A Star is born.

I have to admit, I know next to nothing about babies. I know they're small. I know they're delicate. I know their heads are ridiculously soft. That's about the extent of my knowledge.

A buddy of mine had his first child today. He's incredibly excited. So excited in fact, that he sent out tons of pictures to just about everyone in the English-speaking world. I really wish he would've warned me first. Nobody ever told me exactly how gross-looking newborn babies actually are. Granted, I'm sure it's a completely different feeling if it's actually your child, but in all honesty, I thought the kid looked like some kind of  weird dehydrated chicken-looking thing that had been dipped in Jell-O. Whatever. From what I hear, she'll be pretty cute once she's grown into her head.

Of course, everyone's going bananas over the birth. I don't really get this either. Everybody's been running around congratulating the father. Why? The mother's the one that did all the work. Well... my friend did put in some effort (roughly nine months ago, and I really wouldn't call it work.) But honestly, he didn't do much. He got her to the hospital. Other than that, he basically hung out in the delivery room telling his wife to remember to breathe. Thank God for that. She may have forgotten if he wasn't there. Who knows?

He did name the child though. He called her "Star." Do you believe that? What is this, 1967? Was "Moonbeam" taken? I am now of the opinion that children make adults do stupid things.I have seen it firsthand.  Take it or leave it, that's my opinion.  

That reminds me of something I can't remember.

I've gotten to be a little nostalgic lately. It's not that I've been thinking about past experiences, old friends or really anything that would make sense.  I've actually been reminiscing over things  I was never even around for. It's weird, I'll be the first to admit it. 

I don't know why this is happening. It could be because I watch the History Channel way more often than someone my age has a right to. As a result I have become completely jaded with the past. Not the far past, but the recent past (relatively speaking.) I never thought the cavemen had it made. And there's no way I would ever have wanted to live during say, the Dark Ages. Probably because I wouldn't have been a prince or a knight or anything like that. Realistically speaking, I probably would have been some nameless peasant that died because the local barber performed some unnecessary surgery. The Dark Ages definitely would  have sucked.

I think being alive for the recent past probably wouldn't be that bad. Personally, I wouldn't mind being around for the 1950's. From what I can tell, it seemed like a pretty decent time. (Granted, maybe not for everyone.) 

I would have loved to see the Dodgers play in Ebbets Field. I would've loved to have had the Mantle/Snyder argument. I would've liked to have seen Jackie Robinson "hit that ball." I would've liked to have prayed for Gill Hodges, and I would've loved to tell Yankee fans to "wait 'till next year." I was cheated out of all that good stuff before I was even a thought. 

Every so often I'll watch the Dodgers play out in LA. I really don't care who wins. I just watch in the hopes that a Los Angeles "fan" will take a foul ball right to his/her cosmetically-enhanced nose. Anyone who shows up to a ball game after the third inning, and leaves before the seventh, just to beat traffic, isn't really a fan anyway. But, as always, that's just my humble opinion.

On ethics.

From day one of boot-camp, the Marines begin grooming recruits for leadership positions. Boot-camp isn't all marching, running and climbing over enormous obstacles, as the movies would have you believe. A fair portion of what is taught is accomplished via classroom instruction. In these classroom settings you're taught the history of the Corps, its traditions and the principles that govern it.

A lot of attention is given to the traits which (according to the Marines,) every great leader must possess. These 14 characteristics are often remembered by the nonsensical acronym JJ DID TIE BUCKLE. This seemingly stupid sentence of sorts, has served me better in life than anything else I was able to take away from my years in green. This acronym serves as a guideline for actually dealing with people in an ethical manner, as opposed to simply killing them.

Anyway, here's what each letter stands for, and how the traits are defined by USMC standards.

J - Justice - Justice simply put, means fairness. Treat people fairly. It's a relatively simple concept.

J - Judgement - Choose the hard right over the easy wrong.

D - Dependability - Make sure you can be counted on.

I - Integrity - Be honest with yourself.

D - Decisiveness - Be able to make good decisions quickly, based on the information you have.

T - Tact - Treat others and difficult decisions with sensitivity.

I - Initiative - Do what you know needs to be done, without waiting to be told to do it.

E - Enthusiasm - Try to be as excited as you can about whatever task you need to accomplish.

B - Bearing - Basically, keep your cool.

U - Understanding - Know (A) the situation you find yourself in, and (B) the mindsets of your subordinates, and (C) the intentions of your superiors.

C - Courage - Both mental and physical. This pretty much deals with charging machine gun entrenchments, but also being able to admit when you are wrong.

K - Knowledge - Be technically and tactically proficient. In other words, be good at your job.

L - Loyalty - to your subordinates, superiors, and organization.

E - Endurance - also both physical and mental. Be willing to go the extra mile to get the job done.

Some will probably read this and think it's total jibberish. That's fine. I realize that most people usually possess a couple of these attributes to begin with. Most days, I don't even think about them myself. 

That having been said, I have yet to come across a situation, where my little acronym could not be applied. Take it or leave it,  I find it useful. Then again, that's just my humble opinion.

Print is dead, and soon you will be too.

I totally agree with the Sprint guy, we shouldn't be calling cellphones phones anymore. Personally, I can't wait to see what kind of technology is floating around when I'm in my nineties. That having been said, I should probably be careful about what I wish for.

My grandmother is ninety-three. I'm sure that at one time she wanted to see what would be around when she got to be so old. Keep in mind, she was born in 1915. During 1915, you could still find horse-drawn carriages in New York City. The telephone and the radio were still big deals.

For her generation, technological changes came gradually. Take television for example. When they first came about in the 1950's, TV's were huge. They were essentially pieces of furniture. They only came in black and white. . Eventually, sets got smaller and smaller, and the picture changed from black and white to color. It took roughly seventy years for televisions to get to where they are today. What I'm getting at is that Granny was able to keep up with the changes because they happened so gradually.

Computers are a completely different story. The internet didn't even come about until 1994, when my grandmother was seventy-nine years old. Needless to say, she wasn't quick to get online. In fact, she never has. She's completely fine with this, and I don't blame her at all.

What pisses me off is that my dear old granny gets letters and phone calls from her medical insurance provider telling her to make policy changes online. Are you kidding me? Really? She's ninety-three. Why the hell should online changes even be an option for her? She has a hard enough time reading in general, and these rat-bastards want her to go into cyper-land to read their fine print? Awesome.

To me this serves as a great example of technology being used just for technology's sake. Just because a medium is available for use, doesn't necessarily mean that it should be used. I think it also proves a point. No technology, no matter how inherently cool, is only as useful as you (as the user) decide. But, as usual, that's just my humble opinion.


(photo courtesy of Google Images.)

Where's Nader when you need him?

Is it just me, or have the "brights" on cars gotten brighter over the last few years? I'm pretty sure they have. I used to love driving at night. I really did. That was before every other vehicle on the road was equipped with stadium lighting.

I propose an equally effective, alternate solution for those with night-blindness. Don't drive at night. Keep your visually impaired ass at home. Or get a sighted person to take you to your destination, as opposed to blinding every driver on the highway with your 6,000-watt headlights. Or, go to an optometrist, they can usually help with afflictions of an ocular nature. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's their job.

Now, I fully realize that drivers are only partly to blame. The majority of the responsibility should lie on the shoulders of the automobile manufacturers. After all, they are the ones equipping these assholes with the ability to blind the average driver in the first place. I just can't believe that the brightness of headlights isn't regulated. Or maybe it is. I don't know. If it isn't it should be. If it is, then the standards should be changed.

As always, you may or may not agree with me. But, I'm pretty sure that anyone who's had the pleasure of being blinded in the middle of the night by a fast-approaching Hummvee urban assault vehicle will at least claim I make a valid point. Regardless of how fancy we continue to make cars, they will only be as good as the driver who operates them. But then again, that's just my humble opinion.

John Wayne would be proud.

Apparently, Clint Eastwood has a new movie coming out soon. I fully realize that some of his latest films have been met with skepticism, but I think this one might be a winner. Of course every time I say that, the movie usually ends up flopping horribly. Anyway, the movie's called "Gran Torino," and stars Eastwood as a geriatric ass-kicker. Go ahead and Google it if you want to check it out, I'll wait. Personally, I'm glad Eastwood has decided to make this flick for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, if any aged action star (other than the Duke, who is now dead so he's probably a bad example) can pull off violent scenes with plausible realism, it's Clint. Even when he was younger, most of Eastwood's action scenes really just involved some snarky dialogue quickly followed by blowing someone to hell with a hand-cannon. No overly elaborate kung-fu nonsense, just a pissed-off maniac with a gun. (Which always makes for quality entertainment if you ask me.) Granted, he threw a couple of punches in his heyday, but mostly he just shot folks. You don't have to be young, or in great shape to fire a gun. If you don't believe me you can ask Charlton Heston. Wait a minute, he's dead too, so I guess he's a bad example as well. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that Clint can shoot bad guys just as easily now, as he could in the seventies and eighties.

Secondly, I think the film will be great for the morale of senior citizens. In most movies seniors are usually used as comic relief or back-story, serving as little more than props. I think it's great that one of their most recognizable (living) film stars will stand up and raise hell, as opposed to being just another zany grandpa with Alzheimer's. This was tried in the last Indiana Jones movie, but I think Spielberg and Lucas just wanted another big payday. Besides, the film was universally hailed as garbage, which makes it another bad example for proving my point.

Lastly, Eastwood has a pretty decent record as a director. None of his films have gone belly-up as of yet. I don't think that Gran Torino will be the first.

Basically, I'm looking forward to seeing this movie. I'll probably take my dad. I think he'll like it. I could be wrong, but that's my humble opinion.

Thou shalt have no other holidays before Mine. - Macy's 3:16

Can somebody please tell me whatever happened to Thanksgiving? You remember Thanksgiving don't you? It was a turkey-themed holiday, that used to fall somewhere between October and December. If memory serves correct, it was a pretty decent holiday too (as far as holidays go.) I say we bring it back.

Granted, Thanksgiving never really went away. It just feels that way. No sooner have you tossed out rotting pumpkins and leftover Halloween candy, when you're assaulted by the mother of all shopping seasons. Now, I fully realize that the December holidays generate a huge source of income for retailers; I just wish they would hold off on pushing their agendas for a week or so. All I ask is they ease me into the idea of spending money I probably don't have, on things people don't need and thereby incurring debt I definitely don't want, instead of jumping at the first chance to metaphorically tie me down with tinsel and garland, and have a gang of elves armed with gigantic candy canes beat me until I succumb to their will.

The television networks are no better. Apparently, it's now a logical jump to go from showing "Sleepy Hollow" one day, and "It's A Wonderful Life" the next. I can understand the logic behind this as well. The networks have got to keep their sponsors (who are usually retailers) happy. Again, all that I'm asking for is a little breathing room. 

Regardless, I doubt many people start their holiday shopping right after Halloween. So let's not be so quick to skip past Thanksgiving. If nothing else, the holiday serves as a nice buffer for the December shopping season. Think about it. You'll get a nice, relaxing dinner with family and friends (providing you're not hosting,) and a few decent football games to watch, knowing full well you'll be thrown to the retail wolves the next day. I know that this is how things used to work. I say we bring it back. That's just my humble opinion.