Has anyone else seen these new commercials for Bud Light Lime? Has anyone else noticed the voiceover "Bud Light Lime, with 100% real, natural lime flavor"? What the hell is real, natural lime FLAVOR? They don't say "real, natural lime JUICE" or even "real, natural lime CONCENTRATE." There is nothing real or natural about 'FLAVOR' I am sure...
And on the same note, Volkswagen cannot bring back the 'punch' because they are not bringing back the 'Punch-buggy'... I get that they are trying to get back that strong brand recognition of my childhood, but punching your friend everytime you see a Volkswagen sedan just isn't the same...
Friday, April 30, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Government Bonds
I'm getting ready to buy a house so I've been taking stock of my financial situation. In doing so I took a look at the US Government Savings Bonds that I've collected over the years - for birthdays, holidays, and random grandparent spoilings.
If you have no idea what a government savings bond is, you're likely born after the 80's but regardless you can learn more here.
I gotta ask, in this time of recession why has the government not promoted savings bonds as they have during previous war eras when the government also needed money? Sure, the majority of people have little money to 'invest' in savings bonds, but others are in stable financial situations of course, and babies and birthdays still happen regardless of status of the economy..
The other thing I noticed in my Savings Bonds research is that the US Treasury is converting from paper bonds to electronic bonds, and in doing so, instead of paying half of the maturity price (ie, $25 for a $50 bond) the purchase price will be 1:1 (ie. $25 gets you $25). If I understand correctly (and I am not financial wiz, nor do I fully understand legal/accounting jargon) basically they are turning savings bonds into very long-term CD's... Apparently the Treasury is not so much interested in selling bonds because why would it make sense to buy a 20-year Bond at a 1.2% interest rate when you can get a better rate on a 5-year CD??
While I feel good buying savings bonds - giving a gift that my niece can appreciate when she's old enough and being able to help the economy, now that I've done my research I just feel like I'm being taken for a fool.
To my brother/sis-in-law, from now on I'm just putting the money in a separate bank account/trust...
If you have no idea what a government savings bond is, you're likely born after the 80's but regardless you can learn more here.
I gotta ask, in this time of recession why has the government not promoted savings bonds as they have during previous war eras when the government also needed money? Sure, the majority of people have little money to 'invest' in savings bonds, but others are in stable financial situations of course, and babies and birthdays still happen regardless of status of the economy..
The other thing I noticed in my Savings Bonds research is that the US Treasury is converting from paper bonds to electronic bonds, and in doing so, instead of paying half of the maturity price (ie, $25 for a $50 bond) the purchase price will be 1:1 (ie. $25 gets you $25). If I understand correctly (and I am not financial wiz, nor do I fully understand legal/accounting jargon) basically they are turning savings bonds into very long-term CD's... Apparently the Treasury is not so much interested in selling bonds because why would it make sense to buy a 20-year Bond at a 1.2% interest rate when you can get a better rate on a 5-year CD??
While I feel good buying savings bonds - giving a gift that my niece can appreciate when she's old enough and being able to help the economy, now that I've done my research I just feel like I'm being taken for a fool.
To my brother/sis-in-law, from now on I'm just putting the money in a separate bank account/trust...
Monday, April 26, 2010
Obama and Nasa
This week is feeling a little serious. I'm not feeling serious, but the topics I plan to blog on seem a little serious. I say this so that you can get in the right mind set as you continue to visit The Gift and The Goods.
Today I'd like to discuss Obama's plan to privatize space travel and reduce funding for NASA.
First, a disclaimer: My brother works as a contractor for NASA so it is undoubtedly a little nearer and dearer to me, but all that I am going to say below are my true feelings, biased as they may be. I welcome the thoughts of all my readers.
Now, if you haven't heard, read this.. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_space
In a nutshell, Obama is calling for private companies to take on the role of NASA in continuing space exploration. This will lower the financial burden of the government which currently subsidizes NASA.
While I agree that the economy stinks and it seems ill-advised to spend money on space exploration while those in this country continue through rough times, that is also very near-sighted view. Without making this post too long, and risk making it unbearable to read, here are my questions.
- If we privatize space, what happens to the safety protocols of the private rockets, the astronauts and those that live near launch/landing sites? Who is going to regulate this new industry that Obama is creating? If this regulatory board is government run (like the SEC) that still costs money, correct?
- When I watched 'The Astronaut Farmer' (good movie by the way) there were major concerns about a private citizen buying mass quantities of rocket fuel. Who will monitor these things? If the FBI and other government agencies need to handle this, what is the cost there? At what point is NASA actually the cheaper way to go?
- Isn't building rockets to launch into space just one step away from building missiles and bombs? Why would we allow private citizens the freedom to explore this? Again, how do we regulate? How do we keep these new 'scientists' from blowing themselves up? How do we keep sensitive information out of the hands of terrorists or from being sold to hostile foreign countries?
- What will this do to the economies of current NASA towns like Houston, and Cape Canaveral (spelling?)? Will they have similar depressions such as mining towns did way back when?
- Many people think of NASA strictly in terms of space, and that is probably valid, but NASA has given us, everyday, ordinary people many important products - 10 Examples Here. Would private industry give us these? Maybe. Probably. But, at what cost?
- If a private company is the first to reach a new planet and that planet happens to be inhabitable and that private company begins developing the new planet, who has control of the new planet? The private entity? Allowing a private company/citizen to 'own' a new planet is VERY risky business. Especially as this one continues to decay.
- Is privatizing space exploration the first step towards privatizing the military?
- April 24th, 2010 marked the 20th anniversary of the Hubble Telescope being launched into space. That was pretty important. Will private companies send up satellites on behalf of the government? Would they charge the government for pictures/data collected? If the satellites catch an issues (asteroid, etc.) will the know how to handle it?
I know some of my readers are huge opponents of big government, and that is fine, but this is not healthcare. This is a very dangerous (as in physical/actual danger) industry. It must be regulated for the safety of not only those involved, but anyone within proximity of a private facility.
Today I'd like to discuss Obama's plan to privatize space travel and reduce funding for NASA.
First, a disclaimer: My brother works as a contractor for NASA so it is undoubtedly a little nearer and dearer to me, but all that I am going to say below are my true feelings, biased as they may be. I welcome the thoughts of all my readers.
Now, if you haven't heard, read this.. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_space
In a nutshell, Obama is calling for private companies to take on the role of NASA in continuing space exploration. This will lower the financial burden of the government which currently subsidizes NASA.
While I agree that the economy stinks and it seems ill-advised to spend money on space exploration while those in this country continue through rough times, that is also very near-sighted view. Without making this post too long, and risk making it unbearable to read, here are my questions.
- If we privatize space, what happens to the safety protocols of the private rockets, the astronauts and those that live near launch/landing sites? Who is going to regulate this new industry that Obama is creating? If this regulatory board is government run (like the SEC) that still costs money, correct?
- When I watched 'The Astronaut Farmer' (good movie by the way) there were major concerns about a private citizen buying mass quantities of rocket fuel. Who will monitor these things? If the FBI and other government agencies need to handle this, what is the cost there? At what point is NASA actually the cheaper way to go?
- Isn't building rockets to launch into space just one step away from building missiles and bombs? Why would we allow private citizens the freedom to explore this? Again, how do we regulate? How do we keep these new 'scientists' from blowing themselves up? How do we keep sensitive information out of the hands of terrorists or from being sold to hostile foreign countries?
- What will this do to the economies of current NASA towns like Houston, and Cape Canaveral (spelling?)? Will they have similar depressions such as mining towns did way back when?
- Many people think of NASA strictly in terms of space, and that is probably valid, but NASA has given us, everyday, ordinary people many important products - 10 Examples Here. Would private industry give us these? Maybe. Probably. But, at what cost?
- If a private company is the first to reach a new planet and that planet happens to be inhabitable and that private company begins developing the new planet, who has control of the new planet? The private entity? Allowing a private company/citizen to 'own' a new planet is VERY risky business. Especially as this one continues to decay.
- Is privatizing space exploration the first step towards privatizing the military?
- April 24th, 2010 marked the 20th anniversary of the Hubble Telescope being launched into space. That was pretty important. Will private companies send up satellites on behalf of the government? Would they charge the government for pictures/data collected? If the satellites catch an issues (asteroid, etc.) will the know how to handle it?
I know some of my readers are huge opponents of big government, and that is fine, but this is not healthcare. This is a very dangerous (as in physical/actual danger) industry. It must be regulated for the safety of not only those involved, but anyone within proximity of a private facility.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Friends with Talent - Music
Speaking of music, here's another installment in my 'Friends with Talent' series.
I won't waste too much of your time telling you about these talented artists or what they do, just click the links and check it out and let me/them know what you think.
http://amiestreet.com/music/sheehan-perera/
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Sheehan-Perera/13165527066?ref=ts
http://www.sumanthswaminathan.com/
If any of you have other friends with talent that you'd like to promote please send something my way.
I won't waste too much of your time telling you about these talented artists or what they do, just click the links and check it out and let me/them know what you think.
http://amiestreet.com/music/sheehan-perera/
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Sheehan-Perera/13165527066?ref=ts
http://www.sumanthswaminathan.com/
If any of you have other friends with talent that you'd like to promote please send something my way.
Labels:
Awesome,
Friends with Talent,
Sweet Song,
You've Been Informed
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Less Than Jake - The Science Of Selling Yourself Short
It's been a while since I gave you some new music to enjoy. Here goes.
Labels:
Sweet Song
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
To Subtitle Or Not?
The other night I watched 'The Boy With the Striped Pajamas" on my Comcast On-Demand (the best part of Comcast by far). In short, for those that don't know, this is the story of a young German boy whose father is a high-up in the SS and charged with running a concentration camp. While living outside the camp the young, naive boy befriends a young Jew on the other side of the fence.
I am blogging about this, because while it was a good film I feel cheated. For whatever reason, the director of this film chose not to use subtitles, but to instead have all characters speak English. I assume the reason for this decision was so the viewer could relate more easily and get caught up in the mixed emotions of the characters. However, instead I think it deprived me of that one strong emotion - hate and anger. When I watch a film about horrors such as the holocaust I don't want to relate in any way to the murderers or even the bystanders who saw the immorality and did nothing. I want to hate them. (Unlike in Letters From Iwo Jima which was a great film about a war that was brutal on both sides - where I wanted to see and learn that other perspective.)
Usually I prefer movies not to have subtitles. I like to be able to focus on the action and images of the film rather than on reading small text at the bottom. However, in specific cases, such as this, the German language itself stirs up emotions that I think are crucial in the film experience. Knowing when to use subtitles is just one of the many challenges movie directors face, but it is very important.
I am blogging about this, because while it was a good film I feel cheated. For whatever reason, the director of this film chose not to use subtitles, but to instead have all characters speak English. I assume the reason for this decision was so the viewer could relate more easily and get caught up in the mixed emotions of the characters. However, instead I think it deprived me of that one strong emotion - hate and anger. When I watch a film about horrors such as the holocaust I don't want to relate in any way to the murderers or even the bystanders who saw the immorality and did nothing. I want to hate them. (Unlike in Letters From Iwo Jima which was a great film about a war that was brutal on both sides - where I wanted to see and learn that other perspective.)
Usually I prefer movies not to have subtitles. I like to be able to focus on the action and images of the film rather than on reading small text at the bottom. However, in specific cases, such as this, the German language itself stirs up emotions that I think are crucial in the film experience. Knowing when to use subtitles is just one of the many challenges movie directors face, but it is very important.
Labels:
Random
Monday, April 19, 2010
Flew the Coop Part 2
Spirit Airlines CEO Stuffs Himself Where He Should in Explanation Video
Thank you Matt D. for sending this along.
Thank you Matt D. for sending this along.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
30 for 30
Last night I watched ESPN's 30 for 30 movie on Allen Iverson (good film). For those unaware this was a documentary based on the trial of Allen Iverson in the early 90's where he was found guilty of 'maiming by mob'. Basically a brawl broke out at a bowling alley, some bystanders were injured by thrown chairs and Allen Iverson along with three other men were prosecuted.
I am not taking sides on the issue because I don't know all the facts and I don't particularly care to throw out an opinion. But, because some woman suffered some cuts, and maybe a slight concusion Allen Iverson was given a fifteen year sentence. Ten years were 'suspended' and he was told that with good behavior he could be out in ten months.
WHAT??? How is this 'crime' worthy of a fifteen year sentence? It was his first criminal offense and it was a fight that got out of hand. I am not condoning the actions of anyone involved, but guns weren't brandished, and no one was stabbed - by relative standards this is amazing in itself. - A lot of punches and a few chairs were thrown. This sentence is insane. Now, on the other hand, if the sentence calls for fifteen years, how can one get out after only ten months? WHAT?
Eventually the court ruling was overturned and Allen only served four months and the felony was expunged. So in the end Iverson was all but found innocent, but still spent four months in prison.
NONE OF THIS MAKES ANY DAMN SENSE.
I am not taking sides on the issue because I don't know all the facts and I don't particularly care to throw out an opinion. But, because some woman suffered some cuts, and maybe a slight concusion Allen Iverson was given a fifteen year sentence. Ten years were 'suspended' and he was told that with good behavior he could be out in ten months.
WHAT??? How is this 'crime' worthy of a fifteen year sentence? It was his first criminal offense and it was a fight that got out of hand. I am not condoning the actions of anyone involved, but guns weren't brandished, and no one was stabbed - by relative standards this is amazing in itself. - A lot of punches and a few chairs were thrown. This sentence is insane. Now, on the other hand, if the sentence calls for fifteen years, how can one get out after only ten months? WHAT?
Eventually the court ruling was overturned and Allen only served four months and the felony was expunged. So in the end Iverson was all but found innocent, but still spent four months in prison.
NONE OF THIS MAKES ANY DAMN SENSE.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Food Coloring
Since I'm being inquisitive: How is food coloring made? I am sure I could Google this and find some real answer, but one of the reasons I have a blog is to inspire others to think. To maybe think about things that are usually taken for granted and to question them. Sure, this is silly and in no way important to anyone's life, but still. How is food coloring made? It's used to make other foods, but how is it made?
How is licorice made? There is no natural food that taste like licorice, but through some magic of technology and processing we get Twizzlers? It's considered a candy like M&M's but M&M's make sense.. M&M's are just chocolate (relatively natural) and peanut butter (relatively natural). What the hell is licorice?
How is licorice made? There is no natural food that taste like licorice, but through some magic of technology and processing we get Twizzlers? It's considered a candy like M&M's but M&M's make sense.. M&M's are just chocolate (relatively natural) and peanut butter (relatively natural). What the hell is licorice?
Labels:
Things I Don't Understand
Monday, April 12, 2010
Someone for Everyone
I'm a good looking guy and I've always been with good looking girls, so I don't know how this works... BUT...
How do ugly people get together? Is there something in their brain that makes ugly people attracted to other ugly people? or is it just that they have realistic expectations and take what they can get? or is it something else?
I am by no means saying ugly people can't find true love and I'm not even saying that sometimes really attractive people don't end up with less-than-attractive partners*.. But, even though beauty is subjective we all know there are certain cultural and accepted concepts of what is attractive. There have been hundreds (if not more) studies done to determine what is 'sexy' (symmetrical features, strong jaw bones and cheek bones, etc..). If there is a "consensus" about what is sexy, how come there is still "someone for everyone"? Certainly not everyone is attractive.
*Ever notice how anytime a really hot girl is with an 'average' guy other guys will think "he's gay"? That's not an insult, and it's definitely not meant as a slur towards homosexuals (which is politically correct? 'gay' or 'homosexual'??). It's actually just something said to make the other guys rationalize how some hot girl can be with a guy just like them, but why that guy is NOT them.. "oh, he must be the gay best friend. No way she would go out with a guy like that." - It's the call of the insecure.
How do ugly people get together? Is there something in their brain that makes ugly people attracted to other ugly people? or is it just that they have realistic expectations and take what they can get? or is it something else?
I am by no means saying ugly people can't find true love and I'm not even saying that sometimes really attractive people don't end up with less-than-attractive partners*.. But, even though beauty is subjective we all know there are certain cultural and accepted concepts of what is attractive. There have been hundreds (if not more) studies done to determine what is 'sexy' (symmetrical features, strong jaw bones and cheek bones, etc..). If there is a "consensus" about what is sexy, how come there is still "someone for everyone"? Certainly not everyone is attractive.
*Ever notice how anytime a really hot girl is with an 'average' guy other guys will think "he's gay"? That's not an insult, and it's definitely not meant as a slur towards homosexuals (which is politically correct? 'gay' or 'homosexual'??). It's actually just something said to make the other guys rationalize how some hot girl can be with a guy just like them, but why that guy is NOT them.. "oh, he must be the gay best friend. No way she would go out with a guy like that." - It's the call of the insecure.
Labels:
Things I Don't Understand
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Flew the Coop
Spirit Airlines is going to become the first to charge for carry-on luggage.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=86761.blog&loc=interstitialskip
According to the article the intent is to continue to 'unbundle' the expenses of flying so passengers can only pay for what they use. For the luxury of carrying your bag on board they will charge upwards of $45 each way.
So, here's The Gift's take:
- Will they reduce airfares by $45 each way? Somehow I doubt we see that translate fully.
- They say in the article it should help expedite the boarding process. Really?? People having to pull out their credit cards at the gate and disgruntled customers arguing over the size of their bags, etc. is going to speed up boarding?? Last time I boarded a plane they called my 'zone' I walked on, put my bag in the overhead and sat down. How much quicker can it get? Sure some people bring bags that are way too big for the overhead, but that one bag has to be more convenient than checking 100 bags to make sure they are the correct size.
- Often people put extra clothing in their carry-ons in case of lost luggage (which we know happens) or delayed flights and missed connections and that worst-case scenario of having to sleep in the airport - because the airlines don't cover hotel costs even if the missed connection is their fault. Now if you want that 'protection' it's going to cost $45.
The airline industry is afforded a lot of lee-way that other businesses don't get (double-booking, dynamic pricing, not getting you where you're supposed to be when you're supposed to be there, etc.). They can do this because customer service generally is not as important to consumers as pricing in this industry. That's fair enough. But at some point customer service must be taken into account, and boy are they stretching the limits..
I know money is tight and the airline industry is hurting, but there have to be other ways. Go back to selling advertising space on the food trays or the back of seats. Get your marketing department and R&D departments to do their jobs.. Complicating the process of air travel is only going to turn people off. This is a bad idea.
-Thank you Courtney S. for bringing this to my attention.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=86761.blog&loc=interstitialskip
According to the article the intent is to continue to 'unbundle' the expenses of flying so passengers can only pay for what they use. For the luxury of carrying your bag on board they will charge upwards of $45 each way.
So, here's The Gift's take:
- Will they reduce airfares by $45 each way? Somehow I doubt we see that translate fully.
- They say in the article it should help expedite the boarding process. Really?? People having to pull out their credit cards at the gate and disgruntled customers arguing over the size of their bags, etc. is going to speed up boarding?? Last time I boarded a plane they called my 'zone' I walked on, put my bag in the overhead and sat down. How much quicker can it get? Sure some people bring bags that are way too big for the overhead, but that one bag has to be more convenient than checking 100 bags to make sure they are the correct size.
- Often people put extra clothing in their carry-ons in case of lost luggage (which we know happens) or delayed flights and missed connections and that worst-case scenario of having to sleep in the airport - because the airlines don't cover hotel costs even if the missed connection is their fault. Now if you want that 'protection' it's going to cost $45.
The airline industry is afforded a lot of lee-way that other businesses don't get (double-booking, dynamic pricing, not getting you where you're supposed to be when you're supposed to be there, etc.). They can do this because customer service generally is not as important to consumers as pricing in this industry. That's fair enough. But at some point customer service must be taken into account, and boy are they stretching the limits..
I know money is tight and the airline industry is hurting, but there have to be other ways. Go back to selling advertising space on the food trays or the back of seats. Get your marketing department and R&D departments to do their jobs.. Complicating the process of air travel is only going to turn people off. This is a bad idea.
-Thank you Courtney S. for bringing this to my attention.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
You Make Me Sick
If you've watched the news in the last week you've inevitably heard the story of the soldier whose funeral was protested by a religious group who protests against the US Government because it allows homosexuality. I won't recap the story because you can read it here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100331/ts_csm/291560 or all over the internet.
I will say this, however:
If this was my son's funeral I would not have sued these protestors. I would have been arrested myself for assault and battery and possibly manslaughter. And I'll tell you what, I would get off for temporary insanity. There is no jury in the world that would commit this father for losing his mind and killing someone in this situation. He is, undoubtedly a stronger person than I.
I don't know where I stand on capital punishment and I am not, by nature, a vengeful person, but these people should have their children put on an island. That island should be invaded and then when their children are killed we should protest at their funerals. That would be justice if ever there was any.
There are so many things wrong here. These same people who are anti-abortion and say 'all-life' is sacred are saying this soldier (and all soldiers) deserved to die - well, that doesn't make any sense does it? These people are protesting against the government at the funerals of soldiers, soldiers who may or may not have the same religious beliefs as these extremists, but who are just following orders and who are dying to give us the very same freedom to protest that these clowns are taking advantage of.
I also must give credit to my brother who made a very good point about this whole issue. Freedom of speech is only relevant when people have the ability to get up and walk away. When someone stands on a soap box and preaches that is fine. The average person can choose to stand and listen or continue walking. A funeral is a sacred place and while mourners may literally have the option to leave, they do not in reality.
On these very same news channels we are hearing a lot recently about teenagers who have taken their lives because of continued and brutal bullying. In many cases, the bullies are being punished for their behavior including within the court system. Isn't this just a form of bullying? Does the father need to take his own life to get justice? Shouldn't we stop the madness before it escalates.
I hope the Supreme Court does the right thing here...
I will say this, however:
If this was my son's funeral I would not have sued these protestors. I would have been arrested myself for assault and battery and possibly manslaughter. And I'll tell you what, I would get off for temporary insanity. There is no jury in the world that would commit this father for losing his mind and killing someone in this situation. He is, undoubtedly a stronger person than I.
I don't know where I stand on capital punishment and I am not, by nature, a vengeful person, but these people should have their children put on an island. That island should be invaded and then when their children are killed we should protest at their funerals. That would be justice if ever there was any.
There are so many things wrong here. These same people who are anti-abortion and say 'all-life' is sacred are saying this soldier (and all soldiers) deserved to die - well, that doesn't make any sense does it? These people are protesting against the government at the funerals of soldiers, soldiers who may or may not have the same religious beliefs as these extremists, but who are just following orders and who are dying to give us the very same freedom to protest that these clowns are taking advantage of.
I also must give credit to my brother who made a very good point about this whole issue. Freedom of speech is only relevant when people have the ability to get up and walk away. When someone stands on a soap box and preaches that is fine. The average person can choose to stand and listen or continue walking. A funeral is a sacred place and while mourners may literally have the option to leave, they do not in reality.
On these very same news channels we are hearing a lot recently about teenagers who have taken their lives because of continued and brutal bullying. In many cases, the bullies are being punished for their behavior including within the court system. Isn't this just a form of bullying? Does the father need to take his own life to get justice? Shouldn't we stop the madness before it escalates.
I hope the Supreme Court does the right thing here...
Monday, April 5, 2010
Celebrity Affairs
I whole-heartedly disagree with cheating. I think if it comes to the point where one is thinking about cheating it's time to have a talk with their partner and figure out why. Are they just not having their sexual needs met or is there a deeper cause? Is breaking up or getting a divorce the right thing to do?
Now that I've said my piece on cheating, here are my thoughts on the recent string of celebrity scandals..
People wonder why Bill Clinton or Tiger Woods or Jesse James cheat on their wives with these trashy, less-than-gorgeous women.. Honestly, it makes absolute sense to me. With these women the sex is probably just dirty and raw, but more importantly there is no risk of attachment. When you’re having sex with a girl you don’t respect there’s no fear of falling for her and you can have a no-strings attached affair. If, on the other hand, these celebrities choose to cheat with 'good' girls, a) it's going to be a little harder cause they are less likely to put themselves in these positionos, but also b) there is always the risk of falling in love which will lead to much larger problems.
Now, I will also say that Tiger, Bill, etc. owe me no apology. I don't care what they do in their private lives. That is for their wives and families to deal with. Is Tiger a role-model? Maybe. But, not if the parents do their jobs. Growing up sure I idolized athletes, but only for their athletic ability. When I wanted guidance or someone to look up to, it was my parents and my brother who served as the real role-models. Let's stop putting the onus on celebrities to raise our kids. And in all of this, let's not forget to blame the media for sensationalizing these stories. You want to blame Tiger Woods for setting a wrong example in his private life? Well, maybe you should blame the media for making it public and not letting these 'stories' die.
Now that I've said my piece on cheating, here are my thoughts on the recent string of celebrity scandals..
People wonder why Bill Clinton or Tiger Woods or Jesse James cheat on their wives with these trashy, less-than-gorgeous women.. Honestly, it makes absolute sense to me. With these women the sex is probably just dirty and raw, but more importantly there is no risk of attachment. When you’re having sex with a girl you don’t respect there’s no fear of falling for her and you can have a no-strings attached affair. If, on the other hand, these celebrities choose to cheat with 'good' girls, a) it's going to be a little harder cause they are less likely to put themselves in these positionos, but also b) there is always the risk of falling in love which will lead to much larger problems.
Now, I will also say that Tiger, Bill, etc. owe me no apology. I don't care what they do in their private lives. That is for their wives and families to deal with. Is Tiger a role-model? Maybe. But, not if the parents do their jobs. Growing up sure I idolized athletes, but only for their athletic ability. When I wanted guidance or someone to look up to, it was my parents and my brother who served as the real role-models. Let's stop putting the onus on celebrities to raise our kids. And in all of this, let's not forget to blame the media for sensationalizing these stories. You want to blame Tiger Woods for setting a wrong example in his private life? Well, maybe you should blame the media for making it public and not letting these 'stories' die.
Labels:
Ripped From The Headlines
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)