DO YOU WANT TO KNOW THE SECRET? (doo dah doo)

     My Best Friend the other day was telling me about a book I've heard before called The Secret and its bullshit philosophy therein. The basic idea is that good things will come to you so long as you have a positive attitude. But my words cannot do it justice, why not quote the passages (I'm lifting them from this review by the way)?

"What is The Secret? What is Rhonda Byrne’s philosophy? What is the Law of Attraction?

It’s defined many times, in many different ways, by many different people in the book. Here are a few of the more concise descriptions:

'Everything that’s coming into your life you are attracting into your life. And it’s attracted to you by virtue of the images you’re holding in your mind. It’s what you’re thinking. Whatever is going on in your mind you are attracting to you. Every thought if yours is a real thing – a force.'

'Thoughts become things!'
 

'Thoughts are magnetic, and thoughts have a frequency. As you think thoughts, they are sent out into the Universe, and they magnetically attract all like things that are on the same frequency. Everything sent out returns to the source – you.'

Got it? If you think about something, that something will be attracted to your life. Whatever is in your life is there because you caused it to be there. All the good and bad things surrounding you – your friends or loneliness, your loving or abusive relationships, your success or failure, your health or illness, your life and death – all are there because you caused them to be there. This is the 'Law of Attraction'”.
     What kind of philosophy is that? So every bad thing that has ever happened to everyone is the result of your negative thinking? You just weren't positive enough? How insulting.

     Unless your personal betterment philosophy can take into account the results of the Holocaust, you really ought to shut your fucking mouth or at the very least not suggest that the Universe gives even the slightest fuck about our existence...or suggest that this only works on the small scale when the tides of history aren't rushing in or out (and even that is bullshit, but at least slightly easier to swallow bullshit than what has been quoted above). So...those eleven to seventeen million people who were systematically and mechanically murdered by the Nazi regime were just being too negative? Holy fuck, for real? I'm sure every single one of those Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, political dissidents, communists, and whomever else the Nazis just plain thought ought to be exterminated caused it to happen to themselves. Holy fucking fuck fuck!
    Even illnesses are apparently caused by you misapplying the Law of Attraction. They're practically reviving the pre-Germ Theory explanations for diseases. Should I have my humours checked? Perhaps my melancholy and blood are out of balance. Or perhaps I need a talisman to ward off evil spirits...

    Also, note how the "philosophy" has a ready-made excuse for your failure: if you didn't get what you wanted from the Universe, you simply weren't being positive enough. You didn't want it enough. You brought your failure upon yourself. This "philosophy" sets you up to remember your few coincidental successes and gloss over your many failed attempts. That means Winwood and Costello are in my life because I properly applied the Law of Attraction rather than it being the more likely result of if you keep trying, eventually something will stick.

     And the sad thing is these kinds of books get eaten up by the ignorant masses that comprise our public. I am not a practitioner of prayer, but the fact remains that I have more respect for whomever offered up this prayer philosophy than any charlatan preying and capitalizing on the stupid lazy people of this world looking for an easy way out to their problems.

STEAL THIS IDEA, part VIII

     Some quick jokes I thought of (I hope!).

     Have a comedy which takes place a few decades in the future after say, the protagonist falls into a coma or was abducted by aliens for like forty years or whatever...I really don't care. Just so long as he's in that kind of a future. It might help if he was a child when he went missing and though aged, is still a kid at heart like Lion-O from the Thundercats whose body aged while in cryogenic suspension, but his mind remained the child he was when originally frozen.
     Anyways, have the kid stumble upon a Nerf gun exclaiming (something like - not a dialog writer here), "Awesome! They still have Nerf guns!" He grabs it, points it at something all the while his (now older) friends scream, "NOOOO!!!!!", and fires actual bullets into something (or someone if this is a black comedy - said shooting victim need not die...flesh wounds for comedy!). The friends then explain to the man-child that Nerf stopped making real guns and bullets back in the 2030s when sales started lagging for the company (or some other bullshit explanation). Additional layers of the gag being the real gun still looks like a cheap plastic toy (tradition, amirite?) and the fact that a Nerf gun is in an adult's house (with no children...can establish that in prior scenes) going unnoticed by the audience. The Nerf gun can also associated with a famous gun brand like Winchester Nerf Revolver :-P

     This one's for the girls. There's a store called Forever 21 in my area (may be a nationwide chain...I'm kinda hoping it is for this gag). Have a parody store for fat girls (if you wanna be mean about it) or BBWs (if you're going in a prideful direction) called Forever Size 21.

DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-) 

STEAL THIS IDEA, part VII

     A curious thing I have tended to wonder about is the way good and evil are depicted in literature and film. Why is good almost without exception depicted as beautiful, colorful, bright, warm, etc. and evil is dark, cold, ugly, and terrifying? Yes, I know sometimes they are depicted as otherwise, but their final form conforms to this kind of type-casting and I've wondered why this is so.

     The thing about being good is that it is hard and that it is a constant struggle. While a reward is sometimes promised as in religious afterlives, really being good is an endless battle. Being bad is what is easy. Sometimes simply doing nothing is enough, but the idea behind such sinfulness and its temptation...what makes it tempting in fact is the ease with which such sins can be carried out. It's easier to be furious than it is to be patient. It's easier to be invidious than it is to be kind. It's easier to be arrogant than it is to be humble. Etc. and so on and so forth.

     Which brings me back to the physical depictions of goodness...

     I'll keep with Judeo-Christian symbols mainly because that's how I was raised... I don't understand why heavenly beings look the way they do. Why should they look so inviting? I would think a more appropriate angel would look in such a way as to create doubt and unease to the observer. If being good is difficult, or at least the more difficult choice, then following a creature of goodness should parallel that doubt. Something about them should give you the creeps. Something about them should make you wonder why your friends are so willing or even able, to follow them...like it's a trick or something. I'm not saying they should have glowing red eyes and sharp claws. What I'm saying is they should never be giving you this feeling that what you're doing is the right thing and also, even when "you've seen the light" so to speak, they don't suddenly become beautiful as a reward. No, they stay that way forever and there is no goal because being good is an endless struggle.
     Wherever these creatures would lead you should be uncomfortable as well. I picture it being too cold or too hot and too dim or too bright as though the idea were to cause you to give up; to turn around and go back. It's always a struggle...


     I would think at least part of the reason they should appear this way would be to avoid being used. You don't need to be faithful to feel like you could trust a being cloaked in life-giving light with a fair face talking in reassuring tones but you might think twice about approaching a creature that speaks in hoarse, disconcerting whispers bathed in shadow. To merely approach such a creature would be an act of faith that it was not luring you into a trap but perhaps it gives off subtle, ever so subtle, clues that it means you no harm; that all this shadowy nonsense is a bluff to keep those who would use it away.
     But just because you trust it, doesn't mean that it will reveal its "true angelic form" to you. The shadowy creature would be its true form already. If it made such a transformation, then it would actually be a demon trying to lure you into a(n after)life of complacency and leisure instead of good deeds which benefit the system as a whole rather than just you.

     Selfishness is Hell because it is easy to care only about your wants and desires and difficult to care for others over yourself. And for that reason, demons and Hell itself should look like a kind of paradise. It should be full of things to do which make you happy and full of things which would bring about personal fulfillment. And it should feel good to be there because why would you want to leave such a place?
      Even if you've figured it out that good is hard and that this version of Heaven I'm conjuring is hardly a pretty place, remember it's endless so you would be bombarded with the temptation that you've done enough; that it's okay to stop and take your reward because you have earned it. Taking the reward is the wrong step because it is not a reward. There is no reward for goodness. The reward is yet another temptation to be resisted.

      I think I'm painting a picture of Heaven and Hell which roughly parallels the idea of entropy and when discussing entropy, it is important to know that in the end, entropy always wins. Perhaps it kind of works. If only God can be perfect, then no human soul could ever survive the Heaven I've described...not forever anyway. I guess that's where forgiveness comes in, but this was supposed to be about visual depictions, so I'll leave it at that.

DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-) 

THOUGHTS I NORMALLY KEEP IN MY HEAD, part XVII

     I think what I would ultimately like from this blog is one entry that actually gets pageviews that are not my own (yes, I know about creating the cookie to stop that, but I think my other settings cause that cookie to be deleted daily). A little, "Good blog post Vachon!" or "Y'know, that LATE TO THE PARTY guy makes a valid point," pat on the back from the internet. Ideally it would be from one of my actually researched entries or at least one from a subject I am (at least somewhat genuinely) passionate about like coin collecting.

     I should be careful for what I wish for though. Knowing me, it'll be for one of my (amusingly?) ignorant, possibly hate-filled rants. Then I would get to be known as internet-stupid forever :-)

THOUGHTS I NORMALLY KEEP IN MY HEAD, part XVI

     Considering the way blacks (and really, all people of color) have been treated in this racist country for the "sin" of having been born with dark skin, I am greatly confused by white people's obsession with tanning.


     That is all. You may now return to your regularly scheduled normal life...

THOUGHT I WOULD POST SOMETHING POSITIVE

And quick :-P

It has been almost two months since my last depressive mood swing. I haven't been euphoric...don't mean to imply that. I just have not been in a generally negative state for almost two months now. I have been neutral to positive. I do believe this is the longest I have ever gone since I started keeping a journal in 1993.

$20 PAC

     You want to limit the influence of money on politics or at least make the money that goes into politics more democratic? While a lot of laws would need to be changed to even get this idea off the ground, here's what you do. It's simple, possibly elegant, and definitely stupid.

     The maximum donation a candidate/incumbent can accept from a person (or corporation...thanks Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission decision) is twenty dollars ($20). Twenty bucks. That's it...even from himself. The person doing the donating would have to be at least of voting age (preferably registered to do so as well, but I won't advocate that just yet) because if you can't vote, you cannot participate in the system. I don't know how much of this country is over eighteen, but you have to figure at least half making a minimum possible total of about 150 million people which, multiplied by the maximum donation of $20 would be $3 billion dollars per Presidential candidate (though considerably less for each lesser one as I don't think you should be able to donate to people who are not in your district and thus cannot vote for).

     What is the point of this donation limit? For me, the idea is that even the poorest of the poor should have at least twenty dollars to spare for charitable purposes and I will consider donating money to a candidate seeking election to represent you in government as a charitable donation. Each person gets one vote and that is considered fair. No matter how wealthy or poor, you only get one. Money should really be no different. Why is it considered fair that a billionaire can tap his vast fortune to run for office, saturating the landscape with advertisements and socials, or that the well-to-do can donate vast sums of money to a candidate or party? Does that not give them undue influence? Isn't it supposed to be, "Let the best man with the best ideas win" and not "Let the most moneyed man win"? It's about ideas, not dollars...right?

     Therefore, limit the dollars to something more equitable. Candidates would need to get many donations to run a campaign or would have to actually appear at non-partisan sponsored events to debate one and other. They would need to listen to the people because they would need the money to get (re)elected. Politicians would be unable to shut them out. I admit this idea sounds terribly impractical but then I also think, "Who was the last President we've had who wasn't already wealthy?" We've had some rags to riches stories (Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln come to mind), but by the time they were in office, they had some cash to play with. Would it be so wrong to try a little something different?

     And while we're at it, eliminate the direct primary too. Let the political parties who back these candidates actually choose their candidates again. Direct primaries bring out the extremists on both ends and we end up with unelectable candidates as a result. If the direct primary is eliminated, then I will allow people to donate $20 to a political party in addition to a candidate. Maybe it can be a matching donation thing. For every candidate you give $20 to, you can also give $20 to their party assuming the candidate is represented by one.

     Deal?

DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-) 

OH G-D

     I got completely distracted from a blog entry I was reading when I came upon this sentence: "Man, in Judaism's view, was created by G-d here on earth."

      I was completely taken out of my reading. Look, I understand that it is considered a violation to use the Lord's name in vain. I really do. My question is how does using a hyphen in place of the letter O make it so that you have not used the Lord's name in vain? It's what you meant. The letter P is next to the O on the keyboard. If you saw I had typed Gpd instead of God, you would know what I had meant so again, how is blasphemy avoided through the use of a hyphen?

      Later in the blog, the writer uses "Creator". So why not always use that euphemism? A quintessential example of using the letter of the law to violate its spirit, no?
      It reminds me of the Hasidic Jews in our area. They're not supposed to do work on the Sabbath so there will be elevators on autopilot automatically stopping at every floor on the Sabbath so they don't have to push a button. Pushing the button apparently violates the Sabbath law, but benefiting from the electricity anyway apparently does not. I mean, if you set a timer before the Sabbath to turn on a light during the Sabbath, didn't you just violate the law anyway? It was certainly your intent. If you invite a non-Jew over (who's in the know by the way) just so that he can comment about how cold/hot it is in your home and ask if he can turn on the heat/air conditioner (so therefore you did not technically violate any Sabbath rules), how did you not violate the spirit of the law again? Also, if it would be sinful to do such work, how is it not sinful to get someone else to commit the sin on your behalf?

      There are more examples like this and I don't mean to harp on Judaism, it's not my intent to have had them singled out. I'm more aware of their examples than that of other cultures'. My favorite example was a Christian sect which believed that since Baptism cleansed you of your sins...started you anew if you will...that it would be in their practitioners' best interests to be Baptized near the end of life so that one may die free of sin and thus get into Heaven. I guess that means you could live however hedonistically you wished just so long as you were careful not to get killed or die before a priest could Baptize you.
       Like I said, I just don't get it. Apparently you can out-lawyer God. Who knew?

THE NERVE OF SOME PEOPLE...TO THINK WE'RE ALL EQUAL

     I might come back to this another day, but I think I finally understand why it is I just don't like this (usually liberal) philosophy of accepting diversity in all its forms be it lifestyles, religion, clothing, cultures, etc. etc.
     I think it's because I can't respect that. I like the idea of there being a line which cannot be crossed under threat of ostracism. I need people to be intolerant of some things at some point and no, being intolerant of intolerance doesn't count.

     It's like, you can't love or accept everything. The logic may be faulty but it would seem to follow that if you love everything, you also love nothing. The idea being that nothing is necessarily a part of everything so therefore...well, I'm assuming you follow me. It is only through selectivity that one can appreciate an emotion or attitude. This idea that we can't call a culture or religion or lifestyle or attitude wrong by our measure - no means an objective thing - feels antithetical to the human experience.
     Our minds...well, my mind at least - I shouldn't vouch for others - insists upon ideas like this/that; here/there; inside/outside; warmer/colder; higher/lower; us/them; you/me; etc. In other words, sides or groups or any kind of separation. They can overlap like Venn diagrams, but the need for outliers is insisted upon.

     Perhaps that insistence is the force of evolution itself; competition bred of limited time, space, and resources so accepting all becomes an impossibility because there simply isn't enough to go around.
     Or maybe it's just I don't like the idea of someone saying you can't think certain things. Maybe I can't act upon them, but don't tell me I can't think them. I don't know...

      It just feels wrong to put forth this idea that "it's all good" when no, some things are "bad".


"Crash Your Party" by Karmin

"HAUL AWAY" AND "TAKING TO THE CURB" ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS

     Am I wrong in thinking that a furniture company ought to also being a hauling away business as well? They would seem to go hand-in-hand.

     I have a little bit of money set aside and given the uninviting appearance a single chair gives to my living room, I thought it time to buy a couch. I found a suitable design (and color, yes, thank you) and despite the website saying that they "haul away" - those exact words - when I called, before even placing the order, I asked to verify and for some reason, no...they do not actually haul away the furniture they are replacing. How deceptive.
     You might be thinking, "Oh, but they will put it on the curb for you, right?" Yes...at my expense. But I can't just put stuff like that on the curb. The town only picks up on certain days and you can only put it out the night before pick-up. Delivery windows do not include "night" and even if that were not a problem, timing a delivery for the night before pick-up is really just too many dice to roll. What they offer to do is to take the furniture out of my apartment...that's something I could do (albeit not safely). But that's not hauling away unless you want to get liberal with the definition.
      Car dealerships have this figured out. I'm assuming bulk appliance dealers do as well (stoves, refrigerators, etc.) I would think furniture stores would as well. Could you imagine having to figure out how to rid yourself of your old car while buying a new one? The hassle? The insurance issues? It'd be fun, right?

      And aren't we also in the midst of a recession/depression/whatever-the-fuck-they're-calling-it? And here I thought service increased during such times because businesses desperately want to survive and if you can't sell like you used to or lower your prices any further, maybe you could encourage the opening of a wallet by improving service.
      And I'm not even asking that they do it for free. They could offer to haul away for free, but I'm not that much of a dick. I grasp that hauling to a dump probably comes with fees and such. I am content to pay to have this stuff hauled away along with my delivery, but no...they don't do that.

     Maybe this is why I'm not a businessman. I clearly don't understand these things. Enjoy the money you're not getting from me Futonland!

WHAT IS CLASS?

A profile on Plenty of Fish I just read had this clipping from a newspaper reprinted. She said her grandmother had cut it out and given it to her father who then kept it pressed inside a book he kept with him for the rest of his life. When her father died, she found it and shared it with anyone who might read her PoF profile instead of the malarkey that nearly everyone else posts in their profiles.

WHAT IS CLASS?

CLASS NEVER RUNS SCARED. IT IS SURE-FOOTED & CONFIDENT IN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU CAN MEET LIFE HEAD ON AND HANDLE WHATEVER COMES ALONG.

CLASS NEVER MAKES EXCUSES. IT TAKES ITS LUMPS AND LEARNS FROM PAST MISTAKES. CLASS IS CONSIDERATE OF OTHERS. IT KNOWS THAT GOOD MANNERS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A SERIES OF PETTY SACRIFICES.

CLASS BESPEAKS AN ARISTOCRACY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCESTORS OR MONEY. THE MOST AFFLUENT BLUEBLOOD CAN BE TOTALLY WITHOUT CLASS, WHILE THE DESCENDANT OF A WELSH MINER, MAY OOZE CLASS FROM EVERY PORE.

CLASS NEVER TRIES TO BUILD ITSELF UP BY TEARING OTHERS DOWN. CLASS IS "ALREADY" UP AND NEED NOT STRIVE TO LOOK BETTER BY MAKING OTHERS LOOK WORSE.

CLASS CAN "WALK WITH KINGS AND KEEP ITS VIRTUE AND TALK WITH CROWDS AND KEEP THE COMMON TOUCH." EVERYONE IS COMFORTABLE WITH THE PERSON WHO HAS CLASS... BECAUSE HE IS COMFORTABLE WITH HIMSELF.

IF YOU HAVE CLASS, YOU DON'T NEED MUCH OF ANYTHING ELSE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, NO MATTER WHAT ELSE YOU HAVE... IT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE.