Comments (1)

By Keith, March 4, 2010 11:33 pm

I took tonight off from work, but I have nothing planned.  Big mistake.  Now I’m a little bored so I’m re-watching the latest episode of Lost.  Not one of my better ideas considering I’ve nearly lost all interest in this show this season.  It’s not because they are simultaneously showing what is going on with the parallel universes.  Its ludicrousiosity has greatly exceeded a level I can stand, and this vexes me.  Characters in the island universe just run around not telling each other what is really going on while people in the off-island world run around ruining their lives and the lives of those they care about, but have no real purpose.  It’s a bland and flaky formula of throwing together gratuitous action with some mysterious secrets that amounts to a bunch of ambiguous nonsense.  Throw in some terrible child-actors and a lot of meaningless extras, and you have a most unsatisfying final season.  I guess we’re supposed think “OMG! The show has gone all Apocalypse Now!  Cool!”  Meh.

Google Reader had new stories in some of my subscriptions so I read one from The Crescent (think “curved pastry with egg or sausage”) -News, the awful Defiance newspaper.  From the opening sentence, I thought the article was going to introduce some new merchants or restaurants coming to town, but then I made the mistake of reading the entire (poorly written) article.  Lots and lots of one sentence paragraphs, some of which articulating nothing new or specific at all.  I don’t know why I even bother reading anything from The Crescent-News.  Their writers are dreadful.  You would think English was their second language until you realize that most of them have probably never been out of the country.  Any way, the article turned out to be a bunch of disjointed sentences stating the obvious; times are tough, new businesses might be attracted to Defiance after the highway construction is done, and that Defiance has space available in case businesses do decide to locate here.  Duh.  My favorite part of the misleading article was the picture of the “reporter” standing in a snowy parking lot in front of the vacant Super K-Mart building in a cornflower blue sweater over a shirt with the collars sticking out as if he’s saying “Yep, this is where those new businesses I erroneously named (except he wouldn’t use that word.  He’d use several smaller words that mean the same thing as ‘erroneous’) we’re not getting isn’t going in.”  Ohio too is locked in an alternative universe of 20 years ago.

See what boredom does to me?  Makes me cranky!

Comments (0)

By Keith, February 25, 2010 8:32 pm

Since my last post, I’ve been winding down my Facebook account.  First, I removed all of my personal information from my profile. Next, I deleted all but 2 photos.  I think they accurately summarize how I feel about Facebook.  They are my angry Mii and a picture of autumn leaves.  Finally, I deleted all access to my profile by applications and limited access to the very little that’s left to only myself.

What I may do is leave my profile active and just never post anything again.  If I do that, I’ll probably look for a way to disable Facebook messages, because I really don’t like receiving emails telling me I have a message, showing me what the message says, but not letting me reply directly via email.  An alternative would be that I disable my account and create a new account strictly for announcing blog posts.  That would stop me from spamming people on my friend list who really couldn’t care less.  It really sucks that I hate Facebook so much right now, because there are quite a few friends I enjoy keeping in contact with.  I suspect those connections would fade if I disable my account.  Hmm…

<looks for polling plugin for blog>

 Loading ...

There you go, democracy in action.  If you don’t like any of the choices, feel free to state your idea as a comment.

Comments (2)

By Keith, February 25, 2010 4:35 pm

My current feelings toward Facebook could just be a passing phase, a fleeting seasonal attitude.  I am aware of this much, I’m beginning to loathe Facebook and Facebook culture.  People like to rant about the dumbing down of America, but to what low standards they seem to hold their own internet usage.  Do I sound like a broken record?  Does Gen. Y or Z even know what a record is?

The new interface is not the problem, it’s what some people are doing with their Facebook accounts that annoys me, makes me avoid logging in.  Some people don’t seem to know or care that most of the applications they use on Facebook create spam for everyone on their friend list.  Some people don’t know or care that their applications spam their friends with invitations and clutter their friends’ walls with what most of us perceive as garbage content such as virtual drinks, flowers, or other “gifts.”  How many times have you seen that one of your “friends” has answered a question about you, but to see what they said, you must authorize this shady application to access your profile?  This bad behavior pisses me off.  It should piss you off too, if not at your “friends” than at Facebook for allowing their partners’ applications to act in such a dubious manner.  It seems that most people on Facebook don’t seem to have a clue about what their applications are doing or even what personal information they are allowing to be accessed.  I have scripts and extensions installed in my browser(s) that block the majority of spam Facebook spews onto my news feed.  Should I have to do this to enjoy a social networking site?  I think not.

I realize that people like to share information about their lives.  For the most part, I appreciate this.  What I don’t understand is the incessant posting of the most mundane trivial rubbish.  I get it that you’re tired after work.  Most of us are.  It’s these redundant messages that convey nothing of note that influence me to ignore Facebook altogether.  Most of the time, I too have nothing of interest to post.  That’s when I don’t post.

This brings me to the most irritatingly ridiculous posts on Facebook, those espousing some silly childish magical thinking.  I’m talking about the obligatory “I’ll pray for (insert whatever subject that is expected to make the original poster feel better but not actually do anything here).”  Really?  You’ll pray for someone or something?  These are the most pointless and ignorant posts I see on Facebook, and not just because study after study show that prayer does not work.  In my book, saying you will pray over something means you are unable or unwilling to actually DO anything to comfort another human being.  But I suppose it makes some people feel better to know that others are talking to imaginary friends or hoping out loud for a miracle as though some omnipotent being could be bothered to to stop her ego/belly button-gazing long enough to fix their problem.  It’s rubbish to me, and just makes me fear for the future of mankind.

What’s left for me on Facebook?  Requests and invitations sent via applications I loathe?  Advertisements for things I’d never be interested in?  ”News” that a “friend” has become a fan of something obvious like oxygen or sunlight?  Failed attempts at conformed cleverness where we all change our profile pics to represent our favorite cartoon characters?  People posting Farmville pictures to their photo albums?  Links to blog posts ranting about stuff that no one else cares about?

Nope, I think I’m done.  One more week, and I think I’ll be exiting Facebook indefinitely.

Comments (4)

By Keith, February 5, 2010 12:31 pm

“In order to make an omelet, you must first break a few eggs.”   The omelet metaphor has been used many times to justify sacrifice in the present to achieve a goal in the near future, however, when looked at closely, the omelet metaphor crumbles like a dried, empty eggshell.

Due to its implicit use of force, the omelet metaphor smacks of violent coercion and implies that in order to achieve goals, sacrifice is required of someone either voluntarily, by force, or by threat of force.  It implies the need to pound people into submission and seems to justify the use of force to break people to one’s will.  I completely disagree with the omelet metaphor.  Most of the time, if one thinks first of breaking eggs, opportunities for more creative solutions are ignored.  It seems that if modern man would learn to compromise and solve problems creatively so much more could be accomplished than by breaking and destroying as a first resort.  The Omelet metaphor no longer seems apt.

Another reason I don’t like the metaphor is that the sacrifice described therein is never being made by the person using it.  Most people who have sacrificed something for a greater good do not feel the need to make excuses to others for their own sacrifice.  In reality, they need make no statement to defend their decision or to clear their conscience.  For example, a man who cuts off his own foot to escape a trap is breaking his own eggs in order to survive, but I doubt he would feel compelled to use that phrase.  No one would need to ask his justification.  His reasoning is clear.  It’s when that phrase is used to justify someone else’s forced sacrifice that it rubs me wrong.  Most people use the omelet metaphor to explain to others why someone else must sacrifice for a “greater good.”

Breaking down the words of this phrase, we find that they don’t really mean what they are intended to mean.  By their very nature, eggs (if fertilized) represent potential offspring; they represent the future.  It doesn’t make sense to me to call the eggs (or the potential animal in the egg form) a sacrifice, because the eggs in the shell are not of much use as such.  When making an omelet, one is merely taking an otherwise useless object (an unfertilized egg) and transforming it into something useful.  Even the stated goal of the metaphor, an omelet, seems short-term, short-sighted, and hardly worth the sacrifice of future chickens (turtles, or dinosaurs, whatever offspring might come from them).  Certainly the loss to the person breaking the eggs is far less than the loss to the mother of the unhatched eggs or to the families of those who are sacrificed.

By their very nature, eggs represent potential offspring.  It doesn’t make sense to call the eggs (or the animal in the egg form) a sacrifice, if as you say, the eggs in the shell are not of any use.  Basically, I’m arguing against the idea that people or the use (primarily in military actions) of people as a resource without fully appreciating the value of life is a great mistake.  So to devalue potential life within an egg to make an omelet is to say “We are sacrificing future eggs, future omelets, and future chickens (or whatever the animal is that laid the egg) for the here and now, for our immediate gratification.  I don’t think that metaphor makes sense in 99.9% of the situations I’ve ever heard it.

I understand the impossibility of converting everyone to pacifism.  It’s pointless to teach pacifism.  Teaching all people the true value of EVERY human life (it is all each of us truly has) on this planet is paramount.  Teaching people that killing for religious reasons is not acceptable.  Teaching people that killing innocent civilians for ANY reason is ever justifiable is atrocious, because doing so is tantamount to saying that some human lives are disposable.  I would also suggest that the human race must teach every child empathy, the ability to put themselves in someone else’s shoes and understand the situations others find themselves in, sometimes as a direct result of their environment/upbringing/culture.  Until that happens, someone will always be happy breaking someone else’s eggs to make an omelet.

Comments (4)

By Keith, January 28, 2010 11:14 pm

Although my overly simplistic posts make blogging seem like child’s play, I assure you that it aint!  “What’s so difficult about hurriedly typing a bunch of incomplete non sequiturs?” (I hear) you ask (in my head).  “You don’t even utilize the amazing semicolon or proofread, so what could possibly make bloggering hard, Mr. Obvious?”

For one, I sometimes have extremely interesting conversations with friends, but blogging out the ideas from those discussions could (further) offend the person on the other end of that argument.  Did I say “argument?”  I meant “friendly disagreement.”  I don’t want anyone to read my post as being directed at them, so I usually stay silent under those circumstances.  (Maybe tomorrow I’ll write a post about my least favorite phrase, and the post WILL NOT be directed AT Paul!)

Because many people who read my blog know me offline, I tend to shy away from issues that might tend to: 1. offend them, 2. make them (further) question my sanity, 3. think that I’m depressed and/or might do harm to myself.  There’s a lot to be said for blogging anonymously.  Knowing how I feel most days, don’t be surprised if some morning you pop onto Think Obvious expecting to read something frivolous only to involuntarily spit coffee all over the screen in reaction to something dark(ly), humorless(ous), or offensive.  Some days I’m a race car and the world has me in the red, but some day soon I’ll be a mushroom cloud layin’ monkey farmer (expletive replaced; will use to split atom).

My life is simple.  I’m free of most of the complications weighing most people down.  People with baggage probably don’t want that thrown in their face every day.  At some point, everyone will resent living vicariously and either: 1. free themselves, 2. lash out at or shoot down the high flier, or 3. passive-aggressively slink away from their computer to scream at their kids/spouse/pet (choose 2).