Big Wide World

i know i mentioned this the other day, but i don't watch the news. and everyday i'm convinced of why. take the fox network. do these people even have to have an education to work there? or do they have to just look decent on camera? i mean really, the crap that i hear coming out of their mouths is just incredible (in the bad way - and if you work at Fox, yes there is a good and bad way of using the word incredible).

you know what comes to mind , the Wizard of Oz, "I wish i had a brain".

i was watching some clips about the wire tapping of civil society in america. and one Fox reporter said something to the effect of (this is not an exact quote but pretty close to it) - ITS BETTER FOR THEM (the government) TO COLLECT THE NUMBERS THAN IT IS TO COLLECT THE WRECKAGE.

i'm sorry. what?

did we just go from a to z? was that an illogical argument? was that a slippery slope conclusion? was that more emotional blackmail? more fear? more bullshit?

yes, i think it clearly was. its right up there with "if you smoke marijuana you'll end up doing heroin and become a hooker selling yourself for money and having a pimp beat you up, and you'll end up on the street and some guy will come along for a trick and he'll stab you and leave you dead in a ditch somewhere."

i mean, honestly, do people still believe this crap. spying on your own citizens is a break down in society, and it does not mean that if you don't do it, you can't prevent another 911 from happening.

the way to think this through (for those that believe the a to z story) is simple. Identify the proposition (P) being refuted and identify the final event in the series of events. Then show that this final event need not occur as a consequence of P.

we live in a society in which the government or the elite say - this is the problem X - then they say - this is how to solve it - A or B. they try to prevent you from thinking. and often they'll use any tragedy or fear that will make you emotional, and more likely to react quickly, and more likely to believe that these 2 limited options are really the only solution.

so Fox says, if you don't let the government monitor you, you or someone you love will die. what the hell happened to responsible credible intelligent journalism? how did we get to the point in which an anchor can say this? or even better, than if you don't live in one of the countries that is being monitored (the government said that it was monitoring calls coming into the country from certain other suspicious countries) the surveillance and wire tapping "will not affect you"? i'm sorry, what?

so really, i know what i'm not missing, and i'm not watching the news. its not about news, or providing information, or making the society aware of what is happening around them so they become more responsible citizens. its about MONEY. its about ratings. its about CRAP. if i want to find out what's happening, i do some research. i read and i form my own educated opinion about a topic. i don't believe what some undereducated halfwit says b/c he was told to say that and b/c i just don't have the time to invest in doing the research so i would prefer to see a five minute spot and believe that i am aware of the situation and the world around me. bahhhhh.

so you've probably heard. since we are the centre of the world.

toronto TTC striked - again. that's not the unthinkable part. especially b/c its not really anything new. after all, they striked a year ago. and, being that it was a year ago, i guess it was time to do it again.

(and before i continue my little rant, for any personnel at the TTC responsible for hiring. HIRE ME. i promise that for the pay that your employees make for sitting there doing nothing but just driving, i will never strike. hell, i will never complain, i will always be on time for work, i will even call you lord and master. think about it. call me).

ok, on with my point (i do have one). i don't watch the news. i know, it seems shallow. but these days, its not about reporting news, its about ratings and sensationalism (as in - "oh my god, that was graphic and may be hard to watch, lets see it again"). but today, i broke my rule. i watched the news. ok, the real reason i watched is egotistical. on my way to work, i got stopped by one of the news' cameraman and he interviewed me (not used on the news, i checked. i think its b/c i said that the TTC strike didn't really affect me b/c i take the GO.). ok, so i'm watching one of the streaming video. the anchor is going on how horrible it was, over a million people were stranded.

here's how i relate this to my blog title. so the anchor is talking and then the unthinkable happened. he actually said, in a dramatic voice, as if this was really a big problem "and people had to walk..."

oh my god. what kind of world are we living in when people have to walk. don't we have cars? do we not have friends with cars? taxis? in a world when we're sending people to the moon, we still have to use so primative thing as our legs for walking? have we not evolved past this point? i mean, a short stroll from work to across the street to get a caramel macchiato, yes. but walking. the horrors.

there are often people that i see, that my first thought is "how could they have looked in the mirror and still have left the house?"

case in point (and believe me, there are a lot of them to choose from) is a guy that i saw in the underground concourse downtown toronto.

i was going back to work, when i decided to go thru the underground (shoppping) when i encounted a true definition of the word "gino". it's a little overwhelming, so i'll work you into it. first of all, he thought he was "the shit". in a moment, i could tell that this guy was making some serious money for the first time in his life so he was trying to work it. it was in his pompous expressions first of all. he looked at people with arrogant confidence.

he was wearing a light gray pinstriped suit (white stripes). it was a little big so it was a little funny. and to top off the outfit, he was wearing a white fedora. uh-huh. not just fedora - a WHITE fedora. now, there are only two times that a man can pull off a white fedora. when its a night out and he's at a club (and even then its a close call). or when he's pimping it and collecting money from his "girls". but let me get to the thing that pulled it all together. it was the walk. his shoulders were up. pulled out of his body. like the weight lifters who can't touch their arms to their body b/c they have huge muscles - without the muscles.

oh, it was a sight. i saw women walking past him going the other way, all, ALL, of them giggled. b/c, well, dude, it was a little silly. so guys, its a nice thing when you try. its a great thing when you do the whole metrosexual thing (well, i like it, unless you spend more time than me in the mirror), but, there are limits. i would say the same for women. word of advice. don't walk like you have huge muscles, and like you have a stick up you know where. and by all means, if you can pull off a light gray pinstripped suit, do it, but skip the fedora. you are no longer the sexiest one of all.

so you gotta love the 11pm visits to the emergency room.

oh yeah. got some nasty food poisoning. sick. Nauseous. painful. uncomfortable. who knew that what is essentially a stomachache (amplified like a billion time mind you) could be so agonizing. finally, after hours of discomfort and some more of tears, i was persuaded to go to emergency. but not before i had two huge shots of vodka.

i think it did the trick. i went to emergency, sat there for two hours, nobody got served. decided i was either leaving or i was going to be there all night, left, got home, some more vodka (that stuff is nasty when you drink it neat), felt better, was able to finally get some sense of anything but pain.

i wish i knew and could pinpoint what i ate that made me so disgustingly sick. i'm guessing shrimp. but who knows. although, just to be safe, i'm staying away from shrimp.

i don't know if its that i'm just cynical about people's behaviours or because i'm a study of psychology (not trying to toot my own horn here so i'm going to go with cynicism as the key) but man, can i call it or can i call it?

here's what i'm talking about. when i started reading the DaVinci Code, one of the first things that i thought was that when this movie got closer to being made and released, and the Code became more of a "phenomenon", the first thing that would be attacked is not even the ideas of the Code, but group rights.

you heard me. i'm talking about the albino thing. the one "priest" in the Code, the one that essentially does the killing, is an albino. and if you follow group mentality, the insecurities that our modern group right governments have created, it was easy to see this coming.

now albinos (is there a more proper way to say this?) are coming out and saying that they are appauled about how the Code portrays them. Hello? as far as i read, there was one albino, that was acting more on behalf of a sect of a church, not on behalf of albinos everywhere.

seriously, one of the worst things created was the notion and the actually existance of a charter or rights (and the like) that places more importance on group rights then equality for all equally. now people have this notion that they, as a group (whatever group they happen to feel a part of on that particular day), have to be protected b/c everyone else is now protected. i hear this comment everyday. the idea that a certain behaviour against X is the last allowable discrimination in society.

this "charter" behaviour is not bringing us together and protecting us as a society. it is breaking us up into groups. it is the reason that we feel insecure and unprotected. because instead of doing it how the britans do it (allowing everything except some things that can't be done) we are having to challenge behaviours and go in front of courts to say, that should not be allowed.

so its not surprising that the albino group is coming out and challenging the Code, saying that it portrays them negatively. its what we are trained to do. after all, if group a through y can do it, why not z (even if the negative behaviour has nothing to do with representing a people per say, just one person who is "bad" who happens to be of that "group"). you know what i mean?