Brandon's Sometimes Erroneous and Often Arbitrary Blog

On TV Personalities Who Eat Each Others Moist Butt Flesh, Cut and Sloughed Off From The Bone

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:01:00 +0000

A disturbing Story from Yahoo out of The Netherlands. Two television personalities, as mentioned in the article below, volunteered to eat chunks of each others flesh. This footage is scheduled to be aired tomorrow. As sick as this is, it may have an audience among both foreign soccer teams and woodland bears. I am trying to not have it affect me personally, but the thing is, whenever a woman asks me to go "Dutch" again at a meal, I am going to be extremely creeped out. On a positive note though, it appears the experience wasn't two bad for those involved, so they should consider themselves lucky they weren't game show hosts, for if that was the case the flavor may have been just a little too gamey. Finally, everyone should consider themselves blessed that this horrid story wasn't made more horrible by the two involved by opting to eat other chunks of their personal nether lands.

From Yahoo News:

TV presenters eat each other's flesh

A Dutch television stunt is generating headlines around the world - for all the wrong reasons.

The two presenters of TV show Proefkonijnen (which means guinea pigs or test rabbits) brought reality television to a whole new level when they ate each other's freshly cooked flesh.

Dennis Storm and Valerio Zeno were earlier filmed while they were under local anaesthetic as a surgeon cut a piece of their muscle at a clinic.

Storm watched as flesh was cut from Zeno's abdomen, and Zeno returned the favour when muscle was cut from Storm's bottom.

A chef was brought in to fry their flesh on their TV show, in front of a studio audience.

Zeno and Storm then sat for a candlelit dinner - complete with wine - to dine on each other's muscle.

Storm told ABCNews in the United States that the muscle was cooked to medium-rare in sunflower oil without seasoning.

"Nothing is really that special when you're talking about the taste of the meat, but it is weird to look into the eyes of a friend when you are chewing on his belly," Storm told ABCNews.

"The punchline of the show is to get really simple answers on stupid questions, such as can you shave with ketchup or can you drive blind?

"And we wanted to find out how human flesh tasted."

Storm said the stunt was worth the pain in his behind.

"It was just a few centimetres of meat," he said.
"And now I have a good story about that scar."

Storm and Zeno said the stunt was legal because both entered into the cannibalistic pact voluntarily, Britain's Daily Mail reported.

"A lawyer advised the program's producers that while cannibalism is not itself against the law, the presenters or the surgeon who operated on them could run in to legal difficulties," The Mail said.

"The presenters also claim that there is no risk of ill health, as long as the human meat is properly cooked."

International news headlines ranged from "Cannibalism on Dutch TV generates world-wide repulsion" to "In the worst possible taste: Sick TV stunt features presenters eating EACH OTHER".

The pre-recorded episode will air on December 21.

On Technological and Online Intrusions Into Personal Privacy

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:44:00 +0000

Maybe I am too much of a romanticist, but I miss the old days, absent of all the technology which obtrusively permeates today's current social landscape. It's not those technologies which contain inherently a purpose which makes our lives better and healthier on a day to day basis I raise issue with, but those which, much like this blog, are completely arbitrary. I remember the day when starved for attention, I could do misdirected stupid stuff, act like a complete moron, and not have to fear someone taking a picture or video of my mischievous, although harmless, frolicsomeness. At the risk of sounding too much like Thoreau, I prefer those bygone days, where technology was there for those who sought it out, but remained somewhat distant, at least relatively, in our private lives. Now I can't even run through the mall shirtless, in cut off denim shorts, while mimicking the Macarena without being placed on YouTube.

How can we defeat this intrusion and how did it get so bad in the first place? I believe the culprit is not so much the photographic devices themselves and their ability to capture images, but rather how small and somewhat inexpensive they have become, not to mention their inclusion in cell phones. To fix, what I consider a large part of the problem, we need to take these camera's out of cell phones, first and foremost, then force companies which manufacture camera's and camcorders to emphatically increase their size, to no less then three feet wide, four feet long, and over 60 pounds. This way, you would at least need a tripod to operate it, and you wouldn't be able to carry it around all the time in your fanny pack or man purse to pull out whenever you see anything even remotely amusing. At the very least, give cell phones somewhere in the neighborhood of over 300 buttons, most of which won't do anything, or randomly change their functionality during the operation of the device. However, keep the most basic functions intact and easy to accomplish, so that functions like making a phone call will be the most frequently used out of all the features.

There are numerous cell apps,like FourSquare, that will let you, "check in," at your present location. These are becoming increasingly popular and to stop this trend they should simply change the names of the apps to inform the user, appropriately, that they indeed are a loser. Perhaps something like, "No one gives a crap where you are at app," would be most affective, or at least, "Hey, if I liked you at all, I would be there with you already now wouldn't I?" Actually, come to think of it, it seems more-so that they would have to like you personally, to even entice them to invite you to their current location. Great, now every time I see one of those check-ins on Facebook I am going to get really depressed. Terrific. Sometimes I really hate writing blogs. I never thought of that. I despise those check-ins where everyone was apparently invited except you, then they rub it in your face like a jackass. Dammit.

Facebook, though has been cited by many for trespassing against individual privacy, though to be honest, Facebook, I feel, isn't the main perpetrator of this, given the choice of our decision to join the social networking site and the numerous privacy options Facebook gives its members. The real online threat to privacy, is the online search engine powerhouse which is Google. I wish I could say, that due to this I have jumped on the Bing bandwagon, but I haven't. I do use Google as my default search engine, so if I had any logical continuity concerning my convictions then I would cease to be the hypocritical person I am being today. Yet, because I occasionally indulge in my hypocrisy, I feel strangely comfortable attacking Google.

For a long time now Google has been creeping society out by their peeping-tom like indulgences, and, although sometimes it does take the hassle out of being a peeping tom, by alleviating those chance encounters like being chased by a dog, accidentally hiding behind some poison ivy, or falling out of a tree, what you can see or discover is somewhat limited. A real shame. Yet, overall, I find the service, which you aren't even civilly ffered to opt into, to be crossing a boundary into being completely inappropriate. In fact, I have taken up quilting, and by me taking up quilting I mean forcing my family members into quilting, so that I can cover up my house and car-part laden lawn from aggressive satellites.

They followed up this endeavor, obviously not satisfied with their satellite view featured on Google Earth, due to its lack of possible partial nudity, by something called "Street View." When I first heard about this, I was nervous about the venture, because I was frightened they might catch me with their camera equipped vehicles washing my van while, of course, dressed in my form fitting one piece swimsuit. I don't mind my neighbors viewing, in fact I encourage it, despite their colorful verbal objections, but me being all over the internet is quite another matter.

Now Google has announced the "Find Your Face" feature for Google+. With this technology, you can scan your face and Google will inform you whenever someone has posted a picture of you. Great, exactly what I want to be informed of, whenever someone places my ugly mug on the internet. I don't like being photographed and I would rather live in ignorance of the profound degree of my ugliness. Now if this technology was used in the confines of social media, then maybe it wouldn't be so bad, it would just be like Facebook's "tag" function, but automatic. Yet, of course, this feature will help in supplying evermore intrusions into our daily life.

The movie, "Minority Report," contains similar technology which is currently being developed. In the movie, John Anderton, played by Tom Cruise, is bombarded with ads that recognize his face and appropriately, or inappropriately, display advertisements specifically suited for him. This very thing is being developed today, and currently, the technology will be able to determine race, weight, color of hair, and other physical characteristics and display ads which jive with the computers conception of you. I anticipate seeing a lot of Krispy Kreme, dog food, and Kaopectate ads in the not too distant future.

When many people hear of such emerging technologies, there is a school of thought, in which the reply is simply why worry about it if you don't something to hide? To me the biggest issue is that our inclusion and participation in such technologies is just assumed by large corporations and this is increasingly putting us in an environment where we are constantly being recorded on private systems 24 hours a day. Thus, our individualism is being belittled by those in possession of this technology, often times simply for the purpose of acquiring more capital from us by accosting us with unnecessary intrusions into our lives. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with capitalism or the concept of advertisements, but with how frequent they are getting, I can't help but feel annoyed by it. In fact, sometimes, if the ads are repeated or annoying enough, I won't buy the product just out of spite.

Remember the days when you could go see a movie, or watch something on YouTube without ads being thrown in your face? Ads in movie theatres to me is ridiculous, that's one of the reasons I pay for a movie if I choose to go, to not be advertised to in the form of commercials. Yet, now a long list of commercials plays before the movie. It won't be long before our DVD's are filled with ads, which we will be unable to interrupt by skipping through to the movie menu in order to enjoy our purchased film. The scariest part is that I think the governments application of like technologies is already pronounced in our lives and if we were aware to what extent, no citizen would stand for it. Thus, I have to say it is the ol' "slippery slope" I am most against. Even given that these technologies present no danger, the fact is, the someday could.

It is easy to allow such freedoms to the government and corporate giants when we don't see any effect, but this doesn't mean big brother won't become a hindrance to freedoms in the future. How much this technology is progressing is evident in a rocket that was just launched yesterday by Japan. The rocket has the ability to zoom in and present details on any place on earth within a three foot square parcel of land, or anywhere on earth for that matter. I try to not be a paranoid person, but its not hard to imagine how much vast information is being gathered by those who can afford such technology. Can we really trust such people to only use it properly 100% of the time? I also wonder if they are honest with us on the full extent concerning the information gathering properties of any like devices.

I heard from an old boss, who happened to know, supposedly, that in the Vietnam Era the US had a satellite that was advanced enough that it could read the license plate off a car. Now, this is complete hearsay, but if it is true, who knows how much people can be spied on, tracked, and viewed without any warrant or congressional order currently. In addition, can we assume its only visual information that is being collected. I think such "slopes" need to be examined and spoke out against by the general public, not because of how it may be used currently in a peaceful fashion, if one is to assume this as fact, but because all it would take is some corrupt officials to break the rules of decency to trample on our right of privacy.

On The Evermore Present Frustration in Watching The Foosball

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 16:50:00 +0000

One thing I never thought I would write a whole blog entry on, other than my chronic flatulence, is sports. Its not that I don't like sports or fail to watch them regularly, its more so I never had any reason to write on it, and I often don't know what I am talking about most the time concerning sporting issues. Thereby, a blog entry on sports was extremely improbable. I don't know how people are so knowledgeable in it, but I find myself quite impressed when people rattle off stats, who was traded where, and what sports star just got charged with possession of a firearm, DUI, or for exposing himself in public. Indeed, every time I sit in on a conversation, or more likely, since I spend a lot of time alone, eavesdrop in on a conversation, I feel like I might as well be sitting in on Mike Greenburg and Mike Golic. I am pretty clueless when it comes to such issues, and if I was invited in on a serious sports conversation, I would be the Dexter to the conversation as a whole and just murder it completely, by stupid, obvious comments which have no consequence to any particular subject or individual engaging in the discourse.

This is why the blogging medium is so great, because people can't tell me to shut up, or pull my underwear halfway up my back (I have custom made them to rip once they reach a certain height) when I blather on about nonsensical issues. I only regret that a blog needs a coherent subject, otherwise I would just keeping going about things like socks, air conditioning, stamp collecting, forest rangers and green sequin skirts. Not necessarily in that order. (Those topics might not be funny, but I challenged myself to write down the first subjects that come to mind. The last one kind of scares me.)

Because I don't know how to make a segue from green sequin skirts, to football officiating other than thinking that green sequin skirts on refs would be pretty stylish, I will just begin now, my thoughts on refereeing in the sport of football today.

It should be obvious to the casual observer that, me being reared in Seattle, may have a sort of pseudo-bitterness towards referees in sports, particularly football, due to Seattle's ill-fated visit to the Super Bowl a number of years ago against the Steelers. You couldn't be more wrong. I have a full-fledged bitterness towards referees in sports due to that. I recall a year after the disaster, I took a trip down to Mexico while in a equally ill-fated relationship with my accompanying counterpart. Anyways, we went inside a Jewelry store and after some conversation with the clerk, he asked us where we hailed from. I informed him of my Seattle grunge roots, to which he replied, "Wow, did you guys get screwed in the Super Bowl." I remind myself that he was trying to sell us merchandise, but the fact he even knew about the whole fiasco and arguments concerning the game, was pretty impressive to me. I didn't buy anything, but due to his declaration, I decided to skip his store later that night while on my crime spree.

Now, I am obviously not Nostradamus and, in fact, any quatrain I try to write turns somehow into a dirty limerick, so this obviously gives valuable insight into my psychic abilities. At any rate, I don't know, if the officiating was perfect, who would've won that game, the Steelers might have very well one, who knows? What I do know is that the final score was altered in some way by the terrible officiating. Perhaps its because of this I find myself sensitive and abusive when confronted with a bad call on my television or indeed on someone else's. Its almost to the degree it gets so frustrating to me that I want to turn off the game no matter what team its against, though obviously it is less upsetting if its against the opposition of the team I wish to be victorious. However, it doesn't stop me from making a mental note of it, and when it comes down to it, I would prefer a game without such terrible calls, despite who may benefit from them.

That's somewhat the problem. The consequences of such calls from the officials have the inherent power to impact a game, change the momentum and the overall tide whether it be ebbing or flowing. With such a huge responsibility, you would think those who officiate the games would be more scrutinized by those organizations over them, but this seems hardly to be the case. To have better officiating one would need to understand the consequences that arise from a bad call and make it equitable to the official. Years ago this would have been a tall order, but now because of the increase in technology integrated in every sport, I don't believe this to be a impossible undertaking and it is sorely needed.

At this point many officials can represent their mood, favoritism and death threats by the mob they have received in their calls, which at times seems to triumph over their professionalism. Indeed, quite recently I have seen more than a couple games where bad calls occurred, but the aftermath went beyond people just the crowd booing the official testifying to my point. Their was an official review in one case, in another case one of the coaches challenged and in all angles and replays, the final conclusion that everyone was waiting for seemed apparent. This was confirmed by the crowd and by the announcers, only to have the opposite chosen by the officials, which caused a uproar of sorts, enough to be talked about in a negative light by the narrators of the game, and sports casters after the game and score were finalized.

Do mistakes happen? Yes, of course they do, to say they don't would be a completely moronic position to take. Just look at my blog(s). I think every human has the right to err to some degree, and referees aren't excluded from that. Yet, there are errors and there are grievous errors, and I think it is the latter which upsets the general fan the most and should be subject to review and perhaps disciplinary action. However, in my view, a bad call doesn't have to concern a game changing call to require disciplinary action, but also those little nitpicking calls, like holding or illegal contact, which though such calls have their place, a lot of time seem silly. In fact, depending on the game, some of them get so overwhelming that you wish the damn refs would just let them play the game.

Lets not kid ourselves. Football is a rough sport, I think most people of sound mind will agree. To look over and examine conduct among players in the normal course of the game with a fine toothed comb, to me, is ridiculous. I believe, because of its physical and somewhat violent nature, you could find an infraction with and in every play if you wanted to. Therefore, this grants ample opportunity for favoritism to be represent. I most often see this "nitpicking" concerning holding and illegal contact calls. Again, it doesn't make such calls ridiculous, but there needs to be some sort of standard of force, duration, or hindrance displayed within such infraction in order for it to get called. Its football, not ballet.

Its getting to the point where you don't know if you can cheer for a touchdown anymore before its reviewed. It used to be, in simplistic terms, once that ball crossed over into the end zone, more or less, a touch down. Now, they need to maintain control throughout the play, which sounds great and pretty straightforward. However, after watching some games and this rule cited when pulling points away from teams, I don't find it as straightforward as much as I find it dependent on personal interpretation. All calls somewhat are based on that, but although well meaning, this rule has turned out to be ridiculous to many fans, myself included. Again, not the rule itself, but its application when an official review or challenge is sought.

Unfortunately, what I feel they don't call enough is personal fouls. Every game there is some moron who takes a swing at another player, despite the fact he is wearing a helmet. What damage can they possible do, I mean other than break their hand? In football don't you kind of need your hands, so what good can possibly come from that? Such incidents are broken up, but often not called. To me it not only seems so pointless because of all the protective gear, but also because a large portion of the game concerns hitting each other. It makes as much sense in football as it would in boxing. They should get called, not for damage they may cause or inflict, but simply for being an idiot.

Obviously there are referees that make great calls and thus I hope nobody concludes that officiating is worthless in my view. Certainly a number of calls are necessary and correct, but it always seem like the ones that have the most impact are the ones where the referee should see some kind of consequence for it. Perhaps they should go to some form of merit pay.

On No More Omar, 49 Rounds For 56 Escaped Animals, and The Occupy Wall Street Movement

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:55:00 +0000

Greeting and Salutations Once Again,

So, I am sitting in bed a while ago picking at my face, when I see breaking news come on the television. Now, the breaking news most often featured on our local TV stations here in Seattle, usually consist of puppies or kittens that get stuck in a drain pipe somewhere. Yet, this time it was somewhat different. Instead, it was the cruel Libyan dictator Kaddafi hiding in a drain pipe. I sat up when the flashy “breaking news” graphic flashed across the dusty screen of my RCA 18” tube television (it’s not that bad – it’s the lightest in the series, only weighing a measly 85 pounds). The anchorman announced over my headphones (the only thing that functions as speakers for my TV due to a mishap with Sunny Delight and vomit) that Omar Kaddafi was indeed dead. They immediately followed this report with a video of an extremely graphic nature, which despite my love of horror films and amateur wrestling, made me want to throw up. I was going to put the Omar death video I saw on here, but I decided that due to its graphic nature, I would instead post this video of bunnies.

Immediately after, it suddenly occurred to me that one really needs to be impressed with the abilities of Arabs to search random scattered holes in the ground and other subterranean edifices for the evil dictators who are fleeing their eventual judgment or demise. Indeed, if Elmer Fudd had an Arab ancestry, I am convinced he would have no problem tracking down that infamous wascially wabbit in his wabbit hole before the hare could surface and carry on with his mischievous shenanigans or hijinx.

I would like to offer my advice to all evil dictators in the future. Perhaps find a hiding place above ground. Maybe in a box car or something. They would blend in just fine with all the city hopping hobos, who all speak gibberish anyway, though admittedly the ex-dictator would have to settle for a somewhat lower quality harem.

Anyway, after this fascinating and somewhat, admittedly joyous news story, came one of the Ohio escaped animal fiasco. The anchorman was quick to warn the viewers that some of the following story would contain "disturbing images." Then, the narrator began to report the story with a long distance camera shot with a field containing several animals dead. Now they never showed blood on this particular report, only a collection of animals which could have been sleeping for all I would have known if it hadn't been for the narration. This was interesting to me because they had just showed Kaddafi getting his head blown off with no such warning, but were quick to label the animal involved story as "disturbing."

Although, the stories themselves were quite interesting, and truly tragic when it comes to the animals, but for some reason, perhaps because of my lack of social life and friends, I found this to be intriguing detail concerning the juxtaposition between the two subjects and their portrayal in the local news. Why is it that you can show a real person getting a bullet to his head, or the aftermath of it, and nobody is disturbed by human blood and brain matter, but showing a dead animal is assumed to have the ability throw people into conniptions without a cited warning before the footage is aired? I find there to be several reasons for this, including the desensitizing of society through movies or TV, and media ethics, which culminates to the eventually effect that human life seems to be increasingly devalued over that of animals. I think there are several more reasons, but number one, I believe I have narrowed it down to it somehow being the Disney corporations fault.

Truth be told, I am an animal lover (not in the gross sense). I like animals and despite my jokes or comments on here, I have never hurt an animal. While kids were frying ants and caterpillars on the sidewalk, I could never partake for some reason because I just felt bad for the insect, dying and tortured at my hands just for the sake of some form of twisted entertainment. So I would distance myself from such activity and go play with my sisters dolls instead. That in itself has led to many years of social awkwardness. I like household pets as long as they aren't mine and they don't relieve themselves on my carpet, any personal belongings, or my person. Yet, I am not a extreme animal lover either. That is, I don't mind hunting and fishing, as long as the carcass isn't just left there to rot and though there are examples of zoos or enclosures that seem somewhat like torture because of their limited size, I don't think a zoo, or enclosed habitat, is in and of itself terrible or by those facts alone we can presume that the animal is mistreated or tortured. Yet, again, a habitat does need to be of considerable size relative to the animal displayed within it. Further, I am not a vegan and frequently partake in the eating or wearing of the flesh of an animal, though my friends tell me I should really take the extra time to cure the flesh first before I wear it. Even what I don't use, like hide, legs, head and such, I find uses for. Like tossing it over an overpass for a cheap laugh and a brisk run immediately afterwards. I clarify my feelings towards animals just so nobody jumps to the wrong conclusion in these examples and concludes somehow that mistreatment of animals is somehow permissible in my view. I assure you it is not. Even with the overpass thing it wasn't mistreated while it was alive mind you.

In the case of Libya, and indeed within many countries in the region, humans are very much treated like animals, or worse. Their rights are stripped away to such a degree that even the basic human right, the one to survive, is stripped of them. Protests and riots have erupted from Africa to the Middle East proper as is evident every night in news broadcasts, and in these protests, the participants are not threatened with pepper spray or having a tent confiscated, but rather death at the hands of the dictatorial government. Though we have seen a number of corrupt autocratic government systems collapse within the last few years because of such uprisings, before it is all said and done, many of the protesters are tragically killed for declaring their dislike for government or policies. If one looks across the world at how many citizens or members of the press have been killed for stating or writing something against those in power, its truly astounding.

It is almost silly to juxtapose such horrible events with the protests of the current Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, where, in essence, all they have to worry about it getting booted out of a public park, maybe feel a little dope sick when their drugs are confiscated, and sent back home to occupy, once more, their parents basement. That may seem unfair, and though I will concede every individual still engaged in the movement may not hold to that globalization, I think it is the direction, what may be called, the dregs of the moment are going.

Coming from Seattle I see the occasional protest, most notably the 1999 WTO protests and riots that caused havoc downtown. In that case, and indeed the case of the OWS protests, everything, for the most part, starts out alright. A notice is put out to invite people of like minds, to use their constitutional right to free speech and they quickly organize in a specific location in order to best profess whatever their mission statement may be. Though I may disagree with a particular groups ideology, the right to organize without the fear of death or violence is one protection this country gives us, and I particularly like the idea of ordinary citizens getting involved in the political process, no matter if it is OWS or the Tea Party. Yet, Tea Party excluded, there seems to be a pattern in these modern examples of protest. When the initial participates organize to protest, everything is somewhat and relatively calm. Those individuals within the group wave signs, maybe yell a little bit, but for the most part, everyone eventually goes separate ways after the rally dies down, though admittedly there might be a couple days of "camping out." After the movement gains momentum, and gets media attention, more people are attracted to the protest and rallies, some with pure motives, while still others are probably on so many drugs they think they are protesting for Denny's to cut their prices on their "Moon's Over My Hammy" meal.

Obviously, this isn't a absolute conclusion, but I do know that as of a few weeks ago, at least three people had to go to the hospital from Portland's OWS protest due to heroin overdoses. In addition, local Seattle protests have been shuffled around more than Air Force One when Obama has something important to do in Washington. These reasons are frequently reported to be health concerns due to needles being found in the area immediately surrounding the encampments. It has got to the point that though, at first, someone would know why are they are really there and give a coherent message to a reporter, that such questions from reporters are responded to now with incoherent and contradictory statements. In general, I would say when such protests move from daily rallies to camping indefinitely, the message gets lost and the movement becomes occupied by fist bumping, tattered clothing wearing college aged kids who raise their fists against the establishment, capitalism, and at the same time have no issues with demanding your spare change.

Recently while watching the news coverage of the Black Friday shopping madhouse, they briefly focused on some OWS protesters, protesting Black Friday. The man, who to his credit was standing their quietly with a sign, did say he and his colleagues were protesting consumerism. Now, if I wasn't so busy trying to teach my dog how to tap dance, I would have laughed outright at the screen. The man apparently had no concept of where his clothes came from, his Fox racing beanie, or how he got those markers to make the sign and which he sniffs on a nightly basis (Marker huffers are an untapped market. How you think you got those there genius?(When writing this it occurred to me that marker huffers are an uncapped market. Thus, I am currently in negotiations to make my own line of pen, "Snuffies.")

Capitalism isn't a perfect system, but its the best. No perfect system will exist as long as imperfect people exist. Its one of the harsh realities of our world, but we do have the ability to speak out and change the tide of "progress," but what makes it affective, is not only how much sense it makes in its message, but the methodology behind the protest. When we look at such affective protests of the past, in our country alone, it usually doesn't take people throwing things through mini-mart windows or random acts of violence. The most effective have been those that have been civil. For instance, most recently, when Bank of America announced their five-dollar debit card fee, people organized and encouraged people to move their money elsewhere. This was so effective that Bank of America eventually dropped the charge. Though the OWS movement at the beginning was charged with not having a coherent message, I think what was displayed with OWS and The Tea Party is quite clear, the frustration the public is having with their current political leaders and corporations. When it comes to corporations, I have no problem with the mere existence of corporations, but rather those economic powerhouses who make profit by price gouging the public. I understand due to inflation sometimes prices need to go up, but I perceive that the general public is increasingly under the impression that they are being taken for a ride by many corporate entities and politicians. This, above anything else, is an important message which should be heeded by those who provide services and those in power. However, if people like those who now have hijacked the OWS movement, continue to speak for such groups and propose to be under their banner, then the message or possible influence the rally might have had might as well be tossed out the window, for as the respect decreases, so does the power of a particular group to produce change.

You really need to feel bad for the police who are given the responsibility to keep such groups under control. I am sure on occasion a cop oversteps the bounds of his authority, but for the most part I feel cops are well trained to handle such situations and their actions display as such. Yes, being pepper sprayed isn't exactly pleasant, but when it comes down to it, its probably one of the most "humane" ways to control an unruly crowd, especially when considering all the other methods. I always hear people complaining about the police and their conduct to some reporter on the news, but the next moment footage shows some moron swinging a big metal bat or pole at police. What's to be done? Police hardly ever pepper spray without warning unless attacked or threatened, and ample warning, sometimes in fact for days prior, is given to the protesters to disperse.

If a cop rushed one of the protesters and beat him with a nightstick people would call foul, but still when a 84 year old woman is pepper sprayed by getting caught in the crossfire, people still call foul. I feel bad for the old woman, but pepper spray isn't as accurate as say a night stick, but that would be unacceptable. What was she doing there in the first place? Perhaps her family should look after her a little closer. To her credit though, she was rather humorous and good natured when asked about the whole ordeal. If cops threaten to arrest or spray then you should probably heed the warning and not consider it a joke. Most cities have been more then accommodating to the movement, but cops have a duty to make sure that nobody else's rights are infringed upon by their presence. The most tragic thing about all this was when I saw the elderly pepper sprayed woman doing a interview on TV and realized that it was Keith Olbermann interviewing her. Yes, Keith Olbermann is back! That is the most horrendous thing about this whole story and soon I expect protests to arise just from this fact alone. Horrible. Horrible.

In closing, finally, I would say in America the word to live by when protesting and speaking ones mind should be, "civil," or depending on the extent of which one is fighting for their rights and what that right is, possibly even, "civil disobedience." Of course, the extent of these can change relative to the cause, but I feel its a more than an essential rule of thumb especially if one considers what they want the eventual outcome to be, successful or unsuccessful. Basically, the ends must justify the means. The man who got this process exactly right was the brilliant Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which he outlined in his famous, "Letter From Birmingham Jail." His boycotts and protests changed the world profoundly and the methodology which made it so successful has been long since forgotten by those who stage protests and those who participate in them.

On Great Steps Forward in Urinal Gaming and Technology

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:10:00 +0000

Get ready to play with yourself or with friends in a bathroom near you.

Its about time someone got with the program and developed Urinal video games. Although, its not quite that streamlined or popular yet, considering that its only in a bar in South London at this time, but the possibilities are, nevertheless, endless. After all, the deeds at the urinal and the processes that make yellow snow possible are the original first person shooters, so its only natural that someone would decide to bring that process into the gaming and machine age.

Is it really so surprising? Society has been conditioning us for this possibility for a long time now. Perhaps you recall going to your local carnival, grabbing a water gun, and aiming it towards a miniscule hole in a board which, after firing a stream of water into it, made a cardboard horse move above all the individual participants stations, the obvious goal to be the first to cross the finish line by the mere dexterity of your aim. Then, if you did indeed win, you would be rewarded with a mutated looking stuffed animal, which hardly ever resembled anything existing in the animal kingdom, smelling of foul cheese and hepatitis, incomplete with a googly eye missing, matted "fur," obvious charring from cigarette burns, and stitching draping from the dreadful thing in long ribbons.

It may take a few years to get to America, but I think its great. If it does go global then maybe I don't have to stare at nasty elongated boogers formed into abstract shapes on the wall in front of the urinal anymore. Furthermore, it may keep those creepy people's eyes from casting errant sideways glances at you and your stream. Also, maybe I can actually use a urinal without getting all shy and flustered, having to instead opt for the stall, where I have to sit down and pee like a prissy little girl. Yep. Besides the fact I can't kiss the controller for good luck, I don't see anything negative about this at all.

However there are very many questions that still need to be answered concerning this technology, like, what about Multiplayer? I mean is there room for Co-Op or will it be just Drenchmatch? Will there be cheats available, such as the up-down-up-down-select-start?

For those of you who are curious about what kind of games we can expect, a few days ago I took advantage of a discrete leak and was able to find this list of upcoming urinal game titles developed by Urinthegame Studios for the PeeEZPee Urinal Console.

These include:

Grand Theft Yellow
Silent Spill
Lebron James' "Dribble"
Whizzers and Warriors
Splash Bandicoot
Mist
Shaun White's Snowgoing Road Drip (To be released on the upcoming Nintendo Wee)
Centipeed
Portal-Potty
Septic
Ghostbusters: Don't Cross The Streams
Urinal: Asparaguses Fragrance
Modern Pourfare
Bladder Master
Where in The World is Carmen Going-to-go?

Although I wish this product success, I just hope they don't carry it to the next level and never, ever, develop toilet games like:

A Boy and His Glob
Call of Dookie
Poo Pong
Kingdom Sharts
Freeway Rest Stop Story (For cell gamers)
World of Bowelcraft
Tiger Woods' Loaf
Wolfensteaming
Harry Squatter
Fallout #2: New Pants

Though, admittedly, I guess some toilet word processing would be pretty cool, like:

Microsoft's "Turd," or, of course, "Turdperfect."

On My Near Death: The Second Account

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:29:00 +0000

People always say that bad things occur in sets of three. I absolutely don’t believe this to be the case, for bad things can happen in singles, doubles, triples, and even more. In fact, I would bet that most people have been through times in their life where they encounter hardship after hardship to the degree that they feel almost jinxed and conspired against by the three fates. We have all experienced those periods while we journey through life when, just when you think all things are going well, you are blindsided by tragedy or adversity.

The hardship I have lived through continues to this very day, though admittedly much less. The onslaught of sickness which racked my body and made it necessary for doctors to put me into a coma, was more or less defeated, but I soon after was the subject of another medical emergency that set me back significantly. This secondary medical condition, oddly, turned out to produce more concern in the long term than did my initial sickness, from which I was on my way to recovering from.

To those of you who have had the privileged joy of reading my previous entry, you may recall I had just gotten out of ICCU and was moved a couple floors up to recover. Again, by coincidence, some of my friends showed up and kept me company for a while in my brand new spacious room. Finally, I was one step closer to getting home, or so I figured. Yet, from the time I came out of the coma, to this particular point, many would tell you I didn’t look exactly normal. That is to be expected when just coming out of a coma of course, but my eyes looked rather odd, for they were as big as saucers and were nearly bugging out of my skull(which people also tell me on occasion is very thick by the way). Though this was brought up to the doctors, they figured it was just me coming off the massive amount of drugs I had been on in the ICCU ward.

My friends eventually left, and despite me being in a coma for over two weeks, I was still really exhausted for some reason. I had no problem lying in the bed and slipping off into slumber. Yet, it was interrupted after just about fifteen minutes by one of the nurses, who informed me somebody got their wires crossed and this wasn’t my room after all, but was reserved for someone else. They promptly rolled me down the hall in a wheelchair to another room, which I had to share with an older gentlemen who was fast asleep and I found myself immediately jealous. After I was helped into bed on the other side of a sea blue curtain, it didn’t take me long until I too fell into a deep sleep.

When I awoke I heard the chatter of the man's family surrounding him. I had the odd unreasonable recollection of how peaceful the ICCU was, which of course was nonsense. Yet, I felt extremely shy and for some reason vulnerable in that place, in a room filled with people I didn’t know. I was pretty uncomfortable there, even more so concerning the man’s private condition, which I won’t disclose. However, it wasn’t long until I was itching, not in the literal sense, to get out of that particular room. The nurses informed me that they were trying to find a private room for me, for which I was grateful. Even my family and friends didn’t stay too long in that room, because either they felt uncomfortable as well, or it was due to the lack of space.

Either way, I was extremely pleased the next day when they found me another room. A private one as well. However, this round of “musical rooms” wasn’t over just yet. Once they found me a room, they informed me of my continuing need for dialysis. After getting settled, they discovered that the room couldn't handle a dialysis machine because, from what I gathered, the room couldn't supply the power it takes to run the machine. They did have another room available though, to my delight, which somehow was able to shine through my frustration, and I was quickly transported there. I wasn’t very angry at the nurses though, I am sure it happens. Plus, it must have not been very fun for them. I had quite a few nick-knacks, boxes full, that people had brought in for me and that the nurses had to carry over every time I moved rooms. Finally, I was in the room I was to stay in . . . for a while.

My eyes were not getting any better and despite frequent inquires the doctors stuck to their guns more than a bitter Midwest republican, and informed my family, again, it was just due to the drugs wearing off. As for me I didn’t worry about it too much, although my family and friends were kind of weirded out by it, similar to how my friends are weirded out every time I wear a skirt. I probably would have been worried as well, but at this time I didn’t have a mirror to look at myself yet so, as far as I knew, such fears could've been motivated by an understandable paranoia. I would eventually find out this wasn't the case.

I didn’t have much in the room, but I was glad that I had a TV and my cell phone at least. This turned out to be a necessity, for although I could have read, my mind would easily lose focus and I would have to reread things over and over again. In addition, my bill on that particular 1-900 number was overdue, so much of my social life through my cell was thereby incapacitated. It was horribly frustrating, so I watched TV, which may say something about the very nature of television since I was able to pay attention to that quite well. It turned out to be good though because I don’t know if any of you have had the pleasure of having dialysis, but its not exactly exciting and I came to dread it after a while. Although they encouraged me to rest pretty much all the time, I found myself getting anxious and staying up to the wee hours of the morning. Thank you Al Bundy for keeping me company during those trying times.

Most the times the dialysis was completely painless and worked as it should, but on occasion there were some issues. I had a stent which was inserted in the right side of my neck just below my jaw which served for the dialysis treatment and gave me a series of five scars. What would happen at times was the stent was having trouble cycling my blood, which would set off an alarm on the machine itself that was rather annoying and relentless at times. Also, it would tend to build up backpressure which would cause pain. This made the doctors nervous and they decided to call it quits and continue the next day. As I recall, I was hooked up to the machine for about an hour to 90 minutes at a time, so I learned awfully fast to use the restroom before I was hooked up. Especially because they had me constantly hooked up to an IV to flush out my kidneys so it was like ever 15 minutes that I would have to urinate. It wasn’t very fun. Hows that for some T.M.I?

This was another cause for humiliation as it turns out. I do like my privacy as does everyone when it comes to this kind of thing. Well, they should anyway. I have certainly seen hobos downtown that could stand to be a little more modest. Anyways, They requested I urinate in a, turns out, a very badly designed container so they could measure how much of the fluids my kidneys were processing. Yet, I was so embarrassed a few times I got out of bed on my own, not a good thing by the way, and I was scolded for going to the toilet on my own (I still can’t believe I made it), as well as getting out of bed without assistance. They happened to be rather more upset about the latter than the former. Yet, they took pity on my pitiful self and only on occasion requested I use the aforementioned container, but still said that I had to call the nurse at the front desk every time I felt the urge. This was another reason for embarrassment, but I didn’t complain. Why make their job harder than it is? I’m sure it was a duty they weren’t exactly thrilled to perform.

I needed several treatments of dialysis and each time I hoped it would be my last, but alas, that was not to be. In addition, every time the IV bag would run out of fluids I would hope they wouldn’t bring another in. It was so great to be disconnected and free to “move about,” but most the time they would just bring in another bag and hook me up to it. I almost felt like reaching up, grabbing the bag, and squeezing so the fluids would get into me faster, under the false hopes that the current bag would be my last. So, whenever I wanted to get up and use the restroom, I would have to lug that terrible coat rack looking stand around which was more of an obstruction than you would think.

It was around this time and in this room that I first caught a sight of myself in a mirror. I didn’t really even recognize myself. Turns out my friends and families “understandable paranoia” was actually quite accurate. I not only looked rather creepy, but under the influence of the most expensive speed money could buy. My eyes were wide and bulging out of their sockets, but not only that, I also had a huge sore on my tongue from the tubes that had been down my throat for so long. Due to its appearance, this almost bothered me more than anything and I asked more than a couple doctors what could be done. They informed me it was an ulcer and nothing could be done, it would have to heal on its own, which would take some time. It certainly did. I didn’t think it was possible to scar your tongue, but apparently it is. It’s hard to notice, but every time I slap my tongue against an Otter Pop you can tell its there.

It was not long after this, that a physical therapist visited me and informed me that I was to try and walk with her down the hall the next day, which I didn’t feel so good about, for my weakness was very pronounced. Yet, I also felt a little excited to be able to get mobile again. True to her word, she showed up the next day with a wheeled walker and a wheel chair. My folks were there at the time so she requested my father to follow me with the wheelchair right behind in case I fell. We started off right outside my door and I struggled to make my way down the hall with the walker, whose wheels were worse than a grocery store shopping cart, but this could have been due to the fact I put almost all my weight on the thing. The nurse walked along side me guiding the IV stand. After only about ten feet or so my legs would shake almost uncontrollably and was forced to sit down after twenty feet. I believe I walked two more times in increments of twenty and was exhausted. They wheeled me back to my room and I got back into my bed ashamed my will power wasn’t able to provide my muscles any extra strength to toss away the walker and sprint throughout the ward. The physical trainer eventually asked me, and recommended, that I go to a rehabilitation center for a couple weeks, which I turned down. I felt embarrassed enough as it was needing help to move around and I opted to rehabilitate myself after I had left the hospital.

She didn’t reply either negatively or positively and kept working with me from time to time. At other times it was just the nurses who would help me walk about, and slowly I kept building back strength in my legs and proceeding further down the hall. I began to walk halfway and then the full length of the hall. As we walked I had many interesting conversations with the nurses there that kind of startled me and gave me further insight into how serious my condition really was. They asked me what was to be the purpose of my life, for one of them suspected it must be something great to live through such a thing. One asked me how it would profoundly change my life, and still another asked, maybe half jesting, if I saw “a light” or anything, which I didn’t. However, to be confronted with such a menagerie of profound questions, prompted some serious reflection as well as another reminder what I had just been through. After a few days, I was given the great news I would be off dialysis and my kidneys had significantly improved. They tore the stent out of my neck, which smarted and bled profusely. I had to maintain pressure for about twenty minutes, which I did almost to the degree I bruised myself, for some reason paranoid I might bleed out if I didn’t. Finally, they took the blood soaked gauze off my neck and replaced it with just a regular Band-Aid patch. I still had those pesky IV fluids going in, but I felt freed up immensely.

I continued to walk, sometimes with the physical trainer, sometimes with nurses, and sometimes with my family. Eventually, I was able to circle the ward once, twice and finally three times. My legs got relatively much stronger and one evening I was able to, finally, with my father, circle the ward three times. I returned to my room tired in both a sleepy sense and physical sense. My father realizing this stayed a few moments and said he was going to leave. He wished me good night and left. Though my appearance was still messed up, more so than normal, I was feeling good and very positive. The doctor came in and told me I was to go home the very next day and I was so excited I don’t think he left the room completely before I got on the phone and called my folks. Needless to say they were very thrilled that I was to be discharged. After a brief and happy conversation I hung up and prepared to doze off for the evening, if my excitement would let me that is.

A few minutes after that, my friends Amber and Aaron strolled into the room to visit me much to my surprise. I was quick to tell them the news and they were indeed thrilled I would be out of there the following morning. After some brief BS-ing, I was informed that it was my friend Aaron’s birthday and they were to be somewhere for a party and celebration, so they couldn’t stay long. I offered him a happy birthday and regrets that I couldn’t be there. As we sat there talking the alarm on my IV started going off indicating the bag was empty. I asked Amber what the noise was, which I should have known for I heard it several times before. Thus, this probably indicated I was feeling a great deal of confusion. She informed me that it the alarm for the IV because the fluid was empty. I’m pretty sure I would have checked that out myself and saw the bag empty, but I didn’t for some reason. Again, I asked Amber what the noise was, which she found odd to say the least and informed me a second time. The third time I asked she knew something was definitely wrong with me, though she has probably always known that to a degree being my friend, but even more so this time. My hand began to shake which I just stared at for a couple seconds and then I began to seize.

Now, other than the IV, I wasn’t hooked up to anything else. No monitoring equipment or anything. So, the only alarm that was beeping was from the IV. From what I hear it was kind of panic and pandemonium in the room, but thankfully they knew instantly what must be going on. Immediately Amber and Aaron helped turn me on my side as I slipped into a full blown grand mal seizure. After they got me on my side Amber held me while Aaron ran to the emergency button by the door, which would immediately call the nurse. The following events are so wild that if it wasn’t such a serious and potentially deadly situation, I think it would be almost comical. Indeed, some Benny Hill music behind the events would be most appropriate.

Aaron pressed the button on the door, which was faulty in some fashion and it didn’t work at all. Not missing a beat, he took off out the door and down the hall to the nurses desk, only to find no nurse on duty. He ran down the halls calling for help and couldn’t find a single person until he ran into a cleaning lady. He pleaded with her to find a nurse and told her I was having a seizure, and according to him, unbelievably, this lady just took her time strolling down the hall casually telling him she would find some one.

Eventually, a doctor and nurses did eventually show up and quickly took over Amber’s duties and tried to calm me down. Amber immediately called my parents, who were shocked, and quickly ran over to the hospital. Now, I don’t know what kind of actions they used to stop my seizing, if any, but whatever they did or didn't do, didn’t do the trick and I kept thrashing about. By the time my parents got there, they were wheeling me out and down the hall with me still seizing on the gurney, it had been almost an hour. They ran up to the doctor and asked her what was happening and for all the details she could provide.

Now, I had already met a rather rude doctor when I was first admitted into the emergency room, but this lady, whom I will call Dr. M, was completely tactless and not on the same page as any of the other doctors. This caused some great confusion in a moment of grief and panic, which further resulted in anger. As they talked to this doctor she informed them she believed I was faking the seizure to get more drugs. That would be some dedication there to fake a seizure for a whole hour. Nobody could believe what she was saying and my friend Amber, from what I hear, looked like she was going to jump up and punch her in the grill. My mother was in hysterics and panic stricken when she lamented, “He was to go home tomorrow.” The doctor replied, “Well, I guess he isn’t going to be going home tomorrow now is he?” I don’t know what she was thinking, but how about some consistency there? I’m faking, but your not going to not discharge me?

She somehow came to the conclusion that I was still ill with ARDS, which I had been cleared from, and said that I still had it and could get worse, which doctors before and after denied wholeheartedly. I think this woman was such a, well, “brat,” because she knew she dropped the ball and it took some cleaning lady to be able to find any staff. Yet, at this time I had about six or more doctors and nurses there all for a guy who is supposedly faking a seizure. They couldn’t get me sedated which prompted the doctors to ask what kind of substances I frequently took part in, through which they learned, other than the occasional drink, I was clean. They tried to call the elevator, but for some reason the elevator was not working and they struggled to restrain me while trying to figure it out. Eventually, they got another elevator to work and I again was taken down to the ICCU and away from the worst doctor I have ever encountered.

While I was taken back for the doctors to work on me, my parents and friends sat outside, my mother so upset a nurse called a Chaplin to talk to her and provide some level of comfort and strength. My friends provided this as well, my friend even turning down his own birthday party stating that there was no place he would rather be. I need to take this opportunity to thank them for the strength the provided my mom. As I was wheeled into the ICCU some of the nurses who were very familiar with my case were depressed when I showed back up saying, “Oh no, not our Brandon.” Its amazing the impression you can leave people with without even realizing it. However, I wasn’t conscious at this time to hear these near flattering remarks.

They Finally got me sedated I began to drift in and out of consciousness. I recall them turning me over and giving me a lumbar puncture at one point. At any rate, they once again, not knowing exactly what had occurred, put me into a coma. This time, however, it was not for over two weeks, but for two days while they ran tests to determine exactly what had happened. They determined I needed an MRI and I was eventually pulled out of the coma. I came to and was curious why I was in a different room, which looked surprisingly familiar. It hit me quickly that I was back in the ICCU. Crap. Hoping it wasn’t the case, I immediately reached down to check to see if I had a particular obtrusive tube in, hoping it indeed wasn‘t the case. Double crap. I was simultaneously confused and depressed at the same time. Yet, this was quickly removed prompting the same intense discomfort I had described in the previous entry.

I was transported down to the basement floor where their MRI equipment was located. I was put in the machine, but due to my drowsiness from the sedation, I promptly fell asleep. They had to pull me back out of the machine and wait a good fifteen minutes or so before I became more awake. Meanwhile, this made my mother nervous, for it was taking a little while longer than it should have. After the procedure was complete, I was pulled from the claustrophobic tube and taken back upstairs, where my family and I were informed that my brain was bleeding towards the back of my skull. Something they called a subarachnoid hemorrhage. Figures. I have always hated spiders.

With this revelation came a new medical mystery. Was it the hemorrhage that caused the seizure or did the seizure cause the hemorrhage? The hospital decided they were ill equipped to deal with the situation and though I did speak to a neurologist at their facility, it was determined that I should be transported to downtown Seattle to their neuroscience department. There, they said, I would be seen by several specialists in order to determine the nature and severity of my particular condition. They quickly summoned a ambulance for transport. In retrospect, I would have preferred if they just gave me a bus pass, due to the figures that would arrive at my house concerning the bill for this brief transportation.

I was discharged, thanked everyone for the care I received, and was wheeled down a corridor to the elevator. When coming so close to death as I had, you would be surprised at the kind of things you will find joy in. As the paramedics rolled me down the hall way, one side was bordered by fake trees, upon which hung pure white Christmas lights, which reminded me instantly of the season. Its hard to determine such things like the passage of time when your surrounded by like opaque walls wherever you go. This sight, for some reason, gave me such a profound sense of joy, I still have a hard time making complete sense of it. Although, I was headed towards another medical facility, the idea that I was leaving this one combined with the sight of the simple decorations, gave me such a feeling of joy, I could have almost wept. It was far to soon, if you ask me, when they rolled me into the elevator and the doors closed, enclosing me once again in a all too small enclosure.

The doors opened unto the lobby and I was pushed across, to some embarrassment, into a waiting ambulance. The sun did not shine that day and it almost seemed as dreary and grey as had been my stay within the multiple hospital rooms, wards, and their accompanying decor. Yet, I found the bustling of the people outdoors, going about their daily lives, on foot and within their vehicles, to be a subject of intense interest to me. I began to fantasize about where they were going and what they were doing, missing the freedom I had to move about in such a manner as that. On the way down to Seattle, I had a delightful conversation with a female paramedic, who kept my spirits up until we arrived at the hospital which had the semblance of a old cathedral with a hint of gothic architecture. Although, some might be put off by the spires and exterior decor, I found it quite beautiful as I was ushered indoors.

Yet, the interior wasn’t nearly as interesting to me as I was met with the familiar walls and unimaginative furnishings as my hospital before. I was somewhat disappointed, but realized my trip was one of necessity and thus I kept my feelings to myself, determined to do whatever I could in my power to find the answers the doctors and I were seeking concerning my health. Fortunately, they were expecting me and I had a room to myself. I didn’t have to move even once and I quickly settled in, trying to be as positive as I could. From here on out I was in the care of three specialists, a neurologist, a rheumatologist, and a nephrologist, who visited frequently offering up loads of theories, speculations or possible treatments. The rheumatologist, whom I will refer to as Dr. “R” came in and was, by his own account, shocked. He had received my medial history and was amazed at how talkative I was. In addition to that, he later put in his notes I was surprisingly chipper and of good countenance, which shocked him. He told me that he expected the antithesis to the point of me being quite sickly, depressed and sedate. The odd thing was that my eyes were back to normal. They were no longer wide and protruding from the sockets.

It was his hypothesis, along with the neurologists, that I may have been experiencing “micro seizures” during that time. He hypothesized I may have lupus or vasculitis. However, there was some concern that I may have a blood clot or inflamed arteries in my brain and told me they wished to do an angiogram. I wasn’t too thrilled, because I knew what the procedure was and how it was performed. Basically, what it is, for those who don’t know, is they take a catheter and enter through the groin, running it up through your heart and into your head where they inject a dye which can be picked up by x-ray. Thus, they can look at the blood vessels in your head and see if there is any blockage. Again, I wasn’t too thrilled. Yet, I agreed to the procedure, simply on the grounds that it had to be done, and I was scheduled for the next day, though they were a little hesitant. This hesitance was because my kidneys were not back to normal and they were concerned about my bodies ability to filter out the dye and expel it. After weighing the options and risks however, they decided on following through with the procedure.

I was again transported to the bowels of a hospital and was surrounded by nurses. They administered some sedation and pain medication. Yet, this was not enough to keep me from blushing when they informed me that they needed to shave me. They, as the nurses were at the hospital before, were very professional and kept me covered as much as they could. They moved me into a room that reminded me of the main deck on the Nebuchadnezzar in “The Matrix.” There were flat screens everywhere, some tilted over me, others on the wall, while still others above a desk. All ran separate programs, while others showed rotating 3D renderings of blood vessels, I assume of some other patient.

The doctor came in, obviously former military due to his camouflaged doctors hat, and described briefly the procedure to me. I was told to lie flat and stare straight up, which I did, not wanting to even see the needle they used to do this particular operation. I was informed that I would be notified of the results in real time which was kind of rough for me to hear, for if the results were bad, I would know right away by their words and the tone of their voice. Thus, I became extremely nervous.

The operations started and I felt an immense pressure, much like a large brink was sitting upon me. They told me not to move, and I complied to the best of my ability. Other than the pressure and a little pain of the actually incision, I didn’t feel anything while the ran the catheter up through my body and up into my head. There, they injected the dye and I heard the faint sound of them conversing as my blood vessels were explored. The vessels appeared on the monitors, which I looked at more out of curiosity than necessity. I viewed the black outline of my blood vessels as the dye coursed through my brain, and didn’t see anything outwardly unnerving, but I didn’t look long, due to my nervousness. Thus, I waited as patiently as I could and was surprised that I didn’t have long to wait, which I was thankful for because it had seemed to me that the local anesthetic applied before the incision was wearing off, the pain increasing to a large degree. Just when I noticed the pain increasing, they informed me that it was done and pulled out the catheter and bandaged me up. The doctor came up alongside me and informed me as far as he could tell, there was nothing out of the ordinary with my blood vessels, which was a relief for me to hear.

I was moved back upstairs into my room, while being informed that the results would be sent to all the specialists involved in my care. I did need a few pain killers the following days from the procedure, but was quickly switched to Ibuprofen, which did the trick. It appeared to Dr. N. that I was negative for Vasculitus, but not cleared yet for Lupus. Yet, they seemed a little confused as to what exactly was going on and all sort of options were pondered over. In the meantime, I gave plenty of blood, 12 vials in one day as I recall, and my kidneys were closely monitored for ill effects from the dye. Some of my blood work revealed some abnormalities that pointed towards a auto-immune disease, but were far from being conclusive. One doctor mentioned that I may consider a brain biopsy, which I immediately didn’t want to do, finding it too explorative and thus breaking the Hippocratic oath. Yet, I was informed by the kidney doctor that I could do a Kidney biopsy which is less evasive. I was told that often things that occur in the brain can be detected in the kidneys, which I found interesting on an intellectual level. Yet, due to some of the danger from kidney damage it was decided it would be too risky to do such a procedure.

Daily blood work showed that I was improving, but still I had a bed alarm, which would notify the nurses if I got up. Like the hospital before, the nurses would occasionally visit me and converse over a whole variety of topics. It was during one of these visits she made it clear the bed alarm was necessary for many of the patients there who were recovering from brain surgery. Yet, since I had yet to get brain surgery, my bed alarm was taken off, much to my delight, for every time I moved the dang thing would play a horrible serenade of the nursery rhyme, “Mary Had a Little Lamb.” I had previously asked if there was anyway they could change the terrible song, to which I was notified that nobody knew how to change it. I find this interesting that they could care for brain surgery patients, but couldn’t figure out how to change the song of an alarm.

Even though mine was disconnected, many of my neighbors weren’t offered this luxury for their own safety. I had a older gentleman in the room next to mine, whose bed alarm would go off most frequently. The nurses would come in and try to get him to lay back down, but he wasn’t really able to grasp that he was in the hospital, due to perhaps the pain medication, the surgery or both. He informed the nurses he was tired of playing slot machines and wanted to go into the bar to get himself a beer. They spent many of nights trying to persuade this poor man that he was in the hospital and not in a Vegas gambling establishment.

As my vitals continued to improve, I was informed that I was in great enough health to go home the day before Christmas, much to my delight. It had been a long ordeal and I was anxious to see the outside world once again. However, they told me I would have to come back for periodical check ups and tests, for the answer still alluded all the doctors concerning my seizure. I agreed and I quickly called my folks and arrangements were made for my transport home. It was during this time that I caught my first glance of my tragically confused neighbor. He was an older gentleman, shaved bald with a large horseshoe incision on the right side of his head. It was held together by staples and he wandered out of his room. Why his alarm didn’t go off I can’t say, but perhaps he was granted exercise once in a while, much like I was. He seemed to immediately come over to my room and stood outside the door looking in.

It was a little awkward, but knowing what he must have gone through, me and my family offered him pleasant greetings. He inquired of us where Patricia was. We had no idea, both where she was, or even who she was. We told him we didn’t know, but that perhaps she would be there soon, thinking it must be a visitor or family member of his. He informed us that Patricia was to come over to fix his TV. We stammered a little bit in reply, offering our hopes that this woman would eventually come to visit. He seemed to feel that he was still in his home and nurses walked up to him and led him off gently, while my folks and me looked at each other awkwardly. I do hope Patricia showed up, whoever she is. Nobody should spend the holidays alone.

We packed up my things and I left, being led with a wheel chair, obviously not allowed to walk out of the hospital on my own accord. Though I quickly began to control the wheelchair on my own as we went into the pharmacy to get my anti-seizure medication and a long detailed list of how to take them. I got into the car and was driven back to my parents house. The doctors had told us I should not be alone, thus I wasn’t able to go back to my own home, but went with my folks to spend the holidays and a month or so recovering. Much of the time I was completely immobile. My legs and arms had deteriorated to the point I couldn’t walk down a hall or up some stairs without feeling like I was going to fall or getting exhausted. It was extremely frustrating. Luckily, my mother, who just had knee surgery, had a recumbent bike that I would get on and ride to build up some muscle. It was slow going. Not only did it hurt, but my heart rate would spike and I would have to remove myself from the bike every ten or so minutes.

My legs were still numb due to nerve damage and as the feeling came back, it was if as my body registered it as pain. This is something I still have to contend with to this day, but the damage is supposedly reversible. I still have pain and numbness, but the overall area of which this was occurring as shrunk immensely. I was forbidden to go back to Alaska for the first herring season, which has set me back financially somewhat, but was eventually granted permission to go for the second herring season and the subsequent salmon season as well. This I am grateful for and hopefully it will build up my strength quickly.

I continued seeing several specialists and have almost got a clean bill of health. My kidney doctor still wishes to keep an eye on me every six months due to some protein found in my urine and my neurologist as well. Lupus was eliminated as a possible cause and eventually the neurologist found a diagnosis. The condition I had concerning the seizure was something called PRES or Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome. The interesting part about this diagnosis, is that it has never been seen in the particular part of the brain where it occurred in me and my case is to be soon written up in a medical journal, name withheld of course. Not the kind of fame that I would wish for, but it is what it is.

As of now, I have yet to have another seizure and most issues I am battling concern getting back into the same shape I was before all this happened. I feel fortunate about getting back to work, being in relatively good health and gaining some independence back. I continue to see doctors, but as said before, its only every six months or so. I am off all medications dealing with my near death, but through this I was diagnosed with another non-serious condition and I have to take medication for that. For anyone who has known me, they may have noticed I have a slight nervous twitch about me, which remained undiagnosed for sometime. Indeed, some doctors just wrote it off as some sort of “tic.” The kind of tic that creates small muscle spasms, not the one that burrows into your skin.

After spending some time with the neurologist he inquired about why I walked around twitching like a pigeon. I told him exactly what I had been told and he quickly diagnosed me as having a genetic disorder called “benign central tremors.” I was prescribed a blood pressure medication, simply for this particular disorder and not any blood pressure problems. I am happy to report it has seemed to help and I now seem to have a relatively steady hand, which I haven’t had in years.

Thus ends my adventure, I hope, and despite how challenging and scary it was, I found the constant support of family and friends to be a constant source of strength. I would like to end this entry with, once again, thanking all those who were praying for me, keeping me in their thoughts, visiting, inquiring about my condition, and were overall concerned. In addition, I would like to thank those who kept my family and friends strong through this because, as mentioned before, in a lot of ways they were worse off than I was. Finally, thank you to the doctors and nurses who provided great care, support and did all they could to keep my dignity intact. I love you all and God bless you.

Brandon Myhre clear.

On My Near Death: The 1st Account

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:43:00 +0000

I am sure I have mentioned this several times before, but within my blog entries, I prefer to give my opinion rather than delving too deeply into anything personal. Mainly, I believe, because I am cowardly, worthless pile. It is much easier to criticize than to open yourself up to the same criticism. Thus, I tend to avoid topics where I could play a central figure, or would need to personally include myself in the narrative, for this might give the reader ample evidence and all the information they would need to reach the inevitable conclusion that I am a complete loser. This is a fact I try and obscure from people at all costs. So, it is with some trepidation I get into the following account of my recent illness. Indeed, this might turn out to be the most personal blog entry I have ever written.

Now, the reader should be aware that I have several different phobias. Some of these include: flying, spiders, flying spiders, showering, undergarments, and, as it turns out, MRI machines and lumbar punctures. In addition, like many people, I don’t particularly enjoy visits to dentists, doctors or hospitals and will do anything I can to avoid such places and those who work within the profession.

Thus, when I got sick just before Thanksgiving the last thing I wanted to do was to go to the hospital or see a doctor. I thought at the time, surely, I just had a flu. It should be mentioned here antibiotics make me nervous and I have always had this thought, which may or may not be completely irrational, that antibiotics impede the bodies natural defenses against disease or infection. I had made a unspoken pact with myself that only in emergencies would I use antibiotics. I furthermore had a fear of contracting some “super bug” due to frequent antibiotic use. A question now occurs to me: Which is more dangerous, taking antibiotics often when finding yourself ill and risking getting a "super bug", or never taking them, risking a illnesses progressing from bad to worse, in turn weakening the immune system and perhaps opening oneself up to more forms sickness or disease, which may be potentially as lethal as any “super bug” one may contract. Prior to this experience, I had the opinion perhaps the former was more dangerous, though now I am starting to change my tune a little. Yet, for these very reasons, the phobias and the vow, I may have waited just a little too long to go to the doctor when I probably should have. In fact, the doctors later said given one more day without going to the hospital, I would not be here to ramble on needlessly long, forgoing any form of conciseness in this entry for the mere purpose to entice pity from females (Ladies e-mail me: brandmyhre@gmail.com). The whole experience turned out to be the closest brush with death I have ever had. What started off as a minor cough would, in the end, lead to an ordeal that looked very much like an episode of "House."

Anyhoo, I believed, again, that I just had a flu. I was sick for a couple days with a temp of 99 to 100, which is common for a light to moderately strong flu. I just sat around, rested, watched some football, while drinking massive amounts of water, Sprite, and Gatorade. To keep my fever down as much as possible, I took plenty of Ibuprofen and Tylenol, which worked for a little while. However, as my fever progressed, the effectiveness of the medications on my fever wanned and my temperature started to build. More symptoms appeared (which I will try and to put as gently as possible) concerning mucus that seemed to originate in my lungs and was of a suspiciously white or grayish pink color. In addition, it was, curiously enough, of a rather solid nature.

I called my folks at their house and asked their advice, though I did downplay the symptoms somewhat so as not to concern them too much about my condition. They immediately brought over some more medication, including Mucinex, some beverages to keep me from being dehydrated, a thermometer, and a little food, for I was way too dizzy to be able to be driving anywhere to shop. My temperature at this point was about 101 and I suspected it would drop immediately. Due to all the sickness fighting weapons I had at my disposal, I reasoned the symptoms would vanish within a few days. The next day was about to prove me wrong.

When I awoke the following morning, I attempted to get up and get motivated, but found myself absolutely freezing cold. The vertigo I was experiencing had seemed to double. The whole house was spinning and I curled up on the couch, quickly turning on some football. This is where things start to get a little hazy. I had taken my meds when I first got up and decided after a while to take my temperature once again. Orally. It had risen to 102 and instead of calling a doctor like any logical, smart person would, I instead fell asleep. Yet, when I awoke once more, I found myself extremely confused. I recall it took me more than a few moments to realize where I was, though I had been living in the same house for about 2 months prior. It was at this time I noticed I had began to urinate blood. Again, because I am a mamma's boy, I called my folks. It was during the subsequent discussion with my mother where my confusion and state of mind really revealed itself. Not only did I not know where I was during the conversation, the whole of which I don’t remember, but I was also convinced my temperature was 200 degrees. She told me that was impossible and I would be dead. She immediately informed and sent my father to come get me and take me to the hospital (my roommate was on vacation at the time).

While he was in transit, however, I promptly passed out. So much so that when he arrived he had to bang on all the doors and windows, but still it failed to rouse me. They, my parents, by this time had come to the conclusion something was very wrong, to the degree he forced himself into the house and discovered me passed out on the couch. This, by the way, is the first time I had ever passed out without getting the word "penis" written somewhere on my face. He shook me until I awoke and told me to get dressed (I was just in a tee and pajama bottoms, which have cute little penguins on them by the way) and get shoes on. I, by this time, had become completely delirious and had no understanding of what he was talking about or had no idea where these items may be. Fortunately, he helped me find some clothes proper to wear out in the cold and rain. Yet, I put on my pants completely inside out on top of the pj bottoms and without even noticing, walked out to the car, which was now running with him seated in the drivers seat. He quickly noticed my pants and that I had failed to put shoes on. He led me back inside, found the shoes, for I had no idea where they were. He promptly encouraged me to look like a sane, normal human being and put on the shoes. I was then rushed to the hospital, though, honestly, I don’t remember the ride.

Shortly after we arrived at the hospital and he dropped me off while he parked the car. I walked in and went up to the triage. They asked me what the problem was and what they could do for me. I don’t remember what I said, but I remember it was darn near unintelligible, and I had trouble figuring out exactly why I was there. Immediately, they probably thought I was just a little too strung out and having an anxiety attack, for I don’t recall them even taking my vitals, but telling me just to go sit in the waiting room. I did as I was told without protest and sat down amongst the other patients waiting to be treated. I felt increasingly confused and struggled to hold on to reality, or my form of it, and what was going on, which was a constant battle. It was a battle I was losing. I wasn’t nervous or frightened at all, for I don’t think my mind was in a condition to process even basic concepts like consequence.

I believe my father eventually went up to the triage and talked with or to them. It seemed like immediately after, to me anyway, that a woman appeared with a wheelchair, which I think I was able to get into by myself. They rolled me back into the ER and helped me climb on a gurney. Here they took my temperature, again orally, and by this time it read 103. From here on out it is really blurry, for my mind had completely ran away from me, which on a side note some people wish would happen more often, just so I could shut up every once and a while. The attending doctor tried to ask me several questions, but I had no answer for any of them, which frustrated her greatly. She replied tactfully, “This isn’t rocket science,” but try as I might, I could not mentally formulate an answer for any of her inquiries. By the time my mother arrived, I was asking every 15 seconds where I was and at times didn’t even recognize my own parents. My temperature continued to climb to 104 and I began to hallucinate. I remember looking up at the ceiling and all the tiles disappeared so I only saw the framework of the ceiling upon which those very same tiles rested. I saw the ceiling above the tiles and the bare framework, so it wasn’t as if I was looking at the sky or to another floor. Between the framework and the ceiling proper, pulsated whitish-blue jellyfish, which swam about gracefully in the air. I also recall, small ice crystals falling from the ceiling and covering me from head to toe.

Next thing I remember, I was admitted into the ICCU (Intensive Critical Care Unit) and the doctors and nurses were hastily putting in an IV and throwing ice packs upon me, which was horrifically cold (Because of this and the condition my mind was under. I often wonder if some data got confused and I didn‘t hallucinate the aforementioned falling ice particles at all, but rather it’s a mixed up composite of real sensory data from when these same doctors and nurses threw ice upon me to cool me down). Yet, that horrific feeling didn’t last long, for at this time, they were also in the process of giving me plenty of drugs. Thus, instead of horrid discomfort or fear, it was eventually replaced with a strange, almost euphoria and disconnect of the situation I had found myself in. Once more, I eventually passed out.

My next memory is of being on the phone with my mom. There is an odd thing about the timing of this whole incident that I need to quickly mention. For months prior my mother was scheduled for knee replacement surgery on the very next day after I went into the hospital. So a while after her operation, she called me to check up on my condition, which was getting worse. Yet, I wasn’t aware of my real condition because, I was either not told this at the time or I simply couldn’t process the information. I don’t recall what we talked about and neither does she. I have nothing more than a vague recollection of talking to her. I do recall, however, that I believed that I would be out in two to three days.

This is where my memory completely ceases. Thus, any details given from here on, until I regain consciousness (I hope I didn‘t give away the ending, but the very fact you are reading something I wrote and the title of this particular blog entry hopefully gave you some sort of clue to the eventual outcome) are written based on the recollections of others, who were nice enough to give me an account of my missing two weeks. My family and friends must have got sick of me asking questions, but if anyone else has been in a similar situation, you know its just something you need to have revealed to you in a very detailed way, for what memories you do have are so broken and vague that there is no understanding of the chorological order behind the memories at all. Due to this, you are filled with a great need to collect the data in order to make sense of that which you don’t remember, that of which you do, and how it fits together in the context of time. If you haven’t experienced this due to being horribly sick, and I hope you haven’t, perhaps there has been a time you have had to much to drink, blacked out, and felt the need to call your friends the next day in order to find out what happened or if you had done anything completely stupid during the evenings/early mornings festivities. Not that I would know what that’s like . . . (Turns out I usually ended up doing something really stupid.)

It appears shortly after this my lungs were X-rayed and only small spot of infection appeared on one. Yet, daily it spread, eventually spreading to both lungs until I was having trouble breathing on my own. It seems during this whole time I was awake, yet as I got worse I was eventually given the drug Propofol, which promotes both sedation and amnesia so that after an ordeal such as this, one will not recall the suffering or treatment they may have experienced, which could lead to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Propofol is the same drug which has been in the news recently concerning the death of the “Quee…,” errr…, “King of Pop.” I don’t even know if I would have remembered anyway, for my brain was by this time in the process of overheating. This does bring up an interesting question in my mind however, to what degree suffering relies or relates to recollection? That’s a question for another blog entry though.

Eventually, as my lungs were inundated with this infection or disease, I began having immense trouble breathing on my own and despite being supplied oxygen, the oxygen saturation within my blood began to drop. The doctors surmised if they didn’t take action, I would suffocate. It was at this point they came to me and we began to discuss my options. I can’t remember any of the conversation, but it concerned whether or not I would give consent to the doctors to put me in a drug induced coma. Apparently, I agreed and they found me of sound enough mind, which I still can’t believe, to be able to make the right, logical decision. I suspect if I said “no” to the advised treatment, they would have said I wasn’t of sound mind and circumvented me to do it anyway. I did sign a HIPPA form, so I am a little surprised my next of kin wasn’t notified about the conclusion me and the doctors reached, due to my decreased mental capacity. Yet, I do believe I made the right decision, and in retrospect, after talking to some of the doctors, it was the best choice I could have made. Not only would this help to keep me alive for the time being, but the doctors themselves could control the expansion of my lungs (called the “peep”) and the percentage of the oxygen that filled them. Once the decision was made, I was given the injection and put under. They pushed a breathing tube down my airway, into my lungs, and hooked up the ventilator, which began to breath for me.

Despite all the efforts and in some cases the amazing dedication of doctors, they still could not find out precisely what was wrong with me. Plenty of cultures were taken, but they could get nothing to grow in the petri dish, or whatever it is they use to grow cultures. Apparently, it seems, that this method helps them better determine what antibiotic to use, or indeed, if one would be effective at all. Yet, once more, they could get nothing to grow. It was eventually determined from symptoms that I was suffering from not only pneumonia, which can be dangerous enough, but also ARDS (Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome) . As it turns out the latter is the most dangerous. Much more so. In fact, I was told out of all those who contract ARDS, 80-90% of people tragically don’t make it. Course, I was told this after my eventual recovery.

The odds were already stacked against me, both with an undetermined type of pneumonia and ARDS. Yet, there was more to come. After a few days of getting worse, my kidneys completely shut down. I am obviously no doctor and don’t pretend to be, but I do find medicine to be a fascinating subject. I would say, to me, the human body is infinitely more interesting then the depths of the deepest ocean or the farthest reaches of the cosmos. So, though I don’t subscribe to any medical journals, I do like reading up on the subject somewhat, if I can understand the words contained within the article, website, or book. Though this isn’t a real medical conclusion, but it does seem, by my novice reading, that the human body almost has a systematic way of shutting down when confronted with a serious illness. When the body is in danger of dying, systems begin to turn off. Often some of the first organs to shut down are the kidneys or liver.

The kidneys help regulate creatinine, which is a chemical waste product produced from muscle metabolism. The kidneys filter out this creatinine and are responsible for flushing it out of the body. Creatinine can be found in your blood and determining how much one has in the blood, a doctor can from this infer how your kidneys are functioning. I don’t know the canon which they use to measure it, but a person with a normal functioning kidney will have a creatinine level of 1. Another thing I don’t know, besides why grapes seem to be the standard unit of measurement when determining the strength of paper towels in TV commercials, is how they determine “1,” if its parts per billion or what, but I do know my level was 7.3. So my kidneys weren’t functioning at all.

My whole body was taking it a hit from the illness. My bone marrow was eventually affected and my platelets dropped severely, so that if I were to get a cut, it would not be able to clot as quickly as it would a person with a normal platelet count. It became so low that I needed a few blood transfusions to replenish the supply. I began to build up fluid, for my kidneys were unable to cleanse my blood of excess liquid and impurities. At one time I didn’t urinate a drop for 3-4 days, though by this time I had already urinated 2 pints of blood. I began to swell and not just my body, like hands and feet, but also some internal organs and, most creepily, my eyes. My eyes apparently got so bad that all the blood vessels burst, and my eyes wouldn’t close all the way, even though I was unconscious. My extremities began to swell as well, so much so that if you chopped off a finger, painted my hands white and drew a few vertical lines upon them, I would look like I just walked straight out of an old Disney cartoon.

To do the work of my now defunct kidneys I was put on dialysis. From looking in the mirror now, they did it by apparently drilling holes in my neck and running tubes into a dialysis machine, which looks like, given a few adjustments, could dispense delicious soft serve frozen yogurt in a quickness. As much as the scars bother me now, with all these people so excited about “Twilight” and vampires, perhaps the scared holes in my neck won’t be such a bad deal after all and attract some gothic women. Yet, the five holes, instead of two or four, might be hard to explain. Perhaps, I will just say I got attacked by two “regular” vampires and a vampire hillbilly. (A “vambilly?”)

It wasn’t looking good for me, and my folks were told that I, “could go at anytime.” My peep was up the highest it could go, they were giving me 100% oxygen and still I would not stabilize. I would seem to get better, then I would get worse. I was in very critical condition. My temperature would spike, then go down. My bloods oxygen saturation would at times rise, then plummet. They had me on dialysis and had two IV stands full of bags with several different tubes running into me, including a feeding tube, which I am skeptical of its efficiency due to the fact that when I eventually came to I was hungry as hell. I had so many tubes running in and out of me I must have looked like something out of an H.R. Giger piece. They even had me on a bed that slowly rocked back and forth, which supposedly helped in some way by shifting the lungs. They also had tubes down into my lungs that would induce my gagging reflex and then siphon out the ick that was building up. Furthermore, they were unable to use narrow spectrum antibiotics, which is preferable, due to the fact they couldn’t identify the exact strain of whatever was attacking me. Thus, they had to result to broad spectrum antibiotics, which at times seems like a medical, “hail Mary pass,” for doctors are discouraged from using this tactic, unless confronted with no other option.

For three days, I barely hung on (at this point it was beyond the doctors, my family and even me, everyone had did everything they could) and as I found out later, in two instances, I died almost completely. My pulse and oxygen levels had sunk to such a low level the doctors and nurses believed they were going to need a crash cart. Some flu.

Yet, despite being in the very palm of death, gradually my vitals began to improve. Not enough to negate any nervousness, but enough to give some signs of hope. As it got better though, they eventually took me off some of the drugs, but I remained unresponsive for some time, though everyone would try and talk with me. They say you can hear in a coma, but I honestly can’t remember a thing, but they did have me under that amnesia medicine as well. The nurses, as it turns out, always spoke to me though, telling me what they were doing and keeping me posted on any progress. My family, friends, and nurses, who visited often, God bless them, would try to talk to me or make requests, such as to squeeze their hand or raise my eyebrows. Yet, again, for a while I remained unresponsive.

On a quick side note, I would just like to share how much this experience has affected my respect level for those in the nursing profession. These people are truly the salt of the earth and in my case, I feel, they went above and beyond. They seemed to genuinely care, in fact, as going as far as checking on me or coming in and talking with me after they got off work. That is shocking to me, because when I used to get off work, I would sprint out of the facility as fast as I could and run to the nearest tavern or dance club to shake my tail feather. Course, now employed on a fishing boat, that has kind of limited my ability to run off and party, though in my down time I still occasionally work on the shaking of my ba-donk-a-donk. Back to nurses though, their skill far exceeded just medical care, in fact, it can get rather lonely in a hospital, but due to their friendliness, they helped to keep me sane. In addition, they attempted to preserve my dignity as much as possible. There is only so much dignity you can keep intact when somebody is wiping your ass for you. Regardless, it could have been a lot more humiliating and they did everything they could, even when I was unconscious and wouldn’t know the difference. Thus, all those who work as nurses get a well deserved shout out from me, and really, is there any better reward?

When I eventually started responding, it happened rather suddenly. I had nurses working with me everyday asking me to move, open my eyes, or whatever. With them it was at first a no go. My vitals were still down, but somehow I kept improving. My mother came in and asked me to move my eyebrows, which I did, and which there was a big hubbub made over it apparently. Next I squeezed my friend Amber’s hand and actually raised my hand to greet my friend Jill. Again, all this happened suddenly within a few days. Soon, I opened my eyes and right when I was able to see came to the conclusion I must have been sleeping for a couple days or so. I didn’t realize at the time, but it had been just over two weeks. I found it tough to see though for some reason. Everything looked like I was viewing it from under water. Turns out this was from some sort of goo they rub in your eyes to prevent them from drying out or being damaged. At first I believed that this substance was applied because my eyes were open for so long, but the goo will also prevent the eyes from being damaged when closed, for if your eyes remain closed for an extended period of time it can actually cause harm.

Yet, despite the blurry vision, one of the first things I saw was a collage and banner. The collage is pictured below. Thanks to Kara and Brittney for organizing it and everyone who contributed to it.

Now this may seem a little morbid, but I couldn’t help looking at the collage and realizing it looked awfully like a memorial. This and the banner were the first clue that something horrible had happened while I had been sleeping. I also found myself surrounded by stuffed animals, most of which were signed by friends and hospital staff. Two teddy bears even played music, Pink Floyd's, "Comfortably Numb," and Chicago's, "Feelin' Stronger Everyday." My throat felt extremely uncomfortable and I found I couldn’t speak. After some contemplation I understood that I had tubes running down my throat. Clue number two. Finally, when I tried to move my arms, I realized I couldn’t and saw that they were strapped to the bed in such a manner that any of those nurses could have had their way with me. I did ask later thinking pity might score me some points, but once again I was shot down. The nurses must have loved me. Maybe I should have remained unresponsive a couple more days (Those was jokes). At any rate, I was strapped down because apparently some people awake in a panic and try and pull the tubes out on their own, in which situation the patient can cause serious harm to himself. This was clue number three.

Even though at this point I was conscious, my consciousness didn’t last, and I lapsed in and out of now what was more of a heavily sedated state than a coma. Yet, again here my memory becomes a little choppy. Let the reader be aware that even though I use words like, “thus” or, “then,” realize that this is for the purposes of narration and to create some order out of the experience. I have tried to put the pieces together best I can, but chances are I have things utterly and completely messed up.

I recall a nurse coming to my bedside and checking the ECG, fluids and the other random beeping machines. She seemed thrilled I was awake and informed me what had happened. Not in detail of course, but that I had been out for two weeks. I was shocked, even though I felt sedated and high as a kite. Yet, when you hear something like that and have not actually experienced it, the ordeal is extremely difficult to identify with. I am still having issues actually. Everyone around me seems overly paranoid to me, which I find frustrating. I logically understand it, but I cannot connect with the emotions my family and friends went through during that time. It could almost be said that I was better off then they were.

I tried to speak to her, but couldn’t. It didn’t stop me from trying though. I really now can identify with those dogs who never really grasp the boundaries of their yard despite an invisible fence that gives them an electric jolt every time they try to breach their imperceptible enclosure, leading inevitably to a multitude of daily shocks. When family or friends would show up, I would never cease to attempt to speak, which served to only piss me off in the process. These moments of consciousness were semi-rare and most the time I still slept. I don’t know how long it was, but eventually a doctor and a few nurses came in and roused me. Not aroused me, but roused me.

I awoke and they informed me that they were going to remove the tubes from my throat. I was excited to hear that, and I am glad they chose to, because I found out later, given a couple more days, they would have had to do a tracheotomy. No thanks. I have seen “House” and that doesn’t look to pleasant. They told me it was to be a little uncomfortable, but still I was happy, because me without blabbing my mouth off and annoying people is much like being a fish out of water. Sure, they told me it would be uncomfortable, but they didn’t tell me it was going to really hurt. It hurt. I thought maybe he actually tore out a vocal cord, which would really stink because I am planning on going out for “American Idol” next season.

On a positive note, that was one tube out of an orifice, but I still had a couple more to go. The odd thing was, they would still strap me down, apparently afraid I would rip out some of the catheters, but I was so not going there. I wanted to talk almost immediately and I was asked by one of the nurses if she could do anything else for me, to which I responded, "Yeah, can you take this tube out of my ass." She replied in the affirmative, but did not do so at that moment. As my vitals began to improve the doctors insisted I move around more, having me sit up and such, which was extremely unpleasant. As was the fact that they would encourage me to cough to clear some of the left over nastiness in my lungs. Now, I don’t know if anyone else has went through the experience of hacking when having a catheter in, but its really painful. The doctors and nurses wanted me to do it every twenty minutes and needless to say I eventually came to a point where I dreaded their visits. Sometimes, however, I would cough uncontrollably and without me initiating it, which was also quite the hardship, for at times I would be strapped down and be forced to, I believe the term is, “blow raspberries,” until a nurse or doctor would walk by and offer me some assistance, which they did frequently. Thus, I never had to wait very long, but its not a dignified situation to be in and as my consciousness and thought process increased so did my humiliation.

One day, as I lay there my dear friend Kara visited me in the hospital. Though I remember my spirits being lifted and I was continuing to be more and more conscious over that period of time, still my basic problem solving skills were a little encumbered. As she visited, I must not have realized my hands were actually unstrapped, but my mind concluded they were still hindered from moving. My nose began to itch and I began to fuss about, trying desperately to reach my nose, which I never did. It was interesting because though I had the ability to, my mind was convinced it was unable, and thus my hand stopped short a full foot from my nose and could not go any further. Obviously, much to the confusion of my friend, who then offered to scratch my nose for me. I quickly replied in the affirmative and was relieved of my distress. Now, she finds this incident to be rather funny, but I find it rather embarrassing.

As I had mentioned before, the doctors were continually encouraging me to sit up and they even brought in a seat, which quite honestly, looked like they had just ripped a back seat out of an Astro van and rolled it into my room in the ICCU. In fact, I am almost certain I checked for seat belts. I had to sit completely upright in this thing and it was one of the most painful, uncomfortable parts about the whole experience, due simply to the couple catheters I had violating me. I let the nurse and doctors know that I couldn’t really stand it anymore. Something had to be done and they agreed.

I was seriously hoping they would sedate me or something for the removal of these obtrusive, but medically necessary, tubes. They didn’t. Instead, they told me to count to three and exhale, and I am here to tell you, it didn’t help a damn bit. They should have just gave me a bit to chomp down on. I don’t know who came up with that strategy and it may have something to do with providing a distraction, but I would have preferred if they just clamped down on my nipples real hard or something. It would have been much more affective in my book. Despite this, I felt relieved. To liken and borrow an allegory from C.S. Lewis, it was much like ripping off a scab, though it may hurt like nothing else at the time, you are alleviated by its removal alone. This was certainly the case. Yet, it didn’t take me long to realize that I, as of yet, couldn’t walk. Thus, I couldn’t go into the restroom. This presented an even more embarrassing issue. When the urge eventually occurred, I informed the nurses and instead of bringing a wheelchair and wheeling me to a restroom, which I would have preferred, they rolled in a chamber pot and brought it next to my bed.

Though it may sound like I was completely impatient with the hospital staff, I really wasn’t. In fact, they said for as sick as I was, I was extremely pleasant and polite, even giving props to my parents for doing such a good job, and by props I mean commendation, not props as utilized by the likes of Carrot Top. I know there were medical reasons for all their decisions and medical methodology which governed my care. Yet, despite being fully aware of this, I was also still extremely embarrassed throughout the whole ordeal of asking for help out of bed and, well, then doing my business without the benefit of modern plumbing. This all culminated in a further realization and discovery that a body being immobile for a long period of time exhausts it. My muscles would hardly work at all. I couldn’t walk on my own and even eat on my own. I was fed by nurses, friends, and family for a while after I came to. Though I picked it up quickly, its almost as if I had to learn all these things all over again. It occurred to me as I lie there thinking about nonsense, how ridiculous it is in movies and TV when a person can get up from a coma after several weeks, months or years, jump out of bed on sheer will power alone, and quickly recover. I was told recovery would be long and difficult, but I had the same feeling, that my will power would enable my muscles, stamina or dexterity and I would be instantly back to normal. Again, ridiculous idea.

I still have a little numbness in my limbs from being in a coma. When a person falls asleep or lays down, he will naturally move his/her body into a comfortable position. Not so in a coma. It is up to the doctors and nurses to move the body so it is in a position where no damage can take place. This sounds easier then it is. It is common for a person in a coma, despite all precautions and care, to be placed in a position where a nerve may be pinched. A person who is not in a coma, would shift due to the uncomfortable feeling it produces, yet it is impossible to tell in a coma patient. Thus, some numbness is a result which fades in time.

After some more daily recovery and improvement, I was able to leave the ICCU and move to another floor. This was a touching moment for me, for I got a standing ovation when I left. Chiefly, I am sure, because I’m such a great guy, and because for two weeks I was the sickest person in the hospital. In the medical profession the term “miracle” is frowned upon, but I heard it several times as I recovered and eventually left the ICCU. The nurses requested that I return upon my recovery. It seemed almost a victorious moment for them, and why shouldn’t it be? They had brought me back from the brink of death and they should feel happy about all the effort they put into my care and the eventual result. Some of my friends showed up just by chance that very evening and they gathered in my new room. It was nice to have a kind of pseudo-celebration with them, that I was now in the recovery ward. Unfortunately, some unforeseen setbacks were to eventually take place that would require me to be transferred to another hospital, get an MRI, and a barrage of all new tests and humiliations. I will continue with that account in my following entry, but here I think an intermission is in order. Thanks to everyone for all your prayers and support.

On and To My Next (Ex?)Girlfriend

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:36:00 +0000

Since I have had nothing to do but sit around for a while and recover from my recent extended stay in the hospital (which I will get into at a later entry), I have had a lot of time for some personal reflection. It has culminated in the realization that when it comes to relationships, I tend to mess everything up. A lot. Thus, I figured I would be proactive and list a few apologies/excuses/answers here so that in my next relationship they may be credited unto me. I think it will save me and her a lot of trouble, for I plan, when I first meet her, to give her the URL of this very entry to make the transition into the relationship, and the relationship itself, a lot smoother. Now, without further ado, here is the brief list:

Don't You Want Me Baby - Human League
“Honey, I swear I just read it for the articles.”

“Nah, don’t be ridiculous. It doesn’t make you look fat.”

“No way! She is NOT as pretty as you!”

“Yes dear.”

“It wasn’t me. Someone obviously hit your car in the Safeway parking lot and took off. Don‘t bother calling the police, they’re obviously long gone.”

“Wait, I wouldn’t go in there just yet. Give it a minute or two.”

“Hey, it happens to every guy once and a while.”

“Babe, I realize I messed up, but you know, as far as bail goes, its really not that expensive.”

“Yes sweetie, I promise never to refer to your mother as a mangy, scabies infested canine-like creature ever again.”

Finally:

“I’m sorry.”

And in case it doesn’t work out:

“Its not you, its me.”

On 'Green Week' and In Which You’ll Find a Subtle Jab at Chris Matthews

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 02:17:00 +0000

Now that I have so much time on my hands and need something to keep me occupied other than huffing various paint and glue products, I have decided it’s time to get back to writing, or more accurately, my ridiculous form of it. Yet, be warned, I have really no idea where this blog entry is headed. Hell, for all I know it may well end up in the garbage can along with all those empty tubes of glue and cans of “Four Loko.”

So here I am back at my word processor to give it another go, but I find myself, again, really without topic. Thus, I assure you the title of this particular entry will be written long after I have completed my rambling, nonsensical treatise. I have been a little out of the political scene recently, though I did vote in the “historical” midterms, choosing my candidates and issues rather carefully after some deep meditation and an extended shroom trip (which in retrospect may be the reason why I voted for a write in referendum concerning the legalization of hoarding vast herds of cats), but other than that I really don’t know what to add at this time in regards to any deep political commentary. However, when all else fails I will resort to my old standby of criticisms. For there are plenty of things to criticize or poke fun at out there, not just in the political spectrum, but also in terms of media, pop culture, opinion and Charlie Sheen.

Charlie Sheen: Star of "Two and a Half Men"
Yes, it’s that time of the year again friends. No, I don’t mean the holidays. No, I mean it’s time for NBC’s annual annoying-ass “Green Week” extravaganza. As usual, just like every year, the famed NBC peacock is ripped of his classic colorful plumage and given the hues of a leprechaun. In addition, all your favorite NBC “stars” are out in their new Prius-praising “More You Know” segments, while, more often than not, after their shoot, they are jumping in their Hummer or SUV to help them navigate the difficult road conditions and terrain of West Hollywood, LA, New York, or Malibu.

The Impression That I Get - The Mighty Mighty Bosstones
As if these public service announcements weren’t annoying enough as they interrupt NBC’s mediocre at best primetime lineup, they continue on all shows throughout the lame NBC conglomerate of channels. This includes NBC proper, MSNBS and, of course, The Weather Channel. Yet, to quote Billy Mays, “Wait, there’s more!” Throughout the NBC aggregate, tiny, little catch phrases are featured with profoundly inspired slogans such as, “Green is Universal,” and “Green is Progress.” I don’t know about you, but just hearing them gives me a tingle up MY leg.

Yet, like the vast majority of those at NBC, with a few notable exceptions, these slogans are complete B.S. The former saying is not so much a call for more environmental awareness, or a push towards conservation and eco-friendly technologies, but rather, because NBC owns Universal, it seems to be NBC just patting themselves on the back while relishing in the supposed efforts that they have made. The latter saying is just plain silly, for though it can be said that with proper technologies, perhaps mankind’s effect on the planet could be minimized allowing the planet to become “more green,” it will never be as green as it once was before the influence of industrial pollutants. Giving that, if what I said is accurate, perhaps “Green is Retrogression” would be more accurate, or simply assign the title “eco-conservatism” to the idea. However, good luck getting anyone at NBC to say that accursed word. (Note the cheap shot.)

In reality, of course I know what they mean, but still I find all this green posturing, even evident in the peacock himself, to be extremely irritating. Certainly, we find that all this eco-posturing is big business as it is represented in products whose manufactures arbitrarily slap a “green,” “all natural,” or “organic” label on them despite the presence of things like arsenic and cadmium. Just because something is “all natural” doesn’t make it fit for ecology as a whole or, indeed, human interaction. Just because a poison dart frog may be “all natural,” I wouldn’t recommend sticking one in a blender with ice and vodka for a refreshing summer drink. Yet, many products and services offered commercially and by the government use these same tactics to entice people to subscribe or partake. It is not uncommon to hear consumer groups occasionally coming out against such eco-scams.

Now certainly, I am not an eco-hater or against any form of conservationism. Quite the contrary. Coming from a fishing family myself, I take a keen interest in preserving species and habitat, so as to help the fishing industry become profitable for both man and bear for years to come. Furthermore, just in case one would accuse me of being an egoist, other than these reasons and examples, I have also changed habits in my personal life to reduce my eco-footprint. I say this not to give myself an “atta-boy,” but rather to just clarify my own feelings on environmental conservation.

Thus, these feelings are completely divorced from the impression I get towards the eco-movement as a whole. It’s used mainly as a political ploy and the movement is completely guilt driven. In it villains are created, often times needlessly by hypersensitive eco-narcissists, which brand you, me, business and government as an enemy selfishly pushing the world towards destruction. In this process is lost each effort made by any individual or group towards conservation. Such efforts are mysteriously never mentioned by those same self-described “advanced” eco-sensitive narcissists, who frequently appear on TV to chastise us or, because of some being jobless since even before the economic meltdown, have nothing better to do than to ride bikes to rallies or protests, wave signs and commit acts of eco-terrorism. Course, with these acts of domestic terrorism they frequently contradict their own message. (In one inspired local instance, a group of eco-terrorists burned down a house which was built in forested area because the house and yard destroyed natural habit. Unfortunately, by this very act they actually burned to the ground several acres of natural forest themselves.) No affirmation for any progress is ever heard from such people, only condemnation.

Talking Heads - Burning Down The House
Thereby comes the annoyance factor at those who scream at government and business, wanting a technology now that doesn’t yet exist or is not efficient enough to be financially viable for any company. Yes, there are those who specialize in pursuing this technology, but they tend to be fringe companies or offshoots of various industry giants. Though at times I wonder if these offshoots just exist as an equivalent to a “green” label on a household cleanser. Yet, despite any effort they make, or no matter how many scientists a particular company may put on a particular eco-project, still it’s some of businesses fault that we are supposedly lagging in eco-technologies.

Can we really expect business to be our savior when it comes to ecology? I argue we can’t. Business is there to make money first and foremost. So if a market is there and profits are being made then there is no reason to engage in things that will compromise the company or make a share holder want do a swan dive off a busy freeway overpass. Does this mean that business may never find a viable, eco-friendly technology? Not at all, just it may not come from one of the business giants. It could through research and development, but the only reasons to engage in that are, by some government mandate, a PR ploy, in which case may not be efficient enough to be producing these new technologies, or to bring the company’s profits into the future, to where all businesses wish to be, at the forefront of such technological advancements to maximize the profits from the opportunities such advancement presents.

In business this is how success is measured, by the amount of capital. It would be nice to say that all businessmen and the heads of successful companies are planning on being martyrs for the good of the world, but they aren’t. The ultimate goal is to accumulate capital, so for them to spend billions of dollars on saving the planet and risking it for that reason alone isn’t really realistic. Yet, what is, is that some fringe company or company legitimately engaged in research and development, hoping to find another capital building enterprise, will stumble upon or improve technology, which will both make it economically viable and eco-friendly.

Technology, as well as the eco-movement, seems to be a form of social evolution. It naturally develops, is fine tuned, profited from and transforms, usually transcending its previous form. I feel from this “natural” process new technologies will emerge, or technologies that already exist will become increasingly efficient, made available to the populace becoming the new cash livestock industry of the future all based on public demand, cost, and ease of acquisition for the common man. Or woman for you feminists.

Did I mention I was going to recycle the cans of “Four Loko?” Just sayin’.

On Spite and How it Makes a Complete Spit Out of You and Me (Okay, Maybe it Doesn’t Work)

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 08:40:00 +0000

“I am a sick man. ... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man. I believe my liver is diseased. However, I know nothing at all about my disease, and do not know for certain what ails me. I don't consult a doctor for it, and never have, though I have a respect for medicine and doctors. Besides, I am extremely superstitious, sufficiently so to respect medicine, anyway (I am well-educated enough not to be superstitious, but I am superstitious). No, I refuse to consult a doctor from spite. That you probably will not understand. Well, I understand it, though. Of course, I can't explain who it is precisely that I am mortifying in this case by my spite: I am perfectly well aware that I cannot "pay out" the doctors by not consulting them; I know better than anyone that by all this I am only injuring myself and no one else. But still, if I don't consult a doctor it is from spite. My liver is bad, well--let it get worse!” --Fyodor Dostevsky, “Notes From Underground”

Nonpoint - In the Air Tonight

There are many instances in our lives which when looked back upon bring about fond or not so fond memories, making us smile, laugh, cry or shudder with a severe kind of numbing embarrassment. Indeed, I quite recently I had a incident like the latter, one which will haunt me for a good few days anyway. It really isn’t that big of a deal, yet it was enough of one that I took notice and found myself wanting to find a way to reduce the chances of such a gross overreaction ever happening again.

Truth be told, recently I have been a kind of a jerk and my temper seems to fly wildly out of control, more so than I have experienced within my life prior to about three months ago, though admittedly this anger was more perpetual within me than it is currently. The whole thing centered around one of my inanimate arch nemesis’s: the fireplace pellet.

While accompanying a friend to a grocery store to get pellets for her fireplace, I thought I would carry the bags of pulp morsels to her vehicle. However, it seems I not only underestimated their weight, but their bulk, which made carrying these impossible (for me anyway for I am a complete pantywaist to begin with).

In the process of figuring this out, which probably wasn’t as sharp of a mental operation as it might have been otherwise, due to the “couple beers” I had. Whatever the case, drunk or stupid, or both, I momentarily struggled, when the cashier and the woman behind my friend suggested I grab a cart. Now, you would think they would find this pathetic display to be quite comical, yet it was the opposite. For some reason they were rather aggravated and quite, almost, angry.

Lets just say I didn’t respond in a healthy manner, mentally or for my back. My reaction, in retrospect, is more embarrassing than the actual fireplace feed fumbling. If I didn’t look like a moron yet, I was quickly about to, for I lifted the bags awkwardly against my chest and struggled towards the nearest door, my fingertips digging into the plastic sack. I half expected the bags to come tearing open, dumping the contents all over the floor. I suspect I would have been so embarrassed, I would have wept freely at that point and relocated in shame to some compound high in the mountains and deep in the woods, shying away from all men and cursing the day I ever walked into QFC.

So, if I would have just accepted their help, I could have walked out with my head held high, but I didn’t. Not only did I not, but I also got angry at the very mention of help, though their rudeness certainly had something to do with that and instead of stopping the spectacle, I made it worse by letting my frustration and anger get the best of me.

Today when recalling the episode, it makes me just shake my head with an uncomfortable chagrin and my mind moved to pondering the reaction. Sure, I could have just shrugged it off as a product of alcohol, but with my recent trip to Alaska, I have come to recall even incidence up there of similar reactions, where I would be on a certain task and receive instruction or constructive criticism concerning my duties. I reacted in much the same way, in fact, in spite, gleefully and angrily displaying a prominent disobedient disregard for the instruction. If it weren’t for these other circumstances, again, I just would continue shaking my head and the incident would have sunk into the recesses of my mind to be uncovered by some future therapist at a later date.

This being the case, what could I conclude were some of the contributing factors to my behavior? Dostoevsky is by far my favorite writer. The philosophy, psychology and theological themes contained within his well constructed prose never fail to pull me in. A running theme in many of his narratives is the psychological relationship between shame and pride. Moreover, Dostoevsky shows how these two seemingly contradictory views of the self can, either by themselves, or by interacting with the other affect our behavior. Certainly, I believe that both of these states conflicted in me at the time of the infamous “pellet incident,” but more so pride was evident.

With this identified, it got me to pondering the nature of pride and have found pride to be a volatile fragile viewpoint, which is almost the complete antithesis of what one might think. The ultimate paradox of the whole thing is that the greater the pride, the greater the opportunity to have it wounded, which directly breeds spite. This, I believe, was the process at work when I spazzed out in front of a friend and two complete strangers.

Both pride and shame threaten to change our perceptions of the world and how people view us. Often we deceive ourselves into thinking we are despised or even exalted in the eyes of others. Thus, our interactions in the world and even the friends we keep, or don’t keep, is reciprocal to how we view ourselves.

Yet, why is pride bad? Is it a bad thing to be proud of the things we do and accomplishment? No, of course not, this in itself is not a bad thing. Accomplishment and productivity are great things and the danger lies not in this but in the perversion of this view. We are not to twist our view of what we have done, not done, who we are, who we aren’t, and then juxtapose it with the accomplishments of others. This is where pride becomes unhealthy and a lot of mistreatment of peers and people in general comes from these underlying point of views.

Simply, I took great pride in the work of my own hands and what I had accomplished, but when I carried that into public and interacted with people, there was an inherent comparison there which resulted in an excessive anger in me. Not that I always keep it in remembrance or I was taking pride in juggling fireplace pellets, no. Rather, that in a continuum of hard work, I learned that challenging or pushing myself fed my pride and gave me means to raise myself up conceptually above others. So I guess subconsciously, when people rebuke me or offer instruction, it as if I have failed, which leads to shame. However, often times we use emotion as a defense against pain and when one spends much of his life in shame and finds pride, one such as me will use emotion to guard against shame from creeping in. As said earlier, the greater the pride, the greater the chances to have it wounded, meaning one will have to put on a bigger defense, become more sensitive and prone to anger as their pride grows.

So how to guard against this is the newest challenge. I have come to the realization that I lack a humility when it comes to viewing other people. Humbleness is not necessarily considering yourself lower than other people, for this can be dangerous at times, false, or lead to a sinking despair. Instead, to be humble in the healthiest of ways is to not compare yourself to people at all. Granted this a fine line to walk.

So back to the incident. I had failed at a mundane task, but how dare two people at QFC point out my fault. Who the hell do they think they are? Do they not know the things I have accomplished?

What a bastard I am! Yes, they were rude, but rudeness doesn’t have to go both ways, for that in itself would be pride talking. Rather, I should have moved on, accepted the help and then I could have spent tonight not pondering psychological questions, but goofing off on Facebook or something.

I don’t expect my behavior to change right away, but I expect that I will work on it. That’s really why I am writing this in the first place, that if it is written and posted, it may produce a conviction and accountability that will carry on long after the embarrassment has faded. To change such things like ones behavior, is not an easy thing, and not like, to use a cliché metaphor, flipping on and off a light switch, but one must go into training in order for the culmination of desire and conviction to come to pass.

Or it could have been the fact I was drunk.

On The Superbowl and a Quick Congrats

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:44:00 +0000

With this being the unofficial, unknown random subject blog under 20,000 hits of the New Orleans Saints, I felt that it was important for me to congratulate them on a job well done.

And to my friends:

On Alaska, Pumpin’ The Hump, and The Legend of Shackle Mouth: Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:59:00 +0000

Primus - John the Fisherman

Greetings Friends.

There are a couple things within my life I regret:

First, that class I accidentally took at the civic center concerning transgender meditation (stupid dyslexia).

Two, that I broke the first cardinal law of blog etiquette and failed to keep my blog constantly updated.

I have been in town a while now and when I first got back from Alaska it was true I was just too busy to write. Yet, I have been at home since September and now knowing that you may be asking yourself (if you have nothing better to think about, in which case I pity you) what have I been doing since and why I haven’t adhered to that aforementioned trespassed cardinal rule? For the most part, I have continued to work on the boat doing shipyard tasks and in my spare time have tried to think of a good excuse to mislead my blog readers into thinking that I am not some complete waste of space and that I really did have some pressing issue going on that kept me from writing. All this in order to cop-out of the encumbrance of responsibility which confronts me daily due to my lack of blogging discipline.

Yet, apparently when it comes to moving beyond the regular poop and fart jokes, my wits fail me. So, I could not come up with anything at all in terms of an excuse. Thus, with no other option, I have resorted to bring unto you an air of honesty and can only ask, and hope, for your forgiveness in this matter. If I can’t get that, then you can always just bite me and go visit Huffpo or something else you ungrateful pile.

With that out of the way, I thought I would take this time to reflect upon my adventures in the land of oil, Palin, and fish. Alaska is a state where the scenery runs the gamut between gorgeous and desolate, and the people run the gamut between alcoholics, drug addicts, recovering drug addicts, convicts and ex-convicts. Needless to say I felt right at home. Of course I jest. (I need to say that, for most the people up there have guns and I am planning on returning sooner or later.)

I spent 3 months over the summer working on a fine, seaworthy, 112-foot schooner, the “Sea Ern.” To clear up any confusion, the boat is named after a sea dwelling bird and not some buoyant transoceanic vessel used to store the ashes of the deceased. Its almost a perfect name because its not too cliché, and has an association with marine biology which isn’t too overbearing or tacky. I say “almost perfect” because of a superstition concerning boat names, but I will get into that later. At any rate, a lot of boat names are just stupid, or a little too esoteric, though you may occasionally run across an interesting one like the “Oh Snap,” or “The Happy Hooker.”

I worked with 4 others. There was of course Rolf, the captain who skillfully got us safely from port to port and who would sometimes yell out some not so gentle words of “encouragement“ to the crew when need be. There was Dennis (AKA “The Enigma“), the deck boss, crane operator, and avid professional wrestling fan with an itchy trigger finger. He was an all around likeable hard ass who was responsible for foreseeing that which went on upon the deck. There was Jack (AKA “Captain Jack Swallow”) the engineer who kept the boat running and whom you tried not piss off, for if that occurred, something wicked our way would surely and surly come. There was also Jason (AKA “The Social Butterfly,” and “The Main(e) Mojo”) a deckhand, crane operator, and proud New Englandish disciple of Tom Brady, who dreamed of being back home in Maine where he could sit on is porch and drink “beah’s” with his “dag.”

It was always odd listening to The Social Butterfly speak and it took some time getting used to because apparently in the state of Maine the alphabet only has 25 letters, for they seem to have no idea what an “R” is, or if they do, they only have a theoretical understanding of its use.

Then of course, there was me, Brandon, (AKA “B-Low,” and due to my ability to scamper about on deck with both grace and agility, “The Gazelle.”) a lowly deckhand. I was, along with Jason, a peon and did everything from pilot the boat on occasion, to cleaning up the galley. Since my culinary prowess can ruin Ramen, clean up usually was reserved for me. That’s okay, it turns out I would make a fine housewife someday. If I were into that. What a good wife I would be.

Looking Glass - Brandy (You're a Fine Girl)

So did I work on a fishing boat? No. Did I work on a processor? Again, No. So what the hell did I do?

I worked on a Tender.

In case you are too lazy to Google it, I have provided some visual aids and, obviously due to their quality, they are a large part of why this particular blog entry has taken so long to complete.

Below is a chart giving a brief description of the whole fishing process, which I have labeled “Fig. F.”

Now, as before mentioned and indicated in the above diaphragm, the Tender doesn’t actually do the fishing. There are two main ways that one goes about catching a load of Salmon. The Sockeye (Fig. S), or Red Salmon (Reds for short) are usually caught using what is called a gillnet, which most of you could quickly recognize and are familiar with. It is a net designed with a certain specified size mesh, which is stretched across a body of water and into which the salmon lodge their wee little heads and get snagged by the gills. The net is hauled up and the fish are plucked out of the net into large tote bags called “brailers.”.

The Pink (Fig. P), or Humpy Salmon (Humpy for short), were caught utilizing a seine net (the net pictured in Fig F.). These nets have a smaller mesh and are not designed for catching the salmon by the gills, but rather to impede escape. The nets are wrapped around a school of fish, and are hauled up, the net, pursing and growing smaller until the fish are concentrated within the snug confines of the net. At this point is where we come in.

Sockeye are fished in the Bristol Bay region of Alaska. After the catch, the fishing boats tie up along side us, and we pluck the bags out of their hold by use of a crane. The bags are then lifted on board and are carefully weighed via a scale. Hanging from that scale, is a pelican hook (Fig. A). This hook supports the bag and has a tag line connected to it. Once the weight is recorded the bag is maneuvered over a large metal “dump box.” Attached to this box, is a chute, which leads directly to a manhole of any of the three corresponding tanks. The tag line is pulled and the pelican hook disengages, dumping the fish into the box and they then slide down the chute into the designated tank. This of course is our method of fish transfer, however, and it varies somewhat from boat to boat.

In the Prince William Sound vicinity of Alaska, large amounts of hatchery Pink salmon pour into the various fishing grounds spotted throughout the sound. Here seine nets are used and the method of madness changes quite a bit. In this instance we tie up directly to the seine and take, what is in essence a rather large vacuum cleaner, and put the hose into the net (Fig. B). The vacuum is fired up and the fish are sucked upward through the hose onto a sorting table/dewatering box. From here they pour into a “weigh box,” which directly hangs upon a scale. Once the vacuums cycle is complete, the fish are weighed and with the weight being recorded are dumped into the dump box, where they then pour down the chute into a waiting tank (Fig C).

That is just the work aspect of the experience. However, when you don’t set foot on land for about a month and a half and are confined to the same vessel with the same people, there is obviously quite a bit more about the whole venture.

First off, one should be warned that any commercial fishing undertaking has the ability and probability of completely destroying friendships. That being said, it also has the ability to create them as well. My theory though is that friendships are made and destroyed in alternating cycles with each fishing season.

Fishermen, and tender men as it were, are a very superstitious bunch by nature. So much so, I am probably trespassing against several right now, just talking about fishing and tendering in this blog. Even, in fact, as I sit here, land locked within a Starbucks sipping on a grande “shot in the dark.” I got a taste of these superstitions right off the bat, when I ignorantly arrived at the boat carrying a hard-backed suitcase. This apparently caused a couple of the crew members to look upon me with great hesitation, for it is bad luck to have such a suitcase because of its resemblance to a coffin.

I don’t know how they cleansed the vessel of such stigma, though I am pretty sure it involved the burning of sage. Not that I witnessed them burning sage, just, it seems, that this particular act is like a metaphysical aspirin, the first step and near cure all when it comes to such things.

Some other curious superstitions are that there are to be no women aboard a boat. Though it might not be tough for some people, like those in a 70’s disco band, for me it was extremely difficult and I was really only able to get by thanks to a Nancy Grace bookmark I happened to run across. Oh Nancy, how I missed your feigned tirades of supposed outrage which only serve to feed your ego and inject a healthy dose of sensationalism into the media mainstream.

Also, there are to be no bananas on board. Though, it may be extremely tough for some people, like those in a 70’s disco band, for me it wasn't difficult at all because I get all my sustenance from a extra large bottle of Centrum Silver.

In The Navy - Valhalla

(I smell a Grammy)

One of the most profound fishing (I will refer to it as fishing, though it has already been explained that we don’t fish, its just quite honestly more aesthetically pleasing to say “fishing,” than “tendering.” In addition, an argument can be made that it is warranted due to tendering playing a vital and necessary role within the fishing industry) phenomenon’s which I ran across was that upon a fishing boat, everything is rendered with the innate ability to produce vital harm upon ones person. Even the most mundane of household, or boathold items as it were, become formidable weapons. I don’t expect anywhere else in the cosmos one can manage to lacerate themselves with a shampoo bottle, but once upon the water, one should remember to exercise caution while handling bodily cleansers.

If such an incident does unfortunately occur, one would be wise to keep it to themselves, for many hardened sea-salts get rather annoyed by those who complain about injury. So, knowing this, and being a fantastic klutz/moron, I had to devise some clever ways of keeping people from knowing about various injuries (though not all as there were several) and it was by these efforts I came across the best bandage ever made as far as I am concerned: Electrical tape. I think every hospital and first aid kit needs to be stocked to the rafters with piles of electrical tape, however that is a rant for another time.

And with that I must leave you for the time being, but there is still much more to be said. Yet, that will have to be saved for a later date (not that much later for much of it written). I wanted to produce it all in a single blog entry, but found myself wrapped up in an endless tangle of tangents. Thus, I need to write it in installments. Again, thank you for reading and thank you to everyone who spurred me on to sit at my laptop once again. Before I leave you though, I would just like to say that no pelicans were harmed or molested by me personally during the production of this blog article. There may be some indiscretions in my past that I might need to burn some sage for, but that’s for me to know and its none of your business thank you.

By the way, according to my sources at the International Bird Rescue Research Center, the Pelican was treated, released, and is now living comfortably in California eating more fish than Jeremy Piven.

Until next time, Brandon clear.

On More of The More You Know

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:17:00 +0000

The “Deadliest Catch” isn’t about contracting TB and they don’t accept applications.

Always make sure to enunciate your words properly lest you get slapped. You would be surprised at how many women get “best” and “breast intentions” mixed up.

Jailers do not accept chest dander as a form of bribe.

Classes in rectal thermometry are more “in depth” than one might realize.

If a potential employer asks you if you have any questions for them don’t inquire if him and his wife “swing.”

Try to speak constantly with your tongue flicking the roof of your mouth and you can talk and sing like Dave Matthews.

Steve Perry’s mother and the father of Dave Matthews had an affair producing James Blunt.

With just a little stint in the exciting world of narcotics, you too could master the delicate art of lip-picking.

A Korean Thicket kicks the crap out of a China grove any day of the week.

If your pants won’t fit due to a succession of close birthdays, holidays and wedding celebrations, a quick incision near the undercarriage of the garment will help immensely.

Remember, a Peter Gabriel album played backwards produces some profound teachings in Scientology.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, nor look into an irate horse’s anus.

Licking your chops all the time because you want to be Prince is enough to get you excommunicated.

The goal of Anthropology is NOT to destroy other cultures.

Every home needs a designated opium den.

The English language is an amazing thing. Especially when it is organized into an erotic novel.

If you purchase a Jetta you are required by law in 39 states to put a Roxy decal on the back window and hang a lei from your rearview mirror.

If you have a neon green liquid spilling out onto your driveway from underneath your truck don’t be too concerned about cleaning it up. The neighborhood pets usually do a pretty thorough job.

One doesn’t need to be “open” with their sexuality to become a Polymath. Stupid lying professors.

On Easter authorities do not find stealing eagle eggs to be an acceptable form of celebration.

While riding the bus, always avoid the slightly damp seat and anyone named “Russell.”

Because “Flame Retardant” could be considered to be offensive to either gays, or the mentally handicapped, or both, one should opt to say, “A material that is impervious to being lit alight.”

Superman isn’t dead. He just moved to San Fran under the name of Kenneth Kent.

There is no better place than Twitter to annoy celebrities without subsequent litigation.

Utilize a Bedazzler to give any boring old laptop a little flare.

If a girl asks for you to hold her, she probably doesn’t mean underwater.

Never let a cross-eyed man measure your bungee cord length.

Protected species are always the most tasty.

Celebrities usually have their homes protected, but not their garbage.

According to DNA tests, the Robert Patrick scabs I bought off E-Bay don’t match the “Terminator 2” star. Beware of E-Bay scab scams.

Urinating in a jar and lightening it underneath with a flashlight doesn’t create authentic psychedelics.

Decompression chambers are not to be used for comedic purposes. The bends are no laughing matter people.

Luck Dragons really don’t exist. They are usually just dead poodles with mange.

On Barack, Barney and Other Various Social Commentary

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:21:00 +0000

Yes.

I know I haven’t been around for a while and for that I apologize. I would like to express my appreciation to those who contacted me wondering where another blog entry was. It is quite flattering and to those who took the time I would just like to say thank you. It doesn’t go unnoticed!

There has been so much going on in the news that I have been dying to comment on, but I honestly have been pretty busy with school and taking my cats’ temperatures (a preemptive strike against feline illness if you will). At any rate, I will now briefly attempt to offer up some negative assessments of Barney Frank, critiques of American foreign policy and due to my slight pseudo-stoicism, a surprising defense of Obama.

But first . . .

As you may or may not know, last week the consistently over-defensive Barney Frank got up in front of a bunch of students at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. After his lisp-filled tirade, the always gracious Frank decided to take some questions from the audience and initiated a question/answer format.

A student named Joe Pollak got up to make his inquiry to the congressman. He asked the following horrible and unforgivable question, which a student, whose primary duty is to learn, should never do:

“How much responsibility, if any, do you have for the financial crisis?”

How completely unreasonable of him! Now generally, if there is one thing Barney Frank doesn’t like it is a question. Indeed, his plumage goes up instantly in a defensive posture anytime anything is asked of him and it was no different this time. Frank stated the student’s question was accusatory. This conclusion was not induced from the actual question itself, but rather the independent modifying statements which preceded it. Yet, these were completely unrelated to the question. It basically just modified the question in Frank’s mind due to a preconception of the “right.” Thus, perhaps he did hear an accusatory tone within the question, but the question itself intrinsically contains no suggested accusations and in fact, even if it did, the conditional operator of “if any” would negate it, or at least give Frank the freedom to respond however he wanted to the question posed to him.

Thereby, I draw the conclusion that Frank’s perception of accusation is nothing more than a feigned sense of outrage to assist in nullifying the challenge the question poses. It helps shift the focus and redirect or negate the responsibility of the presupposed answer, which the very nature of a question suggests. This focus is taken off the person who has been approached with the inquest by negation and it is attempted to shift the scope of focus back unto the asker. This point we will revisit in a minute.

First though, let us actually grant what Mr. Frank asserts and say it is accusatory. Does this abolish the need for him to answer the question? No, absolutely not, for intention may change exact word usage, but the merits of inquiry remain steadfast. I believe this can be proven by a simple mental exercise. Picture any person you like asking the same question to Barney Frank and then switch the intention of the asker to whatever you like. Does the question lose any of its value considering the merits of the question, the question/answer format, the audience, or the relation between the student and the authoritative figure? No, in fact the question still has merit and thereby we can determine the inquiry is not dependent upon intention as supposed by Frank.

In fact, he still has a responsibility to answer the question by the very intrinsic properties of the office he holds and to deny this is a form of delusion that is not healthy for him, or the state he represents. This is a matter that is becoming ever more frequent and an issue we certainly need to stop. To return to the feigned outrage point, any vilification of those asking a question, no matter who that may be, especially when it comes to policy, should be perceived poorly by the public and by the press. For, it is upon policies and decision where we are able to judge performance. If we can’t inquire of performance, then our ability to judge accurately and effectively is seriously hindered. If it is hindered, then the very real possibility remains that we will not be able to hold our officials to any form of accountability. Furthermore, the quality of our questions will decrease and our voice will become ever more silenced amongst those who put on a guise of anger. This tactic of feigned outrage, however, can show us something profound. If it is exercised, then one can induce that those under the guise are being challenged and have a spongy foundation, rather than a concrete one, upon which any answer they set forth rests. Thereby, the target of the inquiry feels threatened and alarmed, this manifesting in any way to take the focus off them, usually by conversing it back to the asker. The press secretary Gibbs employs this method almost daily.

This is a sad state of affairs, when one is demonized for asking a question, yet weren’t we always told there was no such thing as a stupid one? Now they are stupid if you don’t share someone’s ideology, which isn’t based on questions at all, but rather based on a community of people with like-feelings. A political, ideological ghetto if you will. We have been working at completely divorcing the mind from shaping our world by relying almost wholly on our sensibilities and although these can be useful, they can also be dangerous, for particular exceptions will soon give way to generalities which govern all our lives and contradict a democracy. A politician should realize for every single person posing a question, there are probably thousands of others wondering the same thing and it would serve them well to look beyond superficial things such as intention to the very heart and merits of the question, which they can then refute or acknowledge at their leisure.

So, even granting Frank his charge, we find his argument to be so lacking and his attack so inappropriate, it is almost beyond belief for a man who holds public office. Yet, let’s go even further. Let us grant Frank every condition. Let us take away the setting, format, relation and everything. Just two people of equal stature in discourse. By this mental exercise something else comes into focus: the feigned outrage only works with an audience. Within a personal setting it becomes almost completely void of any power. I would assert Frank wasn’t as mad as he seemed, but was rather doing a performance piece. Therefore, if this guise wouldn’t suit him within a personal conversation, why would it have any bearing within the conditions of the setting? It only does because it’s not applying to the mind, but to an inherent bias or “feelings”.

In fact, I would argue the exact opposite of what Frank did and would say he had much to gain by answering the question. Remember, if we take away everything, there is only a great benefit to be manifest by answering the charge. Even more so in front of a group of people! Unless of course he has nothing to back it up except rhetoric, of which he has plenty, but words which come from people such as him are empty and if I were the democratic party I would be thinking about putting someone else up for election in that great state.

I believe the people at Harvard began to notice all these things too though, for even the woman behind Pollak cried out for Frank to “Just answer the question.” Though admittedly she could have been annoyed at Pollak and wanted him to sit down, but it scarcely matters. Why? Because politicians need to answer to us, not the other way around! Where along the line did things get so confused? Those who are afraid of questions are those who are not qualified to answer them, which is no place we want our elected officials to be in. Lastly, and finally, where is the honesty? Reflect for a moment on the last time you were involved in a situation which was less than ideal and what if someone asked you what you would do differently or how much responsibility you had in it? I almost guarantee we would all, if honest with ourselves and them, reflect on it, answer truthfully by recounting the experience, what exactly we would have done differently if we had the opportunity (for there is ALWAYS something), and what we are doing to rectify the situation. This is a form of honesty that should be REQUIRED for our elected officials, no matter if you come from a blue state or a red. Yet, we shrug these things off because they have less impact if those not answering the charge have our same color coding. The only color such people have who won’t answer an honest question with an honest answer is “yella!”

This is what Barney Frank is and maybe I am being a little harsh here. Perhaps. Yet, it gets me really mad when a person asking a question is vilified for exercising a right they have and that was encouraged by the founding fathers. I long for the days when there were upright men and women in office who would answer the charge posed to them thoughtfully and elegantly. However, those days preceded even my existence in the world and with every passing moment, day, week, year and generation the rift spreads between the virtue of those who hold office and the current state of politics where we the public are held captive in ignorance, our voices becoming too small to penetrate the overpowering din of arrogance emanating from Washington D.C.

On Obama’s Bow and Trip Overseas.

If you have read any of my postings in the past, you probably know I am not a fan of Obama and will call him out whenever I deduce or induce a proper conclusion from the information available. Thus, it may surprise you to find I am going to defend Obama a little in this part, though the two democrat readers I have will probably be secretly pleased, so I guess I could go ahead and dedicate this part to them. Yet, I put it in the middle of the blog so they don’t get too big of a head or anything. :-P~*

At any rate there is this huge deal over Obama’s already infamous bow and quite frankly, I think there are much greater things to be worried about than if Obama bowed or not. Yet, despite me joking at the start of this section, I did put the Barney Frank entry first for a reason, so I could introduce my conclusions based upon intention, that one is hard pressed to make a judgment on intention alone as some are doing concerning this “Bowgate” thing. In fact, I will make the argument that there is another property to bowing which supersedes the one supposed by those stating the bow is somehow bad.

Now first let me say both arguments have a certain validity, but I believe another can be introduced with greater probability, due to the subservient relation between the two premises. There are really two main parts to the reasoning behind a bow:

1) Respect
2) Submission

Of course, there are various intermediate conditions within the act of bowing, which can be referred to as “status.” Yet, though the two elements of bowing can be thought of to be separate sides of the spectrum, the truth is “submission” is actually subservient to “respect”, ironically enough. That is, whatever conclusion you draw from Bowgate, the only element which remains constant is respect. In fact, without it one would cease to bow in the first place.

It is this form I saw behind Obama’s bow and not any submission to another culture. In fact, if I were to meet a world leader, just with how I am in my personality, it is the very same thing I would do. I would bow, not saying their will envelops and controls me from that moment on, but rather indicating I am humbling myself representing a form of respect that would hopefully communicate a desire for partnership despite ideological differences. Therefore, weighing the respect and submission, respect has a greater probability than submission for the reasons I just mentioned.

What submission seems to suppose is that an expressed humility is a form of weakness. I couldn’t disagree more. Some of the most humble people I know are also the first people you don’t want to mess with. As Barney Frank would be wise, so would we to not look at superficial things from bowing to displays of emotion, for our judgments on these things tend to be more projections of the self, rather than judgment of the events at hand. Thus, since they are so superficial and subjective, no real conclusion can ever be reached and they are better ignored lest they distract from other more important pressing issues. We should wait till objective evidence becomes available being not dependent on things like intention, but rather real action and things which can be measured or fully analyzed to enumerate their possible merits or falsehoods.

Some of Obama’s rhetoric was under attack too, with which I disagree as well, for contextually they seem to have more validity than not. First was in France where Obama stated America was arrogant. If one looks at this premise alone it appears to be a very harsh statement, but right after he accused Europe of having an anti-Americanism which we have been complaining about for years. The fact that Obama said this so bluntly was really the important thing. When communicating to someone some potentially abrasive information, one needs to communicate a relation and an understanding so it is received and pondered upon, instead of a defensive posture arising which deflects or defuses the convictions. One is wise to seek such things out, so I find no fault with Obama concerning this either.

Lastly, what he said in Turkey, which is perhaps the strongest argument concerning things he said and did. He mentioned our past in the US, especially with how we treated the Indians, which is so far in the past an inference that it was wrong is completely understandable. However, I think conversely it had more to do with Turkey’s past than our past with the genocide they experienced. I think Obama wanted to establish some sort of connection or relationship there by articulating similarities, good and bad. So, thus I can’t find fault for him on this either, for even if one supposes this the evidence is still not enough and the arguments really lie upon subjective grounds. Thereby, any induction is weak at best and it is certainly not enough to infer a sound deductive conclusion.

I also like the fact he stopped in and said hi to the troops and thanked them. Though I am not in the military and never have been I can see how important a presidential visit is to the troops despite your politics and what Obama did there probably boosted morale greatly. This, of course is never a bad thing unless it trespass against the conditional requirements of being a solider. So it will get applause from me any day of the week. Some wanted to attack him because it was expected, but if he wouldn’t have visited Iraq then there would have been outrage about that too.

In fact, it may have very well bumped him up another grade from the lower C’s I was giving him, though honestly with such a complex job as the presidency this is an abstract ballpark figure, for a pure letter grade is kind of unfair so take what I say concerning this with a grain of salt. Actually, just throw the whole lick on it. Anyway, though he said everything good, or rather correctly, the response by the international community was lacking, which really shows we as Americans need to be self-reliant more than anything. This “one world” thing, though reeking of drum circles, Patchouli and musk, doesn’t really ring realistic for me. The simple answer is I feel our country is trying to give away something or distribute (forgo the socialist implications of the terms for a moment) some element which we have not mastered or have not acquired ourselves. Therefore, how can we give something if we don’t have it first to begin with? It’s paradoxical, but I feel to really help the world we must help ourselves. Let us not be selfish, but let us not be selfless either. For there is some merit to Rand’s “virtue of selfishness,” which can be helpful.

Let us move from the Atlantic to the Pacific for a moment with the launch of North Korea’s “satellite.” Now everyone can pretty much see this was some sort of ICBM test, but nonetheless, the international, “one world” community is failing us and themselves by not causing a ruckus. Why should we cause a scene or attempt through political and economic channels to hinder their military might? Simple. They have an army that goose-steps. It is my theory that if a country has a military force which goose-steps (note the distinction between marching) they are up to no good and preemptive measures need to be taken to keep them, the goose-stepping crazies, at bay. Just sayin’. This being said, America has no leverage anymore. We gave that away by borrowing more money from China. China has a hold over us, so we cannot put any diplomatic pressure upon them to impose any sanction whatsoever, for they own us now. Literally. We try to impose upon them, they claim Nebraska. Or something. I think you get the point.

Now, let us fly Indiana Jones style back to the Middle East and discuss Iran. Fun times that Iran. This is a situation where we may actually appear weak because of our diplomacy. To explain I will incorporate a person who I have always admired, though who is on attack by Glenn Beck at the moment: President Teddy Roosevelt. Actually, Glenn Beck and Teddy have something in common, that though I don’t always agree with their politics, I admire them both so I have no problem citing Roosevelt here, for though I don't agree with how he did things, there is something to be admired about the man’s character.

Americans at that time also had issue with some of Teddy’s strong arm tactics, and concerning the Panama canal he stated:

"There was much accusation about my having acted in an 'unconstitutional' manner. I took the isthmus, started the canal, and then left Congress -- not to debate the canal, but to debate me. . . . While the debate goes on, the canal does too; and they are welcome to debate me as long as they wish, provided that we can go on with the canal."

Granted, his means of “persuasion” leaves a lot to be desired. Yet, how does this apply to Iran exactly? Am I drunk? No, the place I would like to focus on is the place where Teddy talks about the debate and that they can debate him all they wish and, “While the debate goes on, the canal does too.” This is the identical point I am trying to make about why we appear weak when it comes to Iran. It’s not what happens during the course of diplomatic discussions, it’s what’s going on beyond them and the fact we are engaging in them in the first place. Further understanding is required to extrapolate this point.

It should be realized Iran right now is proceeding with their program of enriching the fissionable Uranium 235 out of the Uranium 238 which is a process by which weapons grade material is produced. This variable in the diplomatic negotiations changes things dramatically, for one could pose the argument of the benefits of negotiations if their enrichment programs remains in a particular state, but if it is proceeding then they have the upper hand, for the incoming diplomatic actions are not having a desired effect as determined by those engaging the country. In fact, it suits Iran quite well to have these negotiations for it puts on an air of international cooperation, while they still have the ability to plot its demise if need be. This is why Teddy welcomed such debates about things like the Panama canal and his Navy circumnavigation, for the debates gave him freedom. It is this is element I hadn’t recognized before till recently to be honest. I thought like others, that no harm can come from negotiations and this is true, unless the talks are being used by a particular side as a means of pacification, which Iran may very well be doing. Yet, this conclusion applies the variable of intention, which is superficial as stated earlier, so other evidence must be found to base the conclusion on rather than this supposition. I believe the very fact Iran has not altered their enrichment program suggests the cogent assertion that Iran is using negotiation as opportunity. It certainly isn’t beyond the realm of probability and this probability I find pretty high, for reasons I hope I articulated clearly enough.

I find a trend in my blogs and to help defeat the trend in order to keep my bias at bay, I am going to diverge from the trend and actually close with something good I find about Obama and defend him again. Yet, we need to go to his foreign policy again for this concerning his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are rather good and I find no fault at this time. Yes, he did go back on some of the statements he made in the campaign, but I would say we all need to take those lightly, for anyone who thinks there isn’t a difference between the amount of information available to those in the public sphere and those who sit at the desk in the oval office briefed by all military commanders and chiefs of staff are really immersed in an illogical delusion of sorts. Truth is, Obama stated a goal and when the full reality was made known to him, he needed to shift his opinions and any liberal or conservative who wants to call him out on that alone should cut him some slack. Also, he is putting more troops in Afghanistan and if the numbers are to be believed, and I see no reason that we shouldn’t take them for face value, violence is on the rise there and more troops should be sent it. Though he doesn’t need it he has my support on this front to protect the people of the region and by doing so at the same time protecting our very nation.

The circumstances concerning both Iran and North Korea I find to be separate matters, which President Obama will have to confront with the aid of the State Department and the international community.

So, I give Obama an overall grade of B- on his trip and what did occur because I think he may have changed some perceptions about our nation in the eyes of the world. Furthermore, I think he boosted the troops’ morale. Also, for enumerated reasons earlier, I don’t think he gaffed at all, though the iPod thing is a little weird, but come on; what are supposed to get the freaking Queen?!? She probably isn’t into the Nintendo DS. Plus, if he signed off on taking out the Pirates, he has my support on this as well. Though, we can’t call them “Pirates” anymore. They are now called: "Aquatic Based Individuals With Intentions Concerning The Forceful Acquisition of Various Properties Due To The Poverty Imposed On Them By Determined External Capitalist Forces." Or, “ABIWICTFAOVPDTTPIOTBDECF” for short.

On Obama and The Extended Values of Decision

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 05:28:00 +0000

In life, accountability for our actions is a necessity and one which directly affects the way we act in any given situation or when presented with any problem. This goes for every one of us and must be a truth under which our elected officials are likewise subject to if we wish for them not to abuse their power while propelling this country in a direction that is beneficial for us all. By the actions of others, predetermined consequential problems may arise, this is true, yet what it does not do is negate us from our personal responsibility when handling these problems, especially when we are in a position to rectify the issues.

Let us for a moment suppose we are hired by a company to take on a task, which the previous employee of the very same position had left in a less than desirable state. The company has let the previous employee go and we have been determined by a vetting process as having the abilities to fill the vacant spot for the purposes of fixing the situation while still furthering the company. Would the company not hold us liable for the decisions we make while occupying that position? Perhaps a different level of responsibility would be placed upon us, let us grant that, but it would be our responsibility from the moment of hiring nonetheless and any arguments concerning the previous employee’s decision making would not grant us too much extra leeway. For even if there is extra responsibility placed on us by the previous employee, we have already been vetted and determined by the management to have the ability to rectify the situation after our resume was juxtaposed with all other applicants. It could still be said that if we are given extra freedom in our position due to the mistakes of the previous employee, such explanations will ring hollow after a short time and in depth examination is still, not only justified, but it could also be argued that it is much more important as determined by the contractual obligations of the position itself, which we ourselves had applied for. In this illustration, it is obviously easy to substitute Bush as the previous employee, Obama as the present employee, and the American public as the management, while still having it all ring true.

Yet, that is not what we are hearing from some. Quite the adverse is being said and various people charge that we are not justified in passing any judgment on Obama due to the previous administrations decisions. Let us consider this true for a quick moment. What does it mean? It means the position has not really been filled, for enough power or fortitude has not been introduced to rectify the previous state, so the applicant remains ineffective. This, of course, is no more an enviable position to be in than the one who is being held to account and to say this fact somehow pacifies the need to be held presently accountable is somewhat of a delusion or misrepresentation of the facts.

Despite all this being said, it is true that presidencies are judged from a historical perspective and immediate decisions are best represented after a progression of time, for it is only after something takes full effect that its true effects can be known. We see this represented in even our own lives and coming from whatever perspective these effects can be changed if one only narrow or broaden the degree of focus. Yet, is this to say we can only judge a person’s decisions based on eventual outcome? If we indeed did this then we could not judge anyone in an immediate instance of what we have determined as being right or wrong, or indeed put any kind of ethical value on it whatsoever. Let us put it into practice and supposed a man running late for work decides to run a red light and does so successfully without anyone being hurt by the outcome. Indeed, let us say after the progression of time and broadening of perspective, he gets to work on time and we see there was only benefit in his actions and not any negative consequence. Therefore, a traffic cop who sees the traffic violation in the immediate is not justified in pulling him over. I think most people would agree it is unrealistic to judge strictly on outcome when applied in this, and many, situations.

This is the real question we need to pose to ourselves: Where can value and judgment on decision be placed? This is a highly debated question and one I think we can see representing itself in pop opinion and news coverage of the Obama presidency thus far. First, as already touched upon, some think the value in decision only lies in the outcome the decision produces. I hope I have already illustrated how unreliable the theory is. The second is that the value in decision only lies in its immediate empirical effects. Lastly, it is thought the value in decision is dependent on the will behind it. It is the last one I feel contains the most value and should be judged accordingly and it is this view upon which we build our system of law and ethics. This is not to say empirical effects are not taken into account, for this would be delusional as well, but rather effect serves as the evidence of the will which is in question.

I would like to demonstrate this point by using another illustration. Let us shift our focus from these values of decision and move to values of aesthetic expression. Where are true aesthetical values placed? Is it in the product of aesthetic desire or is it within the action itself? True aesthetic value is not solely manifest in the final object and how can it be, for aesthetics is a concept generated by human thought and not by any mere empirical object.

Let us suppose then that an individual wishes to create a work of art. The man within his studio then proceeds to splatter paint randomly upon a canvas, as in a nature in tune with the current conception of modern art. This act, henceforth, can be labeled as his aesthetic expression, but again it is not in this act where aesthetical value lies. Furthermore, let us take an example from what is empirical and confer it with the justified truth thereof, which shows us no object can be propelled forward through time and space without some applying force. To apply this with the aforementioned aesthetic example, it’s not the act, but rather, in that which propels the act, where the true value of artistic or aesthetic expression lies in terms of the expressions creator.

Therefore, it can be asserted that the real value lies within the motive and the will, which is personal in nature and this is why we hold people individually to account for their actions. So, what assigns something an aesthetical value is the cause behind which it is created. The value can be changed by those who view it, who subjectively project their aesthetical evaluation upon the manifestation of the artist’s basal motive. Therefore, this illustration also provides us a way to explain the justification in both praise and negative judgments towards our elected officials for they are projections of our own bias and motive. What we find pleasing in people, or in art, are those things we can identify with and in which we see ourselves or our desires.

Yet, to determine what the self, in an external observance of aesthetic products, considers truly aesthetical and how we assigns values to such, is a much bigger issue and one more difficult to reconcile without some underlying postulation, but such inquiries would detract from the issue which I am trying to address: The justification in judging Obama in his decision making and the will behind the decisions. By these illustrations we see there is, not only a necessity of current judgments, but also of immediate results which can be determined as evidence of those motives. So for one to say a person is not justified in passing judgment on Obama or his decisions is absurd. In fact, one could not even begin to praise him at all, if one cannot negatively judge him, for this would be an inherent contradiction. If one says that we must wait on passing judgment, then this simply means no exhortation of his presidency in its current state is justified either.

This raises another issue, for one could not make such a supposition without considering its resolution. When would be the appropriate time for judgment? I have heard everything from 1 to 3 years, but to say this, one would have to admit that perhaps the financial collapse wasn’t a bad thing at all, or perhaps the Iraq war could be a good thing, or whatever, for no true line in the sand can be drawn concerning when to judge. Truth is, one could always claim not enough time has passed for one to gain full perspective on an issue and if this is the case, nobody would ever be justified in any praise or in any negative judgments. That is, if the stock market rises, Obama could take no more credit than could Bush, Clinton or Reagan. Most Obama supporters would find such a conclusion unacceptable, but it is the conclusion that is reached if one supposes that judgments could not be made till an eventual outcome is reached.

It is the will that is most important when judging, and it is this which propels both immediate and eventual effects. Since this is indeed the source of the decision, anyone is completely justified in the values they place on Obama’s decisions. I was watching O’Reilly last week and he had mentioned it was only what he did that mattered and not the will behind it, but I could not disagree with him more. It is the will behind it that matters, for if it wasn’t, the subsequent action wouldn’t even exist at all in its present form, nor could it be molded to a will and would probably even cease to exist if completely independent from it. This will is the first cause of the effect when it comes to decision and it is this conclusion which is the most reliable when judging either decision, or action.

I would assert this very argument, that nothing can be judged till it reaches full effect, is representational of an unease which is contrary to the individual’s bias (I use “bias” here not as something horrible, but rather an inevitability of the human condition). That is, if an Obama supporter feels conflicted or disagrees with a decision, they can still vindicate themselves by saying they cannot pass judgment on it yet lest it contradict with their predetermined view on Obama. It is a means of pacification, but in my view, or in my bias, not realistic. Judgments are based on will and immediate evidence all the time. To say there is no justification in this puts government officials in a place beyond the normal human condition, which they are bound to and which are a necessary, important element in how they govern. Thus I reach the conclusion that those who judge now are not only justified, but it should also be encouraged, for it is a means of communication to those in power that they will be held accountable for their decisions. To base judgments on a future that has not occurred can neither produce an empirical negative or positive result, but it is always dependent on a subjective bias and not the immediate evidence of the will which the will is bound to produce.

On The More You Know

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 15:55:00 +0000

The Heimlich maneuver does NOT include punching the victim in the face.

Trout Flesh Lamp Shades: Not as good of an idea as it sounds.

A tide rip is a great natural tool one can utilize to hide evidence.

Kill indiscriminately. You never know who is out to get you.

Things aren't always as they seem on the surface. Sometimes they are really a man.

Since reason isn't enough to avoid trouble, flip a coin concerning all decisions. This way at least you can blame all your mistakes on chance.

Use discernment when determining what kind of jokes are appropriate to make at an airport.

A "Donkey Show" is NOT a form of Spanish rodeo!

Don't trust clowns with nightsticks, car batteries and air compressors. The air compressor is not for balloon animals!

Don't chew your fingernails after waking in the morning. You never know where your fingers have been during the night.

If you find yourself in a bind, a shower curtain will easily wrap any good sized bundle and minimize leakage.

Striking a walker or wheelchair in your car can cause significant damage and tends to leave evidence behind even though you may take off. Grab the items if you can to avoid your life being ruined just because you happened to glance down at the radio real quick to turn up the newest "Snow Patrol" song.

Never under any circumstances start a new medication before a job interview!

Defecating in your pants when getting pulled over doesn’t get you out of a ticket. The “speedometer is not accurate” excuse works much better.

When in prison, anyone named "Tiny" should be avoided. Furthermore, when people begin to chant "fresh fish" they probably aren't just being nice and trying to tell you what is on the lunch menu for later that day. Rather, it's probably you on the menu.

Supporting your local tricks helps to stimulate the economy.

To increase one's pain threshold, try ingrown toenails.

While cruising the Ave for drugs, never accept "Sweaty Crack." IT IS NOT A NEW KIND OF NARCOTIC! Neither is “Crank Shaft” for that matter.

An extensive collection of Jeff Goldblum memorabilia doesn't impress anyone and won't help you to "get the chicks."

Alarm clock not waking you up? Try meth and just don't sleep.

Sometimes just slipping something into someone's drink isn't enough. Always carry a backup club just in case.

To look cool make up as many acronyms as you can and use them abundantly. –YFBJMY

Slapping around a hobo is a great, harmless way to vent oppressed rage. It's also rather funny.

Ladies: There is no need to snicker about a guy behind his back. We are all better than that.

Make sure you actually research what a "doo-rag" is before you try and make a homemade one for a friend. Here is a hint: It's spelled "Do-Rag," or "Durag." "Doo-Rag" is not accurate.

Don’t Ask For A “Shot in The Dark” From One of Those Back Alley Baristas.

Never order anything anywhere containing both “rest stop” and “casserole” in the name.

Not All Antiques are Authentic. Some are Fakes Made by Sam Donaldson.

A human skull makes a mighty fine doorstop.

Turkey has to be the laziest country in the world. All that Tryptophan and everything.

Insecure with your body? Try cutting back on sweets or murdering all those people who called you fat in the first place. Either way, happy times lay before you friend.

Trendy fashions may come and go, but skin is always in style. Well, unless its all flakey and stuff, then that is just gross.

It is easier to try and sell 14 pairs of pants at a local thrift store if you are wearing some.

The ladies love a guy in uniform, but unfortunately, somehow, this doesn't apply to a Subway getup. I didn't want to talk to her anyways.

People, please. That "Dingo ate my baby" line just isn't funny.

It takes a steady hand to perform surgery. Not so much to commit armed robbery and assault.

Talk is cheap, but it could sure land you in some hot water with the federal government.

Guns and violence don't solve anything this is true, but they do further your ego. Cheers guns and violence!

The “Tennessee Waltz” can get a party started, but the “Jonestown Boogie” can really kill one.

Starbucks baristas do not find the term “coffee whore” to be endearing.

On Cramer, “The Daily Show,” and Stewart’s Great Pedestal

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:29:00 +0000

I am going to go against the grain here, open myself up to some harsh criticism, and defend Jim Cramer a little bit concerning his appearance on the “Daily Show.” Before I get into this though, I must say I am really not a fan of either of them, which was all the more reason to tune in. John Stewart’s program I don’t enjoy because of his copy and paste style editing through which he attempts to make everyone he has ideological differences with comic fodder and an object of ridicule. Though he isn’t always off the mark, contextual references are hardly included and whatever the program, news article or any various medium which attempts to do this, I immediately switch off, for it is a contorting of a persons words in order to vilify rather than represent fact. Yet, admittedly he is a comedy show so he gets a lot more leeway than say a true news show, but when you take clips from the news or quote people you suppose a responsibility to do it accurately and fully. When it is not it is simply beyond excuse.

Cramer is quite a different matter. I don’t enjoy his program because he is simply just annoying. I don’t like how he plays with dolls and dances around all the time. It just doesn’t instill in me a confidence to put any trust in him concerning what the markets are going to do or where I am going to place my money. However, sometimes a person’s demeanor when they are confronted can change a viewer’s perception and though I still would never have any inkling into placing my trust in Cramer, I still consider him the better man when compared with Stewart.

Stewart of course just laced into Cramer, who I wish stood up for himself a little bit more, but who took it civilly nonetheless. I kind of felt bad for Cramer and felt Stewart was overstepping his bounds by attacking the wrong person. Cramer has unfairly become the poster child of the bad economy, but it is not his fault really. In fact, if Stewart really felt like attacking those responsible, he would be attacking those who share in his ideology and messed up, but God forbid he do that. No, Stewart would much rather go after a messenger or someone who by his very job description has to make calls on the future as a commentator, than have to attack those who are truly responsible. That is not to say people outside of Stewart’s ideology aren’t to blame either, but I am positive he has no problem raising issue with these people.

Now, there is the big difference between Stewart and Cramer, which made Cramer’s treatment so unfair to me. Cramer does economic commentary and attempts to make picks on stocks. If anyone knows anything about stocks, they know that it is always a gamble, no matter whose advice you follow. Stocks are not based in fact, but rather on statistical data and probability, so errors are going to inevitably occur. Though Cramer said he was an expert, to think this means he is going to get everything right 100% of the time is an unfair expectation. Furthermore, if you base your stock picks on someone on TV alone, you are taking a huge risk and if you feel there is no risk, you should have no business buying stocks. Cramer goes out there night after night making calls on the future and weighing probability, not fact, for no fact can be determined from the market. Add in the one fact we do know, the huge text that appears on the screen on his show saying essentially, “Don’t take this advice to be gospel,” and you have the responsibility going to the viewer who should not have put all their security and money on the words of a mere journalist and commentator. If you do the fault is just as much your own as with anything else.

Stewart on the other hand doesn’t have to put his neck out and make calls on the future. No, he is a comedian and criticizes and critiques the past. Now I ask you, which one is more uncertain in its outcome and which one is taking more of the risk? All the risk falls on Cramer and for Stewart to sit back and attack him in such a way when he offers nothing except critiques and criticisms on that which has already occurred is unreasonable. It is nice to be able to sit behind a comfy desk and insult and spit at people when offering nothing of yourself to criticism. Stewart has the ability to call anyone stupid who disagrees with him and insult whoever when he is questioned. He offers nothing, but comedy and insults, while real news people have to put their butt on the line every night.

Stewart’s family apparently lost money listening to Cramer and the CNBC network, and while I can be sensitive to that, the fact remains where was Stewart? Why didn’t he with his omniscient knowledge and wisdom bestow this deep intelligence towards his own mother or viewers, if he knew so much? Why did he sit on his butt? It is because he didn’t know anymore then the rest of us did and now is reaching for straws to attack and tear apart anyone he can, including news commentators, who do real news and have a responsibility to call what may happen tomorrow by the positions they have. All economic commentators are asked to do this, but one needs to weigh their words with what they truly believe and if they believe a commentator and engage in stocks on those very words alone, then the fault does not lie with the commentator, but rather those who took their words as complete truth.

People make mistakes, even people in the news. Every time you turn on the TV you should always remember to carry a handful of salt to sprinkle about because nothing you see is guaranteed to represent what has really happened, is happening, or going to happen. This you need to figure out for yourself concerning all evidence and if you need someone to tell you what to believe and how to act then the fault really lies with you. Cramer sure had nothing to gain out of being wrong. He had his viewership on the line, his reputation, his career and his respect. What did Stewart have? Nothing whatsoever and if he knows so much then he should have at very least told his mother not to invest according to Cramer, but he didn’t so where does the fault lie? It is only in the sleep of reason that people like Cramer, who merely comment and make calls on the markets, are held to account and judged, while those people who actually affected the markets walk away scot free. This is just another example of the misplaced power we put in our television personalities and our willingness to overlook those really responsible.

On The Debate Concerning Fox News, Cable News, and The Scope of Journalism

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:37:00 +0000

One is unable to go anywhere across the net, or watch TV, read newspapers or even join in everyday conversation without the topic of news coming up. News and broadcasting in one form or another have always played a part in life, but in today’s culture we find it taking on a much bigger central role than perhaps ever before and on a massive scale. A vast array of opinions have been formed concerning each news channel and the very nature of news. Thus, we find ourselves in a natural resulting conflict between the news organizations and viewership, as well as in a conversation about the duties or responsibilities of such powerhouses. Henceforth, debate on these matters becomes warranted. I would like to divulge right at the top that I am big fan of Fox News Channel and I feel it is a reliable source of information and adheres to most of my criterion concerning journalism. My reasoning for this is provided below.

However, before we get into this, there are a couple points I should acknowledge before we engage in the discussion. First and foremost is that Fox News isn’t my only source of information. If I watched Fox News all the time and didn’t question the information or look into it more deeply for myself then I wouldn’t be looking for news at all, but rather something to feed my bias and entertain. News should challenge and not enable if one truly seeks knowledge. I also tune into CNN, MSNBC and Headline News, a division of CNN, and it isn’t difficult to get a wide range of commentary and perspective on issues. There are at least two sides to every story, so for one to truly take a stand on an issue it is beneficial for the person to get all sides before making a judgment.

Now let us reflect on bias for a moment. Bias is an inevitability, its just how things work and it is indeed a filter through which we interpret the world. This is evident even in the most supposedly determined and empirical subjects of science as well as psychology, philosophy, ideology and the like. The very fact we can suppose hypothesis or form opinion suggests a transcendent bias. Thus, all news sources, no matter where you go are going to have bias; from MSNBC to the 700 Club. It’s a part of human condition and like I said before, an inevitability. Therefore, to claim otherwise is not honest and truthful of the facts which transcend news and concern the very nature of man.

So, knowing bias is represented in all media, and the fact media naturally draws constituents of similar tastes, this is in itself not enough to attack media on, for such truths are represented in any faction of society, any television station, government party, book, movie, website and piece of art. This being the case, we then have to provide other criteria in which to judge such news networks other than vilifying bias, for if we do, we vilify a part of ourselves. Now let us move onto journalism itself and quickly make a distinction between journalism and editorialism. They are both based in current events, but more freedom is given the editorialist than the journalist in terms of offering opinion. In fact, it could be stated pure journalism doesn’t editorialize at all, but rather presents raw information in a concise manner. However, when we consider the nature of the human mind and how it is represented in all actions, we find pure journalism is an impossibility, and what we are left with is varying degrees in relation to that mental abstraction of pure journalism.

Another question arises when considering these things and that is: What is the responsibility of journalism? I believe the answer is paradoxical to what one might think and most the responsibility lies not with the journalist, but rather with the readership or viewer. The journalist cannot make a person seek truth behind issues, but only provide information to the senses and it is up to the recipient of the information to formulate it, analyze it and juxtapose it with other viewpoints. The journalist is the means to the end and not the end itself, if one considers the end to be truth.

What does one look for in journalism, or editorialism then? This is the question and by the question we find it is personal in nature. Thus, I will answer what I look for in journalism. First, I look for all sides to be represented in some way. Not that someone needs to withhold their opinion, for we see above this is an improbability, but rather that it is advanced in the discussion or sharing of facts. Fox News is generally rather successful at doing this and one can see both sides of an issue relatively easy, but this is represented somewhat on other networks as well. The second criteria is where I find myself much at odds with many shows at other channels, and this criterion concerns disrespect. In this argumentative culture there a is great disrespect for those who draw other conclusions from the same information and any news network which is able to transcend this and offer both sides, without ridiculing one side or another with arbitrary insults, wins out in my book. Just because someone disagrees with another doesn’t give that other, supposedly bigger person or group, the right to ridicule. Fox is pretty successful at moving beyond this, though admittedly there are a couple shows I skip out on because it encroaches upon this line a little too much. I would mention specifics, but to whom or to what would it benefit? Nobody. I would just be encouraging the actions antipodal to my claim by doing such.

Next, it is the scope of news I look for. A lot of news shows now comment on other news shows, but to me it makes no sense. I could watch TMZ to get that. Therefore, news shows which offer up attacks to Bill O’Reilly or Keith Olbermann, while putting on the guise of a news show is to me disingenuous. Lastly, accuracy of information and its correct context upon which deeper meaning can be understood and because mistakes happen, a clarification when mistakes do happen. One should also be aware that a news mistake doesn’t necessarily equate to a lie or an intention to mislead. Thus, though I disagree with some of the things which are said on Fox News, concerning all this criteria it comes out above the rest with the CNN Networks running a close second. In the terms I have enumerated, it is successful in objectivity, representation, respect, contextual evidence, accuracy and a civility that surpasses everyone else (Again, I concede there are a couple programs I choose not to tune into unless they have a guest I particularly like, but such programs are also within their freedoms and rights to operate so I don’t hold a grudge; I just don’t tune in). These facts are also represented in Fox’s viewership which is the most equal between Republicans, Democrats and Independents when compared with any other cable news station. So to me Fox News is a great source of information (and concerning Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld, entertainment), but one needs to remember to look to other sources as well for verification. Otherwise, one is following a mob rather than the intellect.

On Being a Victim of Vehicular Profiling

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:26:00 +0000

Living in suburbia, it is always frightening when you see crime encroach upon your doorstep. I remember the good ol’ days with the only crime being the occasional pot smoker sneaking into the woods across the street or an underage kid puffing on a cigarette. Well, except there was that creepy “Aqualung” looking guy who hung out at the park down the street, but that doesn’t really have anything to do with the account I am relaying so I don’t even know why I brought it up. In fact, now I am a little disturbed by the whole thing. So, back to the subject at hand.

I got ready for class and all that stuff, including my weekly floss and my bi-weekly shower, then proceeded out to my truck to carry my squeaky clean butt to class so I could take my eagerly awaited quiz. Now, it has been freezing cold recently, you know the kind of cold where the moisture of your breath almost freezes inside your mouth and it bitterly stings all your cold sores? Yes, you know. Well, due to these frigid temperatures, my truck takes a couple hard steady pulls on the door handle to get the vehicular hatchway to open. This was what I was expecting, but not what I got. The door opened quite easily, much to my amazement (I lead a boring life) and I was further shocked to discover my glove box had been pulled open and it’s contents were strewn about all over the cab of my humble conveyance.

Me, being as bright as I am, immediately tried to figure out just what the hell I had been looking for the previous night, which apparently had warranted me to flip into conniptions and fling console and glove box contents all over my truck. I was positive I had brought my meth inside the previous night, so I was at a loss to explain it. Then it hit me, my driver side door was ajar slightly. Great, my truck had just been broken into.

Now you may ask yourself, “Brandon?” To which I would reply, “Yes?” To which you would say, “Why were you entering through the passenger side door rather than the driver’s side?” To which I would pile many exhortations upon you for asking such an insightful question and reply, “I am glad you inquired friend and the reason is this: My truck had been previously broken into before and they damaged the lock to such a degree that it is now impossible to unlock my truck from the driver’s side.” To this you would offer your condolences, buy me a drink and say, “Oh, that is really a shame. It must really be embarrassing when you have to open the door for all your guy friends.” To which I would say, “Indeed.” To this you would then ask if I would like your sister’s phone number, to which I would apply in the affirmative and we would go our separate ways.

Luckily, I learned my lesson the first time and always make sure to empty out my truck of valuables and narcotics before I even go into my abode at night. So, although they got away with some cash, a couple rocks and a massive collection of “Savage Garden” cd’s the first time, all they found this time was my toenail fungus ointment, 27 empty bottles of “5-Hour Energy,” and a copy of Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina.” They didn’t take any of it, but this very fact alone gives me some clues to their identity. I am currently on the lookout for tired, illiterate teenagers, or adults, male or female, with legs and feet, with healthy looking toenails. Following is my message to them, that though they got something for their efforts the first time, this time, they get NOTHING! NOTHING!

On Another Random Philosophical Blog Concerning Intelligence

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 06:59:00 +0000

Due to a lack of friends or social contact, I frequently find myself dwelling on completely arbitrary subjects within my scattered, moronic brain. The following is no exception. As I ponder such things, I find that writing about them helps me to keep my thoughts and mental formulations more linear and better organized; which is a huge plus if you have ADD, or whatever it is that is wrong in my head; surely its something. However, once I find my ponderings to be completed, or at least when I reach a reasonable stopping point, I find myself flooded with a desire to share it. Don’t know why exactly, for this is not the initial intention. Well, at least not in this particular installment. Yet, it’s hard to find adequate reason to do so, but then I realized the title of my blog gives me all the reason I need, much to my pleasure and your umbrage. It seems that the internet is so lacking in random fruitless text nowadays, you know?

On Intelligence

Intelligence is the ability to analyze, retain and apply data towards any question, situation or hypothetical, while in collaboration with a self-aware consciousness. It is this process, and its subsequent conclusion, which are considered intelligence. Even raw data alone at times can be labeled as intelligence. For example, a recon party may be deployed by the military to gather intelligence; that is information about enemy tactics or positions, while another group takes that information and utilizes it to their advantage. This does not show that any one piece of information can necessarily be considered to be intelligent, rather that there is a likewise relation between the raw data, analyzation and application as it applies to the conception of intelligence.

However, there is a difference between intelligence and consciousness, for intelligence is subservient to consciousness. That is, the more conscious or self-aware something is, the bigger it’s capacity for intelligence. If we look at a shrubbery for instance, we find it’s self awareness, if it indeed exists at all, is miniscule at best and so too then is its ability to acquire intelligence. It may have basic skills as it relates to self-preservation like bending towards a light source, but it is not capable of any self- reflection or weighing of possible consequence.

We determine something is intelligent by an apparent ability to objectively analyze information, retain it, and utilize it whenever a certain circumstance deems it necessary. This is manifest, in words or actions, which are the only way we can determine the degree of intelligence an individual holds, for the exact processes of the mind cannot be known without some external manifestation, for one cannot see thought alone, but only its effect. Even when examining brain activity, a manifest similarity between the apparent states needs to be observed before the state of the brain can even be attributed to that corresponding intellectual state.

Four main elements to intelligence are:

• Analyzation
• Application
• Consciousness
• Pliability

Human beings have a consciousness beyond any other being and are thereby, the most intelligent. We can by the faculties of the mind, transcend ourselves and reflect upon our natures or the nature of external things beyond our carnal, most basic needs. We can weigh consequence, hypothetical outcomes, and employ the use of the imagination to help us determine what actions we wish to follow.

Concerning which is more valuable, the consciousness or intelligence, this is a rather difficult question to answer, for I feel both are completely and hopelessly intertwined. Yet, we see that consciousness doesn’t necessarily equate to a high degree of intelligence in humans, for there are varying degrees of intelligence in people, though they all may be equally self-aware. So, we find they aren’t completely linked, and all that an advanced consciousness seems to guarantee is the possibility for advanced intelligence.

In terms of importance, we find that intelligence guides people more than consciousness alone, but due to their link, it is hard to say which one is more important, for without consciousness completely, the mere existence of intelligence would be nullified or lessoned to some degree. Yet, when it comes to interaction within the world itself, and intelligence’s ability to guide man into choosing his actions, in any given circumstance; more duty falls upon intelligence, rather than the consciousness.

Using the above criteria for intelligence, I will attempt to enumerate each examples intelligent capacity:

Cat or Dog: A cat or dog has a very limited ability to analyze data and most of this occurs in collaboration with an inherent need for self preservation, the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Objective analyzation is nearly nil, if at all, and its ability to learn is only based on cause and effect. A small degree of pliability, which could be aptly called association, does take place. For if a dog is punished for a misdeed several times, it will associate that misdeed with punishment. A dog’s intellect is moldable to the degree that destructive traits can be weaned out of the pet by punishment and desirable traits can be encouraged by reward.

A computer: I would theorize that giving a computer self-awareness would be impossible outside of science fiction movies. Due to this, I don’t believe a computer can exhibit intelligence as a human being, for it would lack an amount of pliability. It is true, an independent programmer could come in and alter the programming, thus molding its abilities in accordance with the programmers desires, but the computer isn’t given the freedom to choose if it should or should not follow the commands; for all his functions or how it applies its programming, is predetermined. What the computer does have is the ability to do, is store memory and make calculations at high speeds, but it is more so the speed that makes the computer appear smart, and not so much the intelligence of it. In fact, it has been stated the computer is nothing more than a “fast idiot.”

Children: The intellect of a child is in the process of being molded and it has all the abilities an adult intellect has, but due to its young age, the state of the intellect is constantly changing and growing at a rate not as frequently observed in adults. The pliability is in hyper drive as it learns to properly analyze, apply, and memorize the data it comes in contact with. Due to the fact the intellect remains underdeveloped, many parents will resort to methods of teaching which are understood by the most basic of faculties, by appealing to their corporal natures, for reasoning with a child due to the minds immature nature is a difficult task indeed.

Vine: The plant climbs, due to an inherent nature that is not based on any reasoning, but rather just mere instinct for purposes of self-preservation, which represents the most basic needs of life. The plant has no ability to objectively analyze data and its motion, or scaling of the wall, can only be molded by an outside force.

On Conservative and Progressive Terms

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:26:00 +0000

One night as I lay here bored and trying to name my individual phalanges, it suddenly occurred to me the amount of power that is in a name. First, I thought about the names I had given my fingers (didn’t get to the thumbs): Steven, Bruce, Lance, Viggo Mortensen and Chevy. Yet, my thoughts began to slowly transcend those kinds of names, and I moved onto other things like: butterscotch, Trans fat, Buffalo Bills and the Saint Lawrence Seaway. However, as I slipped further into a sleep deprived delirium, I began to reflect on that which one should never dwell upon before he turns in for the evening: Government and Politics.

I considered the names “Republican” and “Democrat” for a while, but because they were just too frightening in their present form, I relinquished to ponder instead, “Progressive” and “Conservative.” Delicious, for it was in this instance the power of names became abundantly clear unto me and understood, that by mere names or titles alone, Progressives win out over the Conservatives. Yes, I know I have had a couple “witty” (according to my mother) entries recently concerning word usage, thus I will not go too far into detail in this installment of my blog, for I am just way too tired and still have a couple thumbs to name before I crash out.

“Progressive” is a very positive term. It connotes an expansion of ideological values and a social evolution towards a great utopia, which seems to be within mankind’s grasp. By promoting this form of social evolution, society can encourage virtue within every man, and bring this utopia eventually into being. If anyone, by sheer accident, detects any sarcastic tone here, let it be known, I am quite serious and no attempt to be rude is being made. This is what a lot of Progressives I have talked to tend to agree upon. There is a conception of a noble world, full of virtue and philanthropy, which can be perfected by determined social conditioning. For these virtuous values need to be encouraged with it’s very foundations, built upon the Jeffersonian inherent goodness of man.

“Conservative” on the other hand is a very negative term. It connotes a suspension of the advancement of social values and seemingly, almost completely, ignores social evolution by basing all its ideology on the past and such a viewpoint can only lead to holding the world back from this utopian society. Thereby, it must be discouraged wholeheartedly in society, and such an ideology should be eradicated. I again don’t say this to be mean, and am not being sarcastic, for I consider myself to be part of the latter group. Yet, Conservatives feel the idea of some huge utopia is unrealistic, and believe people aren’t inherently good or virtuous, but rather will look out for themselves, way before they consider the greater needs of society, which points to Adams’s fallibility of man. Thus, safeguards and absolute values are needed to promote individual prosperity and responsibility, and any true social advancement requires a system of checks and balances to counteract man’s inherent faulty nature.

These are the things that occurred to me by just pondering the words themselves. Words do have power, and I am not suggesting they be changed, but wrote this only to show that when it comes to the words themselves, again, Conservatives are at a disadvantage. I will withhold any defense of my viewpoint or critique of the Progressive viewpoint for another time, but felt the two terms needed to be reflected on somewhat, for some unknown reason. Arbitrary? Yes. Useless? Yes. Probably extremely wrong? Most likely, but sleep deprivation will make you write some odd things, as I believe my latest entry can attest. Now on to my thumbs…

On My Philosophical Reflection Concerning “Irregardless” and “All of a Sudden” (Per Request From Ghostgirl)

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:34:00 +0000

It’s not often I can let my back hair down, relax and address those faithful readers which keep me writing. Without their support I would have long ago went back to my efforts of orchestrating a feline choir and my job of trying to help people with their reptile issues as the “Lizard Whisperer.” Boy, did some people get the totally wrong impression from that one and the “Herpetology Whisperer” title I switched to in an effort to remedy the situation just made it a lot worse. Thus, it is nice to know one of my endeavors is turning out okay, and by “okay” I mean I’m not getting endless phone calls from middle aged businessmen anymore.

At any rate, I wish to say thank you to everyone who faithfully reads my blog (yes, there are a couple of them smartass) and give a little something back by addressing a request I had in response to my “On My Philosophical Reflection Concerning ‘I’m Just Sayin” post. One of my good pals “Ghostgirl” requested I dip into the deteriorating soft tissue of my brain and comment on something near and dear to her heart, the terms “irregardless” and “all of a sudden.” Without further ado, lest I adont (okay not all jokes can be winners) here is another attempt to parody some philosophical writing as I try and examine a couple of these common terms:

On The Proper Use and Relationship of Linguistical Predicates

Part II: Irregardless

There is great freedom in the human dialect, which one outside philosophical reflection might not consider or realize. Indeed, it seems when concerning the study of language and composition of the written word, many rules are supposed that need to be followed, from spelling to sentence structure. All these codes have been dictated over decades by professors, linguists and philosophers alike inside their classrooms and thus, without real world application, the important part of human speech has been looked over. That is, the idea or ideal itself which is trying to be conveyed in conversation or upon any piece of parchment. The great wit Mark Twain once said, “I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.”

This is not to say such rules don’t serve any purpose, for this certainly isn’t the case. A way to formulate thought into speech or writ is an important skill to have and necessary in order for one convey an idea in the most efficient way possible. However, such rules can be a hindrance to some and an overabundance of focus may be placed on them by those who ponder over word structure, opting to ignore the message being conveyed and call the sharer of ideas or information out on their error, belittling and detracting from the scope of focus. In the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, Book 1:10, He states one should not “leap on mistakes, or captiously interrupt when anyone makes an error of vocabulary, syntax, or pronunciation, but neatly to introduce the correct form of an particular expression by way of answer, confirmation, or discussion of the matter itself rather than its phrasing-or by some other felicitous prompting.”

Even in Aurelius’s time the structure of language was an important thing, and a case could even be made it was more important, but he understood it should not overshadow the actual message behind any verbal or written discourse, but rather the message should be the main topic of focus, with grammatical theory being subservient to it and not the other way around. Indeed, while some correct with good intentions, we can readily see others correct for reasons which are pompous and independent of any concern to enlighten those who might be mistaken in word usage. This is the consequence for studying such theories in classrooms and lecture halls without applying them to real world application.

Lastly, one must remember language not only serves as an expression of ideas, but also as an aesthetical expression as well. Under close examination, we can see language tends to have an almost musical quality and indeed incorporates many of the same devices that are included within a musical score. Motif, theme, rhythm and crescendo are all represented, with the words themselves taking on the likeness of musical notes. So, it is only natural for one to organize their words in a way which is pleasing to them and conform them to fit better within a written or spoken body. In fact, it could be said this element could never be completely nullified, because speech formulates within the mind of the artificer of the thought.

In the word, “irregardless” we can see these aesthetical freedoms taken when one cites, records or speaks the word. It is not paradoxical to the degree that it becomes indecipherable, in fact quite the opposite. The paradoxical nature lies not in its meaning, but in the organization of the letters and the predicates which form the inherent construction of the word. To understand this fully we need to dissect it completely into three main parts:

First, “ir” is a prefix which means, “not, or opposite of.”

Second, “regard” means, “to take something into account or consider.”

Lastly, “less” means, “something inferior or not as important.”

From this enumeration of it’s various parts we can see by the prefix, “ir” and the connexion with “less” that it is tautological in nature and thus the “ir,” within scholarly circles adds nothing to the word, and it is a useless predicate. Yet, does this mean one could not opt to say it in conversation? Within the lecture halls it may be considered unacceptable, but this presupposes there isn’t some context where one might find it more appropriate. In fact, “ir” might play a bigger role than some linguistical scholars even realize.

First, one should not completely discount any aesthetical value concerning the elements, for the purposes of the prefix may provide emphasis to a degree by comparing similarities or differences of other words, but this is merely a hypothetical and such justifications are dependant upon medium and thus to judge on such a supposition hardly seems logical. Second, we go back to emphasis again, in that by determining the word unusable, one is presupposing “ir” and “less” negate each other and eliminate the words meaning and/or power. Yet, it does not offer us the possibility the two elements actually build upon one another adding to the value of the word in terms of emphasis. What exactly would it emphasize? Mainly, such emphasis would be to build on the definition of being “heedless” and advance it forward to introduce a higher degree of contempt towards the object upon which it refers.

Thus, I feel an individual, while in a proper medium, has the freedom to offer the word in any discourse and this will add and extra level of contempt and emotional disconnect which just “regardless” may not offer, though admittedly it would be based on relative terms. One must use discernment, however, to determine when it is appropriate, but I have reached the conclusion that it is not a negation of meaning, but rather a furthering of meaning, so it may very well have a place in creative or philosophical writ and conversation.

Part III: “All of a Sudden”

Unlike the previous, “All of a sudden” requires no extreme dissection, for its meaning and use are apparent. One may conceive of what it means in the context of which it is offered, but the phrase contains a little more wisdom than any hearer of the statement may allow himself to fully comprehend. One will see the term, “all” and “sudden” and determine some event was introduced into a circumstance very rapidly. “All” refers to the introduced situation and not the, what we will call the “precircumstance.”

It may serve us well from here to replace “all” and “sudden” that it may come more into focus. Instead of “all” let us say “circumstance,” and instead of “sudden,” let us say “moment.” Then, “all of a sudden” reads: “circumstance of a moment.” “Moment” is used to show the hurried nature of the circumstance and we see with the use of the word “of” that this circumstance is subservient to this brief “moment.” Meaning, that it is an inseparable element of the circumstance, for it is part of the phrases inherent nature.

So we can conclude by this illustration that there are two main parts to “all of a sudden:”

1.) An expeditious shift of circumstance, usually driven by forces outside the self.

2.) A shift in focus from one object or situation unto another.

Again, thank you all for reading!

On Just a Few Notes Concerning Obama’s Address to Congress

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 21:02:00 +0000

I sat down last night to watch Obama’s nearly hour long speech again, this time for strictly blogging purposes. My goal was just to throw a couple comments here and there about things I felt were particularly interesting, but ended up going just a tad bit overboard. It could have been the sleep depo or the smack, fact is I really don’t know, but what I do know is there are bound to be a million typo’s, hundreds of grammatical mistakes and enough lapses in logic to rival the stimulus bill itself. Since I don’t have an editor, or any friends for that matter, I hope you have patience with me as I present my obtrusive, obsessive, overly long and at times completely boring and useless commentary on Obama’s address to congress. Enjoy (you won’t).

When it comes to charisma and charm, Obama is something we haven’t seen since John F. Kennedy, though admittedly Carter’s winning smile could melt any sorority girl’s heart. Everyone knows Obama’s ability to charm is intrinsically instilled in him and it cannot be denied by Republicans, Democrats, intellectuals, or drooling idiots with glandular problems such as myself. This was immediately manifested when Obama stepped up to the podium, flanked by Joe Biden on the left and the rather scary, Nancy Pelosi on his right. The chamber erupted in thunderous applause as he entered, the likes of which I haven’t heard since that one time when I was frying at the “Hootie” concert. I half expected lit lighters to be lifted in the air, swaying back and forth, and maybe some glow sticks or a giant beach ball to be tossed among the members of Congress.

Obama did good in his delivery as always and offered up a couple more specifics, but for the most part it was like watching an infomercial. Not a good infomercial either like the “Magic Bullet,” but rather like all those Kevin Trudeau infomercials featuring all his things “They Don’t Want You to Know About” books. Though Obama listed his “plans” to help the economy, this is far from any specificity, for something like, “we need to fix the housing crisis” does not speak of specifics, rather it speaks of a vague goal. Goals are terrific and good to have for sure, but if they are not divulging the intermediate steps between the conception and the fulfillment then it amounts to naught.

Obama starts off stating:

“I have come here tonight not only to address the distinguished men and women in this great chamber, but to speak frankly and directly to the men and women sent us here.”

I could mention that those “distinguished” people of the chamber are responsible for putting us here! Furthermore, I hope Obama is a little bi-polar so he could enjoy talking to himself, for he is a reason why we are where we are. Now that might seem unfair, Obama not being in office very long, but concerning the budget, the stimulus package and their acquisition of Citibank, I am going to take a long shot and say he has a little something to do with it. Again, someone could bring up Bush, which always happens, but that presupposes I agree with Bush, which I don’t and even if I did the actions of Obama are not nullified by the Bush or Republican argument and such arguments only serve to distract and not answer.

“The weight of this crisis won’t determine the destiny of this nation,” he said continuing on. However, later in the speech he contradicts this by saying that a new “common sense” needs to be implemented and that our current system is “outdated.” The latter connotes the ineffectiveness of the current system and thereby by it’s use in his speech it suggests a new form, or at the very least that an overhaul and revamping of the system needs to take place. So, it could be said that the crisis is the cause behind the decision to change our views on what government is and how it should be ran. This IS determining the destiny of the nation and according to Rahm Emanuel we surely “can’t let this crisis go to waste.”

He continues saying we should “Take responsibility for our future.” I don’t see how bailing out failing businesses promotes responsibility and, for that matter, neither do other countries. For instance the German chancellor Angela Merkel went on record as saying:

“I am very wary of seeing subsidies injected into the U.S. auto industry. That could lead to distortion and protectionism.”

Not that I use German policy as a cannon on which I judge America, far from it. Yet, even they, along other European nations are having some serious doubts about how we are rewarding irresponsibility by bailing out failing companies. Furthermore, by doing so the government is getting involved in private enterprise to a degree that has never been realized before. In fact, I say that though we are striving for “economic recovery” it is a mute point, for in order that something be considered recovered it need to be restored, or have the ability to be restored, to it's previous condition. However we are not restoring our economy to it's previous condition, but rather reinventing it so that the term “recovery” is a complete misnomer.

Obama then states that we in the past have not always met these responsibilities, but that he is not addressing these things to lay blame or look backwards, which sounds nice, but by even mentioning this he is looking backwards and furthermore, why shouldn’t we lay blame?!? Laying blame or holding someone or something accountable promotes this responsibility which he is such a strong advocate for.

He says our problems didn’t start with the fall of the housing markets. Unfortunately, this is what most economic experts prior to his address were saying, though I am sure since he said that in his speech they will all now change their tune. Rather it’s not housing, but energy that is one of the big problems according to Obama, which I disagree with. Is that to say the price of oil had no economic impact? Not at all, rather quite the contrary, but when we see the credit collapse, the fall of the stock market, the issues with housing, we find it is traceable to the housing market and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It isn't oil, for oil or lack of alternative energy did not precipitate the crash of stocks and the deterioration of credit.

“Cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we delay reform.” Yes, the health care system is in trouble and one need only look at how much money per pay cycle is withheld to pay for coverage and it's increase on an almost monthly basis. I don’t see how universal health care at this juncture is going to solve the issue, rather its going to dip into our savings more if implemented, both on an individual level and social level.

What else is to blame? Why education of course. School apparently doesn’t help prepare kids for the global economy. Well, with schools adopting systems like not letting kids fail because it may affect their self esteem, can we really be that surprised? This is another form of the nullification of responsibility. He continues saying that we tend to look at short term prosperity rather than long term, but at the same time wishes to hike up a huge bill for our children. Yes, he hopes to reduce the deficit in half, but when he doubles it by his budget, bailouts and stimulus this doesn’t do anything, but, at the very least, bring us back to the same point we are at now if he is indeed successful. Maybe I would see this different if there was some set plan on paying back this amazing amount of money being spent, but none is really told. In fact, only about 1/4 of the national budget can be modified, which includes defense spending. The rest go to those areas he wants to expand, like health care, education and the like. In order to do this he is going to have to dip into that quarter to be able to pay for the programs he wants, so the money won’t be saved and thus detract from the national debt, but rather just go to other programs. I hope he takes our defense seriously for he seems really serious about investing in our future, but this is what defense does: invest in the future by our security.

To be fair, Obama mentions that this crisis he inherited and this is true. I was highly critical of Bush’s spending, especially concerning the bailout. Yet, since Obama is adding to it by the budget and stimulus, it goes far beyond Obama merely inheriting it to where he shares in the responsibility of it. It would be a much different matter if Obama got in office and starting cutting pork spending and reducing the budget, then such a claim would make sense. However, we see the exact opposite.

I would like to have faith in Obama concerning the budget, but when it comes to our personal finances and individual observations it seems to be counterintuitive to have so many pie in the sky like dreams, with no plan except, “Hey, charge it.”. Liberal commentators even are seeing this, but put it in a positive light to still adhere to Obama worship by changing words and saying he is being “ambitious” or “hopeful,” while in the process of discussion doubting if he can really do it. Far be it from them to be too critical of their Messiah, while it is plain that any other President would be being completely bludgeoned to death. I just find it amazing Obama criticizes the government of spending more money then ever before prior to his term and then spends more money then ever before by his budget and stimulus package while in office.

This line here really intrinsically shows Obama’s view on personal responsibility:

“People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway.”

His language here is masterful for it attaches blame, not to those who bought the homes they couldn’t afford, but to the banks that shoved these homes down their throat. It was the banks that shopped for the home and approached the buyer forcing them to sign paperwork. Then he urges to “restart lending” and this to me just indicates that he wishes to encourage the same behavior as before by enticing banks to approve loans.

Obama says he doesn’t believe in bigger government but is still expanding it all the same. This just doesn't make sense to me. When you believe in something you should stick to it, otherwise it’s not a belief, but only a mere hypothetical or rhetorical situation which holds no merit. Thus, in this context there is essentially no difference between what one believes and what one does in action. It just merely shows us the strength of that belief.

Obama said failure to act would have made the situation worse then it even is now. This could be true or not be true. Fact is, there is a difficulty with weighing such a statement because the variable it introduces is a hypothetical one. That is, the statement supposes an effect subsequent to a particular course of action which cannot be realized, so it’s rather hard to make a solid conclusion on it, though one can certainly try by available evidence. However, even this conclusion could always be refuted. I would say that Obama’s supposition isn’t correct due to the markets tanking every time such a bill is passed, which seems to show a connection between such bailouts, stimulus and the government acquiring a stake within the “private” sector such as them now owning 36% of Citigroup. Yet, again it could always be suggested that it would have been worse if government did not act as it did and because it is a hypothetical judgment cannot rest upon it and Obama and other government officials must be taken at their words if it is to be believed.

All these things sound great and who wouldn’t want such prosperity? The question remains though, where is all this money going to come from? What about the plan to pay for it all? He talks about the website “recovery.gov,” which is so vague that it being touted as being a form of “transparency” really misses the mark. One thing that occurred to me was that energy reform appears so low on the graph, just above ”other”, but according to what Obama said earlier, and because this is the issue that made the economy crash, shouldn’t this should be near the top if anything? It’s not that I am a Limbaughist and hope Obama to fail in his endeavors, rather I wish success. Even when assuming that it works, however, there is still the issue about how this will all be paid for. I don’t know and neither do a lot of other people so we have to take Obama at his word again and make an assumption that he will guide the country in the direction it needs to go.

Now rather frighteningly Obama said:

“The recovery plan we passed is the first step in getting our economy back on track, but it is just the first step (!) because even if we manage this plan flawlessly there will be no real recovery unless we clean up the credit crisis that has severely weakened our financial system.”

With the amount of money we just spent, it scares me to hear it’s only the first step; I mean for a trillion dollars someone should be able to tether and move the freaking moon! Are the other steps going to be cheap? How are we going to pay for those? Furthermore, the statement, “even if” interjects doubt, for doubt or hypothetical circumstance is always an intrinsic part of the word “if.” So, we spent all this money on a hypothetical that may not even work, and it probably would have been just as large of a risk if we had bid to doing nothing at all and let the free market run it’s course; except much, much cheaper. The frightening aspect of this statement cannot be denied in it’s possibility that we have spent all this money, changed the structure of our government, our country, and risked the well being of our children to have it all be for naught.

Then a few seconds later he says one can rely on the financial system after just getting through saying it was weakened. Would one rely on a floor or thin layer of ice to walk upon even though it is structurally unsound? Of course not, this is an absurdity and so too is his statement. Thereby, does this give credence to Obama’s points concerning the financial system’s need to be fixed? Yes, it does and it is not this fact I am disputing, rather I am disputing the means to do it. I believe a government official needs to be encouraging, but not contradict himself at the same time. It is possible.

Then he continues on stating that if we do not restart lending in this country then the recovery will be “choked off before it begins.” Noted, yet wasn’t irresponsible lending part of the problem as he mentioned before? Great care has to be maintained in such efforts, for more bad lending, which some say the government encouraged to begin with, will feed the problem. Credit and loaning reflects the state of the market and if it were allowed to work, perhaps this would provide a better, cheaper opportunity for reform, for government should not be able to determine credit. This argument isn't addressed though by many politicians because what the politicians say is designed to sound good or evoke emotion and not promote a proper balance between reality, reason and encouragement within the mind. That is, emotion is not nearly as critical as thought, thereby it serves government officials better to appeal to a persons emotion rather than appeal to their intellect. This is something that Obama succeeded quite well in doing throughout his speech, especially with the personal testimonies at the end.

“Flow of credit is the lifeblood of our economy.” The only thing I need to say about this is that I wish solid capital was the lifeblood of our economy rather then a hypothetical concept and we might be better off. Kind of wish Nixon never got rid of the gold standard. Instead we are now stuck with the inherently dangerous and baseless fiat money system.

According to Obama they are creating a new lending fund which is, in other words, a centralized system of government controlled credit. Why is this an issue? Mainly, it is an issue because it is an important element of Socialism. The fifth plank of Marx’s "Communist Manifesto" to be exact. Anyone who may deny the plank has reached full capacity within our government should at the very least be able to clearly see this is indeed the direction we are headed. The plank states there is to be:

“Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” –Karl Marx

One need only point to the government owning 36% of Citibank and talk of a “temporary” national bank to show it is being manifest during this crisis, which surely as the Chief of Staff said, “cannot go to waste.” I’m just sayin.

Concerning Obama mentioning small business however, this is something I think he should pursue in earnest. Let us briefly consider just lowering taxes for small business. First, this would provide them extra capital in which to hire people and buy goods for the services they provide. This in turn would offer competition amongst other business, which in a free market drives down cost of that being sold to the consumer. Thus, the consumer will save more money and have more to spend on that which they determine necessary. Course, this step alone may not be enough to help the economy in full measure, yet it may play a role that Obama should consider. Also, small business should be defined more exactly, for some businesses hire out people and still make barely more than $250,000 a year and may see their taxes increased due to that. If this is the case then the adverse effect may occur with jobs being lost and it may be more of a hindrance on the economy rather than a benefit, but that’s a tangent for another day.

Obama does enumerate some points to provide “specifics,” but in essence they really just describe the functions the new central credit system will have. Concerning lending, he says that they will put the full force of government behind it. In addition, they will lower interest rates and push loans; to only those who are responsible of course. It is interesting that the far left liberals who attack the Reagan legacy are quick to say it wasn’t Reagan’s economics which drove the economy to recover, but rather lower interest rates. Yet, they ignore it was Reagan who lowered the interest rates by eroding the deficit, which in turn produced this result. Reagan did it without expanding government, yet this administration wishes to do the opposite, expand spending, lower interest rates and increase government, rather than cut spending, decrease government, slash the deficit and thereby having lower interest rates. Lower interest rates were not the cause of the prosperity associated with Reaganomics, but rather an effect and it proves one can lower interest rates without pushing big government. That doesn’t mean one will work and the other won’t, who knows both might work, for though we have the conception of government working or not working in relation to one extreme or another the possibility remains this might not be justified in some cases and both extremes may work and intermediate policy may produce successful results. Even if this be the case though, then one should judge on the cost, which is extremely high in this case.

Obama says they will hold banks accountable for irresponsibility if they seek help with tax payer dollars and great oversight will be used to determine how the tax payer money is spent and I agree with this for the most part. The only issue I have with this it is how these banks were given tax payer money, for it was not all voluntary like we suppose. It is apparent that the government forced banks, especially smaller banks, to take federal money. It was not Obama that did this to be fair, but rather the Treasury secretary at the time Henry Paulson under Bush who shoved the money in the hands of certain financial institutions despite some objections. This has been reported from the Washington Post to “The Guardian” in the UK and when someone thinks of news, you obviously think about “The Guardian.” I rest my case.

The expansion of government is apparently not at an end however, for Obama then says that more resources will be required to meet these goals and the “cost of action will be great.” So, to fix the problem it will have to be greater than what we have already spent, which amounted to nothing, but a crumbling stock market, deteriorating businesses and industry, while all along the government expands in size. Yet, he assures us the cost of inaction will be far greater. Maybe I am a skeptic, but when weighing the evidence between these two hypothetical extremes, that is letting the free market work, or spending money which we don’t have and no ceiling of spending being told to the public, I would need to go with the former, for the stock market is showing us what we need to know concerning now how this is all working at the moment. With billions of dollars interjected in the banking industry the only way to account for the downward slope is it is as a virus spreading and worsening the health of the markets. Yet, Obama says the markets may just not be comfortable with strings attached to tax payer money and accountability. I will say this though, it was brilliant of Obama to do it at the beginning of his term, so if the markets increase sometime in the future, he could pat himself on the back and take full credit for it. Why would the markets go up if I have just stated that our system is fundamentally changed and damaged? Isn’t this a contradiction? I would say no, even though I am admittedly no economist, because I believe the markets to be addicted to the very same thing all American’s are now addicted to more than anything else and this is comfort. The markets will not recover as long as turmoil is introduced into them by shifting of government, our perception of private enterprise, and as our idea’s concerning government as a whole change. This is not an environment conducive to trading and if Obama chooses to step back we may see a rise, but again he will say it’s because of the Stimulus, or the bailouts or whatever. Introducing this legislation at the beginning of his term was quite honestly really smart and if the market goes up I may rejoice, but when it comes to praise for Obama concerning that rise, I will be looking at it through a veil of skepticism. Yet, the very strong possibility remains of me being wrong, and I frequently am.

To those who may say it’s a global problem that cannot be solved just by letting our free market work, it should be said that though there are some economies that were sluggish prior to the US economic collapse, truth is, the fall of our housing market was a prime mover of the global economic slide. Therefore, if it has the ability to crash global markets, it logically should then have the ability to improve them as well, for as we can easily see they are interconnected. Perhaps this is why some European countries have been so critical of our economic decisions, because they may see from an outside point of view that a free market in America benefits them. Even countries like Russia (yeah, who obviously have their @#% together) are critical of our choices according to the New York Times.

Obama then tells congress our system is outdated, which means we need a new system (got a standing ovation), or “new common sense” to govern it. This statement simply says that our form of democracy and markets just doesn’t work anymore and resources must be appropriated for the government to shift from one system to another, whatever system it is. I have already hinted as to what I think it may be, but for one of the few times within this overly long treatise I will leave that up to the reader to determine on his/her own. *wink*

Energy, education and health care are the things which need to be fixed in order for America to be prosperous Obama told the chamber of the distinguished. Yet, it’s odd that these three things are the things the stimulus package spends the LEAST on according to “recovery.gov.” Well, just above the “other” that is. I find it rather curious that our supposed greatest problems have the least amount of money spent on them, but maybe I am looking too much into this, for perhaps the funds are strategically placed. On the other hand maybe they aren’t. Dear reader, you decide what you believe on that one. Obama then attacks the huge debt our children will have to face and seems to skip over the huge part that he has had in it. Indeed, this is the largest piece of legislation ever according, again, to the New York Times.

Obama speaks candidly when he says it’s not going to fix every issue, but again for how much it is costing us it should fix every issue! I don’t know, maybe its too much to ask, but so is changing our system of government and hiking up a debt so huge, which granted the republicans had a hand in, that the whole rest of the world is sweating and undoing their collars. Yet, again he mentions it is “inherited.” The fact that he has such a large hand in it suggests to me it has skipped the previous generation and entered into his own and he is furthering it, thus the blame for the deficit cannot strictly be blamed on the past by use of any rhetoric, but rather it rests upon the present, though its full effects are yet to be seen in the future.

Obama does speak truth though when saying that this nation has responded with bold action when confronting crisis in the past and this is true, yet the supposition that all these choices were the right ones and comparable to his decisions and this stimulus bill is misleading. I need only say what the New York Times said and state that it is the largest piece of legislation ever. To compare it to anything less of equal value is not reasonable, in fact, to compare the GI bill with what is happening currently as he did is just silly. Sorry, I try to respect my elected leaders for it is part of my civic duty, but when I disagree I am going to do just that and disagree. Yet, I agree with the idea government should have a role, but it shouldn’t contradict or trespass against itself, that is, it should not move towards other forms of government independent of how it was designed. The originality of our nation and the fact we don’t resemble anyone else is what makes us great, but even now on MSNBC, the most left you can get, the phrase “European Socialism” is getting tossed about.

If one wants to have a debate about Socialist policy, it takes one of my arguments off the table completely and much of this treatise is in void. Indeed, it is the idea of the cloak and dagger kind of insertion of Socialist policies I have a problem with, though I obviously have philosophical issues with Socialism as well. One should be honest with shifts in government and not try to slip them under the radar. Joe Scarborough, the host of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, said during his show on Friday that in six months our country will be at a place that six months ago would have been considered Socialist. The most amazing thing was nobody at the “round table” raised objection and even Mika Brzezinski didn’t say anything, which is shocking since she is never shy about voicing her opinion. It isn’t to say that one couldn’t reasonably raise such objections, but properties that can be considered Socialist are creeping into our system and again if one were to argue against this, they at the very least would have to admit it seems to be heading in that direction. If this too is to be denied then I only ask they read Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” to gain some insight into Socialism. Briefly, there is a difference between Socialism and Communism, but only by degree of practice. In fact, Marx states Socialism is merely a transitional period on the road to Communism. Both are centralized forms of government with the former being based on deeds, while the latter is determined by what the government decides are your needs. We need to remember government is supposed to work for us and not control us or reward failure and engage in “protectionism,” for that will decay the very fabric upon which our system of government was sewn upon.

Everything Obama said I wasn’t opposed to. I liked when he stated America should not fall behind in technology and the jobs of tomorrow should not take place beyond our borders and I completely agree with that. Yet, it must be remembered it is on the back of American ingenuity where this must be accomplished and not on the backs of the federal government. To fund technology is alright by me, but to do so we need not cut other industry, rather this technology should be assimilated into the culture in a gradual fashion lest there be consequences of more job loss and sky rocketing prices of the energies our lives now depend on. This assimilation is where the balance lies, and not all people who wish to drill for oil are against new technologies as it is supposed, rather immediate ease at the pump could coincide with the assimilation of new technologies if properly managed instead of conflicting against it. Obviously the funding for this new technology I have reservations about, for its going to be about $15 billion, which is said might not be enough, yet the funny thing is, this is a mere drop in the bucket concerning the whole bill. This money is set apart to fund all technologies concerning energy from solar power to fuel efficient cars.

Setting a market base cap on industry, as he calls for next, is not the proper way to fix the economy and promote different forms of energy. The reason this is dangerous is it caps industry and thereby how much money they can make, for it is directly related to how much they produce which will be confined by such legislation. A lot of people realize this so maybe that’s why so many people did not stand or cheer for this comment, but I cannot be sure. It could be said they were all Republicans, but there are really none of those left anyway, so I think more than a few Democrats realized it’s not a good idea and such legislation might spell trouble. We would all like to think businesses are noble and the shareholders and CEO’s are of a virtuous nature, but sadly this is not the case. If profits go down a business cuts corners and it’s usually the jobs that suffer. In a time of such economic turmoil this may not be the best time for such actions because it will cost more jobs, but at least then there will be another “opportunity” in crisis for the government to enact wide sweeping power and reform. It will be interesting to hear what the unions think of this.

He then talks about the auto industry and states the “nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.” I get his point and this is just kind of a side note, but the invention of the automobile is actually credited to Germany’s Karl Benz in 1885. Yet, some also attribute the automobile to be invented in France a century earlier, though that model was steam powered. Henry Ford did invent or perfect the assembly line, so it isn’t that big of a gaff and his point remains valid, but I thought I would just point that out since I have addressed just about everything else.

He keeps going and moves into health care and thus so will I. He states they passed a bill to provide health care to children. This tugs at that one fraying heart string I do have left in my black conservative heart so I won’t attack him on this one. In addition, the centralized database of medical records sounds great too, and it would serve a Socialist and Communist government very well when health care is being run by the state. Not that’s what they are trying to do of course, but it would . . . I’m just sayin . . .

I really had no qualms worth mentioning about what he said concerning education. He even addresses family and that education must begin at home and I cannot agree more. From this point he transitions into addressing the debt and his concern that it not be passed on, which aroused great cheering. He quickly added, in my mind detracting from the momentum he built, “the deficit we inherited . . .” Again, I will say that he has such a part in it that whoever initiated it, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, or whoever you want is irrelevant, for he has increased it an amazing amount which cannot be denied when one looks at the numbers. You may be tempted to say, “Well, what about the Republicans who were spending out of control?” Yes, and you would be right, however this argument would be a form of misdirection trying to detract from the point at hand, which is Obama’s own responsibility for the current state of the deficit. Now, I don’t expect him to erase it a month after he takes office, that is as silly as comparing our current situation with the GI bill. Rather, one cannot expand on something or exacerbate it and then play the victim role or that this was impressed upon him. You and me have inherited the deficit this is true, but Obama hasn’t because he is in a position to do something about it and furthered it. This is part of the responsibility which comes with the presidency. Whether it may work or not is again irrelevant in the present. Yet, if he somehow decreases the deficit in the future then he will be at a position, the past under him and a fullness of the events being known, to state he inherited the deficit, but as long as he has a hand in it and is furthering it then this is not to be used as an excuse, and Barney Frankly it just makes him look a little silly to me. Yet, that’s just me, but I hate everyone as you know.

At 37:31 in the speech Obama states amazingly, “I am glad we passed a recovery plan free from earmarks.” I don’t know how this could be mistaken for anything but misleading. Obama himself has $7.7 million of earmarks in the bill and Biden $94.9 million. In addition, interior secretary Ken Salazar has $227.4 million in earmarks with other names including the likes of Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel. With programs such as management of pig manure odor in Iowa for $1.8 million and studying the genetics of grapes in New York for $2.2 million, I don’t see how this could be considered anything but earmarkish. These don’t seem to be an important “national priority.” I know government does stuff like this, but to state that plain as day in front of congress and the nation seems a little wrong to me and completely belittles people’s intelligence. He is my president darn it, he is supposed to stroke my ego and make me feel smart! Furthermore, one may say that its really not that much money in context of the whole bill, but again this is misdirection, for Obama himself said it didn't include earmarks. It should be said this brought a great mixed reaction from those "distinguished members" seated in the chamber. This is shown explicitly just behind the President with the kiss-buttock Nancy Pelosi clapping and beaming and Biden, well, Biden playing his Game Boy or whatever he was messing with the whole time, but that’s probably just a coincidence, for I would be surprised if they even knew where they were (cheap shot).

He says that they are going line by line through the national budget, which I do hope is true, and they have found enough garbage to cut (so they have room for the earmarks, or skidmarks as I will refer to them from now on) to decrease the deficit. Forgive my skepticism, but with all the pie in the sky “ambitious” promises being made and the amount of information made available to us, I doubt it can be done. He says they have found $2 trillion in wasteful spending over the next decade and that is terrific, if one supposes that the government doesn’t increase spending as it has. Most this "wasteful spending" I think is going to come out of defense and not just Iraq like one may suppose, though he says they will end the no bid contracts concerning desert location, which I hear is lovely this time of year. Barney Frank has already encouraged Obama to decrease military funding so this will happen, though Obama says he will increase military personnel, meaning such a decrease in funding will come from technologies and “defense systems . . . we don’t use.”

I do agree we should do away with tax breaks to those companies which ship jobs over seas. Furthermore, I also agree that the richest of the rich shouldn’t have tax breaks, though just because they are rich doesn’t mean their tax's shouldn’t be reasonable. I think you could easily accomplish this in a healthy economy, in conjunction with giving tax breaks to small businesses and citizens. This, in a good economy would work and we should have tried to implement it in our past, but because big business isn’t noble or virtuous, nor are their shareholders, to do it now could prove disastrous. It could only be accomplished, in my opinion, in a good economy and even then, it would have to be done delicately or jobs will bare the brunt of the cost. Then you insert my previous small business theory here; you have my theoretical economic policy, which I sometimes implement upon my house cats just to make sure such a theory is plausible. Due to the ratios represented in canned soft-moist Fancy Feast amongst “Mittens” and “Nom-Nom” in particular, I have determined that it indeed is.

He mentions the tax cuts and says the checks are on the way, but that makes it a tax rebate and not a tax cut, if that makes any difference to anyone whatsoever. Though, it doesn’t translate very well when applied to my cats, for the cat’s just gorge themselves and puke outside my bedroom door. It’s really no good and quite nasty.

Obama then calls for honesty and accountability in the budget, but I guess that excludes the stimulus package. Yes, I went there again. I find it kind of humorous that not even five minutes have gone by since his statement concerning the skidmark absent stimulus package and he is talking about honesty, accountability and responsibility. Yet, to paraphrase Obama, let me be absolutely positively clear about this one: I like the fact that the Iraq war will be included in the budget so we will know its price. I think that is a semi-important thing for the American public to be aware of by having it included in the budget and I also agree with our forces RESPONSIBLY leaving Iraq and forging ahead in Afghanistan. I have no issues with that and neither does “Mittens.“

Thus far during his Presidency Obama has seemed a little hesitant to talk on Iraq and Afghanistan and this was no exception in his speech, but I did find his shout out to the troops really quite touching and I to see the support from the President and all those present made even my, again, bias, conservative black heart swell with pride. Just for a minute though. Then I went back to murdering small woodland creatures.

Obama plans to expand military personal and increase their benefits, to which I say, “Why not?” These men and women put themselves in places that cannot be comprehended while we sit on our butts watching “House” and grubbing on box after box of delicious Girl Scout cookies. They, and their families, deserve any provisions the government can offer along with our utmost respect. They have earned it and with this I agree with Obama. He then moves to speak about Gitmo, which I disagree with and have written about it here. You are welcome to check it out, but if you don’t want to, you are welcome to kiss my butt. He urges that we uphold our values, but still hands them away with the passing of the Stimulus and the press towards Socialism. Yet, this push towards Socialist policy doesn’t only rest with Obama remember, but also with the bailout bill of the previous administration as well.

He then says that America “does not torture,” which is great, but one thing that needs to be defined is the word “torture.” It is a problem when a word doesn’t have guidelines associated with it upon which to judge. In fact, it is rather very subjective from incident to incident and person to person. Truthfully, under the current definition an argument could be made that any form of incarceration is torture as it could be argued that a sudden death due to a shot to the back of the head is not. There is a wide range here and much heated debate surrounds it. I don’t like fingers being cut off or any Tarantinoesque type stuff, for under these kinds of conditions the information may not be reliable, for a man’s mental faculties are severely diminished and the body resorts to its most carnal natures, that is the nature of self-preservation. Therefore, the inmate will say whatever is needed to stop the immediate threat, which is the torture. I think, in fact, we should judge strictly on Quentin Tarantino movies. If it’s in one of his movies it is torture, if not your good to go. That means no gimps.

Obama then closed allowing me and “Mittens” time to reflect on what we just saw. Obama’s demeanor is masterful and he certainly has charm. Truth is I want to like the guy, but at the same time disagree on many of his points. I have reservations about all these matters concerning what the structure of our government is. News commentators have increasingly been reflecting on this very question and pondering, “What is the role of government?” This is not to say we should all judge based on what journalists say, but to say they don’t give us insight into what is going on in the world would be delusion. So we see that America stands at a place it has never been before, though we have certainly have had our problems. We fought for our independence with sweat and blood, developed a Republic and then shifted into a Democracy. Now, we are confronted with the ironic possibility that we revert back to some of the systems we tried to escape, by being united with Europe in their “brand” of Socialism. Folks, the nation will not be restored because it has now fundamentally changed and control no longer rests in the hands of the people as it once did, but rather in an expanding government who doesn’t even bother anymore to read, discuss and ponder the laws it passes. One cannot help but ponder, what that great, but small group of men sitting in a small, hot room in Philadelphia in 1776 would have thought about what we have become. Yet, to blame this all on Obama would not be fair either. No, the frightening reality is the fault lies with both you and I for sitting back and watching it happen, while so many died for that which we are just giving up willingly. This is the greatest tragedy of all and worthy of a Greek’s pen.

On My Philosophical Reflection Concerning “(I’m) Just Sayin'”

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:19:00 +0000

There are many phrases or words in the English language which contain a deeper, underlying meaning than the words themselves may suggest. Some of these beg to have deeper meaning ascribed to them, such as “hope” or “change,” while others we may look upon just as curious mannerisms and not attribute any real meaning to them whatsoever. Yet, it could be said that if it is spoken then it has to have meaning and reflection on this meaning can be useful to understand exactly what is trying to be conveyed by the speech or even the disposition and character of the speaker themselves. Even in the case of “ums” or “ers,” the purpose remains clear: The brain is merely trying to give itself a few extra milliseconds in which to formulate thought and arrange it into a viable expression.

That being said, I would now like to reflect on the phrase, “I’m just sayin.” This phrase is used more abundantly than one may realize and could be easily passed off as one of those aforementioned curious mannerisms. Yet, in reality the profound meaning behind it is as deep and vast as the oceans. First, it is worthy to understand the placement of the term “I’m just sayin.” Grammatically it occurs most frequently at the beginning of a sentence or at the conclusion of it suggesting it relates to those intermediate words between the start and finish. When used at the beginning of a sentence it is usually for reasons of emphasis, while at the end it is used as a means of defense against any argument which may be brought up concerning those intermediate words or ideas. Yet, it could be reasonably concluded that if the phrase is uttered at all, then the defense is proposed upon all the ideas.

In order to properly extrapolate this point we are going to have to provide an example where this conclusion can easily be seen and reflected upon by the reader independent of the text. Therefore, let us suppose a conversation between two individuals engaged in discourse concerning a matter of important disagreement, such as their favorite kinds of cheese. For a moment, let us assume both parties articulate their arguments to such a degree that both sides appear equal and no conclusion can be reached concerning who is the victor. However, while in their discourse, the party which prefers Cheshire over Bougon begins to gain the upper hand by citing information like a lower fat content, that it comes from a cow rather than a goat, and texture. With every argument proposed, the Bougon fan begins to get wore down, his bias becoming more clear as logic and reason begin to show Cheshire is going to be victorious. Yet, it is not enough for Mr. Bougon to concede to Mr. Cheshire due to the strength of his bias, thereby he may start off a subsequent statement with, “Look, I’m just sayin…” or finalize an idea with “I’m just sayin.”

Within this illustration the meaning becomes apparently clear. In the context of argument it denotes a lack of real reasoning or logic. If one backs another party up into that proverbial corner by means of superior reasoning then he is more likely to encounter the phrase as uttered by the opposing party. In fact, it could be said that if it is uttered by one party then the adverse party has indeed been victorious in the argument by making the one who is weaker resort back unto his bias alone. Therefore, we see there is an intrinsic connexion between the defensive posture of “I’m just sayin,” and the admittance of an extreme difficulty in answering a charge.

So, with the cheese example we see Mr. Bougon still believes his cheese to be better, but has no evidence for this other than his bias produced by his own senses and not by reasoning of the mind. Despite the compound agreement of sense perception and reason expressed by the Cheshire fan, Mr. Bougon still remains upright in his defense of his cheese by uttering, “I’m just sayin.” Thus, Mr. Bougon feels vindicated in his belief by ascribing it only to himself, rather than a fact independent from the self. The purpose of this is to express a steadfastness concerning his immediate unshakable belief that Bougon is the better cheese, and by projecting the conclusion upon the self, this serves to negate any argument or further challenge of the conclusion. If this were to occur, then an endless repetition could be supposed of “I’m-just-sayins” to every argument or judgment.

As clear as this is by the example, we should revisit the instance of emphasis when used at the beginning of the phrase, for this shows us another use of the term. The term is employed as means of enumeration of various points or ideas. However, it is not admittedly as effective as the phrase, “Here’s the deal.” In short, the phrase is said for five reasons:

1. To assign conclusion to the self.
2. For emphasis.
3. For enumeration.
4. To negate contrary argument.
5. To assign conclusion to belief.

I’m just sayin . . .

I will just go ahead and resist making a "I'm just Super Sayin" joke.

On A Quick Explanation and Some Arbitrary Criticism(s)

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:35:00 +0000

So, yeah, I haven’t been around for a while and for that I apologize. Unfortunately, my computer decided of its own accord to bug out and fry all the information on the drive. Compound this with my schooling and I just haven’t had the means or time to get on and blog about recent events, though I am certainly not void of opinion. So here is a quick run down of some things I have been pondering, thinking about and the conclusions or sentiments I have reached concerning them.

Stimulus Package: I hate it and have some intense reservations about it.
A-Rod: A-Tool

Laptop Computer Gliches: They really put things into perspective, mainly how much life sucks without computers.
Pencils: Obsolete for a reason people.
Oscars: Didn't watch them. Don't care. I'm only watching Bollywood movies now.

Sean Penn Winning Best Actor: Real shock to the system there. Ever get the feeling they judge on the "edginess" of the role rather than the performance itself? Just sayin . . .
Boxcar Hopping Hobo’s: Don’t have so much of a problem with them now, because its really going to be all those squatters which get our tax dollars. So I say keep moving hobo, keep moving.

The NYU Protest: I wonder why people don’t get that if you do stupid things while in the process of protesting it only makes you come out looking like a moron and while you may think it increases your chances of being heard, in reality the message becomes a mere footnote. The argument itself becomes not the topic of debate nor becomes subject to judgment, but rather the actions and disposition of those individuals who engage in the protest are the things the public looks upon. Concerning this issue, I posted this at nyulocal.com:

“I love it when people trespass against rules and order then have the audacity to put on the guise that they are standing up for rights and law. The ends and means need to compliment each other and not contradict, for if they conflict the cause is completely negated and any respect or support you may have from outside of that brethren engaged in the particular conviction is completely nullified. In short, bad form kids. Bad form.”

That’s my half-buttocked update and now with my computer up and running again you can expect more completely worthless piles of commentary very soon.