It's my money and I'll donate if I want to

I couldn't decide where to put this. I was thinking Vig the Geek, but it's more personal even though it's about someone in technology. I wanted to do a video to really capture the annoyance. In the end I thought this might be the place for it because it's personal venting about my own ideas and other people's inability to think straight.

I read an article today called "The Mystery of Steve Jobs' Public Giving." It was a New York Times article by Andrew Ross Sorkin. We all know that the gray lady leans left so I shouldn't be surprised they they judge people by the lack of philanthropy. This article is SO ridiculous, however, that I couldn't leave it ignored. I really suggest you read it so you'll understand why I'm annoyed. This guy Sorkin clearly does not know Steve Jobs at all even through he claims he's been an admirer of his for some time.

First let's look at the definition of the word: "Philanthropy - the desire to promote welfare of others, expressed esp. by the generous donation of money to good causes." The desire, not the expectation. Not just the act. So when someone makes a billion dollars and gives it away to keep stupid NY Times reporters off his/her back, it's not philanthropic. It's buffing the image to shut up the people who focus on the wrong part of the story.

Also, this guy's writing is atrocious. I'm assuming that the NY Times has editors, but I may be wrong in my assumption. Mr. Sorkin likes the word long and re-uses it in a certain context over and over. His repetition is awful.
"None of this is meant to judge Mr. Jobs. I have long been a huge admirer of Mr. Jobs"
"There has long been speculation of a $150 million donation..."
"But the lack of public philanthropy by Mr. Jobs - long whispered about..."
"(Mr. Steinhardt has long held an inexplicable grudge"

Let's look at the meat of the article. Sorkin wonders why Jobs hasn't publicly given money to any charity or signed the Giving Pledge. He also goes on to talk about the likelihood that Jobs has given away money privately or anonymously. He says, "His wife, Lauren Powell Jobs, sits on the boards of Teach for America, and the New Schools Venture Fund, among others, and presumably donates money to those organizations, though neither she nor her husband are listed among its big donors."

He also reminds us that Steve has been battling Pancreatic cancer for many years and underwent a liver transplant in 2009 in Memphis because California did not have a donor list. It does now, thanks to Jobs' intervention and conversation with Maria Shriver - first lady to the governor of California.

He compares Jobs to Gates. Gates had a larger fortune, earlier than Jobs and stopped working earlier. Jobs had his focus on Apple until 4 days ago. He compares Jobs to Warren Buffett. Buffett is the world's richest man, Jobs is not by a longshot.

Here's the deal. Can Steve Jobs afford to be more philanthropic? Sure. Would it hurt to give a few bucks away? Nope. Does he HAVE to? No. Should he be buffeted by slanderous, poorly written attacks from liberal news organizations if he doesn't? ABSO-FREAKIN-LUTELY NOT! Steve is a self-proclaimed hippy who doesn't care about money. He's not hoarding it, although it's within his rights to do so. His focus was on Apple. He felt he could do more good within Apple. Restoring its profitability and creating products good for the world is his version of philanthropy. Did you or Mr. Sorkin know that the education department of Apple is something hat held Steve's focus. Getting computers into schools has (to steal from Sorkin's style) long been one of Apple's strengths.

Steve is a quiet man. He wears jeans and raggedy shoes with a black turtleneck. He's no ostentatious with his fortune. He's not public about his life in any way. He doesn't care about the money. He doesn't care about the glory. He's the antithesis of what I would be with $8.3 billion in the bank. He started Apple in a garage and got thrown out. He masterminded his way back in and brought the company from the brink of bankruptcy to the powerhouse it is today. He's changed the world of computing. He's revamped technology as we know it. He's fostered a culture and community in apple to do the same thing after his departure. But he hasn't written a check - at least not publicly.

It's his money. He has every right to keep every last nickel if he wants. He worked for it. He's not Paris Hilton that's famous for her last name and a using a night-vision camera. He worked for that money. He created. What's the last thing the average person created besides a macaroni picture frame and popsicle pot holder. He invented from nothing and was rewarded for his efforts. He focused on making great products for people while battling to stay alive for the last 8 or so years.

I like the part that says, "Mr. Jobs views on charity are unclear since he rarely talks about it." Well, Mr. Sorkin, if you had a clue you'd realize that Mr. Jobs rarely talks about ANYTHING unless he's on stage for a keynote. He's a private man. You started the article saying that none of this was to judge Mr. Jobs, yet you compared him to everyone that does more than he does. and explained how those who don't give had to defend themselves with statements to the ones Steve Jobs makes. I'm pretty sure your goal was to take everyone who read your article and shift their focus away from the amazing products he's created, the resurgence for Apple that happened at his hands, his ailing health and current fight for his life, the changes Apple will undergo with his departure and turn them it toward the face that he doens't give public charitable donations.

I hope one day he goes public with millions of dollars he's given away and he sends you the receipts. This is irresponsible journalism in my opinion. I didn't like it when they got on Gates' case about it. I didn't like hearing "Finally" toward Buffett when he decided to give away his fortune.

At the end of the day, any money a person makes is their own. It's nice to give back, but they should never be made to feel that HAVE to and damn sure shouldn't be judged if they don't. Let's say Jobs has $8.3 billion and he should give away 5%. That's $415 million. So Sorkin, let's say you make $100,000. Are you even donating 5 grand a year? I doubt it. It's still the same percentage. Dollar for dollar, to scale.

Judge not, lest ye be judged. And leave poor Steve Jobs alone. He left the company he built and loved because he's, more than likely, dying.

A good buy?

Best Buy has come under fire from the general public because they were selling cases of water for $40 to people affected by hurricane Irene. Everyone is in an outrage over the whole thing. I disagree. I think $40 is unreasonable for a case of water, which is why I would never swipe my card for it. First, I think it's important to note that people who are so unprepared for a hurricane that they have to buy water from Best Buy get what they deserve with $40 cases. If a hurricane is headed your way, why are you in Best Buy in the first place.

Anyway, people are going berserk about this. The particular store declined to comment which spun people into pissed off even further. Today Best Buy, as a company, came out with a statement about the whole thing. Here is their statement:

We truly appreciate all of you making us aware of your feedback in regards to one of our stores selling cases of bottled water priced inappropriately.
After receiving requests to buy cases of bottled water rather than individual bottles as we typically sell them, the team involved posted the cumulative price of each item, as the price for the case.
Best Buy did not intend to take advantage of the need for supplies in the wake of Hurricane Irene and we corrected the matter immediately.

Of course, rather than understand this, the public is even MORE pissed off about it. People are boycotting Best Buy over it. That's a good idea. Go somewhere else. You think this gigantic corporation is going to miss your business? They made a mistake, they apologized. All of you faultless people can't understand what it's like to have a flaw. There are currently 229 comments on Best Buy's Facebook page, most of which are screaming that the company is full of assholes.

Best Buy sells water by the bottle at the checkout line. It's probably about 2 bucks, maybe $1.70. That sounds like it's close to $40 for 24 bottles. Typically, when you buy things by the case, it's cheaper than the sum of its parts. Maybe Best Buy should have had a price for the case as a whole but what you may have forgotten is that they sell ELECTRONICS. The water bottles is a convenience along with the Coke/Sprite/Dr.Pepper/etc on checkout. It's no different than the Snickers bars and National Enquirers in the supermarket. As anyone who has spent even an hour working a register in a supermarket knows, often things don't scan. This means the UPC barcode is not in the system or there is no SKU for that product.

Is it possible that this affects Best Buy? I'd say it's not only possible or even likely, but definite that they do not have a code for a case of water. Know why? They don't sell it by the case. So people are stupid and unprepared and shopping for DVDs in case the power goes out and realize "Oh shit... we have no water." So they ask Best Buy if they can buy a case of it. There's no way to ring it up other than charging for 24 bottles x price per bottle. It's that or nothing. They try to help out the stupid masses in a pinch and get slammed for it.

Next time, get your ass up and get the necessities, not a new TV.

Furry family member, Part II

I'm faced with a really tough decision.

Benny is a kitten and therefore he is hyper and overbearing. However, he is a lot of each of these even for a kitten. He is way over the top and can be quite irritating. He's still adorable and I love him though. He's funny and playful and SUPER lovey and everyone enjoys playing with him. He's just a hyper little kid who doesn't know when enough is enough. He's that kid that you pick up throw around and when it's all over he stops, catches his breath, looks up and says, "Again Daddy!" Ugh. Not again. I'm tired. But that's my dopey little boy.

Here's the situation. Last night, dopey locked himself in the bathroom while I was watching TV. He stands on his back legs and leans on the door until it swings shut and he's stuck inside (EVERY door in my home needs a doorstop because he does this a lot lately). He's also like a kid in the sense that he's never quiet and you wish he would be, but the moment he is, you get worried. Uh oh. Benny isn't in my face or knocking stuff over, something is wrong here.

While he was enduring his self imposed incarceration (and as it turns out, turning toilet paper into confetti), the other two were VERY different. Shadow jumps up on my lap while I'm reclining on the couch and does a spin and collapse to cuddle. The only time she cuddles with me is when I'm asleep, she sleeps at my feet. NEVER does she curl up on the lap, although she used to. Herbie was not far behind. Herbie is cool, let me tell you. He just chills. Nothing really riles him up (except a laser pointer). He give casual headbutts and rubs against my legs when he's hungry but he was named Herbie after Herbie the Lovebug because he just could not get enough of being cuddly. Now, as anyone who has been here can attest to, he can barely be found. Last night he cuddled up just like Shadow did.

All of a sudden, it occurs to me that the one who is normally in my face is totally missing so I freed Benny boy from the bathroom. Immediately he comes into the living room and jumps on my lap. Where are Shadow and Herbie? MIA. They are not aggressive like him and won't fight for attention. A little while later I picked up Herbie and he was cool until Benny showed up. They are not themselves around him.

They get along and play with him, but clearly their affection toward me is muted in his presence. He may grow out of this aggressive mentality, but by that point it will be so well ingrained in Herbie to not be affectionate that he may not change.

Three cats is exponentially more to deal with than two. More food (and expensive kitten food), more litter, more cleaning, more treats, more of everything. It's harder to find places to rent that will allow three cats. They are always under my feet. I have every reason in the world to find a home for Benny, but as anyone with a pet knows, you don't do it for logic.

I love crazy Benny and I'm super attached to him, but if he is affecting the moods of TWO other cats, both of which were here and happy before him, what can I do? I hate to even consider getting rid of him, but I think I have to - consider it, that is.

Furry family member, Part I

I've known people my whole life who had pets and these people were distraught about the loss of a pet. They were AS distraught as if it would have been a human relative. I never understood this because, growing up, we had no pets (unless you count the non-cuddly fish). My brother and I were allergic to everything as kids, all of which I outgrew, but the pet thing just never happened. We always wanted a dog as most boys do.

As I entered adulthood, it just never occurred to me. My ex-wife had 3 cats when we got together and when she moved in she wanted to bring them. There was no way in hell that was happening. Can you imagine going from no pets for 30 years and then to 3 cats? So she found homes for all but one. I was stuck and she brought him. He wasn't that bad really. When we moved to Mississippi from South Carolina we decided it was time for him to have a playmate and we got Shadow. We named her Shadow because she follows me everywhere I go. She was just a tiny 5 week old kitten when she arrived and she was adorable and clumsy. A real source of entertainment. I then began to understand how people fall in love and get attached.

When she left she took her cat, but Shadow was to remain with me. There was no way she was taking Shadow. Unfortunately, just like a person, Shadow reacted poorly to this change. Her brother and mom left at the same time and never came back. She'd wake up in the middle of the night with that crying meow they do. I'd leave for work and hear her crying through the door and find her sleeping by it waiting for me to come home. When she wasn't on my lap, she'd be sleeping on clothes. I had to leave a shirt on the floor for her to curl up with. When I had my (albeit very few) downturns in mood about the divorce, she got very maternal and would sit with me and look up or lick my hands to be reassuring.

They may be animals and incapable of expression or vocalization, but make no mistake, they know when people are happy, upset, etc and they react accordingly. Dogs, seem to do this less so, but my experience is quite limited. Cats really have a range of emotion.

So I go to get Shadow a sibling, Herbie. He's a tiny kitten with similar color patterns to Shadow. He's a lover and a cuddler and after a few days, they get along great. This is when the "crazy cat lady" jokes begin along with me developing a propensity to want to choke the people that repeat these jokes over and over.

A few months go by and I'm at PetSmart getting items for the cats and I see the cages with kittens. They are adorable and me and my buddy, Tommy, turn into blithering idiots. Some very tough looking guy passes us and we straighten right up until he stops to see what we're looking at and does the same thing. One of the kittens was Benny, but he had a brother and I wasn't about to get 2. Unfortunately for me, someone adopted his brother and I couldn't resist. The tiniest kitten I've had came home with me on the spot.

So now the jokes are in high gear. For some reason, having cats make me a crazy cat lady. For some reason, it's socially unacceptable for a man to have cats. Some people are light hearted about it and it's simply irritating due to repetition. Some people keep turning and twisting the knife because the are socially awkward and don't know when enough is enough. Some people have actually spread legitimate, serious rumors that my adoption of cats was because I'm actually gay, which is asinine - a) I'm not gay and b) the first gay person I know that comes to mind has a dog so explain the connection. Can you believe that one person actually gave me a stupid little sign to hang in my home that says "You say crazy cat lady like it's a bad thing." Did you really think I'd hang that up? And it was given to me in front of the rumor mongers.

I do not understand this. The notion of a crazy cat lady stems from the woman who dies old and alone surrounded by as many cats as years she's been alive. I can't see how I fit that bill. I'm not old, I'm not a woman, I don't have a house full of kittens. As far as being alone, that sterotype is the spinster who has always been alone whereas I was married and now divorced - like 50+% of people in this country. So, I'm failing to draw any parallels.

I like dogs. Having a dog would be awesome. I live in an apartment with no space for a dog to run. I work 10 hours a day, plus school, plus a brand new company I started, plus a social life. I do not have time for a dog. Cats are self sufficient. Full bowls of water and food and a litter box that needs to be scooped every other day and they do their own thing. It's easy. I can go away for probably up to 4-5 days without having anyone look in on them. My friends with dogs need to stop back home several times per day to let them out. My life does not support that.

There are tons of cats and dogs without homes. There are 3 less out there now. If that turns me into a 65 year old woman who dies alone, then so be it. Do you have pets? If so, then you understand the attachment. If you don't, then don't judge me. They are like children. Everyone with a pet knows this attachment.

So, I'm done with the crazy cat lady jokes. Enough is enough. It's rude and untrue and I've heard it 1000 times. Even a joke that started funny, wouldn't be funny after all that time. One that started out stupid, REALLY irritates the hell out of me. I've let it roll off my back for a year, but not anymore. So, can we move on to other things or are your lives SO hollow that you have no choice but to judge me for mine?

To be continued...

Discriminatory or business?

Today Bloomberg had a case dropped against it that it discriminates against pregnant women as a practice. That's not to say that they haven't discriminated individually; just not as a practice.

Several women banded together to file a suit against the company founded by New York City mayor, Michael Bloomberg. However, a judge threw it out today stating that j'accuse is not enough in the court system. The burden of proof wasn't there.

So these women will be filing individual lawsuits against the company to have their cases heard, a plight traditionally harder to see through to completion. This is generally the case because personal circumstances make it harder to put the onus on the company.

So I ask you, if a woman is pregnant, for example, and is eliminated from meetings, is it discriminatory? The only answer is - maybe. The question - why? - must be asked. People seem to have a sense of entitlement and believe that the company's responsibility is to the employee. Realistically, the company's responsibility is to ALL employees AND to business.

So why were these women excluded from portions of business? The parts that we don't know are whether the pregnancies interrupted business for reasons such as women being ill. Some meetings require long presentations. There are any number of reasons that may, or may not, apply.

Does a company have to provide explanation? These women were hired because of their skills and abilities to help the company make money. It wasn't charity. It's about business. You know what's coming - the business of business is business. And if ANYTHING is interrupting business then a change needs to be made.

People say that alcoholism is a disease and cannot be helped, yet they wouldn't keep an alcoholic on staff. I'm not trying to liken pregnancy to alcoholism. All I'm saying is that it's a situation in someone's life and if it interrupts business then it does. It sucks for that person, but it sucks for the business as well. It. It can't be helped, but should a business suffer over some perceived allegiance to an employee? Should a business cost itself money and degrade business and consequently possible jobs to other employees over the same allegiance?

Every employee knows the score when they arrive. They are there to help the company make money so they can make money themselves. None of it is about friendship. There is no relationship with the company. So if you're not pulling your weight, for ANY reason, then it's time for a change. As a person, I hate to see it happen. As a business owner, my business would come first.

I don't know the personal stories of these women, but Bloomberg (the person and the company) didn't get to where they are today by being bad at business. Making a public spectacle of it all is ridiculous. Making a choice to get pregnant is a choice and it comes with a lifestyle change. A person has to accept responsibility for the choices they make. Sometimes business and family are exclusive of one another. That's just the way it goes.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Deregulation and greed

With the tumultuous market we've seen over the last couple of weeks, the conversations have turned to the root of all of this. Was it 2008? What caused that? It's no secret that I'm a super conservative, capitalist, anti-liberal, pro-big business, greedy, dollar chaser. However, I can't begin to agree with the deregulation that began 30 years ago. To say "leave the market alone. It will take care of itself." is totally insane. Why would anyone stop doing what they are doing if it is making them money? Because it's the right thing? Since when do for profit businesses and people care about the right thing. Their right thing is their pocket. Truth be told, if I was in any of their shoes, I'd have probably done the same thing though. The temptation to make hundreds of millions of dollars would be greater than considering the consequences for strangers.

In any event, people are wondering how this all happened and I believe it began when banks began trading for themselves. Once they had the ability to make money on investing their money rather than making money on the interest and investments of their clients, we entered a whole new world. Take the ability to do that and mix it in with the lack of oversight from regulatory agencies and sprinkle in the lack of knowledge on the part of the average American and you've got a real recipe for disaster.

The subprime mortgage insanity is based on the banks giving away home loans to people who don't nearly qualify for starters. It's all predicated on the fact that housing prices always go up. It doesn't matter if they can afford the house. They're gonna keep it a couple of years then sell it and make money for a downpayment that makes the next, more expensive house actually cheaper because the loan is less. All they have to do is not default for a couple of years. So home loans went berserk. After a couple of years, there was some equity in the house and banks started leveraging that dollar to the max. Let's throw a line of credit on that baby so you can have a bunch of cash - send the kids to college and buy a boat. Now the homeowner's dollar is paying for three things. That's leveraged debt in simple terms. Debt that can't be paid off dollar for dollar because 1 dollar is needed in 3 places. Borrowing against your borrow based in equity which is all believed and not measured.

So this happens over and over and over and over. House prices go up and up to insane levels and more houses are built. We've got more houses for sale than people that need them with prices inflated because of this demand we created. The demand isn't for the house; it's built on the idea that you should sell and move because your house value is higher than when you started. Make money and go bigger. This was the American dream sold to the average American that never thought they'd be able to own a home and it was done by the bankers so every average Joe bought into it. The bubble grew. People couldn't afford the mortgages so they sold and moved and just inflated the bubble. House prices weren't related to anything anymore and became over-valued assets.

People defaulted on their loans and lost their houses, but the banks didn't care because they didn't lose money. They had been selling the mortgages, in part, to outside investors (local and abroad). So the bank held the mortgage to pay back the investors and the bank assumed no risk. The investors didn't care because the mortgage was also insured by AIG, for example so the investors would be covered on the back end as well. AIG was like the FDIC for people buying slices of mortgages. With every party covered, except the homeowner, there was no reason to quit. Everyone was making money.

AIG doesn't back just mortgages though. Things like medical insurance are covered by them as well. When houses are realized to not be even close to what they're valued at people are paying on nothing, which is like me financing a Kia for $80,000 and finding out it's worth only $20,000. I still owe the $80k but I'm throwing money away.  That's $60,000 of waste. So these homes aren't worth shit, nobody wants to invest in something that over inflated, homeowners can't afford it in the first place (because of the leverage) and it's a losing proposition that nobody wants to touch. Now we have tons and tons of toxic debt. Things we owe on, but nobody wants to cover that spread. Not to mention, AIG runs out of cash because they owe more in covering the claims than they have so they're in the hole. And so much rides on them.

Meanwhile, Russia is trying to get China to conspire and sell every single share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which would devalue them to almost nothing which deflates our entire government and every bank is about 5 days from having all the customers make a run on it. Everyone feels their money is safer under the mattress. That means they can't get anyone to do new business and they're not worth anything and can't generate revenue. They collapse and everything comes crashing down with them.

All of our European investors lost they money they've invested, homeowner have no banks to get loans, and the market and commerce in the US stops on a dime. Trucks stop moving, gas stops pumping, store are empty and ATMs stop spitting out bills. It's the 1500s again. Broke and bedlam in less than a week.

Two things happened that prevented that. First, the Chinese are business people and they declined the Russians spiteful invitation. They need us as much as we need them. We pump a ton of money into China, part of why our debt is the way it is. Had they called in those debts and we went down, they lose an influx of money. Second, the $700B bailout program. It got loaned to all the banks, whether they needed it or not (the not being people like Wells Fargo). Everyone took it to help avoid isolating the weaker banks and were supposed to lend it out and stimulate things. Some did, some didn't. Some paid it back nearly immediately.

The folks that did go down like Dick Fuld of Lehman Brothers lost millions but walked away with many millions more so he's not hurting. Neither are any of the other individuals, as individuals. However, their companies, like Lehman Brothers, which were institutions and not just companies are now gone. I can't believe how many names are missing from the roster. Bear Stearns, for example.

The ones that remain have been deemed "too big to fail." All that means is that if they fail, too much goes down in the process and we can't let that happen. So, the government has no choice but to do this again, if need be.

The nice thing is that there's only one way to go from the bottom. You buy on bears and sell on bulls. Buy low, sell high. Now is the time to invest because everything is cheap while they struggle. The money spent invigorates the companies and the markets. Things are based on real numbers instead of emotion and speculation. It's a little Ponzi-esque, I guess, in the sense that we are building on nothing to get more people to do the same until these companies produce real results.

I guess you just can't cut your way out of a recession. You have to spend your way out of one. We got out bailout and saved the country, now we have to bring it back up. Europe, on the other hand, has a bigger problem, some of which is due to the money they had invested in our debt and some is brought on by the formation of the EU, while keeping countries politically separate.

So that's how it happened. All greed and nobody was watching. It's obviously much more complex. I don't understand derivatives really well and I'm not sure that anyone does. Credit swaps and leveraged debts nearly brought about the end of the world though. Now to see what happens next.

Almost off the wagon

{EAV_BLOG_VER:2f3eac3a94188189}

This is going to sound ridiculous to many of you as my addiction is not something that is real. I feel like Dave Chappelle in Half-Baked when he goes to A.A. or whatever it was and admits that he's addicted to weed and everyone screams and yells and then Bob Saget stands up and says, "Marijuana is not a drug. I used to suck dick for coke. Now that's an addiction. You ever suck dick for Marijuana?" But addiction is addiction and we all have our things. Some of us more so than others. I have a very addictive personality.

It is hard to understand the mania of obsession that if 1 is good then FIFTY IS BETTER! It's why I'm very careful about how much money is nearby when I'm in a casino. It's why I stay out of certain stores. It's why I have to eat a certain amount of time before I go grocery shopping and keep a regimented list with me. I indulge. If I like something a lot, I over indulge.

Up until January of 2008, I was drinking about 80oz per day of Mt. Dew. So it's not a drug. Doesn't mean the draw was any less. Soda is terrible for you and Mt. Dew is worst of the sodas. I'd literally have 20oz put down before I arrived at work at 7:30am. Then another 20oz bottle between then and lunch. One after lunch and about 20oz worth from the 2 liter once I got home. Sometimes more. That was about the baseline. It got so bad that a DOCTOR actually RECOMMENDED I start drinking coffee. He said the amount of coffee I'd need to drink to get that level of caffeine would be far less than Mt. Dew, as well as the sugar, and it may even be healthier for me. Imagine that. You're so bad off that a doctor thinks coffee is healthier than what you're doing.

So I quit. That day. Right then and there. I also figured he was crazy and didn't need the coffee either. I went into legitimate detox. Of course not to the same level as I would have had I just quit heroin. This is all to scale. But I had a headache and a little bit of the shakes. I felt terrible. So I started drinking the coffee. I've loved coffee but it's not like the way Dew was for me.

I was getting my caffeine and assumed I was good. Do you know that I've thought about drinking Mt. Dew every day since I quit. I know at this point you think I'm a total lunatic and this entire post is ridiculous. I swear it's 100% true. My ex-wife would even tell me to have a glass. What's the big deal? At that point I had been quit for over a year. Just like a recovering addict, I'd say that then I could only say that it's been x amount of time since the last time I relapsed. I don't want to break my streak. She'd look at me like I was insane, I'd shake my head and say, "I know, I know" and that would be that.

It comes and goes in waves and I feel like the only way is to disregard the notion of quitting and go back full bore. That's not smart because my blood pressure will go up and my teeth will fall out of my head. The reason for this rant about all of it is because Ty is a Dew-aholic as well, although doesn't hold a candle to my worst days. Last weekend he left a can in my fridge. I know it's ice cold and delicious. I know he wouldn't care that I drank it (besides possession is 9/10 of the law).

I could drink it just to give myself that treat but then I'm off the wagon on my timer and I have no reason to NOT continue to drink it nonstop. So it's staring at me every time I enter the fridge, taunting me, urging me into submission. I'm getting dangerously close. I want it gone, but I don't. If he takes it then I lose because every day that goes by that I do NOT drink it is like a victory over it.

I find it amazing that something like that can wield such power. Thank God I never really did drugs because I can't imagine that would have worked out well for me. I'm going to go outside with my lemonade and smoke a cigarette to distract and calm myself before I bite through the side of that can. I gotta go.

It is already free

Big debate is heating up about whether birth control should be free. I'd be lying if I said that even part of me did not want it to be free. That just sounds convenient. The last thing I need (or the world needs, for that matter) is a clone of me or at least part of my DNA running around. However, that's probably exactly the reason it should NOT be free... not to mention the economic results.

First of all, birth control is free already, just not the pill form. It's called abstinence and it's available to everyone. However, to anyone that is realistic, or simply not a virgin, we know that abstinence is not going to happen for everyone. For those that practice it, birth control doesn't matter. For those that don't practice abstinence, we need another solution. There is the availability of condoms but everyone, especially guys, come up with every reason in the book why they shouldn't be used. From an enjoyment perspective, condoms really miss the mark, but they serve their purpose.

The birth control pill is the perfect solution (out of the offered ones that are realistic). More often than not, it regulates the female cycle which is convenient for her and for the guy remembering when it's a good time to steer clear of her and especially to be sure she has no red wine. A woman on her period and a couple of glasses of red wine is like a witch's brew and guys, trust me, every syllable out of your mouth is incorrect. Anyway, it's 99.99% effective or some such number. It doesn't get in the way of moment like saran wrapping your pecker. So give it away and let's make love, not vulcanized rubber.

The downside is that the last time we started a catch phrase with make love, it was the 60s before some carrier monkey delivered HIV/AIDS and the birth control pill doesn't protect against either one of those or any other grossness that may seek refuge in your special parts. So pregnancy isn't the only reason for putting up barriers between the outside parts and the inside parts when they meet.

Financially, giving away birth control is a disaster. We don't have money to pay the FAA which ensures we don't die in a plane crash. We don't have the money to pay our military enough and they actually die for us. We, as a government, have subsidized and subsequently partially own the railroads, the planes, and the automobiles as industries. And now the government wants to get in bed with, so to speak, birth control. You cannot get from point A to point B without the government's help. Apparently point B counts if it is work, school, a picnic or an orgasm. The point is that we just nearly default on all of our loans to other countries and became the United States of China and now we want to pay for something else for people when they COULD just stop having sex in the first place.

I think we should spend the money holding people accountable. You wanna open your legs, be prepared for what comes next. Guys that goes for you too. You convince her go down that road with you and procreate, man up and take care of it. If you're old enough to handle your business, you're old enough to handle your business. Use the money to counsel young (or even old enough but surprised) parents-to-be. Pay for a starter kit - like WIC on steroids - to get things going.

People are not gonna stop making the sex, girls will continue to end up pregnant, guys will continue to be deadbeats, kids will continue to make bad decisions, everyone will continue to believe "we'll be fine,"and the cycle will continue. Even if we made it free would everyone get it? Would everyone qualify? Would the recipients take it consistently? I think we're costing ourselves tons and tons of money for an output based on the behavior of people. The behavior of people who have not necessarily made the right choices often enough (as a whole, not individuals) that we had to consider this a solution.

Truly, I say spend the money on the reproduction police. You need a license to drive a car, but not raise a baby. Where's THAT legislation? Can't drink before you're 21? Can't plow around until you're....19 we'll say. It's gotta be earlier. The last thing we want is people drinking and humping for the first time at the same time.

So think about the measurable ramifications of this before your bleeding heart decides to just help the world.

We did what we had to do

The United States is losing its mind tonight talking about two things. One is the raising of the debt ceiling and the other is Shark Week. I'm actually here to talk about the debt ceiling. It's been looming for a while and plan after plan has been shot down. Just tonight, a plan was approved  that will supposedly reduce the deficit and avoid a default.

Naturally, all the uninformed took to the digital airways to complain about the bullshit nature of the government and how they can just raise the debt ceiling whenever they want. First of all, of course we can. It's an arbitrary number. Second, we are so far in debt that it doesn't really matter. Lastly, what the fuck else were we supposed to do about it? Default on our loans? Nothing against Chinese people, but I'm proud to be an American and a default means we're suddenly owned by China. I'm exaggerating, of course, but the point stands. We simply CANNOT default on our loans for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the credibility of our country (which has been better over the course of its history). Could we stop giving aid to countries? Nope. Believe it or not, many countries, especially some in Europe are in worse shape. Has anyone seen the word Greece in the headlines of the last year?

By the way, people raise their debt ceiling all the time. So for those of you who wish you could be just like the shady government, you can. I've known more than one person with credit card that has a $10,000 limit and about $7,000 full. They get a card (while their credit is still intact enough) with a limit of $15,000 and transfer the balance. Ceiling goes up, interest goes down for a while and then more gets charged. Some people make switching balances a full time job.

As for most of America that lives hand to mouth, well I'm sorry for you, but it's your own damn fault (most of the time). Anyone out there in debt that owns a big screen LCD/plasma/LED TV? Anyone use their smartphone to check their credit card debt (hundreds of dollars for the phone with an expensive plan). Has everyone that complains about not making enough money really, TRULY examined all routes to make more? You know there are scholarships for everything imaginable. The fourth generations sons of plumbers born on the southeast corner under a full moon can get 500 bucks a year. More education? More money. Not everyone is destined for that, I get it, but if money is the only thing stopping you, then you're missing out.

Let's look at the people who are bitching about the debt in the first place. Remember the 90's when Bill "what's the definition of is" Clinton was in the White House? He balanced the budget. He didn't reduce our debt to zero, but he balanced the budget. Just as much money coming in as was going out. It happened rather quickly, if you recall. Was it all good? If you say yes then you REALLY didn't pay any attention. We had lots of other things go haywire. People invest in our debt. Distressed assets are appealing to investors. Why? Only one way to go from the bottom. Hell, in 2008 we were laying off toxic debt to anyone that would take it. Of course it was for a small amount on the dollar and we sweetened the pot with other things as well. The point is that when the budget was balanced, things went screwy. The worth of bonds tanked because nobody was investing the bond market. Why? The government didn't need the money, the value fell, people stopped putting money and it fell further.

So a healthy level of debt is just that - healthy. Leveraging the dollar to the hilt is something altogether different. In any event, we can't just ignore the debt ceiling and default on our loans to other countries. At least not in the time of crisis.

Long term, we need a better solution though. Part of the problem is the aid we give to other countries and then borrow against it. So let's say we give country X $1million dollars. Now we need that same $1M so we borrow it from them. We are borrowing our own money from another country and guess what else? We are paying interest to another country on our own money that was aid for them. The solution? People say stop the aid. We don't have many friends and it's not good to isolate the few we've got. Plus that's just not our role in the world. We help everyone at our own expense. It is what it is.

So we need a better long term solution. For now, flipping off the world and letting our loans default was stupid. So we make a last minute decision. We made our bed and now we have to lie in it. No sense letting pride and ignorance make the whole damn thing worse.

Don't feed the trolls

A while back (around the 4th of July) I wrote a post about Paige Duke and the nonsense that went on when the people from Sprint or NASCAR or whoever found out that once in her life she was naked and in front of a camera lens at the same time. As it turns out, it was years ago when she was 18 and pressured into it by some jerk. Just when she thought that was all behind her, the pics surface. She loses her job at the Miss Sprint Cup Girl.

Now, since she is a known celebrity, she has a myriad of commenters online telling her everything from keep her chin up (me) to "Maybe you should have worn clothes in pics. Trashy." I'm sure the person that made that comment has NEVER EVER made a mistake. He's one of those judgmental assholes I talk about on here so frequently. So she made a mistake. She was young. Her judgment was flawed at the ripe, old age of 18. What a surprise.

So often I see huge fights break out on Facebook and other social networks. People say something, that is misconstrued (because that's very easy to do online) and someone makes a snarky comeback and before you know it, it's an all out war. The digital age has sent the "telephone tough guys"to the computer and they are on the attack. They scream at me every time I like an Apple product and/or dislike a Microsoft product. They stay quiet when I actually like a Microsoft product. They attack everyone over everyone. Twitter is even worse than Facebook. The relative anonymity of Twitter makes it easier to berate a target from behing the safety of a screen name.

It is easy to get sucked in. EVERYONE likes to have the last word. Nobody likes to sit and be attacked without defending themselves. You can fire off an angry email or social network based response without the fear of every having to face the person. There's also no risk of getting punched in the nose. Not to mention it feeds the impulsivity. There's an old saying, "Arguing on the Internet is like being in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded." I know that's not politically correct on pretty much any level, but you get the point.

It's still just too damn easy to go back and forth. So, if you're a content creator/deliverer then you should have a mantra for if (and WHEN) you get attacked.

Don't feed the trolls. Don't feed the trolls. Don't feed the trolls.

Repeat that over and over.

It's like being in the schoolyard in the 2nd grade and someone steals your hat and they all begin to play that very mature game of "keep away." The more you chase it, the more they throw it. They idea is to get you to chase it. And it goes on forever. They have more fun taunting you and you get progressively more frustrated.

Imagine for a second that you had this response: "That's cool. Give it back when you're done" and then you go sit down and enjoy your PB&J. I know that's a little lofty a goal for an 8-year old, but imagine it. All of a sudden keeping something from someone that doesn't want it in the first place really loses its appeal.

So when they attack your character or content or just generally be nasty online just ignore it. In the case of the adult and the Internet, don't even say "doesn't bother me" because then it will become their mission to find what does. So just ignore it. Keep posting your content. Keep being you. Keep doing what you do. Keep ignoring them. Sooner or later, they'll move to someone that they can actually get a rise out of... because that's all they're really looking for in the first place.

Don't feed the trolls

They told me to feel bad, but I said no, no, no

I tried so hard to avoid this, but the news sucked me in. Unfortunately, I couldn't live by my own edict of "if you don't like it, don't watch it." I was stuck watching HLN on a common TV while I ate my dinner. They gave a short time slot to a story about a woman that escaped forced sex and marriage in a polygamist compound and chose to devote almost an hour to Amy Winehouse.

Let me preface by saying that I do not feel bad about her death. It goes without saying that I will tell you why. I was not particularly moved one way or the other until tonight.

Let's keep in perspective that unlike some celebrities, she was not a child star. She was an adult by all maturity and legal standards when she hit the limelight. It's safe to say that we all know, by that age, that drugs are bad (mmmkay?). She didn't care. She was so cavalier about her drug use that she wrote a song in defiance of rehab. Incidentally, that's the song the truly propelled her into proper stardom. So maybe addiction is a disease from which there is little escape. However, the first time you make the choice to take a drug, you are far from addicted and should know better.

I understand there is stress in stardom, but if you play the numbers and really look at the amount of celebrities running around (be it athletes, movie, music), the percentage that are on drugs is really very small. She said she was in a dark place. Really? With millions of dollars, extreme talent and adoring fans, not to mention a doting family? What does that mean for the poor schmucks that are broke and alone without a skill or education?

She has been inducted into the "27 club" with Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Kurt Cobain (all died at that age). The dope on HLN attributed the reasons for her behavior to the same reasons of as the others. It was because of, what she was calling, too cool to be sober. They were vested in being cool. For Jimi, Jim, and Janis it wasn't their choice to be cool. For J-cubed it was a way of life when they were at their peaks. Everyone did drugs in the 60s. In the 40s they may not have been addicts. In the 90s they may not have been addicts. They weren't addicts necessarily because of a disease. It was everywhere; it was common; and the information, education, and negative publicity had not taken root in the mainstream. As for Kurt Cobain, being cool was never on his agenda. He was tormented by his popularity. He didn't want to be a superstar. Hell, he basically started the grunge movement which was all about being alternative to the mainstream. When he was overcome with the feeling of being trapped, he put a shotgun in his mouth. So doing it to be cool makes no sense. And the moron, Mackenzie Phillips, who was playing "I'm an addict so I can speak for all addicts" on the show, didn't do much to make more sense out of it.

The bottom line was that Amy Winehouse made a series of bad choices and, at no point, made a real attempt to overcome them. 4 rehabs and 5 arrests. Last year she was seen crawling on her knees at a resort, taking drinks off the tables of patrons while they were not looking. She was reportedly lucid and sensible during the day. I understand the power of addiction - as a 20 year smoker. But why put yourself in a situation if you want to quit. I don't want to quit, but then again, one too many cigarettes in a day won't kill me on the spot either.

I guess it's just not tragic. My high school friend who got Lukemia and died at age 19 is tragic. Repeatedly making the same bad choice, that you know is bad and has shown its bad side and feeling no remorse for it is not tragic. It's stupid. If I die of lung cancer next year it won't be tragic. It'll be my own stupidity. I recognize that. She should have recognized that in herself and all of you should recognize that in her as well.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Save the plants, eat the animals

I spent some time on the horn with Dr. Jim yesterday. It's good times because we wax intellectual about all the ridiculous things we can come up with. The evolution of our conversations make little to no sense to us, let alone an outsider. At some point yesterday we found ourselves talking about eating meat vs. vegetarianism and the merits of being kinder to our furry friends. I'm a carnivore, let's set that record straight. My vegetable intake is limited at best.

Recently I read a comment somewhere on the web that said, "Hey vegetarians, plants are living creatures too. They're just easier to catch." This spurred a deep ponderation between the Doc and I about whether we may all have it backwards. Maybe we should NOT eat vegetables at all. Maybe they are the highly evolved chosen creatures of whatever higher power/deity you give credit to.

In order for this theory to hold water, we have to consider whether plants have a soul. Many people would say no, but I ask you, "why?" Or more importantly, "why not?" People will tell you it's because they have no brain or cognizance. Ok, that's science. But since when did science and faith ever match up? More often than not, they work in opposition. You look to the sky and tell your version of the bearded man in the clouds that plants cannot have a soul because they have no brain. The weatherman will tell you there's a good chance of lightning strikes in your area. So let's say it's just as likely that they have a soul as we do.

Back to science. A tree can outlive a human by hundreds of years. That doesn't make us look chosen. People may tell you about the complexity of the human being and our bodies. Let's consider the concept of efficiency. A plant can sustain life with the few parts it has, yet it takes so much more to keep us going. Our bodies are far from efficient, given the comparison. Think about these simple organisms that keep going and reproduce without complication. That's pretty impressive.

Finally, think about our relationship with plants. They give off oxygen. Something we need to survive. We don't give off anything they need to survive. We rely on them to live, they could care less about us. And in terms of the oxygen they give off, it's a waste product for them. We simply cannot continue to exist without the shit of the plant world.

So vegetarians, your eating habits are waging war on our single most important source of life and vitality. Other than food, what has a cow done for you lately? Who wants to go out for a burger?

True motivation

I frequently speak of moving home and the tone generally revolves around business, finance and an overall connection with the people and area. All of those things play a large part. It IS where I'll be most successful and looked at as less crazy by people around me. However, there is so much more to it.

I spent almost 12 days back home, as 99% of my readers know. I love my family so thoroughly that being apart from them is no longer a possibility. For so many years, my mother and I would argue about everything there was to argue about, and some things that didn't seem possible to argue about. We have reached a closeness that was unprecedented with us and now I'm not there. I've always had fun with my dad and he's been so great to be around as a friend, dad and mentor. My brother and I hit an age range where the 4 years between us dissipated, yet we have only been able to enjoy it in fleeting, beer soaked moments. Of the 4 grandparents I was born with only 1 remains. Thankfully she still has her wits about her but will that last another 12 years as she pushes 100? Will SHE even last that long?

All of those things are also important, but we are adults. We get it. We don't like it, but we understand budgets and responsibilities and careers and professional necessities. As much as we suffer through the distance, there is that underlying thought of "it is what it is and it's necessary." That doesn't make it fair, but the rationalization becomes legitimating justification. Friends play the same game.

There is a class of people that doesn't apply to, however. I have a friend - Brian - who knew me before I knew me (he is 18 months older). Our fathers went to high school together. We may as well be brothers instead of friends. We were together constantly as kids, and less so as we aged, but have held friendship for 30+ years. Brian is married (I missed his wedding). He now has a daughter, Sophia, who is a beautiful, wide eyed 9 month old angel. I met her for the first time this last week. I fell in love with this little baby girl. I told Brian that my distaste for diaper changing is the only reason he gets to keep her. Sophia, like many babies, doesn't go to many people and takes time to warm up. After a short stint of coming from her sleepy car ride induce haze I reached out and she was passed to me. She looked unsure, then cracked a tiny, gummy smile and laid her head on my shoulder. She loved me immediately.

I also have a friend, Dr. Jim, who I've known for about 20 years. He has a son, Sean, who is 27 months. Sean is a brilliant, mischievous boy who can nearly read and knows to stop at the corner and grab daddy's hand before crossing. He also knows Uncle Jason and recognizes my disappearing act and so far he is not a fan.

The kicker is that Brian and his wife showed up with baby Sophia on the same day as Jim, his wife and little Sean. I was surrounded by wet, sloppy kisses of the adorable children of two of my closest friends in life. While this was so much fun and filled my heart with joy, there was something nagging at me so deeply the entire time that even the clean baby smell wafting toward me couldn't shake it.

Sophia is 9 months and Sean is 27 months. The last time I saw that little monkey he was 9 months old. I looked at one baby who stared back at me mostly vacantly and smiled most often from gas and then to the other who was more a little person than a baby and could peer into my soul as I held back tears and say, "what's wrong Uncle Jason?" the cute squeaky voice was enough to stem the tide of the tears so I could smile and say "Nothing Sean" and mostly mean it while while I hugged him. Incidentally, I could get choked up all over again recalling the story to memory in order to write it here.

The disparity in how they interact is obviously a function of time, but... it so clearly painted a picture for me. The felt difference in interacting with them is the exact amount of growth I had missed in Sean's life and the exact amount I've yet to miss in Sophia's - almost to the day - until I move home.

Sean is old enough to know I've left and that hurts. Sophia is too young to have a clue, making me a stranger on my return, and that hurts more. What hurts the most is that there is not a word in the English language that will explain it to either of them.

So for 20 months more I will endure and then I'll spend every available day doting on the beautiful children of my beautiful friends - all of whom have suffered at the hands of my decision to leave an entire decade prior, yet blindly supported me in my journey.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Interplanetary travel

Men may be from Mars and women from Venus according to some author, but if you want to really feel like you're on a different planet; you have to look beyond gender differences. This has nothing to do with the final space shuttle launch or NASA's shutdown or whatever is happening there. This is about the last 12 days that I've spent back up in NY and NJ.

Two days ago I had my 8th Air Force anniversary, so visiting home is old hat. However, in recent years I have been making my way home only around the holidays and my visits have been short and chock full of yuletide visits, leaving very little time to soak in the area, mentality and subsequently reflect. Additionally, I've been absorbing all I can from the Air Force, as a person. I have used my career in camouflage for personal and professional growth, both of which have greatly increased since I first laced up combat boots. I've now hit the second skinny part of the bell curve and the law of diminishing return has kicked in. With each passing day, I take away less from the Air Force than I did previously and most certainly less than I put in. As many of you know, I've decided to separate and move home. I've served my country and now I'm ready to serve my bank account and I want to do it from within a close proximity to my family. Father time is not kind so waiting another 12 years (or more) is not something I'm willing to do. I'm a mere 20 months away from being promoted to the rank of Mr. and I'm mentality ready for it.

I know this and you see it in me. I've curbed my disdain for waiting and my impatience by relying on the intrinsic value of the Air Force and all the positive experience I've had, but the light at the end of the proverbial tunnel is nearly blinding and I'm ready. I feel it in my life every day, as alone as I am in Mississippi. As I've said before, I have friends, some more wonderful than others, but they are a part of my life rather than actually being my life. And they have lives of their own. I need a life that is one I can truly embrace.

This week it became even more evident than ever. I felt more like my old self than I have since I can remember. Every day brought about more melding of my person with my area. I was able to recharge my batteries. If you're in Mississippi and you're reading this, consider what is expensive for home ownership. Now realize that I'm looking at condos that have 2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom and are about 1,100 square feet in the neighborhood of $430,000. I don't bat an eye at that. It's a lot of money, but I'm far from surprised. How many people have ever been on the 44th floor of a building? Have you ever been in a city where the women outnumber the men and more are beautiful than not? Would you consider giving a gift of $100 to someone because you haven't seen them in a while or is that an astronomical amount to throw around? The culture in New York City and its outlying areas is different from any place else in the world. I always thought my life was normal and the rest of the country was weird. As it turns out, I'm in the minority (despite the 8 million people floating around Manhattan at any given moment). Most of the country cannot fathom what we do.

It took me years to realize that people don't pay what we pay for homes. People don't go to Broadway shows on a random Monday night. $173 for lunch in Trump Tower is not commonplace. The thing is though... it is for me. That's MY life. I own suits that cost what I take home in a paycheck now. Nearly everyone is college educated and physically fit. There are so many people that the essence of Darwin surrounds us. There is no room for the weak and lazy. The stupid get eaten alive. And if you like to rock the boat and cause disturbances, you'll end up on the street. It's a well oiled machine of hustle and bustle and it makes me feel alive.

To the contrary, I look at most of my confederates in Mississippi (pun intended) and I see backbiting, undermining, high school spats, improper English, general disregard for life and success. And then I vomit up a little bit of happiness and hope for our country. I got an email on Facebook from someone who deleted and blocked me for no reason then unblocked me and requested I help her ruin someone else's career. The intended target is someone who behaved in a way everyone expected yet the email initiator ignored the warnings. Another isolated themselves from everyone they know and then cries out miserably when the fun of others is witnessed, yet keeps some of the old group within purview. People are constantly attempting to drag others into their pools of despair because misery loves company is not just a cliche to them.

Then I look back here. Everyone owns a home by 30. One friend is enlarging his home for a price tag more than the average Mississippian makes in a year. They travel. They vacation. They read. They're in touch with the world and culture. Four of us discussed at length the reasons for the demise of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and the success of Goldman Sachs as well as the roles of Hank Paulson, Dick Fuld and Jamie Dimon.

Do you see where this is going? This is not the arrogant "I'm better than you speech" you're claiming it is in your head right now. This is the exposition and exploitation of inexplicable differences between here and there. And to think that in less than 2 days, I'll take a 3 hour plane ride and arrive in that world. A world of complacency. A world where people would rather drag competition to their low level instead of rising to the high level of the competition. A world where laziness gets you everywhere and hard work is shunned.

The duality of this trip is that is motivates and demotivates me simultaneously. I cannot wait to get back and it makes me happy to know that it will be soon. I'm excited and pumped to jumpstart my life in less than 2 years. At the same time, all of the wind leaves my sails and extreme disappointment sets in when I admit that I have to return to Dante's 7th circle on Tuesday.

There is *some* solace in my return there. There are people who will be genuinely glad to see me; and I them. They take the edge off the lousiness that is Mississippi. They make it all just this side of bearable. The aloe to my geographical sunburn. But that doesn't make that lifestyle fit my persona.

Obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone with a Mississippi address, but this is a general culture that is promoted down there. I will no longer be a party to any of it. My business launches in three weeks (hopefully, vacation has gotten in the way of checking with my two lifesavers who are planning all of this) and I have bigger fish to fry.

Anyway, over the last 12 days I've seen just how far apart my life is compared to where it started. I really truly feel like these two places cannot be collocated on the same spinning orb in the sky sometimes. The best view of Mississippi is in the rear view mirror.

Stewardesses

Oops. We don't say that anymore, do we? Guess what? I do. The politically correct movement has gone so far that we change terms even when they aren't politically incorrect in the first place. 

The mailman is a letter carrier. There aren't waiters or waitresses anymore; they are servers. Like the late, great George Carlin said, we will have a personhood cover in the street and children will be afraid of the boogeyperson. And he was right. It's going to be that my cats will soon be Feline-Americans.

I'm so confused I can't keep up with this anymore. Some of them make sense and some needed to happen. I can see why we went to black from Negro - it's not like they mean the exact same thing. In all seriousness, it wasn't based on definition. It was connotation and the ignorant parties that made it negative. 

I happen to be on a plane at the moment so maybe that's why this one is on my mind, but I've always been confused about the move from Stewardess to Flight Attendant.  It's not a gender thing because we always had the male variant - Steward - in the rare event you see a male doing the job. Frankly most males doing the job are more feminine than the women doing it in the first place. That aside, the term steward or stewardess means, as I understand it, someone who has people put in their care or charge. 

They are singularly responsible for the well being of those in their territory. Isn't there some honor in that? Doesn't having the word "attendant" in your title make you feel closer to handing out cologne and mints in a bathroom than to a caregiver? What drove this change? Anything or was it change for the sake of change? Has anyone given it thought or am I just that bored? Maybe it's the Canadian Club whiskey at high altitudes. 

Anyway, I'm done here. I'm calling the stewardess for another mini bottle. 


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

It's good to be me

Just thought everyone should know that. You may disagree with me, but in my world, it's good to be me. My life is good. I love my job (90% of the time), I'm surrounded by terrific friends, I have a family that simply can't be beat, and I'm very often right about things. Haha. So I'm mostly kidding about the last part.

It's generally good to be me because I'm so driven. I refuse to take life sitting down and use my vision and drive to make things happen for me. One such thing is the creation of my new company. As many know, I've tried my hand at business after business over the years. First it was the home networking company. Then came the expansion of that into training, web design and consultation, called Tech-City. Branched from there was ProWriting where I'd review and edit documentation such as Non-Disclosure Agreements, Non-Compete Statements, resumes, offer letters and act as a non-legal arbiter. Tech-City also birthed MobileMedia that put technology in cars, long before everything was small and easy to do. Installed things like mini PCs or touchscreens in vehicles. Then I started JayVig Photography where I sold the prints of my photo work. In late 2009 I began to act as a freelance tech news writer for a news agency, started Vig The Geek technology/consumer gadget reviews and opened my YouTube channel. In 2010, JayVigMedia.com launched providing free advice for building your brand in the social space.

Now in the middle of 2011, most of those efforts are combining into a relaunch of JayVigMedia with the official forming of JayVigMedia, LLC. I have business partners and we are all ready to change the world. So many good ideas and amazing content coming soon. We have something to offer all brands from small businesses to large corporations. We've also identified some breakout markets that need social integration and are preparing to help inject it.

The support of people has been amazing and truly fuels my fire. I've had some comments made to me about my plans that are just so unbelievable. I can't begin to be thankful enough. My friends have always been there for me.

There is one reason for my successes (those so far and those yet to happen) and it is my ability to read people. Lately, I've fallen off a little bit but throughout my life my precision is second to none. I can spot a phony a mile away. I know who to invest in and how to short sell the hell out of. I know people.

You know what else I know about people? What they're feeling even when they don't say it. Remember my last post about Casey Anthony? The post was really about the judicial system, but Casey was the example du jour. In my article I defended the judicial system. I spoke of using facts to convict or acquit. Everyone said I was crazy. I knew the jury felt she was guilty, but did the right thing by looking for proof. Guess what happened? The jurors are coming out one-by-one saying that they were sick to their stomachs to let her go. They WANTED to convict her, but just couldn't. Deliberation was emotional. Men and women were crying and looking for a way to convict her, but as we all know... innocent until proven guilty. While they felt she was guilty, they couldn't prove it. So she's free. Just like I knew would happen. And the people who set her free, felt exactly how I knew they felt. I read this entire thing to a tee. Everyone went apeshit and yelled at me. Oops.

See? I know people.

The system works

So after all this time, the Casey Anthony case is over. She was found not guilty (take this info with you when you go back under your rock). Naturally, almost everyone is up in arms about the whole thing. Twitter is all atwitter, Google Buzz is all abuzz and Facebook is some other adjective about activity about the lack of faith in our judicial system and how it failed this time and even how it is a failed system in the first place. Tongue-in-cheek comments are pairing Casey and OJ together while mourning for Nicole Simpson and Caylee Anthony. It's a travesty that she has literally gotten away with murder - is the general thought that adorns my Facebook wall.

Let me say now that I feel she's more than likely guilty. I would have like to see her actually found guilty and get the maximum punishment. I think what happened to that child is disgusting. I think something went horribly awry during the trial that she gets to walk on the murder charge and gets hit only with a few counts of misinformation or some such nonsense. The guilty party, whoever that may be, should be brought to justice. Those are all just feelings. That being said, my faith in the judicial system overall has not been shaken. Here's why...

When considering murder in the first degree, we have something called reasonable doubt. In this case, Casey was just squeezed through it. To keep innocent people out of jail or prevent juries from convicting based on emotion, reasonable doubt comes into play. Basically, it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that it was her. This means that a jury has to look at the situation and believe that there's no way this person is innocent. 100% certainty is required. If they can reasonably attribute the crime to another person then they cannot convict. First degree murder includes intent to kill and premeditation, which brings the stiffer punishments.

I've heard people sing the praises of the work done by the prosecution. I disagree. If it was that outstanding, they would have won. Maybe they left a hole in the case or maybe she's just innocent. So has the system failed? Absolutely not. Maybe the jury selection process needs to be revamped or maybe this particular jury was just terrible. It's hard to imagine 12 people all wrongly coming to the same conclusion, but I suppose it's possible. What is an alternative? The judge cannot impose judgment as he is an impartial arbiter and a servant of the process. He is not there to opine, plus as the one that levies the sentence it would be a conflict of interest for him to also decide guilt. Having a judge, as a singular entity, decide does not provide a system of checks and balances (something instituted throughout our government). Even at the level of the Supreme Court, there is more than a single position (9 to be exact). A jury consists of 12 members, very specifically. An even amount serves the purpose of allowing a tie and not having the fate of the accused held in the balance by a natural lean one way or the other. The point is that an odd amount means a decision will always be reached, right or wrong.

Did the system and framework not work as intended? I don't think so. I think it worked just perfectly. Further, I think the innocent verdict further validates our system. Despite all the evidence that she was guilty, they could not convict. There was no proof. It was not 100%. That means the jury weighed the facts and did not convict on emotion. I can only imagine that all 12 felt in their hearts that she was guilty but stuck to their integrity and went on FACTS only. While the evidence was overwhelmingly strong that she was guilty, it was not 100%.

So maybe the prosecution didn't seal it up. Maybe the defense was convincing to protect their client. Maybe she was just innocent. I can't imagine that she is. Regardless, there was no collapse in the judicial system today. Did OJ kill his wife? Maybe. The system found him innocent. People screamed from the rooftops about money buying freedom. Where is he today? In jail for other crimes. So, when there was evidence of a crime he was convicted. That just goes to show that the system works and comparing Casey Anthony to OJ doesn't hold water.

To further consider doubt, let's look at Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler magazine. He attacked, nearly constantly, Jerry Falwell. He once said that Falwell molested a sheep and had sex with his mother. Falwell sued Flynt for libel - written defamation. The case was thrown out because of reasonable doubt. Nobody could reasonably believe that Falwell did those things and therefore it was considered satirical and not an actual accusation. What does this tell us in regards to Casey Anthony? It tells us that if you want to accuse someone of something and make it stick you have to make people truly believe it. You cannot leave room for the possibility that they did not do it. Not when lives hang in the balance.

The baby is dead and that is an awful and disgusting situation. Putting Casey to death or in prison forever while being unsure of her guilt is awful as well. I won't compare the levels of bad because they aren't parallel. I just mean that one wrong action doesn't beget another. Even if you live an eye for an eye, you have to make sure you're taking the eye of the perpetrator and not the person you believe did it.

I consider my point made here. I hope they find the killer if it is not Casey. Truly, I do. If it is her, then it's a shame the prosecution could not find the final piece of the puzzle to have her convicted. All I know is that I was not there. I didn't see the evidence. I didn't hear the testimony from the mindset of a juror. Truthfully, the only people that know what happened are the people present for the murder.

Oh, I also know that everyone reading this and even those that don't would be quick to scream if wrongfully accused (even casually). If anyone said "So-and-so told me that you cheated on your test/taxes/spouse" everyone would get pissed off and tell the deliverer of the message to mind their business/don't judge/you weren't there/etc. So, the institution of the courts and judicial system have spoken. She's been deemed innocent. For you to say she got away with murder implies you know something for a fact that the lawyers, judge and jurors should have known. If you do and haven't said anything, it's obstruction of justice and a crime in and of itself. How about that? If you don't then you're just deciding you know better having not been present for the event, the trial, or the deliberation. You can feel she's guilty (I do), but you can't decide she IS guilty. It's not our place.

One last note. 24 hours ago, the Internet was gushing with praise for the United States on our Independence Day. Support for our way of life, freedom, and our troops was a steady stream. Everyone was proud to be an American. Today, people are packing for Canada and have lost faith in the way we do things. Remember when I called you fickle not long ago? That's why.

The past is the past

This is going to surprise many people because as you all know, I'm FAR from a NASCAR fan. However, this isn't about NASCAR. This about passing judgment on someone and affecting them today for something they did long ago. If you're a NASCAR fan or just a red blooded American male and post-pubescent you know who Paige Duke is. For those of you don't know who she is, let me explain. She's the super hot, girl next door looking, Hooters girl turned NASCAR Sprint Cup hottie. But, sadly, that is no longer the case. Paige Duke has been relieved of duty.

Why you might ask. Ok, fine. I'll fill you in. Apparently, last week there were some photos of her that surfaced on a website. According to the news, they were graphic in nature. They were taken while she was a student of Clemson, getting her degree in Animal Science. So what we're saying is that a smart, educated, college graduate blessed with natural beauty who is paid by NASCAR with the purpose of being hot, was once young and slight inappropriate in front of a camera. Here is another case of prude Americans also being judgmental and allowing themselves to be engulfed in hypocrisy. Everyone was fine with staring at this beauty while she donned Sprint logos, but because she once, privately, doffed her clothes, she's no longer fit for NASCAR.

What confuses me is due to my lack of NASCAR knowledge. From that I know of it, cars turn left at unsafe speeds. Hillbillies gather around and drink too much while watching and cheering that the most violent accidents. They say it's the fastest growing sport in America, which makes me believe that they try to attract all demographics and all backgrounds. Surely, she can't be the only one that showcased the features God gave her for a lens. And she did it privately. Why don't we crucify the son of a bitch that leaked them to the press? What business is it of his to ruin her career (or at least part of it).

NASCAR, of course, places no responsibility on the pictures for the termination of her employment with them. Naturally, their statement is vague and generic - as to be expected then their general counsel and PR people get involved. She started with the Sprint Cup as Miss Sprint Cup at the start of the 2010 season. Of the 3 beauties that served that function, the other 2 are still active. She was terminated 4 days after the photos surfaced. So why do YOU think it happened?

Anyway, I guess what I'm driving at here is the fickle nature of us... once again. She's not a public servant. She's not an elected official. There are not children in her charge. Even if any of the above were true, these photos happened before any of it. So, she had a past. Just like me. Just like you. Just like the fat cat executives of NASCAR. I'm sure THEY'RE all squeaky clean. Mother Theresa and NASCAR execs all have a special place in heaven.

Nice job embarrassing the hell out of this poor girl. You should have, let it go, but if you couldn't see your way clear to do that, then you should have at least let her finish the season while the fanfare of the pics died down and then she simple doesn't come back next year. If it was about the pictures, that would have been more tactful. If it wasn't about the pictures, then it wouldn't have raised suspicion that it was.

Paige, we still love you. Who needs NASCAR? You're beautiful and smart. I'm sure your life will be just fine in whatever direction it takes next. Good luck. To the NASCAR/Sprint Cup execs - clearly you're a quart low. To America, where do you get off judging her?

Mark Halperin is fine

Here I am again, disgusted by the schoolyard bullying and baby handholding that goes on in America. Does anyone have thick skin anymore? You know what? Forget schoolyard stuff. In the schoolyard we used to say "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never harm me." It seems that's forgotten as we get older.

Yesterday, Time Magazine's Editor-in-Chief Mark Halperin is also a senior political analyst for MSNBC. He was on yesterday and he called President Obama a name. Oh boy. Here we go. Keep in mind that Halperin was an ardent support of Barack Obama during the campaign. In two years his views have changed. So, he called the president a dick. He said, "I thought [Obama] was a dick yesterday." Earth shattering.

Let me just say one thing from my end. If I'm not being a dick and you call me a dick, I couldn't give a shit less about it. Think what you want. I know my place and my actions and I know that I'm not a dick. Now, if I'm actually being a dick and you call me a dick, I'm probably gonna get a little pissed off about it. It stings when someone pegs you with a negative connotation. So why is the President getting the red-ass about it? Maybe because it's true.

So Halperin got suspended within a split second of saying it and posted a public apology. Are you kidding me? The guy gets paid to analyze a political situation and opine about it. So he did. What's the beef here? That one grown up called another grown up a grown up name? Was the FCC pissed? Can you even say dick on TV? I don't know. Are there children watching MSNBC that learned a dirty word?

Aren't we protected by something that allows us to speak our minds? What's that damn thing called? Oh yeah, The First Amendment of the Constitution protects our freedom of speech. Doesn't the first amendment specifically speak of freedom of the press as it applies to not worrying about repercussions from an overreaching government? So Mark Halperin, call the president a dick all day long, but only if you really believe it.

Every president, of late, has been called every name in the book. Look at Dubya... that guy got less respect than Rodney Dangerfield. Nobody said a damn thing about it. It's political commentary. It's opinion. What if he interchanged words. Instead of calling him a dick, he explained his feelings using other words. Realistically, he would still have a negative opinion of the president. So what we're really pissed off about is syntax? Do I have that right?

Let me make one thing clear. I'm not going to advocate for acting like a degenerate neanderthal that can only spit on themselves while cursing out high ranking officials. Let's keep things in perspective. But Mark Halperin is the Editor-in-Chief of Time Magazine and a Senior Political Analyst for MSNBC. Presumably, he's good at what he does and he's educated. He's also human and slipped and if anything, spoke a little too honestly for all the prudes out there. Let's not crucify a guy for saying a word we've all said just because he said it to a larger audience. You know why I haven't said the word dick to millions of Americans? I've never had an audience that large.

Grow up America and Mark, speak the truth brother. Somebody has to. I do, but nobody listens to me.

Gimme, Gimme, I want, I want

As many of my readers know (either through posts or personal interaction), I come from somewhat of a privileged life. I was blessed with an intact nuclear family, caring and nurturing parents, and no shortage of that green stuff. We always had way more than we needed and all of what we wanted. I've also been fortunate in my health, both of body and mind. Before laziness took its toll, I was very active in multiple sports - soccer, skiing, hockey, swimming, etc. I never struggled in school aside from finding the motivation to realize potential. Many things have come easy to me. I think it was a combination of mom's excitement and dad's work ethic. I always WANTED to do really well at things.

I may have expected some things to be handed to me along the way, at times. Why shouldn't they be? We were upper middle class from the New York City metro area. We were good, hard working, honest people. Dad went to work in a suit and tie with a briefcase, mon - fri, 9-5. Mom took care of the kids. It was a 1950s TV show flash-forwarded to the 80s/90s. I'm in my 30s now with a great job, but no career. I'm a year out from a divorce. My salary is a hair over my retail jobs from nearly a decade ago. I live in Biloxi, MS which requires a constant, conscious effort to slow down in movement, thoughts, and speech as to not leave the natives in the dust. I'm constrained by the military machine. There's no room for innovation or vision.

There's so much I want. I'm not content with a $60,000/year job. Not when I know I'm capable of so much more. I'm not even content with a $160,000/year job. It's decent money and would be an amazing upgrade right now, but that's not the kind of money you can look back on and realize you had it all. That's the kind of money you make in the NYC area after about 7-10 years of solid industry experience tied in with some management. I want a least another 0 on the end of that bad boy.

And nobody is going to give me what I want. It doesn't matter how smart I am or how badly I think I can manage something and sit in an ivory tower and direct people below me. Nobody is going to just hand it over. So... I'm going to take it. I have idea and vision. I see ways to innovate. I want to change the world. All the naysayers reading this are rolling their eyes and shaking their heads. That's fine. There's always someone with an idea or an ability and that person, hopefully, seizes the opportunity and makes it happen. It's gotta be someone, so might as well let that someone be me.

I'm finally organizing everything. Reworking all the brands I've worked so long to build a little at a time. Tech-City, Vig The Geek, JayVig Photography, JayVig Media. They are all coming together under one roof. An LLC will be formed in the near future. Brands will be defined along with services. I will stop trying to monetize everything and, in turn, end up monetizing nothing.

The company will have a clear mission statement and be defined the way a company should be. I'll no longer be doing all of it. There are others starting this company with me, each with our roles and checks and balances to keep it functioning. Real plan. Real business. Real money.

I don't know how long it will take, but I know we'll get there. I have so many ideas and want so many things and the bridge between the two is money. It's going to be a wild ride with so many unexpected events along the way, but I'm ready for them as is the rest of the team.

Stay tuned, because I'm about to (with the help of my team) make a lot of dreams come true.