and generally have a group of people associated with them. Chevy Guy isn't all Chevy guys, he's just THAT Chevy guy, and so on down the line. In a few months, when I revisit this topic, we'll look at racers, off road guys, lowriders, and posh truck guys.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
The Urquelle Effect: An addendum
Over the course of the last couple days, I started thinking about a few things, particularly revolving around the points I made in the article that was entitled "The Urkel Effect". With the observations of my own life and in the lives of others, I felt compelled to write a short little article about the opposing side of the coin.
In the 1994 film "The Mask", Ben Stein plays a minor role as a psychologist named Dr. Neuman. His primary role in the movie is discussing a book entitled "The Masks We Wear", discussing the way that we hide behind certain roles that are expected of us. It was this short piece of dialog that inspired this addendum. This is not a new concept, as it's been discussed at length in both the psychological world as well as pop culture. Whether it be Metallica's hit song "Sad But True" or the Miller-Boyett character that lent his name to this article, Stefan Urquelle; most all of us have felt the need to hide behind another persona based on what is expected of us demographically, or simply what is "cool". Now, not all of us have the intelligence or resources to genetically change ourselves as our friend Steve Urkel did. But, more often than not, we find ourselves hiding our true loves and interests to be more pleasing to our general public.
Now, why do we hide our inner Urkel and bring out Stefan?? Sociologically and instinctively, it's very easy to see that social acceptance leads to being a desirable mate. An advanced academic may hide his intelligence to avoid being a nerd. A young man who loves fashion and cooking or a young woman who loves to work on cars or build houses may force themselves in a line with their respective genders to avoid slurs of homosexuality, and the list goes on. Those who aren't afraid to be themselves are very often ostricized at a very young age, and this leads to an inner fear of their own interests.
The final point that I have to this will bring the article back to the points I made before, and truly make this an addendum. Those who remember Family Matters will remember that Stefan always turned back into Steve within a couple of episodes. It's the same in real life. The things that you love and hold dear, and your true self will always find a way to come out from behind the mask that you have put on. The important thing is to make sure you embrace it earlier than later. There is very little worse than coming to grips with the things that you love, then suddenly realizing that you're 28, and you've been living your life for everyone around you for your entire life, and you don't recognize the real person that you've been hiding for all those years. Trust me, it's very hard to start learning about the things you have been passionate about and have enjoyed for your entire life when a quarter of it is already gone.
The Urquelle Effect will always wind up being temporary, but the Urkel Effect is for life. Some food for thought
In the 1994 film "The Mask", Ben Stein plays a minor role as a psychologist named Dr. Neuman. His primary role in the movie is discussing a book entitled "The Masks We Wear", discussing the way that we hide behind certain roles that are expected of us. It was this short piece of dialog that inspired this addendum. This is not a new concept, as it's been discussed at length in both the psychological world as well as pop culture. Whether it be Metallica's hit song "Sad But True" or the Miller-Boyett character that lent his name to this article, Stefan Urquelle; most all of us have felt the need to hide behind another persona based on what is expected of us demographically, or simply what is "cool". Now, not all of us have the intelligence or resources to genetically change ourselves as our friend Steve Urkel did. But, more often than not, we find ourselves hiding our true loves and interests to be more pleasing to our general public.
Now, why do we hide our inner Urkel and bring out Stefan?? Sociologically and instinctively, it's very easy to see that social acceptance leads to being a desirable mate. An advanced academic may hide his intelligence to avoid being a nerd. A young man who loves fashion and cooking or a young woman who loves to work on cars or build houses may force themselves in a line with their respective genders to avoid slurs of homosexuality, and the list goes on. Those who aren't afraid to be themselves are very often ostricized at a very young age, and this leads to an inner fear of their own interests.
The final point that I have to this will bring the article back to the points I made before, and truly make this an addendum. Those who remember Family Matters will remember that Stefan always turned back into Steve within a couple of episodes. It's the same in real life. The things that you love and hold dear, and your true self will always find a way to come out from behind the mask that you have put on. The important thing is to make sure you embrace it earlier than later. There is very little worse than coming to grips with the things that you love, then suddenly realizing that you're 28, and you've been living your life for everyone around you for your entire life, and you don't recognize the real person that you've been hiding for all those years. Trust me, it's very hard to start learning about the things you have been passionate about and have enjoyed for your entire life when a quarter of it is already gone.
The Urquelle Effect will always wind up being temporary, but the Urkel Effect is for life. Some food for thought
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Predictions For the Second Civil War
In the name of all that is holy, please let the words to come be a warning to the fragile state of our political society, not a prophecy of things to come.
A short while ago at work, the ignorant people that I work with had landed on the topic (yet again) of race. Toward the end, as our break was ending, a 60 year old technician named Lee spoke up and said "There is another Civil War coming. This time it's gonna be between the blacks and the damned Mexicans though." as the day wore on, his words spoke to me continually, and I began to really think about a topic I have been theorizing upon on and off since 2008. As I thought more about this topic, I began to realize that Lee may be partially right. If we don't start watching our actions and hatred, a second civil war may be on the horizon, but it most likely won't have anything to do with race.
There has been a growing trend going on in our country for quite some time. I first really noticed it surrounding the 2008 election, but now that I have looked back further, the trend really started right around 2001. Republicans and Democrats are leveling out in numbers....and they are polarizing in beliefs. This last time around, physical fights were breaking out near polling places and people were denying friends and family members over the way they were going to vote. Social media doesn't help at all, sending out memes propaganda furthering the hatred between both sides. It's seriously harder and harder to be moderate when everyone around you is in a game of he said she said. I've warned about this effect numerous times in real life and a couple times in my blog here. The only way we are going to get anything done is by willingly conceding to the other side every once in a while. But how can we ever do that when people like Rush Limbaugh and Lenny Palmer keep throwing their slander to the other side and breeding ignorant hatred in the masses. This is going to be the spark that lights the fuse that blows this country apart.
Now I can't really discuss this without pointing out a small side theory I have formulated. Now, this borders on conspiracy paranoia, and I don't know if any of this is true. What I do know is that I have seen evidence to support this. Anyone who has seen the prequal trilogy to Star Wars knows a good amount of what is gonna be here. In the prequal trilogy, One man (although it was unknown until close to Episode III that it was the same man) spent most of the three movies reporting to both sides of the conflict that was going on around the galaxy, feeding both sides information and misinformation about the state of the other to breed hatred against the two. It seemed that the Jedi, the separatists, and the senators were constantly catching another faction in a betrayal conveniently, finally concluding in the mass extermination of the Jedi for treason against the Galactic Senate. Now....other than the lie to Anakin about being weak and dying, Chancellor Palpatine never actually did lie to anyone in the the government or the army, or the leaders of the outer rim colonies. Everything he said to incite the bitterness was the truth. He simply revealed just enough of the truth to draw emotion, and hid most of it. With talk radio extremists on both sides and especially through social media, I see a lot of this happening in our time and locale now. Does anyone else thing it's a coincidence that each side's official facebook fanpage is entitled "Being...." (Being Conservative and Being Liberal)?? Now, the difference I see right now is that Chancellor Palpatine was the Head of State for the main governing body, while I don't feel like it can be Obama that is pulling the strings in this escapade, nor do I believe that it is Bush or Romney. I want to make that abundantly clear, because I don't want this writing to reach the masses, and consequently incite a witch-hunt against an innocent man. I should hope that in the honor of due process, if this effect should be discovered and investigated, that it is done discreetly and fairly, before we are actually looking down events that came to me as I played out the situation in my head over and over again.
Now, as tensions rise and each side continually accuses the other of trying to wreck the economy and the world for the people of the other side, the distance between liberal and conservative will grow wider. Families will be torn apart at the seams and most opposing friends will grow to hate each other. I don't know who will strike first, but I can see how it will happen. Through word of mouth and people networking among themselves, one side will come up with a "safe word" and a marker of sorts. This may be a coin or token that all members of that side carry, or it may be a tattoo of sorts. Whatever it is, it will be quickly and discreetly distributed among followers of whichever side organizes, and will initially be recognized by only members of that faction. It's intended purpose will be to appear as a simple fad or fashion statement, but it will act as a safe marker for the first strike. This first strike will be one of the bloodiest battles on US soil in history, but it will soon be overshadowed by the ones to come. The reason it will be so bloody is because, unlike the first time, there are no geographical barriers or borders. Republicans and Democrats live among each other in cities and towns across the country, so the uprising will be sudden and bloody. As the uprising happens across the nation, cities scattered among the country will be captured and declared as territory for either side. This will be the beginning. The next series of bloody battles will be about migration. There will be an ebb and flow as cities attack each other and band together. Eventually each side will take cities and band together and start to gather into two places. There are a few ways this could go, but I do believe that the classic Mason Dixon line will strategically be used. It's already well known, and DC is in such a place that it can still be used as the capitol for whichever side happens to be in power when all this goes down. However the population is distributed, once the people have gathered with their respective allies, the side which isn't in power at the time (like if this happened tomorrow, the Republicans, since Obama is a Democratic leader) will secede from the Union. And for the moment, there will be peace.
Now, to take the traditional roles of the voters in each side into consideration, this peace will soon break. The big business and a lot of the foreign relations will go with the Republicans, along with a lot of the ideals of capitalism, while a lot of the manpower, including the knowledge of public services, and manufacturing will stay with the Democrats. There will still be both types of people on either side, but the majority of both classes that I listed will stay with their traditional backers. So, as the Republican States of America choke out the number of people that their opposition can sell their products to, as well as other strategic ways of economic damage, the Democratic States of America will choke out the manufactured goods that go to the other side in an attempt to starve them out. Either way, this will lead to the second outbreak.
Now, as both sides antagonize each other, stress will rise, and eventually this will lead to the first attack. Again, I don't know who will strike first, or where. But either a bank or a factory will become the target of desire and will launch the spark that ignites this great country. While the Republicans will have the advantages of education for strategies, and a greater love for guns, therefore presumably better armed, and the financial advantages which will help them in foreign policies, the DSA will almost equally cancel out the advantages. While, according the popular vote from this past election, the Democrats outnumber the Republicans by less than 1% among voting Americans, the type of people who will migrate to either side will be very different. The stereotypical social elite of the Republican side will take up arms to defend their beliefs, but they will be hesitant to go to the front line, where as the working class of the DSA will use their union experience to band together and rise up against their opposition, gladly taking the front line as long as all their friends are with them. Also, while the RSA will retain their guns with pride, this being one of their strongest beliefs right now, the factories of the Democratic states, staffed with these same eager union workers, will tirelessly pump out more and more ammunition faster than the Republicans could ever.
While there is no way of seeing who starts this conflict, there is less information on who ends it. The lack of major advantage will lead to stalemate, and I see it ending in three ways. Firstly, we end it the same way we did the first time. One side will develop a mild advantage, but both Generals will sign a treaty and end the war before it can be used. We are all Americans after all...we can bury the hatchet. Secondly, the horrifying. One side resorts to a weapon of mass destruction and commits genocide on people who used to be his friends and neighbors. This is highly unlikely, but a scary thought either way.
Lastly, in our weakness, another country comes in during our weakness, and invades or allies with one side, and in the chaos, attempts an overthrow of the United States. Either they succeed, and we become a territory of another nation (highly unlikely), or the attack causes us to put aside our differences, but we revert to military rule, and carry it to a monarchist rule (I don't want to say imperial, but same idea), and the ruler who brings us to peace is cheered and allowed to hold rule for life. While I realize this is an idea stemming from the Star Wars observation I made earlier, it is an eerie thought either way, and fully within the span of human nature.
The main point I want to make with this article is that however this ends, the middle is stained with American blood painting horrific images of families and friends killing each other. None of this has to happen, and I want to raise awareness, and help people look through the propaganda. Let's reach across the aisle and help each other, instead of hating. Citizens, remember that you are all American before you are Republican and Democrat. Politicians, remember that it is your job to help the people you represent, not your party's agenda, so do a little listening and let's all work together to make this a better place for us all to live together. Let's rebuild this great nation and bring ourselves back to the fortunes and freedoms we all shared in the 80s and 90s. We'll rebuild it together, and enjoy it together
A short while ago at work, the ignorant people that I work with had landed on the topic (yet again) of race. Toward the end, as our break was ending, a 60 year old technician named Lee spoke up and said "There is another Civil War coming. This time it's gonna be between the blacks and the damned Mexicans though." as the day wore on, his words spoke to me continually, and I began to really think about a topic I have been theorizing upon on and off since 2008. As I thought more about this topic, I began to realize that Lee may be partially right. If we don't start watching our actions and hatred, a second civil war may be on the horizon, but it most likely won't have anything to do with race.
There has been a growing trend going on in our country for quite some time. I first really noticed it surrounding the 2008 election, but now that I have looked back further, the trend really started right around 2001. Republicans and Democrats are leveling out in numbers....and they are polarizing in beliefs. This last time around, physical fights were breaking out near polling places and people were denying friends and family members over the way they were going to vote. Social media doesn't help at all, sending out memes propaganda furthering the hatred between both sides. It's seriously harder and harder to be moderate when everyone around you is in a game of he said she said. I've warned about this effect numerous times in real life and a couple times in my blog here. The only way we are going to get anything done is by willingly conceding to the other side every once in a while. But how can we ever do that when people like Rush Limbaugh and Lenny Palmer keep throwing their slander to the other side and breeding ignorant hatred in the masses. This is going to be the spark that lights the fuse that blows this country apart.
Now I can't really discuss this without pointing out a small side theory I have formulated. Now, this borders on conspiracy paranoia, and I don't know if any of this is true. What I do know is that I have seen evidence to support this. Anyone who has seen the prequal trilogy to Star Wars knows a good amount of what is gonna be here. In the prequal trilogy, One man (although it was unknown until close to Episode III that it was the same man) spent most of the three movies reporting to both sides of the conflict that was going on around the galaxy, feeding both sides information and misinformation about the state of the other to breed hatred against the two. It seemed that the Jedi, the separatists, and the senators were constantly catching another faction in a betrayal conveniently, finally concluding in the mass extermination of the Jedi for treason against the Galactic Senate. Now....other than the lie to Anakin about being weak and dying, Chancellor Palpatine never actually did lie to anyone in the the government or the army, or the leaders of the outer rim colonies. Everything he said to incite the bitterness was the truth. He simply revealed just enough of the truth to draw emotion, and hid most of it. With talk radio extremists on both sides and especially through social media, I see a lot of this happening in our time and locale now. Does anyone else thing it's a coincidence that each side's official facebook fanpage is entitled "Being...." (Being Conservative and Being Liberal)?? Now, the difference I see right now is that Chancellor Palpatine was the Head of State for the main governing body, while I don't feel like it can be Obama that is pulling the strings in this escapade, nor do I believe that it is Bush or Romney. I want to make that abundantly clear, because I don't want this writing to reach the masses, and consequently incite a witch-hunt against an innocent man. I should hope that in the honor of due process, if this effect should be discovered and investigated, that it is done discreetly and fairly, before we are actually looking down events that came to me as I played out the situation in my head over and over again.
Now, as tensions rise and each side continually accuses the other of trying to wreck the economy and the world for the people of the other side, the distance between liberal and conservative will grow wider. Families will be torn apart at the seams and most opposing friends will grow to hate each other. I don't know who will strike first, but I can see how it will happen. Through word of mouth and people networking among themselves, one side will come up with a "safe word" and a marker of sorts. This may be a coin or token that all members of that side carry, or it may be a tattoo of sorts. Whatever it is, it will be quickly and discreetly distributed among followers of whichever side organizes, and will initially be recognized by only members of that faction. It's intended purpose will be to appear as a simple fad or fashion statement, but it will act as a safe marker for the first strike. This first strike will be one of the bloodiest battles on US soil in history, but it will soon be overshadowed by the ones to come. The reason it will be so bloody is because, unlike the first time, there are no geographical barriers or borders. Republicans and Democrats live among each other in cities and towns across the country, so the uprising will be sudden and bloody. As the uprising happens across the nation, cities scattered among the country will be captured and declared as territory for either side. This will be the beginning. The next series of bloody battles will be about migration. There will be an ebb and flow as cities attack each other and band together. Eventually each side will take cities and band together and start to gather into two places. There are a few ways this could go, but I do believe that the classic Mason Dixon line will strategically be used. It's already well known, and DC is in such a place that it can still be used as the capitol for whichever side happens to be in power when all this goes down. However the population is distributed, once the people have gathered with their respective allies, the side which isn't in power at the time (like if this happened tomorrow, the Republicans, since Obama is a Democratic leader) will secede from the Union. And for the moment, there will be peace.
Now, to take the traditional roles of the voters in each side into consideration, this peace will soon break. The big business and a lot of the foreign relations will go with the Republicans, along with a lot of the ideals of capitalism, while a lot of the manpower, including the knowledge of public services, and manufacturing will stay with the Democrats. There will still be both types of people on either side, but the majority of both classes that I listed will stay with their traditional backers. So, as the Republican States of America choke out the number of people that their opposition can sell their products to, as well as other strategic ways of economic damage, the Democratic States of America will choke out the manufactured goods that go to the other side in an attempt to starve them out. Either way, this will lead to the second outbreak.
Now, as both sides antagonize each other, stress will rise, and eventually this will lead to the first attack. Again, I don't know who will strike first, or where. But either a bank or a factory will become the target of desire and will launch the spark that ignites this great country. While the Republicans will have the advantages of education for strategies, and a greater love for guns, therefore presumably better armed, and the financial advantages which will help them in foreign policies, the DSA will almost equally cancel out the advantages. While, according the popular vote from this past election, the Democrats outnumber the Republicans by less than 1% among voting Americans, the type of people who will migrate to either side will be very different. The stereotypical social elite of the Republican side will take up arms to defend their beliefs, but they will be hesitant to go to the front line, where as the working class of the DSA will use their union experience to band together and rise up against their opposition, gladly taking the front line as long as all their friends are with them. Also, while the RSA will retain their guns with pride, this being one of their strongest beliefs right now, the factories of the Democratic states, staffed with these same eager union workers, will tirelessly pump out more and more ammunition faster than the Republicans could ever.
While there is no way of seeing who starts this conflict, there is less information on who ends it. The lack of major advantage will lead to stalemate, and I see it ending in three ways. Firstly, we end it the same way we did the first time. One side will develop a mild advantage, but both Generals will sign a treaty and end the war before it can be used. We are all Americans after all...we can bury the hatchet. Secondly, the horrifying. One side resorts to a weapon of mass destruction and commits genocide on people who used to be his friends and neighbors. This is highly unlikely, but a scary thought either way.
Lastly, in our weakness, another country comes in during our weakness, and invades or allies with one side, and in the chaos, attempts an overthrow of the United States. Either they succeed, and we become a territory of another nation (highly unlikely), or the attack causes us to put aside our differences, but we revert to military rule, and carry it to a monarchist rule (I don't want to say imperial, but same idea), and the ruler who brings us to peace is cheered and allowed to hold rule for life. While I realize this is an idea stemming from the Star Wars observation I made earlier, it is an eerie thought either way, and fully within the span of human nature.
The main point I want to make with this article is that however this ends, the middle is stained with American blood painting horrific images of families and friends killing each other. None of this has to happen, and I want to raise awareness, and help people look through the propaganda. Let's reach across the aisle and help each other, instead of hating. Citizens, remember that you are all American before you are Republican and Democrat. Politicians, remember that it is your job to help the people you represent, not your party's agenda, so do a little listening and let's all work together to make this a better place for us all to live together. Let's rebuild this great nation and bring ourselves back to the fortunes and freedoms we all shared in the 80s and 90s. We'll rebuild it together, and enjoy it together
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
The Urkel Effect
To Jaleel White, for your inspiration to the world
To everyone who is not afraid to be him or herself, no matter what social pressures arise
To Lauren, who takes this and runs screaming with it
In 1987, Miller-Boyett Productions introduced JoMarie Payton as Harriet Winslow as a recurring guest on their ABC show "Perfect Strangers". At the time, no one could know the effect on society that this would have throughout the 90's. In '88, Reginald VelJohnson was introduced as her husband, Carl, on the same show, and in 1989, the couple, along with their children, got their own show, "Family Matters". Halfway into the first season of this show, Steven Quincy Urkel was introduced, originally to be just a recurring guest, and society was forever changed.
Now, this brief little history lesson seems very off par with the usual sociological themes of my blog, but I see a lot of the influence or Urkel in our society even today. Steve Urkel was a person who was never afraid to be himself. From his big glasses, his tight pants held up by suspenders, plaid shirts, saddle shoes, love for cheese, and all things polka; he always did what made himself feel good and fulfilled. He was, in fact, far apart from the average black teenager in inner-city Chicago. Urkel was a brilliant engineer from a very young age. In high school, he invented time travel, created an atomic bomb, and, in a nod to the nutty professor, unlocked the human genome in order to reset himself as "cool", even though all the people around him urged him to go back to his normal self.
Now, the point behind this whole television history lesson is to follow. The most important thing about Steve Urkel was that he was written originally to be a one time guest, and when he was written again, he was just supposed to be a recurring guest. However, anyone who remembers the show can tell you, the majority of the series centered around around Urkel. I see this as entirely societal for some of the things that made Urkel who he was. The reason he became so popular among viewers is that he was always himself. Eddie Winslow and Laura Winslow constantly struggled with their personal identities and how they contrasted with social and racial expectations with their environments. But Steve, no matter how many people he annoyed, just did what made him happy constantly. This pulled a level of respect from the viewing audiences that kept him coming back for season after season. He was a role model to everyone, not to be like him, but to live their own lives to the fullest extent. Sadly, very few people have the courage to do this, so people kept going back every Friday to watch Urkel be comfortable in his own skin.
All of us have social pressures surrounding our lives. Our families, friends and environments influence us daily to make certain decisions, even if we don't enjoy them. However, there are certain people who won't succumb to the pressure. These are the people who try everything when it comes in front of them, and who are often the most happy. They listen to what they want, do what they want when they want, and when they are told that they may be dressed inappropriately, they question when they are ever appropriate. With all this, they are also often the most popular because, for the same reasons as Urkel, people look to their independence and admire them for it. Think of the famous examples. One that comes right to mind is the very very black Darius Rucker, turning his back on R&B for the country music he loves, and how popular he is for it. Sheryl Crow and Aaron Lewis both also did the same thing to a bigger reception than their original genres. Even Bob Ritchie (Kid Rock) and Matthew Shafer (Uncle Kracker) threw away their angry tracks and came to a calmer sound with more succes, and to bring us back to fictional popular characters, who is more popular than Sheldon Cooper, touting his superiority in spite of his quirks??
So the life lesson that we can take away from this is to always look past the pressures and just do what makes us happy. It's always more attractive to be happy in your own skin than copying any cosmo magazine will ever be. So embrace what you love and be yourself. After all, you have to love you before someone else can.
To everyone who is not afraid to be him or herself, no matter what social pressures arise
To Lauren, who takes this and runs screaming with it
In 1987, Miller-Boyett Productions introduced JoMarie Payton as Harriet Winslow as a recurring guest on their ABC show "Perfect Strangers". At the time, no one could know the effect on society that this would have throughout the 90's. In '88, Reginald VelJohnson was introduced as her husband, Carl, on the same show, and in 1989, the couple, along with their children, got their own show, "Family Matters". Halfway into the first season of this show, Steven Quincy Urkel was introduced, originally to be just a recurring guest, and society was forever changed.
Now, this brief little history lesson seems very off par with the usual sociological themes of my blog, but I see a lot of the influence or Urkel in our society even today. Steve Urkel was a person who was never afraid to be himself. From his big glasses, his tight pants held up by suspenders, plaid shirts, saddle shoes, love for cheese, and all things polka; he always did what made himself feel good and fulfilled. He was, in fact, far apart from the average black teenager in inner-city Chicago. Urkel was a brilliant engineer from a very young age. In high school, he invented time travel, created an atomic bomb, and, in a nod to the nutty professor, unlocked the human genome in order to reset himself as "cool", even though all the people around him urged him to go back to his normal self.
Now, the point behind this whole television history lesson is to follow. The most important thing about Steve Urkel was that he was written originally to be a one time guest, and when he was written again, he was just supposed to be a recurring guest. However, anyone who remembers the show can tell you, the majority of the series centered around around Urkel. I see this as entirely societal for some of the things that made Urkel who he was. The reason he became so popular among viewers is that he was always himself. Eddie Winslow and Laura Winslow constantly struggled with their personal identities and how they contrasted with social and racial expectations with their environments. But Steve, no matter how many people he annoyed, just did what made him happy constantly. This pulled a level of respect from the viewing audiences that kept him coming back for season after season. He was a role model to everyone, not to be like him, but to live their own lives to the fullest extent. Sadly, very few people have the courage to do this, so people kept going back every Friday to watch Urkel be comfortable in his own skin.
All of us have social pressures surrounding our lives. Our families, friends and environments influence us daily to make certain decisions, even if we don't enjoy them. However, there are certain people who won't succumb to the pressure. These are the people who try everything when it comes in front of them, and who are often the most happy. They listen to what they want, do what they want when they want, and when they are told that they may be dressed inappropriately, they question when they are ever appropriate. With all this, they are also often the most popular because, for the same reasons as Urkel, people look to their independence and admire them for it. Think of the famous examples. One that comes right to mind is the very very black Darius Rucker, turning his back on R&B for the country music he loves, and how popular he is for it. Sheryl Crow and Aaron Lewis both also did the same thing to a bigger reception than their original genres. Even Bob Ritchie (Kid Rock) and Matthew Shafer (Uncle Kracker) threw away their angry tracks and came to a calmer sound with more succes, and to bring us back to fictional popular characters, who is more popular than Sheldon Cooper, touting his superiority in spite of his quirks??
So the life lesson that we can take away from this is to always look past the pressures and just do what makes us happy. It's always more attractive to be happy in your own skin than copying any cosmo magazine will ever be. So embrace what you love and be yourself. After all, you have to love you before someone else can.
Friday, June 14, 2013
A letter to General Motors
Dear General Motors
There was a time once where you had the entire automotive market cornered, and now Ford and the imports seem to be kicking your ass like no other. I don't understand what happened. I do believe a lot of it could be marketing. I remember the 90's. You were the coolest guy in town if your Chevrolet had a "Z" in the submodel. Now it's all these cheesy sedans, and sometimes you see an SS, but it really doesn't mean anything much different if you have one of these. I feel like if you re-vamp the Z cars to fit with modern times, modern cars, and modern motors, GM sales will take off like none other again. I theorize this because there are a lot of us who are still clamoring to get the great 90's cars that you had, especially the Z models. I came up with suggestions for all of the Z numbers from the 90's, and I really believe they would sell. Some of these are actually in production, but I would make them differently.
Z24-The Cavalier was one of the most popular entry level compact cars of all time, and there is no doubt as to why. They go forever, even with mechanical damage. GM needs to start building a bulletproof compact like this again. Design another Cavalier, stick the Ecotec in the baseline, and go back to your roots on the Z24. Make sure that it's big enough that you can wedge a V6 in there if someone wants to spend the money on the Z model. On a car that size, you don't need to do much else other than shove a 6 cylinder in it...and people WILL buy it. If you make manual transmissions standard, people will buy quickly, too. Standard on both models would be greatly appreciated, as well as coupe and sedan options.
Z26-I had this idea a long time ago. This would have been great on all the generations of the car in question. The mighty N-body, the most popular Pontiac that there was, the Grand Am. It's a shame Pontiac went to the wayside, because just bringing the nameplate "Grand Am" back would throw your sales back through the roof. But her Chevrolet sister, the Malibu was less exciting than a Corsica. As far back as the first generation Malibu, because I think the body lines were right to do it even back then, you should have engineered a coupe version. You could do your classic GM trick and market the coupe under a completely different name than the sedan. I honestly believe that for all generations of Malibu, if you changed the tail-lights a little, made it a two door, stuffed an L67 supercharged 3800 into it, gave it a manual option, and stuck a tag on the back that said "Beretta Z26" on it (since that was also an N-body), people would have come in masses to buy them. And there is no law that you could have done a baseline, and an LS version, too. One with an ecotec, and one with a smaller V6, like the Malibu was. Berettas were cool cars, and Corsicas were lame, even though they were pretty much the same car, and there is no reason you couldn't have repeated that success through the next generations of N-body.
Z28-This was the number that started it all, and I can't believe with a new generation of Camaro, we don't already have this. Give it a Beefy V8, but not as high powered as the ZL1....and just stick a Z28 tag on it....just that tag will sell it alone. Read all the Camaro magazines and the Forums, and give the people what they want
Z34-Take a luxurious car and make it faster...and more luxurious. Where did this go???? A few years ago, the Monte Carlo, along with every other 2 door W-body car, went away. Now, I know that there are rumors that it is coming back on the rear drive W platform in concurrence with the Caprice civilian version, but I don't entirely like this idea. I really think that the Monte Carlo should stay front drive with the Impala. Go ahead with keeping the SS versions as V8's...the 327 is a great motor. But for the Z34....you should do one of two ideas...or you know...both. Either put a big supercharger on it, and make it a smaller sister to the LS9....or.....make it All wheel drive. Maybe if you do that, and give the option to the Impala....the police will take you seriously as a competitor to the new Ford Interceptor.
Z66-There's one we don't see much here in the north. The two wheel drive "off-road" model to the Silverado, Avalanche, and Tahoe. Here's the idea, scrap the Off road part of it and start over. Take that same supercharged 327 I suggested for the Monte Carlo, make it rear drive again, Stick a six speed behind it, make the interior as nice as you can, and viola!! The new Chevy Z66. That one was easy
Z71-The famous off-road package, and the majority of Chevy 4x4s sold. Bring this option back, and maybe offer a higher output version of the engine in it. No need to go crazy on the the engine like in the Z66, the Z71 is offered to be an off roader. And offer it with a manual, because that was an option I never saw.
ZR1-Good job...you did this one right
ZR2-There's no reason you can't implement a lift kit and 3/4 ton axles in a Colorado. I'd maybe see about going back to the 4.3 V6, though, over the 5 cylinder if you do.
These are just suggestions, but I really hope you look into them. Market and design the way you used to, and the new car buyers will run, and for years to come, those of us who love used cars will be pining for them as well
J. Edgar Davis
There was a time once where you had the entire automotive market cornered, and now Ford and the imports seem to be kicking your ass like no other. I don't understand what happened. I do believe a lot of it could be marketing. I remember the 90's. You were the coolest guy in town if your Chevrolet had a "Z" in the submodel. Now it's all these cheesy sedans, and sometimes you see an SS, but it really doesn't mean anything much different if you have one of these. I feel like if you re-vamp the Z cars to fit with modern times, modern cars, and modern motors, GM sales will take off like none other again. I theorize this because there are a lot of us who are still clamoring to get the great 90's cars that you had, especially the Z models. I came up with suggestions for all of the Z numbers from the 90's, and I really believe they would sell. Some of these are actually in production, but I would make them differently.
Z24-The Cavalier was one of the most popular entry level compact cars of all time, and there is no doubt as to why. They go forever, even with mechanical damage. GM needs to start building a bulletproof compact like this again. Design another Cavalier, stick the Ecotec in the baseline, and go back to your roots on the Z24. Make sure that it's big enough that you can wedge a V6 in there if someone wants to spend the money on the Z model. On a car that size, you don't need to do much else other than shove a 6 cylinder in it...and people WILL buy it. If you make manual transmissions standard, people will buy quickly, too. Standard on both models would be greatly appreciated, as well as coupe and sedan options.
Z26-I had this idea a long time ago. This would have been great on all the generations of the car in question. The mighty N-body, the most popular Pontiac that there was, the Grand Am. It's a shame Pontiac went to the wayside, because just bringing the nameplate "Grand Am" back would throw your sales back through the roof. But her Chevrolet sister, the Malibu was less exciting than a Corsica. As far back as the first generation Malibu, because I think the body lines were right to do it even back then, you should have engineered a coupe version. You could do your classic GM trick and market the coupe under a completely different name than the sedan. I honestly believe that for all generations of Malibu, if you changed the tail-lights a little, made it a two door, stuffed an L67 supercharged 3800 into it, gave it a manual option, and stuck a tag on the back that said "Beretta Z26" on it (since that was also an N-body), people would have come in masses to buy them. And there is no law that you could have done a baseline, and an LS version, too. One with an ecotec, and one with a smaller V6, like the Malibu was. Berettas were cool cars, and Corsicas were lame, even though they were pretty much the same car, and there is no reason you couldn't have repeated that success through the next generations of N-body.
Z28-This was the number that started it all, and I can't believe with a new generation of Camaro, we don't already have this. Give it a Beefy V8, but not as high powered as the ZL1....and just stick a Z28 tag on it....just that tag will sell it alone. Read all the Camaro magazines and the Forums, and give the people what they want
Z34-Take a luxurious car and make it faster...and more luxurious. Where did this go???? A few years ago, the Monte Carlo, along with every other 2 door W-body car, went away. Now, I know that there are rumors that it is coming back on the rear drive W platform in concurrence with the Caprice civilian version, but I don't entirely like this idea. I really think that the Monte Carlo should stay front drive with the Impala. Go ahead with keeping the SS versions as V8's...the 327 is a great motor. But for the Z34....you should do one of two ideas...or you know...both. Either put a big supercharger on it, and make it a smaller sister to the LS9....or.....make it All wheel drive. Maybe if you do that, and give the option to the Impala....the police will take you seriously as a competitor to the new Ford Interceptor.
Z66-There's one we don't see much here in the north. The two wheel drive "off-road" model to the Silverado, Avalanche, and Tahoe. Here's the idea, scrap the Off road part of it and start over. Take that same supercharged 327 I suggested for the Monte Carlo, make it rear drive again, Stick a six speed behind it, make the interior as nice as you can, and viola!! The new Chevy Z66. That one was easy
Z71-The famous off-road package, and the majority of Chevy 4x4s sold. Bring this option back, and maybe offer a higher output version of the engine in it. No need to go crazy on the the engine like in the Z66, the Z71 is offered to be an off roader. And offer it with a manual, because that was an option I never saw.
ZR1-Good job...you did this one right
ZR2-There's no reason you can't implement a lift kit and 3/4 ton axles in a Colorado. I'd maybe see about going back to the 4.3 V6, though, over the 5 cylinder if you do.
These are just suggestions, but I really hope you look into them. Market and design the way you used to, and the new car buyers will run, and for years to come, those of us who love used cars will be pining for them as well
J. Edgar Davis
Thursday, May 23, 2013
When a Crush Becomes a Role Model
For Genevieve ~ My inspiration to make the most out of my life no matter what
Who's ever had a crush?? We all have. Who's ever had a role model?? I would hope that at least 99% of us have had one of those, too. Have you ever noticed how similar the two roles seem to be?? I saw it predominately in a celebrity crush of recent moments, and seeing that made me look back on a lot of my crushes from the past and I really started to notice a pattern. I will discuss the pattern and what I've seen, both in myself, and some people around me who I know have crushes on other people around me, along with why my most recent is so admirable, but before I do that, there are some definitions and discussions I need to get out of the way.
The first thing that there is to discuss is what a crush is and where it differs from an attraction. More specifically, a sexual attraction. The first thing I want to say about the topic is that CRUSHES ARE HARMLESS....that is, as long as you don't act on them if your crush is not available to you. Of two that come to mind who presently hold the title of my crush, one is both married and a sort of celebrity, and one is in the forbidden demographics I discussed waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the beginning of my blog. A Sunnyside bartender, in fact. I speak of both of them to make my point, but I would never ever dream of making a move on either, other than to thank them for the inspiration to make my own life better. What these women have that a woman who simply is a sexual desire does not have can be subtle. I see a crush as a person of the gender which you prefer who bears a trait that you desire in yourself, where a sexual attraction is based on just that....to put it even more primitively, traits that you would desire to see in your offspring. Crushes most often have traits of sexual desire, in fact most commonly do, but that person you simply lust after rarely has the traits of a crush. Often times, when you have a simple case of lust, you rarely know enough about the object of desire to see any traits that you would desire in yourself. And lust is rarely harmless. It is considered to be a deadly sin by the Christian community, and, if used in the wrong situations, drives apart trusts and relationships and marriages. I've definitely lusted after enough women and had enough crushes in my 17 years of sexual maturity to tell the difference.
As I discussed before, crushes have traits that we do desire to see in ourselves, and that's why we consciously and subconsciously seek out the bearers of these traits. Traits that seem to be apparent in my crushes and the crushes I've seen around me are fairly obvious. Success, freedom, financial stability, and physical fitness seem to be the most obvious and common, although I honestly feel as though the last one does border on lust and desire, given the dynamics of today's societal expectations that I discussed in "Projection versus type". One of the other big ones I've seen is attitude, and this is overwhelmingly more common when the feelings are going from a woman to a man. On the whole, women of the American society tend to be more socially driven to acceptance, and I've noticed on more than one occasion that when a man comes into their lives; or even just into a room; and he does whatever makes him happy and feel good and doesn't care what society thinks of it, the women just go nuts. To be fair, I have seen this go the other way, also, but less commonly. Even on a more practical level, I've seen crushes form on a person's ability to cook, fix a car, play music or sing (I think we all know how common that one is), gamble successfully or otherwise play games of chance, living on one's own rather than with parents (that's a big one recently with our economy), and on one occasion even on a man's ability to hold his liquor. All these were traits that the crusher did not possess his or herself, and on a lot of them, I myself was the crushee.
With all of these traits given out, there is one last note on differentiating between crush and lust, and that is the danger in mixing the two. Often, recently, I've been the victim of this practice, and I have fallen guilty once or twice myself. I try really hard not to do this when I know that I do not reciprocate the same feelings, but I am only a man and sometimes temptation does get the better of me. I try not to, because I know how much it hurts to be used when the object of your feelings doesn't reciprocate the same feelings, but uses your feelings to build herself up. This is one of the hardest pains to deal with, emotionally. I simply want to say, that if you don't feel the same way as a person who's crushing on you, let the other be.
Now, onto some of my crushes. Other than the woman who I dedicated this to, who I most likely will never ever meet face to face, no names will be given, obviously. My forbidden crush, here at my local bar....she got me to open up to her like I have never been able to before within minutes of meeting her for the first time. That is definitely something I wish I could do for myself. My first real, strong crush when I was in high school. The first time I talked to her was her congratulating me for standing up for my beliefs against every single person in our school all at once. Having been a bullied child, I got a very strong sense of empowerment from that event, and she had brown hair and blue eyes...I was hooked. Unfortunately I took the advice of her "friend" and continually asked her out even though I know now that I shouldn't have, and I ruined everything. I know now, 14 years later, that the second time her so-called friend told me to pursue her, I should have told her to go to hell. But, alas, that kept up for 3 years...some friend. Let's see, who else...Back when I lived in the Boston Metro Area, there was this girl I worked with at the Stop and Shop. She was a very free spirit, and could keep a smile for everyone, no matter what. This is a trait I did eventually learn, but it took me years more, and back then all I could do was wish I had it. And finally, the important one. Important because this still inspires me. Genevieve, the runner up from King of the Nerds who accepted second place much more graciously than I think I could have, if I had worked that hard for the entire season. I watched her overcome all odds. Every Nerd-off was stacked against her, and she prevailed every time. I'll admit, that it started as a desire, but I was soon reminded of how the odds of my life have been stacked against me for the last 6 years, and how I have managed to come this far without running back home to my parents. At the end of that competition, I was on the verge of giving up myself. I couldn't see a light at the end of the tunnel anywhere. A continuing fan-dom, led me to see how strong and positive this woman really is, and I saw, and recognized the trait that I wanted to see in myself. That was the push forward that I needed to force my life in the direction I wanted it, not to let it force me where it wanted me. That was when this young lady migrated from being a crush, to a role model. The deck is still stacked against me right now, but every chance I have to prep for something to come, I prep. Every day I push forward, even when I know I'm facing life's Kobayashi Maru, I don't believe in it, sometimes going as far as to "reprogram" the odds to my favor. Life has been my Nerd-Off the last few years. I have a goal (a restaurant of my own) in my sights, and a plan to get there from here. But I also know, that if that plan is impossible to work, I'll just be able to improvise to get there anyway. I learned from the best that even if you think you can't win something, just go ahead and win it anyway.
With that I leave you with this. Find those crushes, even if you can't be with them, use their lives to inspire your own to have those traits that you wish you could have. If you can't be with your crush, it's not in vain, because they can still be a role model.
J. Edgar
Who's ever had a crush?? We all have. Who's ever had a role model?? I would hope that at least 99% of us have had one of those, too. Have you ever noticed how similar the two roles seem to be?? I saw it predominately in a celebrity crush of recent moments, and seeing that made me look back on a lot of my crushes from the past and I really started to notice a pattern. I will discuss the pattern and what I've seen, both in myself, and some people around me who I know have crushes on other people around me, along with why my most recent is so admirable, but before I do that, there are some definitions and discussions I need to get out of the way.
The first thing that there is to discuss is what a crush is and where it differs from an attraction. More specifically, a sexual attraction. The first thing I want to say about the topic is that CRUSHES ARE HARMLESS....that is, as long as you don't act on them if your crush is not available to you. Of two that come to mind who presently hold the title of my crush, one is both married and a sort of celebrity, and one is in the forbidden demographics I discussed waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the beginning of my blog. A Sunnyside bartender, in fact. I speak of both of them to make my point, but I would never ever dream of making a move on either, other than to thank them for the inspiration to make my own life better. What these women have that a woman who simply is a sexual desire does not have can be subtle. I see a crush as a person of the gender which you prefer who bears a trait that you desire in yourself, where a sexual attraction is based on just that....to put it even more primitively, traits that you would desire to see in your offspring. Crushes most often have traits of sexual desire, in fact most commonly do, but that person you simply lust after rarely has the traits of a crush. Often times, when you have a simple case of lust, you rarely know enough about the object of desire to see any traits that you would desire in yourself. And lust is rarely harmless. It is considered to be a deadly sin by the Christian community, and, if used in the wrong situations, drives apart trusts and relationships and marriages. I've definitely lusted after enough women and had enough crushes in my 17 years of sexual maturity to tell the difference.
As I discussed before, crushes have traits that we do desire to see in ourselves, and that's why we consciously and subconsciously seek out the bearers of these traits. Traits that seem to be apparent in my crushes and the crushes I've seen around me are fairly obvious. Success, freedom, financial stability, and physical fitness seem to be the most obvious and common, although I honestly feel as though the last one does border on lust and desire, given the dynamics of today's societal expectations that I discussed in "Projection versus type". One of the other big ones I've seen is attitude, and this is overwhelmingly more common when the feelings are going from a woman to a man. On the whole, women of the American society tend to be more socially driven to acceptance, and I've noticed on more than one occasion that when a man comes into their lives; or even just into a room; and he does whatever makes him happy and feel good and doesn't care what society thinks of it, the women just go nuts. To be fair, I have seen this go the other way, also, but less commonly. Even on a more practical level, I've seen crushes form on a person's ability to cook, fix a car, play music or sing (I think we all know how common that one is), gamble successfully or otherwise play games of chance, living on one's own rather than with parents (that's a big one recently with our economy), and on one occasion even on a man's ability to hold his liquor. All these were traits that the crusher did not possess his or herself, and on a lot of them, I myself was the crushee.
With all of these traits given out, there is one last note on differentiating between crush and lust, and that is the danger in mixing the two. Often, recently, I've been the victim of this practice, and I have fallen guilty once or twice myself. I try really hard not to do this when I know that I do not reciprocate the same feelings, but I am only a man and sometimes temptation does get the better of me. I try not to, because I know how much it hurts to be used when the object of your feelings doesn't reciprocate the same feelings, but uses your feelings to build herself up. This is one of the hardest pains to deal with, emotionally. I simply want to say, that if you don't feel the same way as a person who's crushing on you, let the other be.
Now, onto some of my crushes. Other than the woman who I dedicated this to, who I most likely will never ever meet face to face, no names will be given, obviously. My forbidden crush, here at my local bar....she got me to open up to her like I have never been able to before within minutes of meeting her for the first time. That is definitely something I wish I could do for myself. My first real, strong crush when I was in high school. The first time I talked to her was her congratulating me for standing up for my beliefs against every single person in our school all at once. Having been a bullied child, I got a very strong sense of empowerment from that event, and she had brown hair and blue eyes...I was hooked. Unfortunately I took the advice of her "friend" and continually asked her out even though I know now that I shouldn't have, and I ruined everything. I know now, 14 years later, that the second time her so-called friend told me to pursue her, I should have told her to go to hell. But, alas, that kept up for 3 years...some friend. Let's see, who else...Back when I lived in the Boston Metro Area, there was this girl I worked with at the Stop and Shop. She was a very free spirit, and could keep a smile for everyone, no matter what. This is a trait I did eventually learn, but it took me years more, and back then all I could do was wish I had it. And finally, the important one. Important because this still inspires me. Genevieve, the runner up from King of the Nerds who accepted second place much more graciously than I think I could have, if I had worked that hard for the entire season. I watched her overcome all odds. Every Nerd-off was stacked against her, and she prevailed every time. I'll admit, that it started as a desire, but I was soon reminded of how the odds of my life have been stacked against me for the last 6 years, and how I have managed to come this far without running back home to my parents. At the end of that competition, I was on the verge of giving up myself. I couldn't see a light at the end of the tunnel anywhere. A continuing fan-dom, led me to see how strong and positive this woman really is, and I saw, and recognized the trait that I wanted to see in myself. That was the push forward that I needed to force my life in the direction I wanted it, not to let it force me where it wanted me. That was when this young lady migrated from being a crush, to a role model. The deck is still stacked against me right now, but every chance I have to prep for something to come, I prep. Every day I push forward, even when I know I'm facing life's Kobayashi Maru, I don't believe in it, sometimes going as far as to "reprogram" the odds to my favor. Life has been my Nerd-Off the last few years. I have a goal (a restaurant of my own) in my sights, and a plan to get there from here. But I also know, that if that plan is impossible to work, I'll just be able to improvise to get there anyway. I learned from the best that even if you think you can't win something, just go ahead and win it anyway.
With that I leave you with this. Find those crushes, even if you can't be with them, use their lives to inspire your own to have those traits that you wish you could have. If you can't be with your crush, it's not in vain, because they can still be a role model.
J. Edgar
Chef Ed's Food Corner
A little while ago I started another blog all about food, seeings as I am a student in Culinary School. If you come across this and like what you read about how I see the world, I hope you'll take some time and read how I see food. The link will be posted below. Keep reading, and be inspired to make the world a better place in your own way.
J. Edgar
Read Ed's Food Blog
J. Edgar
Read Ed's Food Blog
Monday, May 13, 2013
Things I would do if I won the Lottery
The Powerball is a thriving business right now. It seems like every other month there is a 200+ million dollar jackpot, which is the only time I play. One has to wonder, if you ever came into that kind of money, what would you do with it. The most common answer is early retirement, of course, but after doing a lot of thinking about the idea, I determined there are many better things a person could do with that kind of money. If i ever came up with those magical numbers, I would definitely take care of myself, my close friends, and my family, but there are things I would do also that would help take care of my locality and state, and hopefully I can even stretch my hand of good faith to the great United States as well. Here are the things I would do with 200 million dollars over the next few years of my life.
1. Call my lawyer - There are hundreds of pages of fine print that go along with coming into that kind of money. Even if you are super smart, having a lawyer is the best thing you can do, to understand what is going on. You have 200 million dollars now, you can afford it. A lawyer will also help to ensure that businessmen and politicians don't try to sweet talk you into investing or funding something that may lose you everything. You will be very popular once you have that money.
2. Pay my taxes - Large lottery winnings are taxed at a ball park amount of 51%. On a 200 million dollar jackpot (which is what we will be using for a reference for the remainder of the article), that will leave you with around 98 million dollars, which is not a bad number at all. You can do a lot with that much money still, and your state and federal government will very happy with you.
3. Open a savings account to live on - The rumor is that if you put 11 million dollars in a savings account, you can just live on the interest. On the national average, which is a paltry 0.21%, that brings you to $23,100, which is....livable. You do have to keep in mind you'd only have fuel and utilities and food to pay, with that kind of money you'd have everything paid off. However, if you're coming forward with 11 million dollars, I promise you that you will not be offered an average rate. That is not for high rollers by any means. The highest savings account interest rate in the country right now is at the Pioneer Muslim Federal Credit Union, and it's at 3.03%. With as many bank out there that are going to be fighting over you, I would like to believe that this will be a little closer to the interest rate that you are going to get paid. With a rate like that, you're looking closer at an interest income of around $333,300. THAT is a healthy income, and your taxes and all your bills will definitely be paid all the time. Plus, whatever you don't use will go back into your account and draw even more interest.
4. Buy a house - Just something modest. It will be on the beach, but on Lake Michigan's beach, not the Pacific Ocean. We gotta keep the taxes down. Nothing huge, I have no need for 12 bedrooms. A nice 3 bedroom in Carol Beach will make my point just fine. 15 grand in property tax every year, not a hard pill to swallow and still get to wake up on the lake. I would also plan on taking out a mortgage, but then just paying it off the next month...just to build credit.
5. Buy cars - who, among the people who know me, didn't know this was coming. A nice truck, but not brand new, so I can still work on it at home without having to go nuts on specialty tools. A couple nice projects, and maybe one nice newer car to drive around in the winter, like a Taurus SHO or something. Knowing myself, the projects would just cycle through...buy something, modify/restore it, drive it for a while, get bored with it, mark it up for the modifications and repairs I made to it, and sell it and buy something else. If i do it right, I can make some pretty good money off of this practice without too big of an investment. I'd probably have to register as a business though and pay taxes on it, which actually wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Another way to support my state and federal government, and a good way to even potentially generate some income that we can add to the savings account.
6. Pay off all debts, public and private - The biggest thing about winning a lot of money, is the fact that you get a chance to start over. I'd pay off my debts, my parents, and my best friend's.
7. Buy Trucks - This is the first step I would take to start making my money work for me. I'd take a trip down to Illinois and find my local M&K Dealership (to hell with the Krietes, if I won the lottery, they wouldn't get any of my money) and buy some tractors. 10 brand new Volvo VNL64Ts. Next I'd buy 10 brand new refrigerated 53 foot trailers, and put one on each tractor. The logical next step would be to hire 10 truck drivers, offer them a little more than the current going rate for mileage for company paid drivers, and lease them out to various companies around the area. A minimum of 3 would be leased to Birchwood, as I know that as badly as they pay their employees, their lease rate is very competitive. For the current time, I'd keep all 10 leased out, but this is not a permanent move
8. Build a garage - If you're gonna have trucks, you need a shop. I'm ok with Dealerships doing the first few services, but I'm eventually gonna need a shop to get employees to do the work for me. Best thing to do would be to get a couple acres on the interstate, build a building with 10 bays brand new, include two oil change pits, make sure all bays are drive through, and stock it with any specialty tool I can find. Next, hire some mechanics, and undercut every other truck stop's service rate by 20 bucks. I'd make sure to get some manufacturer certified guys, and start looking into at least one dealer license down the road, but for the most part, just leave it as is. Another good "down the road" would be to think about putting a convenience store and an overnight lot in. But that can wait a few years.
9. Invest in small business - Putting money into businesses is often a good idea, and doing it by small business keeps it local. It keeps income taxes, and earned dollars local, too. Some people have some good ideas, just don't have the capital to put them into action. In addition to putting yourself into a place to earn money off of your investment, thereby making your money work for you, you help to employ people in your community. When more people in the community are employed, they spend more money in the community. They also pay taxes to your municipality, as I mentioned earlier. The small businesses can (note I did not say "will") expand into larger businesses, and employ more people, and the cycle continues. This will eventually make your community a nicer place to be, as the increase in local revenue, and increase in sales in the area increase margins for local government. It really is a win-win, provided you choose investees who are responsible and will use your money wisely. One thing to keep in mind, if you are skeptical about the company, but you still want to chance it, buy 51% into it. That way, if they do start to run rampant with your money and be irresponsible, you have the chance and the right to come into it and take the reins if you need to.
10. Buy a restaurant - In spite of the fact that this is my intended career path, this was toward the end of the list for a reason. Before I go into my passion, I want to have enough of my money out there, working for me, and be sure it's working for me and earning money before I take a risk in myself. This also leaves me the opportunity to monitor my small business investments, and leaves me the time to take over the ones who are being irresponsible if I need to. I have my savings account earning me a living, and the house and the truck are paid for, so earning a steady paycheck isn't a great priority at first. Once all my businesses are earning me a healthy paycheck and on the right track, then I will pursue my dream.
11. Finally, set up 3 full scholarships - College can be tough to pay for. And there are some who are brilliant, but could use the financial help. I would love to make sure 3 kids a year, who are the brightest and most brilliant, but are in hard places, get an education. I'd do one for 4 year, one for tech school, and one for trade school. I'd also pay the way for my nephew, but that's just a given.
Just because you win a huge amount on lottery never means you have to retire. That's just what you always hear about. If you do it right, and know who you're dealing with, you can turn a hundred million into a hundred billion or more, so why not make the world better for everyone??
1. Call my lawyer - There are hundreds of pages of fine print that go along with coming into that kind of money. Even if you are super smart, having a lawyer is the best thing you can do, to understand what is going on. You have 200 million dollars now, you can afford it. A lawyer will also help to ensure that businessmen and politicians don't try to sweet talk you into investing or funding something that may lose you everything. You will be very popular once you have that money.
2. Pay my taxes - Large lottery winnings are taxed at a ball park amount of 51%. On a 200 million dollar jackpot (which is what we will be using for a reference for the remainder of the article), that will leave you with around 98 million dollars, which is not a bad number at all. You can do a lot with that much money still, and your state and federal government will very happy with you.
3. Open a savings account to live on - The rumor is that if you put 11 million dollars in a savings account, you can just live on the interest. On the national average, which is a paltry 0.21%, that brings you to $23,100, which is....livable. You do have to keep in mind you'd only have fuel and utilities and food to pay, with that kind of money you'd have everything paid off. However, if you're coming forward with 11 million dollars, I promise you that you will not be offered an average rate. That is not for high rollers by any means. The highest savings account interest rate in the country right now is at the Pioneer Muslim Federal Credit Union, and it's at 3.03%. With as many bank out there that are going to be fighting over you, I would like to believe that this will be a little closer to the interest rate that you are going to get paid. With a rate like that, you're looking closer at an interest income of around $333,300. THAT is a healthy income, and your taxes and all your bills will definitely be paid all the time. Plus, whatever you don't use will go back into your account and draw even more interest.
4. Buy a house - Just something modest. It will be on the beach, but on Lake Michigan's beach, not the Pacific Ocean. We gotta keep the taxes down. Nothing huge, I have no need for 12 bedrooms. A nice 3 bedroom in Carol Beach will make my point just fine. 15 grand in property tax every year, not a hard pill to swallow and still get to wake up on the lake. I would also plan on taking out a mortgage, but then just paying it off the next month...just to build credit.
5. Buy cars - who, among the people who know me, didn't know this was coming. A nice truck, but not brand new, so I can still work on it at home without having to go nuts on specialty tools. A couple nice projects, and maybe one nice newer car to drive around in the winter, like a Taurus SHO or something. Knowing myself, the projects would just cycle through...buy something, modify/restore it, drive it for a while, get bored with it, mark it up for the modifications and repairs I made to it, and sell it and buy something else. If i do it right, I can make some pretty good money off of this practice without too big of an investment. I'd probably have to register as a business though and pay taxes on it, which actually wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Another way to support my state and federal government, and a good way to even potentially generate some income that we can add to the savings account.
6. Pay off all debts, public and private - The biggest thing about winning a lot of money, is the fact that you get a chance to start over. I'd pay off my debts, my parents, and my best friend's.
7. Buy Trucks - This is the first step I would take to start making my money work for me. I'd take a trip down to Illinois and find my local M&K Dealership (to hell with the Krietes, if I won the lottery, they wouldn't get any of my money) and buy some tractors. 10 brand new Volvo VNL64Ts. Next I'd buy 10 brand new refrigerated 53 foot trailers, and put one on each tractor. The logical next step would be to hire 10 truck drivers, offer them a little more than the current going rate for mileage for company paid drivers, and lease them out to various companies around the area. A minimum of 3 would be leased to Birchwood, as I know that as badly as they pay their employees, their lease rate is very competitive. For the current time, I'd keep all 10 leased out, but this is not a permanent move
8. Build a garage - If you're gonna have trucks, you need a shop. I'm ok with Dealerships doing the first few services, but I'm eventually gonna need a shop to get employees to do the work for me. Best thing to do would be to get a couple acres on the interstate, build a building with 10 bays brand new, include two oil change pits, make sure all bays are drive through, and stock it with any specialty tool I can find. Next, hire some mechanics, and undercut every other truck stop's service rate by 20 bucks. I'd make sure to get some manufacturer certified guys, and start looking into at least one dealer license down the road, but for the most part, just leave it as is. Another good "down the road" would be to think about putting a convenience store and an overnight lot in. But that can wait a few years.
9. Invest in small business - Putting money into businesses is often a good idea, and doing it by small business keeps it local. It keeps income taxes, and earned dollars local, too. Some people have some good ideas, just don't have the capital to put them into action. In addition to putting yourself into a place to earn money off of your investment, thereby making your money work for you, you help to employ people in your community. When more people in the community are employed, they spend more money in the community. They also pay taxes to your municipality, as I mentioned earlier. The small businesses can (note I did not say "will") expand into larger businesses, and employ more people, and the cycle continues. This will eventually make your community a nicer place to be, as the increase in local revenue, and increase in sales in the area increase margins for local government. It really is a win-win, provided you choose investees who are responsible and will use your money wisely. One thing to keep in mind, if you are skeptical about the company, but you still want to chance it, buy 51% into it. That way, if they do start to run rampant with your money and be irresponsible, you have the chance and the right to come into it and take the reins if you need to.
10. Buy a restaurant - In spite of the fact that this is my intended career path, this was toward the end of the list for a reason. Before I go into my passion, I want to have enough of my money out there, working for me, and be sure it's working for me and earning money before I take a risk in myself. This also leaves me the opportunity to monitor my small business investments, and leaves me the time to take over the ones who are being irresponsible if I need to. I have my savings account earning me a living, and the house and the truck are paid for, so earning a steady paycheck isn't a great priority at first. Once all my businesses are earning me a healthy paycheck and on the right track, then I will pursue my dream.
11. Finally, set up 3 full scholarships - College can be tough to pay for. And there are some who are brilliant, but could use the financial help. I would love to make sure 3 kids a year, who are the brightest and most brilliant, but are in hard places, get an education. I'd do one for 4 year, one for tech school, and one for trade school. I'd also pay the way for my nephew, but that's just a given.
Just because you win a huge amount on lottery never means you have to retire. That's just what you always hear about. If you do it right, and know who you're dealing with, you can turn a hundred million into a hundred billion or more, so why not make the world better for everyone??
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
The Separation of Church and State
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The separation of church and state. What do these words mean, and what weight do they carry in a modern day world where religion is no longer a morally required part of American life, and how has it affected the way we make decisions in this country, as well as the way we can make them in the future.
Lets start by looking at some of the "religious" laws in our country that are indeed state run, and separate them from the federal government. The two I intend to call out were key factors in last year's Presidential election, even though, as I tried to explain to so many people, neither had anything to do with the federal government. The first one is abortion.
Abortion has been a hot button issue in every Presidential election campaign for as long as I've been alive, and to be completely honest, it's a bunch of crap. The President of the United States's stand on abortion, a state-licensed, state-funded organization, should mean less than nothing to the laws of abortion across the country. If it ever does become an issue of Presidential, or United State's Congress, then the President and the entire congress should stop and be immediately restaffed, because it would be apparent that none of them had ever seen the Constitution they swore to uphold. Because each state licenses the clinics and funds many (not all) of them, it is up to the individual legislatures and governors of each state to discuss, argue, lobby, and filibuster to find the laws that best suit the majority of people within the governing body. And by population and region, each state's laws favoring, opposing, and regulating the procedure will vastly different.
To take this one step further is the decision making that is behind the regulation and opposition. The fire that our previous presidential candidate fell under was because his religion forbade the practice of abortion, therefore the fear factor came in that he would use executive action to make a federal ban on the practice. The same fear lingers everytime a bill governing abortion is across a state legislature. Votes against the practice are very often religiously charged. My feelings on abortion notwithstanding, the banishment of the practice for religious reasons is by definition unconstitutional solely based on the statement that I opened this article with.
This leads almost straight into the other big hot button issue, marriage. Specifically, gay marriage. While this has not been an issue for as long, it does prove to be an ongoing issue in presidential elections and it has no place in them. Marriage is a state license, and it should be up to state legislatures to define what constitutes a valid marriage.....or should it??
To understand the grey areas of marriage, one must first understand what marriage is to all the people who argue it. There are two arguments to the definition, and to keep them separate while making my point, I will label them Marriage A and Marriage B. Marriage A is a religious rite defined my the God of Abraham and is descended into all 3 major forms of Abrahamic religion, even if it is a little different between the three. It also has places in every other ancient religion of the world. God commanded that marriage be between a man and a woman, as he defined between Adam and Eve. Marriage B is a legally binding contract recognized and licensed by a governing authority; in the case of our country, the state of residence; legally binding the possessions and income of two people as one in the eyes of the government. In this instance, homosexual marriage is perfectly acceptable, since it is merely a contract. Both types of marriage can't exist together, so you really have to choose one, but which one it is. That's what people are arguing. If you have Marriage A, The US and State Governments can never make any laws involving them. You also take away the social status of marriage on your taxes and for your health benefits and common law. As far as the law is concerned, you and your spouse only have the same address. You ladies would also not be able to change your last name, because the marriage wouldn't change your social security status. Divorces would be unable to happen, because the courts wouldn't be able to get involved, and property ownership fights would be very messy because there would be no Common Law. Marriage B, on the other hand, can have no religious rulings. Annulment would have no bearing because no religious laws would be applicable in a remarriage. As long as both parties consent to Marriage B, anyone can go get married. If a person still chose to marry according to his religion in a church, the ceremony would be meaningless to the government. Only the license and the contract would have legal bearing. Both types can't co-exist, so the thing that the people who argue marriage, as well as the people who make the laws need to decide is whether or not the people want to live with the laws that surround Marriage B. Differentiating the two separates the state from the church, and upholds the constitution.
In conclusion, I am reminded of a conversation I had a couple nights ago in a bar when these issues came up in conversation. The man I was talking to brought up the fact that we do have the 10 Commandments posted in the Supreme Court. Now, I don't know if this is true, as I've never been to the Supreme Court to witness this, but if it is true, in spite of my arguments about the separation of church and state, I'm not completely opposed to this list being in a government building revolving around the law of the land. With the exception of the first three commandments, "I am the LORD, thy GOD, thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy GOD in vain. Remember the Sabbath Day by keeping it Holy", who's inclusion violate the First Amendments separation of Church and State, the list of commandments do provide a good, solid moral foundation to the country that even the atheists can agree to live by. It's simple right and wrong.
Lets start by looking at some of the "religious" laws in our country that are indeed state run, and separate them from the federal government. The two I intend to call out were key factors in last year's Presidential election, even though, as I tried to explain to so many people, neither had anything to do with the federal government. The first one is abortion.
Abortion has been a hot button issue in every Presidential election campaign for as long as I've been alive, and to be completely honest, it's a bunch of crap. The President of the United States's stand on abortion, a state-licensed, state-funded organization, should mean less than nothing to the laws of abortion across the country. If it ever does become an issue of Presidential, or United State's Congress, then the President and the entire congress should stop and be immediately restaffed, because it would be apparent that none of them had ever seen the Constitution they swore to uphold. Because each state licenses the clinics and funds many (not all) of them, it is up to the individual legislatures and governors of each state to discuss, argue, lobby, and filibuster to find the laws that best suit the majority of people within the governing body. And by population and region, each state's laws favoring, opposing, and regulating the procedure will vastly different.
To take this one step further is the decision making that is behind the regulation and opposition. The fire that our previous presidential candidate fell under was because his religion forbade the practice of abortion, therefore the fear factor came in that he would use executive action to make a federal ban on the practice. The same fear lingers everytime a bill governing abortion is across a state legislature. Votes against the practice are very often religiously charged. My feelings on abortion notwithstanding, the banishment of the practice for religious reasons is by definition unconstitutional solely based on the statement that I opened this article with.
This leads almost straight into the other big hot button issue, marriage. Specifically, gay marriage. While this has not been an issue for as long, it does prove to be an ongoing issue in presidential elections and it has no place in them. Marriage is a state license, and it should be up to state legislatures to define what constitutes a valid marriage.....or should it??
To understand the grey areas of marriage, one must first understand what marriage is to all the people who argue it. There are two arguments to the definition, and to keep them separate while making my point, I will label them Marriage A and Marriage B. Marriage A is a religious rite defined my the God of Abraham and is descended into all 3 major forms of Abrahamic religion, even if it is a little different between the three. It also has places in every other ancient religion of the world. God commanded that marriage be between a man and a woman, as he defined between Adam and Eve. Marriage B is a legally binding contract recognized and licensed by a governing authority; in the case of our country, the state of residence; legally binding the possessions and income of two people as one in the eyes of the government. In this instance, homosexual marriage is perfectly acceptable, since it is merely a contract. Both types of marriage can't exist together, so you really have to choose one, but which one it is. That's what people are arguing. If you have Marriage A, The US and State Governments can never make any laws involving them. You also take away the social status of marriage on your taxes and for your health benefits and common law. As far as the law is concerned, you and your spouse only have the same address. You ladies would also not be able to change your last name, because the marriage wouldn't change your social security status. Divorces would be unable to happen, because the courts wouldn't be able to get involved, and property ownership fights would be very messy because there would be no Common Law. Marriage B, on the other hand, can have no religious rulings. Annulment would have no bearing because no religious laws would be applicable in a remarriage. As long as both parties consent to Marriage B, anyone can go get married. If a person still chose to marry according to his religion in a church, the ceremony would be meaningless to the government. Only the license and the contract would have legal bearing. Both types can't co-exist, so the thing that the people who argue marriage, as well as the people who make the laws need to decide is whether or not the people want to live with the laws that surround Marriage B. Differentiating the two separates the state from the church, and upholds the constitution.
In conclusion, I am reminded of a conversation I had a couple nights ago in a bar when these issues came up in conversation. The man I was talking to brought up the fact that we do have the 10 Commandments posted in the Supreme Court. Now, I don't know if this is true, as I've never been to the Supreme Court to witness this, but if it is true, in spite of my arguments about the separation of church and state, I'm not completely opposed to this list being in a government building revolving around the law of the land. With the exception of the first three commandments, "I am the LORD, thy GOD, thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy GOD in vain. Remember the Sabbath Day by keeping it Holy", who's inclusion violate the First Amendments separation of Church and State, the list of commandments do provide a good, solid moral foundation to the country that even the atheists can agree to live by. It's simple right and wrong.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Famous girls I think are hot: Volume 3
Who doesn't love more of a good thing. More famous girls I think are just stunning. This time I actually include a character becuase I like her more than her actress
1. Genevieve Pearson- There were some very subtle things about her. About the only things about her that anyone would pick out obviously would be her curves, her red hair, and her glasses, but there was so much of a stronger attraction. I can't rightly explain it, but she's hot
2. Lacey Sturm- Formerly Mosely, she was the lead singer of Flyleaf. I didn't think she was so good looking initially, but she kind of grew on me
Maybe I should rethink my life....I just started out this list with two married women
3. Young Shannon Doherty- If you've seen the past two volumes of this, you already know why this name showed up on here. The black hair and the blue eyes....mmmmm. I can't believe her career has been reduced to education connection commercials. Speaking of those commercials, I was also quite taken with the blue eyed girl who did the jingle in the waitress uniform, but no one on the internet seems to know who she is.
4. Morgan Smith Goodwin- AKA the Wendy's girl. She just gets hotter every commercial she does. I think 3/4 of the reason I'm attracted to her is the personality she portrays...and it gets more interesting every commercial. It's a very cute personality
5. Olivia Wilde- She is gorgeous by herself, but I honestly think that her Tron: Legacy character, Quorra, looks even better...I think it might have been the black wig, but it got my attention.
6. Amy Farrah Fowler- Not so much into Blossom, but I would marry Amy Farrah Fowler. Several people have heard me say this already, most women I know returning the comment with a statement that they would marry Sheldon Lee Cooper
7. Hayley Williams- There was always something about her smile...she's absolutely adorable
8. Meaghan Martin- I just saw Mean Girls 2 the other day. That girl was just amazing. I actually have no idea who she is or if she had been in anything else. I'd assume she was because she had the lead role.
9. Jennifer Stone- I know who she was. She was also in that movie, and she was the weird friend in Wizards of Waverly Place I'm pretty sure (someone wanna confirm this??).
And I'll leave it to that. Time for Hollywood to churn out new hot girls to make up the next list.
1. Genevieve Pearson- There were some very subtle things about her. About the only things about her that anyone would pick out obviously would be her curves, her red hair, and her glasses, but there was so much of a stronger attraction. I can't rightly explain it, but she's hot
2. Lacey Sturm- Formerly Mosely, she was the lead singer of Flyleaf. I didn't think she was so good looking initially, but she kind of grew on me
Maybe I should rethink my life....I just started out this list with two married women
3. Young Shannon Doherty- If you've seen the past two volumes of this, you already know why this name showed up on here. The black hair and the blue eyes....mmmmm. I can't believe her career has been reduced to education connection commercials. Speaking of those commercials, I was also quite taken with the blue eyed girl who did the jingle in the waitress uniform, but no one on the internet seems to know who she is.
4. Morgan Smith Goodwin- AKA the Wendy's girl. She just gets hotter every commercial she does. I think 3/4 of the reason I'm attracted to her is the personality she portrays...and it gets more interesting every commercial. It's a very cute personality
5. Olivia Wilde- She is gorgeous by herself, but I honestly think that her Tron: Legacy character, Quorra, looks even better...I think it might have been the black wig, but it got my attention.
6. Amy Farrah Fowler- Not so much into Blossom, but I would marry Amy Farrah Fowler. Several people have heard me say this already, most women I know returning the comment with a statement that they would marry Sheldon Lee Cooper
7. Hayley Williams- There was always something about her smile...she's absolutely adorable
8. Meaghan Martin- I just saw Mean Girls 2 the other day. That girl was just amazing. I actually have no idea who she is or if she had been in anything else. I'd assume she was because she had the lead role.
9. Jennifer Stone- I know who she was. She was also in that movie, and she was the weird friend in Wizards of Waverly Place I'm pretty sure (someone wanna confirm this??).
And I'll leave it to that. Time for Hollywood to churn out new hot girls to make up the next list.
Liberalism Versus Conservatism on a Non Political Standpoint
There is a drastically widening gap between the Democratic and Republican political parties. Everyone knows this. As people get angrier and angrier with the other side, values are further varied. But there are words associated with each political party that supposedly describe their standpoints. These terms are Liberal and Conservative. Now, I feel that in the basis of the words, they describe each political party's values accurately. Liberals want to change the world, and loosen the grip, while conservatives want to go back to traditional values. But what does it mean when you take these terms away from politicians and apply them to real sociology?? I've given a lot of thought to this, and I feel I can apply the values of each word, and show where our society has gone in both directions over the last few decades.
A guy named Shawn that I used to work with and I started with this argument a couple years ago one day at lunch. We were arguing about the upcoming Presidential campaign. While we both seemed to agree on which party should be represented in the next President of the United States, he did say one thing that stuck with me, and is the basis for this article. His exact words were "No successful society in history has ever gone from a liberal state to a more conservative state." This is something I have never believed to be true. After all, the formation of Abrahamic religions is testament to a group of people going from living off of basic conscience to having a concrete set of rules and guidelines to live life by. The rules were even etched in stone. To further history on the matter, every time the society of the Nation of Israel started to fall away from these values that were instilled, they were taken from their homes and enslaved by another superpower of the region. Now, I'm not out to make this into a religion lesson by any means. My focus is going to be on American society over the last 70-100 years, but I do feel that this can be used as a reference point. The Renaissance can also be used as a model of a society that became more proper and conservative and succeeded for a very long time. There are also examples of failure. The Soviet Union was in a state of rigid stiffness and modesty, and they failed miserably. Nazi Germany, another example. The people of these nations, however, had no freedom to express themselves as Israel and many nations of Renaissance Europe, and that is a key factor in the success of a modest, conservative society.
Both Liberalism and Conservatism have had an ebb and flow in the recent history of the United States on the society as a whole. Individuals have always had the freedom to choose their own path, and that is a part of what makes this society work, but lets take a look at some of the ways that we've seen the ebb and the flow, and how expectations of the people have been changed over the last 100 or so years.
As I mentioned before in my article on manipulation, the dynamic of the average American family has changed since 1913. Back then a 10th grade education was a very common thing. You most often stayed on the family farm until you were military age, then you served in the army, came home, and chose to continue the agricultural life or join the budding industrial revolution. You married a young woman, bought a house, and started a family. You paid your taxes, retired, and enjoyed your golden years. You never discussed sex outside the home in public, and your kids stayed virgins until they got married. A few luckier kids got to go to college, but it wasn't nearly as common as it is today. This was life up until the 50's. I can, without a doubt say we've become more liberal than this, but as I mentioned, there was an ebb and a flow.
The 50's brought a big change in true American society. the television was beginning to become a commonplace household item, and it was becoming very common for every family to have a car. These two items presented information to become readily available to the people, and gave more of a freedom to family members, especially dating teenagers. While the people on TV were still portrayed as super conservative, often with married couples sleeping in separate beds, teens now had a way to spend time alone with each other, no longer being required to be in one or the other's home, and unsupervised. Most everyone who will be reading this is most likely over the age of 16, and does understand the urges that come with being that age. This drastically began to liberalize society. Many will only point out the fact that it led to more teen pregnancies and the decline of the American family, which it may have. But I do see another side of this. Teens and young adults started learning earlier how to make their own choices about their own bodies and futures. People began to be free to make their own choices outside of expectation, including education and military service. I feel that this led to a slow and steady rise in finishing high school and college attendence.
Now the 60's and 70's, I feel, are the big factor in saying that we have gone back to being more conservative now. As the sexual revolution rose up and drugs ran rampant, we, as a society, became more liberal than we have ever become. The music got louder, drugs got stronger, and the social expectation was for the young people to always partake in this activity. Americans still had the option to make their own choices, but the direction that the majority was moving in was in the liberal direction. Common themes of "all you need is love" and "lets all share everything", plus the weed and the acid and the orgies of the late sixties put America in a state where it couldn't be any more free, and any more liberal. We had essentially hit the wall of one end of the spectrum, and the only thing to do was to turn around and ease our way back.
Now, as I said before, there really isn't an overall direction that society went, whether conservative or liberal, through the 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's. In many ways we've become more liberal. All women have the right to choose their careers, an idea that would have been absolutely unheard of in the 50's, up through the 70's. Some women have chosen to stay at home and raise a family, but the vast majority are out making a name for themselves. This is a very good thing economically, as it raises the opportunity for our per capita income. Marriage and kids in themselves are an option across the board, not an expectation as they once were. We kept the sexual freedom and the drugs, offering them up as options for the people who wish to partake, and it's still hard to walk through a dormitory without smelling that very familiar smell. Sexual orientation, once seen as the greatest taboo in the world, is now completely open, homosexuality even being encouraged at times. Even clothing has become more and more revealing as time has gone on. But we've also moved some of our collective ideals in a conservative direction. The 80's big business movement, and the 90's small business movements made it more acceptable to be "the man". The information age brought a large amount of people out of the factories and into an office, trading in a uniform for a suit or skirt. And even with our sexual freedom, the vast majority of our society still prefers the path of marriage and family, even if it is a little later in our lives than our parents did it.
All in all, we have come to be more conservative, but we do live in a time period where, when you take the politics out of the words, we are in a very nicely balanced state. We have the choice to be as rigid and traditional as our 30's and 40's counterparts, or be as wild and free as our 60's counterparts. We've chosen a little of both, and it makes our American society a great place to live.
A guy named Shawn that I used to work with and I started with this argument a couple years ago one day at lunch. We were arguing about the upcoming Presidential campaign. While we both seemed to agree on which party should be represented in the next President of the United States, he did say one thing that stuck with me, and is the basis for this article. His exact words were "No successful society in history has ever gone from a liberal state to a more conservative state." This is something I have never believed to be true. After all, the formation of Abrahamic religions is testament to a group of people going from living off of basic conscience to having a concrete set of rules and guidelines to live life by. The rules were even etched in stone. To further history on the matter, every time the society of the Nation of Israel started to fall away from these values that were instilled, they were taken from their homes and enslaved by another superpower of the region. Now, I'm not out to make this into a religion lesson by any means. My focus is going to be on American society over the last 70-100 years, but I do feel that this can be used as a reference point. The Renaissance can also be used as a model of a society that became more proper and conservative and succeeded for a very long time. There are also examples of failure. The Soviet Union was in a state of rigid stiffness and modesty, and they failed miserably. Nazi Germany, another example. The people of these nations, however, had no freedom to express themselves as Israel and many nations of Renaissance Europe, and that is a key factor in the success of a modest, conservative society.
Both Liberalism and Conservatism have had an ebb and flow in the recent history of the United States on the society as a whole. Individuals have always had the freedom to choose their own path, and that is a part of what makes this society work, but lets take a look at some of the ways that we've seen the ebb and the flow, and how expectations of the people have been changed over the last 100 or so years.
As I mentioned before in my article on manipulation, the dynamic of the average American family has changed since 1913. Back then a 10th grade education was a very common thing. You most often stayed on the family farm until you were military age, then you served in the army, came home, and chose to continue the agricultural life or join the budding industrial revolution. You married a young woman, bought a house, and started a family. You paid your taxes, retired, and enjoyed your golden years. You never discussed sex outside the home in public, and your kids stayed virgins until they got married. A few luckier kids got to go to college, but it wasn't nearly as common as it is today. This was life up until the 50's. I can, without a doubt say we've become more liberal than this, but as I mentioned, there was an ebb and a flow.
The 50's brought a big change in true American society. the television was beginning to become a commonplace household item, and it was becoming very common for every family to have a car. These two items presented information to become readily available to the people, and gave more of a freedom to family members, especially dating teenagers. While the people on TV were still portrayed as super conservative, often with married couples sleeping in separate beds, teens now had a way to spend time alone with each other, no longer being required to be in one or the other's home, and unsupervised. Most everyone who will be reading this is most likely over the age of 16, and does understand the urges that come with being that age. This drastically began to liberalize society. Many will only point out the fact that it led to more teen pregnancies and the decline of the American family, which it may have. But I do see another side of this. Teens and young adults started learning earlier how to make their own choices about their own bodies and futures. People began to be free to make their own choices outside of expectation, including education and military service. I feel that this led to a slow and steady rise in finishing high school and college attendence.
Now the 60's and 70's, I feel, are the big factor in saying that we have gone back to being more conservative now. As the sexual revolution rose up and drugs ran rampant, we, as a society, became more liberal than we have ever become. The music got louder, drugs got stronger, and the social expectation was for the young people to always partake in this activity. Americans still had the option to make their own choices, but the direction that the majority was moving in was in the liberal direction. Common themes of "all you need is love" and "lets all share everything", plus the weed and the acid and the orgies of the late sixties put America in a state where it couldn't be any more free, and any more liberal. We had essentially hit the wall of one end of the spectrum, and the only thing to do was to turn around and ease our way back.
Now, as I said before, there really isn't an overall direction that society went, whether conservative or liberal, through the 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's. In many ways we've become more liberal. All women have the right to choose their careers, an idea that would have been absolutely unheard of in the 50's, up through the 70's. Some women have chosen to stay at home and raise a family, but the vast majority are out making a name for themselves. This is a very good thing economically, as it raises the opportunity for our per capita income. Marriage and kids in themselves are an option across the board, not an expectation as they once were. We kept the sexual freedom and the drugs, offering them up as options for the people who wish to partake, and it's still hard to walk through a dormitory without smelling that very familiar smell. Sexual orientation, once seen as the greatest taboo in the world, is now completely open, homosexuality even being encouraged at times. Even clothing has become more and more revealing as time has gone on. But we've also moved some of our collective ideals in a conservative direction. The 80's big business movement, and the 90's small business movements made it more acceptable to be "the man". The information age brought a large amount of people out of the factories and into an office, trading in a uniform for a suit or skirt. And even with our sexual freedom, the vast majority of our society still prefers the path of marriage and family, even if it is a little later in our lives than our parents did it.
All in all, we have come to be more conservative, but we do live in a time period where, when you take the politics out of the words, we are in a very nicely balanced state. We have the choice to be as rigid and traditional as our 30's and 40's counterparts, or be as wild and free as our 60's counterparts. We've chosen a little of both, and it makes our American society a great place to live.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Rules on Dating 5: Projection Versus Having a Type
This is for you, Jessica
"I can't go after him, he's not my type". "We didn't really click, she just wasn't my type". How often have you actually heard these lines?? I've heard a lot of people (especially girls to a guy) dismiss these lines as a load of crap. I don't particularly buy into that school of thought. I believe that everyone has a type of person he or she is particularly attracted to, and there are many schools of thought as to what influences and determines these characteristics. We will be exploring these a little bit later, but first a question must be posed. How do you know when you've found your "type" instead of just replacing the girl who you lost with someone else who reminds you of her. I, myself, have experienced both in a very big way.
Lets begin by exploring what it means to have a type. Most people have a set of specific, but sometimes very subtle characteristics that attract them almost every time. I will volunteer an experience of my own as an example. During the competition show that recently ended, King of the Nerds on TBS, one of the contestants, Genevieve Pearson, really really got my heart going like you wouldn't believe. Outwardly, she looked very VERY different from anyone I had ever dated or any celebrity I had ever expressed any interest in prior. In spite of this, one night, when my best friend came over while the show was on one night to discuss a different matter, I had glanced over at the TV, and stated "Genevieve makes me feel kind of funny in the pants.". Keeping in mind, that Jason had come over quite a ways into the episode that was aired, and all of the name captions had already passed, so he couldn't have seen any of them, he motioned to the screen and asked "You mean that one??", very quickly and correctly identifying Mrs. Pearson as the object of my affection. He knows me well enough to have noticed the things beyond the obvious. There are usually some pretty obvious reasons behind these obvious and subtle preferences, and when they are pointed out, they make a lot of sense. The most common, most prominent, and probably the most obvious is to take a good look at our old friends, Oedipus and Electra. Like it or not, and like your parents or not, our mothers and fathers, and the people who raised us, for those who didn't happen to have our biological parents with us, are the biggest influences in the world as to who we choose to be intimate with. They are, after all, the first people we imprint on and find comfort with. As disturbing as it is, most of us, in some way, are trying to find someone to replace our mom or dad with, I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else. Another big factor is friends. I'm not talking about your same sex friends who you sit and gossip about your sexual encounters with or your opposite sex friends now. No, the way I see the factors coming out is in the people of the opposite sex you hung out with when you were in grade school and middle school. Similar to the way our parents influenced our choices in mates, the people we hung out with when we were younger of the opposite sex are some of the first of our peers, opposite gender, that we imprinted on. Again, it's the people who first made us feel comfortable. Similarly, these children in our lives helped us develop our personalities and differentiated us from being clones from our parents, personality-wise. They were also there as we discovered our own interests, and many times helped us find them. Lastly, and this happens everywhere, but is more prominent in smaller, closer knit communities, and among people who don't move much growing up, we begin to grow up, and the girls and boys around us who helped us develop personality and find our interests grow up, and develop with us. As we see them in a new light, our hormones raging, and us discovering our sexualities, we continue to be drawn to the people who made us comfortable. Adolescents conflate sexual feelings with the feelings of comfort and familiarity, and associate features like hair color, eye color, race, and body shape with those feelings of comfort, whether the new people they are pursuing possess the certain interests or personality attributes or not.
One other factor that determines a type is the common peer pressure and social expectations. I think this is a little more prevalent in guys over girls, and if any girls want to call me out on that and correct me, you are welcome to. I can't speak for what happens solely between girls. I know that with guys, there is an expectation as to what kind of girl you are supposed to chase. They will make all kinds of jokes if you are going after someone who isn't a certain way, and usually it has to do with weight. Even if you try to justify your interest, you generally get met with more scorn. Recently, I had a small spark of attraction towards a girl in my Foodservice Cost Control class. I mentioned to one of my best friends (who is married to a very slender woman), and described her as "having a little bit of spare tire, but I don't mind it because she does have a perfect ass", he responded to me with "We all know you don't mind a spare tire" fairly scornfully. With women, even if I don't know what the basis of measure is, I do know that there is a level of social expectation among them, as well.
There is one last factor that makes people believe that another person is their "type" when, in fact, I don't believe it has any weight in determining what a type is at all. It's projection, and it generally shows up shortly after another relationship ends. Projection seems to be most common in the rebound phase of a breakup, when the memory is still fresh, you're missing out on what you had, and a lot of times, looking for a replacement. I have a prime example of this from my own life. Disclaimer: looking back on it, in spite of the elements I did use to justify this at the time and a long time after, what I did was, in fact, wrong. I can't go in the past and change it, though. A year and a half ago, as the relationship that I was in was on a serious decline, but before we ended it. To be fair, she did already have another boyfriend I didn't know about yet. I was out on a Tuesday night with my best friend in the world, Jason. We happened upon a couple girls in an empty bar that was closing early. J knew the one, I had never met either, but I was very, VERY strongly attracted to the other. With her short, brown hair, huge greenish/bluish eyes, fair skin tone, ample curves, and shapely behind, along with the fact that I am pretty sure she's part Italian, she was a verifiable clone of the girl I was dating at the time. She had been checking me out a little, too. Her friend, the one that J knows, was the more forward, offering to us that we go out together, a little double date, and gave me her number. While we were out, we sat coupled up. J and his friend on one side of the table and the lovely lady and myself at the other. Any chance that the object of my affection and I had to split off from the group and be alone for a few moments, we took, and seemed to be encouraged by our friends. I was falling fast, but I look back now and feel like it may have only been projection. I projected my feelings for my failed relationship onto another girl who was visibly near identical to my girlfriend. This factor has a lot of grey area, and can be open to interpretation. A plausible defense could be opened up saying that your significant other or former significant other would most likely fall into the category of your "type" and therefore, you have simply found someone else who is your type. My rebuttal, and final thought on this topic is this. When you've found someone who is your type, it's someone who is similar to you, and someone who will grow and develop with you at a pace you are comfortable with. Sometimes its fast, sometimes it takes years, but that is the preference of the people who are involved. Because projection often comes close to the end of a relationship, the subconscious is so eager to pick up the pieces and start right where the object of projection left off, that these feelings come on strongly and quickly, are mostly rooted in denial, and are almost always temporary.
As for how that night ended, that is between Jason, the two lovely ladies, and I. I shared enough to make my point, and that is all the further I will go, publically, to respect the honor of the one I admired.
"I can't go after him, he's not my type". "We didn't really click, she just wasn't my type". How often have you actually heard these lines?? I've heard a lot of people (especially girls to a guy) dismiss these lines as a load of crap. I don't particularly buy into that school of thought. I believe that everyone has a type of person he or she is particularly attracted to, and there are many schools of thought as to what influences and determines these characteristics. We will be exploring these a little bit later, but first a question must be posed. How do you know when you've found your "type" instead of just replacing the girl who you lost with someone else who reminds you of her. I, myself, have experienced both in a very big way.
Lets begin by exploring what it means to have a type. Most people have a set of specific, but sometimes very subtle characteristics that attract them almost every time. I will volunteer an experience of my own as an example. During the competition show that recently ended, King of the Nerds on TBS, one of the contestants, Genevieve Pearson, really really got my heart going like you wouldn't believe. Outwardly, she looked very VERY different from anyone I had ever dated or any celebrity I had ever expressed any interest in prior. In spite of this, one night, when my best friend came over while the show was on one night to discuss a different matter, I had glanced over at the TV, and stated "Genevieve makes me feel kind of funny in the pants.". Keeping in mind, that Jason had come over quite a ways into the episode that was aired, and all of the name captions had already passed, so he couldn't have seen any of them, he motioned to the screen and asked "You mean that one??", very quickly and correctly identifying Mrs. Pearson as the object of my affection. He knows me well enough to have noticed the things beyond the obvious. There are usually some pretty obvious reasons behind these obvious and subtle preferences, and when they are pointed out, they make a lot of sense. The most common, most prominent, and probably the most obvious is to take a good look at our old friends, Oedipus and Electra. Like it or not, and like your parents or not, our mothers and fathers, and the people who raised us, for those who didn't happen to have our biological parents with us, are the biggest influences in the world as to who we choose to be intimate with. They are, after all, the first people we imprint on and find comfort with. As disturbing as it is, most of us, in some way, are trying to find someone to replace our mom or dad with, I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else. Another big factor is friends. I'm not talking about your same sex friends who you sit and gossip about your sexual encounters with or your opposite sex friends now. No, the way I see the factors coming out is in the people of the opposite sex you hung out with when you were in grade school and middle school. Similar to the way our parents influenced our choices in mates, the people we hung out with when we were younger of the opposite sex are some of the first of our peers, opposite gender, that we imprinted on. Again, it's the people who first made us feel comfortable. Similarly, these children in our lives helped us develop our personalities and differentiated us from being clones from our parents, personality-wise. They were also there as we discovered our own interests, and many times helped us find them. Lastly, and this happens everywhere, but is more prominent in smaller, closer knit communities, and among people who don't move much growing up, we begin to grow up, and the girls and boys around us who helped us develop personality and find our interests grow up, and develop with us. As we see them in a new light, our hormones raging, and us discovering our sexualities, we continue to be drawn to the people who made us comfortable. Adolescents conflate sexual feelings with the feelings of comfort and familiarity, and associate features like hair color, eye color, race, and body shape with those feelings of comfort, whether the new people they are pursuing possess the certain interests or personality attributes or not.
One other factor that determines a type is the common peer pressure and social expectations. I think this is a little more prevalent in guys over girls, and if any girls want to call me out on that and correct me, you are welcome to. I can't speak for what happens solely between girls. I know that with guys, there is an expectation as to what kind of girl you are supposed to chase. They will make all kinds of jokes if you are going after someone who isn't a certain way, and usually it has to do with weight. Even if you try to justify your interest, you generally get met with more scorn. Recently, I had a small spark of attraction towards a girl in my Foodservice Cost Control class. I mentioned to one of my best friends (who is married to a very slender woman), and described her as "having a little bit of spare tire, but I don't mind it because she does have a perfect ass", he responded to me with "We all know you don't mind a spare tire" fairly scornfully. With women, even if I don't know what the basis of measure is, I do know that there is a level of social expectation among them, as well.
There is one last factor that makes people believe that another person is their "type" when, in fact, I don't believe it has any weight in determining what a type is at all. It's projection, and it generally shows up shortly after another relationship ends. Projection seems to be most common in the rebound phase of a breakup, when the memory is still fresh, you're missing out on what you had, and a lot of times, looking for a replacement. I have a prime example of this from my own life. Disclaimer: looking back on it, in spite of the elements I did use to justify this at the time and a long time after, what I did was, in fact, wrong. I can't go in the past and change it, though. A year and a half ago, as the relationship that I was in was on a serious decline, but before we ended it. To be fair, she did already have another boyfriend I didn't know about yet. I was out on a Tuesday night with my best friend in the world, Jason. We happened upon a couple girls in an empty bar that was closing early. J knew the one, I had never met either, but I was very, VERY strongly attracted to the other. With her short, brown hair, huge greenish/bluish eyes, fair skin tone, ample curves, and shapely behind, along with the fact that I am pretty sure she's part Italian, she was a verifiable clone of the girl I was dating at the time. She had been checking me out a little, too. Her friend, the one that J knows, was the more forward, offering to us that we go out together, a little double date, and gave me her number. While we were out, we sat coupled up. J and his friend on one side of the table and the lovely lady and myself at the other. Any chance that the object of my affection and I had to split off from the group and be alone for a few moments, we took, and seemed to be encouraged by our friends. I was falling fast, but I look back now and feel like it may have only been projection. I projected my feelings for my failed relationship onto another girl who was visibly near identical to my girlfriend. This factor has a lot of grey area, and can be open to interpretation. A plausible defense could be opened up saying that your significant other or former significant other would most likely fall into the category of your "type" and therefore, you have simply found someone else who is your type. My rebuttal, and final thought on this topic is this. When you've found someone who is your type, it's someone who is similar to you, and someone who will grow and develop with you at a pace you are comfortable with. Sometimes its fast, sometimes it takes years, but that is the preference of the people who are involved. Because projection often comes close to the end of a relationship, the subconscious is so eager to pick up the pieces and start right where the object of projection left off, that these feelings come on strongly and quickly, are mostly rooted in denial, and are almost always temporary.
As for how that night ended, that is between Jason, the two lovely ladies, and I. I shared enough to make my point, and that is all the further I will go, publically, to respect the honor of the one I admired.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
The Post-Archive Introduction
Now that I have archived everything from my old blog hosting site to here and given myself a very very wide new audience to read and be educated, it's time to do some new stuff and introduce myself and my brand new blog. My name is J. Edgar. I am currently a truck technician looking to leave the field and open a restaurant, after I finish culinary school. At the time this article is written, I'm currently enrolled in my second semester of culinary school, and doing wonderfully. I also have three jobs. What you have stumbled upon is a collection of sociological observations, along with other things that I enjoy very much. I watch things, especially things like failing and failed relationships, and the advice that I want to scream at the people who won't listen just builds up in my head and frustrates me severely, and this is an outlet for me to inform anyone who WILL listen. Although I don't have a degree in Analytical Psychology or Sociology, I do have open eyes, open ears, and an eidetic memory. So please, take some time, see the world through my eyes, and learn from my observations and experiences. And if you like what you've read, this blog has a fan page. Take the time, like my fan page, and leave comments on here, because my readers shape what is to come in my later articles.
Like Ed's blog on Facebook
Like Ed's blog on Facebook
Monday, March 18, 2013
The Sharpay Effect
This blog entry is dedicated to Jenny the Sunnyside bar fly. That cold bitchy look in your eyes is the inspiration for this.
In the great song by the Eagles, "Desperado", Don Henley gives the slow line "but you only want the ones you can't get". I noticed an interesting feeling in the bar that seems to really relate to this. People tend to chase the people that are out of reach. The people who are out of their leagues. The shiny apple at the top of the tree if you will. The appeal leads to superiority and inferiority complexes, and an effect that I've noticed in women for years, but have finally seen in a way that I can figure out and analyze and explain.
Now before we look at what I call the Sharpay Effect, there's another effect that I noticed a while back. I call it the "Hot Girl Complex". I'll explain. The more stuck up of very attractive girls get a lot of attention. They claim that some of it is unwanted, so when a guy that they don't necessarily want starts noticeably paying attention to them, they act angry, sometimes getting to the point of confronting the gentleman who is paying her mind. But the thing that pushes these types of girls further is coming to find out that the guy that they think is beneath them doesn't find them attractive. I first noticed this about 6 years ago when I worked at a local grocery store. This was back before I became awesome, when I had long hair and dressed like I was allergic to quality fabrics. One of the new cashiers at the time was constantly showing up at the time clock right around the time that I was. One day, while I was working, my friend Shandra approached me and told me that this girl (her name escapes me right now) was angry because I kept checking her out (she said angry, not upset). I kindly took her aside and explained to her this fact. Honestly, as hot as this little girl's little body was, her face completely ruined it for me. The blond little corkscrews in her shoulder length hair just didn't do it for me at all, and her face kinda made me think of a parakeet every time. So my friend explained to her that I didn't think she was attractive at all. She didn't say the parakeet thing, because I knew better than to say that to her in a grocery store environment. Any intimate secrets being in the open are just asking for trouble. Anyhow, after that, this girl always had the dirtiest, nastiest look in her eyes toward me, wouldn't take me as a customer when I went up front to get something to eat or drink, and wouldn't let me get her anything from the deli, where I was working. This is not the last time this has happened to me, either. Come to think if it, it wasn't the first time. It actually really is a sad sad situation when a girl is so desperate for male attention that she gets pissed off when a guy she doesn't like doesn't think she's hot. But even worse than that is the "I deserve everyone's attention" attitude that this article was written for.
There are certain girls out there, fewer actually than a person may think, who have essentially been given quite a bit, whether it be attention, worldly possessions, or her "way". Being spoiled doesn't automatically mean getting everything, just always getting what you want in a certain way. It's a hard concept to explain. A person can be spoiled with his or her way without getting any sort of worldly possessions, like a child who's siblings are forced to work constantly while he sits at home and plays video games and is never expected to get any sort of job even long into adulthood. This child isn't getting whatever he wants, and isn't whiny or snarky, just lazy, and yet still spoiled. Another example is the girl with the nice body who thrives on attention, and gets it. Her daddy didn't go out and buy her a car or any expensive trips or shopping sprees, but everywhere she goes every eye is on her, and that is, to her, psych0ligically, the ultimate goal. It is this type of spoiled that brings us to the meat of this article.
I see this second type of spoiled weekly at the bar that I go to regularly. A girl who comes in regularly exhibits it well. Now, I don't know her personally, so all I can do is speculate, but I do know my gender, and I can tell you outrightly that with the body on this girl, she turns heads everywhere she goes, and she knows it. Her face is ok, but her body is spectacular, and when I say face is ok, I mean I actually normally would never ever think to ask her out unless I had a few, but there is more than that. Much the same is her attitude to that of the character who lent her name to the title of this article. In the High School Musical franchise, Sharpay is a character who believes herself to deserve everything that she desires. "I want fabulous" is the quote that sticks out. In the literature, she is a cutthroat character who will make life a living hell for anyone who stands in the way of her getting whatever she wants because it's supposedly a birthright to her, and the opposing side of being sweet as sugar to anyone who enables her the things she desires forms into a certain kind of attitude that outwardly emanates from her in her walk, and her talk. Much the same way, this regular patron has an attitude just pouring off of her. Everytime I look at her eyes, I can almost hear her saying "I'm too good for you, I'm too good for anyone, but damnit, if you don't want me anyway there is gonna be hell to pay". I've also noticed that when she's getting attention from guys, she's calmer, more personable, and generally happier, but in the empty bar situation, or when she's not getting checked out, she tends to be cold, distanced, and even prone to snapping over the littlest things.
Now to close, we'll roll all this into the actual effect that's attached to it. While I already find Ashley Tisdale attractive, my heart races when I see her throwing her Sharpay attitude around. Seeing the determination and the attitude in her eyes and hearing it in her voice is just plain hot. In just the same way, as I mentioned before, I normally wouldn't be even interested in this girl who inspired me to write this, but once I see the attitude, she's irresistable. The Sharpay Effect, a spoiled attitude that makes a person seem unapproachable also makes them more and more attractive. You only want the ones that you can't get.
J. Edgar
In the great song by the Eagles, "Desperado", Don Henley gives the slow line "but you only want the ones you can't get". I noticed an interesting feeling in the bar that seems to really relate to this. People tend to chase the people that are out of reach. The people who are out of their leagues. The shiny apple at the top of the tree if you will. The appeal leads to superiority and inferiority complexes, and an effect that I've noticed in women for years, but have finally seen in a way that I can figure out and analyze and explain.
Now before we look at what I call the Sharpay Effect, there's another effect that I noticed a while back. I call it the "Hot Girl Complex". I'll explain. The more stuck up of very attractive girls get a lot of attention. They claim that some of it is unwanted, so when a guy that they don't necessarily want starts noticeably paying attention to them, they act angry, sometimes getting to the point of confronting the gentleman who is paying her mind. But the thing that pushes these types of girls further is coming to find out that the guy that they think is beneath them doesn't find them attractive. I first noticed this about 6 years ago when I worked at a local grocery store. This was back before I became awesome, when I had long hair and dressed like I was allergic to quality fabrics. One of the new cashiers at the time was constantly showing up at the time clock right around the time that I was. One day, while I was working, my friend Shandra approached me and told me that this girl (her name escapes me right now) was angry because I kept checking her out (she said angry, not upset). I kindly took her aside and explained to her this fact. Honestly, as hot as this little girl's little body was, her face completely ruined it for me. The blond little corkscrews in her shoulder length hair just didn't do it for me at all, and her face kinda made me think of a parakeet every time. So my friend explained to her that I didn't think she was attractive at all. She didn't say the parakeet thing, because I knew better than to say that to her in a grocery store environment. Any intimate secrets being in the open are just asking for trouble. Anyhow, after that, this girl always had the dirtiest, nastiest look in her eyes toward me, wouldn't take me as a customer when I went up front to get something to eat or drink, and wouldn't let me get her anything from the deli, where I was working. This is not the last time this has happened to me, either. Come to think if it, it wasn't the first time. It actually really is a sad sad situation when a girl is so desperate for male attention that she gets pissed off when a guy she doesn't like doesn't think she's hot. But even worse than that is the "I deserve everyone's attention" attitude that this article was written for.
There are certain girls out there, fewer actually than a person may think, who have essentially been given quite a bit, whether it be attention, worldly possessions, or her "way". Being spoiled doesn't automatically mean getting everything, just always getting what you want in a certain way. It's a hard concept to explain. A person can be spoiled with his or her way without getting any sort of worldly possessions, like a child who's siblings are forced to work constantly while he sits at home and plays video games and is never expected to get any sort of job even long into adulthood. This child isn't getting whatever he wants, and isn't whiny or snarky, just lazy, and yet still spoiled. Another example is the girl with the nice body who thrives on attention, and gets it. Her daddy didn't go out and buy her a car or any expensive trips or shopping sprees, but everywhere she goes every eye is on her, and that is, to her, psych0ligically, the ultimate goal. It is this type of spoiled that brings us to the meat of this article.
I see this second type of spoiled weekly at the bar that I go to regularly. A girl who comes in regularly exhibits it well. Now, I don't know her personally, so all I can do is speculate, but I do know my gender, and I can tell you outrightly that with the body on this girl, she turns heads everywhere she goes, and she knows it. Her face is ok, but her body is spectacular, and when I say face is ok, I mean I actually normally would never ever think to ask her out unless I had a few, but there is more than that. Much the same is her attitude to that of the character who lent her name to the title of this article. In the High School Musical franchise, Sharpay is a character who believes herself to deserve everything that she desires. "I want fabulous" is the quote that sticks out. In the literature, she is a cutthroat character who will make life a living hell for anyone who stands in the way of her getting whatever she wants because it's supposedly a birthright to her, and the opposing side of being sweet as sugar to anyone who enables her the things she desires forms into a certain kind of attitude that outwardly emanates from her in her walk, and her talk. Much the same way, this regular patron has an attitude just pouring off of her. Everytime I look at her eyes, I can almost hear her saying "I'm too good for you, I'm too good for anyone, but damnit, if you don't want me anyway there is gonna be hell to pay". I've also noticed that when she's getting attention from guys, she's calmer, more personable, and generally happier, but in the empty bar situation, or when she's not getting checked out, she tends to be cold, distanced, and even prone to snapping over the littlest things.
Now to close, we'll roll all this into the actual effect that's attached to it. While I already find Ashley Tisdale attractive, my heart races when I see her throwing her Sharpay attitude around. Seeing the determination and the attitude in her eyes and hearing it in her voice is just plain hot. In just the same way, as I mentioned before, I normally wouldn't be even interested in this girl who inspired me to write this, but once I see the attitude, she's irresistable. The Sharpay Effect, a spoiled attitude that makes a person seem unapproachable also makes them more and more attractive. You only want the ones that you can't get.
J. Edgar
Rules on Dating 4: Manipulation; A True Battle of the Sexes
We've come to a point in history where a marriage has a better chance
of ending in a courtroom than a cemetery. Relationships come and go
faster than they ever have. The time when a date was the gateway to a
lifelong relationship, and generally pre-arranged by family, friends, or
simply location, has evolved into the time when a date goes into
something that only lasts until one or both parties get what they want,
whether physical, financial, or sociological. I am not innocent to this
either. It's societal. People are expected to behave a certain way,
but why?? Let's explore this...
Our modern society is awash in breakups and divorces, and one of the most common reasons people give when they are asked about their breakups is "He/She was just using me." Both genders use this reason, and both genders have a reason to use it. Men and women are both crafty in getting what they want out of a relationship, but what is it that they want?? To start with, let's look at society. Our society has opened the doors for women over the last 40 years. Looking back at TV and movies from the 50's, 60's, and even the 70's, what do we always see?? A patriarchal society where the man goes to work and the wife stays as the home maker. From what I've heard of accounts of this time period, this isn't far off, either. Women of this time got married essentially to survive. Love came much easier and with less pickiness as it does today, and a divorce meant being used up goods, a spinster reputation, and little to no options for life. Job categories were limited to just a few options. A societal shift among teens in the 70's led women to have tons more freedom and life options other than getting married through the 80's on to today. This led to older marriages, and women becoming more independent, not needing a man in her life to go to work every day to survive, and led to a the great equality that we enjoy today.
Now most of us already know all this, but how does this relate to manipulation?? As women grew to equality, and needed men less and less, their options became broader. If the man that asked her out did not suit her needs or changed in a way that no longer pleases her, she can get up and move on to the next option. This phenomenon completely changed the dynamic of dating for both genders, and led to the enormous amounts of breakups and divorces previously mentioned. And also led to a wide variety of games, tricks, and evil moves to get both dates and get out of relationships. Both sides are guilty, but there are massively different reasons, mostly engraved deep in our human psychology
Now, I don't have a psych degree. I'm a mechanic, and a lawn care/snow removal specialist. Everything in all of my blog entries is strictly observation, and has no medical background to it. That being said, let's delve into the things I've observed about human courtship. Now, men and women both have needs from the other, but both are very different. In courtship, men are generally driven by a desire for sex, while women are generally driven by a need to feel attractive. What makes this work is how each gender, by seeking their needs, offers the opposite need in turn. An interesting side note to this is that I have observed that our courtship needs are more about what's offered than what's needed. While all relationships are about give and take and caring, I've noticed that gay relationship tend to be less sexually charged, and gay men tend to be more conscious of their appearances and attractiveness, and lesbian relationship, whether real, or a show to attract men at a college party, tend to be a little more sexually charged. This small observation opened the door for one of the biggest observations I've noted about human courtship. To put it harshly, when it comes to sex, men have to impress the women, flowers, drinks, dinners, smooth talk, and women simply have to be available. Harsh as it is, it illustrates the first observation I made. A woman who puts herself out there can feel attractive when held in passion, and not in planning. She got a complete stranger to fall enough in love with her to want her, and a guy got laid. The opposite side of this is the classic adage that I've seen on women's t-shirts, keychains, and bumper stickers. "Men are like wood floors, lay them right the first time and you can walk all over them for life". Women know they can use sex, being a driving force to men, to entice companionship, and to keep their partner around.
Now, this shows the driving force that holds relationships together, but where does manipulation come into play on this. Simply put, it's when dating turns from a sociological ideal to a game. Manipulation mostly comes in two phases of a relationship. The first is during attraction. Women and men go to outrageous lengths to attract the opposite sex. Perfumes, colognes, alcohol, clothes, a myriad of other tools and games, all leading to one specific purpose. For the unclaimed (and occasionally the claimed) to attract the attention of a mate, if only for a night. Women dress as scantily as possible, sometimes wearing clothes out that are practically lingerie, to project themselves as available. They will also dance wildly and act drunker than they may actually be, projecting themselves as more approachable. Some women will even go as far as to make out with a female friend in public place to charge the sexual urges of the men around. Men on the other hand, will dress in high end clothes, wear expensive clothes and accessories, and wear hairstyles that are excessively done up to project richness and the ability to take care of a woman long term, whether true or not. In conversation men in the attraction state also pretend to listen and buy meals and drinks, giving the image of a caring man who is attracted to the woman mind and body, and project the stereotype of the breadwinner. While this is a tired old stereotype that is becoming less and less true, as I mentioned before, it's still deeply etched in the societal collective mind of humans, and still seemingly important in attracting a mate. These series of acts and stories may not accurately reflect the people who are projecting them, but the werewolf effect attracts mates every day, and many one night stands lead into relationships, some that last for years before the boredom sets in and the second form of manipulation starts to set in.
The second form of manipulation is the dangerous part, when the relationship starts. When people manipulate to get into a relationship, it's generally purpose driven, and that comes back to the argument of illiciting attraction or sex, and both genders play dangerous games to get their goals, and continue to hold on to them. Men tend to play yo-yo with attraction. What I mean by this is that a man will give attracted attention to a woman initially, then retract the attention for an indefinite amount of time, even sometimes going as far as mild insult, and in severe cases, the retraction goes as far as abuse. Whatever the degree, the reason is always the same, so that a small display of affection will seem like an earth shattering romantic gesture, and entice them into a sexual mood. Then afterwards will go back to a state of retracted attraction. Women on the other hand, seeking the feeling of attraction, will tend to lead or force their men to prove their attraction in various manners. This varies far in degree. Some women will stand in a mirror and judge themselves vocally in front of their men, waiting for them to disagree and express the attraction. In other cases they will attempt to push the relationship in a further direction. This phenomenon is discussed as the marriage fix in a previous article. Most women will try to initiate sex as a measure of attraction. Finally, a few more self conscious women have been known to move to deadly measures, convincing a man that she can't be with him in hopes that he will harm or kill himself as a grand gesture to show how attracted he is.
Now, there is no real solution to this dangerous game. Awareness is essentially key. Seeing the unhealthy signs and backing out before a person gets hurt or emotionally damaged is the only aid to this. And as simply as the increasing equality of men and women is what slowly led to this war, it can also be the treaty that ends it. If a relationship isn't working, or is damaging, both men and women have options, and can move on and find someone who is truly suited for them, not someone who had to put on an act to get there.
J. Edgar Davis
Our modern society is awash in breakups and divorces, and one of the most common reasons people give when they are asked about their breakups is "He/She was just using me." Both genders use this reason, and both genders have a reason to use it. Men and women are both crafty in getting what they want out of a relationship, but what is it that they want?? To start with, let's look at society. Our society has opened the doors for women over the last 40 years. Looking back at TV and movies from the 50's, 60's, and even the 70's, what do we always see?? A patriarchal society where the man goes to work and the wife stays as the home maker. From what I've heard of accounts of this time period, this isn't far off, either. Women of this time got married essentially to survive. Love came much easier and with less pickiness as it does today, and a divorce meant being used up goods, a spinster reputation, and little to no options for life. Job categories were limited to just a few options. A societal shift among teens in the 70's led women to have tons more freedom and life options other than getting married through the 80's on to today. This led to older marriages, and women becoming more independent, not needing a man in her life to go to work every day to survive, and led to a the great equality that we enjoy today.
Now most of us already know all this, but how does this relate to manipulation?? As women grew to equality, and needed men less and less, their options became broader. If the man that asked her out did not suit her needs or changed in a way that no longer pleases her, she can get up and move on to the next option. This phenomenon completely changed the dynamic of dating for both genders, and led to the enormous amounts of breakups and divorces previously mentioned. And also led to a wide variety of games, tricks, and evil moves to get both dates and get out of relationships. Both sides are guilty, but there are massively different reasons, mostly engraved deep in our human psychology
Now, I don't have a psych degree. I'm a mechanic, and a lawn care/snow removal specialist. Everything in all of my blog entries is strictly observation, and has no medical background to it. That being said, let's delve into the things I've observed about human courtship. Now, men and women both have needs from the other, but both are very different. In courtship, men are generally driven by a desire for sex, while women are generally driven by a need to feel attractive. What makes this work is how each gender, by seeking their needs, offers the opposite need in turn. An interesting side note to this is that I have observed that our courtship needs are more about what's offered than what's needed. While all relationships are about give and take and caring, I've noticed that gay relationship tend to be less sexually charged, and gay men tend to be more conscious of their appearances and attractiveness, and lesbian relationship, whether real, or a show to attract men at a college party, tend to be a little more sexually charged. This small observation opened the door for one of the biggest observations I've noted about human courtship. To put it harshly, when it comes to sex, men have to impress the women, flowers, drinks, dinners, smooth talk, and women simply have to be available. Harsh as it is, it illustrates the first observation I made. A woman who puts herself out there can feel attractive when held in passion, and not in planning. She got a complete stranger to fall enough in love with her to want her, and a guy got laid. The opposite side of this is the classic adage that I've seen on women's t-shirts, keychains, and bumper stickers. "Men are like wood floors, lay them right the first time and you can walk all over them for life". Women know they can use sex, being a driving force to men, to entice companionship, and to keep their partner around.
Now, this shows the driving force that holds relationships together, but where does manipulation come into play on this. Simply put, it's when dating turns from a sociological ideal to a game. Manipulation mostly comes in two phases of a relationship. The first is during attraction. Women and men go to outrageous lengths to attract the opposite sex. Perfumes, colognes, alcohol, clothes, a myriad of other tools and games, all leading to one specific purpose. For the unclaimed (and occasionally the claimed) to attract the attention of a mate, if only for a night. Women dress as scantily as possible, sometimes wearing clothes out that are practically lingerie, to project themselves as available. They will also dance wildly and act drunker than they may actually be, projecting themselves as more approachable. Some women will even go as far as to make out with a female friend in public place to charge the sexual urges of the men around. Men on the other hand, will dress in high end clothes, wear expensive clothes and accessories, and wear hairstyles that are excessively done up to project richness and the ability to take care of a woman long term, whether true or not. In conversation men in the attraction state also pretend to listen and buy meals and drinks, giving the image of a caring man who is attracted to the woman mind and body, and project the stereotype of the breadwinner. While this is a tired old stereotype that is becoming less and less true, as I mentioned before, it's still deeply etched in the societal collective mind of humans, and still seemingly important in attracting a mate. These series of acts and stories may not accurately reflect the people who are projecting them, but the werewolf effect attracts mates every day, and many one night stands lead into relationships, some that last for years before the boredom sets in and the second form of manipulation starts to set in.
The second form of manipulation is the dangerous part, when the relationship starts. When people manipulate to get into a relationship, it's generally purpose driven, and that comes back to the argument of illiciting attraction or sex, and both genders play dangerous games to get their goals, and continue to hold on to them. Men tend to play yo-yo with attraction. What I mean by this is that a man will give attracted attention to a woman initially, then retract the attention for an indefinite amount of time, even sometimes going as far as mild insult, and in severe cases, the retraction goes as far as abuse. Whatever the degree, the reason is always the same, so that a small display of affection will seem like an earth shattering romantic gesture, and entice them into a sexual mood. Then afterwards will go back to a state of retracted attraction. Women on the other hand, seeking the feeling of attraction, will tend to lead or force their men to prove their attraction in various manners. This varies far in degree. Some women will stand in a mirror and judge themselves vocally in front of their men, waiting for them to disagree and express the attraction. In other cases they will attempt to push the relationship in a further direction. This phenomenon is discussed as the marriage fix in a previous article. Most women will try to initiate sex as a measure of attraction. Finally, a few more self conscious women have been known to move to deadly measures, convincing a man that she can't be with him in hopes that he will harm or kill himself as a grand gesture to show how attracted he is.
Now, there is no real solution to this dangerous game. Awareness is essentially key. Seeing the unhealthy signs and backing out before a person gets hurt or emotionally damaged is the only aid to this. And as simply as the increasing equality of men and women is what slowly led to this war, it can also be the treaty that ends it. If a relationship isn't working, or is damaging, both men and women have options, and can move on and find someone who is truly suited for them, not someone who had to put on an act to get there.
J. Edgar Davis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)