Peanuts and Cracker Jacks

Once every couple of weeks a nice guy I work with comes in to the office. I think he's actually supposed to be here a couple of times per week, and somehow works it out to come in like twice a month. 


Perhaps it's his scarcity or just his winning personality but when he's here, several other guys in my office flock to his cubicle like baptists to a river. On the one hand, I don't mind, I understand that his friends want to talk to him. On the other hand, it's mildly annoying. Noise pollution, you know?
My boss (who is also a nice guy) seems particularly bonded with Johnny come lately. I think they have the same tastes in music and they're on the same fantasy baseball league.
Fantasy baseball? What's that you ask? It allows the average Joe to live out one of his basic daydreams since time immemorial (or his ninth birthday): be in charge of a professional sports team. Pick a draft. Have the winningest team in town.


So, Johnny and my boss sit and talk and whisper like school girls for easily 30 to 40 minutes at Johnny's desk. Tittering away like children about their teams. Gossiping about the players' performances and their draft picks and who they'd like on their team but didn't get. And who's doing well unexpectedly and who should be doing better and oh my fucking god there are 60,000 baseball players and like 300,000 games per season so the conversation could go on for an eternity.
Their passion is astounding. And their dedication never ceases to amaze me. And I don't think I have ever sat around with my girlfriends and talked shit about some celebrity's life for as long as these guys talk shit about baseball.

Lady Gaga

From TerrysDiary.com

There was a time when I used to post things about celebrities that were critical. And then I stopped. I realized that I am not The Superficial and quite frankly I started to feel a little like an asshole about it. Although, I do think my posts quoting stupid things celebrities say is a poignant comment about the over-reverence they receive in our society. Not to mention what an insecure lap dog you have to be to pursue that lifestyle in the first place; it's a little sad. And yes, any celebrity you see frequently in a magazine is 100% pursuing THAT lifestyle. I'm talking the Jolie-Pitts, LiLo, Aniston, you know, the US Weekly crew. There are many highly famous, beautiful, intriguing people who  come out only when they have to promote a film. So, I read these quotes from the fame-seekers and I have to laugh because they believe in their own cult of personality. They're so..patronizing. And they lie blatantly, which is fine. But they lie under the pretense of complete honesty, to get you to like them more. And that's a little sad too.


Anyways. Lady Gaga. PUH LEASE STOP WITH THAT WEIRD THING YOU DO WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR HAND INTO A CLAW. IT LOOKS REALLY DUMB. You send out a great message, You are talented, but thanking your "little monsters" in every interview kind of makes you sound like a jerk. There has to be some other noun you could have picked to homogenize your fan base. Leprechauns would have been more thought provoking. But "monsters?" And the claw thing? I mean if you only did it during your concerts or something, fine. But you do it ALL the TIME. Like it's cool. It's old and wasn't clever to begin with. It's like you're oh, I don't know, trying to force yourself on to every single person who sees you. Not that wearing weird outfits is doing that at all. 

Ps and Qs

"Some will argue we shouldn't even consider raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans," said Obama. "It's just an article of faith for them. I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I don't need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut."


Who says the wealthiest people in this country are the most fortunate? Sure, many wealthy people are products of nepotism. But, many others are people who had nothing to lose in the first place mixed with a dash of ingenuity and ambition. 


Democrats see all the wealthy as robber baron tycoons who don't deserve their play things. And conservatives see anyone who is not a member of the wealthy elite as disposable human capital, those who lost out in the game of social Darwinism.


Surely there must be some sort of balance here. It is not, I repeat, NOT the responsibility of the wealthy to support the poor. No matter how unfair you believe it is for them to horde their millions while others suffer. Any idea that the wealthy have to or should engage in philanthropy is merely philosophical and not part of objective reality.


It is not the responsibility of the government to guarantee a certain level of income to individuals, though it has taken that burden on itself through social programs.  The idea that a government should do anything other than create laws in its best interest is merely philosophical... 


Have you ever said "no" to someone asking a favor of you simply because they made you feel as though you HAD to or you SHOULD? It's annoying right?


Maybe if the liberals asked the conservatives nicely...we'd get some bipartisanship in the legislative branch. And then again, maybe not.

Newwww Pooossssst

Tonight is the first time in a while that I've been sort of "unoccupied"; although, of course, there are things to do. Always things to do. And I'll do them. But, I haven't sat down in I don't know how long to just write something, not for money, or to build up my resume, but for me.

I remember the good old days when I was in college and working full time and this blog was the only remotely creative outlet I had. It got a lot more of my attention then, yes you did little bloggy. And now it's all work work work, books on organization and relationships and power--it's all "learn how to be a productive member of society."

I'm not sure exactly when the change took place. But, I do know I tried to delay it as long as I possibly could. I really did. Anyone who knows me well will attest to that.

I wonder...about people who have impressive jobs at age 24 or start their own businesses at 26. (For the record I had my genius business idea at 26. I just have to implement it.) I don't know if I care why anymore, but I do wonder in a disconnected sort of way, "How did that happen?" I suppose the easy answer is that for some, on purpose; and for others, on accident.

In any event here I am. And here you are. And I felt like writing something personal but didn't really feel like criticizing some aspect of society or human nature. Not in this post anyway....

Bludgeoned To Death

So, I was on The Sart today and saw a pic of a brunette girl. The pic was exactly like most photos on there, just a stylish young woman in a hip outfit. No biggie. Love it. But, Scott adds some text at the bottom of the post, as he sometimes does, about the girl being "curvy" and having "sturdy" legs and being "bigger" than other bloggers. It's all said in a "separate but equal" sort of attitude.

Needless to say, people went nuts over it and did not appreciate Scott's comments at all. The reason being that this girl is clearly not overweight. In one photo you can tell that she has muscular, thick legs, but that doesn't really make her a "big" girl. This is all semantics and beating a dead horse, but I thought I'd post my comment. I haven't written anything on here in a minute and I have been BORED TO DEATH today.

"I heart this blog as much as anyone, but this post did call to mind the distorted idea of beauty as it relates to shape and size in the fashion industry.

As a fashion and beauty writer and editor in NYC, I have close friends who rank high in the world of high fashion. And although I love them dearly, their perception of acceptable weight, height, beauty, shape, etc. is perverse. Plain and simple. I think your wording is a reflection of this same kind of distorted thinking. But, I can't judge it any more than I do my friends.

I would simply urge any reading this blog to consider their own notions about the "norm" and what it means to be beautiful. The truth is beauty in the fashion world is as subjective as it gets. Beauty determined by the oldest (first developed) parts of our brain is wholly objective. This is a woman with curves, universally desired."

How Was Work

Beth: How was work? (heh)

Me: Giggle

Beth: heh heh

Me: haha

Beth: hahahahaha

Me: hahahahahah ahhh. Good...I went to the coffee shop this morning. All the fucking hipsters got there before me and took up all the seats next to the wall with the outlets. And they're sitting there with their fucking macs that have a 15 hour battery life and I'm here with my PC, needing an outlet. So, I just got a coffee and a sandwich and left.

Beth: Can you please blog that right now?

Change Is Good

I was just sitting, well I am right now, on my couch wondering about two schools of thought. The first is the general idea that you are "who you are", you can't hide it, you can't fake it and so you might as well be it to the fullest. Who you are is not only great, no matter what, but it's who you were "meant" to be. Then there's the other school. The one that says you can change, you control your destiny, you can be whatever you want. Which school is right? They can't both be right. Obviously. They're mutually exclusive ideas about the meaning of life.

I think people should try on as many hats as they can. People should try to change. It's only through the failed attempt to be something different than you were last year, last month or yesterday that you find either the tenacity to be something "you're not" or the pride to be something you are.

People can change. Alcoholics can get sober, Obsessive Compulsives can stop counting how many windows are in every office building they pass, people aren't born astro physicists or concert pianists. The decision to become something is a change from a natural state of unemployment. Chew on it. Disagree in comments.