TMQ

If you're not reading ESPN's weekly TMQ then you're missing out.  And if you're thinking about starting now, you're pretty much out of luck - as this column/blog/content is only updated during football seaons.  And, sure, it's mostly football related but author Gregg Easterbrook almost always adds a piece about the state of the world or political corruption or just interesting stories.  This one for example, that I thought was worth passing on:

"Another Class-Action Swindle? TMQ has written items on class-action lawsuits that appear on paper to be victories for consumers, but mainly benefit lawyers. The settlements might pay huge sums to plaintiff's counsel and little or nothing to the supposed class of victims, while allowing a corporation to shed liability. (Presumably the offending behavior is stopped.) In some class-action suits, the corporation that appears to "lose" and the tort attorneys who say they are "standing up for the little guy" appear to be cooperating for the purpose of shafting the little guy.
The latest suspicious class-action settlement is noted by reader Sterling Crockett of Bothell, Wash. The proposed settlement appears to be a victory for anyone who bought a ticket from Ticketmaster using its website. As Crockett notes, the lawyers will receive up to $16.5 million and people who bought tickets get a $1.50 discount on a future Ticketmaster purchase. (Click on "settlement agreement.") So the lawyers receive a mere 11 million times as much as any one of the victims! Like many class-action suits, one must actively opt out. If a Ticketmaster customer does nothing -- or never hears the litigation occurred -- his or her standing to sue Ticketmaster is voided.
Basically the proposed settlement has the company paying some lawyers a tax-deductible $16.5 million to shed its own customers' rights, and the "award" to the victims requires them to make future purchases from the company."

Update:  As John mentioned a link to the article is probably appropriate.  Thank you for the feedback.  (As noted, this is an ongoing "column" and each new article will have a different link.)

For the Ladies: What You Can Learn From Kristen Stewart

I know it's been a while, but there was a time when I sorta, kinda, semi-regularly posted on something "for the ladies".  It's my way of taking my very male-centric attitude (hey, I am a guy after all) and contributing back to my female readers.  Today I'll rekindle that fire - for better or worse. 

To start, Kristen Stewart is the actress who stars in all those vampire movies (Twilight to be more exact), among others.  And now that you know who she is I'm imaging many of my readers with a confused look on their face and a question on their mind: what could I possibly learn from her.

First, let me tell you what I've learned about her and then I'll tell you what you can learn from her.  What I've learned about her is that she is a sex symbol.  Though from looks alone she would hardly seem to match up with some of the world's sexiest women, she still has obtained a certain level of sex appeal. (Of course this is all opinion, but one that seems fairly popular especially amongst the media.) The "why" is what you can learn from Kristen Stewart.

Why are men attracted to Kristen Stewart?  From my own observations I think it boils down to 1 thing - and oddly enough it actually does have to do with her acting.  That 1 thing is her expressions.  It's the way she portrays vulnerability, desire and need.  When she does her signature lip bite and plays the scared or naive or "damaged" female it sends out all the signals that men are genetically geared to attract towards.  I know it's a stereotype and I know that in the 21st century we should be past this, but the fact remains that men want to be needed.  This of course dates back to the beginning of time and still exists today - though admittedly less so. 

There's an old quote that says, "men cheat because they don't feel needed and women cheat because they don't feel loved".  (I wish I could cite this quote but unfortunately I can't remember where I heard it and a quick Google search hasn't provided the source.) Now of course this isn't always true and people cheat for tons of reasons, but I have found validity in this quote.  (I thought long and hard about providing a few "exhibits" from my own life, but, while I'm fairly unabashed and far from ashamed, I've rambled enough without going into the longer stories of my life...)

I guess the overall point here and the key takeaway is not that you, as a lady, should be anything but what you are, but rather understand that guys want to be "guys" (this is a generalization of course).  Telling them and showing them that you need them, that you want them, that they are special - these are things men want.. and hey, isn't it coincidental that it's pretty similar to what [you say] you want [though evidence also proves contrary]. 


Now, I know this post is going to illicit feelings either with or against me.  Speak up.  One way conversations get pretty boring.

Amit

Earlier I posted "Give a Spit about Cancer".  I only felt it right to provide a follow up.  I know most of you don't know this guy, and honestly I don't either.  But what better thing can anyone do than try to save another's life?  I'm happy to do even my smallest part and thank all of you for the same.

http://tumblr.amitgupta.com/post/16079119166/many-of-you-have-asked-so-heres-whats-going-on

Chihuahua in the Wild

This blog certainly serves as a window into my person, but today we both get to baffle at the mystery that is my brain.  I don't know where this stuff comes from honestly, but yet, here it is...

Did you ever think to before dogs became domesticated.  No?  Well until today, neither did I.  But, there was a time when the concept of a pet didn't exist.  I don't know how far back you have to go to find that time (and I don't care to do the research), but I know the first dog wasn't house trained and the first kitten didn't use a litter box... 

Just crazy to think that there was a time when Chihuahua's and poodles roamed the wild and hunted (scavanged?) for food... 

Reading Between the Lines

*Please see the disclosure on the earlier post before reading further.

I've been listening to the information stemming from the Iowa Caucus and a few things bother me.

1 - Several of the candidates have spoken up about making abortion illegal and I need to say a few things on this.
a) Why does this keep being a go-to issue for politicians?  The subject of abortion has been dealt with at every level of government and will not change.  The legal precedents have been set and cannot be overturned.  Using this as a political talking point is a ploy at best and a mockery at worst.
b) Several candidates have said they will make abortion illegal even in cases of rape.  What?!  If a women is raped and impregnated the government is going to force her to have the baby?  To have a constant reminder of what was likely the worst experience of her life?  And, are they also going to force her to raise the child?  And who is going to pay for this child to grow up?  Is the candidate offering to foot the bill for 18 years of child support?  Are they going to throw money at orphanages?  So much for cutting the deficit.  As we should do with all of these political issues, think "what if this was me or someone I love"...

2 - Several of the candidates have said they will eliminate the Department of Energy to shrink the government and reduce the deficit. 
From the Department of Energy's website their mission is "to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions"
In essence this is the department within the United States Government which is working towards a more sustainable planet through energy efficiencies.  These are the people who encourage (and sometimes force) companies to raise energy effeciency standards - such as fuel mileage on cars.  These are the people that are promoting alternatives to fossil fuels.  Is it any coincidence that Republicans want to eliminate this department?  This is after all the department most devastating to Big Oil.  The same Big Oil that is well known for its lobbying and political contributions to Republicans.
Eliminating the Department of Energy would not only be a blow to our environment, but it would be one more step towards big business officially (its currently unofficial) running the government.

A Petition to Support the Saving American Democracy Amendment

As a business man I know that Big Business is not looking out for me.  You want to take your chances?

http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c

Thank you Jillian S. for sharing!

The De-unification of the United States

Again, I need to preface all of my political ramblings with the disclaimer that I don't much care for or follow politics, and as such sometimes I can be accused of "talking out of my ass" or being misinformed.  Still, I do hear things from time to time and I am sure that my common sense and integrity is stronger than that of almost all politicians...

So, without further ado:

1 - When the hell did the country become so divided?  Why are all politicians seemingly on the far left or the far right?  Why is "moderate" a dirty word?

2 - What the hell happened to "sportsmanship" (for a lack of a better word)?  Didn't there use to be a time that even if you lost an election you supported the winner?  Particularly when that winner is the President of the United States and he is chosen by the people he is meant to represent?  Why can't politicians get this?  Why can't they support "the winner" and those that elected him.  [This is not a pro-democrat argument but a pro-UNITY argument.]

3 - Why can't we get stability in this country?  Obama passed his "Obama-care" for example.  I understand it was/is controversial, but it was passed.  Now, before it truly even goes into affect Republican candidates are declaring that if they are elected to Presidency they will repeal it.  What the hell is that?  Obama spent a great deal of his time in office struggling with all the push back from the Republicans and making concessions and "deals" to finally get it passed and now Republicans are saying "eh, never mind"?  And then what?  They'll spend half of their presidency fighting to put something else in place?  This isn't progress.  This is the definition of running in place. If politicians could stop politicking for just 2 years we might actually get something meaningful.

4 - While we're on it, why the hell can't someone just go into office and let their accomplishments speak for themselves?  I'm sure I've talked about this before, but it's ludicrous that our elected officials spend most of their time in office campaigning for re-election or their next move.  DO THE JOB YOU'RE ELECTED TO and if you do it well enough trust that will be enough.  You are paid way too much and compensated way too greatly (pensions and life-time health benefits, for example) to do NOTHING... 

New Years Resolutions...

From someone else (but still worth a read):

http://thoughtcatalog.com/2012/20-new-years-resolutions-for-20-somethings/