Unhappy Campers

It seems some jokes have a shelf life. Apparently, people are done laughing at the Occupy (Camp) Wherever movement. Now, like “Train-wreck” Charlie’s one man show, it’s time to get them off the stage.

The protesters have proven their irrelevance. Two months into their protest, the only people who care about their pet issues are them. Sadly, after listening to the same tired lines for too long, they aren’t even really funny anymore.

Such media coverage as they have garnered has been more about their novelty value than their message. Of course that could have something to do with their own lack of focus. Really, there’s only so much air time in “Too few people control too much money.”.

Nobody cares. More accurately, people do care. The problem is that the protesters are just pointing at problems everyone already knows about. We don’t need a bunch of whiny, bored urban campers to tell us about them.

If they really want to make a difference, maybe they could volunteer in their communities. Right now all they’re doing is annoying people and creating a mess. That mess by the way, is going to be cleaned up with the tax dollars of the real ninety-nine percent.

The whole Occupy crowd has always struck me as being a symptom of society’s distress rather than it’s cure. Here is an analogy to demonstrate:

A parent takes their child with them while running errands. The child doesn’t want to go, but the parent promises them a treat. This goes on for a while. Finally one say the parent says “No. Not today,”.

The child now has a problem and an easily identifiable villain. Being generally over-indulged has given the child a hyper-developed sense of entitlement. As a result, the child sits on the floor in the store, screams, refuses to move and annoys everyone around in an effort to force the parent to give them what they want.

Unlike various urban bureaucrats, most parents don’t leave the child there for two months. However tempting it may be.

There has been failure on both sides in this fiasco. The second order failures involved city officials allowing the installation of tent encampments in the first place. That was just plain stupid as it did nothing but feed into the protester’s sense of entitlement. Oh it also annoyed people, damaged parks and left taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning and repairs. Way to pander you spineless bureaucrats.

The truly epic, first order failure must be awarded to the protesters themselves. The idea of alleged grown ups thinking that camping and rallying would end human greed is mind boggling. It’s magical thinking.

I’m old enough to remember Harmonic Convergence (the rest of you should look it up). The short version involved getting a specific percentage of the world’s population to create a certain tone at a certain time. This was going to change the Earth’s vibration at an atomic level and so return us to a state of universal harmony.

That had a better chance of success than marching around saying greed is bad and then sitting in a park waiting for people to stop being greedy. Really. It’s like me writing my blog and waiting for those protesters to stop being spoiled children. The main difference being, I don’t expect my fantasy to come true.

The Occupy movement has once more proven the adage “If you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”. So far, they haven’t offered any practicable solutions that I’ve heard of. On the other hand, with the ever increasing cost of policing, cleanup, detention processing, eventual trials, appeals etc, they are definitely part of the problem.

Just like the public meltdown of the Sheen Machine, they aren’t funny anymore. They’re just pathetic. It’s time to get off the stage and go home.

Cheers, Winston

Lindsay Lohan To Pose For Playboy

In the Ottawa Sun there’s an article about Lindsay Lohan. It seems she’s now going to pose for Playboy. That’s not really that surprising. Lots of “off prime” female celebs have taken that route. I’m probably the only one who finds this hilariously funny.

My first giggle is the idea of her getting paid for what she’s already given away for free. Considering that Ms. Lohan was part of the knicker free craze that included Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. A quick Google search will also “reveal” (double entendre #1) that she has a penchant for bra-free, sheer tops. Given all that, what has she got left that qualifies as a million dollar surprise.

About her only claim to current fame is with the male of the “Prison Bunny” species. Her acting career such as it was, tanked ages ago. The only time we see her anymore is during tabloid TV coverage of her latest court appearance. I can understand her motive. Everyone’s seen everything, so why not get some cash out of it while there’s still at least some interest. But why would Playboy give a million dollars to a no-talent has-been for a been there, seen that bill of goods?

That’s not the biggest giggle though. Nope. That title goes to her mother’s take on the “spread”(double entendre #2). Dina Lohan says “It will be tastefully done.” So Mom is one hundred percent supportive of her daughters decision. Oh Yes! Momma Lohan is soooo gonna get Mother of the Year! How could she not? After all, she’s just being incredibly supportive of her daughter. Really now, just ’cause she isn’t currently a cash cow doesn’t mean she can’t be a trash cow.

Just A Quick Clarification
On re-reading this post I realized it could give the impression that I feel it’s

trashy

to pose for Playboy. This is not the case. I’m certain that the majority of their models are fine people, or as much so as any other group of people.

The term

trash cow

refers to a faded, wannabe starlet trying desperately to extend a totally undeserved fifteen minutes in the spotlight. She is the sad product of our current

cult of celebrity

wherein there is a growing failure to differentiate notoriety from fame.

Cheers, Winston

Happy Halloween Everyone!

To anyone not offended by it, I hope you’ve had a pleasant Halloween.  I have to be honest, this has been my best in years.  Mostly because I don’t have hordes of fifteen year olds asking for the “scariest” movie at Blockbuster.  It’s a trick question.  The answer usually isn’t the same from one person to the next.  Suffice to say, what they really wanted was plausible deniability.  When their friends complain the movie isn’t scary, they can lay the blame off on the lame dude at the video store.  But let’s move on now.

The other item contributing to the awesomeness of this Halloween was my experiment in pumpkin carving.  I planned ahead, took my time and created my best pumpkin ever.

Is it the best pumpkin ever carved?  Of course not.  But it’s the best one I’ve ever done, and I’m really proud of it.  It’s about three and half hours work.  The eyes aren’t exactly what I was hoping for, but it’s something to work on for next year.

Lynn took care of the rest of the entrance while I was busy carving.

She does nice pathway doesn’t she?

We didn’t get a huge number of trick or treaters this year, but the ones we did get liked the setup.  The perk to less visitors, is more candy left for me.  Not that I would eat it.  That would be bad.  Wouldn’t it?

Cheers, Winston

Nickelodeon Says It’s Okay To Vandalize School Property

My daughter is a fan of the Nickelodeon show Victorious.  It’s not one I’ve taken the time to watch, but the bits I’ve seen over her shoulder tell me it’s another teen/highschool dramedy.  Seen one, seen them all.  Or so I thought.  Then I caught a couple of minutes on while it was recording on the PVR.

One of the characters skips a couple of classes.  Her friends determine that she is upset because the school isn’t going produce the play she wrote.  Apparently, they found it too “strange and disturbing”.  Her friends are concerned for her, and go look for her.  They find her in the janitors closet where she is cutting up a large wastebasket with pair of scissors.

One of her classmates is impressed that she cut up the janitors large waste bin with a pair of scissors.  That’s it.  No one comments on her destroying school property.  The episode goes on from there with no further mention of it.  How is that an appropriate message?

The school won’t produce her play, so she starts destroying school property.  Everyone’s okay with this.  The writers, actors, editors, show-runners, everyone.  People complain all the time about how violent or “immoral” programs are destroying today’s youth.  How about youth programming that doesn’t think before it broadcasts?

Sure, I realize that it’s just a waste bin.  I realize that she’s supposed to be high strung and emotional because she’s creative.   She’s just expressing her emotional distress.  Yeah right.  If one of the teachers says her play is poorly written, do we get a hilarious scene of her slashing their tires.  Too much of a stretch to assume that such an emotionally stunted and self-obsessed character might respond to criticism that way?  Ummm…. probably not.

Under the guise of “youth oriented” programming, they are normalizing this type of behavior.  Let me break this down for you.  A student writes a play and offers it to their school.  The school deems it unsuitable and declines to produce it.  Rather than accepting the decision and either re-writing it or seeking another venue, the student starts destroying school property.  How is that depicting any type of healthy behavior?

Nickelodeon’s message of the day, “If someone doesn’t let you do what you want, destroy their property.  It may not solve the problem, but it will show everyone how angst laden you are about things.”  Great conflict resolution skills you’re teaching there team.

I bet Victorious gets a couple of awards for that one.  I’m just glad my daughter is eighteen.  She’s always been pretty good about understanding that not everything in “G” rated programming is appropriate in the real world.  I’m more concerned about the viewers who may not make that distinction.

Cheers, Winston

“Puss In Boots” Gets It Done In Style

I was fortunate enough to get passes for “Puss In Boots”, the spin-off from the “Shrek” franchise.  I was a little skeptical going in because generally, spin-offs tend not to catch the original magic.  Puss manages to dodge that bullet as elegantly as the title character dodges blades.

He is ably supported by Salma Hayek as “Kitty Soft Paws” and Zach Galifianakis as “Humpty Alexander Dumpty”.  The rest of the voice cast is also quite good.

The story is actually better than I was expecting with a new raft of re-imagined storybook characters.  They include the career criminals “Jack & Jill”, the goose who lays the golden eggs, and “Mother Goose” herself.  In keeping with the formula established in the Shrek movies, none of them is going to be exactly what you’re expecting.

 

As with other Dreamworks animated films, the humor manages to appeal to both kids and the parents who bring them.  The kids laugh when Humpty changes into golden egg disguise.  The parents laugh when Kitty complains about him not wearing underwear.  In another scene, Puss is in a prison cell.  Believing himself alone, he is “grooming” himself when a voice from the shadows says “Don’t stop on my account.”  We then see Puss sitting hunched over with is his arms wrapped around his knees.

Throughout the movie, there was laughter from kids and adults alike.  It speaks to the cleverness of the writers that often it was both at the same time.  It isn’t likely to achieve the standing of the original film, but it’s definitely as good as the sequels.

Short version.  If you enjoyed Shrek or any of Dreamworks other animated offerings, then this is well worth you time.  Take the kids.  Take yourself and your sense of humor and have a good time with it.

Cheers, Winston

The Fast And The Criminally Stupid

According to the Ottawa Sun, a seventeen year old child was clocked driving 175 kph in an 80 kph zone.   When police stopped him, he had two other minors in the car with him. His license and vehicle have been seized for seven days.  The driver is facing a charge of “stunt driving”.  Actually, it wasn’t his car, it was his parents BMW.  So am I the only one who’s tired of this crap?

This kid will get a slap on the wrist, the parents probably won’t get even that.  In less than a year, he’ll turn eighteen and the entire incident will be officially forgotten.  He will face absolutely no consequences to his actions.  Is there anyone who is going to try and justify that to me?

This child could have killed himself, his passengers and who knows how many others, but none of that matters.  At least not to anyone in the business of passing laws.  The Conservatives talk about getting tough on crime, but there hasn’t been a lot of talk about rewriting the Young Offender laws.  Or putting some actual teeth into the law.  How about some consequences that might mean something?

This kid should have his name smeared across every possible media outlet.  His license should be seized for a lot more than seven days.  How about seven years?  How about a psych evaluation after that before he can get it back?  Let’s make sure he’s a little less self-obsessed, self-absorbed and just generally stupid.  If not, how about we make it a lifetime suspension?  Too much?  I don’t think so.

While we’re at it, how about something similar for impaired driving.  Only for that one, how about a mandatory lifetime suspension?  Too much again?  How about we take a poll of everyone who has lost a family member to an impaired driver?   How about just the people who’ve been crippled, maimed or scarred for life?  I bet they wouldn’t find it too much at all.

Let’s keep in mind that driving isn’t a right, it’s a privilege.  Like any privilege, it has to be earned, and it has to be deserved.  When a privilege is abused, it needs to be revoked.  If it is a serious abuse, that revocation needs to be permanent.

Some people do the right thing because it is right.  Others will only do it if they are sufficiently afraid of what will happen if they don’t.. Under the current laws, there’s nothing there for them to fear.  That needs to change.  It needs to change now, before anyone else dies.

That’s something worth thinking about.

Cheers, Winston

Math For Protesters

The more I see of the Occupy This And That crowd, the more they annoy me.  One of their most annoying habits is claiming to be the “99%”.  Even the most math challenged should be able to understand that this is decidedly not the case.

I’m going to be generous (and lazy) and give them a total of 500,000 protesters in Canada.  Judging from the reports in a variety of media sources, there aren’t that many, but like I say, I’m feeling generous.  A quick Google search for the population of Canada reveals that in 2009 there were 33,739,900 people here.  If you divide the protesters by the population, you find out that the Occupy Whatever movement actually accounts for less than 2% of the available bodies.

Of course, “We are the 99%.” sounds much more impressive than “We are less than 2%.”  But hey, what do I know?  I’m not part of a magazine that specializes in inflammatory, anti-capitalist images and soundbites like AdBusters.  For those of you who hadn’t heard, that’s who’s behind the “spontaneous” Occupy Wall Street movement.  The nice people at AdBusters claim they were inspired by the Tahrir protests in Egypt.  Because of course we have so much in common with people living under a military backed single party system.  Sure we do.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again.  The people in Tahrir square weren’t there because they were too lazy to get involved in the democratic process, they were protesting the total lack of a democratic process to be involved with.  The issue in Canada and the U.S. isn’t that people can’t change the system, it’s that they can’t be bothered.

The tragedy of Democracy is that you end up not with what you wish for, but rather what you deserve.  The system isn’t broken, it’s ignored.  It gets ignored for the same reason our personal debt is so high.  (If you said “Corporate Greed”, consider yourself slapped.)  It’s all because people want short cuts.  They want what they want, and they want it right now.  Thank you very much.

Instead of saving up to buy a house, car and big screen TV or pay their tuition, they borrow and then blame their debt on the “greedy banks” with easy credit and high interest.  Instead of years of political action and organizing and hard, slogging work, they expect the system to change because they spend a few weeks or months camping in a bunch of parks.  Yeah.  That’ll work for sure.

The biggest indicator of how the protests are failing is the media coverage they are receiving.  Think about who owns the major media outlets.  Those nasty, “greedy” corporations.  If the Occupy Yourselves Protesting movement offered even the slightest threat to them, do you think they’d give them any ink at all?  Sure, you’re reading this online,  but answer me this.  Who gets more voting eyeballs, YouTube, or CNN?  That’s my point.  Those big corporations don’t feel threatened because a couple of thousand people in a park are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

They are just another part of the Roman “bread and circuses”.  They occupy the attention of the people and repeat the message that the system is broken.  That means that people won’t engage with the system, and that ensures status quo, and that’s good new for all those evil corporate types.

So to wrap up, the math is pretty clear.  half a million (inflated to salve the organizers egos) divided by thirty four million is not ninety-nine percent.  Nobody voted for you, so you should stop saying you represent the ninety-nine percent.  Next time AdBusters decides to stir people up , it would be nice if they could do it during an election year and try to stir them towards the polling stations.

Oh yeah.  One more quick note.  When movie stars and directors show up in support of people protesting against the “economic divide”, it looks a little bit… what’s the word I want?   Oh yeah…. HYPOCRITICAL!

Cheers, Winston

Technology Can Bring The Past To Life

Lynn and I are incredibly fortunate that our daughter is who she is. She’s not perfect (neither are we), but she’s got some priorities sorted out. She hates the smell of any kind of booze and doesn’t understand people who do drugs. YAY!

Tonight we were talking about stupid things her classmates in college have posted to Facebook and other social networking sites. One girl refers to herself as a “slut” because she enjoys a lot of sex with a lot of guys. Another talks about being constantly “stoned”.

They don’t seem to understand that those things don’t go away. Employers are already using social media searches to help screen potential hires. I’ve done it myself when I was hiring at Blockbuster. At least one person didn’t get hired after I watched a video on his Facebook page. In it, he brags about calling in sick to his then employer so he could hang with his friends and get stoned.

If a store manager at Blockbuster does that, how much more enthusiastic do you suppose corporate or governmental digging might be? It seems safe to say that both the digital record and those who troll it will only become more pervasive as technology advances.

As Lynn pointed out, when her and I were young, only thirty or forty people would see you dancing naked on the coffee table. Now, it’s thirty or forty million, and some of them probably aren’t going to hire you because of it. Technology makes it possible.

When we were young, there was a pretty good chance that your youthful high spirits (stupidity), would stay safely in your past. Today’s technology can bring your past to life.

To make it easier to remember, here’s a little rhyme to keep in mind.

IT’S OKAY TO GET TOASTED, JUST MAKE SURE IT AIN’T POSTED!

Cheers, Winston

Video Games, Virtual Worlds And Stepping Beyond The Real.

As someone who is slightly outside the usual demographic for video gamers, I periodically get asked what the appeal is.  Of course, it’s usually phrased more like, “Don’t you have anything better to do with your life?”  That depends on how you define better.

The short answer is, “Nope.”  Told you it was short.  That’s because it’s the wrong question.  To more usefully address the implied question, I’ll need to address a common misconception.  Video games aren’t actually any worse than golf, clubbing, drinking heavily, watching sports, reading, watching TV or any other pass time.  From the start, they’ve been regarded as a brain destroying waste of time.  Just like all of the things I just mentioned.

With the exception of clubbing, I’ve indulged in all of them.  Oddly enough, I still indulge in most of them on an ongoing basis.  Not so much with the heavy drinking or sports watching, but you get the idea.  The short version is, most of the people who question my use of time, indulge in one or more of these activities themselves.  So why the negative perception of video gaming?  Because we have to blame something.

Let me use dogs to demonstrate that point.  At the moment, Pit Bulls are the “Dangerous Breed”.  Before that, it was Rottweilers, who came after Doberman Pincers, who followed German Shepherds.  The truth is, none of these breeds are particularly dangerous if trained, treated and handled properly.  But people love bad news, so that’s what the media focuses on.  If Dobermans are the evil dog, then the media are going to report every bad Doberman story they can find.  They might publish a hundred stories of Doberman attacks, but only a couple about the thousands of Dobermans who don’t attack anyone.

The same thing is true of video games.  They are just the latest “bad” thing.  The list has included, violence in Bugs Bunny cartoons, TV watching in general, cartoon watching in particular, horror movies, war movies, organized sports, lack of organized sports, reading any book except the Bible etc.  It depends who you talk to and when as to what answer you’ll get.  The simple truth is that there is no “bad” thing on that list.

Video games aren’t “bad”.  It’s how people interact with them and what they choose to invest them with that can lead to problems.  The media happily jump on a story about about an unfortunate young man who became so immersed in a game that he starved to death, or another who spent so much time gaming that his circulation failed and he ultimately died.  Whenever a gamer does something “bad”, it’s the fault of the games and not the person.

For me, video games are an entertainment.  They can provide an emotional outlet.  Like any well executed entertainment, they allow me a brief respite from the everyday.  Not to the exclusion of reality, but as a means to defocus.  Let me clarify.

In an episode of the show “Corner Gas”, the main character announces he is going to take a vacation.  He then takes his lawn chair, suntan oil, cooler etc and sets up on a nearby patch of grass.  When questioned, he refers to it as a “Staycation”.  That’s what video games are for me.  A restful opportunity to recharge my mental and emotional batteries to better deal with the real world.

Sure, I play games where I drive 180 mph, or get trophies for set numbers of head shots, or chuck someone out a window just because I can.  I also play games which involve building cities or civilizations, or solving puzzles or doing other non-violent things.  Each game is enjoyed for it’s own merits.  None of them carry over into the real world except in terms of slightly improved hand/eye coordination or logic processing skills.  Both of which are proven benefits of regular video game playing.

In the real world, I don’t do any of those things.  I don’t even drive, never mind at 180 mph.  I’ve never shot anyone, or anything, or thrown anyone out a window.  I’ve also never piloted a starship between systems, built a pyramid in Thebes, re-fought the Battle of Antietam, or flown a JN-4 Jenny along a mail route through the Appalacian mountains.  I’ve done all of those things in video games.  I’ve enjoyed them immensely.

It’s that ability to step beyond the real that is for me, the true appeal of video games.  As it is for a well written novel, a good movie, or anything else that so fully engages me that it takes me out of the world.  It refreshes my palate for the next serving of life.

Cheers, Winston

Occupying Protesters Are Taking The Easy Route

Okay, you’ve finally got me. I can’t take it any more. Our society is caught in a feedback loop and just like the feedback at a live concert, the whining is driving me nuts.

Someone says, “One percent of the population controls most of the money while the other ninety-nine percent struggles.” and a media person likes it so they make a sound bite out of it.  People hear the sound bite and like it so they repeat it.  More media people hear it being said so they  make a story out of it and even more people hear about it.  Next thing you know, you can’t read a paper without hearing it, and you can’t throw a rock without hitting one of the alleged ninety-percent who are out protesting about it.

According to this movement, the super rich elites took all the money and used it to buy all the politicians and the only way to change it is by having these massive protests.  These three points are what I like to call, delusional; accidentally right, but not for the reasons they think and wrong because it’s bloody stupid.  Now that I’ve annoyed a bunch of folks, let me explain.

First off, the super rich didn’t “take” all the money.  We gave it to them, and we continue to do so every day.  They aren’t evil.  We are gullible.  Bill Gates never forced anyone to use Microsoft Windows or Office.  People chose to give Microsoft, and by extension, Mr. Gates lots of money.  Likewise, the late Steve Jobs didn’t wait for people in dark alleys, steal their wallets and replace them with iPhones.  No hedgefund manager ever came to anyone’s door begging them to invest in their funds.  Banks didn’t force mortgages onto people who had no hope in hell of ever paying them off.  People did those things to themselves.  Blaming the super rich is a way of deluding ourselves by taking up our cultural battle cry of, “It’s not my fault!”

The other favorite cause of financial hardship is “Corporate Greed”.  Talk about delusional, blaming that is like blaming the Easter Bunny for childhood obesity.  There’s no such thing people!  Corporations aren’t greedy because they aren’t people.  It’s called anthropomorphism.  It’s our habit of trying to understand things by assigning human traits to them.  “Corporate Greed” is another way of pretending that none of this is “our” fault.  Surprise!  It is all our fault.  Those greedy corporations are actually all about HUMAN greed.  Before you start thinking about agreeing with that, you need to read on.

It’s not just the executives that are greedy.  That’s the easy out again.  Here’s the truth.  It’s damned near every single one of us.  That’s the truth.  Yes, the executives are in a position to get a visibly larger share than those elsewhere in the organization.  Let’s stop kidding ourselves though, they aren’t the only greedy ones.  If the CEO suddenly decides to give a percentage of the profits to whatever random charity you like, how long do you think he’ll keep his job?  The shareholders are just a greedy as the CEO.  What about the rank and file employees?  Do you think they’d take a pay cut if they knew the money was going directly to fight world hunger?  Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Stop blaming other people.  Stop blaming some imaginary bogeyman.  Accept responsibility for your choices.  We can’t change other people, only ourselves.  If we don’t like our world, it’s up to us to change it.  But it’s almost like the tagline from season one of the TV series “Heroes”, only in this case it’s, “Change yourself.  Change the world!”  Which brings me to my next point.

Do rich and powerful lobbyists use money to influence politics?  Of course they do!  (See, I told you they’re right about that.)  We need to be clear about why they do it though.  No it’s not because they are corrupt, or politicians are weak, or because the New World Order told them to.  Nope.  The reason once again is closer to home.  All those people who whine that the system is broken so there’s no point in participating,  they give carte blanche to the lobbyists and the politicians to work out any deal they like.  The system isn’t going to change itself, it’s up to the voters to do it.  So if you can organize thousands of protesters all over the country, how come you can’t get them to the polls.  It’s votes that put politicians in office. Organize block voting, and you could have a huge impact on who gets into office and who gets out.  But it’s a hell of a lot easier to sit in a tent in the park and blame the super rich and corporate greed.  Which brings me to my last point.

Protesting may raise awareness.  I doubt it, but it might.  Do you really believe that everyone else is so stupid that they won’t realize there’s a problem if you don’t camp in a park?  I recently lost my job because of greedy people making bad decisions.  Do you think I didn’t know that was a bad thing?  The biggest annoyance out of all this is the massive self-righteous arrogance of the protesters.  The idea that they are more aware or enlightened than the rest.  If everyone else understood what they do, we’d all be out there.  Well, not all of us would.  I know I wouldn’t because I understand something they don’t.  The protests won’t work because shortcuts never do.  If you really want to change things, you have to do the heavy lifting just like everyone else.

They’ll find out that taking the easy route almost never takes you where you want to go.  What they should really be occupying are some political activism workshops.  Maybe someone can host a few in a tent in a park.  Have fun with that.

Cheers, Winston