Know what makes me angry? How Europe does everything better then we do.
Yeah that's right, I am a fan of Europe and am not ashamed to say it. They do so many things better then we do. I know they are an older country and have had years to develop themselves but we are a country who's roots are primarily based from Europe I mean, we should know at least some of the things they do.
Roads are a great example: Germany built a highway (The autobahn) a beautiful gently curving miracle of modern engineering (at the time) that moved with the land and curved to keep drivers focused and speeds to a safe zone. The U.S. got so jealous that we had to build one too. Unfortunately rather then doing it the way they did we cut through mountains and desert in a straight line basically making a huge drag strip from sea to shinning sea. Meant to be driven on fast but that was unsafe so we put arbitrary speed limits on. They are inconsistent and do not reflect the road.
Cars are another one: Europeans tune their cars to be luxurious and sporty at the same time. and since they tax Gas and not diesel the highest over their (another good decision since diesel engines are not only more reliable they are more efficient and creating energy) European cars tend to be better for the planet. Not to mention the fact that they aren't (for the most part) excessively huge (what family with one kid needs a huge SUV I mean really)
Art: Yes there have been some creative types in the history of U.S. art but for the most part of all of the great creative strides and movements have originated across the pond in places like Italy and France. I think it's because most talented artists are squashed because their art isn't commercially successfull (great message to an aspiring artist huh? yeah your creative but I can't sell a can of soda with this)
Other things include health/obesity rates, consumer electronics & appliances and scientific breakthroughs.
But most importantly I was remembering my talking about "siesta" in Spain on Tuesday and it reminded me about Michael Moore's movie "Sicko". Not the health care part, while it's important, I don't know enough to rant against it. No, I remembered a scene in the movie where he interviewed several people who had moved from the U.S. who were extolling the virtues of the vacation and time off laws of France. They have government mandated like 5 weeks a year (I think, I don't remember for sure) for vacation and unlimited sick time by law (you have to bring in a doctors note after a certain time but still) And whats more when you have a baby (or adopt a baby) you have the option of taking a year off at FULL PAY.
All I have to say is, Why are they so much better then us? I mean I know that all of these policies would create a drain on businesses, having to pay people even though they aren't there, but if they can do it why can't we? The poverty level in those parts of the world don't seem that high (in fact it seems lower then some areas of the U.S.). Then it dawned on me it's because of our version of success. We have a society based on the principal that everyone below you class-wise is essentally a step stool to your having more wealth. And, since the wealthy make the laws in this country, it will stay this way.
So, as I get more and more tired of going to work and my wife (who has to put in hours to earn both sick and vacation time) regrets her decision to educate the youth of our country, it will become easier and easier for me to convince her to move to Merry old England. Besides, I've always wanted to live in a house that was 200 years old.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
There is decent TV I could be watching people!!!
Know what makes me angry? Televised politics during Prime Time TV.
Last night I sat down with my wife to watch a couple of our favorite shows (House and Fringe) but low and behold when we looked at the guide a Presidential debate was coming on at nine, and that just made the night extra extra special annoying. Luckily, we had stuff on the DVR to watch or else Fox would have gotten an angry letter from me (yeah I would do that, I have the time).
So, the debate would have made up for a couple of hours of television but fox threw in the towel at the beginning of the night by airing an old (and I mean old like beginning of last season old) episode of house and it wasn't that good the first time around. So what that tells me is that the executives over at Fox figured out that nobody was going to be watching their channel that night. So I ask you (and them if somehow they end up reading this) why did they even bother airing the debate in the first place? There is no law that they have to. It's an option for any network to air anything other then their regularly scheduled programming. The sponsors of things like debates and even presidential addresses need to ask for air time. But, for some reason, they figure since the other networks are doing it they should too. If I were making money off people watching my programming, I would choose to air something that people will actually watch. Hell, they could have been the only network airing new programming at the 9 o'clock slot.
Which brings me to my next point. Why are the networks airing these things at all? They aren't even what they claim to be. A debate is supposed to be a discussion between two or more people, in which points and counter points are made. But, every time I tune into see even part of one of these things it's always the same formula. The moderator (or in last nights case a member of the audience) asks a question and then the candidate says... that's an excellent question, let me answer it by telling a story or fact that has nothing to do with the question you asked me (they don't actually say that but they might as well). And then the candidate recites from a talking point one of his lackeys drilled into his (or her) head and we all listen. Part of us says "oh he/she makes an excellent point" and we ignore the little voice in the back of our head going "they didn't answer the question".
That's not to say these things don't have merit, but they should be on a channel so people who specifically want to watch the "debate" can tune in and do so, while the rest of us can stick to our mind numbing regular reality escaping programming. There are like 6 cable news stations that I can think of off the top of my head, just air it on them and be done with it. That way you can build in your pundit commentary while the event is going on. Hell, you can even use a tellistrator to highlight the beads of sweat on the foreheads.
I know some people are going to say "But if you just air it on cable not everyone can see it" and I have two answers to that 1. Who in this country has TV and doesn't have cable or satellite or some other form of expanded tier programming? and 2. do we really want someone who gets all their political information from network news to be allowed to vote?
Last night I sat down with my wife to watch a couple of our favorite shows (House and Fringe) but low and behold when we looked at the guide a Presidential debate was coming on at nine, and that just made the night extra extra special annoying. Luckily, we had stuff on the DVR to watch or else Fox would have gotten an angry letter from me (yeah I would do that, I have the time).
So, the debate would have made up for a couple of hours of television but fox threw in the towel at the beginning of the night by airing an old (and I mean old like beginning of last season old) episode of house and it wasn't that good the first time around. So what that tells me is that the executives over at Fox figured out that nobody was going to be watching their channel that night. So I ask you (and them if somehow they end up reading this) why did they even bother airing the debate in the first place? There is no law that they have to. It's an option for any network to air anything other then their regularly scheduled programming. The sponsors of things like debates and even presidential addresses need to ask for air time. But, for some reason, they figure since the other networks are doing it they should too. If I were making money off people watching my programming, I would choose to air something that people will actually watch. Hell, they could have been the only network airing new programming at the 9 o'clock slot.
Which brings me to my next point. Why are the networks airing these things at all? They aren't even what they claim to be. A debate is supposed to be a discussion between two or more people, in which points and counter points are made. But, every time I tune into see even part of one of these things it's always the same formula. The moderator (or in last nights case a member of the audience) asks a question and then the candidate says... that's an excellent question, let me answer it by telling a story or fact that has nothing to do with the question you asked me (they don't actually say that but they might as well). And then the candidate recites from a talking point one of his lackeys drilled into his (or her) head and we all listen. Part of us says "oh he/she makes an excellent point" and we ignore the little voice in the back of our head going "they didn't answer the question".
That's not to say these things don't have merit, but they should be on a channel so people who specifically want to watch the "debate" can tune in and do so, while the rest of us can stick to our mind numbing regular reality escaping programming. There are like 6 cable news stations that I can think of off the top of my head, just air it on them and be done with it. That way you can build in your pundit commentary while the event is going on. Hell, you can even use a tellistrator to highlight the beads of sweat on the foreheads.
I know some people are going to say "But if you just air it on cable not everyone can see it" and I have two answers to that 1. Who in this country has TV and doesn't have cable or satellite or some other form of expanded tier programming? and 2. do we really want someone who gets all their political information from network news to be allowed to vote?
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Middle of the day naps... I miss those.
You know what makes me angry? Preschoolers. Yeah that's, right another rant against our nations youth, but this one is actually going to go somewhere.
My wife is a teacher of preschool aged kids and she is constantly complaining about how the kids make noise and are restless at nap time. I think these kids should be drug out into the street and shot, because they don't appreciate a good thing when they have it.
I am coming up on 30 years old and I've gotta say, I've found the most rewarding thing I can do for myself during the day is take a nice afternoon nap. Now I don't claim to be a doctor but I know it's good for me because I feel better after a quick 30min shuteye session and I'm pretty sure that others feel the same way. Which makes me wonder why naptime isn't instituted in more corporate settings or even better made a federal law (I mean I know people in government work so slow they might as well be napping). I think that everyday people should get to put their head down at their desk and take a half hour snooze. I think productivity would skyrocket in the afternoon and everyone would be in a much better mood for both the ride home and possibly the ride to work.
Which reminds me of my trip to Spain when I was in highschool. Sometime around the middle of the day the entire country shuts down for "Siesta" now it's not just about napping, you go home and see your family and such during the middle of the day. Now when I first encountered this phenomenon it made me mad but that's because I was hungry and you aren't supposed to limit the access of food for a fat guy. But anyway, the more I thought about the more I realized that this was a great idea that the U.S. should adopt. However, I realized that there would always be that one guy who decided to try to get something accomplished during this time and he would screw it up for everyone.
So, let's make this an unbreakable law people, punishable by immediate imprisonment and the torture of NEVER being allowed to nap.
My wife is a teacher of preschool aged kids and she is constantly complaining about how the kids make noise and are restless at nap time. I think these kids should be drug out into the street and shot, because they don't appreciate a good thing when they have it.
I am coming up on 30 years old and I've gotta say, I've found the most rewarding thing I can do for myself during the day is take a nice afternoon nap. Now I don't claim to be a doctor but I know it's good for me because I feel better after a quick 30min shuteye session and I'm pretty sure that others feel the same way. Which makes me wonder why naptime isn't instituted in more corporate settings or even better made a federal law (I mean I know people in government work so slow they might as well be napping). I think that everyday people should get to put their head down at their desk and take a half hour snooze. I think productivity would skyrocket in the afternoon and everyone would be in a much better mood for both the ride home and possibly the ride to work.
Which reminds me of my trip to Spain when I was in highschool. Sometime around the middle of the day the entire country shuts down for "Siesta" now it's not just about napping, you go home and see your family and such during the middle of the day. Now when I first encountered this phenomenon it made me mad but that's because I was hungry and you aren't supposed to limit the access of food for a fat guy. But anyway, the more I thought about the more I realized that this was a great idea that the U.S. should adopt. However, I realized that there would always be that one guy who decided to try to get something accomplished during this time and he would screw it up for everyone.
So, let's make this an unbreakable law people, punishable by immediate imprisonment and the torture of NEVER being allowed to nap.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Working for the Weekend
Know what makes me angry? The work week, it is way too long.
This ones going to be quick because I am tired. I didn't get enough rest this weekend and am itching to go home and take a nap.
I don't understand what jerk decided it would be good to work for 5 days just to get a crappy 2 days off. And who decided on 8 hour workdays? I think everyone should be given the option of a 4-10. For those of you who don't know what a 4-10 is it's when you work 10 hours a day for four days of the week then you get three days off. I know I would gladly give up another two hours every day to get an extra weekend day and I'm pretty sure most other people in office buildings would too (can't speak for those who do manual labor but I bet if given the option they would suck it up and get on board). I think this is a policy that should become a law.
Someone get on this, nobody will listen to me because I am just an angry guy with a under appreciated web-log.
This ones going to be quick because I am tired. I didn't get enough rest this weekend and am itching to go home and take a nap.
I don't understand what jerk decided it would be good to work for 5 days just to get a crappy 2 days off. And who decided on 8 hour workdays? I think everyone should be given the option of a 4-10. For those of you who don't know what a 4-10 is it's when you work 10 hours a day for four days of the week then you get three days off. I know I would gladly give up another two hours every day to get an extra weekend day and I'm pretty sure most other people in office buildings would too (can't speak for those who do manual labor but I bet if given the option they would suck it up and get on board). I think this is a policy that should become a law.
Someone get on this, nobody will listen to me because I am just an angry guy with a under appreciated web-log.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)