The Minister of Common Sense

One and Done

2009-08-07T05:29:00.010-04:00

Today is the one-year anniversary of "The Minister of Common Sense" blog. It is also my official retirement. Like a non-homophobic Miss America, my reign is limited to exactly one year.

In the past twelve months, I have written nearly 50 posts, which I hope you found to be somewhat unique, clever and witty. Based on the feedback that I have received, I think I have succeeded in being entertaining and voicing some of the same opinions that many of you have held.

Thank you so much for all of your support – this site has gotten over 7,000 hits during the one year, which I view as some measure of success for a non-commercial, non-advertised website. I have enjoyed writing the posts, but I've said my peace and now it's time to move on to other things. After all, it's pretty exhausting (and depressing!) to constantly highlight the failures of people and society.

I will leave this blog up and available so that people may see the past postings and continue to leave comments/questions where they wish. Thanks, and I hope you enjoyed it!

Sincerely,
Your champion of common sense,

The Minister
ministerofcommonsense@yahoo.com

For those of you who are new or curious, these were my six favorite posts (in no particular order):

- Massages Are Not Relaxing
- Don't Call Me
- Rules of the Air
- Doors
- Photo Christmas Cards Suck
- Don't Fuck With The Knot.com

I'd love to hear which were your favorites.

Common Sense Potpourri Part II

2009-07-29T04:30:00.007-04:00

I hoped you liked last week's Common Sense Potpourri post, because I have more for you...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Seacrest is the worst, most awkward, humorless TV host ever. I can't believe the producers of American Idol can't recognize this. Would anyone really care if we switched out Ryan for a better host? Just compare him to someone like Cat Deeley (from "So You Think You Can Dance") and his awkwardness with the contestants and judges is just glaring. He possesses an amazing amount of unlikeability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When a girl is said to have "gigantic nipples", do you understand it to mean that she has long, pointy nipples, or big round aureoles? This always confuses me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are there no overhead ceiling lights in hotel rooms? They always have a bunch of these little, inadequate table lamps instead. I hate them. Give me a real, overhead light. Is that a problem?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is finding the hair dryer in a hotel room like playing hide and seek? Sometimes it's on the sink, other times it's in a drawer, or in a cabinet under the sink, or hanging on the wall... Most recently, I found it in the closet with the ironing board! By the time you find these things, your hair is already dry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is the word "Internet" capitalized? (Answer: Because it's a proper noun, a place.) That seems stupid, so can we do away with the capitalization? (Yes, the style of official publications such as Wired have publicly stated they will no longer capitalize it.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I hate the golf fans that scream "GET IN THE HOLE!" as soon as Tiger Woods strikes the ball from anywhere. Sometimes this happens when he's teeing off on a par 5 (i.e. so there is no physical way the ball could possibly "get in the hole" from the first shot). It's so annoying - I don't know how Tiger handles it. I would club these spectators. Why are these morons doing this? Why don't the other fans that are standing around them beat these people?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, I also hate the baseball fans that sit behind home plate on their cell phone and wave at the TV camera. You're such a douche bag and everyone hates you. Grow up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
How much worse do you think the recession is because people are too scared by the recession to spend money? Just about all my friends still have the same job, making the same amount of money – but all of them are spending less because they are scared. I think the easiest way to create a recession is just to tell people that there is a recession. The Federal government should just say that the recession is over, and maybe everything would go back to normal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do people use pencils anymore? I can't remember the last time I saw one. I couldn't produce a pencil in the next 15 minutes if you gave me a million dollars. Do kids in school still use pencils? Maybe I'm just getting old.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I love rap and hip hop, but I have a theory that it has generally retarded the economic growth of African-Americans. It seems to me that the constant reference to excessive materialism in the lyrics of popular songs has probably encouraged ordinary listeners to spend beyond their means in order to validate their worth in their culture (i.e. they need bling, rims, Crystal and to "make it rain"). As a result, I wonder how much completely unnecessary spending has gone on in the African-American community during the past ten years. I think that has been a tangible economic step backward by the very people who can least afford it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
How much worse are all of our memories because we now rely on PDAs and Blackberries? Everything I need to know is in my Blackberry and, as a result, I'm not required to remember anything and, as a result, I now know nothing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have to put on your left-turn blinker BEFORE you arrive at the intersection. I hate those people that you pull up behind at a stop light in the left-hand lane, and when the light turns green, they pop on their left-turn blinker. Now I'm stuck behind this guy as we wait for oncoming traffic to pass before he can make his left turn, when all I want to do is go straight. And I COULD have gone straight minutes ago, had he had his blinker on the whole time at the stop light, so I could have positioned myself in the right-hand lane. Please don't be one of those people - you slow down societal progress.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure that the universal keypad commands for voicemail boxes are: “1” for play message; “2” for save message; and “3” for erase message, right? So why is my voicemail at work set up as: “2” for play message; “77” for save message; and “8” for delete message? Have you ever heard of such ridiculous commands? How arbitrary. How does this make any sense whatsoever?

What makes it even worse is that after you listen to the voicemail message, the computer voice tells you all your options (i.e. save, delete, etc.). What options/commands do you think would be the most logical to list first? Probably the most common options, right?... the options that people select the most often, such as "play the message again", "save it", "delete it", etc.

Well, my retarded voicemail offers these options (in order): reply (reply??... doesn't that mean you hang up and call the person back??); listen to the previous message (wait, what if I want to listen to the message I just heard? How do I do that?); forward a copy of this message; listen to the next message (wait, what if I want to listen to the message I just heard?); listen to the time when the message was left; save the message (press "77"??... how stupid); erase the message (press "8"... how "intuitive"); reply to the message (press "9"... wait, weren't we already given this option? Yes, we were, it was the first option). And that's it - no more choices.

So, assuming you haven't previously memorized the completely awkward commands, you have to listen to FIVE different options before getting to most common commands, which are "save" and "delete". And, to top it off, there is no "play the message again" command, which is probably the third most common command after delete and save! I freaking hate my voicemail - which, again, is another reason why you shouldn't call me.

Common Sense Potpourri

2009-07-20T05:48:00.010-04:00

As you know by now, most of my posts are pretty long. However, I will often think of random ideas, comments or observations that don’t really deserve their own 1,000-word column. So here are some of them:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the advantages to being homeless is that you get to walk in the street any time you want. The other day I saw a guy walk right through a red light, and all the cars stopped and patiently waited for him to cross. I've also seen people walk in the middle of the street with their homeless shopping cart and be completely oblivious to traffic. Do you know what would happen if you or I did any of this? Cars would be blaring their horns and screaming at us to get out of the way. No one said anything to these people or honked their horn. It’s one of the perks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen, guys, the act of kissing a girl's hand is not a romantic gesture – it's gross. That tradition died a long time ago. I saw two older guys talking to a young, pretty girl they just met outside of a Starbucks. When she went to leave, she attempted to shake their hand and, instead, they kissed it. I think she almost vomited up her Frappuccino. It's old fashioned and gross. Believe me, no girl wants you to do this. It's not endearing and it makes you creepy. I guarantee you that the girl at the Starbucks was feverishly rubbing the back of her hand on the leg of her jeans as soon as she got in her car. If you are old and you want a young girl to like that you do this, go to a strip club.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I hate people who respond to e-mail in vague terms or don't answer all of your questions. This can often happen at work. Maybe you write, "John, do you want me to spend more time on Project A or Project B?" Their response is, "Yes." That's not helpful.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Check writing should be outlawed. No one accepts them anymore anyway. No one should be writing a check in a grocery store line and holding up people. Carry cash or get a credit card (or get debit card if you can’t qualify for a credit card). I can't believe we lived with checks as long as we did.... it's basically an IOU from a total stranger. We thought this was a good idea?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is believing in god any less ridiculous than believing in UFOs, ghosts or Zeus? Isn't it about time that we used our sophisticated, “god-given” rational mind and came to grips with the idea that none of the above exist? Believe me, it will be OK. (Recommended reading.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(In case there was anyone that I failed to alienate with the above paragraph...) What the hell is the big problem with letting gay people get married? How does this bother you and why do you even care?? If I can marry some woman that I totally hate and never slept with, why can't gay people get married? Gay people (unlike god and UFOs) actually do exist. They deserve the same rights as straight people. The church doesn't have to marry them - they are a private organization, and that's fine - but the government should marry them, as long as they are agreeing to marry everyone else. Women and blacks went through this same societal prejudice in the past, and now we all agree that it was wrong. I think it's appalling that we can't recognize that we are being prejudice all over again, after having famously done it twice in the past (and I'm not even counting our history with American Indians, etc.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you know what "ZIP" code stands for? It stands for Zone Improvement Plan. I bet you didn't know that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you know what "AM" and "PM" stands for when referring to time? It stands for Ante Meridiem (Latin for "before mid day") and Post Meridiem (I'm sure you can figure out how to translate that one).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can we do away with most paper receipts? When you go to places like Starbucks, you should have to specifically request a receipt if you want one. I can't return a coffee anyway. Handing me a receipt for my $0.99 candy bar at CVS is the equivalent of handing me a piece of trash. I hate it. And don't ask me if I want my receipt – it should be an assumed "no" unless it is specifically requested.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
While we are at it, can we do away with pennies? Haven't pennies become a meaningless form of monetary consideration? Frankly, I throw out my pennies, because I'd rather be free of that valueless coin in my pocket than be $0.01 richer. I don't think people would rebel if we all agreed to round transactions up or down to the nearest nickel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressing the up button again (after it is already lit) does not make the elevator come quicker. I love the people who walk into the building lobby and press the up button when it is already lit and while there are people standing there waiting for it. Yeah, we know why you are there - you don’t have to reinforce it by pressing the button again (which, by the way, doesn't do a fucking thing, moron – thanks for the help).

Golf Sucks Balls

2009-07-06T07:25:00.002-04:00

Can someone explain to me how the sport of golf ever made it past the first day it was invented? Golf really has to be one of the worse sports/pastimes ever. Now, I know there are a lot of golf lovers out there, which really confuses me. How is it so popular? Let’s be honest with ourselves, it's pretty boring. But that’s not even the worst part of it. The worst part is that the game is super long AND boring.

At best, a round of golf takes three hours, which is an incredible amount of time. A "long" movie can take two hours, and that involves constant visual stimulation. If I told you that you had to do anything for three hours, you would immediately begin bitching and moaning about it. You wouldn't even have sex for three hours, would you? So why the hell would you play golf for three hours?

But the truth is that golf doesn't take three hours. It takes 4-5 hours. You always have to wait to get started, wait for people in front of you to play, wait for the people playing with you to play. It's a giant time suck. Let's assume you have Saturday and Sunday off from work and you're generally awake and active from 8 AM to 8 PM. That means your free times equals 12 hours a day or 24 hours for your whole weekend. Why on earth would you be willing to sacrifice 20% of your free time to golf?! That's insane. You only have one weekend, and your blowing nearly a quarter of it on bullshit golf??

I will confess that golf can be an interesting physical and mental challenge, and I can see some appeal in that, but does it have to be 18 holes? How ridiculous is that? Why do we allow this? You can't get me to do "18" of anything, let alone golf. I won't masturbate 18 times in a day, I won't eat 18 cupcakes, I won't drink 18 beers (usually)... I mean, who decided to make golf last for 18 holes? How stupid. And how stupid for us to allow this to persist!

Let's be honest with ourselves and admit that baseball is another sport that is too long, and baseball "only" lasts NINE innings! That's only half as long as golf! Imagine if baseball games lasted TWICE AS LONG, or 18 innings! You'd kill yourself, right? Yet, every regulation golf course in the country is 18 holes. Can't we make it 3-5 holes? Wouldn't that be a sufficient challenge, speed things along and make the world a better place? I bet that golf would get more people to play the sport if it lasted a reasonable amount of time, like an hour. Maybe guys want the game to be long in order to give them a legitimate excuse to be away from their wives/kids for extended periods of time. I don't know if that is true or not, because I neither have a wife nor a kid, but maybe I shouldn't have either of them if I enjoy something as horrible as golf more than I enjoy spending time with them. And if guys do prefer to play golf, then maybe wives and kids shouldn't be so horrible as to make golf appear to be a more attractive alternative.

While the length of the game is its biggest problem, golf is still riddled with lots of other issues. Let me break them down for you:

No one is "good" at playing golf. Aside from the PGA, all the weekend golfers suck – and suck really bad. In fact, even the PGA players can suck. I've never met so many people who want to do something that they suck so badly at. And the weekend players dedicate a lifetime to playing poorly. Isn't it an exercise in futility to never get better after playing for 20 years? That's not fun.

Because golf takes so long to play, you have to get started at a ridiculously early time in the morning – like 6:00 am or something. You have one weekend, and you’re going to start it off by waking up earlier than you would for work?? How does that make sense?

It is prohibitively expensive. So you want to be a golfer? OK, you have to spend thousands of dollars on clubs, balls, gloves, tees, greens fees and gizmos that help you play better, etc. Oh, and by the way, you suck at it. Enjoy!

I see these guys at the airport picking up their giant bag of golf clubs from baggage claim. Carting these fucking things all over the place to go play golf somewhere. What a nightmare. You would have a tough time getting me to check my carry-on bag, so there is no way I want to lug that crazy shit around. How absolutely horrible.

I have to confess that when I hang around with guys and they start talking about golf in an excited manner, I'm just completely at a loss. When a golfer yells out "FORE!" when he hits a wayward ball, I suspect he's really shouting out the number of holes the game should be.

How Can Spam E-mail Still Exist?

2009-06-22T07:16:00.000-04:00

How is it that spam e-mail can still exist in today’s society? I understand that it is an effective and cheap way to instantly reach tons of people – it sounds like it would be a great form of advertising – but it has proliferated and degraded to the point where I would think that it would lose all of its effectiveness and basically die off. However, by definition, spam e-mail continues to work to some degree, otherwise people would stop sending it. If you sent out 100 e-mails every day for six years, and no one ever responded, you'd stop doing it, right? So, that means that someone, somewhere, is responding to these ridiculous e-mails.

Here are some of the "exciting" spam e-mail subject lines that I've received recently: lose weight; save on Viagra; save 85% on printer ink and toner; and get started with an exciting career in culinary arts. Save on printer ink and start a career in culinary arts?? Are they serious? Do people really respond to these things? They must. OK, fine – I can see how there would be someone who is genuinely interested in saving money on toner cartridges. But this internet thing is not a new invention. We've been at it for a while now and people should be well aware of the dangers of opening spam e-mail and what it might contain (viruses) and what it might do to your computer.

I can understand why the very first person to ever receive an e-mail that tells them they can save on laser printer supplies would open it. But, are people so naive today that they continue to blindly open unsolicited e-mails? Even if I wanted to save on printing supplies, you'd never get me to open an e-mail that was clearly spam from someone I didn't know (and it's not like these e-mails are coming from Hewlett-Packard or something, they are coming from scary places like "kris.tieboyletsf@ca-i-rtadmin-yk.net"). I’m far too fearful to actually open any of these e-mails, because I’m concerned that as soon as I do, it will read: "HA! You’re not saving on toner ink at all – you're dying a slow cyberspace death as I infect your hard drive with the latest incurable virus!"

Again, I understand why some people may open and respond to general advertising spam e-mails, like those listed above. But what about the crazily-written spam e-mails? Some of these are so poorly written that they become extra scary. Take a look at this real life spam e-mail subject line I received eight days ago:

"Get All Microosft Products Very Qucikly And Eaisly"

First of all, I guess that "Microosft" doesn’t make spell-check software, huh? Or maybe they do, but you can't get it "qucikly" and "eaisly"? Sixty percent of the words that have more than 3 letters were misspelled in the e-mail subject line written above (by the way, as I typed that sentence in Word, it self-corrected the entire thing – I had to go back and rewrite all the misspelled in order to present it as it was actually received by my inbox). Are you telling me that people actually open that e-mail?? Maybe the e-mailer is trying to purposefully attract people who are stupid enough to NOT realize that 60% of the sentence was misspelled? I can understand why Microsoft is misspelled – maybe they are purposely trying to avoid copyright infringement or avoid being detected by filtering software – but what about "quickly" and "easily"? You can't spell those words?? Is this e-mail really from a human being, and is this person actually selling any products (Microosft or otherwise) with this e-mail? Would anyone in the world actually trust and attempt to buy anything from this person?!

Here is another one from last week:

"Stunning Ofefrs On Genreic Viagra. Blwoout Sale!"

At least this time only 50% of the words that contain more than three letters were misspelled. What confuses me is that they spelled “Viagra” correctly and that was the most difficult word in the entire sentence! Are they misspelling things on purpose? Is a horribly misspelled e-mail for Viagra opened more frequently than a properly spelled one? Is it more attention getting? Is this some sort of amazing, evil, illiterate advertising genius at work here?

While the above examples are really ridiculous, it's the porn-related spam e-mails that are especially fucked up and make zero sense. Again, here is another true life e-mail title for you:

“Verifys photo serieso SexzyalyjExpnljcitl 0d43810975756257”

How is this subject line supposed to entice me to open this e-mail, let alone click on anything within it? When I first started reading it, I thought it was in Spanish or something and I got excited – "Hispanic porn... AWESOME!", but then I got to "SexzyalyjExpnljcitl", which I guess is supposed to be "Sexually Explicit", but when you get to a point where eight of nine consecutive letters are consonants, you are either in Russia or reading a very dangerous spam e-mail.

Maybe the author was trying to evade filtering software by scrambling the phrase "Sexually Explicit", but still making it somewhat recognizable, but what's with the crazy string of numbers at the end? Surely that is the prison serial number of the convict who sent it to us, right? Even if I do love porn and I was willing to overlook the creative spelling of "sexually explicit", the numbers have to be a major red flag, right? And if you loved porn, why would you open this e-mail when you can go and safely Google "sexually explicit", if you really wanted to? Why does an e-mail like this exist or get any traction with the porn public?

At this point, spam has gotten so pervasive that I think most people have developed a venomous hatred towards it as it has clogged up our inboxes over the years. The first thing you do when you open your e-mail is delete all the spam, right? We all have closed and cancelled e-mail addresses because they got too deluged with spam. So how can this be an effective advertising medium? How are companies that sell massive lists of e-mail addresses still in business? The answer is that it must be effective on some level, and that, to me, is scary. Who the hell is opening these e-mails and what the hell is wrong with them?? They are ruining it for all of us.

Do you want to take e-mail and idiocy to a whole new level? What about the wealthy foreigner who needs help moving millions of dollars from his homeland (often Nigeria) and promises a hefty percentage of the fortune as a reward for assisting him? Of course, you have to pay a fee to get the transaction started. Who the hell falls for this? Actually, thousands of people have lost millions of actual dollars in this scam. You would think that the people who sitting at home who received this e-mail would have to ask themselves how this alleged Nigerian prince (or whoever it is) got their personal e-mail address and why the sender feels that they are qualified to assist with this transaction? The people who fall for this scam are probably unemployed and aren't even qualified to get a job, let alone move millions of dollars through international borders. Let's say you really were a Nigerian prince and you really did need to move millions of dollars, what do you think would be the very first thing you would do?... I'm sure you would elect to blindly e-mail a 63-year old widow in Minnesota for help, right? Of course you would.

Another spam e-mail that people we know have inflicted on us is the hoax that is some variation of:

"Hello, everybody. My name is Bill Gates. I have just written an e-mail tracing program that traces everyone to whom this message is forwarded to. I am experimenting with this and I need your help. Forward this to everyone you know and if it reaches 1000 people, everyone on the list will receive $1000 at my expense. Enjoy. Your friend, Bill Gates"

I received a million of these forwards (in one form or another) from friends and family. Either Bill Gates was giving away his fortune or Disney was giving away free trips or Old Navy was promising free gift certificates or Coca-Cola was giving away free cases of soda... all in the name of forwarding on an e-mail. There is no sick kid that is going to get $0.01 towards his surgery for every time his heart-felt story is forwarded to someone else. I can't believe people can be so stupid and naive. Do you really think this is how Microsoft tests its software? And did you ever stop and ask yourself how Bill Gates was going to send you $1,000 after you forwarded the message?... was he going to send it to you by e-mail??

It just goes to show that humans are blindly driven by outright greed and a love for free stuff. The title of these e-mails are always something like: "I don't know if this is legit, but I could use $1000, so here it is." So, in other words: "Somebody is probably playing me for a fool, but any chance of getting free money is just too much to pass up, so I'll inflict this on everyone I know, just in case." Gee, thanks a lot.

How can people be that stupid to fall for this stuff?! How is it possible that anyone can think that the above e-mails can be real? But the worrisome thing is that we all know someone who IS that stupid! The reason why you have seen these e-mails from Bill Gates before is because someone you know sent it to you in the first place. Some friend or family member forwarded it to you. Some of these "stupid people" are your own flesh and blood. Some of these stupid people are you!

The next time that I plan to buy a new computer, I am going to take my old computer and use it to open up all these spam e-mails, and then I am going to click and download everything inside them in order to see what happens. I wonder how many I will get through before my computer completely crashes. Maybe it's the computer companies themselves that are sending all of this to us, in order to ruin our equipment and software and force us to buy more of it all (because, believe me, no one wants to voluntarily "upgrade" to shitty Windows Vista).

But, the good news is that if you forward this blog to ten different people in the next three hours, then good luck will come your way within a day, otherwise dire things will befall you...

Blog Comments Reveal All

2009-06-10T04:30:00.004-04:00

I think I am going to retire as Minister of Common Sense and take up a new job as Blog Comment Executioner. I am becoming increasingly confident that an individual's rights to live in our society can be fairly judged by the comments that they leave on blogs.

Obviously, I write a blog, and I love it when people leave comments. Mostly, it proves that people actually read it and care (one way or another) about the post. It's nice to know that I'm not wasting 100% of my time. For the most part, the comments left on my blog are interesting and rational. But, my god, have you seen the comments some people leave on some of the more popular blogs?! They can be out-and-out terrifyingly stupid.

My new job as Blog Comment Executioner would be to read comments posted on blogs and, based solely on the content, I would have the full authority to remove that person from society.

Take this following comment that was left on a blog as an example. I was very interested in the whole Eminem/Bruno MTV Movie Awards fiasco that happened a few weeks ago. I was trying to figure out whether Eminem was in on the gag or not. For a variety of reasons, my hypothesis was that Eminem was in on it (and it has since been revealed that he was). But at the time, I wasn't certain, so websites like The Superficial and Perez Hilton can be good for researching this kind of thing.

I came across this woman's comment about the situation: "This story is incorrect! it was not Sacha Cohen who landed on him it was another guy by the name of Bruno and it was not one of Cohen’s characters… This was a different guy completely. I know what Sacha Cohen looks like." Clearly, this woman is so stupid that it's beyond rehabilitation and, as a result, she should be removed from society. Unquestionably, she is a danger to herself and others.

I'm not going to fault anyone for not knowing who Eminem or Bruno is, but this woman was so certain about her thoughts and understanding of the situation that she posted them publicly as a comment to a blog! And she couldn't have been more wrong about it all. Bruno is not one of Sacha Baron Cohen's characters?? You know what Sacha Baron Cohen looks like, and that wasn't him?? This lady is so disconnected and stupid that you don't even respond to her. You ignore and dismiss her, like how you would do to a crazy homeless person talking to themselves on the street.

Blatant stupidity is rampant in blog comments, as is horrific grammar and sentence structure. But, the really frightening stuff is the stupid and ignorant racist, homophobic and political views. Check out one of the comments I found:

This one is in response to having Obama nominate Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court:

"One more minority who was given an ivey league education (yes -GIVEN - she didn't pay for it) who wants to punish white America for all the past racial inequalities she "thinks" she has suffered from. Where is the gratefulness? Where is the "get down on your knees" and praise this country for "gifting" you with this opportunity. She makes me sick."

Jesus, that was opinionated... and stupid! First of all, I love the "ivey league" comment. It's "ivy", not "ivey", you dumb ass. That is why you couldn't go to an ivy league school... because you couldn't spell it. I also love how working and studying for your whole life in order to EARN a scholarship is now considered a "gift" that wasn't "paid" for. And it's so ridiculous how the writer ends their rant, with a "She makes me sick." Really?? Imagine you had a child who earned a scholarship to one of the greatest schools in the country (Princeton), graduated with the highest honors possible (summa cum laude), then went to one of the best law schools in the country (Yale), and ultimately was nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States (all of which Sonia Sotomayor has accomplished). Imagine this child of yours comes home for Thanksgiving and you venomously hiss at her, "You make me sick!" How fucking stupid and ridiculous is that? How fucking stupid is the blog comment writer??

There are a million other examples that I could cite. Who are these people, and why do we let them live among us?! I just don't even know how to respond to this kind of thing (other than by exercising my powers as Blog Comment Executioner).

I enjoy writing my blog and reading comments and e-mails from readers. I just hope I never get too popular that I start attracting the masses, because it's pretty clear that they are idiots. I really hope they represent the minority of our population... but I'm not so sure that they do.

Put an End Candy Color Equality

2009-05-28T05:43:00.005-04:00

I like to eat fruity candy, but not all the flavors. I can't possibly be the only one who feels this way, and I'm willing to bet that many people prefer the same flavors as I do. I bet they are also willing to do without the flavors that are less exciting. As an example, the "red" or cherry flavors are often the best ones, right? And who really likes the "orange" ones all that much? I'm not saying that orange sucks, but they are probably pretty low on the list, right?

It seems to me that everyone likes the red ones best, whether it's Skittles, Starbursts, gummy bears, etc. When you reach into the bag, I bet you are hoping to pull out a red one... and then you pull out a yellow one. Tell me that you're not disappointed.

The red and pink ones (of anything) are usually the best, and the orange and yellows are usually the least favorite. I'm on the fence about green ones – I can take 'em or leave 'em. So, if this is the case, and the majority of people feel the way I do (and I bet that they do), then why don't the candy companies just make bags containing ALL red ones?!

Wouldn't that be a big seller? Imagine a roll of pure cherry and strawberry Starbursts or a bag of all red Skittles. Tell me you wouldn't buy that and leave all the crappy orange, yellow and green ones behind! We, the consuming public, don't need candy color variety. I doubt there is anyone out there that wishes they had a bag full of all green Skittles. These candy companies should survey their customers, and I'm sure they would find that the great majority like one or two flavors and probably don't care too much for the rest.

Instead of making a candy containing only one or two good flavors, they come out with new-fangled creations like "Tropical" (there is always too much banana in the mix) or "Sour" (can they really be better than Sour Patch Kids?). Mike & Ike alone has a million different flavors these days (Original, Jolly Joes, Berry Blast, Lemonade, Tangy Twister, Tropical Typhoon and Zours) - it's like they are desperate to find another hit flavor after launching the Original. All they have to do is come up with the radical new idea of just making an all cherry-flavored packet of Mike & Ike! Not only would it out sell Tropical Typhoon, but it might out sell the Original, too! Candy flavors are not people – we don't have to treat them all equally. It's about time we started using prejudice in our favor and only get the flavors we really want.

*** This just in!... Starburst is coming out with a NEW set of flavors called "Favereds", which is "your favorite red Starburst flavors in one packet -- strawberry, fruit punch, watermelon and cherry." Not EXACTLY what I want, but at least they are getting close! Once again, your Minister of Common Sense is hard at work for you!

My Kind of Airport Security

2009-05-21T05:25:00.005-04:00

You may wonder what the Minister of Common Sense does all day to make your lives better. My answer is, "A lot!" And, finally, my voice is being heard. I have long railed against stupidity in airport security, and the TSA is starting to listen. To my great surprise and pleasure, I recently went through a major airport where the security lines were segregated into lanes for different types of travelers. Welcome back, Plessy v. Ferguson!

I have been very vocal about establishing a special lane for "expert" travelers - people who know all the rules by heart, never set off the metal detector... basically people who know what the hell they are doing. Well, this airport has a special security line designated as the "Family Lane" for parents saddled with kids, babies, strollers, a million bags of baby crap... basically all the ingredients that create multiple failures in effectively getting through an airport security line. This is a brilliant idea - corral all the people that you would otherwise roll your eyes at when they are in front of you in the security line, and put them all together so they can be by themselves as they constantly set off the metal detector, repeatedly violate the no-liquids rule, fail to figure out how to collapse their strollers fully, spend 10 minutes taking off their toddlers' shoes, etc. When you group these people together and compound all their failures, there is no way that any of them are ever going to make their flight, which is fine because none of us really want children on the planes away.

In addition to removing families from the mainstream security lines, the airport also has "Diamond Select" lines. There was the Green Diamond for beginning travelers (people who have never been on the "magical flying machine" before), Blue Diamond for more experienced travelers (people who think they know what they are doing, but really don't), and Black Diamond for experts (people like me or, as I like to call them, the "good people"). I like that they use the word "expert" instead of "experienced". Lots of people might think they are experienced, but if you are going to raise you hand and say you are an expert in something, you better damn well be a real expert.

I can't ski the bunny slopes, but I rode the double-black diamond airport security line like a champ. You should have seen all of us - people's laptops were flying out of their bag at the speed of light, perfect separation of 3-oz liquids in regulation-sized clear plastic bags, no metal detector failures, security personnel not shouting the rules over and over again because we already knew them... it was a beautiful, seamless symphony of airport travel.

Because we designated ourselves as "experts", everyone tried extra hard to be really fast and perfect. I was eagerly awaiting for someone to crack under the pressure and mess up, just so I could see them dragged away by security, screaming and crying, and taken to the beginners' Green Diamond line! Or better yet... punish them by sending them to the FAMILY LINE! That'll each 'em!

Handicapped Parking

2009-05-14T05:26:00.010-04:00

Handicapped parking is getting out of control. Have you noticed just how many handicapped spots there are in parking lots these days? (By way, am I supposed to say "disabled" instead of "handicapped"? It's so hard to keep track of who's offended by what these days.) Don't get me wrong, I think that handicapped people deserve (and need) their own parking spots (after all, it's like the only perk that one receives for being handicapped). It just seems to me that there are A LOT of spots popping up for handicapped parking. Are there new laws being passed? Or are we, as a society, becoming more aware of handicap issues? Or is the U.S. population as a whole becoming more handicapped in general??

Some of these handicapped parking spots are getting ridiculous. There is this one store in my city that has TWELVE handicapped parking spots! It's not a hospital or anyplace where you might expect handicapped people to congregate... it's a liquor store! If I was handicapped, I'd probably be getting drunk every night too, but are there really THAT many handicapped people coming to THAT particular liquor store at any ONE TIME?! I'm not even sure there are twelve handicapped people in the entire city who are of the legal drinking age.

Not only does this store have way too many handicapped parking spots, but they are positioned in the worst ways possible. The store has two parking lots, one on either side, along with a few spots that line up along a driveway that connects the two parking lots to one another at the front of the store.

There are seven handicapped parking spots in the one parking lot that is closest to the front door. However, the parking spots that are actually closest to the front door are not the handicapped spots, but normal spots along the driveway, which are NOT handicapped. How does this make sense? If you're going to designate handicapped parking, then let's give them the closest spots possible, right?

In the other parking lot of this store, there are an additional five handicapped spots, but these are 220 feet away from the entrance! The second lot is much further away from the front door than the first lot, so why not just have all the handicapped parking spaces in the lot that is closest? Needless to say, no one ever parks in these five handicapped spots that are far away because: (1) there is never more than seven handicapped people at the store at the same time, so they can use all the spots in the other lot; and (2) the other lot is a helluva lot closer to the door than this lot, so who wants to roll their wheelchair 220 feet (and then 220 feet back again)? That's like a marathon to a guy in a wheelchair! In fact, if you are in a wheelchair, you would prefer to park in one of the normal spots in the other lot rather than park in the handicapped spot in the far lot, because it would still be over 100 feet closer!

I'm sure that there is some law in our city that defines these parking areas as "two separate lots" and, as a result, each lot needs to have its own dedicated handicapped parking – even though it makes absolutely no sense at all. And I'd be interested to see the city formula that mandates that this liquor store needs a total of twelve handicapped spots. I feel pretty confident that the number "twelve" is equal to the entire handicapped drinking population of our state, let alone the city, let alone the visitors to this particular store. No drunk handicapped person will be left behind!

To make matters even worse, in the far lot that is over 200 feet away, the five spots they have designated for handicapped people are not even the five closest spots in that particular lot! There are two normal spots that are actually closer (check out the map; look for the two yellow Xs - normal spots - as compared to the line of blue stars, which are the handicapped spots). Talk about adding insult to disabling injury - they don't even get the closest spots in the furthest lot!

The big yellow star on the aerial map above is the front door of the store. The blue stars near the stop are handicapped spots in the closer lot, while the vertical line of yellow Xs are the normal spots that are much closer (you can see that is the only place were cars are actually parked). The blue stars near the bottom are more handicapped spots in the far lot that is 220 feet away from the entrance. Do we really need 12 handicapped parking spots here??

I tell you, we are slowly losing all our normal parking spots. First, the handicapped spots appear to be growing in population (and growing erratically, based on the store mentioned above) – like a weed. Secondly, have you seen these "Pregnant Women" parking spots at pharmacies and supermarkets? When did this start? I will acknowledge that pregnant women shouldn't have to walk from the back of the parking lot, but I'm more concerned about the trend in general. What's next?... parking spots for mothers with babies? Parking spots for mothers with toddlers (because it's too dangerous to have a child cross the parking lot)? Parking spots for teenagers (because they are too likely to get into trouble during the walk to through the parking lot)? Parking for elderly? For the tired? For the hungover? In the end, there will only be three designated parking spots in every parking lot in the country... they will be the spots assigned to the "Able-Bodied", and they will be way in the back. Every other spot will be for someone who has some kind of "problem".

But, once again, I am all in favor of handicapped people getting their own spots – please don't get me wrong! I'm just becoming more aware of some of the poor parking planning that is going on, and the slow creep of more and more "special" spots - and just how often they are never used! But there are very few social crimes worse than parking in a handicapped spot when you are an able-bodied person. Who does that?? There are also people who abuse the system by parking in reserved spots with an old, beat-up handicapped tag hanging from their rearview mirror – clearly something they got from their doctor when they broke their leg skiing six years ago, yet they still use it. Old people also abuse the system by parking in a handicapped spot when it's pretty clear that they can still get around OK – we get it, you're old and it sucks, but don't play dumb with me or magically designate yourself as "handicapped", that's not how it works.

Sometimes I will see someone pull into a handicapped spot that looks suspicious. I won't see any tag on their rearview mirror or on their license plate, so I will wait around to watch them exit their car so I can validate their handicap. Sometimes they are all messed up (oops, my bad), but sometimes they are perfectly fine – and they happily stroll into the store! This enrages me. I know that people are basically stupid and horrible, but how do they have the audacity to do this?? Is it really that big of a deal to walk a few extra feet from a normal parking spot to the front door? Even if you had to walk from the back of a giant parking lot, are you so fat and out of shape that you can't do it? (By the way, gluttony is not a disability.) Jesus you're lazy. Do you really have to scam the system like this?

I know I just went on and on about there being perhaps too many handicapped parking spots in this country (and they all seem to go unused), but in most locations there are probably still only one or two reserved spots, and these frauds are going to take one? Just because you possess a rearview mirror tag with a blue wheelchair on it (or you’re driving your handicapped grandmother’s town car) does not mean you can park in the spot! In addition to owning the parking tag, you actually have to be handicapped! I'd like to hear from people that actually do this – what are they thinking? If I was in the movie I Am Legend, and everyone was dead from the virus except for the zombies, then I would park in the handicapped spots... but only under those circumstances.

You better be legless, rich guy!

Would you like me to fix this problem permanently? I have an idea. I think we should pass a new law that states that anyone caught parking in a handicapped parking spot that is not actually handicapped (or driving someone who is handicapped) will have to undergo a medical procedure that will MAKE them handicapped. They can opt between the removal of their left or right foot. If they need to park in that spot so badly, then let's make them really appreciate it.

Wait a minute... I use the handicapped stall in the bathroom. Is that the same thing? That's not the same thing as parking in their spot is it? Actually, maybe it's worse – a handicapped person can wait for a parking spot, they can't wait to use the bathroom (at least not indefinitely). OK, let's forget about the new law for now.

Stay Out of My Hotel Room

2009-05-07T05:51:00.006-04:00

Doesn't it irritate you how often a total stranger comes barging into your hotel room? It seems to be a daily threat in just about any hotel, but it happens even more frequently at fancier hotels. And who are these strangers? They are the staff of the hotels themselves.

At a minimum, in just about any hotel, you have deal with the maid. Do you see how these people act? First, they knock on your door, but then they open it eight milliseconds later saying, "Housekeeping!" As a guest in the room, you have no ability to react or prevent the intrusion in that amount of time. They just barge right in!

Most of the time in a hotel room, I'm naked or thinking about masturbating or something... when suddenly the door swings open and this maid pounces in! I'm in a sheer panic as I race to grab a pair of boxers, a towel, a bathrobe – anything! At the same time, I'm shouting, "No, no! Not now!" As a paying guest of the hotel, I resent that I have to go through this terror.

And sometimes these maids will come into your room early, like 9 am. I have been in situations where I'm still asleep, and the lady comes barging in, and I'm peering up from my bed trying to give her an "are-you-fucking-kidding-me" look through the darkness. I understand that 9 am isn't the break of dawn or anything, but I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that someone could either still be sleeping or, worse yet coming out of the shower, at that time.

Of course, a way to prevent a lot of this is to liberally use the do-no-disturb sign. When they barge in on me in the morning, I always curse myself because that means that I didn't put the sign out the night before. But even if I use the sign a lot, which helps, it leads to other problems. Sometime I will have the sign out there to ensure my privacy, but then I'll order room service. And, of course, they can't knock on my door to deliver the room service, so I'll get a phone call from the front desk saying that my do-not-disturb sign is out and they are trying to deliver the room service. Then I'll remove the sign and wait for the delivery guy to come back. Of course, now the food is cold because this poor guy had to run up and down trying to solve my do-not-disturb-sign problem.

But even later in the day, after the maid has cleaned the room, your privacy is still not safe... especially at the nicer hotels. You have to contend with the mini-bar guy, who also knocks and then immediately enters. The other day, someone opened my door (without knocking) and they guy announced, "Service!" He had a ladder and needed to fix the curtain rod (which I didn't ask for, so the maid from the morning must have told them). And then there is the turndown service. So here is yet another opportunity to get barged in on while your naked, plus night time is when you are more likely to be showering and changing to go out, or taking your clothes off from the end of the day.

Just look at all these intrusions you must dodge at a fancy hotel in order to preserve your privacy: maid; mini-bar guy; turndown service... that totals a minimum of three, guaranteed, interruptions EVERY SINGLE DAY. It's brutal. And when you stay at a hotel, you never really act how you do at home – you are either on vacation, in between meetings, taking a nap, being naked, having sex, watching porn – it's not your normal routine, so you are even more likely to being caught in an embarrassing position.

I know these service people have a job to do, I would just like a little extra time to respond to a sudden knock (and before they barge in) - just so I have time to go to the door and say something like, "Go away."

And when these people come in, and they see you, they always act so surprised that you are there. I want to tell them to cut the act – what did they expect to see when they bounded into an occupied room with no real notice?

So, the do-not-disturb sign is my best friend, except for when I'm waiting for room service. I leave that thing on 24/7. I mean, they give me enough towels so that I don't need more. I don't need them to make my bed, because I'm just going to get into it again. I don't need them to check on the mini-bar, because I don't want to pay for what I've eaten/drank. I don't need them to fold down my sheets for turndown service (and I don't need the chocolates that they leave, because I’ve already taken chocolate out of the mini bar that I'm not paying for).

The biggest problem with leaving the do-not-disturb sign on all the time, is that the fancier places will make it a point to call your room and ask if you want maid service, etc. So then I get 15 annoying phone calls which pisses me off, too.

At least it all of this makes me missing being at home.

Skype: The New Evil?

2009-04-23T05:42:00.005-04:00

Don't say I didn't warn you. If this Skype phenomenon continues, it will be massively disruptive to society. (For those who do not know, Skype is basically a technology that allows you to talk to people via a small camera on your laptop without incurring long distance charges.) I was in a New York City hotel last week, and three different people were in the lobby talking out loud to their laptops at the same time. How fucking annoying.

And these weren't quiet, gentle little conversations, like what you would have on a cell phone. No, they were whooping it up, talking really loud and being really animated - because they were seeing each other on the screen. Watching this happen with three different people all at the same time made me realize the serious damage this technology could have on the peace and quiet in this world. They were so loud, and each was trying to move away from the other Skype users (because THEY were being loud). Ultimately, each Skype user ended up in their own individual corner of the lobby, so all the normal people were trapped in a triangle of people yelling at their laptops. Great. Just great.

It's a confusing product. I guess it's for people who are rich enough to own a laptop, but too poor to pay for a phone call? If you want to see their target demographic, check out the photo shown on the Skype home page. To me, it looks like two raggedy-dressed homeless girls who probably just stole your laptop at the train station and are trying to scrounge up enough change out of the one girl's shoes to catch the 2:20 pm to get-the-fuck-out-of-dodge so they can call their pot dealer for free using your computer. These are the people who are using Skype.

You can see where this is headed, can't you? Everyone will be talking out loud to their laptops everywhere. It's going to be so much worse than cell phones.

I'm confused why people would even want to use this technology - do you really want someone else to see you when you talk to them on the "phone"? Do you really want to see them?? That's a little much, isn't it? First of all, you have to be all dressed up and looking good when you use Skye. Imagine if you had to check to see if anything was in your teeth every time you answered the phone. You'd go insane.

The fact is that I'm either looking so bad and/or naked at home that I would basically never use Skype. How are you supposed to roll your eyes at the other person and watch TV on mute, if they can see you the whole time? This technology is not for me.

The "Plant Experience"

2009-04-16T04:58:00.004-04:00

I know, I know - I took a full month off from blogging. Listen, it's hard to think of so many things to complain about every week. I will confess that I thought about retiring for a while... until someone gave me the shittiest present in the world. So here I am to tell you about it.

I moved into a new house recently - nothing fancy, just a nice row home in a quiet part of town. All the houses lined up along my street have a small yard in the back. Believe me, this was NOT a selling point for me. I don't want to mow grass or rake leaves or do any of that crap. In fact, it was in spite of the yard that I bought the house. However, the yard is really small and not that big of a deal.

I met my new next door neighbor a while back, a woman about 50 years of age and living with cats (I told you that it was a "quiet" part of town!), and she went on and on about how I have to grow plants in the backyard, and how great it is, and how she does it, etc. I pointedly told her that I grew up in the city, I don't have a Green Thumb, I don't want plants, it's too much work, and I'm too busy.

Well, she bought me a house warming gift today. Guess what it is? It's a giant fucking green planter filled with dirt and budding plants. Are you kidding me?? The thing is huge, it can't go anywhere but outside in my unmowed backyard. She manically beamed as she told me, "You said you didn't have much experience with plants... well, now you will have lots of experience!"

What?? Hey, lady... SCREW YOU! Did you ever think that I don't want "plant experience"?? Do you know what the definition of "plant experience" is to me?... It's "work". Why do you think I spent 20 years of my life pretending I had a stomach ache every Saturday morning so that my dad wouldn't make me rake leaves? Why do you think I bought the house with the smallest yard I could find? It wasn't an accident that I don't have plant experience - it was a well-crafted strategy I used to make sure that I enjoyed my weekends.

Do you believe this? So, of course, this giant planter has to go in my backyard, where this woman will see it every day out of her kitchen window. It's so big, I can't even throw it out if I wanted to (which I would have done, if she didn't live RIGHT NEXT DOOR to me). Now I have to water it every day, tend to it, and do the other bullshit gardening stuff to it - ("pruning"? is that what it is?) - because if I don't, then she will see it all die, and then I would have to face the botanical inquisition from her about why it died - or she would know that I killed it from neglect and her feelings would be all hurt, and I'll have an "angry neighbor situation" for the rest of my life (or the rest of her life, whichever ends or moves first). Jesus Christ.

Who gives this kind of present?? She basically saddled me with another chore to do every week. I told this woman from the beginning that I didn't want anything to do with plants or dirt. When she first saw the inside of my house, she remarked about how I had no "living green things" around. Yeah, that's right - that's by design. I don't have "living green things" around because I don't want "dead brown things" around. It's not that I would kill the plants accidentally because I don't know what I'm doing - I would kill them intentionally because I don't want to deal with it!

What is this lady going to do for my birthday?... gift wrap a baby and leave it at my doorstep so I can be burdened with taking care of that thing for the next 18 years?! Forget the plant experience, why not give me the parent experience instead??

I know some people get relaxation or satisfaction from doing gardening and lawn work, but I'm not one of them. And to give someone the "curse of chores" is not a gift. And I don't want to hear from all the altruistic women on The Knot.com that will tell me that "it's not the gift that counts, it's the thought" - because she DIDN'T think. She knew I wasn't interested in plants, and she's trying to force it on me, and now I have no choice. The planter is so big that I can't "accidentally drop it", I can't accidentally burn it, and no one would believe me if I said that someone stole it (plus I can't stage a theft because it's too heavy for me to move). So now I have to go through this whole charade of trying to care for the plants until I come up with some clever way to remove this albatross from around my neck. In the meantime, the planter is consuming 25% of the square footage of my backyard, and I was going to put a beer pong table back there now that the snow has thawed and it's warming up. Goddamnit.

Spring Break!!

2009-04-02T05:35:00.002-04:00

Sorry, disciples of The Minister of Common Sense, but I must abandon common sense for a while and indulge in some irrational drinking and behavior! Stay tuned to future postings on this site soon! I hope you all are enjoying the return of warmer weather. In the meantime, check out the archives for good posts you may have missed!

Stamp Prices

2009-03-19T05:35:00.002-04:00

Did you know that the U.S. Postal Service is raising the price of stamps AGAIN?! On May 11, 2009, the cost of one first-class stamp will increase from $0.42 to $0.44. I'm not against increasing the cost to mail a letter, but what I object to is these guys constantly bothering us with these stupid little changes to the price of one lousy stamp. Did you know they have increased the price of a stamp SEVEN times in the past ten years? And it's always in those annoying little one or two penny increments. Can't they just increase it by ten cents and leave us the hell alone for a decade?

Thank goodness they came up with those "forever" stamps where you no longer have to buy those ridiculous $0.01 or $0.02 stamps when they increase of price of postage. It probably cost the post office more than a penny just to make and print those stupid $0.01 stamps in the first place, so they likely lost money on the increase in postage rates. It was such a major hassle buying those $0.01 stamps - going to the post office and waiting in line just to buy a hundred one-penny stamps stamps. I wouldn't do it... I would just overkill it by slapping two of the old stamps on an envelope and just be done with the whole thing.

I hate you, one-cent stamp

It amazes me that, even with the upcoming increase in postage in May, it's still only costs FORTY-FOUR cents to mail a letter! Doesn't that seem preposterously low? You couldn't get me to lick an envelope for forty-four cents, let alone trek across the country and deliver a letter. Just think about how cheap that is - and they get it across the country and to your doorstep in about 3 days. How do they sort it all and get it to the millions of different addresses every day? How to they individually read everyone's horrible handwriting?? To me, that seems like a miracle. And a miracle shouldn't cost forty-four cents. Do you know that UPS charges about $20.45 to send a letter from New York to Los Angeles using 2-day mail? So why is the U.S. government charging us 98% LESS than that? I think mailing a letter should cost about $15 - that seems to make more sense - and it sure would cut down on junk mail.

If you think I'm crazy for suggesting that they should raise the postal rates, you have to consider the economics and realize you are probably already paying for it. The U.S. Post Office lost $2.8 billion last year, and they are budgeted to lose $6 billion this year! So, we are already effectively paying for higher postage by subsidizing their loss via our taxes. So, either way, you're paying for it. I could make postage free... but then the post office would lose like $30 billion dollars, and you'd up effectively paying for postage through higher taxes in order to counterbalance that loss.

And have you noticed that it's $0.44 for a FIRST-CLASS stamp? What is "first-class" mail anyway? Is there a "second class" or "third class"? What does a third-class stamp cost?... $0.00325?? What do they do with a letter that is not first class? Does it take weeks to get it delivered, or do they spit on it or something? I might go to the post office and try to end myself something using "second-class" mail, just to see what happens. And if there isn't anything lower than first-class mail, then I want to lobby to have that term removed and just call it "mail".

So please join me in writing an open letter to the U.S. Postal Service and suggest that they stop the inconvenient and stupid one-penny increases in postage (when what they really need is like a ten-dollar increase in postage). Make sure you send it to them via e-mail (which is the REAL "first-class" mail!).

Don’t Collect Shit

2009-03-12T05:23:00.005-04:00

Do you know those people who collect the stupidest things? You're probably one of them. People who collect spoons from around the world or crystal figurines. I'm sorry to tell you, but no one thinks they look good, they serve no function, and all it does is clutter up some shelves. It actually makes you look creepy – too much of anything is always weird, especially when it's stuffed animals, snowglobes or some other stupid shit. Seriously, this is what you want to define you as person and as an adult?... that you have a Cabbage Patch Doll collection? The one good thing about collecting stuff is that people always know what to buy you as a gift, which only perpetuates the stupid collecting and makes it impossible to exit it, even if you really wanted to.

I know a girl who "loves monkeys". It started as a child, and she always wanted things with monkeys on them, so her parents would buy them for her. Eventually, she grew up and got sick of it. She probably woke up one day and thought to herself, "Monkeys? WTF? That's stupid." Yes, it is. But, by then, she had monkey sheets, monkey coffee mugs, monkey figurines, monkey t-shirts, monkey everything. And it keeps on coming... at every Christmas and birthday, she gets more and more monkey stuff from her parents, family and friends, because they all know that "she loves monkeys." But how can she tell them to stop? They are so excited and happy to get her "something she loves"! Now, she’s 36 years old and her apartment is filled with monkeys – it looks like a crappy safari gift shop. And, of course, she's single (surprise). Guys probably come over and take one look at what's happening and think to themselves, how the hell am I going to integrate all this into my post-modern bachelor pad? Well, you can't.

I notice that girls tend to do this collecting stuff more than guys. I don't know why, maybe it's a nesting instinct or something. Guys can be stupid with their collecting, too... with their baseball cards, Star Wars figures, panties from past conquests (if they ever had any)... but girls really like to display it and carry these practices into adulthood. I'm here to tell you that collecting stuff is a massive waste of money and space, and it has the opposite effect of impressing guests. So, as soon as you can, put all this stuff in a box, tell everyone that you are over it, and start living a normal life.

Maybe We Should Bomb Turkey Next

2009-03-05T05:35:00.004-05:00

I never spent any time thinking about the country of Turkey... until I noticed that Turkey represents the third-largest readership of The Minister of Common Sense blog. (By the way, I always feel like I have to say “the country of Turkey” instead of just “Turkey”, because in English, “Turkey” means the Thanksgiving Day bird. What a stupid name for a country – probably one of the most stupid. Couldn't they have translated it any differently?)

Anyway, my blog gets the most hits from readers in the United States, which is no surprise since it is my home country. The second greatest number of hits comes from Canada, which is also understandable given that they are (generally) English speaking and it is next door to the U.S., although I may have lost some Canadian readership if they took offense to my post from a few weeks ago. However (and this is where it gets surprising), after Canada, Turkey ranks as the third-highest hit count on my website, which narrowly beat out fourth-ranked Australia. I have had hits from 33 different countries around the world, and TURKEY is the 3rd most popular visitor??

Do you believe it? How random, right?! Actually, as it turns out, it’s not random at all... in fact, it’s pretty damn scary. I did some more digging and it turns out that every single hit that I have ever gotten from the country of Turkey has only gone to one page of my blog... my tongue-in-cheek rant on January 15 called “Stop the Baby Porn”. They have never clicked or gone to any other page – just that one page. Because of Turkey, the “Stop the Baby Porn” post is now the second-most viewed page on The Minister of Common Sense website, following the infamous “Hosting Weddings Sucks” post that caused all the drama with The Knot.com.

I was a little suspicious, so I did some more investigating and every visit to my blog by someone in Turkey came as a result of them Googling the phrase “babyporn”. As it turns out, my blog ranks as #8 on the Turkish version of Google when you enter the phrase “babyporn”. It is the ambition of every Internet site to climb high in the Google rankings, but this wasn't really what I had in mind.

What kind of pedophiles are they breeding over there in Turkey?! For the record, all these hits I received came from all over the country: Istanbul, Bursa, Antalya, Ankara, Izmir, Gebze, Kayseri, Denizli, Konya, Trabzon, Adapazari and Mugla.

And they are not even searching for “child porn”, but BABY porn. My god, does baby porn even really exist?? Jesus, I can’t even think about it. Is it possible that “baby” translated into Turkish is actually slang for “girl” or “woman” or “hot woman”? Sort of how we might say here in America “Hey, baby, how’s it going?” or how someone might call a woman a "chick". So if we Googled for "chick porn", we wouldn't be looking for CHICKEN porn (as someone might literally translate), but actually normal, legal porn with chicks (women). I’m just trying to hope that it’s not what the Turks are making it appear.

I am a liberal and in favor of civil rights, however, it does make me wonder whether the government of Turkey should go out and identify these people and raid their homes, looking for proof of child pornography or something. I know that it is a slippery legal slope, and we don’t want to recreate McCarthyism, but it’s unsettling to know that people are overtly searching for illegal and incredibly harmful material. I guess that searching for it isn't illegal, but it just sucks that law enforcement probably has to sit there and wait for an activity to officially turn illegal before they can do anything about it. And, who knows... Turkey isn't exactly a bastion of human rights, so it might not be illegal over there at all!

One person in Turkey found my website by searching for “bayb porno pohoto” (at least he knew how to spell the most important word properly), which just reminds us that English isn't their first language over there – it’s Turkish. So the people who found my website in Turkey were searching for baby porn in English and not in their native language. It makes me wonder if they do this because English-speaking people make and propagate the most child pornography, which is an awful thought. So maybe it’s really more of “our” problem and as much a Turkish problem. (For the record, my website does NOT come up when you search for “babyporn” in the U.S. or Canadian version of Google. I’m not naive enough to believe that this search term isn't Googled every single day here in North America, but you just hope that it returns with “zero matches”. At least I’m not cracking the Top Ten Google list when they search for it. However, I am #1 when you search for "stop the baby porn", but let's hope that I am not the only crusader. Hmm... now that I think about it... I just Googled for "baby porn" myself while writing this post. So, I guess under my McCarthyism regime that I suggested in the paragraph above, I would have to be investigated, too. Oops.)

The first time I figured out all this information, I started to freak out. I began to wonder whether the joke photos that I posted in the Stop The Baby Porn Blog were actually exciting these pedophiles. I even went back and increased the size of the black boxes covering the bits on the baby to make SURE that I wasn't accidentally helping out the Turkish web browsers. One statistic of relief is that 93% of my Turkish visitors spent less than one second on the website, so the photos weren't very engaging for them. However, while their quick departure from my web page may be a little encouraging, it also indicates that they weren't searching for how to stop or prevent baby porn either, otherwise the title of my blog would have captivated them for longer than one second. So, you have to assume that they were looking for the real thing, which is upsetting.

Based on The Minister of Common Sense website statistics, Turkey ranks as the #1 country for pedophiles. So since America has a history of indiscriminately attacking foreign countries, maybe Obama should go George Bush on their ass, too?

The Mile High Club Does Not Exist

2009-02-26T05:20:00.012-05:00

I fly a lot as the Minister of Common Sense, and I don’t think the famous "Mile High Club" actually exists. I think that anyone who says they have had sex on a plane is probably lying. Every time I go into a bathroom on an airplane, I wonder about the possibility of trying to have sex in there - and I've become increasingly convinced that it’s a mechanical impossibility.

It’s fucking small in there, people! It’s barely big enough for one person, let alone two people – let along two people who are banging away. It’s so small in there that I don’t think there is enough room for me to masturbate, let alone involve someone else. And I’m not a big guy, either... I'm probably on the small side (OK, I didn't mean it like THAT, I meant in terms of body mass), so if I can't pull it off, how are two average-sized Americans able to wedge themselves in there? Not only do you physically have to get two people in there, but you have to actually achieve a position of penetration, which is a whole other question of physics. Look at this photo from a bird's-eye view... how can anyone fit??

Even if we forget about the space requirements for a minute, I'm not even sure there is a legitimate opportunity to try to get two people in there in the first place. You know that those bathrooms are never vacant. There is always a line of people waiting, and there are seats immediately before or after the stalls (the poor bastards). Then there are also flight attendants making crappy food nearby (although it's not their fault, it's the food's fault), so how do two people even TRY to get in there without raising immediate suspicion?

Even if you could get into the bathroom without raising suspicion or inconveniencing the line of people who need to pee, and even if you could fit both you and your likely-to-have-a-fat-ass lover in there, and even if you could get "it" in... what about the fact that it fucking stinks in there?! Either it stinks like people have been using it like a bathroom (surprise) or it stinks like that bathroom sanitizer stuff. How the hell do you get hard or wet to the seductive aromas of 2000 Flushes? You might as well sleep with your office cleaning women or the high school janitor – you’d get the same aromatics.

And have you heard the violence with which that toilet flushes? It sounds like an explosion that sucks the living hell out of anything in the vicinity. I’m nervous just taking a piss near that thing. I’m pretty sure it can rip your sausage off, so the last thing I’m going to do around that toilet is any activity that makes my sausage a bigger and an easier target for that black hole commode!

Anytime they show two people having sex in an airplane bathroom in a movie, there is always a TON of room. They make it look like it's the master bathroom in Mar-a-Lago or something. There is no way there is as much room as they show in the movies. It’s complete fiction. (And if you want to believe the movies, then you have to recognize that something really bad always happens to the characters who try to have sex in the airplane bathroom... they always die, crash or get bitten by a snake or something. So if you believe the movies, then you need to believe that anyone who has ever tried to join the Mile High Club has died, which supports my thesis that no one is actually in the club... because they are all dead).

I don’t envy anyone who says that they have had sex on a plane (assuming they actually have). There is nothing about it that sounds physically possible or pleasing. But, if you want to try to give me a handjob under the blanket at the seat... OK, now I’m interested.

P.S. - As a side bar, what is it with people taking photographs of themselves in airplane bathrooms?? have you seen this stupid phenomenon? After I started writing this post, I came across a ton of people who took photographs of themselves in the mirror on planes. When did this become a fad? Did I miss something?? Look at what you find if you search Yahoo! images for "airplane bathroom". There is page after page of these people taking photos of themselves. What's up with that? Can someone explain this to me?

Oh, Canada

2009-02-19T04:58:00.011-05:00

I got back from skiing in Banff a few weeks ago. For those of you who do not know, Banff is the Aspen of Canada. It is a few hours outside of Calgary, so I had a chance to spend some time in the city. There are some good things about Calgary, as well as some problems.

First of all, you haven’t met cold until you have been to Calgary in February. It was EIGHT degrees there... FAHRENHEIT! Freezing is 32 degrees and it was 8. It sounds so weird to say that it was “eight”. When someone asks you what the temperature is, and you respond by saying “eight”, the likely reaction you will get is “eight what?” Exactly! It’s such a ridiculous, ass-cold temperature that no one believes you when you say it. What does "eight" even feel like?? Can you live in that temperature? I mean, at some point you immediately die if you step outside into a certain level of cold, right? Like, if the air was 100 degrees below freezing (-68 degrees Fahrenheit), then I think you would immediately die, wouldn't you? Well, is “eight” all that much warmer? I found out first hand that you CAN survive in 8 degrees... but only barely. I’m not sure how the people who live there year round actually make it through the winter.

If you actually can withstand the bitter cold and make it out into the streets of downtown Calgary, you will soon notice that their street addresses are all messed up. Calgary had the good intention of building a grid of numbered streets and avenues (like in New York), but their common sense stops there. What do you think the addresses would be of buildings in Calgary that are located between 4th and 5th Street? The building addresses would be numbered somewhere between 400-499, right? Well, not in Calgary. The addresses between 4th and 5th Street are NOT 400-499... they are 500-599! The street addresses in Calgary are always 100 behind! So 415 Sixth Avenue is located between 3rd and 4th Street, not between 4th and 5th Street. How does this make any sense?? Believe me, when you are walking around outside in 8 degree weather, you definitely don't want to find out that you are a whole block off because some backward ass city planner couldn't fucking count correctly! How did this ever happen? Is every stupid city in Canada like this? Are there stupid cities in the U.S. like this??

In addition to the street addresses in Calgary being misnumbered, the country also has a fucked up ZIP code system. Have you ever mailed a letter to Canada? Holy shit, it’s awful. Here is a sample ZIP code in Calgary: “T2P 1N8”. What the fuck is that? Is that a license plate or a ZIP code? Do you really need to alternate between letters and numbers? Canada, your country isn't big enough to require THAT many different combinations of ZIP codes using both numbers and letters. We are perfectly fine in the U.S. with a FIVE-NUMBER ZIP code system (despite the fact that the U.S. has eight times the population of Canada, as well as eight times the habitable land mass), yet you're telling me that Canada requires a SIX-digit ALPHA-NUMERIC ZIP code system?? You're like one of those websites that requires you to set up your account with an eight-figure, alpha-numeric password with at least one lowercase and one capitalized letter... when all you want to do is leave a comment on a blog or something. It's totally annoying and unnecessary.

Canada, can’t you just shorten your ZIP codes and stick with either all letters or all numbers? Do you know how awkward it is to type a letter, then a number, then a letter, then a number...? Especially if you’re doing it on a Blackberry and need to hit the ALT key every other time. Ugh, that’s annoying. And what’s with the fucked up grouping in the ZIP code?... letter, number, letter... and then number, letter, number? Could you make it any more confusing?! I know you're trying to do an alternating pattern, but you do realize that the space in the middle intuitively fucks it up, right? So stupid. Oh, Canada... why?

But, despite its failure with addresses, Calgary was a surprisingly cool town. Despite only having one million residents and being landlocked near what feels like the Arctic Circle, it surprisingly young, hip, cool and trendy. The population in downtown Calgary is generally young and attractive. The girls have trendy haircuts and were fashionably dressed. Based on my visit, I would rank Calgary well above many major cities in the U.S., in terms of fashion and trendiness. Also, I could totally notice that I was no longer in America just based on the average weight of the Calgarian population. Everyone in Calgary seemed to be thin and fit, even the middle-aged people. While the population in Calgary would probably benefit from some extra fat to help them make it through the frigid winter, they all had attractive, thin bodies, especially the women. It was very noticeable, and it made me think to myself, “Jesus, what the hell ARE we Americans eating??... and how MUCH of it are we eating??” It's always shocking to go to a foreign country - you almost always notice the weight difference right away.

Canada has a free healthcare system, and they also have free Internet in the airport, which was nice. But I was shocked to see that The Onion and The Superficial were “blocked sites” by the Calgary Airport Authority. Really? Do these sites really need to be blocked on people’s personal laptops? Let's lighten up on the civil liberties, Calgary. Thank god The Minister of Common Sense was accessible! At least Canada still lets you look at some of the good stuff.

UPDATE: Oh my god... Calgary has CASINOS, too!! Just another reason why the city is cool!

School Zone Quandary

2009-02-12T05:00:00.007-05:00

What are the laws regarding school zone speed limits? It seems to me that people will generally drive faster than the speed limit on a normal road... unless it is a school zone. School zones seem to be the one traffic rule to which everyone will adhere. When we see those flashing lights that caution us to drive no more than 20 miles per hour because children and a school are nearby, we all basically abide by the law. Twenty miles per hour is so painfully slow that it’s obvious when someone is going too fast, so everyone really has to stick to it. But it’s for a good reason because no one wants to accidentally kill a kid who runs out in the middle of the street. However, sometimes these school zone lights are incorrect – on holidays and weekends, as an example. So my question to you is, do we have to obey the 20 mph speed limit if you know that the school zone sign is wrong?

There is a school zone near my house, and I was driving through it on Christmas Day. Of course, everything was closed on Christmas, and school was not in session. The school zone speed limit lights were on an automatic timer, so at 3 pm on Christmas, they were blinking to enforce a 20 mph speed limit. Now, I knew that school was not in session, and therefore (technically) the school zone speed limit should not have been enforced (there were no kids, no crossing guard and no cars in the parking lot). But I didn't know what to do. Should I drive 20 mph?... or is it OK to drive faster than that? The few other drivers around me seemed equally confused, as some were driving normal, and others had slowed down dramatically. So what is the real legal rule in that situation? Could a cop have given me a speeding ticket for driving faster than 20 mph, even if I could have proved that school was not in session? I imagine that he COULD have given me a ticket, but would my defense be adequate to have it dismissed in traffic court?

In another example, what if a school speed limit sign was stuck in the “on” position forever... all day, all night, all through the summer, when clearly there are no kids going to school? Could you fight your way out of that speeding ticket? What if one school speed limit light was on, but the others were off? I saw this just the other day - it was on Sunday (obviously, no school) and one sign was blinking and the others were off. What’s the rule under that situation? Would it be "speeding" to drive through this area at 30 mph? Would it be a ticketable offense?

The hazy rules can get even more nuanced. Last year I noticed that one of the school zone speed limit signs near me had not automatically adjusted itself for daylight savings time - the others had, but not this particular one. The light would continue to blink for an hour after all the other school zone signs had turned themselves off. Is it wrong to disobey it? It was freaking me out because I knew that the sign was wrong, but it was also "wrong" during a time that was very close to the real school time. I probably looked like a reckless asshole for “speeding” through the area when other drivers were not aware that the light was operating on the wrong time zone. Should a cop have given me a ticket for this? (CAN a cop give me a ticket for this??) After all, the reason why we have signs and traffic lights in the first place is so that we don’t have to rely on people to make personal decisions and judgements about how and when to follow the rules. But does it matter if the rule/sign/light is incorrectly posted?

Think about the moments when you come to a broken stoplight - a traffic light that is stuck on red. After sitting there for minutes and minutes, ultimately you realize that it is not going to change to green (or maybe you came to the intersection and drivers had already figured out that it was broken, so they were driving through it when they could). What are you to do? You have to eventually drive through it and disobey the "traffic law", right? So, therefore, wouldn't driving faster than the school zone speed limit be OK when you KNOW that the sign is wrong (which can probably be most clearly determined when there is only one sign blinking and all the rest are off). But what if the OTHER sign (the one that is not blinking) is the broken one, and it really IS a school zone time? Or what if you think the blinking signs are wrong because they are on during the summer, but they are actually CORRECT because there is summer school? Or what if they are on at night because there was a school play that evening? I guess you can never really know for sure.

When I see a school zone sign that is clearly malfunctioning (i.e. it is the only one out of the four signs that is flashing, or they are flashing on Christmas Day...) then I opt to straddle the different speed limits. I won’t drive as fast as I normally would (which would actually exceed the normal speed limit), but I won’t go as slow as 20 mph, either. I don’t openly dismiss the flashing lights by driving arrogantly at 40 mph, but I don’t strictly adhere to the school zone. However, I’m still waiting for the day when I get pulled over by the police and have this discussion with them.

Bicycles Are Not Cars

2009-02-05T04:26:00.007-05:00

Bicyclists, we need to talk. You are not a car. You do not move as fast as a car. So why are you riding your bicycle in the middle of the road?! You’re like the little brother who tries to do all the same things as your big brother, except that you can’t. And because you are tagging along with us, you're making it harder for us to buy beer and get girls. So please go home until you grow up.

Don’t you hate it when you are driving along the right lane of a road on a Saturday morning, and you come up on a painfully slow car in front of you? You think to yourself, “What the hell is this guy doing? Fucking hurry up.” Cars are whizzing past you in the left lane, and when there is a opening in the traffic, the slow car in front of you moves over... and then you see it... some fucking guy riding his bike right in the middle of the lane. Come on, dude, you can’t do that. Ride on the sidewalk. Or drive to the park with the bike in the trunk of your car and take it out when you get there. Or ride on deserted streets, not ones that are active with cars. Or ride on the street (if you must), but do it up against the curb to allow for cars to pass you in that lane. But bike riders always seem to ride smack dab in the middle of the lane, like they have every right to be there.

Look, Mom... No Car!

Who do these bike riders think they are? First of all, do they really have a legal right to use the street just like a car? I don't know - maybe they do and maybe they don't. But even if they do have the right to ride in the middle of the lane, then they need to adhere to the other rules of the road... like the MINIMUM SPEED LIMIT! If you really can ride your bike as fast as a car, then you can use the road with us (by the way, this type of bike is called a "motorcycle"). But if you can’t ride as fast as us, then get the hell out of the way. It already pisses me off that these bike riders are so rude as to ride in the middle of the lane, not caring that they are inconveniencing every car that comes up behind them, but then they have the audacity to peddle along at a leisurely pace! What they fuck? While I don't like any bicycle in the middle of the road, at least I RESPECT those who are peddling their asses off and trying to go as fast as possible. At least they are showing some urgency, which conveys the fact that they know they are going too slow and acknowledge that they are messing everyone up, so they are trying to do their best to minimize their impact on traffic patterns. It’s the other leisurely riders that are the biggest disgrace.

Sometimes you see two bicycles riding side-by-side together in the middle of the road, just flaunting their traffic-blocking ways. Ugh. They probably don’t ride in a single file up against the curb, because they feel it’s too dangerous and it makes them nervous to have cars driving by them in such close proximity, but that’s the whole point... if you don’t like cars near you, then get off the ROAD! Should I be allowed to walk down the middle of a street strolling along at 4 miles per hour? Wouldn't the police stop me from doing that? Wouldn't that be improper? So why is it OK to have a bike rider (who’s fractionally faster than a walking human) to roll down the street?

I partly blame Lance Armstrong for all of this. He popularized bike riding among the non-athletic types and the general population. Whatever good he did for society by raising money for cancer, he basically undid it all by encouraging people to clog our roadways with inefficient weekend traffic. [OK, before I get a 100 angry-cancer-patient emails on this... I was just kidding!]

Compounding the frustration we feel from these bike-induced traffic jams are these mother fuckers’ outfits. More often than not, it’s always a fat guy wearing super-tight black shorts with his padded ass staring at you as you try to figure out a way to navigate and drive around him. And there is often an accompanying tight yellow shirt that highlights their belly spilling over their shorts. Come on, guy – do you really think that aerodynamic clothes are going to help you at this point? Don’t you think your fat lumpy shape is going to give you so much wind resistance that you’re beyond the help of Lycra? Don’t dress like you’re in the Tour de France when you can’t crack 20 miles per hour on the street.

We could only wish this was the problem...

But bike riders will argue that they have a right to use the road just like everyone else. Well, if that is the case, then you have to follow ALL the rules of the road. As I mentioned before, I’m sure they are moving below the minimum legal speed limit in many situations. But in addition to that, after holding me up and making me miss the green light, I see them ride right through the red light that I now have to brake for! You can’t have it both ways. If you want to pretend you are a car, then you have to adhere to ALL the rules. You can’t enjoy inconveniencing everyone by riding slowly, and then enjoy the convenience of going through the red light! If the police are not going to make these guys move over or get off the road, then I want them to be ticketed for going too slow and running red lights.

Don't Call Me

2009-01-29T05:29:00.007-05:00

I never answer my cell phone. If I see a call coming in, I almost always hit the “Ignore” button (unless it’s something really important for work, and even then I usually like to see what they have to say in a voicemail first). Generally, I don’t really like to talk to people to begin with, but even if it’s someone I like, it never seems like a good time for me to talk to them when they call. I’m always either eating, watching TV, running errands, or just plain tired. Do you know how hard it is to find 30 minutes of free time to have a real phone conversation these days? The odds of me liking the person who calls, compounded by the low probability of them calling at the precise moment that I can talk, is like 1-in-1,000.

E-mail is so much better. For one thing, I don’t actually have to talk to anyone, which is nice. I can respond to it at my leisure (you can’t really call someone at 3 am, but I can write an e-mail at that time). I can multi-task when writing an e-mail (people get pissed when you are on the phone with them and they can hear Lost playing in the background and you only talk to them during the commercial breaks). And lastly, e-mail and texting reminds me of the old days when we used to pass notes in school. I was a excellent note passer. I’d get a lot more girls with well-crafted notes than I would with a nervous, bumbling phone conversation.

So why do people call us to ask a simple question that could easily be done over an e-mail? Have you ever answered the phone and had the person ask something like this...

Person: “What was the name of that movie with Natalie Portman? You know, the period piece where they separate her and her lover, and he goes off to war because the younger sister lied about him?”

Me: “Natalie Portman? Do you mean Atonement??”

Person: “Yes! That’s it! Thanks!” Click.

Couldn't you have just e-mailed or texted me that question? You’re telling me that I bothered to pause my TiVo, answer the phone, and muster up the enthusiasm to interact with another human being, and THIS is what you have to say? Oh course, what would be worse is if they wanted to have a whole big conversation about Atonement, or any other topic for that matter.

What's even worse than a frivolous call (like the one above) is the pointless call. Don't you hate it when this happens?...

Me: "Hello?"

Person: "Hi, how's it going?"

Me: "It's going OK. What's up?" [my nice way of saying, "hurry up and get to the point of why you are calling"]

Person: "Nothing. I was just calling to say hi."

What?! Oh come on. I don't have time for this. I have things to do and personal time to enjoy. Only call me if you have something interesting or important to say. Don't call me up "just to say hi". That's a bullshit waste of my time. You might want to "just say hi", but I want to "just say bye".

However, sometimes you have to call people on the phone, and I understand that. More often than not, you just have to tell them something simple, like the time and place to meet you or the outcome of a business meeting. Typically, I would do this in an e-mail, but either the person has initially phoned me to ask the question that I’m trying to answer (so it's proper to respond to them via the same method of communication that they originated), or they are one of those people that don’t really use e-mail in a timely manner and insist on always using a phone (which is really very selfish of them and a horrible inconvenience to everyone who is forced to interact with them).

When I call someone under these circumstances, I get more and more excited with every unanswered ring, because I know that I am one step closer to merciful voicemail. Please go to voicemail. Please go to voicemail. If it goes to voicemail, then I can simply leave a message with the information, there will be no need for them to call me back, and we will be done with the whole thing. Voicemail is like an audio e-mail.

So I get voicemail, which is great, and then I leave a long message explaining everything. But sometimes I will be in mid-message and my phone will beep and it’s the person, who I was just leaving the message for, calling me back! Or sometimes they call you back JUST AFTER you have left the voicemail. In both circumstances, they haven’t even listened to my message, but they are calling me.

Here are my thoughts – if you don’t answer your phone or you miss a call, then that’s too fucking bad. Do you know what you should do? You should wait to see if the caller leaves you a voicemail, then you listen to the voicemail, and then you can call them back if you still feel that you need to. Why do you bother to have voicemail if you’re going to waste my time and make me leave a message (or a partial message) that you aren't even going to listen to? I have this one person who will immediately call me back after I've just left a long voicemail (always without listening to the message) and this is how it goes:

Me: “Hello?”

Person: “Hi. You just called.”

Me: “Uh, yeah [defeated sigh, because I know where this is headed]. I just left you a voicemail. Did you get it?”

Person: “No, I didn't listen to it. I just saw that you called, so I’m calling you back.”

Now, what I really want to say at this point is “How do you even know that I wanted you to call me back at all? Why don’t you hang up the fucking phone, and listen to the message that I just spent two minutes leaving for you, and THEN decide what to do?” But, instead, I say:

Me: “Well, I was calling to tell you... [and now I proceed to regurgitate the entire voicemail that I just left, word for word].”

Sometimes people will call you back right away after they missed your call WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHO YOU ARE! Have you ever gotten one of these?...

Ring, ring

Me: “Hello?”

Person: “Hi, this Robert. Someone just called me.”

Someone just called you? What the fuck? You don’t know who called you and you’re so desperate to talk to people that you’re *69ing a total stranger?? What if it was a wrong number? What if my voicemail (that you didn't listen to) perfectly describes who I am and what I wanted?

And that is another thing – if a caller doesn't leave you a voicemail, then you really shouldn't call them back at all. If it was THAT important, then I would have left you a voicemail, or I will call you back later. If it’s NOT important, or if I DON’T WANT you calling me back, then I’m not going to leave a voicemail!

Speaking of voicemail, who are these people that have their voicemail box “full” so you can’t even leave a message? What the hell is with that? That is the worst. Maybe I don’t have your e-mail, or maybe you’re one of these “phone-only” people, or maybe I’m returning your call... except that I CAN'T, because your fucking fat mailbox is full. I’m very suspicious of this, by the way. I mean, how many voicemails does it take to make a mailbox full these days? 20? 40? 100? Who keeps that many voicemails? Why aren't you deleting them? What is wrong with you? I sometimes wonder if people set their mailbox to say that it’s full, when it really isn't. Although why would they want to go to such lengths to avoid a new voicemail? So with this particular type of person, you have to keep calling and calling and calling, and hope to eventually reach them live – which is like the biggest inconvenience in the world.

Let’s be honest, no one really wants to interact with you anyway, so let’s set the hurdle rate as low as possible and make it as painless and efficient as possible. Don’t call someone if you can convey the same message in an e-mail or text. Don’t immediately call people back if you missed their call – wait and see if a voicemail is left first. Listen to voicemails. Don’t call back numbers you don’t recognize. Don’t be obnoxious with a full voicemail – delete messages after listening to them. And know the difference between Natalie Portman and Keira Knightley!

5,000 Hits

2009-01-28T12:08:00.003-05:00

The Minister of Common Sense blog just logged it's 5,000 hit! Thank you so much for reading and believing that a little common sense can improve the efficiency of society! Hope you are enjoying it.

Sincerely,
Your Minister

Don't Fuck With The Knot.com

2009-01-22T04:47:00.010-05:00

I'm going to pull back the curtain and reveal to you the dangerous life of a fledgling blogger. You may think this is all fun and games for me, but it’s not... especially not after I stirred the hornets’ nest known as The Knot.com.

For those of you who don't know, The Knot is a wedding website where future brides can share ideas, find vendors, get advice, learn about weddings, etc. Sounds pretty terrifying, right? Well, it is. Apparently, it's a pretty popular website, although I had no idea just HOW popular until last week.

I'd like to thank my loyal readers of this little blog. I admit I enjoy writing it, but I don't make any money from it or anything - I just do it for fun. But, it wouldn't be any fun unless I knew people were actually reading it, so thank you for that. The Minister of Common Sense blog received its 1,500th hit a couple of weeks ago (after being open for just 4 months and only posting once a week), so I was feeling pretty good about myself. Of course, I always need to get more readers, so every so often I try creative ways to get the word out. And sometimes, people put the word out for me.

A few months ago, some random girl put a link to my blog on one of The Knot.com message boards. The link connected to my August 21 post entitled, “Hosting Weddings Sucks". Check it out - it's basically about how one of my friends received no gifts (no card, no nothing) from certain friends and family who attended their wedding. Additionally, people didn't RSVP to the wedding or guests brought people who weren't invited. Basically, I complained about the shocking shit that wedding guests do, and I said that I thought it was wrong. Of course, it was written in my typical acidic, sarcastic, I-hate-people style (but that is what this blog is known for).

It was nice that the person posted a link to my blog on The Knot. In fact, I got nearly 100 hits from it, which was great. So one night last week, I decided that I would register for The Knot and post another link to that wedding blog I wrote about before (The Knot has a different message board for each city). I would just post something and write, “Hey, check this out, it's an interesting post about weddings." Basically to try to get the word out about The Minister of Common Sense and maybe pick up a new regular reader – and of course to share some interesting stuff about my friend’s wedding.

After putting the message up, I immediately got 15 hits. I thought to myself, "Oh, wow, that's good. Maybe I’ll put a post up on ALL the city message boards on The Knot. Perhaps if I did that, maybe I would get a total of 50 hits from it or something – that’d be great!” So I spent the next half hour repeating my note in various (constructive) forms on all the city message boards.

Well, I woke up the next morning (12 hours later), and I had 2,500 hits from The Knot.com. You have to figure that people must have been sleeping for SOME of the night (maybe 5 hours?), so I was basically getting one new hit on my blog every 12 seconds. That's not on par with Google or anything, but it's hell of a lot for a non-commercial site. Remember, I had a total of 1,500 hits for 4 months, and now I just got 2,500 in 12 hours. I felt like I was in Office Space... I just wanted to steal a couple of pennies, but when I checked the ATM receipt, I had $300,000 after one day.

So my first reaction to all this is, WOW, girls are REALLY into their wedding and are very interactive about it all! I mean, you'd never get me to randomly click on a link to some stupid blog, yet it was like these women couldn't NOT click on it! Don't get me wrong, I am super pleased that 2,500 new people got exposed to my blog. And if only 1% of them ever came back again, that would be a big win for me, as far as I am concerned. And if you are one of those people who came back today, I want to thank and welcome you! I was just absolutely stunned that I was getting that kind of traffic in that amount of time. It really demonstrated the power of The Knot.

I told a good friend of mine (a bride-to-be, in fact) what I had done, and I showed her all the hits I was getting... minute after minute after minute. She looked at me with a mix of fear and concern and quietly cautioned, "Oh my god. You put this on The Knot?? Tell me you didn’t. You don't fuck with The Knot.com." Oh how right she was... because not everyone was happy with me.

Twelve hours after this all began (i.e. almost as soon as I woke up), The Knot personally contacted me, banned me for life, pulled down all my postings on all the message boards, and mentioned something about castration (or forcing me to get married – I can’t remember which – it was all a threatening blur). The hits to my blog were pouring in, and The Knot pulled the plug on me. God knows how many hits I would have gotten if the day was able to roll on uninterrupted, but the moment they shut me down, it stopped.

I tried to argue with The Knot “Gods” (as they are known). They didn't want me posting on ALL of their message boards, even though: (1) the material was relevant to weddings; (2) I was adding quality third-party content for free; and (3) I wasn't trying to sell, trick or spam anyone. In fact, some of the postings I started on The Knot message boards got very active (with people either liking or hating my post). In some situations, postings were getting 30+ comments on them after a few hours and The Knot was awarding them a star for "highest popularity".

In fact, some of The Knot readers resurrected my postings after the website deleted them. As in here and here (so feel free to repost it, if you want!). They allege a “dirty delete” or "DD", which I guess is Knot talk for removing something without a cause. I’m not sure if they are accusing me of doing it or The Knot Gods.

I guess it's not surprising that The Knot shut me down. But what was really surprising was the absolute venom that some women were exhibiting toward this one post I wrote about on weddings. There were a few comments posted on the actual blog (which you can see here), but the majority were posted on The Knot message boards. In some situations, people would say that they liked it, that they thought it was funny, and thanks for sharing - stuff like that. But then there were others who were frighteningly evil.

I got a shitload of hate e-mail (which I've gotten before for some of my other posts, so that's fine – I have thick skin, and I will acknowledge that I’m probably not the most likeable guy to begin with). (By the way, aside from the wedding post, the post that generated the most amount of hate e-mail was my recent one about the Photo Christmas Cards. Weird. Go figure. People REALLY WANT to put their kids on their Christmas cards!) But some of the comments written about the wedding post by The Knot readers really surprised and shocked me.

Since The Knot.com postings no longer exist (and since I'm serving a lifetime ban), I'll have to reference some of the comments that were posted on my own blog. Basically, some of the readers were mad at me and my friend because we both assumed that gifts would be given by at least the majority of guests who attended their wedding – and some readers felt that this was wrong and greedy of us. Really?? What’s next?... that it’s wrong to expect you will get gifts on Christmas, or candy on Halloween? It was odd – the original comments received on my blog were basically supportive of my position that my friend got ripped off (some people didn’t even give him a card), but the majority of the posted comments by the future brides-to-be from The Knot were attacking and unsupportive, which totally confused me. You would think that future brides would be concerned about the possibility of guests not properly RSVPing, not bringing gifts, bringing people who weren’t invited, etc... but this group (at least those who commented and were most vocal in e-mail and on the message boards) seemed to act as if they were above it all, and that they don’t care about gifts at all – they just want people to “be a part of their special day”, which is nice... but I find it hard to fully believe.

Here are some random comments posted to me:

“according to wedding etiquette, gifts are NEVER to be expected by the bride and groom”

“you are a piece of sh*t and so are your married friends. You do not EVER expect a gift from anyone...ever”

“No, they shouldn't expect gifts and no, it's not rude for guests to not bring one.”

“That is unbelievably rude of the bride and groom and not to mention yourself to count up the value of the gifts and judge people on their gift or lack of. There is no "rule" that you have to give a couple a gift.”

OK, do I live on another planet than these people?!?! I’m not saying that the bride and groom should be all “gimme gimme gimme”, but I think that it is perfectly reasonable to expect a gift from a guest that attends your wedding... at least a freaking card! Since when are gifts “NEVER to be expected by the bride and groom”? If that is the case, then why the fuck are all of you REGISTERING at Bed, Bath & Beyond?! Why is there a gift table set up AT THE WEDDING? So I’m the “piece of shit” because no one should “EVER expect a gift from anyone... ever”??? What the fuck? YOU’RE the fucking lying hypocrite! Why can’t we be honest with ourselves and admit that it is appropriate (and expected) to bring a gift or AT LEAST A CARD to a wedding?

I’m totally struggling with why some of these brides-to-be were so attacking when I was actually trying to defend them in saying that I think guests should bring gifts. One guess is that in the process of planning a wedding, they are trying to be altruistic and really focus on the ceremony and not get sucked into the materialistic side of things. Because if you admit you are looking forward to getting some gifts (or that you expect some), then you are a “bad person”. If you don’t expect any gifts, then you can’t be disappointed if you don’t get them. But anyone who tells me that they would not be disappointed if their close friend or family member didn’t even bring a card, let alone a gift, is out and out lying. Just about everyone who wrote me saying that gifts should NEVER be expected at a wedding also told me that they ALWAYS bring a gift to a wedding themselves. How can you really have a double standard like that? If everyone is bringing gifts, it’s because it’s the right and decent thing to do – and then it becomes an expected tradition. There is nothing wrong with "expecting" people to act decently.

Another possible reason why some of these brides were so attacking in their comments may be because some of them may be the very people who aren’t giving gifts at the weddings that they attend themselves! After all, SOMEONE out there isn’t giving gifts or cards, right? About half of my friend’s guests came empty handed, so who are these people? Perhaps it’s the people who are calling me a “piece of shit” for suggesting that gifts should be given.

I will acknowledge that this blog is sarcastic, snarky, bitter and mean. If you didn’t know that coming in, then maybe you may overreact to something I write. Also, the people who agree with me are probably less likely to write a comment than people who disagree, which may also account for some of the comments on the blog and The Knot. I have to believe that there are more people out there who agree with me than disagree with me on this topic.

I should warn The Knot that I have already written another wedding post called "Weddings: The Money Pit of All Money Pits". I can't wait to put that one up on The Knot and see how many new engaged women I can get to hate me!

Oh, on a separate note, I also received my first cease and desist letter from a lawyer over an alleged copyright infringement, so that was fun, too. Legal action, hate e-mail, getting banned from websites... it’s all in a day’s work as a freelance blogger.

(To return to The Minister of Common Sense home page to see more postings, click here. Additionally, the full archive calendar is available to the right. Please bookmark me and pass me along if you think I'm worth it!)

Stop the Baby Porn

2009-01-15T05:02:00.013-05:00

My friend gave birth to a baby boy last weekend. In celebration of the moment, they sent around a brief e-mail announcement with a photo attached. Of course, the photo was of the baby... but it was a full-on nude shot, including Baby Boy's franks and beans.

So my question to you is, "Is this appropriate?" Personally, I was immediately shocked, uncomfortable and – frankly – horrified. I mean, I know it's a baby, but I don't really want to see all that. Does anyone really need to see this?? I usually download and save every photo that my friends send to me, but this was one that I immediately deleted. Honestly, it kind of killed the joy I had for my friend - I couldn't enjoy looking at the photo or celebrating the birth because of the subject matter. I couldn't pass it along to other friends saying, "Look at friend's new baby - how cute!"

Am I alone in thinking that this is a completely inappropriate photo to blast e-mail all your friends and post on your family's Internet site? I know you are proud, but can't we do some discrete editing or something? Is this the only photo you have to send to all of us?!

It's not that I object to babies having genitalia - that's not their fault. The thing that bothered me, and my real question is, why would the parents consciously elect to send out that type of photo to everyone? They don't have to prove to me that he is a boy, I think the name "Tom" makes that pretty clear. So please don't send me a spread-eagle photo of his cock and balls. I'm just confused why the parents didn't do one of the following things: (1) tastefully and strategically use a blanket; (2) crop the full-body photo to exclude the inappropriate part; or (3) take a photo above the waist. (By the way, not only do I NOT want to see the vagina/penis in baby photos, I also don't want to see that nightmare of a belly button either! Freaking disgusting. First, they have the giant clothespin on it, then later it gets all dark, shriveled and gross. Look at the above photo - there is still blood everywhere! I understand that is this all part of the "miracle of life", but, seriously, do I need to see it?? The miracle of life also includes me taking a shit, but I don't photograph it and send it around to everyone, do I?)

OK, now THIS is more like it (by the way, it's the same baby as above). Just use a blanket or dress him up - it's not hard to do, is it?!

When we take a photographs of ourselves as adults, we make sure our hair is fixed properly and that we don't have a nip-slip, or have something in our teeth, right?... so why are we going out of our way to take photographs of our babies in the worse possible positions? You know that the babies themselves would absolutely object to many of these photos, if they could. The proof is when we are older and these photographs get shown to us for the first time. We never say, "Awh, what a good baby photo of me!... you can see my penis and everything!" No, instead, we shriek in horror when our moms pull out these photographs in front of our friends.

You would think that modestly and decently would be inherent in all of us, and parents wouldn't be trying to take photos of naked babies (let alone, mass e-mailing them out to everyone). But maybe I'm just being prudishly American and immature about the whole thing. (Believe me, I want to see photos of naked girls - just not naked BABY girls.)

My last comment just raised an interesting point... in what situations do these naked baby photos become illegal? I'm not sure what the child pornography laws are, but if someone sends me a photo of their naked baby, I assume that is OK. But what if they are 2 years old? 5 years old? 13 years old? What if they are a boy?... or a girl? Does it matter? I think somewhere along the line, we can all agree that it crosses over into "inappropriateness". I imagine somewhere along the line it also crosses over into "illegality" - I just don't know where that point is (and I'm not interested in finding out). So new parents should all do us a favor and not send around naked photos of their kids.

You can criticize me for being a baby myself and acting all upset over these photographs. I agree that one can definitely overlook the nudity - after all, it's a freshly-born baby... just hours old, and the parents are (justifiably) excited and proud. But I guess I want to criticize the parents for not using a just a little more common sense and simply taking a more appropriate photo of the baby. It just kind of shocks me that they didn't recognize and think about it. When the parents take photographs of themselves on vacation and put them up on Snapfish, they don't take photos of themselves walking around naked or in the shower, so why would they do this to the baby?

By the way, the only thing worse than a full-on nude, spread-eagle baby photo is the freshly-birthed shot with all the goo and gunk still on the kid. No one wants to see this, either. If I did, I'd become an OB/GYN.

Photo Christmas Cards Suck

2009-01-08T04:17:00.007-05:00

I like to send out Christmas cards every year. I will confess that one of the reasons why I participate in this annual ritual is so that I can prove to myself that I still know people and that I still have friends somewhere in the world. (However, this myth is often destroyed when I get cards returned back to me from the post office that are stamped "undeliverable" because a particular friend or family member moved and decide that I wasn't important enough to get the forwarding address information. Of course, if I wasn't such a bad friend or family member in the first place, then I would have known they were moving from the beginning.)

I have also selfishly keep track of how many Christmas cards I send out and how many I get back in return from others. I've been doing this for a few years, and there are a couple of disturbing trends arising in the Christmas card tradition.

The first trend is that people don’t really send out Christmas cards anymore. This year, I mailed 43 Christmas cards to family and friends. In the vast majority of these situations, the 43 recipients have been on my "list" for many years (so it’s not the first time they are getting a card from me). In addition, I send my cards out at the beginning of December, so recipients have plenty of time to receive them, realize they "forgot" to send me a card, then mail me one.

Despite the advance and repeated mailings every year, I only received 19 Christmas cards this December. That is only a 44% response rate from the 43 cards that I sent out. One theory could be that the majority of the people on my Christmas card list actually hate me, which would explain why I only got 19 cards, even though I sent out 43. But I think it is more likely that people have really given up on the whole Christmas card tradition. For the past few years now, I have only been receiving about one Christmas card for every two that I sent out. Perhaps "mail" is getting too old fashioned in our digital age, or perhaps people find themselves too busy to send out cards at this time of year. I’m not sure why people have given up on the tradition, because I kind of like it (and I don't really like anything). What are your thoughts on Christmas cards? Are they a waste of time? Why have people stopped sending them? Is it an "old person's" ritual?

The other disturbing trend I noticed in Christmas cards is that the majority of Christmas cards that I now receive are photo cards. Perhaps I shouldn't really complain, since I just went on and on about how I don't receive enough Christmas cards, but I hate these photo cards. I'm not against the photo cards in general - I just hate what people do with them.

Of the 19 Christmas cards I received this year, 11 were photo cards – so more than half of the Christmas cards I received had a photo on them. Of the 11 photo cards that I received, only one had the full family on it (mom, dad and son) and the rest of the cards only featured the couples' children - no parents. The kids in these photos ranged in age from 1 year old to 16 years old. Of the 11 different groups of children featured on these photo cards, I have actually met/seen only three of them in my entire life (and I haven’t seen any of those more than twice in my life). So, basically, I got 8 Christmas cards from total strangers.

Who is this person, and why is she sending me a Christmas card?? (And, perhaps more importantly... why is she wearing that hideous dress?)

Can someone please, PLEASE tell me why parents refuse to put themselves in the photo for the Christmas card?! I hate getting these damn cards from kids who I have never seen in my life and probably never WILL see in my life. I didn't send the stupid kid a Christmas card – I sent one to the parents. It's the PARENTS that I am friends with, or when to school with, or grew up with... not their kids. I don't care about their kids. I mean, I care about their kids to the extent that the kids make my friends happy, and I guess that's nice. But I don't really care about them in isolation, so why do the parents make the kids the prominent (and ONLY) feature on the Christmas cards?! Maybe, MAYBE, if it was a newborn, you can get away with doing it, but why is your 16-year old on the Christmas card? You can have the kids on the Christmas card, just make sure you include yourselves. It's the parents that I want to see, not the kids (who I have never met in my life because they live in a far-off city or something). I know everyone thinks their own kids are the best – but, really, isn't it presumptuous of these parents to jam their kids down our throats by putting them on a Christmas card and, simultaneously, depriving us of a photo of themselves - the only people we actually know?

Are parents so absorbed with their own kids that they insist on only having the kids in the photo? Do they feel that including themselves in the photo would be too conceited on their part? I don't get it. I just don't get it why the parents aren't in the photo, especially when it's only the parents that anyone really cares about. Put the whole family in the photo – what is wrong with that?! Why is that so horrible and so "wrong" to do??

Are these "bad people" for putting their entire family in the Christmas card photo? (Perhaps they are bad because they also appear to be members of the Aryan Nation, but that's another discussion)

Someone suggested to me that the reason why the parents don't put themselves in the Christmas card photo is because the parents know they look like shit - they look fat and/or old, and they are too self conscious about it. That might be a possible explanation... after all, this is America, and we get fat easily here – especially after having kids. But there are cards I received from really good-looking, thin parents (both the husband and wife) and the only people in the photo are the two kids (one of which is a step child of my friend, so I REALLY didn't care about that one). So that couple wasn't fat or old, and yet they weren't in the photo.

There are other examples I can think of where the parents weren't in the photo, even though they are attractive, so I'm convinced that the reason why parents don't put themselves in the photo is because they are self-conscious and bad-looking. I have to believe that the reason is because parents feel they need to "put the children before themselves" and that they feel it is too presumptuous, conceited and arrogant to feature themselves on the front of the card. Because, if the parents are in the photo, it's because they DECIDED to be in the photo, whereas the children are kids, and they don't have a say in the matter - the kids didn't consciously insist on being on the card... they were put there. Although, I would argue that consciously putting your own kid on the front of a Christmas card ("look at him! look at my kid, everyone!") is just as presumptuous and conceited as putting yourself on the card. Frankly, I don't really advocate ANYONE being in a photo on a Christmas card, but if you are going to do it - do us all a favor and put the people who we have real relationships with in the photo. I know parents don't really want to hear this, but we don't give a flying fuck about your 6-year daughter who we never, ever met. We care about you... the people who we have been friends with for 20 years. Not caring about your kids doesn't make us a bad person or a bad friend - it makes us real people with real priorities. We care about YOU, and that makes us good people.

So, I don't know... I'm annoyed and frustrated by receiving these photo cards that might as well be from total strangers with pre-printed messages that are stuffed in envelopes with pre-printed address labels. I mean, could you get any more impersonal? Maybe this is why people have stopped sending traditional Christmas cards... because of the crap you get in return. Maybe I will join them next year and stop sending cards. Or maybe I will print up a bunch of photo cards with some random child I find on the street and see what type of response I get.

Happy New Year!

2009-01-01T05:27:00.002-05:00

The Minister of Common Sense will begin blogging again next week (Jan 8) with regular postings again every Thursday morning. Please stay tuned and tell your friends! See you all next week

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-25T05:24:00.002-05:00

Just like at Thanksgiving time, I am wussying out and not writing a post for the Minister of Common Sense blog. Please forgive me (and this is the time of year to do so). I will also be opting out for New Year's Eve, but will be back in full force for 2009! Please come back and see us again after the holidays. In the meantime, enjoy the season.
-- The Minister

Gasoline Prices

2008-12-18T05:08:00.001-05:00

This posting probably won't make me very popular, but I wish people would stop the communist, conspiracy theories regarding gasoline prices. I admit it – I am a complete capitalist. I studied the financial sciences in school, and I believe in letting businesses and people make as much money as they can (within the boundaries of what is legal)... or lose as much money as they can (which seems to be the more common scenario recently).

I, like you, did not enjoy paying $50 to fill up my tank back when gasoline was $4 per gallon. But I also understand that the price of gasoline is not governed by the gas station, nor is it set by the ExxonMobils of the world. The price of gasoline is essentially established by the price of oil, which is based upon global supply and demand fundamentals. When global economies are strong, then the demand (and price) of oil will rise, and when economies weaken (like right now) then the price will fall. It is far from the influence of oil companies.

When gasoline prices ramped up to $4 per gallon, it seemed like everyone was screaming bloody murder. There are ways to try to reduce the price of oil (and, by extension, the price of gasoline), but none of them are a quick fix. (For the record, some of the solutions include alternative energy and promoting the exploration for more oil.) However, many people, including some of my smart friends, were blaming the oil companies for the high gasoline prices, claiming that the companies were raising them, that they were trying to screw us, that they were greedy, that they were gouging us, and why don’t they lower them? That’s not really how it works.

I don't blame people for misunderstanding the complicated economics behind oil prices, and my following comments will be oversimplified, but perhaps they can help clear the record – and point out the inconsistencies of some lines of thinking. Certainly the media isn't going to be responsible and do the job correctly – they are too interested in the television ratings they receive when they rant about gasoline prices... it makes for good six o'clock news.

Gasoline is made from oil, and oil is a fungible, worldwide commodity. Which essentially means that you can move it anywhere in the world (i.e. put it on an oil tanker) and the price is essentially the same. The world's supply and demand set the price of oil (and, therefore, gasoline prices). You can’t sell oil for more than it's worth, because no one would buy it from you... it's too easy to go somewhere else and buy it from someone else. There is too much oil available for purchase in the world from too many different sources, so all these forces balance out and everyone essentially has to charge the same price. ExxonMobil may sounds like an all-mighty empire, capable of controlling oil prices, but they only produced about 5% of the world's total oil in 2007. That is hardly a monopoly position from which to control prices.

So, I hate to burst the bubble of conspiracy theorists, but ExxonMobil wasn't raising the price of gasoline higher and higher to see how much the consumer could withstand. They were charging the fair market price for gasoline – they couldn't charge more, and they couldn't less. (“Couldn't charge less?” Am I sure? Yes. If ExxonMobil charged $3 for a gallon of gasoline when everyone else was charging $4 per gallon, then arbitrageurs would buy all of ExxonMobil's $3 gasoline and immediately start selling it for $4. ExxonMobil would be sold out of $3 gasoline, and the only gasoline in the market would sell for $4. So, no, ExxonMobil really can’t give you a friendly discount. And while ExxonMobil does produce some of its own oil, they also need to buy additional oil from other sources to make more gasoline. That oil they were buying was increasing in price, and oil is a major cost component of gasoline. If they started charging less for gasoline then, at some point, they start to lose money, even at relatively "high" gasoline prices.)

I also laughed to myself when some people complained loudly when gasoline prices went to $4 per gallon, and they blamed it all on the oil companies, but now that gasoline prices have plummeted to below $2.00 per gallon, no one is saying, “Thank you, ExxonMobil! Thank you for lowering gasoline prices and making my life better!” You can’t have it both ways. If you want to erroneously believe that the big, bad oil companies are arbitrarily raising gasoline prices to screw you, then you have to thank them when they “lower” the prices for you, too, right?

Did the oil companies make a hell of a lot of money in the past few years? Heck yeah they did. And consumers and politicians screamed and railed against the oil companies, saying they were making too much money and how it was unfair and there should be a windfall profit tax (an extra tax to penalize a company for making “too much money”). Although oil prices reached $150 per barrel this year, did you know they fell to $10 per barrel in 1999? When oil prices were super depressed in 1999, do you remember giving ExxonMobil a donation to help them out during their tough times? Did you say “Poor ExxonMobil and their horrible profits – it’s such a shame”? No you didn't. So you can’t now say, “Damn ExxonMobil and all the money they are making!”. Once again, you can’t have it both ways. (By the way, I’m not saying you should say, “Poor ExxonMobil” during their tough times... you shouldn't say anything, ever – you should just let them run their business and succeed and fail, and let that be that.) And by the way, oil prices that once were $150 per barrel are now less than $50 per barrel, so there are good times in business and bad times.

The public and politicians may complain that oil companies “make too much money,” and therefore there should be an extra tax or the oil companies should give some of it back... but, theoretically, they already are. Their profits are higher, and therefore they are paying more absolute dollars in taxes to the government because of that. Higher corporate profits generate more tax revenue for the government and, therefore, more money to provide public services and programs. So, high gasoline prices actually are helping the consumer indirectly by providing more corporate taxes to fund government programs (which we all, theoretically, should benefit from).

The oil companies aren't out to “screw us” and the Middle East oil countries aren't out to screw us either. OK, the Middle Eastern countries are “out to screw us” in the way that they fly planes into our buildings, but they aren't jacking with the price of oil to try to hit us in the wallet. Saudi Arabia et al don’t really have the power to control oil prices. It is true that certain countries did form a group called OPEC (which is sort of like a union for oil-producing countries), and they try to control oil supply to help support oil prices, but they historically have been very poor and unsuccessful at doing this.

Also keep in mind that taxes represent a significant amount of the price you pay at the pump. Gasoline taxes vary state by state, but they generally range from $0.50-$0.60 per gallon. That is about 25% of the price you pay for a gallon of gasoline today, and the government didn't have to "make" the product, so it's nearly a 100% profit to them, whereas the oil companies has to pay to find and extract the oil, convert it into gasoline, and then sell it at all the physical locations (gas stations). I would venture to say that, at today's prices, our government is making more "profit" on a gallon of gasoline than ExxonMobil. Of course, things could be much worse. Next time you are filling up your car with gasoline at $2.00 per gallon, keep in mind that gasoline prices over in the U.K. are over $5.00 per gallon (similar to all of Europe because they have very high taxes). Back when we were paying $4.00 per gallon, people in London were paying over $9.00 per gallon!

So, things could be much worse. Sure, oil companies come with their problems, but they also provide and fuel nearly every single great aspect of our modern lives - from transportation to electricity to plastics. So gasoline prices aren't screwing you... what would really screw you is if oil companies failed to supply the 80 million barrels of oil that the world consumes every single day.

Weddings: The Money Pit of All Money Pits

2008-12-11T05:10:00.004-05:00

If you think the stock market is the quickest way to lose vast sums of money, then you've never thrown a wedding. One of my closest friends is getting married in three months, and he invited me to be one of his groomsman. As a result, I have had a (terrifying) inside glimpse into the costs associated with throwing a wedding. If the divorce rate wasn't enough to put you off from marriage, then maybe the catering bill will.

My friend and his soon-to-be wife both have very good jobs (dentist and lawyer), and their parents are middle-to-upper class, so they can afford a really nice wedding, but I was still shocked at the costs. I used to think that maybe $30,000 would get you a really, really nice wedding... but now I’m starting to think that the number is more like $60,000 and possibly $90,000. I’m not even sure how that is possible, but it is.

I'm sure there are many of you reading this thinking, "$30,000?! I would never spend $30,000 on a wedding... let alone $60,000! That’s insane! Me and my hubby, Billy Bob, had a great wedding at Cracker Barrel a couple of years ago for $7,000, and it was great." OK, OK, I'm sure that the Cracker Barrel wedding was great and, yes, I will admit that each couple has their own spending budget for a wedding. However, I'm telling you that you cannot have a standard wedding for 200 people in a metropolitan city, in a real facility, with real food, real entertainment, real flowers, and a real cake, for less than $30,000. And, I'm horrified to say, it's probably closer to $60,000.

The wedding industry is a scam. It's shocking to think that people spend THAT much money ($9,000... $30,000... $60,000... whatever) on a party for ONE night. I know it is an important day, but tens of thousands of dollars? Really?? It's gotten to the point where you have to ask, "Who can afford to even get married anymore?"

As I mentioned, my friend and his fiancee can afford the big wedding they want, even as the United States is rapidly becoming a third-world country. But what about the 99% of "other" Americans out there? Most of us have normal jobs making a normal salary, and we don't have $5,000 lying around, let alone $60,000. Our parents may have some money, but that is still a massive chunk of coin, right? So how do these young couples pay for it all?

I think that many couples end up paying for it through credit cards. Maybe not the whole thing, but there is likely some difference between what they get from parents, what little they may have to contribute themselves and what they get in gifts. (By the way, you will NEVER recover your wedding costs through gifts from guests. If you have any question about that, take a look at one of my earlier blogs, called Hosting Weddings Sucks on 8/21/08.) Perhaps a couple may "only" put $5,000 of the wedding expenses on a credit card, or maybe it's more like $15,000 or more... but either way, it's a massive amount of debt that could prove crippling.

[By the way, the photo above is from a real wedding loan website. I love how she has a tatoo on her hand... you just know she is a dirty slut (great for a night, but bad for a marriage!) Why on earth did they pick her to be the model? I find that so amusing.]

Can you think of a WORSE way for a new, young couple to start off in life other than mired in credit card debt after the wedding?? Credit card debt that bought (literally) NOTHING. It bought a party. A party that the wedding couple didn't even enjoy, because they were running around hosting everyone. There is no hard asset to offset the debt they have incurred. The cost of a wedding could have been a substantial down payment on a house, or paid for school, or paid off pre-existing debt, or saved for retirement. Those who understand the "present value of money" from finance classes can appreciate the magnitude that this debt will have on a young couple.

It gets you to thinking... the divorce rate is about 50%, and the most common reason why couples argue (and why they get divorced) is money. You have to wonder how many marriages were ironically destroyed by the very event that formed them – a wedding (and the subsequent horrible financial position it can create). Now, I'm not saying that if we abolish weddings then we will prevent all the money problems and arguing in a marriage. However, I am saying that a lot of hardship could probably be avoided if there wasn't the societal pressures to have a big fancy wedding – especially if the couple can't really afford it. Am I off base here, or did some of you get married and have to take on tons of debt to do so? How expensive were your weddings, and was it worth it when you look back years later?

Chicken Fried Steak Lawsuit

2008-12-04T05:06:00.007-05:00

I would like to invite you to join a class-action lawsuit that I am bringing against chicken fried steak. The name of this food item is completely misleading and fraudulent to the dining consumer of America.

I had jury duty recently, and during the lunch break, the only real food choice was this hole-in-the-wall place that specialized in southern food. I don’t think The South has ever really demonstrated any special culinary excellence, so I'm not sure why a restaurant would specialize in “southern food” – it’s the equivalent of specializing in cooking shit. If you want to specialize in being “gracious,” “racist,” or “slow,” then I recommend copying The South, but not for food. Anyway, as you expect, the restaurant had terrible food choices, so I steered clear of things like grits and pieces of pig that you wouldn't eat unless you were in Lord of the Flies... and I went with the safest pick – the chicken. Specifically, the chicken fried steak.

Now, if you are like me and didn't already know, “chicken fried steak” isn't chicken at all – it’s steak, as in red meat. When I cut into my “chicken” at the restaurant and discovered that it was actually steak, I was shocked and pissed off. I think it’s total bullshit that they call this thing “chicken fried steak”. Why the hell is “chicken” in the name?? “Chicken” is a noun and a protein, and when I order something with “chicken” in the name, I expect to actually get chicken. It’s so misleading. I mean, what the fuck?

Believe me... it's not chicken

I know, I know... the word “steak” is in the name, too. But, in fairness, that word comes at the end, and it isn't the headliner of the dish. I was also thinking that maybe the name referred to the type of chicken – that the chicken was cut into a steak-like pieces (or fillet) and didn't have bones. Plus, who knows what they mean in The South anyway?... it was like ordering off a foreign menu with all the weird stuff they had.

People have since informed me that it is called “chicken fried steak” because it is steak that is fried in the same manner as fried chicken. Obviously, that is the intent of the idiot who fraudulently named this piece-of-shit dish, but there are two problems with that explanation. First of all, it is grammatically incorrect. If you have compound words in front of a noun, then you are supposed to hyphenate them. So, the proper way to write the name of the dish is “chicken-fried steak”. OK, now THAT I understand... chicken-fried is the compound descriptor of the noun, steak. The proper way to read that name is that it is a steak that has been fried in a chicken style. As part of my lawsuit, I am going to require that all menus be changed to use the hyphenated phrase “chicken-fried steak.” The fact that the name is already grammatically incorrect is evidence that whoever invented this dish isn't necessarily coming up with the best ideas out there.

The second problem with the explaination for the name is that I don’t think that chicken has a special frying style that is exclusively its own, does it? Fried chicken is fried in batter – so what's the big deal? When we order other fried foods, we’re never disappointed with how it is fried, are we? Did you ever get served something and think, “Goddamnit, I wish this was chicken-fried and not just normal-fried”? We don’t call fried chicken “chicken-fried chicken,” do we? No, we just call it fried chicken. So why can’t we just call it fried steak, too? Why complicate and confuse the matter?

I have heard that sometimes this dish is called “country fried steak” (again, there should be a hyphen), but I am SO fine with that name. There is no confusion with a name like “country fried steak.” You might not know what “country fried” means exactly, but you have some idea, and you certainly don’t expect to order it and get a big slab of “country” on your plate, do you? In the name “country fried steak,” there is only one food noun, so you can’t go wrong, right?!

Maybe I am an idiot. Maybe everyone already knows that chicken fried steak is steak and has nothing to do with chicken. But I feel misled and cheated, and I think it’s wrong to name something “chicken fried steak” when all it really is, is a fried steak.

On top of all this, it fucking sucks, too. It’s this super-thin slice of red meat that is pounded down and fried with too much breading. The color of the meat is gray, and it’s a crap-quality cut, so that it’s tough and fatty. And then they pour this hideous white gravy on top of it. White gravy?? Who ever heard of such a thing? Gravy is brown (possibly red, if you are Italian). We all just had Thanksgiving, and how many of you out there poured a white “gravy” on your turkey? None of you. So how come chicken fried steak suddenly has this white gravy invention?? That is another rip-off associated with the dish. And by the way, white/cream sauces do no pair well with red meat. Do you know what white sauces DO pair well with?... fish... and CHICKEN! Someone please put an end to this fraudulent, shitty, protein-confused meal.

Happy Thanksgiving!

2008-11-27T05:03:00.002-05:00

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! Although it is Thursday (my normal blog day), I decided not to officially post a blog this week because of Thanksgiving. First of all, it's a holiday. Secondly, 90% of you will be traveling and with family, and you wouldn't read it anyway. And, lastly, it's difficult coming up with insightful, interesting, quasi-funny essays every week, so I deserve a break everyone once in a while, too! If you think this is a cop-out, you may be right. But get used to it... Christmas this year falls on a Thursday, too. See you next week and enjoy the turkey.

Hyphenation Alienation

2008-11-20T05:14:00.003-05:00

I have a friend who recently got married and legally assumed a hyphenated last name. This wouldn't be a big surprise to me at all, if my friend wasn't a male. Yes, he is a guy who hyphenated his last name and, no, he did not marry another guy. I have never seen this before, have you?

I’m all for a woman hyphenating her last name or even keeping her maiden name. That is fine with me. In fact, I have a shitty last name, so I don’t blame any chick for wanting to avoid it. Believe me, I already present enough challenges for any girl who would want to marry me, so there’s no point in making it even worse with tagging her with an 11-letter last name. I've even jokingly said that I would consider switching my last name and taking HER name (assuming I ever got married), in order to lose a few syllables and put an end to years of misspellings on my credit cards. While I guess I would entertain changing my last name (if my parents were dead), the idea of hyphenating it has never occurred to me.

The invention of the hyphenated last name came from women who didn't want to completely switch their last name after getting married. Because of its origins, hyphenated last names have the appearance of being uniquely feminine and, therefore, unsuitable for a man. I’m guessing that this is the number one reason why no guy that I have ever know (except for one!) has ever taken on a hyphenated last name. I also imagine that it’s going to be a bit of a hassle for this guy, not so much because of the obvious jokes he might encounter (“Gee, John, I thought Nancy was the bride, not you!”), but you also probably have to explain it to a million people (for the rest of your life) when you're introduced to them, handing them your business card, etc. Thank goodness his first name is a typical man's name, otherwise I would assume there would be a lot of gender confusion by those who contact him sight unseen.

So why on earth adopt such a troublesome name? I’m assuming that his wife also hyphenated her last name, so maybe they wanted to pair themselves up properly. It's a little weird for the guy I know, because his name is hyphenated in the traditional female style of maiden name first, followed by the groom's name... his real last name isn't even listed first, which is odd. But, again, I’m sure it was done to match the couple up with the same last (hyphenated) name.

So why is it important to have a matched up last name? Someone suggested that it is for when they have kids. The kids would then have two parents with the same last name and the children would also share that same last name. In theory, this sounds sweet, until you think that the kid now has a last name that is double in traditional size, contains a character that is not in the alphabet, and is completely alien from any last name that any other kid has! I’m pretty sure that a hyphenated last name is going to get that kid’s ass kicked at least once on the playground. Also, you know it’s not going to fit on those Scantron forms used to take SATS, etc. I’m no psychologist, but I have to think that this will all result in some developmental setback for the kid. Is it really that alienating and weird for a family to have one last name (the man’s) and the mother can be hyphenated (which the kids will never really see, unless it’s on mail that’s delivered or something). I think that's something the kids can handle much better.

The hyphenation is also a pain in the ass for us adults who have to interact with these people. Before, if a woman hyphenated her last name, that was fine, but you were able to get away with calling them Mr. and Mrs. Smith. But now that they guy has gone and done something crazy with HIS last name, you have to call them Mr. and Mrs. Smith-Jones. The whole thing doesn't seem necessary.

If two gay guys got married, THEN I understand both of them hyphenating their last name. In that situation, you have two men, and traditionally the man retains his name.

Maybe the whole thing of having the woman assume someone else's last name is sexist. I mean, decades ago, it probably made more sense, but today women have established careers, and they may be reluctant to change their “brand” (i.e. last name) and start causing confusion with clients and co-workers. A hyphenation partly helps address that, but again, this decision falls on the shoulders of the female. Guys never even need to think about doing anything with their name to help comply with a newly unionized couple - it's probably sexist that men don't have to consider that. This is why I support a woman keeping her maiden name, or switching it, or even hyphenating it (although I will confess that I think hyphenation kind of reeks of indecision and is the surname equivalent of keeping one foot on either side of the fence). I just don’t know how I feel about a man doing it for all the reasons I have mentioned above.

Think about when the kids with hyphenated names grow up and marry someone. If it was only the mother who hyphenated her name, then the ever-expanding last name stops with her. But if you burden your kids with your hyphenated last name, then we have to be prepared for the idea that those kids will grow up and marry someone. If it’s a daughter, will they take on a triple hyphenation after marriage to someone?? If it’s a son, will his bride hyphenate her last name to come up with her own triple-last-name cocktail? (The son will probably adopt that same triple hyphenation himself, because you beat it into him that mommy and daddy's last names were SO important that they had to combine them when they got married - someone raised in that environment isn't going shorter with a last name, they're going to go longer at any opportunity.) God forbid one hyphenated kid meets and marries another hyphenated kid (they’ll probably meet one another in a Last Name Support Group or something). What happens when these two kids get married?... a QUADRUPLE hyphenated last name?! For god’s sake, we’re setting up a system that will produce humans that sound more like law firms than kids.

And what happens if the parents of a hyphenated kid end up getting a divorce? I’m willing to bet that both the mom and dad will revert back to their original (and single) last name... but the kid stays hyphenated, right? Well, there goes your happy family of “one last name” concept that was seemed to be so critically important. And now the kid has a constant reminder of the failed marriage... it’s right there on his name tag. Hyphenation seems like dangerous territory to me!

Cell Phone Earpiece Annoyance

2008-11-13T05:14:00.004-05:00

Cell phones are the ultimate in convenience, and I can’t even recall what life was like without them. How did we ever contact one another? How did we find one another when we got separated at the ball game? How did we ever let someone know when we “got there”?

As technology advanced, earpieces were developed for our cell phones. First there was that “talking wire" thing that dangles down someone's chest. That one always really bugged me – there was no way to tell that they were on the phone – they were just talking out loud and murmuring to themselves like homeless people. Of course, you always thought they were talking to you, until you started to ask them, "What?" and then noticed the stupid wire. There is never an actual cell phone in sight. It's amazing that the wire works at all, because it doesn't look like something that would be able to pick up your voice. Of course, not everyone trusts the wire, do they? You always see those people who hold up that little black knot in the wire up to their mouths as they walk around and talk. If that is what you need to do, then just hold up your cell phone to your mouth – don't even bother with the wire, right?

After the invention of the dangling wire, they developed wireless earpieces. I own one of these, and it works really well. But I only put it in my ear when I am making or receiving a call. If I am out in public, I always hold my cell phone out in front of me, so people understand that I am on the phone, and not talking to them. I kind of feel like that is the appropriate cell-phone-earpiece etiquette.

One thing that really bothers me about the wireless earpieces are the people who wear them CONSTANTLY. What's up with that? They are always these big shiny Star Trek looking things. Do you really need to wear it ALL THE TIME? Why? Are you a telephone operator or something? Are you really getting THAT MANY calls that you need to have your cell phone permanently glued to your face? I tend to think that people who walk around constantly wearing the earpiece are really just trying to show off that they own one. At least where I live, this trend or fashion seems to be adopted mostly by one particular race. I guess, in some people's minds, it counts as extra "bling".

I've also noticed that it is mostly guys who constantly wear the earpiece – girls don't really seem to do it much (probably because they are smart enough to know it looks stupid and it isn't a pretty "accessory"). I guess guys use it to show off that they: (1) can afford it; and (2) are so important that they need to be able to be reached at all times (but by who?... believe me, there isn't anyone important trying to call them).

Aside from it being completely unnecessary and stupid-looking (and, therefore, annoying to me), it also is tends to screw up the rest of us. After being fooled for years by the talking wire people, we have learned that when we see the earpiece on someone, everything they are saying is not directed at us – it's directed to the person on the other end of the earpiece. But now we have these guys walking around with earpieces on who aren't actually on a phone call! They come up and talk to us or say something, and then we have to try to guess whether they are REALLY talking to us, or if they are on a phone call. And none of us want to risk being "tricked again" by responding to this person who may or may not be actually talking to us... so we wait it out to see if you say something to us again or maybe we can figure out if you're on a call or not. Screw all that!... we seriously have better things to do! And I have enough stress in my life that I don't need the added anxiety of trying to deal with your earpiece fake out. And I have to ask... doesn't constantly wearing that earpiece eventually start to hurt your ear?? I fucking hate those things. Take it off, stupid.

1,000 Hits

2008-11-09T10:50:00.002-05:00

Yay! Today the Minister of Common Sense blog has elipsed 1,000 hits! Thanks for your support, and keep spreading the word to your friends!

Did "24" Help Obama?

2008-11-06T04:37:00.001-05:00

I finished watching the first season of "24" on DVD recently (I know, I know... I'm like the last person in the world to have finally seen it. Whatever.). It's a pretty good show, and the black guy running for president seems like a very strong and determined character... good presidential material. It got me to thinking and it made me wonder whether the TV show "24" had any impact on helping Obama get elected this week.

I'm assuming the black guy in "24" got elected in Season Two, but did the strength of the character and the popularity of the TV show help open America's minds to the possibility of a black president? I'd like to think that we are so evolved that we don't harbor any prejudices, but that isn't true. In fact, I have argued that if you can simply notice that someone is from of a different race, then there is some minute, theoretical discrimination going on inside you (with the definition of discrimination being "the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently"). Doesn't mean you're a bad person or that you are racist - it just means that you may respond fractionally different to a person of a different race, which is just natural... it's just that there are just varying degrees of "responding differently".

However, familiarity will generally reduce that inherent level of "responding differently" (or discrimination) to the point where, hopefully, it's imperceivable. When you meet someone from a different race for the first time, you will likely have a standard reaction (regardless of race), plus an added degree of a different reaction (based on race). That different reaction might range from hatred (real racism) to wondering if their English is any good (ignorance) to wondering if they play basketball (stereotyping) to wondering about the dot on their head (just plain noticing a physical/cultural difference). But then, after three years, perhaps that same person is now your best friend. Any different initial reaction you may have had to them based on their race or culture, has probably melted down to absolutely nothing, or something so minute, it's imperceivable. Perhaps it was almost nothing to begin with, but now it really is nothing - your mind doesn't even register that they are a different race, because you are so familiar with them.

So did the black presidential candidate on "24" help build some familiarity in the voting population to allowed us to view Barack as a normal candidate and evaluate his platform based on its own merits, instead of viewing him as a "black candidate"? Or was the inclusion of a black candidate as a character in the television show a reflection of society's pre-existing belief that we would accept a black president in this day an age? Or does "24" and Obama have absolutely nothing to do with one another? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

There have been a lot of examples in TV where there have been "firsts" that have gone on to shape views in society. If you're old enough, you might remember Hill Street Blues when they showed bare ass on network TV for the first time. That was big deal, and today, you can get away with showing girls in thongs all the time. Also, Ellen coming out of the closet was a big deal, and today gay and lesbian couples enjoy far more freedom and less prejudice than ever before. So I wonder if "24" is one of those steps that helped society evolve a bit.

I won't rant too long on this, because everyone has already beat it to death... but what a horrible, horrible decision McCain made in selecting Palin to be his running mate. Anyone with any kind of brain could have figured out this was going to be disaster. It was very gutsy and actually proved to be very positive for the campaign for about 12 minutes, but even if you were the evil genius who foresaw that, wouldn't you also be smart enough to know that it couldn't possibly last long enough to carry you through to the election? Barack might have beaten McCain under any circumstance, but McCain definitely lost it with that decision to add Palin to the ticket.

There can't possibly be a rationale person in America with an I.Q. over 110 that can honestly say they think Palin is qualified to be Vice President. I'm pretty sure that if you got Palin alone in a room, she would tell you herself that she isn't qualified. None of this is her fault. If McCain or Obama picked me to be their running mate, heck, I would go for it! But I'm going to get destroyed and laughed at - even though I'm highly educated, a good orator, very intelligent and successful - but I'm not qualified to be Vice President. With enough time, I could GET qualified, but I'm not qualified right now. Despite that, if I got the nod from Obama or McCain, I would still give it a try, right? So you can't blame Palin for existing. The mistake wasn't Palin herself; it was the decision to select her. I would pay a lot of money to hear the real true story of how she actually got picked by the Republicans. How did that conversation go? I'm dying to know how they came to the conclusion that Palin actually gave them the best chance to win.

So, like it or not, Obama is our new president. We are in some shitty times right now - my 401(k) is destroyed, I have lots of friends out of work, a have a friend shipping off to Iraq, and this blog is looking more and more like it could my new full-time job. Let's hope for the best over the next four years and give all our support to the new guy in charge, because it's all we got. Even if you don't like the election of Obama, you still have to admit it's a pretty amazing testament to our country... there are people who, in their lifetime, have seen separate water fountains for black people and now a black person as president. I think we can now truly say that you can achieve anything you set your mind to - which is probably a good thing for all of us.

It's Not SkyMall!

2008-10-30T04:50:00.004-04:00

I spend a lot of time flying, and it is very clear that airports and airplanes are in dire need of improved efficiencies by your Minister of Common Sense. Humans act absolutely atrociously in these environments, and I wrote a posting a few weeks describing The Rules of the Air – it's a must read for anyone who flies. But a new thing happened to me recently on a flight that shocked the shit out of me.

It's actually the second time that this has happened in my life. The first time, I thought it was a complete fluke and would never happen again... and then it did happen again. So now I know that it's not a once-in-a-lifetime event, and maybe it's something happening with frightening frequency. Perhaps it has happened to you. Perhaps you are the person doing it.

I was on a plane and had purchased some magazines to read on the flight. I put them in the pouch on the seatback in front of me. I was in the window seat in coach, and there was a guy in his 20s sitting in the middle seat next to me. I started reading a book that I had brought along, and I was saving the magazines for later in the flight. After about an hour into the flight, the guy in the middle seat suddenly leans across and picks one of my magazines out of the pouch in front of me and starts reading it!

I was shocked and incredulous. The magazine was Maxim and, in disbelief, I exclaimed, "Dude!" He said, "Oh, is this yours?" I said, "Uh, yeah!" I then went on to say that he could read it, which (unfortunately) is the only decent thing you can do after someone hijacks your magazine. He read it and then put it back (with his goddamn greasy fingerprints all over it).

So let me ask you - why the fuck did this person think they could take and read that magazine? There is no acceptable explanation for this. It's wrong on so many levels. Let's break it down... first of all, the magazines were not in a common area for anyone to take. This is not a doctor's office – it is an airplane and it's my pouch. That pouch is part of my territory and my area. Anything in it is mine... even if I don't own it or didn't put it there. You wouldn't crumple up trash and lean over and put it in the pouch of the person next to you, would you? So if you wouldn't feel right putting something IN someone's pouch, then why do you feel right taking something OUT of it? To further illustrate the personal space territory argument, the pouch is like 3 inches away from my knee. This guy's hand got dangerously close to me, and it's just unacceptable. I didn't get an "excuse me" or anything.

Even if you were of the mind that the pouch wasn't a person's private area, then what on earth makes you think that Continental suddenly started putting Maxim magazines on their planes?? It's not SkyMall, it's Maxim! And, you know what?... even if it WAS SkyMall, you STILL can't take it! If you had the shit-ass unfortunate luck of not getting a SkyMall in your pouch, that's your problem. You can't suddenly take mine, despite it being a free magazine. Now, you CAN take it from me if I hadn't gotten to my seat yet (similar to how you can take the one blanket that is in a row of seats, even if it's not on your seat, provided no one else is there yet – but you can't take the blanket off someone's lap, once they sit down and claim it).

If you know that SkyMall is a universe magazine that is supposed to be in everyone's pouch, and you don’t have one, and you want it, then you ASK to borrow it, don't you?? How do you not ask me for the magazine?? Instead, this guy leaned over and just took my Maxim without saying a word. I just don't know how to explain this. Let's assume that it's common knowledge that the airplane is stocked with free, random magazines - like a doctor's office. If you sat down and saw that the guy's pouch next to you had a Maxim, and you didn't, wouldn't you think to yourself, "Damn! That guy got all the best magazines, and I got shit!" Then you would wait a minute or two to see if they guy was going to read it. If he didn't, then you would ask him, "Excuse me, do you mind if I read this?" And you would hover your hand over the magazine of interest and wait for his response, right? Mind you, this is all assuming that the magazines are known to common property, which they aren't. But my point is that I didn't get any of that! The guy didn't act properly if he thought the magazine was owned by me AND he didn't act properly if he thought the magazine was common property. It wasn't like the guy was an asshole, either. He was a normal, seemingly nice guy, who clearly wasn't aware that what he was doing was wrong. Which I think is even worse than KNOWING it was wrong and doing it because of selfish reasons. This guy was just plain stupid and ignorant of the laws of common sense and society.

Like I said before, if it only happened once, then I would just have to assume that the guy was new to being a human being and it was just a freak occurrence. But, this is the SECOND time that someone has leaned over and taken my magazine out of my pouch without asking (and the other time it was a woman in her 40s, so there is no rhyme or reason to it). And I know it's happened to at least one other person, too. This act is inconsiderate, rude, stupid, an invasion of private space and STEALING. It breaks like six rules of common sense and human decency all in one fell swoop.

And while I'm on the topic - who are the people who knowingly get on a multi-hour flight and bring NOTHING to read with them (aside form an illiterate person and someone who is going to put on the headphones and obnoxiously laugh out loud while watching the movie)? Who puts themselves in that position? Who doesn't have the foresight and thinks to themselves, "Gee, I'm about to have to sit in the same seat for hours and hours... I think I'll just walk on empty handed." Do you know who does that?... a complete idiot who thinks he will read the magazines in other people's pouches.

"Reply to All" Emails

2008-10-23T04:09:00.004-04:00

The Minister of Common Sense loves email. In fact, I rather write email to people instead of talking to them under just about any circumstance. It's a better form of communication in nearly every way, not the least of which is being able to avoid directly dealing with someone. I would have sex via email, if it was possible. HOWEVER... I hate people who needlessly "Reply to All" on big group emails.

It starts with someone who writes an email to a big bunch of people, and then people start responding... to everyone... over and over again. The biggest abuse is when someone sends a group email saying something like, "I'm collecting money for John's birthday gift. For anyone who wants to contribute $20, let me know and we'll pool together the funds and get a gift certificate to Best Buy." Then the Reply to All emails start to pour in with comments like, "Count me in!" or "OK, where do I send the money?" and "Can I give you the money at the party?" I don't need to hear all that! Your emails don't have any bearing on whether or not I'm going to give $20. I'm also not the one collecting the money or buying the gift certificate. The proper response in this situation is to reply ONLY to the original sender. So why do people feel the need to Reply to All? After 15 minutes, my inbox is flooded with pointless, "Count me in!" emails. There are 100 examples of this type of abuse.

You can find some horrible examples of Reply to All failures at work, too. Let's say that human resources department sends around a company-wide email about making your health insurance elections online through the company's intranet site. Invariably, some idiot manages to Reply to All with "How do you log in?" or something like that. Why do I need to see that?? Why did you send it to EVERYONE in the whole fucking company?! If you don't know how to log in, then just respond to the HR person directly and ask them. I'm not going to tell you how to log in - I probably don't even know who you are. And if you're stupid enough to not know how to log in AND to not know how to properly use Reply and Reply to All functions in email, then I'm certainly not going to help you. When this happens, HR should just automatically fire them. In fact, they should occasionally send around emails that try to entrap people into improperly using the Reply to All function, just so we can cull the employee base of people who are too stupid to work for us.

It's amazing when you see these Reply to All emails and you know the person probably didn't mean to do it, but how does this physically/mentally happen? I don't understand it. The Reply and Reply to All buttons are two separate selections (albeit, next to one another on Outlook). I would think that the natural, default response to an email is to reflexively hit the Reply button (and not the Reply to All button). I would think that there are many more Replies to emails when you meant to Reply to All (under appropriate circumstances), but how does it happen the other way around? You actually have to go out of your way to hit the Reply to All button. On a Blackberry, the Reply selection is the default, and the Reply to All is three wheel clicks away... how do you land there on a big group email?

Of course, sometimes it is OK to Reply to All on emails that are to 3-4 people, and when you are all collaborating on something together or whatever. It can be a useful function when a group opinion is required, or everyone needs to know what the others are doing. But, let's start using the Reply to All function a little more judiciously, especially on those big group or organization-wide emails.

The email sender can take a little responsibility for this, too, and bcc people (instead of cc people) on big group emails where you know that there is no reason for anyone to Reply to All. The bcc only allows them to respond to you, and not to everyone else. But I'm not going to sit here and teach a class on how to use Microsoft Outlook - I only teach Common Sense 101 (and many of you are failing).

While I'm on the topic of emails and replies, there is one thing that really annoys me, and that is when people add others on their response back to you. You may write a work email to one person, typically asking a question, and then they respond to you with the answer and needlessly cc some other person on it (usually their boss or your boss). What the fuck? I directly asked YOU a question, if I wanted to ask the other person, or let them know about it, then I would have included them on the original email. What, you have to tell your daddy that you are communicating with me and what you are up to? I can't imagine all the pointless cc emails that get sent every day. Just stop it already.

Blockbuster Ballbusting

2008-10-16T05:24:00.001-04:00

I am one of the last people in the country who physically goes to Blockbuster to rent a movie, instead of using Netflix or whatever. I'm beginning to see the appeal of Netflix - if only because you have don't have to deal with people.

I went to Blockbuster the other day and strolled up to the checkout counter where this older, gray-haired lady is ringing people out. She is apparently the manager or something, because she's WAY TOO into it. She's like the Blockbuster equivalent of the Starbucks' barista... very excited to be there and very excited to tell you about their new orange mango hazelnut frappuccino, or, in this case, the Blockbuster Rewards Card.

As she's ringing me out, she asks, "Do you have a Blockbuster Rewards Card?" Fuck. As soon as I hear this at any store, my shoulders slump and I close my eyes, because I just know where it is headed. With a defeated and annoyed sigh, I respond, "No." Without knowing anything about the rewards card, I know I don't want it. Actually, what I WANT is to not be hassled with this shit.

She proceeds to rapid-fire tell me something like, "It's our new program that lets you earn a free rental with every four Blockbuster rentals you make, plus you earn points toward [whatever-the-fuck-it-is]." I half-listen to the spiel and then politely say, "No thanks." You know what happens next, right? She says, "Are you sure? It's free to sign up." I try to push my money into her hand while saying, "No, that's OK." Plus, there are other people waiting in line behind me - they don't want to be dealing with this delay either.

You think this would be the end of it, right? But she doesn't quit. She notices that I'm renting Season One of The Office and says, "Are you sure?? You can get substantial savings if you are going to rent lots of these videos." For God's sake! I respond, "No, no. It's fine. That's OK." What I really want to say is, "Listen, lady, I make enough money that I don't give a damn about saving $3.99 every six months or whatever. I don't want to fill out any fucking forms. You know what I want? I want a rapid checkout. Just let me rent the video and move on with my life. How much do I have to pay for that? What rewards program can I sign up to get that? Don't fucking talk to me, just tell me what I owe."

I know that Blockbuster has probably run all the statistical models that show that people who have the rewards card probably rent more often from them or whatever. But I have to endure this third-degree from this particular lady every time I go there. It's gotten to the point that when I see the lady at the counter, I will purposely wait for the next checkout person. Anymore of this, and I will switch to Netflixs. Maybe Blockbuster should factor that into their model.

Pharmacy Farce

2008-10-09T04:31:00.005-04:00

The Minister of Common Sense just got back from the pharmacy where I picked up two prescriptions. I can't figure out why the hell it takes SO LONG for them to fill these things. I went in the middle of the day on a Monday, and there was literally no other customers there. I gave them the prescriptions and said I would wait for it. Thirty minutes later, I was still waiting. What the hell?!

My prescriptions included 30 pills and a bottle of lotion (don't ask what I have, just know that it's not contagious). How long does it take to count 30 pills and grab a bottle of lotion off the shelf... maybe 90 seconds? So how does this whole thing manage to turn into 30-minute ordeal? If you put me behind the counter, I'd take your order, throw the stuff in a bag and hand it to you. How hard is that?

Pharmacies should be like fast food restaurants. At least at McDonald's they actually MAKE the food. Pharmacies aren't in the back cooking up the medicine or mixing the shit they put in the capsules, are they? So then why does it take so long?

Maybe they do it on purpose. I think a pharmacy takes so long to fill your order because they want you to think they are more important than they really are. I mean, what does a pharmacist actually do? They are professional pill counters, aren't they? Where is the skill, science (and time) required to do that? Now that computers can print out the description and directions for the medicine, what purpose does the pharmacist really serve at this point? Of course, you can't really complain to them because we're all too afraid they will intentionally mess up your order and give you pills that make you fat or something - the pharmaceutical equivalent of spitting in your food.

Sometimes there are other customers waiting there (so instead of taking 90 seconds to get your order, maybe it should take 4 minutes), and even though they give you a computer printout with all the instructions, they still shout out to you, "Here is your [insert embarrassing medicine], Mr. Smith. Have you taken this before?" You want to say yes to get out of there, but if you say no, then they embarrass you by saying, "You rectally insert it every three hours" or "Your Asian Mad Cow Rash should clear up in four days". Of course, there is a group of customers sitting around, who have been waiting for 30 minutes with nothing better to do than to listen to all this and judge you.

Why hasn't the whole pharmacy system been replaced by giant vending machines by now? You should be able to walk up, insert your prescription slip with a bar code on it (with the doctor's name, insurance info, prescription and your information) into the machine. The machine would then dispense the pills into a bottle and slap a label on it. Done. It would be infinity quicker, less costly (bye bye, pharmacists), and more accurate (no human error). If the industry still wanted to humiliate us, the vending machine could have an electronic voice that says, "Good luck with your gonorrhea, and thank you for shopping at Walgreens" after you pay.

On another note, aren't you surprised that the pharmacy always seems to have the medicine for your prescription? How is this possible? There has to be a million different kinds of medicines in the world, yet they always seem to have them all on hand. Maybe I've never had an ailment bad enough that it required some exotic medicine (thank god), but when have you ever gone to the pharmacy and had them say, "Oh, I'm sorry, we don't have this. We'll have to special order it"? I find that amazing.

Rules of the Air

2008-10-02T04:47:00.008-04:00

As the Minister of Common Sense, I spend a lot of time hating people while I'm on an airplane. I'm not sure what it is, but people become surprisingly more stupid and inconsiderate while at the airport or while sitting on a plane. I log about 100,000 miles a year in the air, and until the The Ministry buys me my own private jet, I am stuck interacting with these "people" (I just spat on the ground). As your trusty public servant, I am posting the following Rules of the Air. You are now free to move about the cabin.

(1) Don't set off the metal detector. It's a METAL DETECTOR, PEOPLE! The name of the machine is pretty self-explanatory, isn't it? Then why are there always people who walk through it, set it off, then act all surprised as they take off their watch, giant belt buckle, big bracelet, etc.? For God's sake, just think about it next time, would you?? (I'm not going to even bother getting into the topic of laptops and liquids... let's just try for the basics right now.)

(2) Wait for your section/row to be called before trying to board the plane. In a classic move, the gate agent announces boarding and everyone rushes to the entrance of the jetway. If you have flown before, then you know this is not how it works. If you are so undeveloped as a human being that you have ever "rode the plane", then think about it... don't you believe that there are people who are "better" than you? We live in a commercial world with classes. When have you, Mr. First Time Flyer, ever been allowed to be first for anything in your life? Well, it's not starting now. The people in First Class board first, then the airline's frequent flyers, then specific rows or sections. There are people who paid a lot more money than you to take this flight, and they get to board first. If you are NOT one of the sections/people that they letting board first, then STAND WELL CLEAR of the boarding area. There are people behind you that can't get on the plane because your Priceline ass is in the way. Oh, and while I'm at it, for those of you who are ESL (English is a Second Language), don't pretend like you don't know any English, act all confused, and try to board first when they are calling first class. I see this all the time, and we are on to your tricks - we won't let you board. This isn't a toilet paper line in Russia - we have rules.

(3) Don't talk to the person sitting next to you. If English IS your first language, don't use it and talk to me when I sit next to you. If you want to say "Hey" and give me a little head nod when you sit down to prove you are not a hijacker, that's cool - but don't try to engage me in a conversation. I'm being FORCED to sit next to you - I didn't ELECT to sit next to you - it's not an invitation to talk. And if someone is READING, then DEFINITELY don't talk to them. Reading a book on an airplane is a defense mechanism to MAKE SURE you don't talk to us. Sometimes, a good conversation may develop on a plane, but if the person is responding to you in monosyllables, then guess what?... they're not interested. I'm sorry other people in your life aren't interested in talking to you, but don't try to practice on me. If people in your life aren't interested in talking to you, then I am for damn sure not interested. My heart goes out to pretty girls on planes... I see that they are especially subjected to unwanted "stranger talk". Here is a hint to all the guys who try to talk to them... they are not going to sleep with you. In fact, they hate you.

(3b) Don't talk loudly. The plane is like a library. People are reading. People don't really want to be there. They are trying to ENDURE the hours. We don't want to hear anything that we didn't initiate. If you must talk to someone you know (or you found someone actually willing to listen to you), then speak softly.

(4) Don't fucking touch my seat. Why do people feel the need to grab and shake the seat in front of them when they are getting in and out of their own seat? I know it's a tight fit, but please appreciate that I CAN FEEL THAT! My seatback is not some crutch for you to use to stand up. And it's not like they just lean or pull against it for a second, it seems like they feel the need to shake it violently. Are you having problems getting up?... then you are too fucking fat. Not my problem.

(5) No babies in First Class. One of the benefits of buying a first class seat is that you are away from the masses... especially crying babies. Nothing ruins First Class more than having a crying baby one row away from you. I don't care how rich you are, if you have a baby, you can't buy a First Class seat. If you have a baby with you on a long flight (in First Class or Coach) then at least have the decency to slip it a little Benadryl and make all our lives better.

(6) When exiting the aircraft, people in the row in front of you get to exit first. I am all for boarding and exiting the plane as smoothly and efficiently as possible, but this does not mean you get to try to sneak past me while I'm getting my bag down from the overhead bin. If someone is really delaying or taking their time getting out of the row in front of you, then that is one thing. But, if they are exiting the row and getting their bag in a normal fashion, then you have to give them the two seconds it takes to get out. I give a hard body check to people who try to sneak past me in the aisle, and I let my elbows fly wide when getting my bag from the overhead bin. Anything that happens to you is your own fault.

(7) Don't play your iPod too loud through your headphones. First of all, you are damaging your ears, and it doesn't need to be THAT loud. Secondly, I can hear your goddamn music, and I hate it. The sole purpose of the headphone is so that ONLY YOU can hear it. Let's try to keep it that way, OK? We all hated people who would carry around boomboxes before the invention of the headphone, so don't make your iPod so loud that it becomes a mini boombox.

(8) The middle seat gets the armrests on both sides of their seat. We all know that it sucks to be in the middle seat. With that in mind, the aisle and window people need to relinquish the shared armrests to the middle seat person - they get the right of first refusal. The aisle and window seat people have more room than the middle seat and they have their own armrest, so let the middle seat people claim the "joint armrest" between you.

(8a) Stay in your airspace. If I let you use the armrest, then stay on the armrest and don't cross over into my air space. If your arm is touching mine, then you know you are too far over, and you should quickly retreat. Why is it that people don't move away from you when their leg/arm starts to lean against yours on an airplane? I hate that.

(9) Don't recline like you are in a La-Z-Boy. I will admit that you have the right to recline your seat, but do it SLOWLY. Don't hit the button and leap back at a 100 miles an hour. There is not a lot of room back here, and your seatback infringes on my tray table, headspace, laptop, etc. Doing a slow, controlled recline gives me warning and allows me to prepare for the intrusion. Doing it fast will slam my laptop shut, spill my drink and hit my head. Another rule is that you really shouldn't recline on flights less than two hours. Although I will acknowledge that it is your "right" to recline, it really isn't necessary for short flights. Don't make the flight worse for me by needlessly reclining... or doing a full 100% recline, try it halfway and see how it feels.

(10) Board as quickly as possible. When getting on the plane, please put your bag in the overhead bin in a rapid fashion and MOVE OUT OF THE AISLE! It shocks me to see tons of people put their bag up, then fidget around needlessly before getting into their seat and getting out of the way. It's like the whole drive-thru problem I blogged about earlier... people place their order at the intercom and then (now that they are done their business) don't pull all the way up to the car in front of them, completely ignorant to the fact that they are screwing up everyone behind them. The same is true on a plane - people don't get out of the aisle, once they have gotten to their seat and put their bag up in storage. YOU HAVE TO MOVE to allow for the other 200 miserable people to get on the plane and achieve an ontime departure. The flight attendants are constantly on the mic telling people to move out of the aisle, yet it never seems to sink it. And while you're at it, make sure you are in the right row and seat. There are signs and diagrams showing the row number and that seat A is the window, etc... just get it right, for God's sake.

I am sure I could make a list of 100 rules, and I probably left some important ones out. I'd love to hear from you as to what I missed. There are special, completely obnoxious things that have happened to me while on a plane, but they deserve their own postings. Coming soon.

Massages Are Not Relaxing

2008-09-25T05:56:00.003-04:00

The Minister of Common Sense got a massage the other day. They are supposed to be relaxing, but I don’t think they are. I mean, the first thing that happens is they send you to the locker room to change into the robe and flip flops that they give you. That would be fine, if you didn't have to try to time your nudity to avoid other people. I went into the locker room and, thankfully, I was the only one in there. However, I heard the shower running, so I knew there was at least other nude dude around somewhere. No one likes to get naked in front of strangers in these situations. So now I have to contend with changing out of my clothes and into the robe. Do I dilly dally to see if the guy gets out of the shower right away, and then I can see where he goes so I can avoid him? Or do I rush to get changed now while he’s still in the shower and hope that I beat him into the robe before he comes out? But if I wait a few moments to get changed, then that increases the probability of someone else walking in. I decide to rush and immediately strip down to nothing and quickly wrap the robe around me. I manage to get the robe on while the guy was still in the shower and with no one else walking in on me, which is a big relief. The massage hasn't even started yet, but I've already gone though one of the most-stressful moments of my week.

And it’s not like I’m ashamed of my body or that I am “small” or anything like that. Believe me, my body is way better than 90% of Americans (which I know which isn't saying much). It’s just that it's awkward and weird being in a group of strange, naked men. No one really likes it. It’s like everyone’s trying not to look at one another and trying to act like no one else is in the room, but everyone IS in the room, and everyone is trying to look to see if anyone else is looking, but you’re not supposed to be looking, but you have to see where you are walking... it’s just a stupid, impossible situation.

Anyway, after the awkward nudity that the spa forces you to endure, they make you sit in some kind of fancy waiting room with plants and running water and other people in robes sitting around. I want to get a massage NOW – at my appointed time – I don’t want to sit and “relax” in your “Garden of Tranquility” or whatever the hell they call it. In fact, there is nothing relaxing about that room at all. You sit in this small room, wearing a robe (which is already awkward), pretending to read Home & Garden or some other bullshit magazine, with other robe people sitting around... it’s just weird. And if the setting isn't weird and stressful enough, then there is the stress of waiting to see which masseuse will come out and call your name.

I think I speak for all straight guys when I say we want at least a semi-decent-looking female masseuse. It’s not that we think “something will happen” during the massage, or that we'll get a "happy ending"... it’s just that a massage is nicer if it’s someone we don't mind touching our bodies. When the husky, old woman masseuse walks out to get someone, I hold my breath until she calls someone else’s name... then I sit there anxiously waiting to see what the next masseuse will look like and what name she will call. Once again, this is not a relaxing process. And what if a MAN comes out and calls my name?? I specified that I wanted a female, but mistakes can happen during the reservation process, right? What if a guy comes out for me? I mean, I can’t really say to him (in front of everyone), “Oh, no, sorry, I wanted a female.” Everyone will stare at me as I spoil the Garden of Tranquility with homophobia. And for the female clients, it’s not that they are afraid of looking homophobic – it’s the opposite – they are afraid of appearing too heterosexual. I get the sense that women are generally OK with either a female or male masseuse, but if they ask for a male and they get a female by mistake, they can’t say out loud that they wanted a male, everyone will think, “Oh!... Look what she’s after with her 'massage', hmmm!” The point is that this whole masseuse delivery process is riddled with uncertainty and anxiety for both men and women.

Once your masseuse comes and claims you, they guide you to the room where they explain a few things. You know they are going to eventually leave the room to let you take off your robe and allow you to get naked under the sheets, but there is always those few seconds when they don’t leave right away, and you’re thinking to yourself, “OK, OK, I know what to do – now get out, lady.” Finally they leave, then comes the stressful moment of whether or not you will be able to take off the robe and get under the sheets quick enough. You know the masseuse is going to come back very soon (after all, how long does it take to remove a robe and get under a sheet?). In fact, she is probably standing right outside the door with her hand on the knob. I tried to remove my robe quickly, but I fumbled with the knot (which was probably tangled up after the paranoid and hasty tie job I did in the locker room). Anyway, it took WAY too long to get the robe off, so then I’m rushing over to the massage table, frantically trying to get in it. But the sheet is tucked in too tight, so I’m standing there naked, scratching and clawing at the table, desperately trying to find a seam in the dim lighting. Meanwhile, I know the seconds are ticking away, and the masseuse is going to bust in at any moment. However, I managed to get under the sheets in time. My heart was pounding as my face was down in that holding contraption... not exactly a “relaxing” moment, right? How much am I paying for all this??

And that face-holding contraption is never comfortable, is it? I bob my head up and down on it several times, trying to get a good “fit” and it never happens. Once I’m totally uncomfortable, I can feel the creases beginning to form on my face from the wrinkles in the sheet/face/contraption thing. They put a flower on the floor to look at, but I can never see it because the sheet from the contraption covers my eyes. I must have a malformed head or something.

So then the supposedly real "relaxing" part begins – the actual massage. But it's always a little awkward because you worry about so many things. First of all, will she accidentally (or purposely??) touch your privates? What do you do, if that happens? Or what do you do if you get aroused?? And they move that sheet around you, near you ass, and you just know that they are looking. Are you supposed to say anything during the massage? It’s so quiet. Are you supposed to give verbal feedback, one way or the other? Maybe you start to moan in pleasure to let them know they are doing a good job, but it probably comes across as totally creepy. Sometimes the masseuse talks to you when you don’t want them to. Or they ask you a question, but you can’t hear what they are saying because your face is in the contraption, so you have to immediately decide to either say, “uh, yeah” (without really knowing what they asked) or crane your neck upward and ask, “What did you say?” and now you're in a whole awkward conversation.

They make you flip over at some point and your eyes are closed. She is rubbing your legs or whatever, and I always want to open my eyes, but I fear that if I open my eyes, I will see her staring off into space, with a totally bored look on her face, which will completely ruin everything for me. Or worse, she will have a look of complete disgust on her face. Even if that’s not the case, and I look at her, she will be thinking, “Why is this guy looking at me??” Then she’ll ask if everything is alright, and now I’m back in that awkward conversation thing. So, I clench my eyes even tighter, out of fear of accidentally opening them, which makes my face scrunch up, which makes her quietly ask, “Is evye hinde troyt?”, to which I have to respond, “Uh, yeah” or “What did you say?”

So once the whole thing is over (whew, what a relief!), she then says some stuff which you still can’t hear, and she leaves the room. So you get up and get the robe back on. Then you are sitting there trying to remember if she said she would come back with the water or do you come out to get the water or what exactly happens next? So you open the door and peek out and there is no one in the hall. So you quickly shut the door and stand there, getting more and more anxious with every second. Maybe you are supposed to go to the front desk? Where IS the front desk? Is she coming back? What if another massage patient comes in? Soon, you are just as uptight and stressed out as you were before you even arrived.

Just when you are about to give up and get back under the sheets, the masseuse returns and takes you back to the dreaded locker room, where she invites you to use the sauna or steam room. I should have just left at this point, but I thought the sauna or steam room would help relax me after a stressful massage. I rush out of my robe and into a towel (again, trying to be as quick as possible to avoid everyone). There is a steam room and a sauna room – both have glass windows. I don’t really want to be in either of these rooms with anyone else, and I can’t confirm if there is anyone in the steam room (because the steam clouds my view), so I choose to go into the sauna (which is empty). But are you supposed to go in there with a towel or naked? I never know the rules for these things. I elect to go in with a towel (which I think is the right thing to do). So I’m sitting in there alone, FINALLY relaxing a little, when in walks a guy who is completely naked. Great. Of course, I can’t rush out, because that would be weird, too. But it’s also weird that I have a towel on and he doesn't. So I have to sit there for a few awkward minutes before finally leaving, making one last rapid towel-to-clothes exchange, and eventually get out of there. So I ask you, what is remotely relaxing about a massage??

Doors

2008-09-18T05:45:00.002-04:00

There are two consecutive doors that lead into the entrance of the Ministry. I always question the appropriate etiquette when passing through these doors with other people.

There is one set of swinging glass doors, followed immediately by another set of glass doors that are only about 15 feet away. (I’m not sure what the logic is of having these double doors – maybe it’s to help for climate control or to prevent stuff from being blown in by the wind. I’ll have to look into the common sense of it all when I get some free time, because it’s damn annoying having to open two doors to get in and out everyday). Anyway, the doors are really heavy, and it’s kind of difficult to open them. So when someone is in front of me, and they hold the door until I can put my own hand on it, I always say thank you. Not a big, loud “THANK YOU!”, like they just did me the biggest favor in the world, but a simple, quiet “thanks”. I don’t expect them to say “You’re absolutely welcome” or anything like that – that type of exchange would begin to constitute a conversation, and I don’t really like people all that much, so I’m happy to steer clear of that. But sometimes they say “sure” or “no problem” or something, which is fine.

So if I say “thanks,” then I sure as hell expect others to say “thanks” when I hold the door for them. It irks me so much when I stop my walk and hold open this heavy-ass door for them for a second, only to not get a thank you. It makes me feel like such a fool and a sucker. If I don’t get a thank you on the first door, then I let the second door swing back on them, and they can deal with it themselves. Sometimes I think I hear them mumble a thank you, but I’m not really sure. When that happens, I only have 15 feet (or about 2.5 seconds) to make a decision how to handle the second door. In those circumstances, I usually hold it open again, to err on the side of caution. But if I sense a bad attitude, I might just let them deal with the second door on their own.

The double doors are so heavy and such a hassle that I time my walk based on the proximity of people around me. If I’m headed for the doors, and there is someone close behind me, I will often speed up my walk a bit to create enough space in between us so that I’m out of the range that would obligate me to hold the door open for them. Conversely, I will speed up my walk, if I see someone in front of me, so that I can quickly catch the open door behind them and not create one of those awkward moments where you are well behind the person, but they think you are in the range that obligates them to hold the door, then you see them standing there with the door open for seconds and seconds, and you have to make that mini-jog move to get to the door quickly, then you DO have to give them a big “THANK YOU!”, which is all just exhausting, so I try to avoid it. If I’m behind someone, and I think I’m on the border of the range of obligation, I will slow down big time (sometimes I even come to a full stop) in order to create a ton of space between me and the person in front of me, so that there is no doubt that they should NOT hold the door for me. I’d rather stand there and let them walk way ahead of me, rather than feel like I owe them something because they played doorman.

But getting back to the etiquette question and saying thank you – do you need to say “thank you” twice (once for each of the two doors that are held)? I go back and forth on this. If I say thank you on the first door that is held for me, and I feel like it’s heard and respected, then I might not say thanks again for the second door, which is only two seconds later. I feel it’s a little repetitive and unnecessary. They get the picture – I’m grateful – I didn't suddenly become ungrateful in the two seconds in between doors.

If I’m the one holding the doors, I definitely care if I hear a thank you on the first door, but I’m not expecting it (or needing it) on the second door. In fact, if I do get a thank you on the second door, it starts to be too much, and now I feel obligated to them to give them a big “you’re welcome” and all that crap.

It’s like when the guy around you sneezes, and you say “god bless you”, and then they sneeze right away again. You want to say “god bless you again”, but then you’re wondering if they have a third sneeze in them, and how much longer will this all go on. If you say the second “god bless you”, then you are committed, and I think you have to stick out the god bless yous or at least fain interest as they go on their sneeze run. I try to split the two strategies and give one initial “god bless you,” followed by a “god bless you, AGAIN!” and if there is a third sneeze, I usually say, “oh my!” and I get the hell out of there (for health reasons and because I have better things to do than to religiously preside over the guy’s allergies).

So, as for the doors, I think the proper etiquette is to say thanks for the first door held, but it is entirely optional for the second door. As for the door holder, it is entirely their option whether they say “you’re welcome” for the thank you(s) they receive, or they can say nothing at all. It is appropriate for the door holder to save up their welcomes and roll it all into one “you’re welcome” after the second door, but it is NOT appropriate for the person who is having the doors held open for them to save their “thank you” for one big one at the end. I never get to hear that anyway, as by that time, I’m letting the second door swing back on them. That is my common sense ruling on the matter.

Cell Phones in Elevators

2008-09-11T06:48:00.002-04:00

People kill me. They just, plain kill me. How many times do we (as a society) need to complain about people and their cell phones in order for the idiots to finally “get it” and stop annoying the hell out of all of us? Here at the Ministry, we have issued so many bulletins on this topic, I can’t even keep up with all the button pushing that needs to happen to non-conformers.

Using a cell phone in an elevator is a classic example. It is the height of rudeness and arrogance to get on an elevator while talking on your cell phone, and it’s jaw-dropping how many people do it every day. And it’s always the same situation and conversation... the person gets on the elevator (filled with other people) and they are talking loudly on their cell phone. You all know what happens next, right?... the person says to the other person on the other line, “I just got on an elevator, so I might lose you.”

OK, so if you know you “might lose” the person on the other end of the line, then why are getting on the elevator in the first place?? If you are talking to the person on a cell phone then, by definition, you DON’T want to lose that person (otherwise, you would have ended the call already). So, if you don’t WANT to lose that person, then why are you willingly engaging in an activity that will almost certainly guarantee that you WILL lose them?? It’s fucking stupid. And I love it when they say, “I MIGHT lose you” – of course you will lose them! When has anyone ever been in an elevator and NOT lost them? It’s a goddamn given. Cell phones barely work outside, so what is it about getting inside a moving steel box surrounded by concrete that makes you think your cell phone will work?

The next stage in the cell-phone-elevator conversation is just as predictable. The cell phone user plays that game with themselves when they say (over and over again), “Hello?” “Are you there?” “Hello?” No, they are not there. You KNEW they would not be there – you even told them so yourself a second ago!

I haven’t even gotten to the part where all of this is totally annoying and rude to the other people on the elevator. I don’t want to hear your fucking conversation. In fact, I don’t want to hear anything at all. Have you ever noticed how quiet it is on an elevator with people in it? Why do you think that is? We weren’t taught to not talk on an elevator, it just feels like the right thing to do, right? That’s because it IS the right thing to do! The decision to be quiet on an elevator is just naturally “in us”. It’s innate. It’s natural. And some people are missing that gene, which just shocks the shit out of me.

One time, I would like to be on an elevator when it’s just me and the cell phone guy. And while he’s trying to talk on the phone, I’m going to start talking really loudly to no one in particular in order to mess up his call. Me talking out loud to no one is essentially the same thing that he is doing to me. (Of course, I won’t need to mess up his call - the bricks and mortar will do that on their own).

So, if you are talking on a cell phone, don’t get on the elevator! It’s so simple. We don’t want you on the elevator because you will annoy everyone. But even if you’re selfish and don’t care about other people, you shouldn’t want to get on the elevator because you will drop your call. Why would anyone ever decide to get on an elevator while on a cell phone? It’s illogical, stupid and rude – and I push the button on them all.

Drive-Thru Stupidity

2008-09-04T09:10:00.003-04:00

I usually go to a Starbucks drive-thru before going to the Ministry, and I find it astounding that people fail to properly navigate it.

The shocking thing is that people often place their order at the intercom, then they don't pull up all the way to the car in front of them. This prevents me (or the next person in line) from pulling directly up to the intercom in order to place an order. Why on earth do people do this?? Certainly they have been subject to the same problem by other people who didn't pull up properly in the past visits, so why aren't they aware of this and correct the error within themselves?

Drive-thrus are built to handle an exact amount of automobiles between the order intercom and the pickup window, so if people consume more space than necessary by leaving a gap in front of them, then all the cars are misaligned after them and it screws everyone up.

I'm not sure if this is specific to my city or area, or perhaps it happens in other parts of the country. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I also find that it particularly happens in the morning at this Starbucks. It doesn't seem to happen at lunch at Taco Bell or other places. And it's not the shape of this particular Starbucks drive-thru that is the problem - yes, there is a curve to it, but just about every drive-thru has a curve somewhere between the order intercom and the pick-up window. Is it because it's the morning?? More than likely it's because people are just plain stupid.

When it happens, I can clearly see that they are not properly pulled up to the car in front of them. I would love to lay on the horn and get them to correct their idiocy, but at this point, the hood of my car is lined up with the intercom, so I know that if I did beep (obnoxiously), it would blow the eardrums out of the poor 16-year old girl on the headset inside. So all I can do is yell out the window, "PULL THE FUCK UP!". This has mixed results.

I would just love to poll these people after they are finished getting their order and ask them what the hell they are thinking. Are they completely ignorant that they screwed everything up for everyone behind them? Are they only interested in placing their order, then they forget the impact that their actions might have on everyone else afterwards? Are they "afraid" of pulling too close to the car in front of them?

I'm telling you, this happens just about every day - the consistency of their failure is infuriating, and I'm getting sick of all the resulting paperwork that I need to file first thing in the morning when I get to the Ministry. I have your license plate numbers, people.

Is Phelps Phony?

2008-08-28T19:54:00.001-04:00

My purview as Minister of Common Sense extends to many corners of society, including sports. I watched the Olympics with great interest, especially as Michael Phelps pursued his historical, record-setting eight gold medals. However, I got to thinking... and I’m beginning to wonder if maybe all the hype surrounding his achievements are overblown.

Phelps is being lauded as either the “greatest Olympian ever” or the “greatest athlete ever” (depending on who you talk to, and some people think he is both). These titles are being bestowed on Phelps because of the amazing number of gold medals he won in Beijing. But, did he really win “eight” gold medals or just “one”?

I mean, it’s swimming. He’s a great swimmer. I get that. But do we really need all those different swimming events and strokes? At its most basic, a swimming race is two people in a body of water trying to go from point A to point B in the least amount of time. Who cares how you get there? Why do we need the freestyle, breaststroke, backstroke and butterfly? It’s like losing a foot race to someone and then saying, “OK, let’s race again... but this time we have to run sideways!” The dude is faster than you, and he just proved it, so who cares if you are a faster sideways runner than him? If you both had to race to the last lifejacket on the Titanic, guess what?... you’re not going to get it. We don’t have sideways running, so why do we have the butterfly?

If someone is a fast runner, I’m willing to bet he’s also a pretty fast sideways runner, too. Just as Phelps is a fast freestyle swimmer, he’s also pretty good at all the other hokey swim strokes. Given all the different swimming strokes, distances and relays, there were 17 opportunities to win a gold medal as a male swimmer in Beijing. That is almost as much as track & field (24), and track & field has everything from walking to the long jump to the javelin to the pole vault. That is a hell of a lot more varied than just swimming. So with 17 gold medals available in swimming, if you insert a great swimmer like Michael Phelps into that opportunity, of course he’s going to walk away with a shitload of them. So why is that so amazing?

One way to look at it is that Phelps basically won 5 gold medals for the same thing – being a fast swimmer. (He won three more gold medals for being a fast swimmer who also had other fast swimmers in the same country, which is even less impressive.) I could shatter Phelps’ gold medal record tomorrow... if you made common sense an Olympic sport and had events such as: common sense on Monday morning; common sense on Monday afternoon; common sense on Tuesday morning; common sense on Tuesday afternoon; etc. By the end of the week, I’d have 14 gold medals around my neck. Does that make me the best Olympian or athlete of all time? No, it just makes me a guy with a lot of common sense, right? So why is Phelps suddenly the best athlete ever?

I say that Phelps isn’t the best athlete ever. You could also say he’s also not the best Olympian ever because there are too many events (i.e. gold medal opportunities) in swimming, plus Larissa Latynina has the most career medals ever with 18 (bet you didn't know that). You know what you CAN say?... you can say he’s the best swimmer ever, which is pretty damn good.

This isn’t Phelps’ fault, of course, and I’m not suggesting that we push the button on him or anything. It’s the fault of the Ministry of Olympics for having too many swimming events. They don’t give one gold medal for ping pong with a red paddle and then another gold medal for ping pong with a blue paddle, so why do we have all the different retarded swimming strokes? I recommend that all swimming events at the Olympics should just come down to one race – “the fastest motherfucker to the other side of the pool”. OK, I’ll grant them swimming races at different distances, too, just to mix things up. I’m on my way to the Olympic Minister’s office right now.

Hosting Weddings Sucks

2008-08-21T17:59:00.004-04:00

A friend of mine got married recently. I'm not married, so I don't have any first-hand experience at this, but I was appalled at the rudeness and lack of consideration from their guests.

The first problem came after the RSVP date for the invitations came and went... and 30% of the guests still hadn't responded (one way or the other). OK, fine, people might forget or whatever - or maybe they assume that a non-RSVP means that they are not coming (by the way, that is NOT what it means - it just means that you are lazy, rude and inconsiderate). Whatever the case, a 30% non-response rate is a lot. Many of the invitees who didn't RSVP were married themselves, so you would think that these people would appreciate how expensive weddings can be (even at the cheapest) and would understand about how getting the guest count correct is key to managing the costs, right? Anyway, the bride and groom had to spend tons of time calling these people personally and ask them if they were coming (certainly something they shouldn't have to do, which is the whole purpose of the RSVP). But, wait, it gets worse.

The couple getting married requested no children at the wedding reception - it was written on the invitation - yet multiple people who attended the wedding brought along their friggin' kids. Additionally, the RSVP cards were sent out pre-printed with the number of guests already written on it (like "1" if the invite was just for one person, "2" if it was for someone and their girlfriend, etc.). Well, get this - people would cross out the pre-printed number and write their own response. Individuals would cross out "1" and write "2". Couples would cross out "2" and write "4". You can't fucking do that, people!! But, wait, it gets worse.

After the wedding, the couple couldn't help but notice that the the gifts they received only amounted to one-fifth of the cost to throw the wedding. And this wasn't an expensive wedding, so it made the numbers all the more shocking. As an example, if the wedding cost $20,000, they only received $3,700 in gifts. There were a ton of people who didn't event bring a CARD! I know the "rule" is that you have one year to give the married couple a gift, but let's be honest, if the guest doesn't bring a gift to the wedding, there is a great probability they won't give a gift at all. It was a destination wedding, so you can excuse the people who traveled from giving a gift. But the majority of the attendees at the wedding were local at this "destination" wedding, and the couple still didn't get shit for gifts. (Disclaimer: the guests were not the most affluent people in the world, but I'm still pretty shocked... I mean, knit a sweater or something.) Of course, you shouldn't throw a wedding in order to get gifts, or with the expectation it will pay for your party - I understand that - but isn't this horrible that a ton of people didn't give anything, not even a card? That seems rude to me.

The couple then held a reception in their hometown for the people who couldn't travel all the way to the actual wedding, and the gifts received at the hometown reception was just as bad - again, only about half of the guests brought a gift and they were just as skimpy as those received at the actual wedding. I'm shocked that HALF the guests wouldn't bring some sort of gift or token - is this the norm?

There was one person who is a close friend of the couple, who attended the lavish bachelor party (for free), didn't come to the actual wedding, attended the hometown reception, and didn't even bring a card (let alone cash)! This is the same person who received a $300 gift from the groom at his wedding a while back). In another horrible example - a bonefide millionaire, who is a friend of the family, came to the hometown reception and didn't even bring a card. What the fuck?!?!

It's shocking how screwed up and rude people can be when when invited to weddings. How is this possible? If I get invited to a legitimate friend/family wedding, I send a gift even if I DON'T COME! Shouldn't the button be pushed on all these people?? If you're the bride or groom, how do you even LOOK at these people again? Maybe the guests didn't think the couple would make it long term?? I just find this all very disappointing, and it shakes my confidence in people.

I'd love to hear your wedding horror stories, as I'm sure they get much worse.

If you're interested in reading more about weddings, you might want to check out another post on this blog titled, "Weddings: The Money Pit of All Money Pits".

Urinal Skeeve Out

2008-08-14T18:36:00.001-04:00

There's this one guy on my office floor (who doesn't work for the Ministry, but for another government entity), and he freaks me out in the bathroom.

There are two urinals in the bathroom on my floor. If this guy is already standing at a urinal when I go in there, he ALWAYS turns and looks at me when I saddle up to the urinal next to him.

I assume he does this when anyone comes in, and it's super freaky. It is an unspoken guy rule NOT to look at the other person when standing at a urinal.

There is a divider between us, so it's not like he's looking at my junk or anything. He just turns and looks at my face for a second. I'd almost prefer it if he looked at my package, instead - at least I could understand that he might be gay or insecure or something, but why is he looking at my face?? Perhaps to identifying me to see if he knows me? Even if he DID know me, what would he want do with that recognition?... talk to me?? No one wants to be talked to when they are pissing (unless it's your best friend and you are drunk at a strip bar or something).

As soon as I walk in and see him there, I just know he's going to look at me. Of course, I never look back - I just see him with my peripheral vision, but one time I'd like to turn my head immediately toward him and angrily ask, "WHAT?"

One time, a guy who I DID know walked in when I was in one of the stalls with the door shut. He calls out, "Minister, is that you?" (How he knew it was me, is beyond me. And what a risk to take - what if it WASN'T me!... imagine that awkward exchange.) Reluctantly, I responded, "Yeah." Then he proceeds to talk to me while he was pissing and while I was in the stall. I wanted to kill him, and it was hard to listen to him when I was constantly saying to myself, "shutthefuckupshutthefuckupshutthefuckup".

Don't fucking talk to me in the bathroom. Am I alone in this preference??

The Minister of Common Sense

2008-08-07T12:29:00.003-04:00

Welcome to the official site of The Minister of Common Sense. The federal government has commissioned this blog in an attempt to broaden society's appreciation, adoption and practice of common sense in everyday life. Studies have shown that people have increasingly become more and more stupid, and the Minister's task is to correct this trend and improve the efficiencies of society. Given that this epidemic has reached crisis levels, the Minister has been empowered with the ability to push the button on those who won't (or can't) comply.

A special message from The Minister of Common Sense:

"It is my privilege to lead this new initiative. I hope that this blog will educate people, allow them to correct idiocy in their lives, improve the progress of society, and make life better for those of us who are already intelligent. For those who find themselves incapable of conforming, they should remove themselves from society, or I will have to push the button on them."