Diary of a MadMan

the four letter "f" word that gets you out of the gutter

2012-01-26T12:07:00.002-06:00

Top 10 actors (giving it 5 minutes of thought, sure I left a few out) of My-Time, not ranked:

Kevin Spacey
Anthony Hopkins
Phillip Seymour Hoffman
Jeff Bridges
Benicio Del Toro
Brian Cox
Christopher Walken
Daniel Day-Lewis
Gary Oldman
Liam Neeson
Al Pacino
Robert De Niro
Jack Nicholson
John Travolta
Johnny Depp

I love movies. LOVE. I love entertainment. Who doesn't?

What intrigues me about entertainment is how fascinated we are with fiction. We buy and buy and buy lies, watching them via Netflix, BlueRay, Red Box, VHS, and Blockbuster and at the movie theater over, and over, and over again, and millions of us do it, everyday. Why do we want to hear a story so badly? More on that later.

Even more intriguing to me is how obsessed we then become with the non-fictional people participating in acting the story out, i.e. the fame we create for the actors and actresses that played a part in the movie.

Why are we so in love with fame? Why, if I am 30 lbs. overweight with a shotty complexion and crooked smile, do I go unnoticed at a classy bar, however dodge offers from dimes if I am famous? What is it about that f-word that overwhelms us with desire?

Is it money? Is it mystique? Is it that the person overcame the large probability they would not make it? Is it the status? Is it the fact that everyone else wants them too?

When I was working for Atlantic Records circa 2004, I was backstage before Staind was to perform at the Mesa Ampitheater in, well, Mesa, AZ. They never quite achieved Metallica-esque fame, but they sold a boatload of albums, and there was never much room at any show I ever attended. There I was, backstage, hanging with Mike Mushok, noting guitar tips, when someone in the band pulled out a fat spliff and lit up 10 feet to my right. Fine by me, I think the shit should be legal, 100%. But I couldn't help but notice the Police Department / Security standing no more than 15, maybe 20 feet away, clearly within range of the scent and clearly noting a visual, ignoring the fact that the same law that millions of "Staind-less" Americans have broken and subsequently experienced penalty was
clearly being broken right in front of them, and they did nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

If it were anyone else, literally anyone else but anyone "in the band", and not just any band, a "famous" band, it would have been a flurry of radios + stampedes + threats + handcuffs + quarantines + arrests + confiscations + back-up + charges + tickets + flashlights + bookings + + + + + ...

Nada. There we sat, like in the circle with Eric Forman in his basement in That 70's Show, watching the clouds engulf our heads, pretending it was normal, because anything but playing it cool wasN'T.

I've got more stories like that, only they star Linkin Park, Jason Mraz, Ice Cube, among others.

I don't have the answer. But I love thinking about it. Only fame can blind a dime from the beer gut, stained teeth, and cratered forehead. Only fame can diffuse a cop's constant urge to abuse his power and exercise the law to its fullest extent. Only fame highlights the actor for portraying the heroic characteristics of the non-fictional being over the actual being himself. Only fame can cause everyone who ever treated you average to start kissing your ass right after your big break. Only fame can justify ridiculous compensation for minute quantities of labor. Only fame allows people with absolutely 0 economic threats who destroy their health via substance abuse profit from their recovery. How many bums who bounce back from heroin addiction make the NY Times Bestseller List?

Only fame.

So fascinating.

It blows my mind. Share your comments. What is it? Why does it literally convert another human being, another bag of saline solution and organs and flaws and closet-ed skeletons and substance dependencies and dying brain cells into an icon, a pillar of social status and achievement?

I heard once that it's the "aura of invincability" that attracts people to fame, i.e. cops wafting second hand Kush their way before "It's Been Awhile" goes amplified throughout downtown Mesa, Arizona, all because, well, quite frankly, "it's Staind, man..."

fame...

"here, take this to help with the pain... pain may increase dramatically, but you can't sue me now because you are aware... can I get paid?"

2012-01-17T12:10:00.000-06:00

It is a bit comical to serve Nielsen as an "impression" as a result of the airing of pharmaceutical company's drug ads intercepting my meeting my entertainment media needs. Anyone else notice the fine print getting finer and a bit stupid in how far XYZ Pharma, Inc. will go to indemnify themselves? They have literally excused themselves of any potential liability resulting from... wait for it... their value proposition not creating any value, in fact, actually harming you!

This hit a bit close to home for me.

Some of you are familiar with the fact that I have been knocked out, twice, diagnostic "concussion", grade 2, and then 3 (out of 3 btw), during my days as a running back. I was pretty fast for a white guy, but running full speed into another human being doesn't always result in your momentum out-bidding his.

The first was in 8th grade, running a drag route between the linebackers dropping into zone pass coverage and the secondary going deep... wait you probably don't give a shit about the details... anyway the second "lights out" moment was worse, it taking place in Illinois (first in Texas), and I was able to answer all standard inquiries from the Dr. correctly (name, address, etc.), except for the one that probably meant the most with respect to the condition of my brain:

Dr. - "Where are you right now?"
Me - "Rockwall Texas."
Dr. - "Mark, please repeat your location, and also your school mascot."
Me - "Rockwall Texas, and we are the Yellowjackets. Orange and white."
Dr. - "Mark you are in Morton, Illinois, and you are the Hogs. You are wearing cherry and grey. Come with me."

Fast forward a few years, and here comes the Dr. with a "mild depression" diagnosis, which, according to modern medicine, is allegedly running rampant in post-concussion NCAA and NFL football players, as well as NHL retirees. I was put on a small dose of medication, designed to delay the re-uptake of certain neurotransmitters associated with "elevated
mood". I was floored when I saw an ad for the exact pill I was simultaneously metabolizing. It went something like this:

Kind, empathetic female voice, mid-40's, delicate piano playing:

"Abilify. Because you deserve to be happy again."

Kind, slightly whispering male voice, getting paid to read a script written by Stein, McStein, Cohen & Associates & OtherStein, LLP, delicate piano still playing:

"Abilify may result in an increase in thoughts of suicide. Should you consider ending your life, consult with your physician immediately. Abilify may cause long-term (insert favorite vital organ name here) damage, potentially resulting in its failure..."

WOW!

So, I pay 1.) a health insurance premium, every month, to hedge the risk of BCBS's investment in my "maybe Dr. visit" and 2.) a co-pay, every time I purchase meds prescribed by my Dr., to further reduce the cost of BCBS's investment in my actually needing their service, the intent to consume a pharmacological substance proven
with millions in shareholder capital to "elevate my mood", or, for argument's sake, unload the proverbial .22, but there is a high probability my desire to "call it" will literally "increase" with consumption?

It's another example of the complete absence of accountability in our nation's current state of business. The legal strategy is that by telling the consumer there are potential risks associated with the product, in the event said risks actually affect the consumer, the provider is indemnified. Basically "hey, you knew you might think more about drinking rat poison when you paid me to help you not drink it, so you can't sue me dude".

What if when you bought a car, the salesman said "now, there is a chance this VW will reverse itself, unexpectedly, on your way to work at 75 mph, and we hereby notify you of such, so you can't sue us if your car shifts from "D" to "R" on your way to work tomorrow because you hereby acknowledge possibility and hereby accept this risk assuming you buy this VW and therefore hold us harmless..."

Ridic.

I bought Abilify for one reason: Dr. Shrink said it will make me feel better, and I will consequently feel that living life sounds better than not, but the legal team behind its product risk management is going to tell me I could experience the worst possible outcome, or feeling the exact opposite of the product's intended purpose?

That is a legal / litigators wet dream!

Can you imagine how difficult it would be to argue anything against Abilify when the fine print disclaimed their product could actually cause the exact opposite of its value proposition in the event someone actually experienced a health hazard?

I thought of a few parallel reasoning funnies:

"Plan B. Because you can't control everything. Note there is a high probablity taking Plan B will facilitate triplets."

"LG. You deserve hi-def at 72 inches. Note watching our t.v. often causes lifelong blindness."

"Tide. Smell fresh! You hereby agree to the fact that our detergent may attract bacterial growth, overwhelming stench, and attacks from wild predators mistaking you for rotting flesh."

Bank of America. Feel safe about where you money is. There is high risk for bank robbery, total loss of asset, and 0% back-up by the FDIC."

Be aware of the fine print positioning XYZ Inc. to take your money without providing an actual service in return.

Time for another one... now, Johnnie Walker has yet to fail to deliver on its value prop:

"Johnnie Walker. Fucking you up since you were old enough to reach it and replace what you stole with water."

Can't compain about that!

I scream, you scream we all scream for ice cream (and not monogamy...)

2012-01-15T15:37:00.002-06:00

Remember how pumped you got when you heard the "Ice Cream Man" music coming from his truck as it turned down your street?

"YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! ICE CREAM MAN! ICE CREAM MAN!"

I was thinking, after watching another Netflix documentary, of course, about how we absolutely love variety, even arguably require it, in our society. We LOVE options, choices, alternatives... variety. We LOVE to experience new ice cream flavors, foods, cars, clothes, properties, fragrances, shoes, phones, locations, watches, make-up, movies, facebook profile pictures, gadgets, clubs, bars, etc. etc. etc. We LOVE our variety! We ARE variety! I WANT MORE AND I WANT IT DIFFERENT THAN BEFORE!

So why should we believe that the same brain obsessed with trying new things would behave any differently when experiencing sex, or deciding when to have it, and who to have it with? Why do we try to control our natural desire for variety when underwriting that critical emotional investment, the non-platonic relationship, and are so unbelievably surprised, like the sun didn't come up surprised, when our significant other gives into the same desire we saw last night at dinner when he / she asked for cheesecake mid-diet, only this piece of cheesecake came with the ability to help him / her orgasm, and it wasn't the same mate, i.e. us!

It is tough to swallow (no pun intended...), but it is fact: human beings crave variety, and that craving for "different" does not go away just because we are all "supposed" to practice monogamy in relationships. The desire to screw other people is deeply embedded in all of us. I am going to leave the law of diminishing returns out of this one, as a good friend often accuses me of being "cold-hearted" when I incorporate economics, etc. into concepts as treasured as "love", sex, etc. But bottom line is we get bored with monotony, and seeing the same person naked over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again JUST. GETS. OLD. (and so do they, which doesn't help either). So naturally, like when we take the leap of faith and try something different at our restaurant, our curiosity and desire for variety kicks in, and we start fantasizing, thinking about taxing that hottie we see on our morning run, or in line at Starbucks, etc.

Monogamy may become a thing of the past. More and more people are deciding to believe in a different lifestyle, and it involves sexing with variety, forever. I think it really is a matter of whether or not you are able to let go of the benefits marriage is "supposed to" provide and invest in the belief that it is acceptable to sex with more than one person in your lifetime. People are scared of marriage, and are more interested in avoiding the heartbreak and fiscal consequences that come with divorce, where the odds favor it, than they are in spending their life wondering if their spouse is still attracted to them. Result? We all become kids again, yelling for the ice cream man, only now we are hearing the soundtrack to a good porn instead of a synthesized xylophone, and we are just as excited to try something new when "it" arrives today as we were then!

"evolution revolution" part 3

2012-01-12T10:51:00.000-06:00

Another feature of "common evolution" theory is how the human being is "96% similar to the great ape species" (depending on whose data your referencing), based on genomic sequencing.

Damn... all that evolving for a measly additional 4%? But what a 4% it is... responsible for those few ancillary inventions, like the jet airplane, internet, skyscraper, and artificial heart, to name a few.

What I don't understand is why didn't all the apes evolve by 4%? Let's say it all started with a male and female ape, somewhere in the jungle on Earth, 10 million years ago. As they pro-create, baby apes grow up, pro-create, etc., and a colony develops, etc. All these apes stick relatively close by, interacting in meeting fundamental survival needs and working with the laws of scarcity. Now, what stimulus in that jungle, or anywhere on Earth (say a pair of apes head west for new opportunity), caused these apes to begin evolving, that isn't present today, in the same primitive environment? In other words, in order for evolution to make sense today, based on the fact that humans exist and apes still exist in their relatively "original" format relative to the human (we are clearly different; at least two apes got left behind here...), some apes evolved, some didn't. What on Earth, pre-human existence, caused "some" apes to evolve, and others to sit tight? They were all eating the same bananas, experiencing the same rain (and water matter for that matter), subject to the same weather, rocks, grass, leaves, trees, bamboo, threats, disease, dirt, mud, rivers, creeks, bugs, wind, thunderstorms, climate, etc. then that they are today. Or maybe not? Was there a threat or obvious benefit available to at least one male and one female ape that caused them to "stand up", where the rest, never subject to such, took a seat?

I firmly believe Earth has not changed "that" much, from a climate perspective, in the time evolutionists argue it has taken for apes to evolve into humans. My money is on the bet that the jungle responsible for helping grow the first male and female ape is a lot the same today as it was then. This goes for the whole global landscape. If that is the case, what stimulus then, likely present today, would cause apes to commence the evolutionary process? What needs weren't met?

4% is quite a leap in genomic growth (assuming linear or non-linear projections), and I am assuming that this 4% is what is responsible for our ascension in sophistication of lifestyle (or thanks to this extra 4%, we have constructed an economy that works quite different than competing for who gets the last banana by grunting and punching). But what set it in motion, and my God, is 4% all that separates the brain responsible for converting minerals from the soil into laptop computers from the brain responsible for converting the same minerals into launch-able excrement? Picture the world pre-human. Looks alot like a National Geographic piece. Now picture the first apes, sitting around then, like they are today, at the zoo. What caused at least one male and female to quote "stand up" then that isn't causing their grandchildren to today if the things haven't changed that much?

reverse retirement... anyone else want to join me?

2012-01-10T21:16:00.001-06:00

So lately I've been thinking about this whole retirement thing, more specifically how I will likely spend my last years on Earth free from the burdens that come with employment, arguably the free-est time of my life, old, tired, mad, impotent, and bored.

Do I have to?

What if we could reverse the process? What if we could spend 22 - 35 "retired", but then worked from 35 - R.I.P.? I would much rather live it up 22 - 35 and work til death than check out at 65 and rot in my Mercedes. If you think about it, in business, the older you get, the "more experience" you offer, and are subsequently more valuable, so why are we calling it at 65, when, if we kept working, we would make more money, pay more taxes, etc.? It would be a great economic breakthrough.

Social security costs needed would plummet as a result of the drop in medical needs of those "retired" (as well as Medicare), or 22 - 35, and the older workers would keep earning more money. How much loot does a Dr. leave on the table if he retires at 65 by the time he turns 75? All that not-earned income, and the taxes it would generate, is lost.

My God the fun we could be having right now vs. scripting cliche cover letters and creeping on Linkedin! All my retired relatives are old as shit and constantly belly aching about how bored they are all day. Put them to work! Let us enjoy our youth!

I would love to have all the fun in the sun I could now and would welcome a working death sentence in a hot minny. I would sign up in a heartbeat. I don't want to retire at 65. I want to work so I can avoid pissing myself every afternoon after 7 stiff J. Walkers.... wait, I would just piss myself every afternoon after 7 stiff J. Walkers "retired" at 28 anyway...

:-)

the "golden ratio"... coming to a plastic surgeon near you

2012-01-07T20:56:00.000-06:00

I remember growing up I was definitely as attracted to commercially advertised, or "popular" females, as the rest of the hormone-soaked adolescent male market, but never really understood why. Cindy Crawford, Pam Anderson, Shania Twain... us dudes all saw these epic profiles and reacted the same, regardless of how they compared to our then girlfriends, true personal tastes, etc.

No question, every day, all day, all of us hollered accordingly:

"She's freakin' hot!"

As I got older, I began to notice that, in the course of normal, everyday life, certain female faces "stood out", or caught my attention, and at first I couldn't pin point what it was about these beauties that was so damn intriguing. But, they all dug up similar emotions experienced during a Baywatch episode 6, 7 years prior. I would think...

"Why can't I stop looking at this person?"

Depending on the situation, I would have trouble forgetting a face for an amount of time abnormal relative to how long it takes to forget the average stranger's face. In other words, we pass by hundreds of faces every hour, day, week (depending on your living and work conditions), and, usually, immediately forget 100% of them. We even glance up every now and then and make direct eye contact with a total stranger, and science proves that if we saw that same person again later that day, we are not guaranteed a memory of them from earlier that day to remind us we have seen them before. They would appear a total stranger, never experienced before. We forget them in seconds. But there are those chosen 2 or 3 every year or so (for me) that STUN me, I mean really knock me back, sear my memory, and I would still think of that face the next day, week, even month.

So I took hard mental note what it was about these gems that latched onto my conscious attention the last time I saw one, and pieced together a list of features that were unique and relatively rare compared to the "crowd" (just the first 4):

1. symmetry of the face

2. surface area of the eyes relative to the total facial real estate

3. concavity of cheeks as a result of deepened cheek bones

4. balanced smile

When I saw another masterpiece, I ran through my mental checklist, and checked each feature off as I glanced at her money-maker. Then I tested friends, identifying a gem in crowded mall, a group picture, etc., and sure as Obama's incompetence, all homey's were in! It appeared we had a Cindy, Pam, and Shania match 15 years later!

In conducting an investigation, I watched (loving Netflix!) the documentary "The Science of Sex Appeal" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1309188/) to see if my list had any relevance or merit. It turns out there is strong evidence around there being a scientific formula governing what attracts us to the opposite sex. Certain features of the face, and how they measure in proportion to other features, along with where they are placed in relation to others, with great, great precision, control to what degree we are "universally attractive". One ratio, or the "golden ratio", when applied to certain facial features, turns out to be a top quality in our Cindy's, Pam's, and Shania's, and the strange Minka Kelly look-a-like sipping a martini to my right...

Watch the documentary to learn more!

And whether you're modeling for CK and 10-10 on breaking 10s' hearts or rocking a slightly rigid jaw line / crooked smile as a result of 1.) significant dental work as an adolescent and 2.) 5 years of ear-hole crack-back block football hits like me, not to worry! It's 2012! Plastic surgeons await!

But beware! Note the "golden ratio" relies on ultimate precision! A fraction of a millimeter exists between a successful plastic surgery and looking like the BEAST from Sandlot!

Happy Saturday!

"evolution revolution" part 2

2012-01-06T17:07:00.001-06:00

A common argument I encounter when working to disprove the theory that humans evolved from monkeys is that all species ever existing on planet Earth evolved from the same source, or a single-cell organism, it originating in the ocean.

I think about this every time I brush my teeth, thanking the evolutionary spirit for removing the 2, 3 rows of hundreds of triangular razor blades that my great white shark ancestors realized they didn’t need once they began to walk on land, for they are saving me loads of loot on toothpaste cost by leaving me with my bicuspid and friends.

Here is the gaping hole in the key scientific equation associated with this theory.

Assuming this 100M’th great-grand daddy of a single-cell 1.) possessed the fundamental, biological properties of the current cell, and 2.) originated in the sea, then one would logically conclude that this oxygen-dependent organism derived its O2 from water, similar to a fish with gills; its respiratory system extracted oxygen from water. Without this basic physiological process, the cell would die. If you doubt that, go breathe under water, and report back regarding how your cells react.

Where the theory shifts its dependence on science to hype is when this cell “leapt from the water and onto land”, hence the first step in its evolving to live as a land-based single cell organism, etc.

I ask you to spend your Friday afternoon trying to answer this: how can a cell, whose respiratory system is completely dependent on water-based oxygen derivation, survive long enough outside its water-based environment long enough to pro-create? How long can a “fish” survive out of water? Let’s reverse the process; how long can a monkey survive under water? Do you think that when either species is desperately seeking diffusion of its fundamental survival molecule from its blood it is thinking about growing legs or consolidating them into a fin, or pro-creating for that matter? Absolutely not. They are too busy dying.

The water-based single cell that leapt from the sea would not have enough time, even if it were on a kamikaze sex mission, to pro-create and support the evolutionary cycle, before it died. And the same goes for all his buddies who wanted to be the first to feel the sand beneath their “someday” toes. And even if it could ejaculate through whatever magical sex organ it has in the evolutionists’ fairy tales in time before calling it, the recipient of said semen would certainly die far early in the pregnancy cycle due to the same oxygen-deprivation process her one-night’er next to her experienced.

It just flat out does not make any scientific sense.

I am not saying I know where humans came from. I don’t. Nobody truly, with absolute certainly, knows, hence the constant investment of time and energy into trying to figure it out and the arguments that accompany debating the unknown. What I do know is that evolution overlooks some very fundamental scientific evidence that supports its impossibility, and that is all on which I can focus.

Did we come from God? I don’t know. But I do believe that a pretty awesome something is responsible for our bodies, and it created us separate from squawking, shit-throwing, lice-picking / eating, purple-assed apes, and even they didn’t come from Johnny single-cell on the beach, either.

act like a monkey today! because you were never, and will never be, one ("evolution revolution" part 1)

2012-01-03T08:18:00.002-06:00

This is part 1 of my "evolution revolution" series of blogs where I will be working diligently to offer substantial evidence to eliminate all potential doubt in your mind that we, humans, evolved from apes.

You don't need to spend this year curious as to whether or not 1.) your "tail bone" once served as the structural root for your, well, monkey tail, or 2). if since last night's Discovery Channel program boasted how we "uprighters" share 98.5% of our DNA with primates, then that means your 1M'th great grandma swung from a tree (how un-lady like!).

First.

Today, when you act like a monkey, and I mean all day, hunch over like an ape, ball your fists, and swing your arms as you lunge along, like an ape, for the next, well, all day.

Let me know how your lower lumbar feel around 8:30pm tonight.

When you're icing your back, or find yourself in HR for "monkeying around" (HA!), ask yourself "why would I resist, or challenge, the natural contours of my spine when all my needs are already met standing up?"

It's the same reason apes didn't "stand up", or intentionally inflict substantial discomfort and pain to themselves through contorting their skeletal structures, including repeatedly activating the same nerve endings you did all day that you both share, and are responsible for transmitting pain signals to your brain.

They had no reason to. All stimuli required for homeostatic function in the ape kingdom can be experienced in an ape's natural skeletal state; he / she can eat, sleep, have sex, urinate, etc. just fine without contorting his / her spine, or any other skeletal system, for that matter.

Look at them today. What can't they reach or see that they need to touch or watch for survival? Nothing.

So, unless you're reading this with a throbbing sensation pulsating in your lower back, you probably decided to not lunge around hunched over all day, simply because you don't need to, and you can bet the same amount of money you put on your favorite NCAA bowl game that today your monkey buddy over in the African safari will not be working on power point standing up either.

unconditional love... it's your Gladiator armor for your 2012 love fantasy

2012-01-02T20:39:00.000-06:00

So one of my oldest friends, a best friend, who has always shot straight as straight shootin' can get (and who I actually listen to), recommended I "tone down the aggression between the lines in some of my posts"...

"I love them, and you make great points, you just seem really angry, and that can hinder the effectiveness of your message..."

"fuck living positive - negativity spreads faster" - Lloyd Banks (and we all know he's right, so blame yourself for my blog poppin' off)

I love this friend dearly, so in honor of her name and all she stands for in my life, I am going to tone it down... just this once (love ya' tortilly)

Unconditional love. Allow me to explain.

I am asking you to start your New Year 2012 off by thinking of a person that you already tell you "love".

Go ahead. Pick one. Just one.

Now...

When you picture this person in your mind, if they were to betray your trust, stab you in the back, lie to you, hurt you, etc. etc., would you revoke their license to enjoy your love? Most likely, yes.

It's only natural; hurt me, and I no longer love you. How can you love someone who hurts you? How can you love someone who, at that point, "must not" love you? After all, if they "loved you", they wouldn't "hurt you". Right?

It's the age-old mystery anyone who ever had their heart broken struggles to solve for... well... in my experience, literally years.

BUT, NOW...

I have grown my mind around the fact that love, for it to truly work, and in its truest sense of the word, must be unconditional. In other words, if there are conditions and covenants for this mutual consideration of "love", or something like "I will agree to love you so long as you 1.) don't lie, 2.) don't cheat, 3.) don't etc. etc. etc.", it will never work, because the sheer delicacy of the emotion, and how dearly we hold it to our hearts, will always be vulnerable to harm, BECAUSE of its delicacy, and how dearly we hold it to our hearts...

It's almost virtually impossible to not experience pain after we admit our love because we all believe our love is the ultimate gift and, if he left the toilet seat up, or if she texted her ex-boyfriend "happy new year", they must not appreciate that supreme, suffocating, emotional blanket.

By the time the human psyche reaches a point where its comfortable in risking its most sincere, intense, precious pearl of vulnerability, it automatically, simultaneously goes on the look-out for anything that may harm its treasured romantic past-time...

It's like when you finally muster the courage to wear your favorite suit or dress to dinner... how much more aware are you of every crumb that breaches the artificial boundary you've set around your garment?

Love is the same! Every minute attack on your "brand new vintage Coach purse" of emotions is going to send you into a fucking volcanic tailspin!!!

So! Don't bother with the conditions... add "unconditionally" to "I love you" the next time you share your golden ticket with (insert name here). This way, you shield off any potential threats because threats can't exist if you aren't afraid of losing anything, or being hurt or harmed...

"I love you unconditionally".

I like it! It's your Gladiator armor for your 2012 love fantasy!

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!?!?

Happy 2012 from Dallas, Texas, where I commit to love those I already love and will love "unconditionally". My heart is armor-ed up!

heaven & hell... I can't marry a shishkabob, but I am going to marry someone who doesn't want to become one

2011-12-29T09:45:00.000-06:00

heaven & hell...

history's most effective incentive-based reward system...

think of the chaos that would ensue if we learned, for a fact, that neither existed...

think of how many people today, right now, DON'T do things for fear of spending eternity burning in hell...

if they knew they were not doomed to a fiery bath should they commit, say, murder, or adultery, would they commit?

if they knew they were not going to spend forever skipping through rolling green hills, barefoot, hand-in-hand with Jesus, would they pray, give, donate, remain honest, do right?

do you trust mankind to maintain order in the event its primary reason for keeping such is revealed a lie?

I sure as FUCK don't...

anyway, I've been a tad skeptical about church-goers in modern times... most scare me to death....

but now, after witnessing the evil capable by the opposite sex for, well, over 10 years now, relative to truthfulness, faithfulness, severe rationalization, behavior polarities, and basic overall justification of catastrophic emotional impact on partner, etc., I think I am only going to put a ring on a finger connected to a body trembling with fear in response to imagining what will happen to her, for eternity, if she were to commit adultery, or "cheat" on me during our marriage together...

who says Satan can't be a pal? he's arguably responsible for keeping a majority of marriages monogamous...

(it's all about perspective... happy Thursday!)

nature vs. nurture... it's VITAL parents coddle and stroke their... egos?

2011-12-28T11:07:00.000-06:00

I have grown to see the opportunity the classic "nature vs. nurture" debate, or the argument over the determinants responsible for human development, more specifically factors affecting children's ability to grow into healthy adults and adopt certain traits, opens for selfish, egoic parents to completely indemnify themselves of any and all responsibility associated with disruptive mental conditions in their children. I used to laugh off critics who accused parents of blaming "nurture", or society and the personal experiences that accompany communities, for all their child's ailments, but were first in line to praise and promote the same child's accomplishments in school, often indirectly claiming and celebrating credit for their A+ in calculus, hence "nature", as irresponsible, poor, etc. parents, mainly because I was in love with the pop culture parental ideology.

I have learned yet another lesson in life. Yes, my Grandpa would be proud; "boy, life ain't fair now, ya' hear?"

I have since experienced this miracle of, what I call, "total positive attribute responsibility", or otherwise known as "I''ll take credit for everything awesome about my pro-creation, and anything failing to coddle or stroke my ego is automatically, obviously, and arguably the result of factors affecting my pro-creation that are clearly out of my control". Let me provide some examples of credit-taking, subconscious or not, some I'm sure will hit very close to home.

"We are so proud of our daughter. She is really excelling in sports, and making awesome grades. Her father was always such a diligent student, and I won state on the balance-beams in 1978."

"Our son graduated honors in engineering. I just know he gets that math stuff from his Dad! I was never good with numbers."

"Our son has a beautiful girlfriend, and they will likely marry and have adorable children. I was always told he had my eyes, and he definitely gets his lips from his father."

"Our son is such a hard-working American. We made sure he learned the value of a dollar at an early age, and now look at him... trying million-dollar cases... and winning!"

Now, let's look at some relate-able scenarios where parents duck and dodge negative characteristics their children may be starting to display or are already demonstrating full-blown symptoms.

"We just found out our daughter, at 16, is pregnant. Can you believe that? What are we going to do? I always knew that boy she was dating was bad news."

"Our 27 year-old son was recently diagnosed with severe depression. I always feared those concussions he experienced in middle school and high school football would lead to this. It's all over the internet, how concussions cause depression."

"Our son beat-up another school mate today. Can you believe what video games are teaching kids these days? It's unacceptable. Congress needs to intervene."

"That rap music! It's ruining my daughter's discipline for use of clean, friendly language! I taught her better than that. We need to stop those rappers!"

Please note all are fictional, and unrelated, respectively, to one another. And sure, you can argue either side (nature vs. nurture) for any of these statements. Sure, a son may get his math skills from his dad, and a girl may very well learn to say "bitch" from Snoop Dog. But what I want you to see is how powerful ego preservation and defense can be, even when a child's well-being is either at risk or already compromised. I do not have the answer; parents will always, forever, without any judicial consequences, be able to assign blame for unfavorable behavior in their child to society; was it the fact that the daughter knew Mom was pregnant at 16 that caused her to believe such is acceptable since "Mommy did it", or was it an article in Cosmopolitan Magazine on "how to tease your man tonight... be young, sexy, fabulous, and hot..."? No way to tell.

All I know is I have seen parents do an excellent job promoting their children's strengths simply because it reflects positively on them, just like when they write their resume, and fail to take responsibility for weaknesses simply because it may, although you can argue otherwise, "chink" at the armor of the self-image they have heavily invested in creating and protecting.

To Moms, Dads...

Step up. Help diagnose and cure. Otherwise you could be trying to celebrate that all-state high school football story while friends and teachers share stories of how depressed he was the two years leading up to his suicide. Going to be tough to ignore whether or not more could have been done when "there are plenty of fish in the sea, so stop sulking and get those A's in history back" was all that was said in reaction to his constant sadness after his girlfriend broke up with him... "we thought it was just puppy love... he was too young to be in love", or how maybe since depression and alcoholism really did run rampant on dad's and mom's side of the family, respectively, but conveniently ignored, could have played a factor in his decision to end his life. Hold yourself accountable in helping those same math whizzes, sports stars, and doll-faces deal with and confront the root issues in their early pregnancies, severe depression, and anger / rage before those same children have 14 more kids, commit suicide, or kill someone, as adults.

Don't abandon. The time when they need help the most is the same time your parenting reputation is on the line. Choose them. Choose to "nurture" your "nature" instead of choosing "nurture" to indemnify your "nature".

Because after all... does it really matter whether or not it was "nurture" or "nature"? Does it matter if his closet, chronic alcoholism is a result of your genetics or effective iPhone app advertising associated with Angry Birds? No. It doesn't. What matters is your pro-creation has built a dependency on a dangerous substance, and you can help break it. Ignoring it or blaming elsewhere will most certainly do at least one thing...

not help it.

Make a commitment today. Commit to take responsibility for the "good" and the "bad" in your children, whether you already have them or not. And I don't mean you have to promote their new anti-depressant prescription after sharing their LSAT score at your next black tie affair or on the detergent aisle at Wal-Mart. You can keep your facade. I mean if you are going to attribute their LSAT abilities to your or your spouse's nature, then you automatically assume responsibility for the possibility the same nature is a factor in their depression.

my 2012 resolution: stop acting like a gazelle with a hungry lion lunging at my ass (you should consider the same)

2011-12-27T10:11:00.001-06:00

"Thousands of years ago, we mostly lived until we either starved, were accidentally poisoned or we were eaten by another animal. Now, we have the distinct ability to slowly kill ourselves over a period of about 80 years with chemical laced foods, too much alcohol and prolonged reaction to stressful events. All are avoidable, if we make the choice to do so."

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/stress-portrait-of-a-killer/

(you can also watch it on Netflix, which is where I saw it, per my free 30 day trial with an AWESOME company whose stock I picked to triple in value February 2009, only to watch it, without buying any, increase ten-fold through this past summer!)

The point that stuck me in the chin and rocked my dome back like a Dr. Dre beat was how a certain breed of monkey, in its normal, wild habitat, evolved to serve as the ideal non-human population for studies concerning lifestyle and social interaction, due to the fact that they spend, like humans, very little time obtaining calories required for homeostatic sustainability (big combo-word there... thanks ASU biomed), and, therefore, had quite a bit of time remaining prior to subsequent caloric consumption and consequent slumber, to do whatever they wanted. In this case, annoy each other and ultimately compete for social status.

Damn. Sound familiar? I'll let you watch to learn more about that. Moving on to the part that is more appropriate relative to my post title.

The film introduces the scientific details behind how external stimuli triggers the release of certain types of hormones associated with the "fight or flight" psyche, or chemicals responsible for physiological processes that help us "fight", or defend ourselves when threatened, or "flight", or run like hell when we are not confident we can win that fight (again, designed to help defend our life). This is a process we humans share with the wild kingdom.

"Stress" is what we experience when in the throws of the "fighting" or "flight-ing". The film dissects how gazelles, or zebras, when being chased by a hungry lion (we've all seen that infamous "slow-mo" race through the African safari...) is experiencing "flight" and all its sacred physiological processes (without them he's lunch), including the release of certain chemicals that, relative to the rather short nature of the experience and subsequent short "burst" of chemical release, are not harmful to the prey's state of being long-term (assuming he / she escapes becoming an entree). In other words, the prey "flight", they escape, and the animal has the ability to no longer acknowledge the stimulus because...

well, it's gone, and so are the chemicals that helped the animal "flight"...

Humans, on the other hand, are currently exposing themselves to the same "burst" of chemicals, only doing so repeatedly, all day, day after day, for years on end, in response to stimuli that either 1.) exist, with potential consequences over exaggerated, or 2.) don't exist, with imaginary consequences. The film's scientists prove this by measuring the concentration of the aforementioned hormones in 1.) animals, following a "stressful", or life-threatening event, and 2.) humans, following a "stressful" event, such as being late for work, etc., but not life-threatening.

We both share the same reactions.

In other words, we have conditioned ourselves to respond to heavy traffic in the same way a gazelle responds to being chased by a hungry lion.

Wow. That is incredibly...

sad.

Think about that the next time your overpaid boss shoots you a negative look after you fail to include a key chart or piece of data in an important meeting. You likely just excreted the same type of chemical, at a relatively similar concentration, as the gazelle who is being chased by a hungry lion, 4,000 miles away, through the Africa safari, at the same time.

The difference is when the gazelle survives, he forgets about it, "stops responding", and goes on about his day grazing, trotting, sexing, and wild-ing. You will dwell on that look from your boss all day, all night, and probably the next day, repeating the event over and over and over in your mind, "still responding" the same way you both did shortly after the stimulus occurred.

Watch the film to learn how this "continuous response" is killing you.

2012 motto: "stop acting like a human and piss off a lion!"

Merry Christmas! is anyone else tired of hearing the same "when I was a kid" bullshit stories from older relatives every year? here's how to remind them how thankful they should be...

2011-12-25T15:15:00.001-06:00

"When I was a kid, I worked for $X.00 a day... you kids have it easy nowadays..." - relative, referring to wages in the late 40's and early 50's in America

X usually = a small fraction, sometimes 10%, maybe 15%, of what kids earn in the same time nowadays

Every year, I hear these same sob stories about how "tough" life was for our relatives "back in the day". I usually experience a bit of guilt and shame, as these stories are framed to trigger the mathematical equation in our heads that usually outputs something like "wow, I made that in an hour when I was as old as my relative was then", and I feel bad for them. Once they realize they have an audience, the diatribes continue.

Not this year.

I asked my relative what they valued more, their wages or their marriage. They answered "my marriage, obviously... I wouldn't trade my spouse for anything in the world". I then asked if they would rather live happily married in fiscal poverty or unhappily divorced and fiscally wealthy. "Happily married in fiscal poverty". I said "well, then you had it pretty good compared to me because I am twice as likely to lose what you value more than money, nowadays".

There were an average of 10 divorces per 1,000 married women in 1950, over 21 per 1,000 married women in 2010.

$6.00 a day had never felt so good to them, after they adjusted their perspective.

I hope you all have a Merry Christmas! Remember it's not what you're looking at, but how you're looking at it!

stepping across the aisle today; rich people do not create jobs

2011-12-23T11:49:00.001-06:00

I just heard "because rich people create jobs" as an excuse to not raise taxes on "the rich" for the last time.

That is bullshit. 100% horse cakes.

"Rich people", for the most part, by definition in terms of the SEC and private placement memorandums, are those "sophisticated" and or "accredited", or meeting the following criteria:

a natural person who has individual net worth, or joint net worth with the person’s spouse, that exceeds $1 million at the time of the purchase, excluding the value of the primary residence of such person;

a natural person with income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those years and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in the current year; or

http://www.sec.gov/answers/accred.htm

When you hear the Demmy's talk about raising taxes, it's usually in terms of targeting those who meet #2 above, right? We've all heard "people with income of $250,000 gross annual or more..." etc. etc. on the news. They often equate this metric with those in the "top 1%".

In other words, "don't raise taxes on these people... that will prevent them from creating jobs!"

The truth is these people are not the "job creators". They are the "job maintainers", and, if anything, the "job eliminators", or the "offshore-ers" and "cost-cutters". They are the blue chip P's and VP's, Dr.s, lawyers, upper level management personnel, white collar Americans who have not ever "created" anything relative to a "job" for another American. They found themselves earning money through a system that was, in most cases, freely cash-flowing far earlier in time relative to when their decision-making skills argued their entrance into the coveted "top 1%". These people, on average, don't create, and, actually, for 7.5 hours out of the day, are in desperate search to destroy, or create cost-cutting initiatives. Remember... cutting costs increases profit, and an increase in profit is the #1 way to justify an increase in pay, and that is why they are breathing from 8 to 5 in their office.

People will always get cut before goods needed for the sale. Remember that.

Adding a "job" to an established business is an incredibly, extremely, expensive process and recurring burden for a company. Management cringes at the thought of the new costs that will eat EBITDA when they offer to hire. It's a real expense, and unless the market is absolutely demanding a position, will be avoided AT. ALL. COSTS. This is usually in terms of sales and demand relative to products needed in new markets. In that case, the market created the job, not the dipshit MBA with a weak LinkedIn profile. All he is going to do is assess the risk associated with a cost-benefit analysis on the new hire. 5th grade math.

Here is the harsh truth: the only way, in this case, a "job" will be created, is if demand for a company's product or service increases enough to justify a new position, and no one can control free-market demand. The opposite option is to take an "unjustified" risk, or investing in new jobs without adequate comfort those jobs will yield reward.

Companies run by these people do not do this. They get fired for doing this. Now, less taxes certainly increase available cash, but an increase in available cash does not mean patriotism trumps greed; if the market does not demand a new job, that cash, not being paid as tax, will either be 1.) retained, 2.) invested, or 3.) paid out in the form of dividends.

"Rich create jobs."

Stop believing that bullshit from the media. That's a tip of the hat toward their viewers, whose ego's are in love with the false belief they are helping struggling Americans reach the "American Dream" by paying them shit and making double-digit returns on the base-level, pre-tax labor, or g&a, expense every month they're in the black.

FALSE. FAIL. BULLSHIT. DO NOT PASS GO. TAKE A WALK.

The truth is this. Entrepreneurs create jobs. No, this is not personal bias. I will explain it detail.

Entrepreneurs are the people who notice an unmet need, or market opportunity, and create a plan to meet that need and capitalize on the opportunity. This is a natural process ancient to the world of scarcity, and specialization with talents, that we live in. I don't care if it's breaking twine in a fishing village off the Nile River or trillion dollar credit default swaps for AIG, new demand is new demand. They then, relative to a cash-based currency, or fuck even a conch shell, or pig ear, or broken shoe lace, or dirt clod based currency system, have to collect enough cash / conch shells / whatever to trade with other product and service providers essential to offering the service / manufacturing the product designed to meet that unmet need. Stronger twine, or OTC CDS servicing; meeting demand.

Now, pay close attention: the word "collect" is synonymous with today's stock market concept; spreading risk in terms of asking 1,000,000 people for $1 versus 1 person for $1,000,000. The entrepreneur, who, most of the time, cannot afford to fund his / her new idea independently, needs alot of capital. So he / she can 1.) sell stock, or 2.) issue bonds, to accomplish this goal. Once they "collect" their currency, they then do something magical:

They create jobs. They pay vendors and they hire employees with the intent to launch the idea that will meet that unmet need. This is where the "job creation" comes from; you have people who were not able to work, and not hired by the "rich", who now have a "job". A "job" has been "created".

Some of you clever folks may be anticipating my next point; "Who do you think buys the stock or bond from the entrepreneur and provides the capital for him / her to create those jobs? Those "rich" people! And taxing them reduces the money they have to buy that stock or bond and help create that job!"

Yes, an indirect way of arguing against my point. I agree, that the more money one has, the more likely they are to risk it on new things. But the "rich" have a lot of money because they "DON'T" risk it on new things.

New things are risky, and risky things can lose money, and "rich" people are good at "not" losing money. So, if we want job creation, we need to 1.) encourage, or incentivize, entrepreneurship, and 2.) encourage, or incentivize, investment in new ideas.

Oh, and revert to the early 1900's definition of a "corporation", including all limited rights originally assigned to the "Inc.". BIG factor in the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" (watch documentary "The Corporation" http://thecorporation.com/)

does anyone else see the racial profiling? trying to sharpen my pencil here, and this kid keeps cutting in line... I'm running out of time!

2011-12-22T09:37:00.000-06:00

Definition of racial profiling, according to Dictionary.com:

"government activity directed at a suspect or group of suspects based solely on race"

Given the obvious ability for accusations involving race by non-Government to be considered racial profiling, I am removing "government" from the definition, and using the following modified definition instead, and will be referring to it during the rest of my post:

"activity directed at a suspect or group of suspects based solely on race"

I believe there is a crystal-clear racial profiling problem in America's higher-level academia admissions criteria. It has to do with preventing qualified citizens from pursuing educational opportunities whereby they are, on paper, every bit qualified, by all standards, for the look.

Except color seems to introduce a determinant that negates the aforementioned.

I am talking about the requirement for us to disclose our race on school, primarily graduate level, academic applications, because they are required, even incentivized, to admit a certain % of certain minority races, relative to their admission class, despite a "standardized" entry barrier and determinant testing process.

It's blatant racial profiling. Let's break apart the definition.

"race" - an applicant's ethnicity

"suspect or group of suspects" - the applicants who do not meet the specified minority race criteria

"activity" - limiting the # of applicants who do not meet specified criteria

Therefore:

"activity directed at a suspect or group of suspects based solely on race"

becomes:

"(limiting the # of applicants admitted who do not meet specified criteria) directed at (the applicants who do not meet the specified minority race criteria) based solely on (an applicant's ethnicity)"

huh...

I therefore will assume that because I do not meet the specified minority race criteria, as I am Caucasian, and due to the fact that the # of applicants indicating Caucasian race will be limited, regardless of standardized comparison indicating a more qualified application relative to non-minorities, I run the risk of denial of admission due to the color of my skin.

Wow. Thought we were done with racism in America? Anyone else see a problem here, perhaps a digression in social reform?

The non-minority is therefore implied, or "suspect"-ed to be, somehow less worthy of consideration, despite rigorous standardization, or "suspect"-ed to be in less-need of the education than the minority, despite rigorous standardization.

Regardless of my standardized performance, simply probability indicates the color of my skin could prevent me from prospering in a free society.

Good thing I'm Caucasian! That means I must be rich already and don't need grad school! HA!

POTENTIALLY HIGHLY OFFENSIVE POST: I’m straight-shootin’ on “I gots 15 kids to feed” today. Don't read if you are easily offended by highly-descriptive language and explicit content, or believe others are accountable for irresponsibility

2011-12-21T13:02:00.002-06:00

“… says her children are a gift from God, but now she needs help caring for them, and blames … Sheriff’s Office Child Protection Team and others, for (the problem)…”

“Somebody needs to pay for all my (15) children… somebody needs to be held accountable, and they need to pay!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KUW2vCPX7w

I had to take a stroll for 5 or 8 minutes or so after watching this one. Wow. I passed “10 deep breaths” 23 deep breaths ago. I think I can type now without banging the keys.

So this woman expects “somebody else” to pay for her inability to control semen ejaculation, on behalf of a male, up through her Fallopian tubes and onto her fertilizable ovum.

My proposed solution:

STOP FUCKING YOU DUMB BITCH.

I cannot believe this mentality exists. It simply makes me sick to my stomach. Those poor kids, man. FUCK THIS PISSES ME OFF. We learn about the reproductive process very early in life. What, 5^th, 6^th grade? 7^th? This is usually way before any of us are at risk of even engaging in sexual intercourse. So, it’s safe to say we are aware of the nature of the “birds and the bees” before we start poking our stingers and getting stung.

We therefore know, when we do go to smack uglies, that when a man and a woman engage in sexual intercourse, 100% of the time they risk pregnancy. Now, certain types of contraception exist to reduce that risk. Condoms, birth control, plan B, etc. They are all available to help reduce the risk of pregnancy, and are great tools to help ease the stress of “wondering” after the “heat of the moment” triumphs our logical minds and its reason to “not fuck; I don’t want to get preggers!!".

In other words, when we bang, after trying oh-so-hard not to, since we learned what happens when a man inserts his penis into a woman’s vagina around the time we grew our first zit, there are things we could have done to prepare for this surrender (birth control), and there are things we can do to make the best of it (condoms, pulling out), and there are things we can do to minimize the risk that comes with neglecting the first three (plan B). (I’m going to steer clear of abortion as any form of “option” here).

So we pick one or combine a few, and ride the risk and our partner.

This seems to work fairly well for most of horny America.

BUT… somehow, some of us fail, time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time to demonstrate sexual responsibility, despite learning about its consequences before masturbating for the first time, and are still churning out mouths and deeply curious as to “where the fuck all these damn kids came from?!”.

This woman knew what would happen if she allowed a penis inside her vagina, and she obviously has not been playing the odds associated with modern medicine’s contraception. How can she hold anyone else accountable for her 15 dirty diapers, but herself and the respective biological father? They were clearly aware of what would happen if they had sex, especially if they did so without taking precautions, i.e. her taking birth control, him wearing a condom, her taking plan B, even him doing them both a favor and covering the basics; just pulling out. Shit that’s free! No one is too broke to pull out!!

Bottom line is she should be treated like any other person who cannot handle privileges requiring responsibility; she should have her ability to reproduce taken away. Bottom line. She is alleging it’s someone else’s responsibility to care for her 15 children, and that is a very, very dangerous claim. What happens when you drink and drive? You lose your privilege to drive, because you run the risk of doing damage to someone or something else. Parallel reasoning 101 here: she is running the risk of doing damage to someone or something else every time she fucks, because its going to negatively impact someone (the kid, or the "person" ending up responsible for supporting the child) or something. Shit it's not even a risk anymore... those mouths exist, and so does her empty bank account. Revoke her reproductive ability. Straight the FUCK UP.

“They’re a gift from God!” she said...

Translation; "I love dick, so when it cums in me and I get pregnant, I can blame it on God and leverage the emotions associated with divine creation to get other people to pay for my mistakes... I'm gettin' laid tonight! Think I'll go for that hunky Denzel-lookin' cat down the block..."

At least there is 1 father for 2/3 of the kids. He was not available for interview. LOL… probably about to nut up in some other braud and didn’t want to be distracted. Takes a lot of discipline to orgasm, and even more to blow one on her stomach versus at her ovum...

STOP. FUCKING. PLEASE.

Sincerely,

“All of us who you want to feed your seeds”

break from politics and money... a little tidbit on my passion, "la musica"

2011-12-20T10:51:00.002-06:00

My blog has just crested over 300 views! Not bad for a little more than 2 weeks' worth of writing. Thank you for reading! Hope you all are enjoying it!

So most of you know me, as I am only really marketing this through my personal facebook profile. This means that most of you know I am a bit of a music nut... :-)

Today I'm going to share with you why it is very, very important to be objective when considering turning your passion into your business. I have done so, and I have experienced the highest of highs, and, unfortunately, the lowest of possible lows. Here is my $0.02.

Whether you believe in God (meaning a higher power responsible for creation of life and managing its balance) or not, I feel it is safe to say we are all "programmed" to gravitate toward certain subjective activities. In other words, we find ourselves passionate about things that, most often, have absolutely no logical purpose, economically, or in terms of free-trade with other beings, relative to what it costs to compete and market products of those activities. Yes, I am talking about art, sports, poetry, music, and those other things we hide from others and lie about being good at. Yet we are often encouraged to refrain from doing those things we love so very much, and instead focus on what will earn, with more certainty, income.

In other words, our passion projects are not likely to bring us any tangible, spendable reward.

Since I can only speak from my own experiences, I am going to do just that (and I'll keep it short, as, during this time of year, I play the ever-loving SHIT out of my acoustic guitar, which I need to get back to... :-). I decided to make a run at transforming my passion (at one time football, for those of you who know me back in the day) for music into my earning model, or how I would make money for a living. To summarize 9 years of trench warfare, heart break, Super Bowl-Championship-esque highs, and constant struggle, I can tell you why turning your passion into a business can lead you to "pass" on the passion, and that is sad!

When you begin to think about your music, drawings, etc. in terms of a business, often times you need capital, or other people's risk, to get your venture going (unless you've bypassed the "starving artist" phase, which, if you have, call me, and I'll help you write a NY Times Bestseller). Whether it's friends, family, rich kids, or all three who initially invest, the second their money is in your hands for purposes of selling your taste (which means the art you think is "dope"), the psychological dynamic changes... BIG, BIG, BIG TIME. A very subtle giant makes his way into the creative process, and his name is "Expectation". This is the spoiling ingredient in your new "profit-focused" creative process! You now have investor expectations to meet, and this means return on investment, or selling your taste (art, etc.) to the market, and opportunity cost, or the money the investors "could" be making if you weren't spending it on new colored pencils. And you better make "sell-able" work, because if you don't, you risk losing money from friends, family, and rich kids, and this would be bad for both your emotional health and for your new business.

You now expectations to meet. You are no longer allowed to strum, paint, write, rap, scribble, stencil, whatever until your creation is masterpiece. Now you have conditions, limits, and... shit... MATH to do, relative to when, how, and with who you can create. Your passion, or hobby, has become just the opposite: it is now a business.

It morphs into a "job", whereby you are being compensated according to someone else's evaluation of your worth. Your work must meet the taste and expectation variables associated with economic purchasing model of the market, and if these conflict with your creative aura, well...

You're back to doing it for a hobby, which is exactly where I recommend you do it, UNLESS you can self-fund your endeavors. Then it doesn't matter how long it takes to make money, or how much money you lose!

Hope you all are enjoying your holidays!!

Santa may skip over your house and double-up downtown...

2011-12-18T16:17:00.002-06:00

"But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issue of political and economic justice in this society..."

- Sen. Barack Obama, Interview with WBEZ-FM, Chicago Public Radio, January 2001 (quoted from the documentary 'Media Malpractice', they airing the actual footage recorded during the radio interview

If any Obama advocates read this post, I strongly encourage you to please argue your candidate out from underneath a blatant admission of socialist motive.

"What do you want for Christmas? What? No. And not that either. Anything else? A new football perhaps?"

2011-12-18T12:03:00.001-06:00

One thing I'll never forget about my economics professor at Arizona State, Dr. Stephen Happel, was his BRUTAL honesty about money and people, and how the two constantly conflict with one another. He once broke down why "spending a lot of time on finding a present" for someone, which we're traditionally taught to correlate with the "thought" behind the gift, or its "sentimental value", is really just the opposite... it actually indicates how little you know the person, for if you cared enough about them in the first place, you would know them well enough to find a gift for them, based on their true wants and needs, in a very short amount of time. In other words, how sentimental can a gift be when it took the giver a week to figure out what to get you?

Ha!

Think about that the next time someone hands you a half-ass Ebay look and says "man, I shopped for days before I found this for you!" Now you'll know they are simply abusing traditional folklore regarding a correlation between time spent looking and sentimental value to disguise the fact they had no fucking clue what to get you to begin with.

OUCH!

My favorite though is when family members ask "hey, what do you want for Christmas!?" I used to interpret that as "ok, I am going to make a list of 3 or 4 items that I really want and or need, and give that list to this person! I am bound to get at least 1!" EXCITING, RIGHT??!!

Shit...

I read Santa's shopping for a solar-paneled red nose for Rudolph so he can save money on the battery power our red-nosed buddy consumes in-flight by charging Rudy's schnoz all day on Christmas Eve via photon absorption...

After I submit my list, what happens is I usually get a call or email redefining the question; "hey, what do you want for Christmas that costs $29.99 or less, whereby a second gift is a function of the price of the first relative to my budget and sense of value for our relationship, whereby it is not to exceed .5X the first gift's price, subject to market forces beyond my control."

I wish people would just get to the fucking point. "Hey, I really don't want to spend more than $29.99 on you this Christmas. I have other people to buy for, and your true Christmas wants aren't as important to me as sending you something so I can say I did at church, during communion, and nurture my proverbial holiday checklist. So find something online, a second-hand Chicago Bears hat, or maybe an oil change, and send me a link. No, you can't have cash, because I have to make myself feel good by actually buying you this thing that's $29.99 or less, even though you can spend the money better aligned with your interests than I can. Thanks! Merry Christmas!"

This would make Dr. Happel proud! This market would be efficient, and I wouldn't even have to pretend I was disappointed with the $0.99 Target card didn't dump out any loot.

parents, Harvard called, and scooping shit is not a pre-req for becoming a heart surgeon!!

2011-12-17T17:30:00.002-06:00

It seems that parents really value making sure their children "learn the value of hard work", "learn to appreciate the value of $1", and "learn to work hard for their money". This traditionally results in the parents helping the child, or even forcing the child, to begin working the following infamous jobs from, in some cases, age 10 or younger, up through 18, and even recommending the then legal adult continue such labor through their college years:

- landscaping

- janitor (car dealership, YMCA, etc.)

- garbage collecting

- flipping hamburgers

- fecal scooping

- construction

- lawn mowing

I am going to reveal a partial list of jobs I held from age 10 through 18:

- neighborhood landscaping (I found my services volunteered t0 neighbors at 10 years old)

- barbershop maintenance (sweeping hair, changing bulbs, cleaning toilets)

- bailing hay (stacked em' 9 high!)

- residential construction site clean-up (collecting fragments of sheet rock)

- snow shoveling / removal (from commercial rooftops and storefronts)

- tanning salon bed maintenance (cleaning the beds after regular 20 minute tans)

- pallet breakdown / workplace maintenance (tractor / farm equipment dealer)

- car dealership repair shop maintenance (cleaned the bays after mechanics fixed cars)

- used oil filter crushing & disposal

- bus boy / waiting tables / dish washing

- office trash removal

- Christmas tree trimming (out-of-season)

- retail store greeting / customer service (basic retail clothing store position)

- professional / crew landscaping (laying sod, digging ditches, etc.)

- bar backing

And the list goes on...

Now, the motivator to get and keep these jobs, in most cases, initially, is to teach the child (I use that word to represent a dependent younger than 18 years of age) "how to earn money", or what you have to do to "earn money", i.e. "work". Want to buy that new comic book? Work for it. Want gas money? Get a job kid. Right? Parents love that shit! We've all heard it. But the incentive usually morphs into a negative reward system versus the initial opposite, where as we start to grow and mature and challenge the shit we are doing for $5.15 / hour, we are told "this is what you will be doing if you don't go to college", or, in other words, "don't go to college, and this is what you can look forward to doing forever".

Initial lesson: "if you do X (shovel poop), you get Y (money for ice cream)"

Final lesson: "if you don't do Z (go to college), you get to X (shovel poop) forever"

For the sake of my argument, I am going to say that parents ultimately want their children to fear the consequences of not going to college more than they want them to shovel dog poop as the mechanism to learn the value of $1. I believe they initially desire to instill solid "hard-working fundamentals" in their children, but leverage the fear of a shitty life when their children start complaining about the poop shoveling efforts to insure the children will want to go to college.

Now, if that is the case, why do parents feel their children need to spend 8 years of their free-time in jobs that suck before the parents feel their children will, with absolute certainty, want to go to college, or will want to avoid what they've been doing the past 8 years? Do parents believe their children do not have the ability to empathize? Do you have to actually perform "X", or, say, clean Wal-Mart toilets, before you know that you will do "Z", go to college, to avoid "X"? Really Mom and Dad? I have to log the "man, when I was a kid, I had to..." sagas in order to learn I don't want to clean Wal-Mart toilets for a living and instead be a physician?

I think it's bullshit. Don't agree? I read a statistic that a majority of college-graduates don't even end up in a field relevant to their "major". Think about that. People rush into school out of fear; they don't even know what they actually want to do; they just know they don't want to scoop shit. They choose whatever major, and you know it's not well aligned with their self-interests and talents because they take jobs doing things that have no relationship to their majors!

But they dodged that shit-scooping bullet baby! Mission accomplished!

My proposal to parents is to spend less time scaring your kids into going to college and putting that proverbial feather in your cap and more time helping them learn what their talents are, decide what they are interested in, and understanding what they can do while their friends are scraping gum off pool tables to begin working toward maximizing their contribution to society. Lead them toward their dreams versus scaring them with nightmares. Walking to school, in the snow, uphill, both ways, didn't do anything for me but piss me the fuck off and allow me to play a card during conversations about competing for "who ate the most shit as a kid" trophy (which I have yet to have with lawyers, doctors, and hedge fund managers...).

A Bronx Tale: a lesson from Sonny, for C, and now for you

2011-12-16T11:18:00.001-06:00

"And I was getting two educations, one for the street and one from school. That way, I'd be twice as smart as everybody." - C, on the advice Sonny gave him

I always have a chuckle when I get into a heated negotiation, and as I chip away all objections and diffuse uncertainty, the opponent resorts to reciting all the courses he / she took at XYZ Ivy League University involving sales, negotiations, and business strategy; and how none of them have helped with their purpose in the real-world.

Ha.

"Most of these Harvard MBA types don't add up to dogshit. You need guys who are poor, smart, and hungry." - Gordon Gekko

It is arguably impossible to create an artificial scenario that truly engages the traits of a human being when it is selling, negotiating, etc. in the real-world. When you are "fake-selling", say, in a classroom, the trade dynamics do not account for any investment-driven value the seller holds, nor does it account for any investment-consideration risk the buyer has. In layman's terms, the seller hasn't spent any time or money on learning about or buying the product, and he / she is in school, so his / her opportunity cost is arguably $0.00. Also, the results of the sale have no impact on the seller. Make the sale, sit down. Miss the sale, sit down. The buyer hasnt spent any time or money on funding the budget, or getting the cash, needed to make the purchase, and he / she is in school, so his / her opportunity cost is arguably $0.00. Again, the results of the sale have to meaning to the buyer.

There is no sense of risk involved in the transaction. It is impossible for this exercise to benefit either party. Integrate a bit of risk, and the dynamics change. Have you ever had your next meal depend on your next sale?

This is what Sonny wanted to emphasize to C in A Bronx Tale. Having not attended college, Sonny attributed his ability to move money to what he learned on the street. I felt he feared that C would never truly grasp the dynamics of true supply / demand sitting in a classroom, so he made sure C spent time on the street, dealing with real people with real needs and real psychological dynamics controlling their behavior. The street is where people lived, traded, bartered, determined prices, formed entities, and live with a real sense of risk. This is the fundamental condition of all who passed through Ellis Island. They divided, specialized their labor, competed among competitors, and traded with customers. The Italians offered garments, shoes, and food. Every culture chose a path, risked time and money on their products, and traded with others who did the same with different products (you can't specialize in everything). It's pure economics.

Not able to be created in an auditorium.

Nowadays, no one wants to start at the "street" level. People pay hundreds of thousands to learn how to move money and risk in simulated environments, and then try to convince people who learned the same thing on "the street", i.e. with their own money and the psychological risk that comes with moving it, that because they did so in class, perhaps at an astute university, they deserve the six figure salary and the corner office.

Take a walk.

The classroom education is certainly required in today's global economy. Memorizing facts about business, etc. help with filling in the blanks when framing a real-life encounters, and history helps us identify trends, etc. But I chose to get that second education, the one Sonny recommended C get, on the street. And I will openly admit, and am quite passionate about, the fact that what I learned on the street is far more responsible for my ability to move risk and money today than anything I read about or learned in or out of the classroom. I frequently deal with "these Harvard MBA types" with no street-level experience, and, frankly, I often agree with Gordon Gekko.

Doubt it? Comment, and I'll respond.

based on the law of diminishing returns, which is more beneficial: born emotionally numb, or able to experience joy & pain

2011-12-14T13:17:00.002-06:00

based on the law of diminishing returns (for all types of utility, including "love"), which is more beneficial to achieving a lifetime of good health: being born emotionally "numb", or having the ability to naturally experience joy & pain...

a drug dealer and I held an interesting convo yesterday...

2011-12-14T09:40:00.003-06:00

Depending on whose circle I'm in; "asshole", "hardass", "piece of shit", "heartless", and even "cold" (depending on the context of assignment and the price of tea in China that day...).

Anyway, I recently held a conversation with an admitted drug dealer (no, I was not buying, as I don't do drugs (c'mon, we all know alcohol's not a drug!!), and I have a way with communicating with that type of demographic). He was of African American decent, and I was getting at him about Obama, citing this Carl's Jr. decision (see my blog yesterday for details) to not open new stores due to the cost of ObamaCare. Well, he hadn't had a "whiteboy up in my (his) shit" about welfare before, and at that point, I wasn't sure if that meant I was going to soon suck lead or earn his $0.02 on the issue. Frankly, I didn't care. Wouldn't be the first time someone threatened me with a firearm (would have been my first bullet wound though, assuming I didn't see the light). I wanted to get at this guy.

So we exchange rants. He made excuses as to why he couldn't work a regular job, had to be on welfare, had kids to feed, blah blah blahza blah. The same diatribe. It was evident he was collecting both aid and earning cash from his "side business". So I broke it down real nice for him.

Me - "You pay your connect for your weed?"

Guy - "Yup, gotta pay him for what I buy, then I break it up, bag it, and sell it on the street."

Me - "You then re-up, right?"

Guy - "Yup. Hit him up, pick it up, pay him, and that's it".

Me - "With your own money, right?"

Guy - "Yup."

Me - "Ok. So you owe me a piece of your profit."

Guy - "What? Fuck you. You didn't help me make that money dude."

Me - "Now you know how taxpayers feel. They risk their money everyday, just like you risk yours on your re-up, and when they sell their product, they make that money back plus a profit. But you are getting a piece of their profit every time you collect welfare. I think you should pay me a piece of your drug profit since I'm paying you a piece of my income."

The conversation soon ended, as he got heated, and I decided it was time to leave. I highly doubt I got through to him, but he'll never forget this whiteboy.

verdict is IN: Obama guilty of preventing new jobs from taking people off welfare

2011-12-13T12:09:00.002-06:00

"When CKE’s health-care advisers, citing Obamacare’s complexities, opacities and uncertainties, said that it would add between $7.3 million and $35.1 million to the company’s $12 million health-care costs in 2010, Puzder said: I need a number I can plan with. They guessed $18 million — twice what CKE spent last year building new restaurants. Obamacare must mean fewer restaurants."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2011/12/05/carl_s_jr_and_the_affordable_care_act.html

Guess where all those potential Carl's Jr. workers are going to turn for money they need to live that they could have made at Carl's Jr.??

YOUR POCKET CUZZO.

keep it up Obama: tax + give + tax + give = black markets, broke earners, and extreme poverty

2011-12-12T17:03:00.006-06:00

So I decided to refuse to take any help from the Gov't while searching for a new job; this is based on my personal principles and values. Out of curiosity (and having never been in a position to apply for Government aid), I applied, and the State agreed to pay me 1/6 the max weekly stipend, or roughly $40, per week, as long as I could prove I was searching for gainful employment, etc. etc. Despite my legitimate reasoning for leaving my position, they, somehow via a few web pages, determined, in a matter of minutes, I was ineligible.

Interesting.

I worked and paid into unemployment for 31 months. So much for accessing my money when I need it. Guess those duckets go down the block.

Anyway.

The following numbers are assumptions, are not supported by any material or documented fact, and are products are very rough calculations.

Assumption #1: 31 months of state income tax and sales tax produced by me: $12,000, or approximately $4,645 per 12 months (conservative)

Assumption #2: cost per capita for public services funded by state: $2,000 per 12 months (conservative)

Annual gross margin experienced by state in exchange for letting me, single, no dependents, live in Alabama: $2,645

So the state, arguably, pockets $2,645 in gross margin from taxing what I earn in income.

Now,

Assumption #3: a family of 4, 100% dependent on Gov't support, produces, let's say, on items purchased with cash (no food stamps etc.)

$1,000 per 12 months in sales tax (conservative, and I assume they pay sales tax on what they purchase with cash)

Referencing assumption #2, cost per capita for public services in $2,000 annually, so the cost to the state of the family of 4 is

$8,000

Now, taking into account the cost to support the family of 4

$4,000 / capita / annum

So the state, arguably, loses $23,000 per annum from supporting the family of 4

They have to offset this loss somehow, and they do so by applying my account surplus (revenue from taxing my income - costs from paying me unemployment, it being $0) to their deficit. Now, the problem is if you divide the $23,000 loss by 4, the state has to cover a $5,750 loss per head 100% reliant on them every year. I only cover 54% of that loss. To balance the books and avoid Californication, they pull from other account surpluses until all the losses are covered. The point is that it likely takes 2 people at 50% apiece to cover the cost to support 1 individual 100% supported by the Gov't, or 2 to 1. Or, raise taxes. Now, you incentivize these families of 4 to remain dependent and reproduce but drive the cost to reproduce for the income-producers up, eventually you have 3 to 1, then 4 to 1, and.. then... economic collapse, as the proportion of tax available for dependent capita is reduced to a level that cannot support living.. then...

A fucking revolution; hungry dependents, broke capitalists, and scarcity of resources...

We supply NON-VALUE ADD economic consumers with adequate aid, including an incentive to claim dependents... this proves that a Harvard JD doesn't mean you offer any fundamental economic psychology to a capitalistic nation... I don't care how you manipulate my numbers, the factor of taxpayers required to support Gov't dependents will only continue to rise, and with this comes an increase in taxes.

How else do you support a growing population of non-income producing consumers? You have to take more from the income producing consumers. Based on zero-sum fiscal mathematics, this is the only option.

IMPEACH. I'd vote Chunks from Goonies in before I'd even approach a ballot table recommending his candidacy. This fucking country is so blind, broke, and desperate for dependency, they can't even see their future taxed away.

Happy Tea Party... any liberals still uncertain? I'll buy you a $0.99 pocket calculator from Kroger and will pay for 3 - 6 hours of Economics at a major university. That's all you need.

(not really going to pay for shit...)