Billboard advocating motorcycle safety
OK, let's be honest. The billboard doesn't really advocate motorcycle safety. It advocates for those of us with four wheels to make sure we don't run over any motorcyclists. And that's fine. It's a valid point. Motorcycles are harder to see than cars and trucks and SUVs. I get that. Here's what I want to know...
Where are the billboards advocating safe motorcycle driving?! Why is everyone else responsible for their safety, but they, apparently, are not? I've known some bikers. I've heard their stories. I see bikers on the road all the time. They are crazy and oftentimes unbelievably irresponsible.
My advice to bikers, under the heading "Think Twice Save a Life"...
Don't hug the line –You know how drivers sometimes get distracted and accidentally drift over the line a little bit? It's startling to me when I'm in my car. It could be deadly to a motorcyclist who's riding the line too closely. Besides that, it's a lot harder for me to see you, to know that you're behind me, and to keep track of where you are. How 'bout you don't make my life so difficult, and I'll try not to end yours.
Don't pass on the shoulder – You know who you are. Just because your vehicle is super narrow does not mean the rules don't apply to you. The shoulder is not a driving lane. If you're on it, other drivers will either not see you at all or be startled by you (and there are a lot of drivers you really don't want to surprise!). Stay on the road, buddy.
Don't pop wheelies and try to impress girls – Seriously, driving like that is not impressive. It just makes you a douche, and it endangers yourself and other drivers around you. Don't do it.
Don't go twenty miles over the speed limit and swerve in and out of traffic – Yes, sweetie, we know you're faster and more nimble than us. You don't have to prove it. This is another great way to ensure that the drivers around you can neither see you nor keep track of you. You're like a moving land mine, except if we step on you, you're the one who dies.
Don't horse around – It's really cool that you and your buddy can ride side-by-side in the same lane and shout at each other and whatnot, but this isn't recess. It's not a game.
DO take your safety as seriously as you want us to – This is not a one-way street. You don't get to behave recklessly and then blame everything on car drivers. That's not how it works, and you need to figure this out. When there's an accident and the car driver says, "I didn't even see him," chances are it's because he was driving like an idiot and making up his own rules. I'll be honest with you. When I see something about a motorcyclist getting killed in a car accident, I almost always assume that it was his own fault. I've seen so much bad behavior on the road from motorcyclists that it never surprises when one of them dies. And it's really, really hard for me to be sympathetic. The term Natural Selection often comes to mind. Harsh, maybe, but true. The motorcycling community needs to take responsibility for their own actions and understand that no one is more responsible for their safety than them.
Let's put that on a billboard.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Monday, July 8, 2013
Reality TV
I went on a little rant the other night at "Chuckercise," an off-shoot gathering from my writing group, affectionately known as Chuck, during which we do a series of writing exercises. For one exercise, we were given two choices for topics: 1) Use the first line, "There must have been thousands standing in the rain that day," or 2) reality TV. I chose both. This is the result of 10 minutes of mad writing...
There must have been thousands standing in the rain that day. I couldn't believe it. How could so many people so willingly sacrifice both dignity and health for... that. I'll never understand the attraction to something that so clearly flies in the face of everything we know about "reality."
Reality – When you're stranded on a desert island, the only way to kick someone off is to kill them.
Reality – Trying to convince a total stranger to marry you on national television is not dating.
Reality – Showcasing and verbally abusing non-talented people for ratings doesn't make you cool – it makes you a douche.
Reality – Being a douche should not make someone rich and famous.
Reality – Being a douche will always make someone rich and famous.
The reality is that putting idiots into contrived, hyper-tense situations and letting people vote for which idiots get to stay and which have to leave is a highly lucrative and highly contemptible way to make a living. The reality is that Reality TV is not real. But it's also not fake. It's just stupid. It makes stupid people famous for no reason. It makes room for people like Paris Hilton and the Kardashians to pretend like they matter. It lowers the collective IQ and removes creativity from entertainment.
And don't even get me started on America's "Funniest" Videos.
There must have been thousands standing in the rain that day. I couldn't believe it. How could so many people so willingly sacrifice both dignity and health for... that. I'll never understand the attraction to something that so clearly flies in the face of everything we know about "reality."
Reality – When you're stranded on a desert island, the only way to kick someone off is to kill them.
Reality – Trying to convince a total stranger to marry you on national television is not dating.
Reality – Showcasing and verbally abusing non-talented people for ratings doesn't make you cool – it makes you a douche.
Reality – Being a douche should not make someone rich and famous.
Reality – Being a douche will always make someone rich and famous.
The reality is that putting idiots into contrived, hyper-tense situations and letting people vote for which idiots get to stay and which have to leave is a highly lucrative and highly contemptible way to make a living. The reality is that Reality TV is not real. But it's also not fake. It's just stupid. It makes stupid people famous for no reason. It makes room for people like Paris Hilton and the Kardashians to pretend like they matter. It lowers the collective IQ and removes creativity from entertainment.
And don't even get me started on America's "Funniest" Videos.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Do you owe the IRS $10,000 or more in back taxes?
Here's a thought. Television should advance to the point that, when a commercial starts with a question and the answer is no, you get to skip the commercial. It seems only fair. The average couch potato, such as myself, sees thousands of commercials that are utterly useless to them. Why can't they be a bit more interactive?
Are you a homeowner, 62 or older, who needs cash now? No? Oh, never mind then.
Do you have trouble falling asleep at night or staying asleep? I see. Well, then you don't need this product, do you?
Are you struggling with athlete's foot? Yeah, it is kind of gross. Well, we won't bother you.
I am amazed at the technological advances that have been made in the field of marketing and, at the same time, the advances that are still somewhere in the future to be realized. Target marketing, through computer analysis of consumption and shopping habits, gets more and more precise all the time. When are commercials--and while we're at, print and Internet ads--going to catch up? We have 3D TVs, for crying out loud, and that technology is pointless. At least my idea has merit (sites like Google and Facebook have figured it out, why can't everyone else?).
If you've spent any time on Hulu, you've encountered their attempts to customize viewers' ad experiences. As near as I can tell, it doesn't work in the least. I have told them numerous times that Geico commercials do not apply to me, yet I still see those ads--all the time. It has gotten to the point that I usually don't even bother to answer the "does this ad apply to you" question anymore.
One of the problems with this type of technology is that advertisers are not created equally. Ads that would appeal to me are hard to find. I'm not interested in Johnson & Johnson ads, but I would like to see some for Giovanni--a manufacturer of organic hair care products. Unfortunately, J&J has scads of advertising dollars to dilute the market with, while Giovanni is far less fiscally endowed. It's a shame really. The vast majority of ads that I encounter leave no impression on me whatsoever, but there are ads out there that would (or, at least, could).
This type of target marketing would expand the reach of smaller companies and narrow the focus of larger companies, increasing the revenues of both. And consumers would be so much happier! Advertising generates revenue and informs consumers of the products and services available to them. So they do serve a purpose and, therefore, are valid parts of our society. I just wish they didn't suck so much. How do I get advertisers to understand that I have very good credit and little debt, that I care (despite appearances) about the quality of the food I eat, that I try to be as green as possible (and not just because it's my signature color or my favorite "day"!), and that I make a modest living that does not allow me to take expensive trips or buy luxury vehicles?
Now, you may be thinking, "Gosh, EG, if you hate commercials so much, why don't you turn off the TV and, say, read a book... or vacuum?" Well, Naggy McGee, my answer to you is, "Quiet! Burn Notice is on!!"
Are you a homeowner, 62 or older, who needs cash now? No? Oh, never mind then.
Do you have trouble falling asleep at night or staying asleep? I see. Well, then you don't need this product, do you?
Are you struggling with athlete's foot? Yeah, it is kind of gross. Well, we won't bother you.
I am amazed at the technological advances that have been made in the field of marketing and, at the same time, the advances that are still somewhere in the future to be realized. Target marketing, through computer analysis of consumption and shopping habits, gets more and more precise all the time. When are commercials--and while we're at, print and Internet ads--going to catch up? We have 3D TVs, for crying out loud, and that technology is pointless. At least my idea has merit (sites like Google and Facebook have figured it out, why can't everyone else?).
If you've spent any time on Hulu, you've encountered their attempts to customize viewers' ad experiences. As near as I can tell, it doesn't work in the least. I have told them numerous times that Geico commercials do not apply to me, yet I still see those ads--all the time. It has gotten to the point that I usually don't even bother to answer the "does this ad apply to you" question anymore.
One of the problems with this type of technology is that advertisers are not created equally. Ads that would appeal to me are hard to find. I'm not interested in Johnson & Johnson ads, but I would like to see some for Giovanni--a manufacturer of organic hair care products. Unfortunately, J&J has scads of advertising dollars to dilute the market with, while Giovanni is far less fiscally endowed. It's a shame really. The vast majority of ads that I encounter leave no impression on me whatsoever, but there are ads out there that would (or, at least, could).
This type of target marketing would expand the reach of smaller companies and narrow the focus of larger companies, increasing the revenues of both. And consumers would be so much happier! Advertising generates revenue and informs consumers of the products and services available to them. So they do serve a purpose and, therefore, are valid parts of our society. I just wish they didn't suck so much. How do I get advertisers to understand that I have very good credit and little debt, that I care (despite appearances) about the quality of the food I eat, that I try to be as green as possible (and not just because it's my signature color or my favorite "day"!), and that I make a modest living that does not allow me to take expensive trips or buy luxury vehicles?
Now, you may be thinking, "Gosh, EG, if you hate commercials so much, why don't you turn off the TV and, say, read a book... or vacuum?" Well, Naggy McGee, my answer to you is, "Quiet! Burn Notice is on!!"
Saturday, May 19, 2012
That is so gay!
Unprecedented. Historic. Groundbreaking. Unparalleled. Momentous.
Words like these have been thrown around to describe President Obama's recent support of equal marriage rights. I'm sure there have been others as well that are more along the lines of outrageous, disgusting, and unacceptable. The phrase "war on marriage" has been used more than once, and many are discussing what impact, positive or negative, this will have on Obama's bid for reelection.
Here's what I don't understand. Why does it take so long for human beings to figure things out?? Technology (which, oddly enough, we somehow manage to create) speeds forward at astounding rates, but much of the human race is still pounding their chests and worshiping the fire and rain gods. It's really not that surprising how many people don't accept the validity of evolution, because humans evolve so slowly!!
Consider this, according to Wikipedia, "the modern movement for women's suffrage originated in France in the 1780s and 1790s." New Zealand gave women the vote in 1893, but it wasn't until 1920 that the US finally got its act together and ratified the 19th Amendment (not before some pretty ugly things happened to suffragettes like Alice Paul who was wrongfully sentenced to prison and then mistreated along with several of her compatriots). As with marriage equality, women's suffrage started out as a state-by-state battle. It took the support of President Woodrow Wilson to get the federal government to finally take action. This bit of history makes President Obama's turnaround even more interesting.
Our last president attempted to create a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. If he had actually been successful, this would have been the first amendment since Prohibition (18th Amendment) that denied citizen rights instead of protecting them. If you scan through the 27 amendments we currently have, you'll find that just about the only thing that is limited by them is the federal government. The one aforementioned limitation on citizens was repealed in the 21st Amendment, which is why there is a bar on every corner that doesn't have a Walgreens on it (no worries, Walgreens sells booze). The purpose of the amendments of the United States Constitution is to protect US citizens from government tyranny. They are there to protect our rights, not limit them.
So in the matter of marriage equality, the only Constitutional amendment that makes any sense is one that once and for all defines marriage as a union between two adults, without regard to gender. If history does repeat itself, then Obama's support may be what is needed to make that amendment possible. Here's hoping.
The fact that we are living in the 21st Century and still denying rights to US citizens because of the prejudices and fears of simpletons astounds me to no end. It is a travesty and a major design flaw of the human brain. The only thing that I question about evolution is the idea that we're actually getting smarter. In a number of ways, we're still dumb as bricks. Until we live in a world where no citizen of any country has to fight for equality of any kind, the basic theory of human superiority is a joke, a very unfunny and embarrassing joke.
A federal mandate for marriage equality will happen, and just a few generations from now, high school kids will be writing papers about why it took so damn long for the US to figure out the obvious and stop being such jackasses. Won't that be nice?
Sunday, April 29, 2012
It's amazing to me that people have any interest in such a low-level sex scandal.
Jessica Cutler, former Congressional staff assistant (quote used out of context)
What constitutes a sex scandal? I don't think my definition is quite in line with the general public's. Was Clinton/Lewinsky a sex scandal? No. The scandal was in the lie, not the indiscretion. Was Arnold Schwarzeneggar's affair a scandal? No. It was just a famous person being a jackass. John Edwards? Heidi Fleiss? Charlie Sheen? Are any of them really scandals or are they just people doing things we don't agree with? It all depends on who is involved, what they did, and who you ask.
Our most recent "scandal" drives me up a wall. Secret Service agents partaking in unsavory activities while off duty in a foreign country in which said activities are perfectly legal. And how many of these men have resigned now? And why? What did they actually do wrong? Were they derelict in their duties of protecting the president? No, the president wasn't even there yet.
In my reading, I've found a few things to come up repeatedly: the lack of female agents in the Secret Service, morality, and compromising security.
I'm not sure why the number of women SS agents has any bearing. Apparently, since women would be uncomfortable going to places like strip clubs, it would help deter their male counterparts from going there. I don't see it. Off-duty agents don't have to move around in packs. If it were me, I would just not go to the strip club, and I doubt my nonparticipation would be a deterrent. Men who have the guts and fortitude to protect the President of the United States probably don't easily cave to peer pressure, assuming that there would be any actual "pressure." I could be wrong. I just don't see how a few more female agents would prevent the male agents from partaking in legal, albeit icky, activities.
Morality, of course, is a huge issue, not just because of the prostitution itself, but because of the possibilities that prostitutes in Cartagena, Colombia, are either underage or victims of human trafficking. This greatly adds to the icky factor; however, I haven't found any reports that suggest, let alone confirm, that any of the prostitutes in question fall under either of these categories. In fact, the owner of the strip club claims the exact opposite (and he is, as near as I can tell, the only one giving any testimony on the matter). So assuming that the prostitution itself was on the up and up (no innuendo intended), then the morality issue comes down to personal opinions about prostitution. And personal opinions should not strip (pun intended) these men of their jobs.
Then there's security. Apparently, there is a mandate that states that government personnel, such as the Secret Service, are not to engage in any activities that could open them up to vulnerabilities like blackmail. Makes sense. I get that. The question is whether or not hookers in foreign countries count. Politicians say yes. At least one veteran SS agent says no. According to procon.org, "Dan Emmett, a 21-year Secret Service veteran, said . . . fears of blackmail attempts were 'espionage novel stuff.'"
So it comes down to this for me. Why are all these men losing their jobs? They did not do anything illegal, and whether or not they compromised others' sense of morality or national security is totally subjective. Punish them for unprofessional behavior, sure. But fire them? What makes the POTUS more vulnerable - off-duty agents making asses of themselves through morally-questionable behavior or turning a vital organization's blemish into an open, festering wound?
What constitutes a sex scandal? I don't think my definition is quite in line with the general public's. Was Clinton/Lewinsky a sex scandal? No. The scandal was in the lie, not the indiscretion. Was Arnold Schwarzeneggar's affair a scandal? No. It was just a famous person being a jackass. John Edwards? Heidi Fleiss? Charlie Sheen? Are any of them really scandals or are they just people doing things we don't agree with? It all depends on who is involved, what they did, and who you ask.
Our most recent "scandal" drives me up a wall. Secret Service agents partaking in unsavory activities while off duty in a foreign country in which said activities are perfectly legal. And how many of these men have resigned now? And why? What did they actually do wrong? Were they derelict in their duties of protecting the president? No, the president wasn't even there yet.
In my reading, I've found a few things to come up repeatedly: the lack of female agents in the Secret Service, morality, and compromising security.
I'm not sure why the number of women SS agents has any bearing. Apparently, since women would be uncomfortable going to places like strip clubs, it would help deter their male counterparts from going there. I don't see it. Off-duty agents don't have to move around in packs. If it were me, I would just not go to the strip club, and I doubt my nonparticipation would be a deterrent. Men who have the guts and fortitude to protect the President of the United States probably don't easily cave to peer pressure, assuming that there would be any actual "pressure." I could be wrong. I just don't see how a few more female agents would prevent the male agents from partaking in legal, albeit icky, activities.
Morality, of course, is a huge issue, not just because of the prostitution itself, but because of the possibilities that prostitutes in Cartagena, Colombia, are either underage or victims of human trafficking. This greatly adds to the icky factor; however, I haven't found any reports that suggest, let alone confirm, that any of the prostitutes in question fall under either of these categories. In fact, the owner of the strip club claims the exact opposite (and he is, as near as I can tell, the only one giving any testimony on the matter). So assuming that the prostitution itself was on the up and up (no innuendo intended), then the morality issue comes down to personal opinions about prostitution. And personal opinions should not strip (pun intended) these men of their jobs.
Then there's security. Apparently, there is a mandate that states that government personnel, such as the Secret Service, are not to engage in any activities that could open them up to vulnerabilities like blackmail. Makes sense. I get that. The question is whether or not hookers in foreign countries count. Politicians say yes. At least one veteran SS agent says no. According to procon.org, "Dan Emmett, a 21-year Secret Service veteran, said . . . fears of blackmail attempts were 'espionage novel stuff.'"
So it comes down to this for me. Why are all these men losing their jobs? They did not do anything illegal, and whether or not they compromised others' sense of morality or national security is totally subjective. Punish them for unprofessional behavior, sure. But fire them? What makes the POTUS more vulnerable - off-duty agents making asses of themselves through morally-questionable behavior or turning a vital organization's blemish into an open, festering wound?
Thursday, April 12, 2012
The Most Powerful Position is On Your Knees
Message on a Church Marquee
Lesson to be learned:
Never put a message on a church marquee that could also appear outside a porn theater.
Lesson to be learned:
Never put a message on a church marquee that could also appear outside a porn theater.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
I Can't Afford to Give a Shit
Julie Haase
As I sit here eating my organic salmon caesar salad and read through the numerous e-mails that I've received today from charities I support, it has occurred to me that it's too damn expensive to care. That's not a joke, and it's not funny.
It doesn't even matter what you care about. My e-mails range from protesting the TransCanada pipeline (both in Nebraska and nationally) to stopping pebble mining in Alaska to saving abused animals to helping rescue workers to fighting for human rights around the globe. I'm worried about the toxins in food, the chemicals in cleaning products, abuses and irresponsibility at feed lots and slaughter houses, pollution, and on and on and on.
Support charities - pay up. Choose all natural and/or organic foods and cleaners - pay up. Fight the power - pay up. The pursuit of a clean, just, and responsible world will clean you out faster than sending your kid to Harvard (oh, that reminds me, don't care about getting a good education -- too expensive!). And I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why this is the case. Why are candy bars cheaper than apples? Why are processed foods cheaper than their fresh counterparts. Why does a single girl in Nebraska need to send money all over the world to help feed, clothe, house, and protect innocent families? Why do I have to agonize over heart-wrenching commercials starring Sarah MacLachlan? Why???
I do not consider myself to be a so-called "bleeding heart" Liberal. I think, in most cases, I'm pretty practical. I think Welfare needs to be reformed (not gotten rid of - just fixed). I believe in helping those who need it. I believe in fairness and respect and courtesy. I believe that everyone has the right to live as they choose, as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others or hurt anyone. I don't, however, agree with Affirmative Action, "politically correct" language, late-term abortions (except in emergencies), frivolous lawsuits, the idea that it's not OK to offend anyone ever no matter what, and bailouts. Like I said, I'm pretty practical. I don't think that kissing someone's ass, kowtowing, or handling someone with kid gloves is the same as respecting them.
What's the point? The point is that I don't understand why everyone doesn't think like me. I'm pretty sure that, if they did, we would have much less need for charities. Truth is, the reason that giving a shit is so bloody expensive is that not enough people do. For example, if everyone cared about animals, we would have no need for organizations like the ASPCA. If everyone cared about human rights, guess what? No more Amnesty International. If everyone cared about toxins and chemicals, organic foods would be easier to find, better quality, and cheaper. If everyone gave a shit, we wouldn't need phrases like "give a shit."
Can you imagine a world in which the only charitable organizations are those like the Red Cross? The ones that are only needed in emergencies? The ones that are only called upon when there is a - and this is important - rare catastrophe that is in no way man made? I'm not a bleeding-heart Liberal, but this idea might make me a Communist (in the purest sense of the term). And I gotta tell ya, I'm OK with that. A free society where no one wants for anything, everyone is equal, there are no wars, and corruption is unheard of? Yes, please!!
Anyway, that's my rambling for today. The quantity of pleas I get for financial support for one cause or another just makes me a little sad. It's not that I mind giving to organizations that seek to better the world in which we live. I just wish I didn't have to.
As I sit here eating my organic salmon caesar salad and read through the numerous e-mails that I've received today from charities I support, it has occurred to me that it's too damn expensive to care. That's not a joke, and it's not funny.
It doesn't even matter what you care about. My e-mails range from protesting the TransCanada pipeline (both in Nebraska and nationally) to stopping pebble mining in Alaska to saving abused animals to helping rescue workers to fighting for human rights around the globe. I'm worried about the toxins in food, the chemicals in cleaning products, abuses and irresponsibility at feed lots and slaughter houses, pollution, and on and on and on.
Support charities - pay up. Choose all natural and/or organic foods and cleaners - pay up. Fight the power - pay up. The pursuit of a clean, just, and responsible world will clean you out faster than sending your kid to Harvard (oh, that reminds me, don't care about getting a good education -- too expensive!). And I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why this is the case. Why are candy bars cheaper than apples? Why are processed foods cheaper than their fresh counterparts. Why does a single girl in Nebraska need to send money all over the world to help feed, clothe, house, and protect innocent families? Why do I have to agonize over heart-wrenching commercials starring Sarah MacLachlan? Why???
I do not consider myself to be a so-called "bleeding heart" Liberal. I think, in most cases, I'm pretty practical. I think Welfare needs to be reformed (not gotten rid of - just fixed). I believe in helping those who need it. I believe in fairness and respect and courtesy. I believe that everyone has the right to live as they choose, as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others or hurt anyone. I don't, however, agree with Affirmative Action, "politically correct" language, late-term abortions (except in emergencies), frivolous lawsuits, the idea that it's not OK to offend anyone ever no matter what, and bailouts. Like I said, I'm pretty practical. I don't think that kissing someone's ass, kowtowing, or handling someone with kid gloves is the same as respecting them.
What's the point? The point is that I don't understand why everyone doesn't think like me. I'm pretty sure that, if they did, we would have much less need for charities. Truth is, the reason that giving a shit is so bloody expensive is that not enough people do. For example, if everyone cared about animals, we would have no need for organizations like the ASPCA. If everyone cared about human rights, guess what? No more Amnesty International. If everyone cared about toxins and chemicals, organic foods would be easier to find, better quality, and cheaper. If everyone gave a shit, we wouldn't need phrases like "give a shit."
Can you imagine a world in which the only charitable organizations are those like the Red Cross? The ones that are only needed in emergencies? The ones that are only called upon when there is a - and this is important - rare catastrophe that is in no way man made? I'm not a bleeding-heart Liberal, but this idea might make me a Communist (in the purest sense of the term). And I gotta tell ya, I'm OK with that. A free society where no one wants for anything, everyone is equal, there are no wars, and corruption is unheard of? Yes, please!!
Anyway, that's my rambling for today. The quantity of pleas I get for financial support for one cause or another just makes me a little sad. It's not that I mind giving to organizations that seek to better the world in which we live. I just wish I didn't have to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)