Saturday, December 25, 2004
Christmas cheer from me to you :-)
I wish the best to you and yours, today and every day; my gift to you is to post a little humor rather than a lengthy essay. MERRY CHRISTMAS!! :-)
************ MEMO FROM SANTA ************
I regret to inform you that, effective immediately, I will no longer serve the States of Georgia, Florida, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Kentucky and Arkansas on Christmas Eve; due to the overwhelming current population of the Earth, my contract was renegotiated by North American Fairies and Elves Local 209 (and, as part of the new and better contract, I get longer breaks for milk and cookies, too).
However, I'm certain that your children will be in good hands with your local replacement, who happens to be my third cousin, Bubba Claus. His side of the family is from the South Pole. He shares my goal of delivering toys to all the good boys and girls; however, there are a few differences between us. Differences such as:
1. There is no danger of the Grinch stealing your presents from Bubba Claus. He has a gun rack on his sleigh, and a bumper sticker that reads: "These toys insured by Smith and Wesson."
2. Instead of milk and cookies, Bubba Claus prefers that children leave an RC Cola and pork rinds (or a moon pie) on the fireplace. And Bubba doesn't smoke a pipe. He dips a little snuff though, so please have an empty spit can handy.
3. Bubba Claus' sleigh is pulled by floppy-eared, flyin' coon dogs instead of reindeer (I made the mistake of loaning him one of my reindeer one time, and Blitzen's head now overlooks Bubba's fireplace).
4. You won't hear, "On Comet, on Cupid, on Donner and Blitzen..." when Bubba Claus arrives. Instead, you'll hear, "On Earnhardt, Andretti, on Elliott and Petty."
5. "Ho, Ho, Ho!" will be replaced by "Yee Haw!" And you also are likely to hear Bubba's elves respond, "I her'd dat!"
6. As required by Southern highway laws, Bubba Claus' sleigh does have a Yosemite Sam safety triangle on the back with the words "Back Off."
7. The usual Christmas movie classics such as "Miracle on 34th Street" and "It's a Wonderful Life" will not be shown in your negotiated viewing area. Instead, you'll see "Boss Hogg Saves Christmas" and "Smokey and the Bandit IV" featuring Burt Reynolds as Bubba Claus and dozens of state patrol cars crashing into each other.
And finally:
8. Bubba Claus doesn't wear a belt. If I were you, I'd make sure you, the wife, and the kids turn the other way when he bends over to put presents under the tree.
Sincerely Yours,
S. Claus
************ Wrapping Presents (With a Cat) ************
1. Clear large space on table for wrapping present.
2. Go to closet and collect bag in which present is contained, and close door.
3. Open door and remove cat from closet.
4. Go to cupboard and retrieve rolls of wrapping paper.
5. Go back and remove cat from cupboard.
6. Go to drawer and collect transparent tape, ribbons, scissors, labels, etc.
7. Lay out present and wrapping materials on table, to enable wrapping strategy to be formed.
8. Go back to drawer to get string, remove cat that has been in the drawer since last visit, and collect string.
9. Remove present from bag.
10. Remove cat from bag.
11. Open box to check present, remove cat from box, replace present.
12. Lay out paper to enable cutting to size.
13. Cut the paper to size, trying to keep the cutting line straight.
14. Throw away first sheet because cat tried to chase the scissors and tore the paper.
15. Cut second sheet of paper to size by putting cat in the bag the present came out of.
16. Place present on cut-to-size paper.
17. Lift up edges of paper to seal in present, wonder why edges now don't reach, and find cat between present and paper. Remove cat and retry.
18. Place object on paper, to hold in place, while cutting transparent tape.
19. Spend next 20 minutes carefully trying to remove transparent tape from cat with pair of nail scissors.
20. Seal paper down with transparent tape, making corners as neat as possible.
21. Look for roll of ribbon; chase cat down hall and retrieve ribbon.
22. Try to wrap present with ribbon in a two-directional turn.
23. Re-roll up ribbon and remove paper that is now torn, due to cat's enthusiasm in chasing ribbon end.
24. Repeat steps 12-22 until down to last sheet of paper.
25. Decide to skip steps 12-16 in order to save time and reduce risk of losing last sheet of paper. Retrieve old cardboard box that you know is right size for sheet of paper.
26. Put present in box, and tie down with string.
27. Remove string, open box and remove cat.
28. Put all packing materials in bag with present and head for lockable room.
29. Once inside room, lock door and start to re-lay out packing materials.
30. Remove cat from box, unlock door, put cat outside door, close door and re-lock.
31. Lay out last sheet of paper. (Admittedly this is difficult in the small area of the toilet, but try your best!)
32. Seal box, wrap with paper and start repairs by very carefully sealing down tears with transparent tape. Now tie up with ribbon and decorate with bows to hide worst affected areas.
33. Label, then sit back and admire your handiwork, congratulating yourself on making good of a bad job.
34. Unlock door, and go to kitchen to make drink and feed cat.
35. Spend next 15 minutes looking for cat, before coming to obvious conclusion.
36. Unwrap present, untie box and remove cat.
37. Retrieve all discarded sheets of wrapping paper, feed cat and retire to lockable room for last attempt, making certain you are alone and the door is locked.
38. At time of handing over present, smile sweetly at receiver's face, as they try and hide their contempt at being handed such a badly wrapped present.
39. Swear to yourself that next year, you will get the store to wrap the darn thing for you!!
************ MEMO FROM SANTA ************
I regret to inform you that, effective immediately, I will no longer serve the States of Georgia, Florida, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Kentucky and Arkansas on Christmas Eve; due to the overwhelming current population of the Earth, my contract was renegotiated by North American Fairies and Elves Local 209 (and, as part of the new and better contract, I get longer breaks for milk and cookies, too).
However, I'm certain that your children will be in good hands with your local replacement, who happens to be my third cousin, Bubba Claus. His side of the family is from the South Pole. He shares my goal of delivering toys to all the good boys and girls; however, there are a few differences between us. Differences such as:
1. There is no danger of the Grinch stealing your presents from Bubba Claus. He has a gun rack on his sleigh, and a bumper sticker that reads: "These toys insured by Smith and Wesson."
2. Instead of milk and cookies, Bubba Claus prefers that children leave an RC Cola and pork rinds (or a moon pie) on the fireplace. And Bubba doesn't smoke a pipe. He dips a little snuff though, so please have an empty spit can handy.
3. Bubba Claus' sleigh is pulled by floppy-eared, flyin' coon dogs instead of reindeer (I made the mistake of loaning him one of my reindeer one time, and Blitzen's head now overlooks Bubba's fireplace).
4. You won't hear, "On Comet, on Cupid, on Donner and Blitzen..." when Bubba Claus arrives. Instead, you'll hear, "On Earnhardt, Andretti, on Elliott and Petty."
5. "Ho, Ho, Ho!" will be replaced by "Yee Haw!" And you also are likely to hear Bubba's elves respond, "I her'd dat!"
6. As required by Southern highway laws, Bubba Claus' sleigh does have a Yosemite Sam safety triangle on the back with the words "Back Off."
7. The usual Christmas movie classics such as "Miracle on 34th Street" and "It's a Wonderful Life" will not be shown in your negotiated viewing area. Instead, you'll see "Boss Hogg Saves Christmas" and "Smokey and the Bandit IV" featuring Burt Reynolds as Bubba Claus and dozens of state patrol cars crashing into each other.
And finally:
8. Bubba Claus doesn't wear a belt. If I were you, I'd make sure you, the wife, and the kids turn the other way when he bends over to put presents under the tree.
Sincerely Yours,
S. Claus
************ Wrapping Presents (With a Cat) ************
1. Clear large space on table for wrapping present.
2. Go to closet and collect bag in which present is contained, and close door.
3. Open door and remove cat from closet.
4. Go to cupboard and retrieve rolls of wrapping paper.
5. Go back and remove cat from cupboard.
6. Go to drawer and collect transparent tape, ribbons, scissors, labels, etc.
7. Lay out present and wrapping materials on table, to enable wrapping strategy to be formed.
8. Go back to drawer to get string, remove cat that has been in the drawer since last visit, and collect string.
9. Remove present from bag.
10. Remove cat from bag.
11. Open box to check present, remove cat from box, replace present.
12. Lay out paper to enable cutting to size.
13. Cut the paper to size, trying to keep the cutting line straight.
14. Throw away first sheet because cat tried to chase the scissors and tore the paper.
15. Cut second sheet of paper to size by putting cat in the bag the present came out of.
16. Place present on cut-to-size paper.
17. Lift up edges of paper to seal in present, wonder why edges now don't reach, and find cat between present and paper. Remove cat and retry.
18. Place object on paper, to hold in place, while cutting transparent tape.
19. Spend next 20 minutes carefully trying to remove transparent tape from cat with pair of nail scissors.
20. Seal paper down with transparent tape, making corners as neat as possible.
21. Look for roll of ribbon; chase cat down hall and retrieve ribbon.
22. Try to wrap present with ribbon in a two-directional turn.
23. Re-roll up ribbon and remove paper that is now torn, due to cat's enthusiasm in chasing ribbon end.
24. Repeat steps 12-22 until down to last sheet of paper.
25. Decide to skip steps 12-16 in order to save time and reduce risk of losing last sheet of paper. Retrieve old cardboard box that you know is right size for sheet of paper.
26. Put present in box, and tie down with string.
27. Remove string, open box and remove cat.
28. Put all packing materials in bag with present and head for lockable room.
29. Once inside room, lock door and start to re-lay out packing materials.
30. Remove cat from box, unlock door, put cat outside door, close door and re-lock.
31. Lay out last sheet of paper. (Admittedly this is difficult in the small area of the toilet, but try your best!)
32. Seal box, wrap with paper and start repairs by very carefully sealing down tears with transparent tape. Now tie up with ribbon and decorate with bows to hide worst affected areas.
33. Label, then sit back and admire your handiwork, congratulating yourself on making good of a bad job.
34. Unlock door, and go to kitchen to make drink and feed cat.
35. Spend next 15 minutes looking for cat, before coming to obvious conclusion.
36. Unwrap present, untie box and remove cat.
37. Retrieve all discarded sheets of wrapping paper, feed cat and retire to lockable room for last attempt, making certain you are alone and the door is locked.
38. At time of handing over present, smile sweetly at receiver's face, as they try and hide their contempt at being handed such a badly wrapped present.
39. Swear to yourself that next year, you will get the store to wrap the darn thing for you!!
Friday, December 24, 2004
Have we lost our ability to judge age?
There's a vaguely scary show on The Learning Channel now called "10 Years Younger," the premise of which is to use non-surgical means to help people who look older than their ages look the age they actually are. The grimmest aspect of this show is when they put the victim in a soundproof box out on the street and poll people as to how old she looks; not only is it cruel to pass this information along to the victim, but the age-guessers have shown amazing consistency at making guesses that are so far off that you're left wondering if they got PAID to add years to their actual guesses.
I've been dead-on in guessing the correct ages for these women, despite the fact that they all have things like sun damage that give the appearance of them being SLIGHTLY older than they are; it's not rocket science to look for lines and crepiness and sag and use that info to calculate age, or at least I didn't think it was. Even if people are fooled by premature undereye bags or whatever, that should only add a few years to their estimates, but I've sat and watched people guess these women to be as much as THIRTY-FIVE years older than they actually are!! Are they out of their MINDS? I saw one idiot look at a woman (who was 28) without a line on her face or a single gray hair and declare her to appear to be in her SIXTIES... based on WHAT, wouldn't you like to know? The age-guessers will say something like "Her glasses make her look sort of older," and then guess her age to be 20 years more than it is... even though glasses shouldn't add ANYTHING to our estimate of age (as they're NOT part of the face), much less 20 years.
I'll be blunt; they're showing these women with no makeup, and with their hair hanging limp or pulled back, and what they look like is HOMELY, not "old"... yes, their skin issues might add a little valid "aging" to them, but if *I* can guess their exact ages, there's no reason for all of these other people not to be able to, much less to be DECADES off, so the only thing they can be responding to, albeit stupidly, is unattractiveness, which they're misinterpreting as some of the women being DOUBLE their actual age. When did we become so dissociated from how a normal human being should look that if we see anything imperfect on a woman's face we see her as being her mother's age? Have we lost touch as a culture with what actual signs of aging ARE?
If a person has no lines on their face and no gray hair, it doesn't matter how bad their skin is, or if they wear glasses or not, or how their hair is styled, or how much they weigh, any reasonable estimate for their age should be under 30, and if their cheeks are still round and soft-looking you should guess under 25. As the faces start to lose the plumpness under the skin and start to get lines, you can safely guess 30's and then 40's. For the 50's, there should be major lines and some gray hair (unless it's dyed, of course), and if someone doesn't have true wrinkles and a full head of gray hair, you should under no circumstances be guessing 60's. It seems silly to have to be saying any of this, but the consistency with which people see a little bit of a belly and a pallid complexion and guess at least a decade wrong, and often more, has been driving me so nuts that I felt obligated to speak up.
What's the cause of the warped perceptions of these people? The only thing I can think of is; actresses. Folks, we need to stop seeing actresses as having ANY connection to reality; they're genetic freaks, with size 2 bodies that are rare because they're not well suited for pregnancy and childbirth, breast implants, and endless surgical procedures on their faces to banish any hint of aging... it is NOT normal to see women in their 50's and 60's, or even in their 30's and 40's, with perfectly smooth, tight faces, and we need to totally ignore these special cases when we contemplate what a given age looks like. We need to stop passing hideous judgment on every woman who isn't bone-thin and beautiful, who hasn't paid $500 to have her hair done, who wasn't dressed by a stylist, who isn't being made up, lit and photographed by pros being paid to make her look fabulous.
There's no harm in giving women facial peels and showing them how to put themselves together a little bit better, but to make them pay for this by publicly humiliating them by showing the most mean-spirited and moronic guesses about their age on national television is HORRIBLE. TLC usually has good programs, but I give this one, and all those people who've jumped in front of a camera to crush women's egos by wildly mis-guessing their ages, 2 thumbs WAY down.
I've been dead-on in guessing the correct ages for these women, despite the fact that they all have things like sun damage that give the appearance of them being SLIGHTLY older than they are; it's not rocket science to look for lines and crepiness and sag and use that info to calculate age, or at least I didn't think it was. Even if people are fooled by premature undereye bags or whatever, that should only add a few years to their estimates, but I've sat and watched people guess these women to be as much as THIRTY-FIVE years older than they actually are!! Are they out of their MINDS? I saw one idiot look at a woman (who was 28) without a line on her face or a single gray hair and declare her to appear to be in her SIXTIES... based on WHAT, wouldn't you like to know? The age-guessers will say something like "Her glasses make her look sort of older," and then guess her age to be 20 years more than it is... even though glasses shouldn't add ANYTHING to our estimate of age (as they're NOT part of the face), much less 20 years.
I'll be blunt; they're showing these women with no makeup, and with their hair hanging limp or pulled back, and what they look like is HOMELY, not "old"... yes, their skin issues might add a little valid "aging" to them, but if *I* can guess their exact ages, there's no reason for all of these other people not to be able to, much less to be DECADES off, so the only thing they can be responding to, albeit stupidly, is unattractiveness, which they're misinterpreting as some of the women being DOUBLE their actual age. When did we become so dissociated from how a normal human being should look that if we see anything imperfect on a woman's face we see her as being her mother's age? Have we lost touch as a culture with what actual signs of aging ARE?
If a person has no lines on their face and no gray hair, it doesn't matter how bad their skin is, or if they wear glasses or not, or how their hair is styled, or how much they weigh, any reasonable estimate for their age should be under 30, and if their cheeks are still round and soft-looking you should guess under 25. As the faces start to lose the plumpness under the skin and start to get lines, you can safely guess 30's and then 40's. For the 50's, there should be major lines and some gray hair (unless it's dyed, of course), and if someone doesn't have true wrinkles and a full head of gray hair, you should under no circumstances be guessing 60's. It seems silly to have to be saying any of this, but the consistency with which people see a little bit of a belly and a pallid complexion and guess at least a decade wrong, and often more, has been driving me so nuts that I felt obligated to speak up.
What's the cause of the warped perceptions of these people? The only thing I can think of is; actresses. Folks, we need to stop seeing actresses as having ANY connection to reality; they're genetic freaks, with size 2 bodies that are rare because they're not well suited for pregnancy and childbirth, breast implants, and endless surgical procedures on their faces to banish any hint of aging... it is NOT normal to see women in their 50's and 60's, or even in their 30's and 40's, with perfectly smooth, tight faces, and we need to totally ignore these special cases when we contemplate what a given age looks like. We need to stop passing hideous judgment on every woman who isn't bone-thin and beautiful, who hasn't paid $500 to have her hair done, who wasn't dressed by a stylist, who isn't being made up, lit and photographed by pros being paid to make her look fabulous.
There's no harm in giving women facial peels and showing them how to put themselves together a little bit better, but to make them pay for this by publicly humiliating them by showing the most mean-spirited and moronic guesses about their age on national television is HORRIBLE. TLC usually has good programs, but I give this one, and all those people who've jumped in front of a camera to crush women's egos by wildly mis-guessing their ages, 2 thumbs WAY down.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Some people give Christianity a bad name
If you've been reading here for a while, you know that I respect, and see wisdom in, ALL religions, and that I believe the vast majority of people of all religions to be basically good... but that a handful of badly-behaved people can tarnish the reputation of all followers of a faith.
I have many Christian friends, both in real life and online, and we've found it simple to show respect for each other, and for each other's beliefs, because it IS simple to do these things; furthermore, we're all the kind of people who'll step in if we see someone being bashed for what they believe, and I've been amazed to see how often Christians get attacked just for being Christian... they get attacked far more than people with odd metaphysical beliefs like mine ever do. Because prejudice is so far from my mode of thought, I've never understood where the urge to launch flamewars against people just because they mentioned being Christian comes from; sure, I can see why it happens if someone shows up and uses their Christianity to start judging and criticizing people, and I can see how those who act that way can make others a little edgy about Christians hanging around, but there just isn't enough of this going on to account for the rabid anti-Christian sentiment I've seen, so... what gives?
As best as I can determine (as people aren't usually willing to describe honestly why they act hatefully towards others), it's a backlash against that tiny % of Christians who treat non-Christians with condescension and thinly-veiled contempt... contrary to how JESUS is described as having treated people, which makes me wonder how those folks can call themselves Christians, but that's a whole other rant. You know the type I mean; people who think that if you don't believe EXACTLY what they do, you're so far inferior to them that you're essentially sub-human, and thus that they owe you no shred of courtesy or respect, even if you're supposed to be their friend. As you might imagine, this whole concept is on my mind because I was on the receiving end of this today:
A man I've known online, and corresponded with, for about 4 years sent me an email that directed me to a site dedicated to demonstrating that the founding fathers were Christian (which most of them certainly were), and how therefore every aspect of our country and government "should be" run according to Christian values. I replied to this email by saying that I appreciated him thinking of me but that, as a non-Christian, I don't support the idea of religion being part of our governmental structure, or being paid for with my tax dollars, and that I didn't want to receive anything further with religious content. His response... and my jaw is clenching just thinking about it... was that:
1) It was too bad that I was "ignorant" about American history... as if my not reaching the conclusions he did meant that I was IGNORANT rather than just approaching the analysis from a different perspective... as if only an ignorant person could disagree with a Christian interpretation of the facts on that website.
2) He'd KNOWN already that I wasn't a Christian... then what possible excuse did he have for sending me the URL to a hard-core Christian website?
3) He thought it was "alright" that I wasn't Christian... could he be any more condescending?
4) Well, he though it was alright as long as I didn't try to force any of MY ideas about things on HIM... right after he'd forced HIS ideas on ME, can you believe the hypocrisy?!!!!!!!
As you might imagine, this sort of commentary brings to my mind a 2-word response, and the 2nd word is "YOU." I restrained myself, however, and instead replied that it was NOT acceptable to suggest that someone who disagreed with him was "ignorant," or to send Christian emails to a non-Christian, or to push his ideas at someone while denying them the right to respond in kind... and that, as his actions showed me he was NOT my friend, it was time for us to stop writing to each other. {sigh}
I'm sure that no one reading this would behave the way this man did, but if you're Christian, and into forwarding religious-themed emails, ask yourself; are you SURE that everyone you forward to is Christian, and welcomes what you send them? If not, you could be unknowingly adding to the resentment that some people, who've been treated with contempt by someone like the man I've referred to, feel against Christians... and that's NOT your intention, right? Before you send out a flood of Christmas emails, take a moment to sort out who you should and should not be sending religious ones to; if you REALLY want to strike a blow against anti-Christian backlash, send an email to all your Christian friends and ask them if THEY might be sending religious emails to non-Christians, and if so, if they shouldn't re-think who they forward stuff to. Or... send them my URL, so they can read this for themselves; they'll get the picture, and you'll get some good karma for your elimination of sources of negative energy.
I have many Christian friends, both in real life and online, and we've found it simple to show respect for each other, and for each other's beliefs, because it IS simple to do these things; furthermore, we're all the kind of people who'll step in if we see someone being bashed for what they believe, and I've been amazed to see how often Christians get attacked just for being Christian... they get attacked far more than people with odd metaphysical beliefs like mine ever do. Because prejudice is so far from my mode of thought, I've never understood where the urge to launch flamewars against people just because they mentioned being Christian comes from; sure, I can see why it happens if someone shows up and uses their Christianity to start judging and criticizing people, and I can see how those who act that way can make others a little edgy about Christians hanging around, but there just isn't enough of this going on to account for the rabid anti-Christian sentiment I've seen, so... what gives?
As best as I can determine (as people aren't usually willing to describe honestly why they act hatefully towards others), it's a backlash against that tiny % of Christians who treat non-Christians with condescension and thinly-veiled contempt... contrary to how JESUS is described as having treated people, which makes me wonder how those folks can call themselves Christians, but that's a whole other rant. You know the type I mean; people who think that if you don't believe EXACTLY what they do, you're so far inferior to them that you're essentially sub-human, and thus that they owe you no shred of courtesy or respect, even if you're supposed to be their friend. As you might imagine, this whole concept is on my mind because I was on the receiving end of this today:
A man I've known online, and corresponded with, for about 4 years sent me an email that directed me to a site dedicated to demonstrating that the founding fathers were Christian (which most of them certainly were), and how therefore every aspect of our country and government "should be" run according to Christian values. I replied to this email by saying that I appreciated him thinking of me but that, as a non-Christian, I don't support the idea of religion being part of our governmental structure, or being paid for with my tax dollars, and that I didn't want to receive anything further with religious content. His response... and my jaw is clenching just thinking about it... was that:
1) It was too bad that I was "ignorant" about American history... as if my not reaching the conclusions he did meant that I was IGNORANT rather than just approaching the analysis from a different perspective... as if only an ignorant person could disagree with a Christian interpretation of the facts on that website.
2) He'd KNOWN already that I wasn't a Christian... then what possible excuse did he have for sending me the URL to a hard-core Christian website?
3) He thought it was "alright" that I wasn't Christian... could he be any more condescending?
4) Well, he though it was alright as long as I didn't try to force any of MY ideas about things on HIM... right after he'd forced HIS ideas on ME, can you believe the hypocrisy?!!!!!!!
As you might imagine, this sort of commentary brings to my mind a 2-word response, and the 2nd word is "YOU." I restrained myself, however, and instead replied that it was NOT acceptable to suggest that someone who disagreed with him was "ignorant," or to send Christian emails to a non-Christian, or to push his ideas at someone while denying them the right to respond in kind... and that, as his actions showed me he was NOT my friend, it was time for us to stop writing to each other. {sigh}
I'm sure that no one reading this would behave the way this man did, but if you're Christian, and into forwarding religious-themed emails, ask yourself; are you SURE that everyone you forward to is Christian, and welcomes what you send them? If not, you could be unknowingly adding to the resentment that some people, who've been treated with contempt by someone like the man I've referred to, feel against Christians... and that's NOT your intention, right? Before you send out a flood of Christmas emails, take a moment to sort out who you should and should not be sending religious ones to; if you REALLY want to strike a blow against anti-Christian backlash, send an email to all your Christian friends and ask them if THEY might be sending religious emails to non-Christians, and if so, if they shouldn't re-think who they forward stuff to. Or... send them my URL, so they can read this for themselves; they'll get the picture, and you'll get some good karma for your elimination of sources of negative energy.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
The drive to succeed
Can you imagine what it would take for a man to start out with nothing, father a child at 14, and then end up 25 years later, via his own efforts, worth over half a BILLION dollars? One of the contestants on "The Real Gilligan's Island" is the man I just described, and, although he isn't a physically studly man, and didn't give any overt evidence of being particularly intelligent or forceful, my first thought was that if he could achieve what they said he had, he'd be unbeatable in this competition, too... and I was RIGHT. He was thinking things out to the last detail from the moment he got to the island, scheming and planning, and facing each challenge with the sort of determination you'd expect him to have to possess... and, even though the others SHOULD have seen the danger he presented and gotten rid of him early on, he manipulated every vote, got into the final 3, and then pressed forward to win the final competition by a mile.
To keep things exciting, they didn't show much of his strategy sessions with his wife, or of the meetings he had with the others to gather info and exert control, but he MUST have an extraordinary grasp of human nature and psychology, and his powers of persuasion must also be pretty amazing, given how he kept getting people to do things his way; if they had footage of everything he did and said on that island, I'd love to see it, to see an obvious master in action... don't YOU wonder how certain people manage to triumph in EVERY situation they're in, and wouldn't you like to learn their secrets? Wouldn't that be WAY more interesting than seeing people eat live maggots?
What would make a man worth over $500 million go and starve on an island to win a prize he wouldn't be allowed to keep, and couldn't care about if he DID keep it? The challenge. The desire to take on something new and conquer. I think this is a better indicator of who might make the big, BIG $ than the desire for $ itself, or than any other desire, including the desire to win; the pure, primal desire to achieve, overcome, and outperform everyone else... the win, the prize, the rewards, are secondary. This is why so many self-made men barely seem to use or enjoy the $ they have, because they're so busy scaling new mountains, business-wise. Why climb a mountain? Because it's there. Why leave your mansion to live in a hut and participate in a TV competition? Because it's THERE. I can't begin to understand that mindset, but I admire it enormously, because it gets things done, and inspires others to get things done... and there's something appealing about success that comes from something other than being genetically gifted with beauty or athletic prowess.
Will we be seeing other wealthy men getting involved in these reality show competitions just to show they can win at ANYTHING? Count on it.
To keep things exciting, they didn't show much of his strategy sessions with his wife, or of the meetings he had with the others to gather info and exert control, but he MUST have an extraordinary grasp of human nature and psychology, and his powers of persuasion must also be pretty amazing, given how he kept getting people to do things his way; if they had footage of everything he did and said on that island, I'd love to see it, to see an obvious master in action... don't YOU wonder how certain people manage to triumph in EVERY situation they're in, and wouldn't you like to learn their secrets? Wouldn't that be WAY more interesting than seeing people eat live maggots?
What would make a man worth over $500 million go and starve on an island to win a prize he wouldn't be allowed to keep, and couldn't care about if he DID keep it? The challenge. The desire to take on something new and conquer. I think this is a better indicator of who might make the big, BIG $ than the desire for $ itself, or than any other desire, including the desire to win; the pure, primal desire to achieve, overcome, and outperform everyone else... the win, the prize, the rewards, are secondary. This is why so many self-made men barely seem to use or enjoy the $ they have, because they're so busy scaling new mountains, business-wise. Why climb a mountain? Because it's there. Why leave your mansion to live in a hut and participate in a TV competition? Because it's THERE. I can't begin to understand that mindset, but I admire it enormously, because it gets things done, and inspires others to get things done... and there's something appealing about success that comes from something other than being genetically gifted with beauty or athletic prowess.
Will we be seeing other wealthy men getting involved in these reality show competitions just to show they can win at ANYTHING? Count on it.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Updates
On 11-9, I posted about the nightmare we'd gotten into with renting DVD's via the online Blockbuster setup; the DVD's had just stopped coming, because their system showed they'd never gotten any of them back from us... and we were still PAYING for the service. On 11-19, I posted that 2 of the DVD's showed up in my husband's car, and we sent them in; we got a couple more DVD's, and then nothing again... because, as we've since found out, the Blockbuster system had wiped out our list of DVD's, and it took several weeks for my husband (whose account it is, grrrrr) to notice it. They credited us with 2 free weeks, which doesn't make up for what we lost out on but is better than nothing, we re-did the list, and today we got DVD's in the mail... THREE DVD's. No, we never found the 3rd "missing" one in our home, which means that either the post office took TWO MONTHS to send a returned DVD a distance that usually takes them 2 DAYS, or Blockbuster had the frigging thing all along and never credited us with it, leaving us without getting replacement DVD's for it for, I'll say it again because it ticks me off so much, TWO MONTHS... I know that the post office is a disaster, but given the other issues with Blockbuster online, I'm betting this is THEIR screwup. I'm trying to focus on the fact that we DON'T have any DVD's showing in their system as outstanding anymore, and so can cancel the service without having to pay full retail for a missing movie (if and when I can get it through my husband's thick head that we need to cut our losses while we can), but it's tough.
On 11-30, I posted about trying organic steak, and finding it gamey-tasting; it turns out that Whole Foods has another variety of beef that they call "natural," which also doesn't have the hormones and antibiotics, but wasn't fed organically... and these steaks were VERY good. I'm willing to try organic one more time, just to be sure, but if it's just not the flavor I eat beef to get, we'll go with "natural"; they only cost a little more than regular steaks, so I'd recommend trying them if you have a Whole Foods near you (and while you're there, try the Paisanitos plantain chips-YUM!!).
On 12-8, I posted about the importance of letting go, and how I did just that with a protracted feud I'd had with an eBay seller from whom I'd won a very unusual clothing item (that I ended up not having while she kept our $), and how, as a karmic result of that letting go, I'd won THREE similar items for stunningly low prices; the update is that, not only have I gotten them all and been very happy with them, but that I won a FOURTH one... an item that has been selling for $75-$80, which I got for $10 with a Buy It Now. I got it in the mail today, along with the equally miraculous 3 DVD's, and it's in mint condition; I don't know which of the 2 was more surreal.
Never a dull moment, lol.
On 11-30, I posted about trying organic steak, and finding it gamey-tasting; it turns out that Whole Foods has another variety of beef that they call "natural," which also doesn't have the hormones and antibiotics, but wasn't fed organically... and these steaks were VERY good. I'm willing to try organic one more time, just to be sure, but if it's just not the flavor I eat beef to get, we'll go with "natural"; they only cost a little more than regular steaks, so I'd recommend trying them if you have a Whole Foods near you (and while you're there, try the Paisanitos plantain chips-YUM!!).
On 12-8, I posted about the importance of letting go, and how I did just that with a protracted feud I'd had with an eBay seller from whom I'd won a very unusual clothing item (that I ended up not having while she kept our $), and how, as a karmic result of that letting go, I'd won THREE similar items for stunningly low prices; the update is that, not only have I gotten them all and been very happy with them, but that I won a FOURTH one... an item that has been selling for $75-$80, which I got for $10 with a Buy It Now. I got it in the mail today, along with the equally miraculous 3 DVD's, and it's in mint condition; I don't know which of the 2 was more surreal.
Never a dull moment, lol.
Monday, December 20, 2004
Why do women love a man in uniform?
Because a uniform is seen as an indication that a man:
1) Has enough physical prowess to have gone through training of some sort; military types have to get through boot camp, cops have the police academy, and firemen have a rigorous training program (sometimes with the exception of volunteer firefighters, but they're extra-heroic, which makes up for it)... and this bodes well both for sex and his potential to sire strong, healthy offspring.
2) Has at least some degree of courage, and very likely a great deal of courage; his willingness to risk death to serve his country, protect us from criminals, or fight fires means that he's likely to be an excellent protector of his loved ones.
3) Could quite possibly be a hero, if not now then at some point in the future; this makes him exciting and glamorous, and gives him high status that will impress a woman's friends and family.
4) Has gainful employment with good benefits; this makes him good husband and father material.
5) Can make a commitment to something, to a group of people as well as to an ideal; no explanation should be necessary for this one.
As a bonus, a uniform provides an important element of attraction that is direct rather than implied:
6) It looks sharp; most men's clothing, whether business, casual or formal, is baggy and either shapeless or blocky, and makes even the nicest male body look like a lump... but the trim fit of a uniform makes any halfway decent male body look tall and toned.
Most women haven't thought this stuff out, of course, but they're always unconsciously aware of what it means to see a uniform on a man... so much so that they even get worked up over the ugly "uniforms" that UPS guys wear, even though all THEY actually indicate is that those men have no job skills and so are stuck driving around all day delivering packages. The purpose of uniforms isn't to attract women, of course, but considering the sorts of services that men in uniform provide, it's certainly a well-deserved side effect.
1) Has enough physical prowess to have gone through training of some sort; military types have to get through boot camp, cops have the police academy, and firemen have a rigorous training program (sometimes with the exception of volunteer firefighters, but they're extra-heroic, which makes up for it)... and this bodes well both for sex and his potential to sire strong, healthy offspring.
2) Has at least some degree of courage, and very likely a great deal of courage; his willingness to risk death to serve his country, protect us from criminals, or fight fires means that he's likely to be an excellent protector of his loved ones.
3) Could quite possibly be a hero, if not now then at some point in the future; this makes him exciting and glamorous, and gives him high status that will impress a woman's friends and family.
4) Has gainful employment with good benefits; this makes him good husband and father material.
5) Can make a commitment to something, to a group of people as well as to an ideal; no explanation should be necessary for this one.
As a bonus, a uniform provides an important element of attraction that is direct rather than implied:
6) It looks sharp; most men's clothing, whether business, casual or formal, is baggy and either shapeless or blocky, and makes even the nicest male body look like a lump... but the trim fit of a uniform makes any halfway decent male body look tall and toned.
Most women haven't thought this stuff out, of course, but they're always unconsciously aware of what it means to see a uniform on a man... so much so that they even get worked up over the ugly "uniforms" that UPS guys wear, even though all THEY actually indicate is that those men have no job skills and so are stuck driving around all day delivering packages. The purpose of uniforms isn't to attract women, of course, but considering the sorts of services that men in uniform provide, it's certainly a well-deserved side effect.
Sunday, December 19, 2004
Do some of us marry ourselves?
I don't have any interest in actors for the most part, so the picture in the November issue of Vogue of Jerry and Jessica Seinfeld is the first time I've ever seen her; my first reaction was, why would someone rich and famous enough to have his pick of the world's most beautiful women marry one who's barely any better looking than average? I then took a look at HIM, and my reaction was to wonder if it was a trick photo... because they look exactly alike. Same jawline, same chin, same cheekbones, even the same hairline; same skin, hair and eye color, both with similar biggish noses. They look more alike than most brothers and sisters do... and this is the woman he picked over all the beautiful supermodels and such that he could have easily chosen instead.
Can that be a coincidence?
While some folks are certainly attracted to the wildly different, some to the extreme that they won't even date people of their same race, it does seem that some of us are drawn to those who look like they could be members of our biological family. It's not uncommon, for example, for a woman to prefer men who remind her of her father, sometimes even including agewise; there's generally an overt idolization of "daddy" in these cases, and a search for a substitute father figure. In some people, there's more of a tendency to feel "right" with those who have a familiar "look" to them, which still makes sense when you think about it, as they probably feel most "right" around their family; they may not even be aware of it until someone points it out to them, though, so for them it's more of a subconscious thing. The real eye-popper, and the trickiest to explain, is of course cases like Seinfeld's, when people choose mates who are their virtual clones; this is easiest to see with gay couples, and my husband and I have noted every time we eat at a restaurant in the primarily gay part of our city that members of a couple often bear a striking resemblance to each other, right down to things like having the same goofy patch of hair in the middle of their identical bald spots, or having hair with the exact same style and pattern of streaks... they even tend to dress similarly, although this could have started after they got together, of course. I have a friend who married a man that everyone assumes is her brother (they're a perfect physical match right down to the gaps in their front teeth), and I've noticed less-dramatic resemblances any # of times... it's even been commented on more than once that my husband and I have a similar "look" due to our coloring and build.
But, WHY does this happen? Why do people make that sort of choice? Even those who truly love themselves wouldn't necessarily extend that to wanting to see what's essentially their own faces on their partners, and it's not like all of these folks are so beautiful that they think that the most beautiful possible partner is one who looks just like them, so... maybe it's something as simple as the idea that whoever resembles us the most on the outside might resemble us the most on the inside, or that if we look alike it must be fate for us to be together?
I've read that couples who have the same DEGREE of looks, in other words who are both the same on a scale of 1 to 10, are the happiest together; wouldn't it be interesting if people who looked alike were happier together too?
Can that be a coincidence?
While some folks are certainly attracted to the wildly different, some to the extreme that they won't even date people of their same race, it does seem that some of us are drawn to those who look like they could be members of our biological family. It's not uncommon, for example, for a woman to prefer men who remind her of her father, sometimes even including agewise; there's generally an overt idolization of "daddy" in these cases, and a search for a substitute father figure. In some people, there's more of a tendency to feel "right" with those who have a familiar "look" to them, which still makes sense when you think about it, as they probably feel most "right" around their family; they may not even be aware of it until someone points it out to them, though, so for them it's more of a subconscious thing. The real eye-popper, and the trickiest to explain, is of course cases like Seinfeld's, when people choose mates who are their virtual clones; this is easiest to see with gay couples, and my husband and I have noted every time we eat at a restaurant in the primarily gay part of our city that members of a couple often bear a striking resemblance to each other, right down to things like having the same goofy patch of hair in the middle of their identical bald spots, or having hair with the exact same style and pattern of streaks... they even tend to dress similarly, although this could have started after they got together, of course. I have a friend who married a man that everyone assumes is her brother (they're a perfect physical match right down to the gaps in their front teeth), and I've noticed less-dramatic resemblances any # of times... it's even been commented on more than once that my husband and I have a similar "look" due to our coloring and build.
But, WHY does this happen? Why do people make that sort of choice? Even those who truly love themselves wouldn't necessarily extend that to wanting to see what's essentially their own faces on their partners, and it's not like all of these folks are so beautiful that they think that the most beautiful possible partner is one who looks just like them, so... maybe it's something as simple as the idea that whoever resembles us the most on the outside might resemble us the most on the inside, or that if we look alike it must be fate for us to be together?
I've read that couples who have the same DEGREE of looks, in other words who are both the same on a scale of 1 to 10, are the happiest together; wouldn't it be interesting if people who looked alike were happier together too?
