We've come how far?

Class of 2003, do you still recognize these tubes, what they hold inside? I do. Pogs. I saw these sitting on my desk. Do you still have yours? How old were we when these things were popular? Fourth or fifth grade maybe? Anyway, I've kept mine all these years, and they've just been waiting for the muse to inspire me with some pseudo-ironic-retro project to use them in. Until that time, they sit alone, and unused and unwanted, like so many fads.

The point of all this is that seeing these Pogs today made me think of elementary school fads in a broader sense. It was about 15 years ago, when *everyone* I knew just had to have these things. Even then I rarely bought into fads like these (lack of funds), but this one was different. Despite my meager allowance (I recall receiving $5 every 2 weeks), I could still afford pogs. They sold for like 10 cents each in a bin a Marc's. Finally a fad that even the poor kids could take part in.

I recall that pogs even received some national media converage, just as mass media was really coming into its own during the early to mid-nineties. The coverage was pretty evenhanded as I remember, some focusing on the origin of the fad (I think it pointed to Hawaii, but i was like 10 at the time. No memory from that long ago is untainted by the lens of the present). Yet other coverage focused on the negative aspects of the fad, things like it being a intro to gambling (you could "play for keeps"), or fighting over who-stole-who's-10-cent-disc-of-cardboard or some other inane garbage like that (some kids are extremely possessive, going even the step further to attempt to possess the unpossessible. Thanks a lot consumer culture). But largely it (being pogs) was a safe and inexpensive fad.

Today however, look at the current fads among school-age kids being covered in the media. The choking game? Raiding mommy's medicine cabinet? Are you serious?!? We had pogs! Pogs! Or toward the end of my school-age years, Pokemon cards. Either way simple pieces of cardboard. What has happened to us?

Not to mention that the media fuels all of this. I know that parents need to be informed about the threats that their children face, its a legitimate concern. But frankly, its irresponsible . Take the choking game for example. I found out about it for the first time talking to a swim team parent back home after I had blacked out briefly on the pool deck. She said the way I looked reminded her of what would happen when they would purposely help each other to blackout (for the purpose of a "high") in girls scouts when she was younger. The point of that story is this: I was 20 at the time. I had lived 20 years of my life at the time, and never even new that "the choking game" was a thing. And by the time I knew about it, I was old enough to know that purposely causing yourself to blackout was, to put it mildly, a stupid idea.

Back to the irresponsible media. Its irresponsible to broadcast these pieces during the evening news because there are kids watching. And sure the news focuses on the negative aspects of these trends (risk of death, etc.), but they always mention why these negative behaviors are being performed in the first place, to achieve a perceived high. Many (I suspect most) kids think in terms of pleasure, not pain. What I mean is that even though the news report said a dozen times that this activity is dangerous and shouldn't be done, the kids mind shut down the moment he heard the single potentially fun thing about it. The purported high. Once that happened, the kid's mind shut off all the negatives, and started thinking about all the fun he could be having. OK, thats kind of a "choking-game" orientated response, and in no way absolves parents of their parental duties, but lets consider the recent trend of prescription drug abuse among minors.

When I was younger the thought had literally never occurred to me that sneaking a few of daddy's pain pills could make me feel gooooooood. But if there
had been a had report describing (please read the following with a sarcastic tone) the all encompassing pleasures of prescription meds back in 1995, things could have been different. I don't think these things things come naturally to kids. A two year old may eat some pills and die, but the toddler ate the pills because it puts literally everything in its mouth (seriously, you've got to watch that), not because it was looking dull the pain of its new molars coming in, or mommy no longer paying so much attention to it because of the new baby. Did you just read the last sentence? That notion is insane. Sure, I've already claimed that kids are just looking to have fun with the decisions they make. But look at it this way. Does choking yourself or taking medicine appear fun on the exterior?

NO! So lets leave it that way. We do not need to suggest that it could be.

I got here from pogs, POGS for crying out loud. But it all comes to this. If I get any, any choice at all in the current fad sweeping through our school systems a few years down the road when I have kids, I choose pogs. No matter how stupid or inane they may be.

Join the crowd

Attack ads are the name of the game right now, and false, misleading statements about my choice for president have been flying around like crazy right now. They're saying things like "he's an out of touch liberal elitist" and "he doesn't understand middle america."

I AM middle america. Obama is the candidate that understands me the most. I grew up in a post-industrial rust belt town of ~10,000 people. We have 3 story brick buildings in our downtown. Our city is bascially surrounded by corn and soybean fields. Northeast Ohio at its best. The very definition of middle america. My families income while I was growing up was right at the US median. Middle America through and through. Barack understands my hopes and dreams, and doesn't talk to me as if I am ignorant, like the other do. Thats why I support him.

To demonstrate my continued support, as a Middle-American, I pledged another $25 to be donated to match the contribution of a new donor. You could be that donor.

you decide

sorry for the lack of pictures recently. But I'm becoming a bit of news junkie, and just have to point out right-winged hypocrisy when it exists (yes, I know that ALL political interests are guilty of hypocrisy. It just seems that the right is more adept at pointing out the flaws of the left than vice-versa).

Anyway, check out this article.

I'll highlight the key BS involved with it, with added emphasis through bold or italics.

"'I am pro-life and an advocate for the rights of man everywhere in the world,' McCain told the Conservative Political Action Conference in February. 'Because to be denied liberty is an offense to nature and nature's Creator.'

_Gay rights. McCain opposes gay marriage. True, he does not support a federal ban on gay marriage on grounds the issue traditionally has been decided by states. But McCain worked to ban gay marriage in Arizona. He also supports the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and he opposed legislation to protect gay people from job discrimination or hate crimes."

If anyone can logically explain how the views expressed in the second paragraph can mesh without conflicting with the quote in the first paragraph, kudos to you. "...to be denied liberty is an offense to nature and nature's Creator." I agree entirely with that statement. It is as near an absolute truth as mortals are capable of uttering. Yet, are not the rights of our homosexual brothers and sisters also subject to that statement. By forbidding their marriages and civil unions, and denying them the tax benefits of combining household incomes, are we not denying their liberty, the liberty that all other Americans have the advantage of? What if the fetus grows up, and discovers that they prefer an alternate lifestyle? That fetus' liberty, its right to life, was fiercely protected by the right-wing, only for it to grow up to be regarded with disdain by the very same people who fought hard to protect it. Open question to the right, How can you rationalize that? It simply doesn't add up.

In the interest of disclosure. I myself am also personally opposed to abortion. I would never personally recommend to someone I knew to obtain an abortion. That said, I believe that its the sole business of 3 individuals, the woman, her doctor, and God (yeah I'm that way, deal with it). My personal conscience never enters into the equation, and neither do the consciences of every legislator everywhere. If the woman is able to live with herself, fine. If the doctor can life with him/herself performing hundreds of abortions, fine. Its up to God to judge for the hereafter, and my opinion, and the opinion of the government, doesn't affect His final ruling.

Think about the issues and then think about the hypocrisy involved. The hypocrisy of the current Republican social agenda is the major reason that I self identify as a left-leaning independent.

Also, I believe that the campaign cycle is getting absolutely out of hand. Seriously 2 years of campaigning for public office? We've got to start limiting this, we're wasting too much money that could have been spent on something more useful, like infrastructure improvements/repair.

With that in mind, it is my absolute pleasure to announce my candidacy as an independent (barring formation of a viable third-party) for the office of President of the United States of America for the 2020 election year.

o rly?

I read an article this morning. Well, I read the first couple of paragraphs and had a massive "O RLY" moment, because I quickly became aware that the market analysts involved are completely removed from reality on the street.

Here's the opening paragraph of said article: "The U.S. trade deficit unexpectedly rose for a second straight month in February as a big jump in imports of foreign-made cars offset the first decline in oil imports in a year."

The next paragraph goes on to explain, that analysts were suprised, as they expected foreign imports to decline, alongside the souring domestic economy.

To me, the reasons for that not to be true are many and obvious. Allow me to demonstrate the logic behind my lack of surprisedness(c).

1) The domestic economy is stagnant, if not in recession. Conventional wisdom suggests that consumers limit decrease their consumption of luxury items, such as foreign cars. However,

2) Oil prices (and thus gasoline prices) are regularly setting record highs, and have been off and on for some time now.

3) I think everyone can agree that in general, American made automobiles have rubbish fuel economy. Last night I saw a commercial advertising the amazing fuel economy of some small american SUV (I don't remember which one, I wasn't impressed). It managed to achieve a staggering 25 MPG highway. My much larger Explorer got around 20 MPG highway before the transmission went bad, and it was made in 1994!!! 25 MPG highway is not, and will never be a significant event in auto manufacture, unless it comes in the form of an Abrams Tank. Meanwhile, as the american BIG 3 are high-fiving themselves over small SUVs attaining 25 MPG, and a very few more sensible passenger cars getting into the low 30 MPG range (take the Impala for one) while competing over who can make the biggest MAN (compensation) truck, the Japanese and Koreans have be putting out fuel efficient, competitively priced vehicles for more than a decade. Not to mention its a safe bet that these foreign cars will spend less time in the repair bay than their American equivalents.

4) The reason conventional wisdom fails in this case, is that foreign imports implies luxury vehicles, your BMWs, Mercedes, that sort of thing. I would wager that imports of luxuriously appointed vehicles probably has fallen off. But given that Hybrids and other ultra high efficiency autos can't stay on car lots, and these types of cars are overwhelmingly foreign, the net gain in foreign import cars is unsurprising, if not expected.

5) Basically what I'm trying to say is that the rapidly rising cost of gasoline is relentlessly driving consumers to more fuel efficient vehicles. The kind of vehicles that are simply not offered in any real quantity by American manufacturers.

I suppose this kind of leads to another O RLY rant. The failing American auto industy, and its resistance to make the kind of changes necessary to become competitive again. But I'll save that for another day.

The inspiration for today's post.
Trade deficit wider; jobless claims drop

WTH!

This is one thats been brewing for quite some time now.

I was browsing the channel guide for Cartoon Network, trying to figure out why my DVR failed to record my saturday night anime that I usually watch Sunday afternoon (Death Note is a great show), when I saw that the Cartoon Network movie was Jurassic Park III. Now, I'm a fan of cartoons, so CN is one of my favorite cable channels, but I lose some respect for them when they pull this stuff (and they've been doing it for a while now. Out of Jimmy's Head, anyone). Anyway, last time I checked, Jurassic Park III, was a live action film, with a few special effects that could be considered animation, but not nearly enough to consider it a cartoon, AT ALL. It's called the Cartoon Network, I expect it to feature cartoons, not live action.

C'mon Cartoon Network, live up to your name. I'm calling you out.