stuartandabby's Xanga

Expressions I couldn't care less for

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:16:19 GMT

These are from political signs and commercials in my area:

VOTE YES FOR ISSUE X
NO NEW TAXES
-I don't care if they are old or new taxes, I don't want to pay them. The last time we voted and this passed, they probably were new taxes. This is about as blatantly deceptive as advertising gets imo.

But it reflects the masses the sign is meant to persuade. "X is a good thing, and we don't have to pay for it. Why would I vote no?"

I'm also bothered by the fact that people who want an issue passed have every incentive (usually $ is a big part of the equation) to get it passed. They stand to benefit from it. However, the people who stand to lose from it stand to lose disproportionately. We're getting nickel-and-dimed. But who's going to pay for billboards and commercials and such to hopefully discourage people from getting something passed. Why pay a lot of money now to try and dissuade the public from costing you less money dragged out over the course of your lifetime?

And no one is taught in schools how to think critically about politics. At least, in my experience, that's the case. We go through civics and history yet, when we come out on the other side, how equipped are we for doing our part?

"People who want you to vote against issue x claim this. These are the real facts..."
This gets on my nerves because the "facts" that she presents that follow don't negate those presented by the opponents. They merely change the subject.

And quit calling facts "real." Our facts are more real. Pfft.

"I'm so-and-so from the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police. Why would I support this if it weren't true?"
Because you're an idiot. If you hold the superior position, explain why instead of expecting me to do your bidding just because of who you are. All you're really doing is lowering my opinion of your little club.

I think the commercials would be more effective if they acknowledged the validity to the other side's point, but then went on to show why it didn't make strong enough of a case.

Well, at least I don't have to see it anymore for a while now because today was election day. I didn't vote either. I tried checking online to see if I was registered (I'm not sure how I would have become unregistered exactly), but it looked like I wasn't. Maybe it had something to do with us moving (even though we moved to property adjacent to our previous residence). I mean, I'm a fan of voting, especially a) when I'm firmly behind a vote (when I think neither option is really worthwhile (cough*every presidential election I've been able to vote in*cough), it's not as big of a deal to me) and b) when it's local (instead of my vote having an astronomically low chance of making a difference, it has a slightly less incredibly insane chance of making a difference).

Before I wrap it up, I'd like to say that I hate all Scope, Listerine, or fill-in-the-blank mouthwash commercials ever. They're all the same (except the one with Ryan Seacrest, which is equally retarded, but not the same old rubber stamp). I'm looking at random people from a diversity day event gargling at the camera like it's their bathroom sink. And they act zany (I say that in the most agonizing way possible.) And they try to make it look like it's fun and it leaves them with a great feeling mouth.

Guess what, guys? I've done the mouthwash thing before. No matter how you spin it, I know what it does, and I'll pass. If I buy any, it'll be because the dentist told me that I'm dying of gingivitis or something.

And since we're on the subject, I saw a commercial for Oral B electric toothbrushes (starting at $22). Yeah, so, $22 worth of toothbrushes would last me a life time. I actually wouldn't need that much because I usually go from dentist check-up to dentist check-up without replacing them. I'd just have to buy one for every time I lost one. I really am not buying the idea that magic vibrations and battery power and a chunk of money are going to be the difference between cavities and a hollywood smile. That all being said, what really got under my skin was the lady saying something about wanting that "fresh from the dentist feeling." Who wants that? I always feel like I have sand and silly putty in my mouth after the dentist. I want a "I just ate a pound of candy feeling" in my mouth (except Sour Skittles because they start to hurt my tongue).

Tee Hee

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:12:55 GMT

This has a Bible theme and pokes at vegans. How could I not find it funny?

Toothpaste dispenser

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:02:20 GMT

Has anyone seen the commercial for that one?

Infomercials start with creating a problem (usually in black and white). This commercials talks about how horrible toothpaste is. The tube is evidently a terribly troublesome contraption to operate that results in you making an incredible mess.

After working in food service, I actually believe that there are people out there who are this messy. But here's a hint, the tube isn't the problem.

To sweeten the deal, they toss in a Sonic 4x toothbrush. /blink

/blink blink

A.k.a., the "sound four times" toothbrush. I'm not sure anything could get my teeth cleaner.

Oh wait.

A sonic 4x toothbrush with the (patented! awesome!) toothpaste dispenser.

That'll complete my bathroom set when paired with my toilet paper holder/reacher thing (ridiculous).

Any time when you think most people aren't half bad, realize that people who make those infomercials sell quite a few products.

CNN thought fodder

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:09:01 GMT

I saw some muted story (it was at work) on CNN about washing your hands. Its subtitle was something like, "Washing your hands may halt disease," or something like that. Thanks CNN, what would we do without you?

In my experience, washing hands only matters if you've been around sick people, feces, or raw meat. And even then, it's not a guarantee. I've eaten raw bacon, raw eggs, etc. Somehow I managed to live. Didn't even get sick.

The times I tend to be most susceptible to sickness are when I've not gotten enough sleep.

I think I may upgrade to Windows 7. It's more what I want out of my OS (much like my government), smaller, simpler, less resource hogging, faster. I *think* I can do so for less than full price since I just got Vista last year with this rig (I wasn't going to hold out on a machine for an OS that wasn't coming out for a year). I guess I could have signed up for beta, but I'm more of a finished product sort of guy, esp when it comes to computers.

I saw another story on CNN about the federal gov't mellowing out on marijuana (go go CNN and alliteration). And what they meant by mellowing out was that they were making it so that what California had legalized re: medical marijuana would, oh I don't know, be the final word. In case you were unaware, the federal gov't did some drug raids on legitimate medical marijuana suppliers because it was against federal regulations (even though they were acting within the allowances of California's laws). I got a little annoyed when I read one of the comments left by a reader on the interwebz. It said some crap about marijuana being a terrible drug and the new president being soft on drugs. >.>

Nevermind the legitimate uses it has. Nevermind that many prescription drugs are abused for their euphoric effects (in fact, some are prescribed specifically for those reasons). Certain drugs have been demonized by our society. I could sit here and describe in detail some of the effects of a substance without giving away the name and I could get people calling for its illegalization (and sounding silly when I named them; alcohol comes to mind). Ofc, it would be more rhetorically powerful if I did that instead of talking about it, but I don't feel like doing the work.

But it's the same type of thinking people have who want to ban sugar, soda, etc. If you want to be a health nazi in your house (the mom of the kid who cuts up apple slices for guests and offers them Ovaltine and Sunny D), by all means, go for it. But don't ruin everyone else's time. Mind your own business.

Soft on drugs. Pfft. You know what I want? A president who is not soft on states' rights or personal freedoms. And I want citizens who tend to their own business, not everyone else's.

Ofc, while I'm listing stances I'd like the president to exhibit, how about limited government? And an intention to fix the world's problems by not being a part of the problem. Inhibiting and overregulating ftl. Bureaucracy can get hit by a bus for all I care.

Last thing. There was a story about breast cancer awareness. I hate the word awareness when it's attached to certain events. "It's autism awareness week." "It's dogs-getting-beaten-by-mean-owners awareness month." "It's awareness awareness day." Hey guys, I'm aware of breast cancer now. Cool. Now I can go to sleep tonight knowing that I'm aware of something I need to be aware of. I know that I can perhaps one day get it. And I know that if I get it, I'll figure it out sooner or later. And I'll hope the doctors are really aware of it.

I'm just missing the whole "awareness" idea. Raising money? I get the point. Awareness? Who isn't aware of cancer? If they aren't, what does it matter? They'll go to the doctor when they start hurting in one place or another. And if they don't, that's their call. And if they want to expose themselves (haha) to carcinogens of one type or another, or they want to try to avoid every possible cancer-causing agent ever (each of which should be illegalized btw), more power to them.

[Disclaimer: I understood being aware of certain things can help you catch a disease sooner.]

I hope you guys are now aware of my thoughts on these matters now. Now send me a check so I can research it further.

A couple of fun things to share

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:04:00 GMT

For starters, forgive me for harping on and on about "The House of the Rising Sun" and Apocalyptica. I guess I'm not really harping on and on, though I've posted comments on here and facebook occasionally about them.

The reason behind it is my iPod is screwed up. The wheel doesn't work. So, to listen to music as it stands, I have to either go from Music > Playlists > Abby's Girl Music and hit play or just hit play on Music, which starts alphabetically. The Animals are first with "The House of the Rising Sun." And then it's a bunch of Apocalyptica songs. I have hit forward a nonsensical amount of times, but the drive on the thing doesn't keep up with how many times I press it. It stutters and then just sets me down 6 or so songs down the list (not many out of ~1400). I haven't made it past Collective Soul (though in all fairness, I usu don't listen to it for extended periods of time, just while doing dishes, shaving my head, or what have you). Plus, after I don't hit play for several hours, it resets.

I could link it up with iTunes and make a playlist entitled "Aardvark" or something like that, but I don't feel like it. It's a lot of work given how little I listen to the thing.

But, anyway, here I am, listening to that song and those songs with a hint of regularlity. I miss Fear Factory and Metallica (though for the latter I get a pseudo dose and the radio is sometimes obliging). Led Zep gets played at work and on the classic rock stations, so that's nice.

Okay, so what I wanted to share. The first is a part of "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Apocalyptica. It's not as cool if your speakers aren't that great. Anyway, I love the part at 2:16 where the other cellos drop out and the bass is the only one going. Good times.

The other thing is the organ solo from "The House of the Rising Sun" by The Animals. It totally reminds me of the NES game Gunsmoke every time I hear it. It starts around 1:43.

Btw, anyone have any thoughts on the lyrics at 1:34-35? I've looked on the interwebz and have read different words. "Now the only thing a gambler needs is a suitcase and a trunk / and the only time he's satisfied is when he's _______." "On a drunk" is my best guess (and what I saw most often. Maybe it's a retired expression or just one I'm not familiar with.

Oh, and I think the stage is hilarious. It reminds me of "Jesus is a Friend of Mine" or whatever that song is called. I guess that's how everyone rolled ~40 years ago.

Hey Inigo, I hope we win

Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:50:04 GMT

Spoiler alert: I watched Inglorious Basterds finally and some of this post will in some ways give away the ending. But I'm not starting that part yet. I decided to save that part for the bottom so you can read some other useless drivel before you get to that. I'd hate for you not to want to read the spoiler and accidentally do so while searching for where I pick up in the clear. I guess I could do it other ways, but this is how I'm doing it.

First, I'll post a couple of videos from the World Magnetic Tour in Cincy from a few weeks ago. I may do more later, but now I'm just posting some clips from "One." We did the opening and the second half (we were working with limited batteries and storage).

One Part 1 from Abby Paul on Vimeo.

One Part 2 from Abby Paul on Vimeo.

Ahh. Wasn't that lovely?

Anyway. I went to the movies today. When I was driving along the road that goes around the mall, this car in the right lane started coming over in my lane, so I gunned it and moved over to the left to get around it. Right as I pass her and get back over to the right of the yellow line, this mall security guy turns onto the road and gives me the stink eye. I look like the lawbreaker because I had to manuever around some girl who doesn't know how to drive (/hold tongue). He turned on his light and turned, but it evidently wasn't to follow me. Whatever. At least she didn't hit me.

Also, during the movie, it cut off towards the end. It was probably stopped for ~10 minutes. That's always fun.

I had something else to share, but I lost it. Sadness.

Okay, onto the spoiler part.

I loved the movie. And I loved how it ended "happily." I watched Valkyrie recently, and in addition to the fact that I just didn't find it that enjoyable, I didn't care for the ending. Now, I realize it was trying to be somewhat true to history, and I respect that. But who likes for the bad guy to get away? No one. That's who. Justice is godly. Sometimes the "justice" at the end of movies is tainted with revenge or whatever, but we like to see people who harm others get what they deserve. Especially when they're unrepentant.

And this movie delivers. Granted, some people still die. But it was great. Especially since I wasn't expecting it since that's not what happened at all (though I'm guessing some people will think so now).

I always find it ironic when people who hunt down Jews like vermin want mercy and sympathy. Makes me think of the unforgiving servant. I'm also amazed when people can kill others unprovoked. What part of you has to die to be able to stomach that?

I loved the projection going into the smoke. That was baller.

And Hugo shoving his fist into that dude's throat was probably the most disturbing image that's been in my head since abortion footage from Lake of Fire and the "Put your mouth on the curb!" bit from American History X.

America's Next Ugly Model

Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:59:13 GMT

Not so much lately, but there have been times in the past where Abby had America's Next Top Model on. I was always amazed at how out of the whole lot, there were maybe 1-2 girls I found attractive. I couldn't figure out how it was that this show was supposed to be about finding beautiful women and yet they fail so hard.

Then I thought about who some of the judges and other cast members were.

Yeah. No idea.

Just Be

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:23:31 GMT

Around 1996, Calvin Klein had some commercials to promote their fragrance "Be." Kate Moss was in one of them. It ended with them saying, "Just be." [On a side note, I spent I don't know how long looking for a SNL commercial that was a parody of a CK ad. It turns out it was Compulsion (about an OCD woman who had to clean everything, narrated by Phil Hartman) making fun of Obsession. Then I realized after all that searching, it was only distantly related to the whole "just be" thing.]

I really don't have much of an idea what the whole "Be" thing is all about as CK saw it. I don't really care. They were selling a brand, an image, when in my mind, a fragrance either smells good or it doesn't. Maybe they made bookoos (btw, I had to look up the spelling on that one; the French doesn't really represent where that's coming from, so I used the Southern slang version (according to the dictionary)) of money by posturing it like that. It wouldn't have been my money though. Function > form in my book most of the time.

But I'm going to hijack the idea for my purposes as I'm fond of doing. And I think the idea is mentioned regularly enough, but I'm not really sure how much it sinks in. At any rate, I find it to be a comforting teaching.

I think too often our way of relating to God is focused on doing and not being. I'm not harping on justification by faith as opposed to works here. At all. That's really not even in the picture, so please don't take it there. But we think of "being close to God" or growing spiritually in terms of what we do.

Instead, we should focus on being. Being is what it's about. Doing should follow from being. Otherwise, it misses the point in my mind.

I don't gauge my relationship with my wife by how well I get down the honey-do list. People don't say, "How are things with Abby?" and I say, "Well, I cooked dinner twice last week." I don't say that because, well, usually it's not true, but also because that's not answering the question.

I think Jesus is pointing to this when he is talking to the Pharisees in Mt. 23:23-28. [Just an aside. I try not to hate on the Pharisees too much. Ever since I went to college, maybe even some before that, I noticed that people liked to rag on those guys. I may have jumped in some too. But what bothered me is how much people like to call other people Pharisees. Or compare themselves to the Pharisees. And in the back of my mind I hear, "God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector these Pharisees." I don't think the value in Jesus' rebukes of the Pharisees, for me at least, is so much that I can feel good about myself, but so that I can purge those qualities from my life.]

I decided to do a new paragraph even though that whole bracket is an aside. But who wants that paragraph to be bigger with two different ideas?

First, Jesus points out that they faithfully tithe from their herb garden. Yay for tithes! What better way to quantify holiness than with a concrete, round 10%? And these guys are so standupish that they don't hold anything back from God. But what good is some oregano if your life is lacking justice, mercy, and faithfulness? Spices are pretty important in cooking, but they couldn't salvage the dishes that were the Pharisees' lives. (Yes, I know, that is a very lame mixed metaphor. Very lame. I thought about deleting it, but I figured you'd get over that part if I was apologetic about it.)

Keeping with my theme here, they were focused on doing. They could point to their lives and say, "Look, see? We did x just like baby Jesus asked." (I know they wouldn't say that like that exactly.) But their lives were lacking the right attitude/heart.

Then Jesus compares their management of their lives to cleaning the outside of dirty dishes or tombs.

I'm a pretty...ahhh...grody dude. I usu shower every other day. I have some pants that haven't been washed in years (if I don't get sweaty in them and they pass the smell test, why go to that trouble?) And sometimes, I reuse dirty dishes, esp if it was mine and I knew what I used it for.

However, they're not filthy. Even I have standards. But think about having to eat out of a nasty bowl. Nasty. Bowl. What if the person serving you the food points out how clean it is on the outside.

Or think of tombs. You can bleach the rock, but no matter how white and shiny it is, it doesn't change what's on the inside. Or caskets. Some people pay thousands for a box that will be buried. It can be a real eye-catcher, but it is just a resting place for a rotting corpse. No matter how good it looks, it's got nothing but death on the inside.

The Pharisees were greedy and self-indulgent. They were hypocritical and wicked. And Jesus saw right through it. He was not thrown off by their veneer.

And the veneer is doubly sad. For one thing, it was not a solution. It didn't change things. But what's worse is that it wasn't just neutral; it was negative. The Pharisees fooled themselves with the veneer and had themselves convinced that they were holy people.

[So often people who get political in a morally conservative way want to whitewash America imo. Who cares what the hearts of the people are like? We have to pass laws that would make OT Israel proud, amirite? Personally, I'm not concerned about what laws are passed as far as morals go. I want to wash the inside of the cup, and I don't really want the government to interfere one way or the other.]

So, yeah, just be. Back on topic. I hate for the Christian life to be reduced to a performance chart. It cheapens it. It's about a relationship in my mind, and that's not how I treat loving relationships.

I'm not calling for licentiousness and apathy. And some of those activities can reflect positively or negatively upon the status of the relationship. But they are not the relationship itself.

I don't want Christians to go around thinking, "I should do x/shouldn't do y because...". I want them to go around being conformed to Christ. I don't feed my kid because good parents are supposed to; I do it because I love him (and truth be told, because I want him to quit crying because I hate that sound; I'm still working on the love thing).

24/7

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:49:22 GMT

So, every now and then, especially on commercials, I hear the expression "24/7." I hate it. You know why? Think Limp Bizkit. "Rollin'."

"24/7 never beggin' for a raincheck. Old school soldiers blasting out the hot..."

Yeah. Like four of you get the idea. EVERY time I hear that expression, I hear that line.

An issue Ohioans are voting on in November is whether or not to let some out-of-state people come in and set up casinos. One of the commercials supporting the issue has a former Ohio treasurer disputing a point made by the opposite side (who claim that there are tax loopholes in the legislation). She says something to the effect of, "Believe me. I've worked for the gov't. There's no way they'll let them get around paying up on their taxes." It's funny to me how transparent they can be when they're arguing for something else. [Btw, I think I'm voting against it, not because I'm against casinos, but because I am against the terms. It's not legalizing casinos. It's legalizing one in each of four cities in Ohio (the three C's and Toledo). Casino monopolies ftl. The gov't should just step out of the way, but ofc, they're going to get their hands in it.]

I saw an episode of Lie to Me. [I don't watch it regularly, just every now and then. It's pretty decent.] Anyway, statutory rape came up along with a little bit of distributing child porn. [They also took some potshots at God in the secondary plotline that dealt with cults. Nothing like weaksauce, trite arguments.]

Regarding the statutory rape, I'll be honest. I have a hard time wanting to enforce such laws. I'm not advocating all teenage girls be open for business, but I get annoyed when I hear about guys facing litigation for having a girlfriend a couple years (or months) younger than they are. And if the girl is dishonest about her age, I really have a problem arresting the guy.

I've also read some about a lot of teens and such getting into pretty serious trouble for sexting, esp with pics of underage girls (that the girls sent to them). Then, they get burned by child pornography laws that were written with no such thing in mind. I love it when laws become more important than the reason they were written. Makes me think of "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." At some point I think it would be worthwhile for me to tease out some more of the thoughts behind that passage.

Two thoughts I struggle to reconcile

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 04:11:50 GMT

The thoughts are below:
1) Coercion is wrong (particularly regarding violence/pacifism)
2) Government welfare programs are good
You may want to tack "in general" on those. Saying people hold x and y beliefs absolutely is rarely a safe bet. Often the nuances people put on otherwise absolute statements are the key to understanding where they're coming from.

Also, I'll be speaking from a Christian perspective to those generally with a Christian perspective as well (though there is some things that would go for unbelievers as well).

I don't hold these positions (1 and 2), but my goal isn't to rail on them (that much). My goal is to explain why I'm not sure how someone can argue in favor of both positions.

Please note, I'm not trying to construct straw figures. The extent to which I do reflects not how stupid the other side is but rather a lack of my understanding of people who hold the positions or ones similar to them.

So, with #1, I get the idea from some (not all, mind you) pacifists that a major point of contention with using force to stop a wrongdoer (i.e., someone wrongfully (I understand that word is loaded; get over it please) harming another person) is that you are not honoring their will. You're disrespecting their freedom and robbing them of dignity. You are trying to bring about the good with force, which is self-defeating. You are trying to bring about godly objectives by using worldly means. However, respecting someone's volition, even if it is evil/not good, is paramount. You cannot change them (or, their hearts more specifically) by overpowering. You have to help bring them to a place where they desire to change themselves. Your willingness to suffer may impact them and help them change their course, but even if it does not, you have done what is right.

That's an unpacking of what I mean in idea #1. Coercion is not an acceptable tool, even if it's used in hopes of bringing about good.

Now, let's flesh out #2 and then I'll try to explain how I personally find the two (as I understand them) to be incompatible.

Some people do not have access to quality medical care. Others struggle to afford what almost seems to be a necessity in our culture: a college education, a car, a house, etc. Even worse, some have really ended up in a bad spot and are without food or shelter. And it doesn't stop there. A lot of these people are children who are in no way responsible for their plight.

In come politicians. They have their hands on the purse strings. And the government is a massive entity. It's funded by virtually everyone (for those in income brackets that are low enough, they still pay sales taxes and the like). Trillions of dollars stand ready.

And who wouldn't be for enacting and financing programs that seek to remedy these societal woes? How heartless can one be? Jesus told us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. Is this not the work we have been called to do? If the infrastructure and resources are available, why not use such a massive entity to achieve those ends? Isn't the idea of a society where all children go to sleep in warm beds with full stomachs something we should all be in favor of? Especially in a country so rich and technologically advanced as our own? Having the ability to bring comfort to those in need yet choosing not to is dereliction of one's duties, and this is a major opportunity, so it's major neglect.

Okay. So those are the two positions, more or less, as I'll be presenting them. Now for the rub.

What feeds the government machine? Where do these mountains of resources come from?

I am of the opinion that not enough people give enough thought to this question.

The government takes money from its citizens by force. I am not saying this is necessarily wrong. I think Caesar gets his cut.

Here's my problem, especially in light of the whole coercion thing: how can someone advocate their government forcefully (and taxes are taken forcefully; if you don't pay them, you go to prison; if you refuse, they have guns, billy clubs, etc). taking money from its citizens for the purpose of welfare? I see this as people encouraging #1 to bring about #2, even though they think #1 is wrong.

Obviously I am simplifying things. Many people have awkward, multi-faceted approaches to the government. Perhaps since God uses governments to bring about his purposes (though the governments themselves are unholy affronts to His truly), it's okay to use the money for social justice (I'm not trying to get into it here; that expression, though, will resonate with many who like #2) even though how it was gotten was less than desirable.

Do people argue for this in church? In my church background, a lot of congregations have benevolence committees. These are made up of a few people in the church who are given charge over a cut of the church budget. When people in need (sometimes congregation members, sometimes not) are brought to their attention, they often dole some funds to help them along. So, why don't we see (and maybe people do this in some places) people arguing for a progressive tithe (I understand tithe, by definition, means 10%, but understand I'm using it flexibly)? And a tithe that will be enforced at that? Why aren't benevolence committees given ever-expanding budgets? Why is it left up to the givers to give cheerfully? Why not force people to give since it is our mission to help the downtrodden?

I believe #1 is often true (though there are not a few times when I think coercion is called for; we won't go into that too much). I believe that robbing the rich to pay the poor is wrong. I believe that supporting government pilfering to accomplish a "good" is missing the point. Sacrificing one virtue to fund another means losing ground.

I also believe that gov't welfare programs often cause and perpetuate more problems than they solve, but that is another discussion.

I'm not saying Jesus was libertarian. I'm not saying he wasn't or that he was something else, either. I'm not saying you can't hold to #1 and #2. I'm saying I have problems with unqualified approval of either. I'm also saying I think the two will have a harder time being together than Romeo and Juliet ever did.