Something to Hide?

I don't have cable television, as many of you know. So, when I get "out" for a few days, I usually get to watch some television that is not included in my regularly sheduled programming. Along with that, I get to see things in HD. Anyway, I don't pay too much attention to people on television, as my two stations are a little fuzzy anyway. This last holiday though, I found myself wondering why women wear so much make-up? Not all women....just some of them.

The part that I don't get, is that a lot of women wear so much make-up, that when they take it off, they no longer even look like the same person. This is confusing to me....it seems like everyday must be Halloween for these women. They spend time in the morning painting their face to make it look like they are someone else. This just seems like some self-esteem issues to me, but I guess I could be wrong, maybe they enjoy spending all that time to look like someone else.

So, congrats to the women everywhere who don't put so much powder and junk on their face that they look like a different person....because that is scary to me.

McRib is back!!!

Is there really enough people that keep ordering this to keep bringing it back. Seriously?

C

Part II

So I have been thinking of the previous post entitled part I, and have hashed it out at great length with a band member of the notorious band The Black Squeeze ( if you are in Austin, find out if they are playing...usually at Trophy's. You should only go if you like hearing good music...if you like Kenny Chesney, rascal flatts, or insert crappy rock band on radio here, then you shouldn't go, it would be lost on you. )

Anyway, so this need to have social acceptance is the same for everyone. It doesn't matter who you are or where you come from...it is there. What hasn't always been there, at least not to the point it exists today, is a willingness to forego more "basic" needs to some extreme in order to attain this need. It is evident everywhere, and seemingly not confined to the social perameters of socioeconomic status like so many other things. Certainly it seems more prevalent amongst a lower SES, but not confined to it. I have reached the conclusion that it is mainly the fault of mass media....television, newspapers, magazines. People feel compelled to have the latest and most fashionable ( coincedentally, usually not cheap) phone, or television, handbag, jeans, shoes, car, house and so on and so on. But the bigger question is, why and how did people start to get this way. Once again, I think over time, people have been programmed to think this way, and most don't even realize it.

If you consider the goods and services industry before the large and exponential expansion of mass media, people didn't seem to be this way...as much. There has always been the existence of the "rich" or "aristocratic"...but that historically never had much emphasis on the way the average person lived. Before the rise of mass media, large in part, jeans were jeans, shoes were shoes, handbags and handbag. Slowly, people began to believe that if they didn't have the best and newest things, they were not as apt in the social heirarchy as someone who did. Virtues were eroded in lieu of materialism. The weakest people were the first to crack, whether this weakness is from circumstance, social setting or whatever it may be, these people started to believe what they were being fed, and just new if they didnt' have the newest cell phone, they couldn't sit at the cool kids lunch table. Slowly, others began to follow suit over time. Eventually, the newest and best products became a neccessity and not a luxury. Therefore, it is acceptable to buy an new iphone in favor of some more responsible application of your money, because you "have to have it", just as you do food, shelter, and water.

The unanswered question , is why do people have this innate desire to feel accepted? I am sure that some could argue that it is part of the evolutionary process, which I don't buy. They would point out that "animals are the same way, they are social creatures." I can't argue with that, this is true. However, the argument in the animals case could much more strongly be linked to evolution than people's. Most ( some animals are very solitary, which weakens this argument further) animals are social creatures, they rely on social connections as a very basic necessity for survival "strength in numbers" and the like...this I agree with. So the argument may go, "well, certainly humans at one time were living like this as well. They formed social networks as a means to survive...look at earlier civilizations and cultures." This I also agree with, but in keeping with the concept of evolution, my take is this. Humans have reached a point where survival is perfectly attainable and even easy without any form of social acceptance into any group. You don't have to be "accepted" to go to the store an buy food, buy fuel for your home or car, get a job, hold down a job, buy clothes, buy a house, ect., ect. You can be perfectly self sufficient even to the point of great comfort without having any social acceptance. This being the case, that if evolutionary instinct is where this need comes from, the need should be getting much weaker instead of much stronger.

All that to say, in the words of someone much smarter than me ... " If you really don't want people to accomplish anything, then get them talking about things like sociology and economics."

And on that note, that is all I have to say about this discussion, also because it is hard to type so much.

My favorite commercial

I first saw this commercial last year when I first moved to Missouri. I thought it was terrible then, and then I never saw it again. I could only assume that whoever was in charge of it decided is was so asinine, ( an observation I arrived at the first time I saw it) that they decided to pull it. It is a commercial by one of the big local hospital systems here, peddling their own insurance programs. Let me set it up for you. Two women are talking. The conversation is about healthcare. One woman is confessing to the other that she is going to have to drop her health insurance for her, her husband and her kids due to the rising costs of everyhting, not just health insurance. The other woman of course is shocked by this, as she should be, and proceeds to tell her to call said hospital system, as they have their own in house insurance plan, which she assures patron #2 is very affordable and easy to get a quote. All this is good and fine, what floors me is the overall context of the commercial. The two women are sitting and having lunch. This lunch is in a fancy italian restaurant, and both women have meals in front of them. Not only that, but they also both have a glass of wine. So I am monday morning quarterbacking from couch and thinking. Okay, italial food for lunch 7-8 dollars, glass of wine 4-5 dollars, plus tip, roughly 12-13 dollars for lunch. This is the part that is so hilarious to me and depressing at the same time. I rarely eat out for lunch, once, maybe twice a month, sometimes not even that and I have never spent 13 dollars. Furthermore, if you are drinking wine at lunch, I am not sure what kind of job you are going back to, probably none. This commercial epitomizes a lot of the problems in america. I can't afford health insurance for my family, but I can afford 15 dollar lunches because " I deserve it" or whatever other ridiculous reason people use to justify their own severe lack in judgment or responsibility. If my wife is ever telling me that we need to drop our health insurance due to finances, and I find out abuot 15 dollar lunches, someone is going to be in a timeout of the serious kind. But, I know she would never do anything even remotely akin to that level of stupidity, far from it. I am just making a point. And, so continues my growing disappointment and contempt for big business/mass media/commercialism.

Part I

My good friend Joel brought up an interesting discussion the other day. This will be part one of the discussion, and one must understand that text on this topic simply will not get the job done, but it is something to think about. The discussion centered around Maslow's heirarchy of needs, and poverty in America. The contention or observation posed was that the need for social acceptance has moved higher up in the heirarchy than most of what is found in the esteem grouping of the pyramid, and in some cases, albeit indirectly, above some of the basic fundamental needs for survival. This may be too strong an assertion. But certainly it could be argued that the need for social acceptance has far exceeded the need of accepting personal responsibility. I did say need, because accepting personal responsibility is in large part what allows us to function as humans, and not as other animals, thereby categorizing it as need. I realize this is somewhat of a simplistic view, but for this purpose, I will leave off discussion of all the many facets of our characters that make us decidingly human. Furthermore, many of these other facets have their roots in accepting personal responsibility.


An Aside: I get very suspicious when anyone starts to instruct or educate me on "the poor in America". Certainly cases of abject poverty exist and a true humanitarian effort is needed ( i.e. personal responsibility by someone or some group) to assist these cases. The point is, that America has the richest poor people in the world. 1/3 of the *poor* population is obese. Obesity and poverty are two conditions that absolutely cannot be reconciled with each other.

Back to the topic,
Why do people feel it necessary to spend way beyond their means in order to obtain some sort of "social acceptance"? A quick example is the family that "can't afford" health insurance, but has a family cell phone plan and a 35 thousand dollar Tahoe. Don't tell me it doesn't exist or is very isolated....I see it everyday. This is just a broad example of what the discussion centered around. How did we get to that point? Who is to blame? Why does this seem to be prevalent more among a low socioeconomic status of people? Is it really more prevalent among a low socioeconomic status of people? More to follow on this discussion, as I think it is a good one.

--Steak

Upcoming events

Well,

I have been away for awhile. No new news really to report. I had a great idea for a blog the other day, but I have since forgotten what it was. I really need to start writing down ideas when I have them, because they appear so few and far between. It has been a good long while since I have been able to see any good live music. The last live concert I saw was Aaron Watson at the Wormy Dog in oklahoma city. So, I am very much excited about the blues festival coming up in september. Really, I am just going to see one band, JJ Grey and Mofro, but I am sure there will be some other good acts, after all, it is a blues festival. They have a new cd to be released titled "Orange Blossoms" or "Orange Blossom Special" or something like that. I am very pumped about that. It is so very appreciated that outstanding music can still be found and people are still making it. Just the other day, I was informed by someone that XM radio now has a kenny chesney channel, which is apparently all kenny chesney songs all the time. It is unfathomable to me that there is enough people that like kenny chesney that much, that it now requires a full time radio station devoted to that garbage heap Kenny and his "people" call music. It is really sad for someone to be a kenny chesney fan, really it is. I feel sorry for anyone who is that way. I wouldn't choose to most readily describe a kenny chesney fan as ignorant, or having bad taste, or being a moron. Despite the fact that all those descriptors may be applicable, really, I just feel sorry for them, because if you will let someone convince you that kenny chesney is music so good it needs its own radio station, then you would and could be convinced of absolutely anything....seriously. kenny chesney fans should never be allowed to read " A Modest Proposal", lest the air be full of the sweet smell of roasting babies.

Gaining ground

Time for another installment of......hillbilly heaven.

Not really, I don't have any great hillbilly stories as of late, but I will post one the next time it happens. Regardless of that, I still enjoy living in southwest missouri, and will be a little sad when I have to leave.

I have been running 4-6 times a week for about two months now. I know you are thinking "Wow", "Great", and maybe even " Liar". But it is true, I have stuck to it pretty well. The problem that I am incurring is somewhat new and frustrating to say the least. Throughout my life, anytime I have decided to get back in shape, it really was no big deal to just start running 3-3.5 miles to whip myself into shape. The problem now, is once I finished school for the second time in eight years, I was at an all time high as far as weight goes. I finished school tipping the scales at 232 lbs.....I think just enough to fight in the heavyweight division. Therein lies the problem. Running now, my legs and knees give out long before my lungs, and the easy 3--3.5 miles is not so easy anymore. In fact, at about two miles, my legs are in much more of a crisis than my lungs are. My lungs are ready to meander along for another two miles or so, but my legs and knees are throwing on the brakes. I guess with enough time, my legs will finally adapt, but I find myself thinking, what if they don't. Have I passed the point of my body being able to handle that kind of strain? Who knows, but I will keep sticking with it in hopes of getting in better shape, with the ultimate goal really just being to live past the age of 62, which is apparently not an easy feat for men in my family. All in all, I have lost about 10 pounds or so, but carrying 222 at a jog is still rather taxing.

C