Oh perforations... how I hate thee, let me count the ways.... R-R-R-I-I-I-P-P-P...
Badly torn box.
For those wondering what I do outside of blogging (which had a brief hiatus as I was coming up with things to write about), I work at Walmart. Part of my job responsibilities is to stock shelves. A lot of our boxes are what is referred to as PDQs (Product Display Quantity or Pretty Darn Quick). Basically, rip the box along the perforation, and it becomes a product display to put on the shelf. In theory, this is supposed to help make the product more presentable for customers, and much easier for shelf stockers to get items on the shelf quickly.
In theory....
However, the bane of my existence when dealing with PDQs is perforations. A perforation (for those REALLY not in the know) are pre-cut slots in the boxes. They exist on important tax documents, credit card offers, PDQs (as already mentioned), and on other things.
Now, I don't know if I'm an idiot, but I HATE PERFORATIONS!!!!
If I try to rip anything along one of these perforations, I end up ripping beyond the perforation. I find myself frustrated enough that end up just taking my little box cutter knife, on blade setting 1, and cutting the perforation just to open it. My question is: how is these any faster?
It definitely isn't neater if the perforation rips beyond the line is it supposed to rip upon. It just looks shoddy. Ripping checks out of check books have resulted in damaged checks (luckily not in half yet), but there are occasionally chunks missing out of the top. It's not MY fault, blame the perforation!!!
I swear, there is a conspiracy by the people who invented perforations to piss me off. They are succeeding....
More than once, I find myself punching a PDQ in order to rip the perforation without taking my knife to it. Most of the time, that works, other times, still have to break out the knife.
WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?? Seriously, if the perforations were designed to just look neat, then kudos. But if they were meant to be functional... someone needs to be fired. I am better off just getting a line on the box that says, "Cut here." I guarantee my knife cuts will look neater.
But no. These perforations will continue to laugh at me. To mock me. To make me look like a fool. Other people will rip these perforations neatly. It isn't the fact that they are better than me. It is the fact that the perforations have it out for me. I don't know if I made fun of their mother, but they enjoy my torment.
Screw you, perforations.
You may have won this round. But I will have my revenge!!!
Do any of you have issues with perforations? Feel free to comment. If this post brightened your day, then feel free to share it. Thanks for reading.
Friday, July 14, 2017
Saturday, June 17, 2017
Political Attack
Now normally, I do not post political ramblings. There is enough of that on Facebook to make me want to rip the remaining hairs out of my head. However, an event happened that made me change my mind (at least this week).
On June 14th, 2017, a gunman opened fire on several Republican members of Congress as they were practicing for a charity baseball game against Democrats. 4 people (5 counting the gunman) were shot during the practice. 2 people were listed in critical condition, 2 people were treated and released, and the gunman was killed.
The gunman was a contractor who had his business shut down because he caused more damage to the properties he was supposed to be inspecting. He had been living out of his van in the Alexandria, VA, area for months before he opened fire that fateful day.
He had a bitter dislike towards the Republicans.
Now, the tough part of this. I am not looking to get into a political debate because people like what they like, and they believe what they believe. I'm not looking to try to "prove anyone wrong" because ultimately it is a waste of time, and a cause of lost friendships for no reason, whatsoever.
But one thing CAN be agreed on. Violence is not the answer. If you believe that violence is going to solve the problems in Washington, than maybe YOU need to be investigated, just in case, you plan on committing acts like this yourself.
Mr. Hodgkinson had a list of Congressmen he wanted to target. His motive was unclear at this moment. If he wanted to get the "old-timers" out of Congress, he didn't succeed. If he did it as a Democratic loyalist, he failed that too, because all he did there was make Democrats look worse.
The thing that needs to be remembered is that he acted on his own accord. He didn't meet with a bunch of Democrats and plan an assassination. This was a mentally disturbed individual who committed these crimes. And Democrats and Republicans participated in unity afterwards. The shooter didn't accomplish anything.
For people who want to get the old-timers out of Congress, you have that power. It is called elections. While people do not vote for the President directly, they DO vote for the members of Congress at every election. If you want a change in Congress, then vote for that change. Otherwise, you are just the minority. Killing people is not the answer.
And IF you are one of the sad, pathetic people who believes that murdering senior members of Congress is the answer, then newsflash. It isn't. The repercussions are far worse than what you think. Because senior members of Congress were attacked, there will now be more motivation for gun control legislation. This now hits home for Congress. They are going to be more determined than ever. And in the end, Congress isn't really more unified. A lot of those Congressmen have been there a while, and are good friends, despite their disagreements. People need to practice the same level of friendship. That while we may differ on things, politically, we can still be friends, and we can still get along.
Any one who believes that someone needs to die because of their beliefs is part of the problem in this country right now. If questioned about my political beliefs, I will share them. You can tell me yours, and I'll respect yours, even if I don't agree. That is part of what makes freedom so great. But believing that violence is the answer is what is going to tear this country apart. VIOLENCE NEEDS TO END!!! That is one thing that NEEDS to be agreed on. Republicans and Democrats alike don't want violence. So, knock it off. Act your age. People are acting like babies throwing temper tantrums, and using weapons instead of words.
Post your opinions. What do you think? Do you think violence needs to end? Will you be part of the solution? Share this post if you agree. Spread the word. Love your neighbor, even if you don't agree with him/her. You don't have to agree, but you have the freedom not to. Do not eliminate your freedom by trying to eliminate someone else's.
Thanks for reading.
On June 14th, 2017, a gunman opened fire on several Republican members of Congress as they were practicing for a charity baseball game against Democrats. 4 people (5 counting the gunman) were shot during the practice. 2 people were listed in critical condition, 2 people were treated and released, and the gunman was killed.
The gunman was a contractor who had his business shut down because he caused more damage to the properties he was supposed to be inspecting. He had been living out of his van in the Alexandria, VA, area for months before he opened fire that fateful day.
He had a bitter dislike towards the Republicans.
Now, the tough part of this. I am not looking to get into a political debate because people like what they like, and they believe what they believe. I'm not looking to try to "prove anyone wrong" because ultimately it is a waste of time, and a cause of lost friendships for no reason, whatsoever.
But one thing CAN be agreed on. Violence is not the answer. If you believe that violence is going to solve the problems in Washington, than maybe YOU need to be investigated, just in case, you plan on committing acts like this yourself.
Mr. Hodgkinson had a list of Congressmen he wanted to target. His motive was unclear at this moment. If he wanted to get the "old-timers" out of Congress, he didn't succeed. If he did it as a Democratic loyalist, he failed that too, because all he did there was make Democrats look worse.
The thing that needs to be remembered is that he acted on his own accord. He didn't meet with a bunch of Democrats and plan an assassination. This was a mentally disturbed individual who committed these crimes. And Democrats and Republicans participated in unity afterwards. The shooter didn't accomplish anything.
For people who want to get the old-timers out of Congress, you have that power. It is called elections. While people do not vote for the President directly, they DO vote for the members of Congress at every election. If you want a change in Congress, then vote for that change. Otherwise, you are just the minority. Killing people is not the answer.
And IF you are one of the sad, pathetic people who believes that murdering senior members of Congress is the answer, then newsflash. It isn't. The repercussions are far worse than what you think. Because senior members of Congress were attacked, there will now be more motivation for gun control legislation. This now hits home for Congress. They are going to be more determined than ever. And in the end, Congress isn't really more unified. A lot of those Congressmen have been there a while, and are good friends, despite their disagreements. People need to practice the same level of friendship. That while we may differ on things, politically, we can still be friends, and we can still get along.
Any one who believes that someone needs to die because of their beliefs is part of the problem in this country right now. If questioned about my political beliefs, I will share them. You can tell me yours, and I'll respect yours, even if I don't agree. That is part of what makes freedom so great. But believing that violence is the answer is what is going to tear this country apart. VIOLENCE NEEDS TO END!!! That is one thing that NEEDS to be agreed on. Republicans and Democrats alike don't want violence. So, knock it off. Act your age. People are acting like babies throwing temper tantrums, and using weapons instead of words.
Post your opinions. What do you think? Do you think violence needs to end? Will you be part of the solution? Share this post if you agree. Spread the word. Love your neighbor, even if you don't agree with him/her. You don't have to agree, but you have the freedom not to. Do not eliminate your freedom by trying to eliminate someone else's.
Thanks for reading.
Saturday, June 10, 2017
2 Type rite is Gud
One of the biggest pet peeves I've encountered is bad typing. This is something that annoys me to no end. This is more than just a trend that shows up in countless comment sections of social media posts. This shows up everywhere.
The biggest issue is, it is deliberate. I can mind the minor accidental misspelling or the occasionally missed punctuation marks. However, this is becoming a permanent fixture.
But why is it being done?
Typically, when I read a post that is full of misspellings, missed punctuation, and nonsensical words, I find myself questioning the integrity of the person posting. Memes have become a staple of sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc. They annoy me as well, but I have to accept them.
Twitter is kind of an exception on this, and may earn a free pass for bad spelling. When you are given a character limit, you have to try to make every character count. So, using "u" for "you" or "4" instead of "for" tends to be more acceptable. However, on a site like Facebook, where there isn't a character limit, it is kind of annoying.
Half of the time, I have to translate this shorthand typing into something that I can process as intelligible thought. Even then, the lack of proper grammar makes me question whether their thoughts can be considered "intelligible thought."
Employers do use Facebook and other social media sites to learn more about potential employees. Employers want to learn more about who they have working for them. If the person gives this great resume to their employer, and them employer canvasses their Facebook, they might find details that might make them second guess hiring that person.
We are now in the technological age. One of the things that happens less and less is hand-written notes. It is much easier to type and edit your thoughts through a keyboard then it is to grab a paper and pencil and actually just write out your note. I tend to type faster than I write, so I would agree with this wholeheartedly. However, I tend to try to type things out grammatically correct, and try to use proper punctuation. As I write less than I used to, the only way to really tell people about me, is to type it out. Doing so in an intelligible manner becomes more important for me.
The worst offenders of this are memes themselves. Memes can become very popular and widespread in a short amount of time. Memes that have improper grammar and horrible spelling send a message to other people encouraging the use of broken language. Eventually things like spelling and grammar will become obsolete in the next generation. This is a problem especially when communication is so important. It is important for the recipient to understand and fully comprehend the context of the message the sender is trying to convey. Memes turn this problem into a widespread epidemic that must be cured.
So, for the sake of the future of communication, please try to type intelligently. Show the world just how smart you are. Show the world the knowledge that you possess.
What are your thoughts? Where do you think the future of communication is headed? Do you think that broken language will eventually translate to broken speech too? Let me know in the comments [in an intelligent manner]. :)
The biggest issue is, it is deliberate. I can mind the minor accidental misspelling or the occasionally missed punctuation marks. However, this is becoming a permanent fixture.
But why is it being done?
Typically, when I read a post that is full of misspellings, missed punctuation, and nonsensical words, I find myself questioning the integrity of the person posting. Memes have become a staple of sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc. They annoy me as well, but I have to accept them.
Twitter is kind of an exception on this, and may earn a free pass for bad spelling. When you are given a character limit, you have to try to make every character count. So, using "u" for "you" or "4" instead of "for" tends to be more acceptable. However, on a site like Facebook, where there isn't a character limit, it is kind of annoying.
Half of the time, I have to translate this shorthand typing into something that I can process as intelligible thought. Even then, the lack of proper grammar makes me question whether their thoughts can be considered "intelligible thought."
Employers do use Facebook and other social media sites to learn more about potential employees. Employers want to learn more about who they have working for them. If the person gives this great resume to their employer, and them employer canvasses their Facebook, they might find details that might make them second guess hiring that person.
We are now in the technological age. One of the things that happens less and less is hand-written notes. It is much easier to type and edit your thoughts through a keyboard then it is to grab a paper and pencil and actually just write out your note. I tend to type faster than I write, so I would agree with this wholeheartedly. However, I tend to try to type things out grammatically correct, and try to use proper punctuation. As I write less than I used to, the only way to really tell people about me, is to type it out. Doing so in an intelligible manner becomes more important for me.
The worst offenders of this are memes themselves. Memes can become very popular and widespread in a short amount of time. Memes that have improper grammar and horrible spelling send a message to other people encouraging the use of broken language. Eventually things like spelling and grammar will become obsolete in the next generation. This is a problem especially when communication is so important. It is important for the recipient to understand and fully comprehend the context of the message the sender is trying to convey. Memes turn this problem into a widespread epidemic that must be cured.
So, for the sake of the future of communication, please try to type intelligently. Show the world just how smart you are. Show the world the knowledge that you possess.
What are your thoughts? Where do you think the future of communication is headed? Do you think that broken language will eventually translate to broken speech too? Let me know in the comments [in an intelligent manner]. :)
Thursday, June 1, 2017
Off With His Head!!!
Kathy, Kathy, Kathy...
What did you do wrong???
Yes, for the most part, we have all heard about this disembodied head that Kathy Griffin took to a photoshoot. And what a mess it made. This picture cost her sponsorships, her job at CNN doing New Year's Eve hosting, and respect from a lot of former fans.
People said that the head was gross, gory, and offensive.
I agree with people's sentiments. It was gross, gory, and offensive. But people shouldn't be getting so worked up about it. Kathy Griffin is a comedian. Jokes can be in poor taste, and while people may be offended by the joke, it is still just a joke.
There are a lot of comedians who tell jokes that can be perceived in poor taste, but it doesn't hurt the career of the comedian. In fact, a lot of the raunchier, more offensive comedians actually make the bulk of their career earnings, by being offensive.
Now, did she go too far? To be honest, yes she did.
But we are living in a society where sneezing the wrong way will get you bitched at by someone. Everything is offensive. President Trump was picked to be president, mainly because he promised to not be PC. He wanted to push the limits and get away from the PC world we were getting into. Now, everyone gets offended by everything, and it is disgusting in a way.
Perhaps, Kathy Griffin was doing the same thing? She was "pushing the envelope" and seeing what she could get away with. She did go too far. But nowadays, it doesn't take much to go too far.
"South Park" had an episode called "Cartoon Wars" where Cartman hated the show "Family Guy." He hated it so much, that he actually went to sabotage the show by putting something into the script that would make the show so offensive, that an episode of the show would be banned. His logic was this, "As soon as a show has to pull an episode from the air, it starts a domino effect that causes the show to have to pull more and more episodes until the show is inevitably canceled." It is actually pretty sound logic.
This logic applies to comedians as well. If a comedian has to apologize for going too far, that could be the end of the line for that comedian's career. Let's look back to Michael Richards. He went to far and yelled racist remarks at a heckler at a comedy club. His career was OVER. He had to issue a public apology, and his career came to a screeching halt.
The same thing could happen as a result of this. Comedians shouldn't be required to apologize. Any time a comedian puts themselves into a situation where they HAVE to apologize, it tends to end badly. Kathy Griffin put herself into a situation where she felt she should have had to apologize.
But wasn't the point to be "unapologetic." What comedy needs right now are comedians willing to "push the boundaries" and to not be PC. Her photoshoot was a reflection of who she is: cynical, deliberate, and unabashed. In fact, I kind of liked the photoshoot picture because it was honest with how she felt. It was purposeful.
And yes, CNN had a right to pull her job. Her sponsors had a right to drop her from their company. Freedom of speech does not grant you freedom of employment. The companies had a right to drop her for her expressing her point of view. But that isn't anything new either.
But, in my opinion, she went wrong when she apologized. She shouldn't have been ashamed by the picture. She perfectly stated her point of view with that picture. It was everything it needed to be for her. I applauded that, despite the trouble it would have caused her. But as a comedian, she shouldn't have apologized for it. She should have stood behind the image. It stated what she wanted to stay, and apologizing for that makes her weaker for it. No longer will she seem to be the same deliberate comedian that took the picture.
What are your view points on this? Do you think she was right to apologize? Do you think our country is becoming to PC? Were you offended by the picture? Give me your point of view!!! Thanks for reading.
What did you do wrong???
Yes, for the most part, we have all heard about this disembodied head that Kathy Griffin took to a photoshoot. And what a mess it made. This picture cost her sponsorships, her job at CNN doing New Year's Eve hosting, and respect from a lot of former fans.
People said that the head was gross, gory, and offensive.
I agree with people's sentiments. It was gross, gory, and offensive. But people shouldn't be getting so worked up about it. Kathy Griffin is a comedian. Jokes can be in poor taste, and while people may be offended by the joke, it is still just a joke.
There are a lot of comedians who tell jokes that can be perceived in poor taste, but it doesn't hurt the career of the comedian. In fact, a lot of the raunchier, more offensive comedians actually make the bulk of their career earnings, by being offensive.
Now, did she go too far? To be honest, yes she did.
But we are living in a society where sneezing the wrong way will get you bitched at by someone. Everything is offensive. President Trump was picked to be president, mainly because he promised to not be PC. He wanted to push the limits and get away from the PC world we were getting into. Now, everyone gets offended by everything, and it is disgusting in a way.
Perhaps, Kathy Griffin was doing the same thing? She was "pushing the envelope" and seeing what she could get away with. She did go too far. But nowadays, it doesn't take much to go too far.
"South Park" had an episode called "Cartoon Wars" where Cartman hated the show "Family Guy." He hated it so much, that he actually went to sabotage the show by putting something into the script that would make the show so offensive, that an episode of the show would be banned. His logic was this, "As soon as a show has to pull an episode from the air, it starts a domino effect that causes the show to have to pull more and more episodes until the show is inevitably canceled." It is actually pretty sound logic.
This logic applies to comedians as well. If a comedian has to apologize for going too far, that could be the end of the line for that comedian's career. Let's look back to Michael Richards. He went to far and yelled racist remarks at a heckler at a comedy club. His career was OVER. He had to issue a public apology, and his career came to a screeching halt.
The same thing could happen as a result of this. Comedians shouldn't be required to apologize. Any time a comedian puts themselves into a situation where they HAVE to apologize, it tends to end badly. Kathy Griffin put herself into a situation where she felt she should have had to apologize.
But wasn't the point to be "unapologetic." What comedy needs right now are comedians willing to "push the boundaries" and to not be PC. Her photoshoot was a reflection of who she is: cynical, deliberate, and unabashed. In fact, I kind of liked the photoshoot picture because it was honest with how she felt. It was purposeful.
And yes, CNN had a right to pull her job. Her sponsors had a right to drop her from their company. Freedom of speech does not grant you freedom of employment. The companies had a right to drop her for her expressing her point of view. But that isn't anything new either.
But, in my opinion, she went wrong when she apologized. She shouldn't have been ashamed by the picture. She perfectly stated her point of view with that picture. It was everything it needed to be for her. I applauded that, despite the trouble it would have caused her. But as a comedian, she shouldn't have apologized for it. She should have stood behind the image. It stated what she wanted to stay, and apologizing for that makes her weaker for it. No longer will she seem to be the same deliberate comedian that took the picture.
What are your view points on this? Do you think she was right to apologize? Do you think our country is becoming to PC? Were you offended by the picture? Give me your point of view!!! Thanks for reading.
Friday, May 26, 2017
Grow Down
One of the things I've noticed in my advancing years is that no one acts their age any more. Most adults would say that they have an inner child, just waiting to get out and play. A lot of us will from time to time, act childish. We may play jokes, pranks, and run around and have fun. There are people in their 50s, 60s, and even older who still from time to time, slip back into acting a little childish.
And why not? It is fun, carefree, and in a way refreshing to get away from the monotony of adult life. A lot of people post about how they "don't want to adult today." They want to be able to go back to the days of being a child, with no bills, no responsibility, just having fun on a nice summer day.
But unfortunately, there's a group of people who don't want to be kids.... Who are they? Why, the answer is so obvious.
Kids.
That's right. Kids do not want to be kids. Perhaps it is all they know and they find it boring. Perhaps they want the responsibility. Perhaps they just want to be treated like adults, but still have the fun of being a child.
Don't we all.
Yes, I will admit, I have an inner child, and it is very much at play a lot more than what would be considered "normal." I play video games, watch cartoons, and still like to have childish fun at the expense of others. [Sorry honey, but you knew this when you signed the wedding certificate. :p] But I am also very much an adult. I go to work, I earn money, and contribute to the bills every month. And I will say, I would find it extremely demeaning to be treated like a kid.
Perhaps kids feel it is demeaning to be treated like a kid as well. But kids do not understand what "being an adult" is all about. They haven't experienced adulthood, and therefore they aren't entirely sure what that all entails. They don't understand that you have to earn money, pay bills, take care of kids, etc.
Yet, kids want to be treated like adults. They want to be out as late as they want (something adults don't even do as we have to go to work the next day), go joyriding in the vehicle (something adults have to put their hard earned money into to pay for the gas), have children (something adults regret doing some days when kids are being especially difficult), etc.
The biggest lesson here is: there is no perfect middle ground. Not even in adults. If an adult doesn't be an adult, then they aren't treated like an adult. It's typically considered bad if an able-bodied, 30+ year old adult spends his life playing video games, watching TV, reading comics, surfing the internet, and still living with mom and dad instead of making money and being an adult. It is just as bad if a 13 year old kid is working a job because he is expected to "grow up."
We shouldn't be telling people to "grow up." While it is fun for an adult to escape to a simpler time and be a kid every so often, we shouldn't be encourage kids to be adults either. Kids should be able to embrace their childhood, because time can not be rewound. Kids should be allowed to be kids. They also need to remember that there is no "middle ground." There is no being treated like an adult while not having the responsibilities tied into it. The respect of an adult is earned by what you do to be an adult. If you have your own place to live, pay your own bills, cook your own meals, all with minimal to no help from your parents, THEN you are an adult. Then you should be treated as such (even though some parents still treat their kids as kids [demeaning, I know]).
And for us adults, remember the phrase "age is just a number." You are as old as you tell yourself you are. You are as old as you feel. I fully encourage everyone who is sick of being an adult, to just be a kid every once in a while. Just don't forget to come back to adulthood when it is time for you to be responsible yet again.
Let me ask a question. How old are you? How old do you feel? If you are someone who is always stressed and burned out from adulthood, take a day to be 10 or so. Take a day to be a child. If you have children of your own, this is a perfect bonding opportunity. As always, thanks for reading!!
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Sex offenders... who are the victims?
There has been a lot going on in the news with regards to child pornography. It is definitely on the rise. Just in the last 2 weeks, there have been at least 2 cases happen locally to me. This definitely seems higher than it used to be, when this was a thing that was rarely ever discussed. Now, it is unfortunately, a reality, and to top it off, a lot of pedophiles feel that THEY are the victim because of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) and mandatory minimum sentences. There are people who justify hebephilia (attraction to pubescent kids) because it is a natural instinct (as it is in nature when as soon as animals are able to reproduce, they do for survival).
Now, the real question is? Are these people right? Are they the victims of nature?
First of all, I will admit that I type this with a certain degree of bias. I hate anyone who victimizes a child in any way, shape, or form. I have a strong dislike towards people who abuse children, because I feel children are innocent and their whole lives become negatively affected by abuse sustained on them. As I was a victim of child abuse (physical and mental), I can tell you that I was permanently affected by it. Having never been sexually abused, I can not say that "I've been there," or that "I know what that is like," but I can say that abuse has long lasting effects that can potentially last a life time to get over.
So, I will always lean towards the victim being the child.
Now, let's get to the bottom of why sex offenders feel they are the victims. The sex offender registry was created to notify people when sex offenders are moving next to them. It is also there to notify potential homeowners of how many sex offenders live in their future neighborhood. The sex offender registry was created to inform people for the safety of their children. That's pretty much it. Any use of that list beyond that purpose is actually considered a felony.
But people out there have used the list for more nefarious purposes. They have done things like committing acts of violence against sex offenders, harassing them relentlessly, vandalizing their property, and killing them. These people believe that they are making the world a better place by doing this. This is debatable, as I feel people who commit heinous crimes against children, should meet the capital punishment system.
Some of the offenses don't even seem that severe (for instance, a 15 and a 17 year old dating and then the 17 year old turns 18 and is suddenly a sex offender because the 15 year old's parents do not approve). There have been people who falsely have had people arrested just because they had a disagreement and falsely claimed their kids have been molested. These are people who get tied into the sex offender registry as well, and they are demonized for it.
There are a lot of people who believe that hebephilia is normal, and it is natural. It was going to be categorized as a DSM-V mental illness, and there was an uproar about it. They argued that being attracted to pubescent kids is "normal, and natural." To an extent, I can see their point of view: from a strictly biological standpoint. People younger than the age of 20, tend to be the most fertile, and have higher levels of hormones. In the wild, animals mate as soon as they are able. So, it may seem like a natural instinct to be attracted to younger people. However, as human beings, we are more sophisticated (at least we should be). We have emotions, we have feelings. We are not "wild" or "feral" creatures. We have a complex social structure. We, as humans, generally understand that kids do not fully understand the consequences of their actions. Adolescents do not fully comprehend the extent of their actions when they consent, or when they are abused. Full brain development doesn't stop until 30. The younger they are, the less they understand the consequences of their actions. The younger they are, the less they understand that having sex has long term emotional consequences beyond the risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. They don't understand what it means to have innocence and then not have it any more. They don't understand that the way they feel about themselves changes when they give up their innocence.
Victims of abuse, do not understand this because they aren't developed enough to do so. Just imagine what this means for the victim of child rape, who at the age of 2-3 was victimized, photographed, and raped for the pleasure of a disgraced Fire Chief and other perverts out there. This is a child whose innocence was taken away at such a young age, she will NEVER have innocence. It is actually remarkable how young people can remember things like this. This is a girl whose life is PERMANENTLY affected by this. She may have a normal childhood... but this is permanent.
So, who are the victims??? While most sex offenders typically feel they are the victims due to the sex offender registry, I really have to disagree. A sex offender may have ruined his/her life in the process, but he/she ruined the life of someone else as well. That sex offender ruined the innocence of a child. A child who is learning at a vastly accelerated rate to an older person due to brain development. This is a person, who is learning at a young age, the horrors of humanity. A person who should be learning about math, science, and how to enjoy life, is learning about monsters with cameras and perverted intentions.
The victims of abuse are ALWAYS the children.
What are your opinions on this hot topic? Do you agree, disagree? As always, feel free to comment with your opinion.
Now, the real question is? Are these people right? Are they the victims of nature?
First of all, I will admit that I type this with a certain degree of bias. I hate anyone who victimizes a child in any way, shape, or form. I have a strong dislike towards people who abuse children, because I feel children are innocent and their whole lives become negatively affected by abuse sustained on them. As I was a victim of child abuse (physical and mental), I can tell you that I was permanently affected by it. Having never been sexually abused, I can not say that "I've been there," or that "I know what that is like," but I can say that abuse has long lasting effects that can potentially last a life time to get over.
So, I will always lean towards the victim being the child.
Now, let's get to the bottom of why sex offenders feel they are the victims. The sex offender registry was created to notify people when sex offenders are moving next to them. It is also there to notify potential homeowners of how many sex offenders live in their future neighborhood. The sex offender registry was created to inform people for the safety of their children. That's pretty much it. Any use of that list beyond that purpose is actually considered a felony.
But people out there have used the list for more nefarious purposes. They have done things like committing acts of violence against sex offenders, harassing them relentlessly, vandalizing their property, and killing them. These people believe that they are making the world a better place by doing this. This is debatable, as I feel people who commit heinous crimes against children, should meet the capital punishment system.
Some of the offenses don't even seem that severe (for instance, a 15 and a 17 year old dating and then the 17 year old turns 18 and is suddenly a sex offender because the 15 year old's parents do not approve). There have been people who falsely have had people arrested just because they had a disagreement and falsely claimed their kids have been molested. These are people who get tied into the sex offender registry as well, and they are demonized for it.
There are a lot of people who believe that hebephilia is normal, and it is natural. It was going to be categorized as a DSM-V mental illness, and there was an uproar about it. They argued that being attracted to pubescent kids is "normal, and natural." To an extent, I can see their point of view: from a strictly biological standpoint. People younger than the age of 20, tend to be the most fertile, and have higher levels of hormones. In the wild, animals mate as soon as they are able. So, it may seem like a natural instinct to be attracted to younger people. However, as human beings, we are more sophisticated (at least we should be). We have emotions, we have feelings. We are not "wild" or "feral" creatures. We have a complex social structure. We, as humans, generally understand that kids do not fully understand the consequences of their actions. Adolescents do not fully comprehend the extent of their actions when they consent, or when they are abused. Full brain development doesn't stop until 30. The younger they are, the less they understand the consequences of their actions. The younger they are, the less they understand that having sex has long term emotional consequences beyond the risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. They don't understand what it means to have innocence and then not have it any more. They don't understand that the way they feel about themselves changes when they give up their innocence.
Victims of abuse, do not understand this because they aren't developed enough to do so. Just imagine what this means for the victim of child rape, who at the age of 2-3 was victimized, photographed, and raped for the pleasure of a disgraced Fire Chief and other perverts out there. This is a child whose innocence was taken away at such a young age, she will NEVER have innocence. It is actually remarkable how young people can remember things like this. This is a girl whose life is PERMANENTLY affected by this. She may have a normal childhood... but this is permanent.
So, who are the victims??? While most sex offenders typically feel they are the victims due to the sex offender registry, I really have to disagree. A sex offender may have ruined his/her life in the process, but he/she ruined the life of someone else as well. That sex offender ruined the innocence of a child. A child who is learning at a vastly accelerated rate to an older person due to brain development. This is a person, who is learning at a young age, the horrors of humanity. A person who should be learning about math, science, and how to enjoy life, is learning about monsters with cameras and perverted intentions.
The victims of abuse are ALWAYS the children.
What are your opinions on this hot topic? Do you agree, disagree? As always, feel free to comment with your opinion.
Thursday, May 11, 2017
RIP Firefox
For probably the last 10 years or so, I have been a faithful devotee to Mozilla Firefox. I can remember when I made the decision to switch to Firefox.
Internet Explorer did not have the support to add add-ons. It was a basic Internet, that at the time, worked for most things. I was going to college and I started to notice that some of the webpages on the school's servers (including D2L services) did not support Internet Explorer. It was at this time, that I happily quit Internet Explorer (pfft didn't even have add-ons, like c'mon).
I loved Mozilla Firefox for many years, and I never thought I would abandon it. But then recently, I started having those similar problems like before... websites would fail to function, specifically Dominos. Yeah, I couldn't order Dominos because the website wouldn't let me log in. Turned out the culprit... was Firefox.
Yes, a web browser that I have loved for over 10 years has betrayed me, with impunity. How dare it deny me my pizza!!!!! Curse you to HELL!!!!
But... I love Mozilla Firefox for so long. This is almost a grieving process that I must go through, when I bit adieu to Firefox. I am, in a sense, releasing the casket of Firefox past into space.
But... but... but.... we had some good times, old pal. I will miss you. But for now...
I've switched to Chrome.
I think it is for the best that we retire Mozilla Firefox. They have failed to live up to my expectations when I want a good browsing experience. I am getting sick and tired of having my browser sporadically lock up on me because it decides it wants to go non-responding. I am tired of being forced to order pizza on Firefox's inconvenient schedule.
This is truly a sad day... :( :( :( But hopefully the future continues to look brighter. And who knows? Maybe those folks at Mozilla will get it together and provide me the browsing experience I deserve to have. (Doubtful, but I'll be optimistic.)
Any comments? What is your favorite Internet Browser? Feel free to comment below, or on Facebook. Thanks for reading.
Internet Explorer did not have the support to add add-ons. It was a basic Internet, that at the time, worked for most things. I was going to college and I started to notice that some of the webpages on the school's servers (including D2L services) did not support Internet Explorer. It was at this time, that I happily quit Internet Explorer (pfft didn't even have add-ons, like c'mon).
I loved Mozilla Firefox for many years, and I never thought I would abandon it. But then recently, I started having those similar problems like before... websites would fail to function, specifically Dominos. Yeah, I couldn't order Dominos because the website wouldn't let me log in. Turned out the culprit... was Firefox.
Yes, a web browser that I have loved for over 10 years has betrayed me, with impunity. How dare it deny me my pizza!!!!! Curse you to HELL!!!!
But... I love Mozilla Firefox for so long. This is almost a grieving process that I must go through, when I bit adieu to Firefox. I am, in a sense, releasing the casket of Firefox past into space.
But... but... but.... we had some good times, old pal. I will miss you. But for now...
I've switched to Chrome.
I think it is for the best that we retire Mozilla Firefox. They have failed to live up to my expectations when I want a good browsing experience. I am getting sick and tired of having my browser sporadically lock up on me because it decides it wants to go non-responding. I am tired of being forced to order pizza on Firefox's inconvenient schedule.
This is truly a sad day... :( :( :( But hopefully the future continues to look brighter. And who knows? Maybe those folks at Mozilla will get it together and provide me the browsing experience I deserve to have. (Doubtful, but I'll be optimistic.)
Any comments? What is your favorite Internet Browser? Feel free to comment below, or on Facebook. Thanks for reading.
Friday, May 5, 2017
Why do I blog? [AKA Why bother?]
A thought has been crossing my mind as of late. Why do I blog? What is the purpose of this little social "experiment?" Is it to entertain? Is it to generate all sorts of revenue? Is it to become a household name, and the topic of several table top discussions? Or perhaps... it is just to be relevant?
The answer to all of those questions is "No."(for the most part, as I do try to be somewhat entertaining in normal conversation). I know that I frequently ask for people's opinions on things as to get some sort of feedback. I usually get none. In fact, the only feedback I get is from my wife. Am I angry about it? No. Because none of those reasons are things I really care about.
Blogging in this atmosphere to a lot of people would seem like they are carrying on "one-sided conversations" where they are talking, but no one is listening. However, I do see that I get a lot of readers (in fact, I am usually impressed by a meager 30-40 viewer reads from any one of my blog posts. It isn't a high number, no, but it at least means I do have an audience.
But it isn't the "one-sided conversation" that it seems to be. My blogging is a means for me to rant about the things that sometimes keep me up at night. It is a form of therapy for me. I have a tendency to stay awake as my mind continues to rant and rave about things for hours after laying down to sleep. I have found that when I post a blog post about something that has been on my mind, I find it easier to shut my eyes and actually fall asleep.
Having an audience of people to express my points of view to is a nice way of getting my view point out there. It eases that tension, and admittedly, it feels good to do so. Getting input and feedback on my posts would bring about a nice point of discussion, but it isn't one of those things that I necessarily depend on to find joy in doing this.
So, the question then becomes: How much longer will I keep doing this? Being that this really isn't a form of conversation, or even close to a conversation starter for me, blogging is one of those things I am trying to keep up with on a regular basis. But coming up with things to blog about can be challenging at times. As I have things to express my opinion on, I will continue to blog. :)
Sure, I could join the populace and start ranting about the President. But I'm not going to do that, because that has literally been done to death, and I'm not going to subject myself to the negativity that would come from either side of that. This is one of those platforms I'm using to just express my points of view on other things that cross my mind.
So, I will conclude this blog post, as I do every other post by asking your opinion. What are your views on this? Do you enjoy what you read here? For those who actually take the time to read these, I humbly thank you for your support. For those first timers who are just reading this, welcome! And for those who are sick of reading these, these aren't done to appease anyone, so thanks for reading. :)
The answer to all of those questions is "No."(for the most part, as I do try to be somewhat entertaining in normal conversation). I know that I frequently ask for people's opinions on things as to get some sort of feedback. I usually get none. In fact, the only feedback I get is from my wife. Am I angry about it? No. Because none of those reasons are things I really care about.
Blogging in this atmosphere to a lot of people would seem like they are carrying on "one-sided conversations" where they are talking, but no one is listening. However, I do see that I get a lot of readers (in fact, I am usually impressed by a meager 30-40 viewer reads from any one of my blog posts. It isn't a high number, no, but it at least means I do have an audience.
But it isn't the "one-sided conversation" that it seems to be. My blogging is a means for me to rant about the things that sometimes keep me up at night. It is a form of therapy for me. I have a tendency to stay awake as my mind continues to rant and rave about things for hours after laying down to sleep. I have found that when I post a blog post about something that has been on my mind, I find it easier to shut my eyes and actually fall asleep.
Having an audience of people to express my points of view to is a nice way of getting my view point out there. It eases that tension, and admittedly, it feels good to do so. Getting input and feedback on my posts would bring about a nice point of discussion, but it isn't one of those things that I necessarily depend on to find joy in doing this.
So, the question then becomes: How much longer will I keep doing this? Being that this really isn't a form of conversation, or even close to a conversation starter for me, blogging is one of those things I am trying to keep up with on a regular basis. But coming up with things to blog about can be challenging at times. As I have things to express my opinion on, I will continue to blog. :)
Sure, I could join the populace and start ranting about the President. But I'm not going to do that, because that has literally been done to death, and I'm not going to subject myself to the negativity that would come from either side of that. This is one of those platforms I'm using to just express my points of view on other things that cross my mind.
So, I will conclude this blog post, as I do every other post by asking your opinion. What are your views on this? Do you enjoy what you read here? For those who actually take the time to read these, I humbly thank you for your support. For those first timers who are just reading this, welcome! And for those who are sick of reading these, these aren't done to appease anyone, so thanks for reading. :)
Thursday, April 27, 2017
Good Mourning
On April 22nd, 2017, an actress passed away. Erin Moran, AKA Joanie from "Happy Days" and the ill-fated spin-off "Joanie Loves Chachi" died from a short battle from cancer. She had a history with addiction and it cost her dearly in life.
Upon her death, there was a lot of the typical condolences that one would typically expect from a death of a human being. But then there was a lot of ones that made her out to be deserving of her death because of the drugs she used to do.
Now, ironically, upon finding out that she died of an especially aggressive cancer and that no drugs were in her system when she died, people retracted their statements. People backtracked and tried offering their support even though just a few days before, they had attacked her for her drug use and talked of how she deserved her end.
Upon her death, the press hounded her widowed husband mercilessly. The sheriff had to chase people away to even attempt to give him some time to grieve. This was a man who was only really known as the husband of Erin Moran. He wasn't a celebrity and he had some periods of homelessness.
He eventually released a statement to the press (pretty much was forced to, if you ask me) via Facebook where he talked about his final months with his wife. He talked about it in detail (for any of those who cared to know). He did this as a way to finally be left alone and to hopefully get a little peace out of all of this.
But why did it come to this??? What happened to respect for the deceased?? Now, we live in a day and age where no one has compassion to the deceased any more. Oh, this woman died, "Must have been the drugs." "She got what she deserved." "For me, you do drugs or drink, you're gonna die. I'm sorry if that's cold, but God gave you a brain, gave you the will to live and thrive and you gotta take care of yourself."
After finding out about the cancer, these people were quick to retract, and rescind their comments, but the lack of respect is appalling. I hope that when I die, people actually care at all, instead of finding some reason that I deserved to die. It doesn't make the mourning any easier to justify someone's death because of problems they had in their lives.
To the family of Erin Moran, I hope you get some comfort out of this. I hope she gets the respect she deserves, and RIP Erin Moran. To the people who had no class but to bash her in death, have some respect. You need some more compassion in your life.
Upon her death, there was a lot of the typical condolences that one would typically expect from a death of a human being. But then there was a lot of ones that made her out to be deserving of her death because of the drugs she used to do.
Now, ironically, upon finding out that she died of an especially aggressive cancer and that no drugs were in her system when she died, people retracted their statements. People backtracked and tried offering their support even though just a few days before, they had attacked her for her drug use and talked of how she deserved her end.
Upon her death, the press hounded her widowed husband mercilessly. The sheriff had to chase people away to even attempt to give him some time to grieve. This was a man who was only really known as the husband of Erin Moran. He wasn't a celebrity and he had some periods of homelessness.
He eventually released a statement to the press (pretty much was forced to, if you ask me) via Facebook where he talked about his final months with his wife. He talked about it in detail (for any of those who cared to know). He did this as a way to finally be left alone and to hopefully get a little peace out of all of this.
But why did it come to this??? What happened to respect for the deceased?? Now, we live in a day and age where no one has compassion to the deceased any more. Oh, this woman died, "Must have been the drugs." "She got what she deserved." "For me, you do drugs or drink, you're gonna die. I'm sorry if that's cold, but God gave you a brain, gave you the will to live and thrive and you gotta take care of yourself."
After finding out about the cancer, these people were quick to retract, and rescind their comments, but the lack of respect is appalling. I hope that when I die, people actually care at all, instead of finding some reason that I deserved to die. It doesn't make the mourning any easier to justify someone's death because of problems they had in their lives.
To the family of Erin Moran, I hope you get some comfort out of this. I hope she gets the respect she deserves, and RIP Erin Moran. To the people who had no class but to bash her in death, have some respect. You need some more compassion in your life.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Learning by Example, the Dumbing Down of Today.
Sunday morning, I happened to read an interesting article.
Target is recalling Easter toys due to a serious ingestion hazard.
This got me to thinking. Back when I was a kid, we had those little glow sponge toys. They started off like little pills and you'd throw them water and in about 30 seconds to a minute, it'd turn into this sponge dinosaur. I used to love those things. One thing I knew though: not to ingest them. Why?
I was at an age where I knew better.
Yes, on each package, there is a list of ages of people who can play with a particular toy. Usually this has to do with the fact that:
Ok. This doesn't seem that big of a deal. One toy got recalled because of a serious ingestion hazard. I get it. But just think of the ramifications. I may be "over-estimating" the severity of things, but bear with me.
As a kid, I was the idiot who grabbed a bottle of VO-5, put a huge amount on my small hands, and washed my hair with it. Considering that I didn't need that much shampoo, and I will say that I was balling but 10 seconds later because soap got in my eyes. But I will tell you one thing:
But people can't ignore common sense when it comes to things. Apparently, this is the day and age of the lawsuit. "MY KID SWALLOWED YOUR PRODUCT AND HAD TO HAVE SURGERY!! I AM GOING TO SUE YOU!!!" And the response becomes: The product becomes recalled.
What's next? Recall VO-5 because a kid's eyes had to be flushed because he used shampoo intended for adults?? Might as well ban anything that has watch batteries, because guess what? They can be opened up and those batteries can be ingested by a little kid. To me, the simplest solution is to watch your kid, and keep small objects like that put away. If you buy a toy like the Easter toys that are being recalled, make sure you are giving them to a kid who knows what they are and what they do. If the kid doesn't understand, then don't buy them!! Plain and simple. Not too hard to figure out!!
Target is recalling Easter toys due to a serious ingestion hazard.
This got me to thinking. Back when I was a kid, we had those little glow sponge toys. They started off like little pills and you'd throw them water and in about 30 seconds to a minute, it'd turn into this sponge dinosaur. I used to love those things. One thing I knew though: not to ingest them. Why?
I was at an age where I knew better.
Yes, on each package, there is a list of ages of people who can play with a particular toy. Usually this has to do with the fact that:
- The toy is too complex for a little kid to understand. This can mean that it would only really be fun for someone of an appropriate age to play with.
- Choking hazard or some other hazard. This would be a toy that in the hands of a little kid could pose a serious choking hazard. This would include things like toy cars (where the wheels can come off), or in this case, these toys that are being recalled.
Ok. This doesn't seem that big of a deal. One toy got recalled because of a serious ingestion hazard. I get it. But just think of the ramifications. I may be "over-estimating" the severity of things, but bear with me.
As a kid, I was the idiot who grabbed a bottle of VO-5, put a huge amount on my small hands, and washed my hair with it. Considering that I didn't need that much shampoo, and I will say that I was balling but 10 seconds later because soap got in my eyes. But I will tell you one thing:
Toys we had back in the day are now being affected because they have been deemed "dangerous." I've done things that people in today's over-protective environment would say is "dangerous." And look at me, 34 years old, and still alive.I learned my lesson.
But people can't ignore common sense when it comes to things. Apparently, this is the day and age of the lawsuit. "MY KID SWALLOWED YOUR PRODUCT AND HAD TO HAVE SURGERY!! I AM GOING TO SUE YOU!!!" And the response becomes: The product becomes recalled.
What's next? Recall VO-5 because a kid's eyes had to be flushed because he used shampoo intended for adults?? Might as well ban anything that has watch batteries, because guess what? They can be opened up and those batteries can be ingested by a little kid. To me, the simplest solution is to watch your kid, and keep small objects like that put away. If you buy a toy like the Easter toys that are being recalled, make sure you are giving them to a kid who knows what they are and what they do. If the kid doesn't understand, then don't buy them!! Plain and simple. Not too hard to figure out!!
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Relationship Advice in a Social World
"Nothing breaks the bridges of love, except a weak foundation." - self
Yes, that is a quote I came up with several years ago. If you have a relationship with a strong foundation, then you have a love that can never be broken.
However, nowadays, about 50% of all marriages end in divorce. How is this possible? What is going on? Is my quote inaccurate now???
I will contend that my quote is still just as accurate as it has always been, but there are now changes that make the foundations of relationships a little weaker. How do we build indestructible foundations to create this permanent love? Allow me to provide a little advice (with a little modern flair).
First of all, any foundation must be solid. To build a solid foundation, we can not build the outer layers first and then fail to build the core within the relationship. To build a solid core, you must first get to know the person you are with. This is important. A lot of relationships jump right into the sack too soon. This creates a relationship without a solid core. You have a relationship, but you don't really know the person you are with. In this case, you are playing a gambling game. So, if intimacy isn't the way to know someone, then what is?
The answer to everything in a relationship is: communication. Plain and simple. You must communicate with the person you are with. You can not build any foundation without communication. To build the core of the relationship, you must communicate with the person you are with.
Once you learn who the person you are with is, then what comes next? Trust. You must build trust with the person you are with. Trust is one of things that is easy to lose. It is difficult to gain, and easy to lose. How do we build trust?
Again... communication. You must continue to communicate with your significant other. Do not be afraid to let down your guard and let this person in. Revealing yourself to your partner allows your partner to trust you. But trust is something that needs to be maintained. If you've let your partner in, but fail to keep the lines of communication open, your partner will start to feel like you are hiding something. Once that trust is lost, it is HARD to get that trust back. The perfect analogy to this is like trying to push a rock up a hill. You need to keep pushing that rock upwards. If you slip up, you have to rebuild that momentum to get moving forward again. And if you let it go completely, it rolls back down and you lose that trust completely.
The more trust you build, the stronger your foundation becomes.
Now, communication still continues to be important. Even after you trust each other, you must be prepared to fix any issue that arises. Fights will happen. This is normal. What is important is, again... communication (WITH EACH OTHER!!!!). You must communicate your point of view to your partner, and your partner should communicate his/her point of view with you. Then find some type of solution to it. Now, this could be coming up with a compromising solution where you give a little, and your partner gives a little, but together, you reach a common agreement, or it could be a give and take, where you let your partner have his/her way this time.
Now, note the all caps in the previous paragraph. In today's day and age, people think it is acceptable to "have it out" on social media sites. This is a BAD, BAD decision. When you duke it out on social media, you are inviting friends into your fight. This means that you are NOT communicating with each other, but are instead communicating to your friends, and looking for validation behind your point of view. What you are doing is building an army and going to war against your partner. Does this sound like a couple who wants things to work???
No.
The days of social media have made it harder for relationships to work. Couples who fight now pit their friends against their partner, and their partner against their friends. It turns into a complicated mess. If I have a friend who is fighting it out on Facebook with their partner, I will therefore feel pressured to side with my friend over my friend's partner, even though my friend's partner may be right. And in the end: no communication ever happens with each other. No solutions are ever come up with. No one comes up with a resolution, therefore the fighting escalates.
You can not solve a problem by building an army and going to war against your partner. Hoping to destroy your partner KILLS your relationship. The bridge is broke. There is no repairing it. What you need to do is mend those paths together. You need to work together with your partner to patch up the road. And to do that, you must actually put down the weapons, get rid of the army, and practice diplomacy with each other, and actually fix the problem. No war was ever "peacefully" resolved with killing. In the end, peace treaties are signed when two people actually get together and talk.
Communication is the key to everything, in the end. And today, people do not communicate enough with each other. People are spending too much time apart, getting caught up in their own lives, and dealing with their own problems. Remember, in a successful relationship, your problems are also your partner's problems. Help each other work through them. People keep building up armies against each other. Try resolving your issues in a peaceful manner, before the need to build an army even arises. Even in marriage, foundations must be maintained. There is no such thing as "the indestructible foundation," but a foundation that is maintained, with proper communication, will last for as long as you make it last.
As always, thanks for reading. Feel free to leave comments if my advice helped you at all. Also, if you feel that this advice is "on-point," share the knowledge with someone you feel could benefit from this. With approximately 50% of all marriages ending in divorce, I feel that this is a message that needs to be to be read. :)
Yes, that is a quote I came up with several years ago. If you have a relationship with a strong foundation, then you have a love that can never be broken.
However, nowadays, about 50% of all marriages end in divorce. How is this possible? What is going on? Is my quote inaccurate now???
I will contend that my quote is still just as accurate as it has always been, but there are now changes that make the foundations of relationships a little weaker. How do we build indestructible foundations to create this permanent love? Allow me to provide a little advice (with a little modern flair).
First of all, any foundation must be solid. To build a solid foundation, we can not build the outer layers first and then fail to build the core within the relationship. To build a solid core, you must first get to know the person you are with. This is important. A lot of relationships jump right into the sack too soon. This creates a relationship without a solid core. You have a relationship, but you don't really know the person you are with. In this case, you are playing a gambling game. So, if intimacy isn't the way to know someone, then what is?
The answer to everything in a relationship is: communication. Plain and simple. You must communicate with the person you are with. You can not build any foundation without communication. To build the core of the relationship, you must communicate with the person you are with.
Once you learn who the person you are with is, then what comes next? Trust. You must build trust with the person you are with. Trust is one of things that is easy to lose. It is difficult to gain, and easy to lose. How do we build trust?
Again... communication. You must continue to communicate with your significant other. Do not be afraid to let down your guard and let this person in. Revealing yourself to your partner allows your partner to trust you. But trust is something that needs to be maintained. If you've let your partner in, but fail to keep the lines of communication open, your partner will start to feel like you are hiding something. Once that trust is lost, it is HARD to get that trust back. The perfect analogy to this is like trying to push a rock up a hill. You need to keep pushing that rock upwards. If you slip up, you have to rebuild that momentum to get moving forward again. And if you let it go completely, it rolls back down and you lose that trust completely.
The more trust you build, the stronger your foundation becomes.
Now, communication still continues to be important. Even after you trust each other, you must be prepared to fix any issue that arises. Fights will happen. This is normal. What is important is, again... communication (WITH EACH OTHER!!!!). You must communicate your point of view to your partner, and your partner should communicate his/her point of view with you. Then find some type of solution to it. Now, this could be coming up with a compromising solution where you give a little, and your partner gives a little, but together, you reach a common agreement, or it could be a give and take, where you let your partner have his/her way this time.
Now, note the all caps in the previous paragraph. In today's day and age, people think it is acceptable to "have it out" on social media sites. This is a BAD, BAD decision. When you duke it out on social media, you are inviting friends into your fight. This means that you are NOT communicating with each other, but are instead communicating to your friends, and looking for validation behind your point of view. What you are doing is building an army and going to war against your partner. Does this sound like a couple who wants things to work???
No.
The days of social media have made it harder for relationships to work. Couples who fight now pit their friends against their partner, and their partner against their friends. It turns into a complicated mess. If I have a friend who is fighting it out on Facebook with their partner, I will therefore feel pressured to side with my friend over my friend's partner, even though my friend's partner may be right. And in the end: no communication ever happens with each other. No solutions are ever come up with. No one comes up with a resolution, therefore the fighting escalates.
You can not solve a problem by building an army and going to war against your partner. Hoping to destroy your partner KILLS your relationship. The bridge is broke. There is no repairing it. What you need to do is mend those paths together. You need to work together with your partner to patch up the road. And to do that, you must actually put down the weapons, get rid of the army, and practice diplomacy with each other, and actually fix the problem. No war was ever "peacefully" resolved with killing. In the end, peace treaties are signed when two people actually get together and talk.
Communication is the key to everything, in the end. And today, people do not communicate enough with each other. People are spending too much time apart, getting caught up in their own lives, and dealing with their own problems. Remember, in a successful relationship, your problems are also your partner's problems. Help each other work through them. People keep building up armies against each other. Try resolving your issues in a peaceful manner, before the need to build an army even arises. Even in marriage, foundations must be maintained. There is no such thing as "the indestructible foundation," but a foundation that is maintained, with proper communication, will last for as long as you make it last.
As always, thanks for reading. Feel free to leave comments if my advice helped you at all. Also, if you feel that this advice is "on-point," share the knowledge with someone you feel could benefit from this. With approximately 50% of all marriages ending in divorce, I feel that this is a message that needs to be to be read. :)
Thursday, April 6, 2017
Like A Boss
How do you motivate a team to do good work for you? Do you be nice to your coworkers and expect that they'll do good work for you in kind, or do you yell at your employees and expect that they'll work hard because they feel their job is in jeopardy if they fail?
Which is the best approach?
I have been in those shoes before. I have been in a position where I was in charge of a staff of employees, so I have some first-hand knowledge on this topic. As a supervisor, you still have bosses who demand a lot from you. And you, in turn, have to expect a lot from your employees. If you employees fail, you fail. So, there is a lot of pressure for a supervisor to get his/her team to perform at a satisfactory level. But what is the best approach to get employees to work?
If a boss has a tendency to be nice with their employees, then the work place environment becomes casual. Casual work environments have pros and cons associated with them. The good thing with a positive work environment is that morale is high. Workers who are happy at their jobs want to stick around so retention is high. They'll enjoy their job and usually leave work in a good mood. They'll get work done, and the employees will feel open to voice any concerns that they have with their boss. After all, their boss is their friend too! :) [All smiles and wonderful things here]!! :D :D :D
However, this does create other problems. In a casual work environment, the employees are shielded from the reality of what is really going on. Employees usually do not realize that despite getting work done, they aren't getting enough work done. Because it is a casual, friendly environment with a friend as a supervisor, the supervisor never takes any initiative to motivate his/her employees to work harder. Therefore, they constantly fail to meet deadlines, and they fall behind as a result. While this is happening, the supervisor gets yelled at, and shields his/her team from it. Employees, therefore, do not realize that stress that their supervisor is under. Two things happen then:
Now, another option is for the supervisor to be a "drill sergeant" and ride their employee's asses to get the job done. This is what I refer to as a "concentration camp." This leads to a lower morale with the employees. The employees become afraid of discussing issues with their boss because they fear being yelled at. The employees dread going to work everyday, so they tend to either A) come up with excuses to not go to work, B) work despite their issues and get extremely stressed out, or C) quit.
Having a boss yell all of the time hurts employee retention. And this isn't just a small deal. Those people who dealt with this boss, tell other people. And soon word of your notoriety spreads. Now, people won't even apply for the job because they know they'd have to deal with you.
On top of that, it doesn't change the fact that you are still getting your ass ridden by upper-management. Your employees that DO work for you yet, have so little morale, they do not care if they get fired. Therefore, they will work slowly, regardless of how much you yell or scream. You could threaten their job, and they'd cower down and work, but be definitely considering their options. Other employees that work hard for you, despite getting their asses ridden all of the time, start to stress out. They tend to drink when off work, and are constantly stressed even at home. This also leads to the condition where employees that work their asses off, feel all of the pressure is on them to do the extra work of the employees who don't work as hard. Results are all that matter. More than likely, the employees good deeds will not be noticed, nor complimented, and they'll just feel both emotionally and physically drained as a result.
One of the things I had learned at my previous job is that you don't yell at your employees. You want to be firm and direct with them. You want to make sure they know you are in charge and what you say goes. But they also need to know that it is okay for them to talk to you about any issues they may have. Keep your conversations direct and to the point.
As a supervisor, it is not your job to be friends with your employees. You can be on friendly terms with them, but it is NOT recommended to be friends with them. Employees will respect you more, if you seem authoritative and to the point. Treat your employees with the same respect you would have them expect of you. An employee with a good morale, and a good structured work environment will always be more productive.
As a shift lead, I had a staff of only 4 people at maximum. We were horribly understaffed and unable to keep employee retention where it needed to be. This was due to the fact that our shift was a weekend shift that ran during the summer, AND was overnight. Being understaffed lead to a lot of stress, and we all felt it. I had developed a motto at this point, "If you work for me, I will work with you." This meant that as long as you were doing your job and putting forth effort at doing it, I would be right there next to you, busting my ass with you. If you failed, I'd be right there with you. We failed together. But if you were a slacker, who didn't want to do the job or just didn't want to be there, then I would have you fired. And, unfortunately, that did come up with an employee I had who just didn't care at all about the job or whether he even showed up to work on time.
Now, I work a job where I'm no longer a supervisor of any kind. I had to step down and go back to square one with a completely different industry and job. I have a boss who towards the beginning would yell at me for making mistakes. I admit that I tend to make more mistakes when I'm overwhelmed by new information. I work in a retail job and rules change from day to day. I've heard it implied that you are not an adult if you don't like being yelled at. That is simply not true. Morale affects everyone equally, regardless of age. The only difference is, the more qualified you are, the less you are likely to put up with it. I don't get yelled at as much, and I feel more motivated to give it my all. Getting yelled at destroys my morale, and my will to work. The firm but friendly supervisor who acknowledges the good work I do, is the supervisor I want to work under.
Thanks for reading this!! If you have any comments that you would like to add, feel free to share them below. :)
Which is the best approach?
I have been in those shoes before. I have been in a position where I was in charge of a staff of employees, so I have some first-hand knowledge on this topic. As a supervisor, you still have bosses who demand a lot from you. And you, in turn, have to expect a lot from your employees. If you employees fail, you fail. So, there is a lot of pressure for a supervisor to get his/her team to perform at a satisfactory level. But what is the best approach to get employees to work?
If a boss has a tendency to be nice with their employees, then the work place environment becomes casual. Casual work environments have pros and cons associated with them. The good thing with a positive work environment is that morale is high. Workers who are happy at their jobs want to stick around so retention is high. They'll enjoy their job and usually leave work in a good mood. They'll get work done, and the employees will feel open to voice any concerns that they have with their boss. After all, their boss is their friend too! :) [All smiles and wonderful things here]!! :D :D :D
However, this does create other problems. In a casual work environment, the employees are shielded from the reality of what is really going on. Employees usually do not realize that despite getting work done, they aren't getting enough work done. Because it is a casual, friendly environment with a friend as a supervisor, the supervisor never takes any initiative to motivate his/her employees to work harder. Therefore, they constantly fail to meet deadlines, and they fall behind as a result. While this is happening, the supervisor gets yelled at, and shields his/her team from it. Employees, therefore, do not realize that stress that their supervisor is under. Two things happen then:
- The supervisor ends up "taking one for the team" and doing the extra work.
- The supervisor ends up losing his/her job due to incompetence to lead.
Now, another option is for the supervisor to be a "drill sergeant" and ride their employee's asses to get the job done. This is what I refer to as a "concentration camp." This leads to a lower morale with the employees. The employees become afraid of discussing issues with their boss because they fear being yelled at. The employees dread going to work everyday, so they tend to either A) come up with excuses to not go to work, B) work despite their issues and get extremely stressed out, or C) quit.
Having a boss yell all of the time hurts employee retention. And this isn't just a small deal. Those people who dealt with this boss, tell other people. And soon word of your notoriety spreads. Now, people won't even apply for the job because they know they'd have to deal with you.
On top of that, it doesn't change the fact that you are still getting your ass ridden by upper-management. Your employees that DO work for you yet, have so little morale, they do not care if they get fired. Therefore, they will work slowly, regardless of how much you yell or scream. You could threaten their job, and they'd cower down and work, but be definitely considering their options. Other employees that work hard for you, despite getting their asses ridden all of the time, start to stress out. They tend to drink when off work, and are constantly stressed even at home. This also leads to the condition where employees that work their asses off, feel all of the pressure is on them to do the extra work of the employees who don't work as hard. Results are all that matter. More than likely, the employees good deeds will not be noticed, nor complimented, and they'll just feel both emotionally and physically drained as a result.
One of the things I had learned at my previous job is that you don't yell at your employees. You want to be firm and direct with them. You want to make sure they know you are in charge and what you say goes. But they also need to know that it is okay for them to talk to you about any issues they may have. Keep your conversations direct and to the point.
As a supervisor, it is not your job to be friends with your employees. You can be on friendly terms with them, but it is NOT recommended to be friends with them. Employees will respect you more, if you seem authoritative and to the point. Treat your employees with the same respect you would have them expect of you. An employee with a good morale, and a good structured work environment will always be more productive.
As a shift lead, I had a staff of only 4 people at maximum. We were horribly understaffed and unable to keep employee retention where it needed to be. This was due to the fact that our shift was a weekend shift that ran during the summer, AND was overnight. Being understaffed lead to a lot of stress, and we all felt it. I had developed a motto at this point, "If you work for me, I will work with you." This meant that as long as you were doing your job and putting forth effort at doing it, I would be right there next to you, busting my ass with you. If you failed, I'd be right there with you. We failed together. But if you were a slacker, who didn't want to do the job or just didn't want to be there, then I would have you fired. And, unfortunately, that did come up with an employee I had who just didn't care at all about the job or whether he even showed up to work on time.
Now, I work a job where I'm no longer a supervisor of any kind. I had to step down and go back to square one with a completely different industry and job. I have a boss who towards the beginning would yell at me for making mistakes. I admit that I tend to make more mistakes when I'm overwhelmed by new information. I work in a retail job and rules change from day to day. I've heard it implied that you are not an adult if you don't like being yelled at. That is simply not true. Morale affects everyone equally, regardless of age. The only difference is, the more qualified you are, the less you are likely to put up with it. I don't get yelled at as much, and I feel more motivated to give it my all. Getting yelled at destroys my morale, and my will to work. The firm but friendly supervisor who acknowledges the good work I do, is the supervisor I want to work under.
Thanks for reading this!! If you have any comments that you would like to add, feel free to share them below. :)
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Sodastream... GRRR
In a previous post, I made mention that I complained about Sodastream for about two months solid. That sounds like something that should have been blogged about. At the time, I didn't really have time to create a long blog post about it. Now, I do. :)
For those, not in the know, allow me to explain what happened. Sodastream has been a company that has provided the convenience of "DIY pop at home since 1998 with the Sodastream device. You could carbonate your own water, and add a syrup to it to turn sparkling water into pop. It was great!! I bought a Sodastream back in about 2010 and loved using it. Sodastream was pretty popular too. It had a following of customers that kept coming back and buying syrups. Then something happened...
They changed the syrup.
In lieu of smart business strategy, they completely removed the product line that made them successful and put out new formulations of syrup. This, understandably, left a lot of long-time Sodastream users upset (including me). The old Sodastream bottles allowed for 50 servings. The new syrup allows for only 29. Also, the amount of syrup in each bottle has changed: 500 mL for the old bottles vs. 440 mL for the new. The syrup in the new bottles has been known to not taste as good as the old syrup either. This becomes a major problem.
Sodastream's market strategy previously focused on trying to be better than pop in every way.
Sodastream is now more expensive than pop. And now, by a larger margin than before. For the most part, Sodastream WAS cheaper than pop, (unless you bought two-liter bottles of generic pop, in which case, there was no comparison. Sodastream was supposed to provide great tasting soda for less than regular pop. Now, the new syrup costs the same as the old syrup. So, you are paying more per serving than before. The increased rate in which you have to buy syrup means that now, Sodastream is more expensive than pop. I'm better off buying regular, unhealthy pop, than drink Sodastream now. Sodastream is still a better alternative to regular pop, health-wise, but definitely more expensive.
And the last point leaves itself up to opinion. A lot of the people who drink the new syrups have stated that they do not taste as good as they used to. In fact, a lot of people have even suggested the new syrups are "watered down." On top of that, the new syrups have to be refrigerated and do not keep as long as the old syrups.
Apparently, Sodastream's strategy was to appeal to a new crowd. They wanted to appeal to people who were more about health and not about pop. Basically, the sparkling water movement. The problem is, the new crowd didn't make Sodastream big. They turned their backs on the customers that made them big in the first place to appeal to a new crowd. That was their big screw up. They should have kept both product lines going to appeal to both old, and new customers. Sodastream, in my opnion, has been a soda company. It even has soda in the name. But now, they are tailoring themselves to sparkling water, and not so much soda. I can buy a large bottle of flavored sparkling water at Walmart, right now, for less than a dollar, so they have their work cut out for them trying to jump into an established market.
However, complaining about the problem isn't the only thing I did. I wanted to be able to justify using my Sodastream system. Kraft foods and Sodastream used to have a contract deal. They made syrups together. Kool-Aid had 3 flavors of syrup available with Sodastream before Sodastream changed everything up: Cherry, Grape, and Tropical Punch. I have actually gone through the trouble to invent my own syrup using Kool-Aid. I initially tried to replicate as closely as I could the flavor of Sodastream's Kool-Aid line. And then I one-upped it. Now, I make my own syrups, they are caffeinated, and taste great. If you want the recipe, click "Recipe for Kool Aid Pop" link at the top of the page.
Thanks for reading!!! Feel free to comment.
For those, not in the know, allow me to explain what happened. Sodastream has been a company that has provided the convenience of "DIY pop at home since 1998 with the Sodastream device. You could carbonate your own water, and add a syrup to it to turn sparkling water into pop. It was great!! I bought a Sodastream back in about 2010 and loved using it. Sodastream was pretty popular too. It had a following of customers that kept coming back and buying syrups. Then something happened...
They changed the syrup.
In lieu of smart business strategy, they completely removed the product line that made them successful and put out new formulations of syrup. This, understandably, left a lot of long-time Sodastream users upset (including me). The old Sodastream bottles allowed for 50 servings. The new syrup allows for only 29. Also, the amount of syrup in each bottle has changed: 500 mL for the old bottles vs. 440 mL for the new. The syrup in the new bottles has been known to not taste as good as the old syrup either. This becomes a major problem.
Sodastream's market strategy previously focused on trying to be better than pop in every way.
- Less plastic in the landfills.
- Less expensive than pop.
- Better tasting than pop.
Sodastream is now more expensive than pop. And now, by a larger margin than before. For the most part, Sodastream WAS cheaper than pop, (unless you bought two-liter bottles of generic pop, in which case, there was no comparison. Sodastream was supposed to provide great tasting soda for less than regular pop. Now, the new syrup costs the same as the old syrup. So, you are paying more per serving than before. The increased rate in which you have to buy syrup means that now, Sodastream is more expensive than pop. I'm better off buying regular, unhealthy pop, than drink Sodastream now. Sodastream is still a better alternative to regular pop, health-wise, but definitely more expensive.
And the last point leaves itself up to opinion. A lot of the people who drink the new syrups have stated that they do not taste as good as they used to. In fact, a lot of people have even suggested the new syrups are "watered down." On top of that, the new syrups have to be refrigerated and do not keep as long as the old syrups.
Apparently, Sodastream's strategy was to appeal to a new crowd. They wanted to appeal to people who were more about health and not about pop. Basically, the sparkling water movement. The problem is, the new crowd didn't make Sodastream big. They turned their backs on the customers that made them big in the first place to appeal to a new crowd. That was their big screw up. They should have kept both product lines going to appeal to both old, and new customers. Sodastream, in my opnion, has been a soda company. It even has soda in the name. But now, they are tailoring themselves to sparkling water, and not so much soda. I can buy a large bottle of flavored sparkling water at Walmart, right now, for less than a dollar, so they have their work cut out for them trying to jump into an established market.
However, complaining about the problem isn't the only thing I did. I wanted to be able to justify using my Sodastream system. Kraft foods and Sodastream used to have a contract deal. They made syrups together. Kool-Aid had 3 flavors of syrup available with Sodastream before Sodastream changed everything up: Cherry, Grape, and Tropical Punch. I have actually gone through the trouble to invent my own syrup using Kool-Aid. I initially tried to replicate as closely as I could the flavor of Sodastream's Kool-Aid line. And then I one-upped it. Now, I make my own syrups, they are caffeinated, and taste great. If you want the recipe, click "Recipe for Kool Aid Pop" link at the top of the page.
Thanks for reading!!! Feel free to comment.
Meet Me Ousside - Fake TV
What is our world coming to??? For some reason, "reality" TV is popular. I do not know why. I do not understand this. Am I stupid to not be able to discern reality from fiction??? Because the last time I checked, reality is what is happening, right now, in the "real world."
Cause last time I checked... reality wasn't scripted.
For those completely glued to "reality" TV, allow me to burst your bubble by saying, "That stuff isn't real." It's scripted. (To an extent). Some of the dialogue and some (not all) of the language is unscripted. But the scenarios and the drama that plays out in the show... most of the time, that is scripted. Scripted events are created in a ploy to draw more ratings to the show.
But wait!!! This goes against the very definition of "reality!!!" I sniff fraud.
But wait... there's something about it. It has a drawing power that actually seems to attract viewers. It defines the current trends. People are actually INFLUENCED by it. Too many people actually care about what is going on in the lives of the Kardashians. Me?? I don't care!! But style trends are influenced. Women are getting their butts enhanced because of people like Kim Kardashian. Me??? Not a woman!!! :p The point is... these shows, as much as I hate to say it, have an influence that changes attitudes and actions in the real world. Those scripted shows, and that drama, actually boils over into the real world, in ways that are somewhat disturbing. People have altered their bodies, altered their personality, and changed their hobbies due to "reality" TV. In a way, it becomes real to them.
Now, we have this girl named Danielle Bregoli. She went on the Dr. Phil show, and pretty much made an ass out of herself. It went viral on the Internet, and she got her own show. This GIRL, who sleeps around, does drugs, and picks fights, gets her own TV show. I have to ask... what do you want for our future?
Remember, "reality" TV influences the real world, regardless of how fake it is. There is two major problems here:
With point number 2, she is still just a girl. She has a life to live. She could improve her life, and actually be successful for good reasons. Now, this is what really gets me. "Reality" TV is not real in the way people think. What will happen is this: the producers, writers, and directors behind that show will script it. Danielle will be expected and forced to act the way she does, even if she doesn't want to any more. They will encourage it, because the show can't maintain ratings if she decides to clean up her act. She'll essentially get paid to destroy her life. Eventually like every other trend or fad, people will stop watching. It always happens. Either that, or she'll get old enough to no longer appeal to the demographic the network needs. In both cases, the network will drop her. Now, she'll have no concept of how to live. She'll have nothing to fall back on. Yeah, she'll have money, but because she turned to those bad behaviors at such a young age, that's all she'll know. And that money won't last, or she'll end up killing herself cause of it. In either case, it doesn't end well.
I feel this show is a bad idea. There is "reality" TV out there that does send a positive message, but that is rare. Shows like this make me very worried for the future. If or when I have kids of my own, how will I not worry about things like this? Shows like this are capable of corrupting youth, but they should be used to send a positive message instead.
What are your thoughts? What are your opinions on this? Let me know in the comments!!! I love getting feedback.
Cause last time I checked... reality wasn't scripted.
For those completely glued to "reality" TV, allow me to burst your bubble by saying, "That stuff isn't real." It's scripted. (To an extent). Some of the dialogue and some (not all) of the language is unscripted. But the scenarios and the drama that plays out in the show... most of the time, that is scripted. Scripted events are created in a ploy to draw more ratings to the show.
But wait!!! This goes against the very definition of "reality!!!" I sniff fraud.
But wait... there's something about it. It has a drawing power that actually seems to attract viewers. It defines the current trends. People are actually INFLUENCED by it. Too many people actually care about what is going on in the lives of the Kardashians. Me?? I don't care!! But style trends are influenced. Women are getting their butts enhanced because of people like Kim Kardashian. Me??? Not a woman!!! :p The point is... these shows, as much as I hate to say it, have an influence that changes attitudes and actions in the real world. Those scripted shows, and that drama, actually boils over into the real world, in ways that are somewhat disturbing. People have altered their bodies, altered their personality, and changed their hobbies due to "reality" TV. In a way, it becomes real to them.
Now, we have this girl named Danielle Bregoli. She went on the Dr. Phil show, and pretty much made an ass out of herself. It went viral on the Internet, and she got her own show. This GIRL, who sleeps around, does drugs, and picks fights, gets her own TV show. I have to ask... what do you want for our future?
Remember, "reality" TV influences the real world, regardless of how fake it is. There is two major problems here:
- Teenagers and kids who watch this show, will be influenced by her behavior.
- Danielle is still just a girl, herself.
With point number 2, she is still just a girl. She has a life to live. She could improve her life, and actually be successful for good reasons. Now, this is what really gets me. "Reality" TV is not real in the way people think. What will happen is this: the producers, writers, and directors behind that show will script it. Danielle will be expected and forced to act the way she does, even if she doesn't want to any more. They will encourage it, because the show can't maintain ratings if she decides to clean up her act. She'll essentially get paid to destroy her life. Eventually like every other trend or fad, people will stop watching. It always happens. Either that, or she'll get old enough to no longer appeal to the demographic the network needs. In both cases, the network will drop her. Now, she'll have no concept of how to live. She'll have nothing to fall back on. Yeah, she'll have money, but because she turned to those bad behaviors at such a young age, that's all she'll know. And that money won't last, or she'll end up killing herself cause of it. In either case, it doesn't end well.
I feel this show is a bad idea. There is "reality" TV out there that does send a positive message, but that is rare. Shows like this make me very worried for the future. If or when I have kids of my own, how will I not worry about things like this? Shows like this are capable of corrupting youth, but they should be used to send a positive message instead.
What are your thoughts? What are your opinions on this? Let me know in the comments!!! I love getting feedback.
Life...
If there are people who have followed this little blog in the past, firstly, I will apologize that I haven't posted on this blog in quite a while. Life got in the way and this took a back seat. I feel that this would be an opportune time to explain myself.
1) I got married. This doesn't mean that my wife doesn't allow me to do this. During the whole planning for the marriage, the designing of cards for the ceremony, and the plan, I didn't really have the time to blog on this.
2) I moved. (Moving is a pain in the ass.) This one doesn't really quite require much of an explanation. The only thing to add is... I'm lazy. We still aren't completely unpacked, and this was in November, 2016, that we moved. (March 30th, 2017, now, so yeah...)
3) Lack of content. For a while there, there was a dry spell where I really didn't have much to rant about. Now, I have a lot to rant about. So, I might try to keep up with this on a more regular basis.
4) Not a large audience. This could tie in to number 3. If I had more content, more people would find this.
5) There is way too much of this type of thing going on. In the age of social media, everyone is already sharing their opinions about everything. It isn't a rare occasion where I'll go onto a social post and voice my opinions about something that annoys me. (For instance, Sodastream's business strategy, [which I spent a good two months solid complaining to them]).
So, this is what I'm going to do. This will still be editorialistic. As I like to voice my opinions on things (of course, with backed up facts to support my beliefs), that will not change. I will add more random content (for instance, instead of "current events," I'll voice my opinions about stuff that doesn't really matter as well. We'll see how long I can keep it going. :)
To those who read, thanks for reading this. :) If you have ideas of things for me to vocalize an opinion about, feel free to suggest something. I'm sure I'll have an opinion.
1) I got married. This doesn't mean that my wife doesn't allow me to do this. During the whole planning for the marriage, the designing of cards for the ceremony, and the plan, I didn't really have the time to blog on this.
2) I moved. (Moving is a pain in the ass.) This one doesn't really quite require much of an explanation. The only thing to add is... I'm lazy. We still aren't completely unpacked, and this was in November, 2016, that we moved. (March 30th, 2017, now, so yeah...)
3) Lack of content. For a while there, there was a dry spell where I really didn't have much to rant about. Now, I have a lot to rant about. So, I might try to keep up with this on a more regular basis.
4) Not a large audience. This could tie in to number 3. If I had more content, more people would find this.
5) There is way too much of this type of thing going on. In the age of social media, everyone is already sharing their opinions about everything. It isn't a rare occasion where I'll go onto a social post and voice my opinions about something that annoys me. (For instance, Sodastream's business strategy, [which I spent a good two months solid complaining to them]).
So, this is what I'm going to do. This will still be editorialistic. As I like to voice my opinions on things (of course, with backed up facts to support my beliefs), that will not change. I will add more random content (for instance, instead of "current events," I'll voice my opinions about stuff that doesn't really matter as well. We'll see how long I can keep it going. :)
To those who read, thanks for reading this. :) If you have ideas of things for me to vocalize an opinion about, feel free to suggest something. I'm sure I'll have an opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)