I've posted a few commercials lately that I have found to be ridiculously funny. As of late, a theme within these commercials has begun to emerge. There is one NFL team that has a few players that are putting themselves in the public eye by way of humorous advertisements, while not excluding themselves from their own jokes. To me, that's the true test of comedy: if you can't laugh at yourself, you shouldn't be joking on anyone else. The most popular players on the Green Bay Packers have successfully passed that test. Many of you have seen these ads already, but if you're like me, you could always watch them for a good quick laugh.
The first is quarterback Aaron Rodgers doing a commercial for State Farm Insurance:
Next is wide receiver Greg Jennings on an Old Spice ad:
...and another:
Finally, linebacker Clay Matthews does a commercial for Fathead:
I can only imagine what that locker room is like. There are probably non-stop jokes, pranks and an overall fun and entertaining atmosphere, which is how it should be. It's pretty refreshing to know that these men haven't let the game of football get to their heads. Sure, money and fame are great motivators in endorsement deals, but at least they're enjoying themselves in the process.
How dare you have those pillows just haplessly laying there...
Here's a phrase I hear all too often when going to somebody else's house, apartment...whatever they happen to live in:
"I'll apologize in advance, but my place is a mess..."
It's either that or some close variation of it. I can understand the concern that the person would have when inviting someone into their home for the first time, considering they want to make a good impression in every way possible, but honestly, I've yet to be welcomed into a home that made me feel awkward in any way because of how messy it was (usually there's some other reason you make me feel awkward in your house...just sayin'). I'm going to break this down a bit into some thoughts of mine about each time this phrase has been spoken to me.
The house isn't a mess at all. That's right, you're making a huge deal over nothing. There's a pair of shoes laying by the front door and a stack of mail next to an empty drinking glass on the end table next to the couch. If that's what you call a mess, all I can say is you need to dial your expectation level down a notch. When someone leads me to believe their place is filthy, I'm thinking there's dog toys all over the place, dirty dishes everywhere and nobody has dusted since Kennedy was president. Instead, I walk in and the place is damn near immaculate, and I'm left searching for this so-called mess. I'd say if there was a pizza crust sitting next to a lamp with someone's underwear hanging from it, then we'd need to have a little chat. Otherwise, relax. Your house is far from a mess.
I am not there to judge you based on your home. If anything, I'm already judging you for other things. Hey, at least I'm being honest. Seriously though, I am not exactly a neat-freak, so who am I to judge the cleanliness of someone else's place? That's not to say that I leave my underwear hanging from lampshades or anything, but I'm also not going to vacuum my room every other day or so. I'll put in the effort to clean it up when I want/need it to be spotless. Besides, if I already know you fairly well, I can pretty much determine how neat of a person you are, and nine times out of ten, that translates through the environment you surround yourself with. If you're a slob in public, I'm not really setting the expectation bar very high for where you live. If you're a very neat, organized person, then I'm sure you're one of these people that warns their guests of what they think is an in-home war zone. Thanks for the warning, though.
I am capable of withholding my commentary in case I am uncomfortable. Once again, I am the guest. With that said, If I do feel like I walked into a war zone, I can keep my thoughts to myself. I am not looking to embarrass anyone in their own home. Who knows...maybe there's some personal stuff going on in their lives that I don't know about, and their priorities are a little more centered on things other than cleaning their whole house just for me. I am not one to criticize somebody else's house in case their emotional well-being is a bit fragile at the moment. On the flip-side, if the place is spotless and is claimed to be an absolute disaster, I also keep my comments to myself. Perhaps this person has OCD, and they're not very receptive to how great their place looks, because to these people, it can always use a little improvement. I've learned through personal experience to avoid any form of conflict with someone with OCD. Take my advice...if you don't, you may end up with a crazy bitch punching and kicking the interior of the passenger side of your car. Don't say I didn't warn you.
You are not a hoarder. If you were, I'd likely already have that one figured out and I wouldn't go to your house in that case anyway. For good reason, you've thrown away all of your trash from your visits to McDonald's, your empty CD cases, the magazines of no value from 1997, and the broken furniture that you no longer need. If you do have any of these things in your home, you might need counseling, an intervention, or just a damn dumpster. All three might be the true solution.
Please don't worry about the condition of your home. I know it's common courtesy to 'apologize in advance', but with me you certainly don't need to. As long as you fit my criteria, that is. D.
For those of you who have been reading this on a consistent basis, every so often, just recently or for the very first time, I'm looking for your input. I don't think I'm going to object to 'suggestions' necessarily, but that's not exactly what I'm after here. If you do have some ideas that I haven't written about just yet, toss them my way. Who knows? They may get used in the near future. Here's what I am looking for, and I encourage you to leave your answers in a wall post/private message on my Facebook page (assuming you know me), a comment on this page, a text message (assuming you really know me), or some other method of communication that you come up with (I haven't perfected telekinesis, but you could try...I need the practice). Here's what I want to know:
Rate this blog 1-10. I'm not expecting all 10s...nobody's perfect. I'm just damn close.
List your favorite post thus far. Knowing my life, the best has yet to come.
Write something you believe I would find funny, interesting, new or all of the above.
I haven't decided if I'm going to post the results (semi-anonymously, probably only using initials) in a future entry or not, but I will take each one into consideration. Whether that means you love it, I need to improve it, I should stop ranting about stupid shit all the time, or some other version of computerized, confidential, collective, constructive criticism, I'll absorb it into what I come up with as I go along. I'll leave you with my own answers to those 3. They say you are your own worst critic...
Have you really thought about some team names that are just strange? Some of them don't seem to make sense as an intimidating representation of your team. Others don't exactly fit in to their location, leaving you to wonder if said mascot is even relevant. The rest might not have any explanation that I can come up with. I'm here to toss up a bunch of examples and my quick thoughts on them. Keep in mind, there are tons of teams spanning several sports, so I might not even find ones that immediately come into your mind, but I can always revisit this idea in a future post. So if you're ready, I'm about to drop some weird on ya...
The San Diego Chicken literally has no affiliation with any professional sports team. He's quite literally just a human-sized creepy-ass chicken that is second in craziness to only the Phillie Phanatic. Awesome mascot role model, though.
I'll separate these by individual sports, starting with:
BASEBALL
Minnesota TWINS - Named for the 'twin cities', even though they only play in one city, obviously. Not a whole lot that's scary about twins. Maybe Siamese twins. Depends where they're conjoined. That can get very scary. Just sayin'.
New York METS - Short for 'Metropolitans'. Really? You named the team after the generalized term for the city's inhabitants? I'll admit, some of the cretins in the city are frightening, but they're not all burglars, murderers and rapists. All three of those might be too extreme for a pro sports team, though. Oh well.
San Diego PADRES - Spanish for 'Fathers'. Their mascot looks like a broke-ass Friar Tuck with a baseball bat. I'm not sure what message they're trying to send, but the message they are sending is one of an abusive religious figure. Wait...that does make sense...
Philadelphia PHILLIES - This is just lazy. This could be the worst out of sheer lack of creativity. The only redeeming factor is the Phillie Phanatic. That mascot is so bizarre that you can't hate the bastard. If you figure out what the hell that thing is supposed to be, though, please enlighten me.
Boston RED SOX - Okay, I'll admit a little bit of bias here. I hate them, therefore I have to mention them. It's not so much the name that bothers me, but rather their mascots that represent them. 'Wally the Green Monster' and 'Lefty and Righty'. The names are so unimaginative, Wally looks like the sort of mascot that would drive a windowless van with "FREE CANDY" spray painted on the side of it, and Lefty and Righty are literally giant red socks with arms, which is just stupid. That's like something out of a low-budget horror movie about clothes coming to life.
Okay, here we have Wally, the apparent Jimmy Buffet fan who is stalking his prepubescent prey. Next are Lefty and Righty, who either have terribly unfortunate tumor-like growths on their sides or they are touching tips, either of which are horribly inappropriate in public.
There were a few more worth considering, but those really jumped out at me as being more ridiculous than the rest. Next, I'll cover:
HOCKEY
New York ISLANDERS - Once again, naming a team after the residents doesn't really make anyone shiver. You should call them the New York Drivers. Now that's friggen scary. What's not scary is Sparky the Dragon, their actual mascot that looks like a ghetto version of Figment. Interestingly enough, the Islanders had a mascot removed for copyright violations when they had a badass looking fisherman that was identical to the Gorton's fisherman, except with a hockey stick in hand and a possible alcohol- or meth-induced rage.
Vancouver CANUCKS - Slang term for Canadians. Please refer to METS, PHILLIES and ISLANDERS. To top it all off, their mascot is a killer whale. Try explaining that one...fuckin' canucks. The Montreal Canadiens get an exemption from my criticism on this one. Why? They have won the Stanley Cup twenty-four times. Instant respect. They could have been named the Montreal 'Pansies', 'Sissies', or 'Girly-Girls', and still you can't deny those cups.
Minnesota WILD - What the hell is a wild? That shouldn't be used as a noun. Even the Minnesota 'Frostbite-In-April' would be more appropriate. You might as well call them the 'Bitter'. At least that describes the cold weather and their fans when they can't manage to advance in the playoffs.
Washington CAPITALS - Somebody had to have lost a bet on this one. They didn't even name them after the people that lived there. They pluralized the term for what Washington actually is...the nation's capital. Pluralizing it instantly negates any credibility. You wouldn't have two (or more) capitals. The logic is as nonexistent as their Stanley Cup victories.
Dallas STARS - Formerly the Minnesota North Stars, this one continues to leave me wondering, "Why a star?" Is it because they're gigantic, bright, hot masses of gas...most of which happen to be millions of miles away from us? Oh yea, I'm real scared now. The North Stars once again pluralizes something there is only one of in the first place. Stop that! At least they generalized it when they moved to Dallas, but they could have done so much better.
"Call me the 'Gorton's Fisherman' one more time, bitch..."
The final sport I'll tackle today is one that I feel has the most absurd names across the board, so I'll really pick the ones that stand out above the rest. That sport is:
BASKETBALL
Denver NUGGETS - Just call them the 'Turds' and be done with it. Go ahead and claim they're referencing gold...I'm not buying it, period.
Utah JAZZ - They'd be more intimidating if they were the 'Mormons' or the 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. Jazz is a musical genre. It is influential in many other types of music, whether you would be open to agree to that or not. It has no relevance to any sport. Music, good. Team name, bad.
Indiana PACERS - Why would it be a good thing to be a pacer? Wouldn't your coach make you run laps if he felt you were pacing yourself? Also, you wouldn't want to simply "keep pace" with the team you're against...you'd want to be faster...better...stronger. That's like calling them the 'Tortoises'. Sure, he won the race, but not because of speed...the hare was a dumbass. That's the real moral of that story...don't be a dumbass.
Los Angeles CLIPPERS - Unless you've experienced some violent deformation from a shaving accident, clippers are hardly threatening. Some men have very unkempt beards, leaving me to believe they might actually be afraid of clippers. Then again, it may not be a fear of clippers, but rather the fear of being a civilized human being. I'm leaning toward the latter.
Los Angeles LAKERS - Originally from Minnesota (the state that just seems to churn out terribly lame team names), they were named for being in the "Land of 10,000 Lakes." Then they relocated to Los Angeles in 1960...where there are no lakes. I applaud the team for maintaining their name regardless of the move, but it geographically makes zero sense. How about the L.A. 'Riots'? Perhaps the 'Earthquakes' would be more fitting. I bet opponents would be afraid to play the Los Angeles 'Drive-Bys'. They may be the most valuable team in the NBA, but their name sucks an egg.
It promises not to bite you, I swear.
I figured five names from each sport was fitting enough for now. I will attempt to cover the NFL and college team names as well, but there are far more to sort through with those, so I'll need some time to research them. I could see myself putting out Part II very soon.
There are so many writers for everything we watch nowadays that it's pretty easy to categorize their abilities based on which type of visual entertainment they write for. Now given, a lot of how good or bad a show or movie might be isn't based purely on the writing. Acting 'plays a major role' in it (pun very much intended). Aside from acting, production value, budget and setting also make these much better or worse than other ones. I see 'production value' and 'budget' as two different entities, because you can produce a lot of value out of a small budget with a good amount of creativity; money doesn't always buy you a blockbusting hit (i.e. The Matrix Revolutions: the third of the Matrix trilogy had an estimated $110 Million budget...the plot was mediocre at best, the CGI could have re-blinded a blind man, and any movie that portrays Keanu Reeves as Jesus is a shameful waste of film).
Really? I can hardly buy into him as a surfing cop. Messiah, he is not.
My roommate and I were discussing our favorite shows, and it became blatantly obvious that most of them were of a certain variety. Before I divulge which ones made our list, I'll split up the different scripted types as much as I feel it needs to be. Here's the breakdown:
Half-hour sitcoms
Reality shows (go ahead and act like that shit isn't at least half scripted)
Hour-long drama/action series
Documentaries
Full-length motion pictures (movies, for the slow people)
Premium-channel series
There are sports shows, kids shows, cartoons (which I've already posted about...they're garbage), cooking shows and an abundance of other random stuff that doesn't necessarily fit into my brief list, but you get the point (...I hope). I'll try and sum up a few of these together because they somewhat go hand-in-hand. The majority of half-hour sitcoms and reality shows are mindless drivel. Sitcoms (short for 'situational comedies', in the most literal of meanings no less) are all the same. They may have different themes, settings, actors and writers, but in the end, they are interchangeable and unoriginal. Why is that the case? For starters, jokes used in these shows are only original if they are based on extremely current events. Most of these shows repeat after each other, even in subtle ways that you might not notice (i.e. 'Family Guy' and 'How I Met Your Mother' - amidst average dialogue, random segways to some moment in the past of little to no relevance to what's happening at the time). Both of these shows have their moments of hilarity, but in the end they're really feeding off of similar material. As for reality shows, they might be funnier than sitcoms, yet they usually don't intend to me. Even if they do, you're hardly laughing with the overprivileged jackasses on them. I can understand your skepticism, but hear me out. Think about how rigid a format these shows stick to. There is a pattern that develops, and it's done for one reason: to keep you in suspense. They strategize their commercial breaks, the moments they drop a big surprise on you, and even the way the people act/what they say so they keep you hooked for the next episode's arrival. Most of these reality shows wouldn't be worth watching if they were told to live their everyday lives. Remember the movie 'EDtv' with Matthew McConeaughey? The film crew followed his ass around throughout the most mundane of daily tasks, and the show didn't become a hit until he started acting out. That film was a genius representation of how it is, except the shows you watch have more influence from actual script writers. They know what will draw in viewers, so they will milk it as much as possible. These are the lowest of the low on our list.
Matty and Woody...such a good movie.
Hour-long series on standard channels (such as any type of 'Law & Order', forensics-geared 'CSI' type shows, or something like '24' or 'Lost') have a little more to offer. Not much, but they are slightly better. A lot of these shows follow a pretty standard pattern as well, but it takes a whole lot more creativity to keep you interested for a full hour when you know there's a pretty telegraphed flow of what happens in each episode. They have to throw in a few more twists and socially relevant references for it to keep your attention. They have the ability to be a little edgier and perhaps controversial, but they still need to censor themselves for the sake of FCC standards. That means they have to emphasize emotions without cursing or any other form of explicit material. It doesn't always improve the show, but you could argue that some shows would be better with a few f-bombs laced in them. Then there are documentaries, which are arguably the best-written shows on television because of how detailed and well-researched they are required to be, but they also need to be censored to an extent, and they provide entertainment to only a particular group of people per subject. I likely won't watch any documentary about how cheese is made or the evolution of women's purses because I don't really care to know about the production of either, at least enough to sit through an hour of dissecting them. That's not to say that they wouldn't be well-written at all, I just wouldn't have any interest. If you talk about some military bombing planes, looking into the mind of a serial killer, or mob/organized crime-related documentaries, chances are I'd be able to focus a little better. These are topics I have some level of curiosity in, and because I know there is a ton of research and in-depth, previously unknown (to me at least) info, there is a lot to be learned, and I'm all for some new knowledge.
My personal favorite: 'Crime Scene: Scene of the Crime'
Then there are movies. Movies are ultimately hit-or-miss when it comes to writing, but censorship gets thrown out the window (depending on what MPAA rating they are aiming for of course). So the restrictions that exist are easier to work with:
Movie rating based on desired audience
Budget for setting, props, talent, etc.
Time allotted
The first two were already mentioned, but the third is something I have yet to really hone in on. Keep in mind that all shows are in a series of episodes, which also span multiple seasons (depending on how successful it is, of course). They may last a half-hour each episode, but seasons total up to several hours of potential entertainment. Movies are different. You have anywhere from ninety to one hundred eighty minutes to cram in a huge storyline, make it interesting, suspenseful, funny, scary...whatever they're going for. That's such a make-or-break concept. All of the time spent making a movie, which could take a few weeks to many months on end, yet it has to fit into a neat little two-hour-average package on a big screen. It really comes down to writing for a lot of that to work out well. Think about it...if the plot is poorly written, you won't care for the story no matter who is acting in it. If the lines are poorly written, even the best actor can't recite them no matter how good the plot is. If the writing is great all around, then it's all on the performers to deliver the goods, and considering that's their job, that should be the easy part. All of this brings me to the last on the main list: premium-channel series'. They are brought to you by what I believe are the best writers in Hollywood. It sucks that you have to pay so much to be able to watch the likes of HBO, Showtime, Starz and Cinemax, but for some of the things they air, it's truly worth it. It combines the best of all worlds of what any writer could ask for:
Censorship is just about nonexistent
(What seems like an) Unlimited budget
No time constraints like movies
Quality actors want to be in them
No commercial interruptions
There are so many shows on these channels that are phenomenal. They hold your attention without leaving you in suspense while they interrupt it with a dog food ad, followed by a denture cream ad, followed by a car commercial. Two or three of these episodes equals that of a good movie, and yet the story only continues. The fact that they have the production quality of movies, yet each season equals that of five movies in succession, the money seems to be pouring in for good settings, effects and props. To top it all off, it's no-holds-barred on the language they use, the graphic nature of particular scenes, and the amount of times they do either of those things to enhance the story. When you combine all of these attributes, what good actor wouldn't want to be on a show like that? Here are some examples:
Dexter
Shameless
Boardwalk Empire
The Wire
The first three are current series', while The Wire is one that only ended a few years ago, but was considered by critics to be one of the greatest series' ever made. I have only watched a little of it, but there's no doubt that the bit I've seen lives up to its hype. Either way, the factors don't lie...and neither do I. Well...I have lied before, but not about this.
Perfect picture to represent Dexter.
Steve Buscemi...pure genius.
My suggestion to you: upgrade your choice of entertainment (if you're willing to toss a few extra bucks to our cable/satellite provider). I assure you it's worth it if you can work it into your budget. D.
I know I made a post not long ago of some of the funniest commercials I've been seeing lately, but I saw one the other day that blows them all away. I think this aired during the last Super Bowl, but it was out of sight/out of mind until it came on the other day and jogged my memory. If you don't find this one funny, I regret to inform you that you have no soul. That's right...you are soulless if you can't find this to be absolutely hysterical.
Kayak.com Brain Surgeon
If only all brain surgeries went exactly like this. Maybe even all surgeries in general. Then again, maybe this is the reason why people wake up with scalpels, tweezers or some other surgical instruments inside them.
Oh well, survival of the fittest, I say. Kudos, kayak. You done well.
This might not be the follow-up that many of you are expecting. I am not about to go off on a rant about the article any more than I already have. I did not receive any direct response from Mr. Miller in anticipation of him actually reading what I wrote (I didn't send it to the guy, but using his link on my page could draw his attention to the fact that I referenced it, possibly enough that he'd read it). I will not further defend any point or position I made, because I feel like I made it exceptionally clear on where I stand. Nope...there will be none of that. Instead, I will post part of a verse from the King James Version of the Bible about how I feel about today. Before I go any further, in no way am I comparing myself to God, but rather using the verse in a manner that is to be taken humorously. If you still feel like you may have a mini panic attack because you think I'm considering myself any sort of deity, you're being stupid, but I'd suggest you refrain from reading any further.
"...and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." - Genesis 2:2
I was rather surprised that the "he" references weren't capitalized, but that only makes it more appropriate to angle it my way. Anyway, my coworkers can sympathize with how long of a work week it had been. After completing the Christmas (that's right, Christmas...) reset, we were all quite exhausted. Then there was the post that I spent nearly all day trying to finish yesterday. I was successful in my effort, but between that and preparing for my upcoming move, I was pretty wiped out. Today...Sunday..."the seventh day"...I deserve a break, so I am resting. I did a little laundry, but other than that, I have been as unproductive as possible. If you were hoping for some longer post today, oh well. Deal with it. I'll put more effort into it this week. Sound good? Good. Peace out. D.
I have been extremely hesitant to make any posts about religion. Religion seems to be one of the most sensitive topics I could discuss, right along with politics and anything that could be perceived as negativity toward anyone that is friends with me on Facebook. I understand that part of writing blogs, news articles, magazine articles...whatever it may be...is to stir people up. Sure, they are great for giving information to the general public, but it's no secret that a story can be adjusted to reflect the writer's personal opinion without entirely stretching the truth. Think back to some of my previous blog entries. Several of my posts have been based on my opinion, and I've made it clear to everyone that's the case. With that in mind, I purposely avoided certain issues because I know too many people would get butt-hurt over it, and my main purpose for writing is to entertain you, not piss you off. The only other reasons are that this keeps me busy during my down time and I like getting my thoughts into writing (it makes it feel almost...significant). I feel the need to go against those instincts, but it's not without inspiration. As I do almost every day, when I get home and have a chance to relax after a long work day, I look through the web to see sports scores and schedules, my email and then I skim through news stories to see if anything jumps out at me that I find interesting enough to read and possibly even write about. One small segway before I continue: I'm not oblivious to the fact that certain news media channels lean heavily toward one political party over another. I know that most of the news articles I have linked you to have come from CNN, which has been accused of Democratic bias. I don't care one bit whether they favor one side or the other, they tend to have the most stories that grab my attention. Why is that? Well CNN has also been accused of releasing stories that are borderline tabloid-worthy because of either their absurdity or their goal to simple draw readers in. You could say it worked on the likes of me, but only because I'm always in search of such buffoonery. The story I found a few weeks ago is a perfect example of said ridiculousness, and I find that this is a perfect opportunity to present my side of the religious issue. The article wasn't written by any regular CNN writer, but by some guy that wrote a blog about something that CNN found to be interesting/controversial enough to be posted for everyone to read. Alan Miller wrote an article called, "My Take: 'I'm spiritual but not religious' is a cop-out", and I would love to take this time to personally pick his arguments apart. Here is the article for you to read, and please do, because I find it to be extremely relevant to my account. Alright, from here, I'm hoping you've taken the time to read his take on this issue. First I want to talk about his style of writing. There is no masking the fact that he is looking to get his point across while, maybe not intimidating, but rather trying to impress people with his knowledge of the English language. I'm going to sound mighty full of myself here, but I have a pretty extensive vocabulary. Why is that? Mr. Beers, my English teacher for both the ninth and eleventh grades in high school, had weekly vocabulary quizzes of fifty to one hundred words. When you know you're going to be tested on your words every week, and that it would have a significant impact on your final grade, you made sure that you put a little extra attention on studying these definitions. I never failed any of these quizzes. Even if there was some other assignment he handed out that I did poorly on, those weekly exams were not the reason for my lower grade. With that said, I am also not oblivious to the use of a thesaurus. I do it myself from time to time, but it's normally because I don't want to repeat the same word throughout a blog post and sound incredibly redundant. Looking at this guy's article, it really seems like he was looking to improve upon every word that he could because he knew the average reader would have to look up a few of them to better understand the message he was conveying. I'm hardly impressed, sir. Sure, it's better than the alternative, being a blog written in broken English and slang that nobody could take seriously, but there's no reason to confuse people with big words while trying to keep them interested. So if you can look past the tricky language, we'll move on to my next bit of irritation. The very first thing you see when you open the article is a strategically chosen photograph. If you want to really influence someone's point of view, one of the best ways is to provide a visual aid of what it is you are talking about. As you all know from my previous posts, I add photos and videos for pretty simple reasons. Either it's done to inform you of who or what I am talking about in case you are unfamiliar or unaware, or I do it to add to the humor that I truly enjoy adding to my writing. How does Mr. Miller go about using his picture of choice? Well, he tries to discredit anyone that claims they are "spiritual but not religious" by putting an out of shape, unkempt hippie with short dreadlocks praying by the ocean. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the author does not know the person in the photo. He's not a friend, an acquaintance, coworker, or even some guy he lives near that he sees on a somewhat regular basis. He doesn't know if this guy has any religious affiliation, if he doesn't claim one at all, or if he's having some drug-induced hallucination on the beach. Is it because he doesn't have a cross hanging from his neck, a bible in his hand, or some other element of worship in his possession? Mr. Miller is using this image purely on the assumption that this guy is a perfect example of a person who is "spiritual but not religious". Most people already have their own perception of the guy in this photo, mine being made perfectly clear by my hippie comment. Contrary to popular belief, that term does not always extend into the spiritual world, so to say that he is not a part of a religion is somewhat uninformed. He knows that there are a lot of people that will agree with his assessment because they not only sympathize with his words, but the photo just adds to his attempt to convince them. Little did he know, he didn't need to reach for their approval with that still form of propaganda. As I said, I already had my predisposition, but religion was certainly not involved. The next thing I want to point out is really just an aggravation of what I feel is poor grammar. Yes, I've already made it known that I think his use of big words could have been dialed down a notch. How about his inconsistency in the "spiritual but not religious" phrasing? So far, each time I have typed that phrase out, I have been certain to put it in quotation marks because I know they are not my own words. Whether it belongs in quotes or not in perfect English context, I do not know. I am not an English wizard, wasn't an English major, and I never claimed to be either. I am humble enough to admit that I also didn't bother to research the perfectly appropriate usage of the phrase before typing this up. So if I'm telling you that, yet I'm calling him out for something in relation to his grammar, it must be pretty obvious. To me, it was, but I can understand if it took everyone a second glance to see what I mean. He uses the phrase "spiritual but not religious" eight times throughout the article, including the one in the title. He also uses "spiritual-but-not-religious" twice. His use of hyphens between the words usually imply he is using the phrase as an adjective to describe the noun that follows immediately after it. The two times with hyphens are followed by nouns, as prescribed. I guess he didn't realize that four of the eight non-hyphened mentions also precede nouns. In fact, both versions come before the word "outlook" in this article, and you would think one rule would apply to both. Once again, I am no expert, and it's just something I noticed, so forgive me for being picky. He talks about how people have "drifted from formal institutions" rather than losing faith as a whole. Some of the reasons he presents are rather oversimplified if you ask me.
"It seems that just being a part of a religious institution is nowadays associated negatively, with everything from the Religious Right to child abuse, back to the Crusades and of course with terrorism today."
Perhaps some of those elements are true, but from an outside perspective. Some peoples' opinions can be easily influenced by these examples of what negatively reflects on religion. These are only a few, though. He's completely forgetting the human element that exists on a person-to-person basis, as opposed to the widespread problems that he mentions. It's safe to say that hypocrisy exists everywhere, and it is far too common in religion. Without question, it is necessary to state that nobody is perfect. This includes all clergy and other religious figures, and does not exclude members of any particular institution. The ones that lead them, however, should be held to a higher standard, due to the fact that they represent said institution, and are "religious role models" so to speak. "Leading by example" is a familiar phrase that should ring loud and clear to these individuals. When you lose your trust in them, or you feel they never deserved that trust in the first place, that's something that I believe speaks more volumes than any of the examples he provided. Why? When you lose trust in someone you interact with on a regular basis, that's personal. Very few people who question their faith based on what religion it's associated with question it because of his list of reasons. It is highly unlikely that the "spiritual but not religious" people were personally effected by the Crusades. As for terrorism and child abuse, it's still few and far between (yet extremely unfortunate) to find people that are directly linked to either issue, so those issues I believe fall under the Religious Right concept, which is basically how some religious beliefs effect political stances. Feel free to browse any of the links listed within the link I provided, but I still fail to see how that is going to draw people away from their respective religion as opposed to strengthening their beliefs. So what would I know about personal issues with religion? I have a couple of true stories that I'll gladly share with you of my experiences in the not-so-distant past. Before I continue, I will also say that my life stories are exactly that: my own. Not everyone has faced or ever will face any of the things that you will soon read about. With that said, I know my situation is not the only one in history of someone losing their trust in a religious institution, enough to separate themselves from it. I just have considerably convincing reasons to tell you all about. I grew up in a Lutheran household. I went to a Lutheran nursery, grade, middle and high school. Through all of those years, I was very active in the church. I was an acolyte, I went to church every Sunday, I participated in many different youth activities hosted by our youth group. After a while and some stupid circumstances of kids being idiots, some events were no longer scheduled to occur, and some of the fun or interest in going was therefore lost. From my senior year of high school on, I became close friends with a youth minister of another Lutheran church in the area that I grew up. I was going to his church on such a regular basis, that it was as though I was his unpaid assistant. All of it was voluntary, and we organized a whole bunch of events that drew kids in without hesitation. They were fun, educational and last but certainly not least, they were charitable. Keeping kids interested in their faith and doing it in a manner they even saw as worth their time was what my friend excelled at, and I was happy to help him in any way. Then came a summer youth convention in Florida that thousands of youth from across the nation would eventually attend. The youth groups of the church I was a member of and the one I was devoting my spare time to were both going. I was at that awkward age of being older than the oldest youth, yet being "too young" to be a chaperone (somehow the age nineteen was left out of consideration for either title). If I went with my church, I would have been the oldest youth in a group of thirty-something kids, most of whom I didn't really know all that well. If I went with my friend's church, I would have been a chaperone in a group of approximately twelve people. To me, that was a clear choice, which was to help lead the group in which everyone knew me very well and knew I would do my part in keeping everything fun. This led to quite a bit of controversy, surprisingly enough. In order to go with either church, fundraising was crucial. Both churches had their methods of raising money, and in the end, both were successful. My mother was a major help in funding my trip with my friend's church, yet she made the decision to attend a fundraising event for the other church as well, just because she could. It was a silent auction, and she was going back and forth on a bid for some item or service that went well over a hundred dollars before the auction closed. It was announced that the auction ended on that item, and my mother's name was the last on the list. The woman bidding against her then sent her kid up to the board to sign the mother's name on the board when everyone's attention was on another item up for bid. The winning bidder was announced as the other woman, and my mom approached this woman knowing full well what was done. Upon questioning her for doing so, the woman's only response was, "at least my kid is going with our church," making a few things perfectly clear. First, it was public knowledge within the congregation that I was going with another church to this event. Second, it was being held against me by people that I hardly even knew. Finally, it was being taken out on my mother, the one person who was not only willing to donate to my cause, but it was obvious she was willing to do the same for the church out of the goodness of her heart. This may not be a direct reflection of the leaders of the church, but as I said earlier, church members themselves are not excluded from those who should promote good Christian values, and singling someone out and punishing their mother for it is just pathetic. This was only the beginning, though. I went to my church on multiple occasions about joining either of their two coed softball teams, and no matter who I spoke to, it was a complete runaround. I was directed to this guy, then he redirected me to that guy, and finally I gave up. If nobody could give me an honest answer whether it being they had no room or they just didn't want to fit me in, I had no reason to keep trying. I went to my friend's church and asked if they needed a player, to which he replied that they absolutely needed anyone they could get. I signed up and was ready to play, and a few games into the season, we were scheduled to face one of the teams from my church. As my friend and I were having a warm-up catch, the pastor/third baseman of my church approaches the youth leader, who previous to this altercation didn't even know the pastor personally, and gets right into his face, spouting out things about how I shouldn't be allowed to play because I'm not a member of the church I'm playing for, because I'm a non-roster member (not true), that I'm a ringer (again...not true...I'm not a bad player, but I'm certainly not a ringer), and that I should be benched for those reasons. It didn't help his case (as a pastor, no less) that he was dropping "damn" and "hell" in his arguments in a not-so-religious context, only to get into my face to tell me, "you know you could always come and play on one of our teams." Interestingly enough, the pastor was the first and last person I went to when I originally wanted to play for my church, yet he was very quick to change that story when he realized I could be a small factor in his team not winning. Seemed like a rather petty thing to concern yourself with, enough to use salty language and intimidation to make his point crystal clear. I knew then that the church I was once a member of was no longer the right place for me. I made the choice that I would no longer attend services there on any sort of regular basis. Because it was (and still is) my mom's church, if she wanted me to go for Christmas, I would. In the unfortunate circumstance of a funeral of a loved one, I wouldn't hesitate to attend. That's what it took to lose all trust in this particular pastor. My father was a veteran of the Air Force during the Vietnam War who thankfully spent his time on American soil. He then spent nearly twenty years on the county police force before being diagnosed with a terminal illness. After a long battle, he passed away while I was in college. During the funeral, the pastor gave my father's eulogy, in which he went into a brief story about my mother, then my sister, and then the one about me. He began telling the congregation about a conversation that he and I had right after the attacks on 9/11. He said that I came to him acknowledging that the firemen, police and all of the responders on that day were heroes, yet I was asking him if my father would still be considered a hero for his efforts. Immediately, I couldn't believe what I was hearing, because I never had a conversation with him in any form of this nature. Not once had I ever come to him with any concerns remotely related to what he was talking about. I even gave him the benefit of the doubt at the time and thought real hard about that in case I just didn't remember it at that moment. To this day, there isn't even an inkling of a chance that it ever happened. I know my father was a hero, and I certainly didn't need his approval or certification to know that was the case. I never had a reason to ask him that, so there's no doubt in my mind that it never took place. I knew then that I could never trust this man again. It's downright frightening that a man in his position could stand at the altar and lie to the loved ones of the deceased man only a few feet away from him in order to make his eulogy sound that much more memorable. There aren't many people that know what was said that day was an absolute lie, so this post might be a bit of a shock to the system to a few members of my family, but it only adds to my arguments against Mr. Miller's claim. Strangely, I'm not finished. After vowing not to go to that church again, at least as long as he was the head pastor, I spent the majority of my Sundays back home at my friend's church. To summarize a long story, the pastor and the youth minister weren't the most conservative-minded leaders, and a small group of the church members (that just happened to be the church committee) didn't like that. They made it obvious that they didn't want these men a part of their church anymore, no matter how great they were as leaders. They voted to freeze their salaries in order to drive them out because they were upset with all of the community outreach these men were doing. Eventually, it led to both men seeking and finding jobs elsewhere because it understandably wasn't worth the aggravation for them. For a church, community outreach is and should be a regular practice. In fact, the whole concept is centered around spreading whatever message that church is wanting to get out there. Isn't that what they want? Nope. They wanted to keep the church the way it was: a country club for the people in the church council. They were against letting new people in because they were afraid the average social status would diminish. They were elitist and did not want to be associated with anyone they considered to be of a lower class than themselves, so they cut it off at the source. That's when I knew for sure that church was no longer a place for me to spend any of my time. As for my faith, well that has had its trials and tests over the years, but it actually makes sense to question your faith. If you don't strive for greater understanding, you will never be able to strengthen your faith. I believe mine gets stronger all the time because I am always looking for answers. What I can't comprehend is why I would need some man-made religious center of worship to validate my beliefs. In fact, some religions state that it is not against doctrine to pray or worship from home. Also, think about how many religions are actually out there. There was some number released that I wish I could find through research, but it stated that there are well over one thousand different established religions in the United States as we speak. It's fair to assume that each of these religions truly believes they are the correct one. In human logic, they can't all be right...am I right? I think the understanding is much greater than that, but I'd be going off on a whole new tangent. All I'm saying is that I believe I am well within my rights to call myself "spiritual but not religious." Back to Mr. Miller's article, I will present another thing to consider. How are we (we being people that are "spiritual but not religious," of course) to feel about our stance on faith?
"The idea of sin has always been accompanied by the sense of what one could do to improve oneself and impact the world. Yet the spiritual-but-not-religious outlook sees the human as one that simply wants to experience 'nice things' and 'feel better.' There is little of transformation here and nothing that points to any kind of project that can inspire or transform us."
Part of faith is having a level of security in your personal life. It's supposed to give you emotional and existential comfort. It provides some kind of direction in life when you might not otherwise have it. All of these things are "nice" and are meant to make you "feel better." How can this man argue that being "spiritual but not religious" is any different than established religions in that regard? Everyone wants to have "nice things" and "feel better," and a religious label has no bearing on that fact. Furthermore, who is he to say that people that don't devote themselves to one religion can't find something to "inspire or transform" them? Inspiration and transformation do not need to come through some religion to be considered legitimate. Faith is the important factor, not religion. Then there's the question as to whether or not atheists or agnostics can find inspiration or transformation. If he would argue they can't then it's amazing how short-sighted he really is. My final thought is a question directed at Mr. Miller himself. What is your stance? Not once in that article of yours did you take a position yourself. We are only left to assume that your arguments against those who refuse to take a position on religion mean that you belong to a certain religion. Somehow, it never came up whether you do or not. Are you ashamed? Are you afraid somebody would call you out on being a member of a religion that isn't the most popular one, maybe questioning whether you believe that one religion is correct? It's amazing to have someone say that people like me are copping-out when you can't even own up to your own beliefs. You made the article public, so you should have no restraint in what you believe. You should have expected this sort of criticism from the beginning, and if you didn't, then you should have known it may not have been the best idea to have it published. For now, that's what I've got to say on that issue. Sorry it took so long to write, and I'm sorry if I ruffled any feathers of anyone close to me, but this guy made his arguments too generalized and left it wide open to my thoughts. I know I'm just one person who has experienced quite a bit that is far from the norm, but he struck a nerve. Thanks for reading, everyone. Take from it what you will. D.
By now, if you don't know who Cee Lo Green is, I regret to inform you that you are a pop culture retard. I'll give you a small sampling of who it is, just in case you can't put a face to the name.
Cee Lo in Gnarls Barkley - Crazy
Cee Lo as a judge on 'The Voice'
I'm sure you've at least heard that song in passing at some point. I have, and it's so catchy, I can't possibly hate it. As far as his role on that other miserable version of a talent-search show, it's just a sad attempt to stay in the public eye in every way possible. Can you blame the guy for enjoying his celebrity and wanting to further it any way he can? Absolutely not, but why would you settle on such a horrendous show like that? The judges on these 'reality' travesties are typically (that's right...typically...I didn't say all) artists who are well beyond their prime, don't know when enough is enough, and are desperate to be famous for just a little bit longer. This guy has plenty of qualities that people everywhere enjoy, whether it be his voice range, his humor and quirkiness, his sense of style...whatever. He's got enough going for him between all that and the hit singles he has come out with that he shouldn't need to lower himself to that level. Here's the really sad part: that's not even his worst career choice. At least in my opinion.
This is just downright ridiculous.
Okay. How many levels of atrocious does this cover? Let's find out, shall we?
First of all, the song that this audible filth was derived from is 'Blitzkrieg Bop' by The Ramones. I'm not going to get into whether or not I'm much of a fan of The Ramones; it's just not a crucial element to this bitter rambling of mine. The song in its original form is way overplayed and catchy at best. It's not to say that it was talentless or unoriginal, but nowadays it gets used far too often and receives far too much acclaim for a simple tune that barely exceeds two minutes in length. Next, let's consider that Cee Lo and The Ramones are in two completely different musical genres, ones that don't really mix well. Upbeat vs. moderate pace, rock with angst vs. pop with humor, and classic vs. modern. They clash like apples and turds. Unless you enjoy turd-apple pie, you must get my point. If you do, please don't breathe near me...ever.
Looks appetizing, huh?
Alright, so they went ahead and made that combo happen. It's bad enough that he sounds terrible singing this song, but then they change the words to gear it towards football. Think of the technology the entertainment business possesses. Think about how they could quite easily reproduce the Ramones singing their own song in a modern setting by means of CGI and a green screen. They could even do that without changing the song in any way, other than editing it to fit the football theme. Have it cut to the fans in their jerseys and makeup screaming, "Hey Ho...Let's Go!" That won't take away from it one bit. When you choose someone to do it simply because they are popular in today's society, you're obliterating any credibility or general interest in their rendition of the song. Finally, the only other thing to cover is why Cee Lo in particular? This chubby bastard likely never played a second of any competitive athletic activity in his life, making it tough to buy into his interest in football by any means. When money and music are your only two motivations, and the NFL Network is willing to hand you plenty of one to perform the other, I guess it really wouldn't matter for what event it's the theme song. He got paid, that's all. Hell, it could have been the theme song to a televised Canadian curling league; as long as the money's right, he doesn't care.
Once again, a lot of this is easy to say while I sit here in my living room, but this is just something that shouldn't have to be inflicted on anyone's eyes or ears. When I sit down to watch Thursday Night Football, I am sure to change the channel for the duration of the theme song, and I try my best to ignore the mini-clips during commercial breaks, halftime or whenever else his goofy head pops up. I just pray they reconsider their choice for the years to come.
Maybe they'll sign someone like Phil Collins to sing 50 Cent's 'In Da Club'. Perhaps Jimmy Buffett can give his version of Drowning Pool's 'Bodies'. Those can't be any worse than what we currently have to put up with.
This post could really be about two different things. The one that is more relative to pop culture is the disgraceful performance of the New York Yankees in baseball's postseason. 'Southbound' is being generous, honestly. Their collective talent went to hell with its proverbial ass on fire. A-Rod, Cano, Swisher, Granderson, Teixiera...you could have replaced these guys with Helen Keller, Christopher Reeve, Verne Troyer, Peter Dinklage and Stephen Hawking because they probably would have been more fit to compete. Considering two of them are already dead, two are midgets (little people, for the sensitive ones) and the last is practically a robot, I don't have to tell you how pathetic that is. Granted, they lost their captain to a fractured ankle in extra innings of game one, but one player rarely brings a team to victory on their shoulders alone, and this year he wouldn't have done that either. Posting their stats on here would be embarrassing to them, their fans and anyone else who has a pulse. Instead, I'll just have to swallow my pride, chalk it up as another disappointing postseason, and look forward to hockey season. Oh wait...there won't be one. Sports are really breaking my balls right now.
As for the other reason for this post, well this Yankee is headed south again. That's right...first it was from New York to Virginia. This time...South Carolina. No need to get into the exact details of why, but it's a necessary move for where my life is right now and how it needs to improve. I'm often asked why I moved down here to begin with, and it was similar in nature; it just seemed to be the right life move at the time. I think there are more reasons besides financial security and general life improvement that factor into my decision nowadays. They may not be crucial to any of you, but they certainly don't hurt my consideration:
The food: when I left New York, I left behind great pizza, bagels and most other baked goods in general. Those are things you really can't duplicate outside of that area. I must say it's a very reasonable trade-off, considering the seafood and barbecue down here are phenomenal. At least I know what is worth devouring in each state.
The cost of living: for someone living on one income only, it is not easy to make it on your own anywhere. Anything is better than New York, though. At least down here, I have a fighting chance.
Friends: I've had a close circle of friends since moving here, but the majority of them were the result of moving away from home and just meeting new people, whether it be in college, at work, whatever. Another move will allow me to branch out even further.
Women: what can I say? I love me some southern women. Sure, there are women everywhere (except men's restrooms...hopefully), but not all of them have those sweet southern accents. It may be a small luxury, but I'll take it.
It's my list, and I'm sticking to it. Needless to say, I'm excited for the near future (meaning the beginning of November). I am not psyched about the moving aspect of it, but the settling in is what I'll enjoy thoroughly. I'm going to miss this area, but I feel as though it has run its course for me. There may not be anything left for me here. The only way to find out if it's the right move or not is to go through with it.
This is just an idea of mine. Nothing too crucial, but I think it would make all these campaign ads a little more worth their air time. They're all too similar:
They bash the other candidates policies/actions/stances
They claim they will do the exact opposite of the other candidate
They present positive images of themselves and 'incriminating' ones of the others
Most of them finish up with, "I'm __(insert candidate's name here)__, and I approve this message."
Alright, so it's obvious that the first three are not going to change anytime soon. The candidates' need to discredit the other while telling everyone how great they are and how they will do a better job than the other guy is pretty much the goal of these ads. That I understand. I don't blame any or everyone for not wanting to sit through four campaign ads per commercial break until Election Day, but that's just how it's going to be. I don't like it either, but I deal with it.
Technically...this is inaccurate. He is working...just not very well.
Perhaps his pointy white hood. (Too far? Too bad.)
Really? Sarah Jessica Parker? I'd rather have Pauly Shore promoting my candidacy.
Instead, Obama is okay with this terrible actress pretending her opinion is relevant.
I think that their sign-offs need to change. There's no question about who approves the message. In fact, they're only stating that they approve it when all supporters of said candidate technically support it as well. That's mighty selfish, is it not? Plus, it's not like there's going to be a thirty-second ad that tells us how terrible of a president/politician/human Obama might be that is approved by Obama himself. Unless he just ate crow for dinner, followed by a big slice of humble pie, he's not going to do that. The overall point is that nobody cares who approved it, paid for it, starred in it, etc. My ideas to replace these sign-offs might be a little extreme...a little bizarre perhaps...but they are sure to grab your attention and make it memorable for you.
"I'm Mitt Romney...and I have a valid birth certificate."
"I'm Barack Obama...I'm from the streets, bitch! 3-1-2 represent!"
"I'm Mitt Romney...and I can legally parade around with multiple women."
"I'm Barack Obama...my wife is more hood than any of your busted wives."
"I'm Mitt Romney...and the 14% I paid in taxes paid for Obama's ads. Poor bastard."
"I'm Barack Obama...that's because in order to pay taxes, I'd have to be a legal citizen. I just cut the middle man out. Thanks for the ads, bro."
How about the more local candidates?
"I'm Paul Hirschbiel...because there's only one way to pronounce my last name."
"I'm Scott Rigell...it's pronounced 'Ridge-ull', not 'Rih-Jell'. The other guy's just a dick."
"I'm Tim Kaine...because George Allen is a name better suited for a bad country singer."
"I'm George Allen...because Tim Kaine sounds too similar to 'pimp cane'."
These are just a few simple examples. Perhaps the ones with curses in them would have to air on HBO or Showtime between movies or hour-long series', because people are too sensitive to handle the f-word on standard television. The FCC should grow a pair. This is a crude society we live in, why sugarcoat important messages like these?
Mitt Romney wrote this meme.
It's time to be raw. Be edgy. You'll be more likely to keep people interested. D.
Some of you may be thinking, "Really? He's going to make a blog entry about grocery shopping? There's no way. It's not even worth talking or reading about." Yes I am. And I will always find something worth mentioning. Oh ye of little faith. When I go grocery shopping, it's normally the weekend that I get paid at work, so I typically shop for two weeks at a time (or longer, depending on what it is I need the most). To me, brands are not of a tremendous concern, given the store brand tends to have the same taste, ingredients and quantity all for a lower price than the popular brands. Also, I am not ashamed to hand the cashier a pocket-full of coupons. Why should I be? If I have a chance to knock $5 off the final total, I'm going to do it. That also leads me to the fact that I will sometimes shy away from some regular purchases if a certain product is not on sale that week. Certain things I will absolutely argue are not worth the full price on the label. They may be good...but it's undeniable that they taste so much better when you know you spent half the regular price. During these horrid economic times, I am sure I'm in the majority of people that shop the same way. Now it's my job to point out the little things that you don't really think about when you're stocking up for your future eating pleasure.
This is just being thrifty. Don't hate.
How many of you have gone to the store and found that after walking around and fumbling 4 items in your hands that now would be a good time to get a cart or basket? You only intended on picking up a few things, yet you underestimated how awkward it would be after you found said things and tried lugging them around each aisle before you're ready to check out. On the other hand, how about those times that you grab a cart and the only things you grab barely even fill up the child seat area of the cart, then you go to check out and the cashier looks at you like you're a buffoon because you couldn't carry two cans of soup and a box of oyster crackers in a basket? Don't make yourself look foolish, especially in public. Leave that for the viewing pleasure of people you know well.
I really hope this person didn't start off with just a basket.
Looks like they're shopping for a family of carnies.
Then there is your impulse buying. You are actively trying to eat healthy, yet you're about to pass the Krispy Kreme kiosk, and your stomach urges you to go against your diet as you grab a box. It happens to everyone, and almost every time you go to the store. You can show up with a strict list of what you need, and somehow you still end up with some crap in your cart that you need to rationalize in your mind why it's a good idea to buy it. Sure, you can find a way to convince yourself, but how about the people other than yourself that you're shopping for? Suddenly your greedy belly is taking precedence over your family's hope to avoid making unnecessary purchases. Then again, sometimes they appreciate your blatant disregard for that strict list because their greedy bellies are genetically similar to yours. Then you get to the register and somehow you're completely confused about why you're paying $20 more than you originally anticipated. From the time that you picked up that big chocolate cake with peanut butter frosting and sprinkles on top to the time it was scanned and bagged, you're inexplicably clueless about the high subtotal. You only have your self to blame.
Way to go, chubs...you just couldn't resist, could you?
One of my favorite things about going to the grocery store is the deceptive advertising of certain products they are trying to push. Sometimes it's the manufacturer that uses tricky language to draw in the less-than-brilliant consumers, and sometimes it's the store that does it to sell something that they they're having trouble getting rid of. For instance, there are the baked goods that found their way on the first fixture you see as you walk through the automatic sliding doors. Stacked front-and-center are the not-so-fresh 'Fresh Pies/Cakes/Cookies' in those generic ass boxes. Do people actually believe these things are fresh? There's no denying that some of it is delicious, don't get me wrong. Claiming it's actually fresh is quite the stretch though. Yea, it's fresh...the moment it made its way out of the oven and into the box...at the manufacturer's warehouse that mass produces it...only to be shipped out and received days later by the store you're walking into. Then, how do you know if those items were brought out to the sales floor immediately or not? They could have easily laid dormant on a rolling cart for days on end in the back because the store was waiting for their previous shipment to sell through. I may be in the minority on this one, but I think the extra cost, time and effort of buying the ingredients to make my own fresh baked goods is worth buying instead of these fake-fresh-foods. I'm also not suggesting you never buy these things, but maybe you'll take a second look at when they were made/when they expire, just in case it was fresh as of two weeks ago. I know I will.
Let's just pray this particular pie made it's way into someone's home
before only having two slices remaining as this photo was taken.
The last thing I always find amusing is not exactly a 'glass half full/glass half empty' scenario, but rather a clear-cut slice of realism. Here's the situation: you spend half an hour weaving through the aisles grabbing whatever you need off the shelves, and you decide you're done for the day. You walk your cart to the register, hand the cashier your rewards/discount card to scan and he/she/it scans and bags all of your groceries. Then you hand them your cash or swipe your card, and then it happens. Everybody has experienced it, and once again, people are fooled by tricky language. After dropping nearly a hundo (that's slang for $100 dollars...keep up, people), the cashier tells you that, "you saved $23 today," or whatever amount was negated by whatever was on sale. Guess what? You didn't save anything...you spent a hundo. Sure, it's nice to know that you could have spent that extra $23 today, and thanks to the price reduction on certain things you bought, you didn't have to. Considering how overpriced most of those groceries are in the first place, the fact they are brought down to a 'reasonable' price, or whatever you have to rationalize as being reasonable, you shouldn't be duped by the pointless statistic/dollar figure that tells you what you didn't spend. The only number I'm concerned about is the number I'll later see deducted from my bank account. Unless I miraculously saved more than I spent, I don't give a fraction of a crap how much money was lowered on said normally price-inflated products. Give me my receipt, try having a good day while dealing with some of the most bitter and obnoxious customers on earth, and let me carry on with my day.
Prime example. It's not like $27.30 will be magically added to my checking account.
I know I'm not the only one who has noticed these things. Now every time you go food shopping and you think twice about these things, you'll have this guy to thank. Damn straight. D.
