I Hate Hair Cuts

Damn, I hate getting my hair cut. I try to get it cut as infrequent as possible. I hate spending the money, I usually wear a hat anyways, and I just hate the whole experience.

The pain starts right when you walk through the door. Apparently, it's not enough to walk in, ask for a haircut and wait your turn. They require name, address, phone number, blood type. Jeez, I have to give less information to get a damn pizza delivered! Honestly, my doctor doesn't even know that much about me. Really, what in the world do they need all that for? As if knowing my house number helps them give me a better haircut?

Then, you get in the chair. It starts off with a million questions. How long do you want it, what style, how do you part it, etc. What is so hard with just getting a plain old haircut, do we really need the million questions? Yea, I know some people are all fancy, but when you specifically ask for just a plain old fashioned haircut, do we need to start an inquisition. It's ironic when the most complicated thing you can ask for is the simple. Really, why in all the questions they bombard you with at the door, none of them are the style of haircut you want, nor do they enter that into the computer. I guess what kind of cut I like is not as important as the grades I got in elementary.

Then, the conversation starts. Where do you work? If my job was exciting in the least, I would told you already, but it's not, it sucks, just like everyone else's. What are your plans for the weekend. Hey, unless you're asking me out, shut up and cut hair. Do you live around here? Of course not, I drove up from Texas to get my hair cut! Questions, questions, questions. If I wanted to "chat" I'd talk to you, but I don't, so just concentrate on cutting my hair, rather then cutting into my head and drawing blood like you're doing! Ouch damn it! Seriously, I think in all my years, I've only had one haircut from them that didn't end up having to be bandaged.

I hate hair cuts, I really need to get one of those vacuum attachments so I can do it myself. Quick, easy, and no "cosmotologists" to talk too damn much! I miss the good old days of the barber shop. Just men, no girls with freaky hair styles, no 20 questions, just come in, sit down, get your haircut, pay and leave. Simple, nice and easy.

Lest everyone thinks I'm an asshole to the person cutting my hair, I do tip pretty well.

Ok, rant over, I'm feeling better now, at least until my next haircut in 5 months.

Violence in Video Games

Sorry for not posting sooner. Truth is, for a while there I was working 7 days a week, some double shifts even. Plus, I found me a superb woman that makes me happier then I've ever been. That mood is quite a hindrance when it comes to writing angry rants, but I'll see what I can do.

The idiots on Capitol Hill are debating violence in video games again. I can't help but roll my eyes at that. I mean really, they are wasting precious time on something like this??

The thing is, video games are violent, yes. Should certain kids be exposed to Grand Theft Auto, of course not. But for them to waste our time and our money on debating this as if video games are to blame for how screwed up the US is nowadays, is ridiculous. Any moron can realize that violence and crime have been around for a lot longer then video games. This whole issue is nothing more then a bunch of idiots trying to pin the problems they can't fix on an easy target. A quick study of recent history will show that the same crucifixion happened to comic books, music, and television. And guess what, crime and violence happened before them, and is still going on!

For once, I'd like to see them attacking the heart of the problem, not some easy scapegoat. Kids don't grow up to be killers and criminals because they played a violent video games! To make that statement is ridiculous. Kids grow up to be killers and criminals because of environment; drugs, crime, poverty, lack of education, a lack of parents, a lack of moral teaching and a lack of love. These are some of the things that contribute to the problems of today, not video games. If the politicians want to attack the true causes, look to the world that surrounds a kid.

The politicians can only do so much. The things they have to do are so massive, that they can't realistically solve them. The solution requires fighting drugs, crime, and poverty, to name a few. Those are things politicians have been fighting since politics started. However, to use something irrelevant as attack a scapegoat, just ticks me off!

Ok, rant over, I'm still angry, but I can't write anything more without repeating myself.

Not Ready to Make Nice

The Dixie Chicks have come out with a new single and video, titled "Not Ready To Make Nice". On watching the video, any idiot will see the references to oil, and the huff that happened when they stood up against George Bush and the war.

This rant is going to be a two pronged attack!

First off, it infuriates me to no end when people like The Dixie Chicks use their fame, their microphones, to speak of political issues. It's like they think their opinions are more important then ours. Ben Affleck is another big offender. Who do they think they are? Politics is very much an opinion kind of thing, there is no right or wrong answer (better or worse, maybe). So for celebrities to shove their views down our throats, simply because they can cry onscreen on cue, is ridiculous. The ability to act does not make you a politician, nor does it make your point of view on political issues any more important then mine. If I were to start going around and making speeches for or against this party or that, I'd be labeled a pompous ass!

Secondly, what makes me shake my head is the controversy from when the Iraq war started. When that started, The Dixie Chicks stood up, against nearly everyone in the country, and denounced the war and George Bush. They became arch-villains, people hated them, people wanted to kill them. Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and now nearly everyone is siding with them. The thing that ticks me off, when they denounced the war, everyone was on their case, everyone hated them and the news made a huge to do about them. But now that the general population has swung to their side, no one cares. No apologies, no nothing. How unfair is that? I mean, everyone has their right to their opinions, famous or otherwise. But for everyone to seek blood because The Dixie Chicks have an opinion other then the majority is wrong. And for the rest of the country to join their opinion, without a single apology, kind of makes me sick. With a roar of thunder they were made enemies, and with not even a wimper, they were brought back in the fold. But no one cared about the damage done to them, no one cared about the hurt caused to them.

Ok, rant over, I'm feeling better now.

God the Scapegoat

One thing I have heard over and over, and always it just didn't sit right. When bad things happen, people ask, quite naturally, Why God? Why does a being of infinite power and knowledge let bad things happen to good people? It's a valid question and a valid viewpoint too, but what is the answer?

The overdressed and overeducated religious elite might have answer in this vein: We can't know God's full purpose. Any bad events in our life comes with a purpose, and any bad event will ultimately result in a greater good occurring. While I do believe this answer is true, I don't think it's the whole story.

Like all deep questions of the universe, we must look to the movies. Our sage for the day will be George Burns and John Denver in Oh God! Here is the dialog:

Jerry Landers: If you're God, how can You permit all the suffering that goes on in the world?
God: I don't permit the suffering - you do.

I will interpret this quote in two ways.

So much of the wrongs of the world occur because they are allowed to happen. How many people get hurt in a domestic violence situation, because their neighbors did and said nothing but turn up the TV? How many robberies happen in broad daylight because no one had the courage to stand up to the robber? Or even something smaller, how much garbage is on the street, because people just walk right on over it, rather pick it up? How many children in Africa died of starvation because someone turned the TV channel, rather then picked up the phone? The old adage is correct, that is required for evil to win, is for good to do nothing.

The second prong, is the matter of free will. When humanity was created, he gave us free will. We are free to do, say, and think whatever we want. So much so that people even choose to not believe in a creator. This is extrordinary with far reaching consequences. God gave us free will, but he also refuses to take that gift away by controlling our actions. Thus, the Terrorists that attacked on September 11th has free will just as sure as you do. They were free to make their choices, good and bad, just as sure as you have the freedom to make yours. Just like all good parents, God allows us to make our mistakes and do our wrongs. That is what a good parent does, freedom of choice brings mistakes, mistakes (hopefully) brings growth, and growth in their children is what all good parents hope and work towards.

Why, God, why me? A common question that springs from a state of grief and the human need for answers and order in a chaotic world. The answer, however, is grounded in that same grief and chaos. And like anyone that was in a place to ask that question, no answer can make everything right.

Ok, rant over, I'm feeling better now.

The Media Factor

Yea, it's been a while, but life has been decent to me as of late. It is quite difficult to "rant" when you are in a decent mood!

Presidents Bush's approval rating is tanking, and there are some legitimate and real reasons for this. However, at the same time, some of it is unjust, in my view. One part, I think people underestimate just how powerful, and even more importantly, just how biased the media is.

I was looking at the newspaper some time ago. Forgive me for I don't recall the actual headlines, so I will just give an approximate example. Two headlines were on the front page. One was about property taxes increasing. Another was about a rape murder outside the state. Two headlines, both made it to the front page, but which do you think made it to the top half of the paper (the half that is visible to the consumer when they first see the paper)? Sure enough, it was the more sensational headline. (actually, the headline was even more attention grabbing then the example I gave, truthfully, it stopped me in my tracks and I without thought found myself reading the entire article that was on the first page). My point is this, we have two headlines, one that is boring, but definitely effects everyone in the community, another that is "exciting" and attention grabbing, yet has no relevance to anyone that will read that paper. Which do they feature prominently? Of course the attention grabbing one.

My point is this, the media has a built in bias by the simple fact that they run a business. That paper has to actually sell papers to stick around. Property taxes don't sell papers, violence and sex however does. Bad headlines equals bad sales, bad sales equals lost jobs, or even bankruptcy. So, any decent paper that is in business still, likely is because they publish eye catching headlines. And keep in mind, this bias is in addition to any political biases that they might have!

Take the Iraqi war. Sure it's not going as planned, sure some mistakes have been made. The thing is, the media portrays it as if Armageddon is happening over there. Why, because that sells papers, that gets views to watch CNN, etc. In reality, the vast majority of Iraq sees little or no violence at all (4 out of 18 Iraqi provinces have attacks in them). And I think a nice chunk of why Bush is taking a hit in the ratings is something like this. The democrats attack Bush, and the news eats it up. Why? Because someone attacking the President is a hell of a lot more interesting then the headline, "Democrats happy with President!" In the same way, the news was all a buzz over an impending Iraqi civil war. A great headline for sure, but almost completely false!

On a similar note, I think people just don't know how much power of persuasion the media has. When all you hear about is that Iraq didn't have weapons that we had suspected, how can you not believe that? Everywhere you look, someone is bashing the President, how can your opinion of him not sink? But does that make it fact? Keeping in mind that the media has built in bias? Truth is that the country of Iraq is 168,754 sq mi (about the size of Wisconsin), and keeping in mind that Saddam had months to hide anything and everything he was working on in a country that is in no small part desert! Did he have weapons, I don't know, but it wouldn't take a genius to hide them so that they likely will never be found. But, again, the media doesn't say that, "Weapons still not found" doesn't make as good a headline as "Bush is a liar" or "Bush is a terrorist". Another example is that Bush went to war over oil. But is that true? Iraq only produces 2 million barrels of oil a day, not even close to what the US produces by itself (they are actually just behind England in oil production). Furthermore, Iraq is 7th on the list of countries that sell oil to the US, right behind Angola! Lastly, if this war was waged for oil, shouldn't prices be going down? But again, these don't make as good of headlines as "Bush wages war for oil" now does it?

Knowledge and news are good things, very good things. But anything left unchecked is a horrible thing. If we just accept what the news feeds us, our views of the world, and our knowledge of it as well will be horribly skewed for the worse. We are human beings, each of us with our own mind and opinions, however it is seeming to be rarer and rarer that people actually use them. Too many prefer to spew out whatever political rhetoric they saw or read in their favorite news source. It doesn't need to be though, if we keep in mind just how biased the media is inherently and take what they say with a grain of salt and of course check their headlines against logic and knowledge! A little logic and/or a little knowledge dispels a lot of stupidity, and trust me, there is a lot, A LOT of stupidity in the world now days.

Ok, rant over, I'm feeling better now.

Noise Pollution

I was watching VH1 at 4am-ish, because well, lets face it at 4 am there is only music videos, and infomercials. I am noticing more and more nowadays how incredibly polluted music has become. It seems to be mainly from hip hop and rap music. Now I am not speaking about a difference in tastes, just the sheer volume of vocals and instruments. To the point where you can no longer hear what any one of them is saying, or what it sounds like.

Am I just old fashioned in thinking that music should be listened too? That vocals should be comprehensible? I mean, music as I see it is an art form, no different then painting, or writing a story. But when you overload your song with 15 tracks of vocals, and overpowering instrumentals, what's the point? You are just making noise. Music, ideally, should come from the heart, should express ideas and life, so that the listener can see a little piece of the world the writer inhabits. But if what you produce has as much meaning as a bunch of cats meowing in the alley, who cares?

And am I also old fashioned in thinking that a song should be more then 15-30 seconds of material repeated incessantly? If you sit down to write a song, and all you have is a chorus, please, PLEASE for the love of all that is Holy, don't release the song! If all you are going to sing is variants on "Oh Baby" go the heck away! I believe that 4 minutes of song should contain, shockingly, 4 minutes of song! Am I alone?

Why is music degrading so? Why is there a million songs about sex and love, that all say so many words, but say nothing? Music is becoming more and more about image and reputation rather then substance. Look at the big names in music, in whatever genre you prefer. They are fine specimens of human perfection visually and aurally. But the "artists" of that genre, the ones that make the music because it's their passion, not their paycheck, the ones that write because their heart can not keep silent. Where are they? They are out there to be sure, but generally speaking, they are nobodies. Which is a tragedy, after all, it is those types that should be ruling the music world, for they offer us the most. They give us a new point of view, they give us something to think about, they give us a happy heart, or a sad one. They can change the world with their lyrics, or change just one life.

Ok, rant over, I'm feeling better now.

Space Tourism

A few years ago, Spaceship One flew into the record books. Now, parcels of land are being made into private spaceports. More and more private industry is getting into the door of space flight.

Don't get me wrong, that's awesome. But I'm getting sick of the media portraying space flight as something that's going to be common in a few years. By the vision they give us, half of us will be visiting the moon in a matter of years! The fact is that a seat on Spaceship Two will cost 200,000 dollars. And even then, in my opinion, you aren't in outer space. You are in lower earth orbit technically, and even that is a misnomer, as you aren't in an orbit like the space station is in orbit. Spaceship One flew at about 100km up, but it would have to be around 200km to have an stable orbit for a few days. At 100km, Spaceship One still felt some of the effects a small amount of atmosphere. By contrast, the Space Station orbits at about 350km. My opinion is that current private spaceflight is less of spaceflight and more of a really freaking high plane ride!

From what I hear, a seat on Spaceship Two will set you back 200,000 dollars. That is beyond the scope of any normal person. Even if that price comes down, I believe that these flights will still be beyond the reach of most. The problem I see is that you still have to overcome gravity, and rockets can only be so efficient, they take up a certain amount of fuel, give you a certain amount of power, yadda yadda. Furthermore, any additional altitude will only add to the cost of such a flight, although whether it will keep pace with reduced prices, overtake them, or be off no consequence, I do not know. All totaled though, rocket power will have a lower limit to it's ability to provide a "cheap" means to space. It is my belief that outer space won't reach the masses until we have a new generation of technologies to send us spaceward.

There are two technologies that fascinate me. Rail Guns and the Space Elevator. Both are simple concepts to understand, but will require significant steps to bring them to reality, if done though, they could bring space flight to the masses. In concept, the rail gun is like the Maglev Train. Using magnets, more exactly electromagnets, they levitate the vehicle to the desired speed, which would cruise down the rail until it reaches the end and speeds off into orbit or farther, simply put. This would require enormous amounts of energy, and I think some of the details need to be ironed out. I do not think it will actually come to fruition though due to the other technology I am excited about. I think the Space Elevator, if build, holds even more promise. The name alone gives you the basic idea, however how it differs is that instead of an shaft, it will be a ribbon or cable of carbon nanotubes, maybe as thin as a piece of paper. The climbers climb up the ribbon, towards a large counter-weight that is about half way to the moon, which holds the ribbon tight. Before the climbers reach the end, they detach and off they fly into space. When I first heard of the Space Elevator, I fell in love with it, it sounds so much like Science Fiction, which it did start off in the mind of writers I believe. However, this could be a reality, I believe the only factors stopping it from being a reality today are the inability to mass produce Carbon Nanotubes, and of course construction cost. Once finished though, it would drop the cost per pound of launch to a fraction of what they are now. Space, I believe, would be finally in the hands of the masses. I believe it would be the most important endeavor humankind has ever taken.

No, the era of space travel for everyone is a far ways off, sadly. A thousand years ago, people lived and died within 25 miles of where they were born. More recently, traveling across the state, or country became more and more common. Similarly, someday space travel will be common, but today is not that day, nor will it be for quite a few years to come. In my lifetime, I believe and hope, outer space will be in our grasp. Until then, I just wish the media would stop making us think all of us will be partying it up on the moon by 2007!

Ok, rant over, I'm feeling better now.