Gripe of the Day: Bad Business Practices

Today I'd like to gripe about two companies that have done what many other companies do as well and that is; they abandon their customers when their products fail. The companies of subject are Real, the authors of the Real Media Players and Rhapsody music, and Roxio, the authors of CreateCD.

Let's start with the Real company. Real created many different incarnations of its Real Player software in an effort to compete with and keep up with the many rival media player programs. The object of media player programs is to allow you to play, record, download, upload or burn music and videos from your computer. Like all other media players, when you install the Real Media Player, one of the first things it does is it tries to take all control of all media tasks conducted on your computer. This is a marketing tactic that forces all media files to automatically use that particular media player whenever you want to do something with a media file. The object is to get you so used to using their media player that you don't care to use another. During installation of the software, you are usually prompted to decided if you would like all media files to be associated with the media player you are installing. If you select the "yes" option, from then on, that particular media player will automatically launch whenever you conduct a task associated with media files. You can choose "Advanced Options" or some similar option that will be presented to you during the installation process and that will allow you to choose what type of files you would like to associate with that particular media player. Now-a-days, I always choose the "Advanced Options" and I only associate the files that I made with that particular player, with it. In other words, when the list of file types come up, if I'm installing a Real Media Player, I only choose to associate Real Player files with the Real Player. This way, When I use a file that was made with the Windows Media Player, the Windows Media Player is launched and not the Real Media Player. The only thing tricky about doing this is familiarizing yourself with which file types belong to which media player. It only takes a few minutes to figure it out so it's really not that big a hassle.

There are however some generic file types that will work with almost any media player. MP3, MP4 & AVI are some examples of generic file types. You should always save or record media files as one of the generic file types because if you save them as a type that is specifically associated with your media player, you could end up with the kind of problem that has led to me griping today. Basically, if you want to record some music to your computer and you save choose to save it as an RM (Real Media Player) file as opposed to a generic file type such as MP3, the Real Media Player then places a code on that file that makes it uniquely its own. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the file will be able to be played using another media player or even that it will be able to be played on a CD that you record it to. The music might not even be able to be played on any portable digital music player devices UNLESS, that device is made by the Real company. You see the "gotcha" in this?

A few years ago, that's how the Real company took advantage of all of its customers who purchased the Real Jukebox program. The program saved files as RMX files which not only are not compatible with any other media player but they can't be played on most cd players or mp3 players. I, like many other fools, thought it was such a great program that I saved tons of music on my computer in the RMX format, thinking I was safeguarding all of the music I had purchased for future use. Everything was great until the day came when my car was stolen and I had all of my cd's in the trunk because I had been at a friend's house for a party. I didn't panic because I had all of my music saved on my computer so I could just burn new copies of my cd's - NOT!! That's when I learned that RMX files were only good for playing on my computer using the Real Jukebox program. Still, I tried not to panic because I was computer literate enough to know that media files could be converted into other formats. I intended to convert my RMX files into the more useful MP3 format so I searched high and low for a converter program that could accomplish this task. What I found was an entire community of lost individuals just like me who were looking for the same thing. What we all found was that, such a program does not exist! Unlike the Windows Media Player and other media player programs, the Real company had locked their file coding down so tight that no one could develop a program to convert them and the Real company didn't care to do it their selves. Everyone who had purchase the Real Jukebox, saved their music in RMX format and then found their selves in a situation where they needed to convert them; were left with the choice of either re-purchasing all of the music they lost or reinstalling all of it in a new format, if they still had the actual CD's.

For years, customers of the Real company's software having begging for something to help them but does the Real company care? NO! You already bought the program so they got what they wanted - your money - you're now on your own pal.

Roxio is guilty of the very same thing but it's even more egregious with them because of the nature of the software. Roxio created a program called Create CD5 which was one in a series of such programs, designed to provide a means of backing up important documents and performing tasks with media such as; burning music and video CD's. What happened with the Roxio program was that it formatted every disc used to back-up document or record media, into the Roxio format. Mind you, this program backed up important system files and information from your computer so that in the event that your computer crashed, you could recover your data. It turns out that there were numerous flaws with the program that caused Windows to become unstable and crash (blue screen of death) often. The flaws in the Roxio program was so bad that when Microsoft made Windows XP, they built in an automatic exclusion that prevents Crate CD5 formatted disks from running on your computer. So if you had a computer with Windows 98 or ME on it and it caught a virus or some other unfixable problem and you bought a new system, you could not recover your IMPORTANT data to use on your new system.

For a short while, Roxio had provided a free patch via their site that was supposed to correct the problem and allow your discs to run on newer systems but for some non-disclosed reason, they pulled the patch and even removed the program from their list of Roxio programs on their support sites. It's as if they decided to deny that the program ever existed!! What's the deal?! The deal is, the Roxio company is more interested in you buying yet another piece of their software, to replace the worthless one, than they are in helping you correct their problem.

These are examples of what's wrong with corporate America today. There is no accountability to the costumers when the company does wrong and because of current marketing practices (I intend to gripe about marketers soon), the push is always forward even when it is clear that a pause is needed to clean up the destruction being left in the company's wake. These companies are only interested in the bottom line and they don't care what they have to do to ensure that those figures don't turn red. They, by their own insensitive ways, have contributed to what will ultimately be their end: the freeware, shareware, pirated and open source software movement. Young software developers who have grown up dealing with the crap that the big players have been feeding us for so long, are rebelling. They are ripping codes and developing software that is actually functional, compatible and capable of being freely advanced to keep up with the pace of new technology. The software rebellion is very similar to what the construction industry was forced to come to terms with as a result of years of customer abuse. Customers started doing their own work on their homes, taking renovation classes and there was an influx in home-improvement shows as a result. The large construction contractors were relegated to new home and commercial construction jobs which meant less work and therefore, the death or consolidation of many large companies.

I have been so jaded by my experiences with software that I have purchased that I now go out of my way to find freeware or shareware options before considering purchasing software from one of the big name because they are too concerned with controlling their markets. Their need for control causes them to make software that has unreasonable limitations and lack the adaptability needed in today's high-tech environment.

I often shop for my software at CNET no-a-days because they provide tons of freeware options that I can experiment with before deciding to buy anything. I have often found that the free stuff is better. Anywho, I'm vented.

Gripe of the Day: CBN - 700 Club Scam

Do you ever watch Pat Robertson's CBN (Christian Broadcast Network) 700 show? Do you send your money to their organization? Do you place your hand on the television screen and "pray" along with the hosts of the show? Do you believe that God wants you to give your money to Pat Robertson in order that you be "rewarded" for your faith? Do you believe that your contributions to CBN are making a difference in the world? Do you believe that CBN offers non-skewed news from unbiased reporters and journalists?

If you answered yes to any of those questions; you're an idiot.

The 700 Club broadcast is nothing more than an Infomercial on steroids. The broadcast is set up to achieve nothing more than exploit your faith for the monetary gain of Pat Robertson and his organization. Pat Robertson also uses the broadcast as a soap-box for his political views. Pat has duped just enough people to follow him for his organization to be considered a constituency therefore; politicians listen to his opinions as ridiculous as some of them have been. With all of the pain, suffering and poverty in this world, you will NEVER convince me that it's God's plan that the leaders of his/her cause, live like kings/queens while there is mass suffering in the world. There is one who will reward you for taking advantage of those in need. There is one to whom it is perfectly acceptable that you have more than your share while millions have nothing. Guess who that "one" is. What ever name you know evil by, that is who controls these people. If there is a devil, I believe that he had achieved the greatest feat of misdirection ever! He has created a faith and convinced millions that it is God's when in actually, you are following him.

Let's look at the facts. The fact is that there are Christian churches in nearly every community of this country and what exactly is the result? Poor communities are falling down around the churches, crime in high-crime areas aren't affect at all by the presence of a church, the ministers, priests and pastors do nothing to repair the problems that surround them but they all seem to be doing so well. The fact is that religious organizations collect money and set-up satellites in 3rd world countries abroad and the suffering in those countries has only gotten worse in many cases. At some point, you have got to realize that these people are doing nothing for the "good" of the world. They are taking your money and living well off of it.

Some people are convinced that God responded to them when they were in need because of their acceptance of and association with organizations like CBN or Joyce Meyers. My question is; did you try to elicit the assistance of God before going through CBN? I'd be willing to bet that God would respond if you ask and you don't need to give money to CBN, you don't need to call yourself a Christian, you don't need to go through a middle-man. We have a long history of proselytes, zealots, ministries and missionaries who were proven to be frauds. At what point do we learn from this history? People keep volunteering their selves to be taken advantage of. Are they that desperate that they will surrender common sense for the hope of divine intervention? It's sad that these people are being victimized by these conscienceless predators who operate with impunity. One day we will learn to trust our own eyes and the truth stand directly in front us.

I hope my rantings made sense today. I'm multi-tasking today and hope I'm venting coherently. Anywho, I'm vented.

Gripe of the Day: Bad Credit "Get A Computer" Rip-Offs

Have you heard of those "poor credit" computer offers such as "Help Me To Buy" or "Blue Hippo"? These companies offer credit towards the purchase of "top-of-the-line" computers or other electronics, for people with bad credit. While these programs will get you a computer, there are a lot of catches and they actually further assault the credit of people with poor credit rather than help re-build it. Here's what these type of programs say they offer:

1 - Help Re-establishing and rebuilding credit for people with poor credit.
2 - Guaranteed credit approval for everyone.
3 - Top of the line equipment.
4 - Large assortment of High-end software bundles.
5 - Free extras (MP3 player, Printer, Digital Camera, etc.)

Here is what you really get:

1 - First off, they don't help you re-establish your credit because they DON'T report your credit history with them to any reporting agencies.
2 - Credit is only guaranteed because it is "secured" credit. In other words; they require a substantial deposit towards the purchase before they will accept your credit application and they require that you give them access to make automatic payment withdrawals from your bank account.
3 - The equipment is often refurbished (used but rebuilt).
4 - The software is often sub-standard (instead of MS Word, you get Corel Office).
5 - The free extras often don't come until you have completely or close to completely paid for the purchase. So if you would like to actually print anything you type up on your "new" refurbished computer, you'll have to wait a year or more, which is when you're expected to have paid off the purchase.

Here's what else they don't tell you:

1 - Your computer will end up costing you substantially more than its actual retail value as a result of high interest rates and an inflated retail value. They get away with this because they know you have no where else to go if you have poor credit.
2 - The so called "Name Brand" equipment and software can be substituted for anything they determine to be of equal value at any time, for any reason and without prior notice to you.
3 - You are expected to place a down payment (over the phone) on the purchase BEFORE you have seen a full contract outlining the details of the agreement that you are entering into.
4 - It's a head ache getting tech support because the equipment is often registered under a different name on the warranty. In other words; the company (Blue Hippo or Help Me To Buy) is not the name the company uses to register for tech help.

If you have poor credit, the best thing for you to do is pay cash. Save the money you would be spending every month on one of these schemes and buy the equipment yourself from a real store with NEW equipment that you get right there on the spot. It will take you far less time to save the money you need to buy the equipment at actual retail value, than the year or two it will take to pay off the inflated value equipment through one of these programs.

Gripe of the Day: Antiquated Standards of Judgmet

Something that bothers me, particularly as an author, are people who judge, criticize or otherwise measure, the quality of things by the standards of the past. This is a very common practice in the areas of art and literature. People have a problem appreciating the present. The value of things often aren't appreciated or properly assessed until long after they have been made. Have you ever noticed how people fawn over art that depict things and people they either don't know or can't truly relate to as they are not relative to the present condition of life? I appreciate the past as well as the next guy but I try to see the value in current things. I understand that this retroactive appreciation of things is partly due to the monetary interests of investors as a thing's value automatically appreciates once the creator is deceased and can no longer make more of them. None-the-less, current artists don't get their due. The artist of the past were depicting what was relevant to their lives so why is it that people look down their noses at those who capture the present. It's like hip-hop music. People attend theaters, ballets, museums of antique art, listen to classical music, not only because they appreciate these things, but also because somehow they think these things are superior to their conventional counterparts. We know these things to be held up as superior because they are more costly. Hip-hop music is the voice of the young; shouldn't we be listening? Even if we don't like what they have to say; if the youth are speaking, we should be listening. Everybody's always saying that they don't understand the youth but dismiss them when they speak. Valuing the past will help us move forward but understand and appreciating the present is momentum itself.

I remember when the first urban-brand movies of this generation were first being introduced. The snobs of the world of critics had to bend to see them because they were looking down from that high a horse. Many critics didn't even bother to critique these films...it was just beneath them to participate in evaluating such things. Our culture isn't monolithic it is multifaceted. It's unfortunate that some among us don't understand why it's important to be involved in EVERY facet of our culture.

This whole "Gripe of the Day" was motivated by the critiques I read on line of some urban author's books. I was seeking some reviews from critics on my own work and decided to read how they had reviewed similar works. It was stomach turning, some of the reviews I read. I read critiques that were basically finger-wagging at the grammatical flaws of urban characters. I'm sorry but I don't know anyone in the 'hood who uses perfect English so why should it be written that way if the author intends the work to be accurate and authentic? Many of these critics are hung up on the past. How could we ever have an accurate documentation of history if the flaws are covered up? Why do we have such an issue with seeing the ugly truth as just, the truth? Is the real problem that we are running from the truth - refusing to deal with our real problems - preferring to exalt the past, as though it was perfect?

I was blown away when our president, Barack Obama, admitted that his favorite TV show was "The Wire": an urban, current, raw, authentic television series that didn't polish the unpolished. President Obama also named Jay-Z as his favorite rap artist. For those among us who don't participate in "all" of American culture, the many ways in which this statement by our president was substantial, might just elude you. For those of us who pay attention to the hip-hop culture, we understood that this automatically told us that the president was in touch with the present. There has been an internal war raging within the urban music world between the original hip-hop trend followers and the more recent hard-core artists. Hip-hop was losing the war until mid-ground artists like Jay-Z decided that rather than choosing a side, blazing a new path that co-oped the best of both worlds, was the way to go. One would expect a politician to find a nice family-safe artist and TV show to name as his/her favorite. President Obama demonstrated an appreciation for and understanding of the present. Why can't critics and other people in positions of judgment and authority do the same?

In defense of the snobbish, I must admit that they have unlocked the door to allow other perspectives in. The door still appears to be locked but you can get in if you turn the knob. There have been many Broadway and Off-Broadway theatrical shows that aren't just another celebration of times passed. Hollywood has accepted a more diverse group of writers, actors & directors and have even started evaluating and awarding people and works they once stayed away from. Though I gripe, we are moving forward though there remain those tugging on the world's coat-tails in an effort to stay or go backwards. Anywho, I'm vented.

Gripe of the Day: The Black Man

If you can't tell from my picture, I am a Black man. Ask any Black woman and she we tell you a few things about us Black men. When she's finished ranting, you probably still wont know much about the Black man because she doesn't understand us anymore than we understand ourselves. The first thing you need to know about the Black man is that he is as geographically diverse and unique as any other man. When you talk about an American White male, you don't conjure the image of a kilted pipe player, though he may well be descendant of a Scott. When you think of a Wall-Street high roller, you don't think of John Wayne. The same is true for Black men - we are diverse. People have an issue understanding us because we're always being analyzed as a monolithic group though we are far from it. It is true however, that there are some truthful basic generalities as there are with most alike groups of people - just as we can say that most Asians have almond eyes or most White people are light in complexion.

Character generalizations have to be constrained to the geographical local of the man, especially Black men. While I have associated myself with many Black men from many different places and backgrounds, I myself, am an African American male of African American slave origin: I am thus qualified to claim to have insight into the psyche of the same. There are many differences, I have found, in Black American men and Black men from other places on the planet. Our social circumstances, physical challenges & economic opportunities have molded us into a unique breed of Black. For those of you who haven't studied what the beginnings were like for the African slave coming to America, here are a few of the conditioning practices undertaken by the conquerors of Turtle Island (America). Due to the hostile and often rebellious nature of the African captives, a decision was made to not deliver the slaves directly to America before their will had first been broken. Most slaves were taken first to slave camps in South America where they were "conditioned" before being brought to America. One very affective practice was to capitalize on many of the captives' belief that the White man was literally the Devil. Read some of the slave narratives written by actual slaves of the time such as, Olaudah Equiano, and you will see this. The enslavers believed that if they could verify that they were as wicked as the Africans believed, the slaves would see no hope in resisting. An especially grotesque and wicked practice was to bind all of the pregnant female slaves to trees with their husbands bound in front of them and forced to witness as the women stomachs were sliced opened, the children ripped out and stomped dead on the ground in front of them. Such practices were not only effective at creating the illusion that the enslavers were some sort of super-natural evil, but it was affective at causing the Black warrior to surrender - inside, to the will of his possessor. Such practices as well inadvertently began the storage of a hidden rage. So yes, there are some accurate generalizations when referring to the American Black man and his hostility.

Once conditioned and delivered to the new land, where they were sold like cattle, the "conditioning" continued. If any sign of the deeply recessed warrior nature of the Black man was displayed, he was immediately assaulted and reminded of the brutality of his enslaver. White folk don't like hearing this stuff because like most people, they'd rather focus on the good in their selves, but oh well, get over it fuckers - I'm saying this shit! As we all know, a man is defined by his woman. If you don't understand that, let me explain it this way. How do you define light if there is no darkness? What defines a man is what doesn't define a woman and visa versa. I know, I could do better but I think you get it. I bring that up because another thing done by the enslavers to under mind the Black man was the objectification of the Black woman. The Black woman was demonstrated as the property of the enslaver as she was sexually exploited at his will. That is a VERY damaging thing. There is no culture that has ever existed that didn't have a special place for its women and it doesn't matter if they were seen as something greater or lessor, the fact is that every culture has always recognized that their legacy resided in the woman. Purpose for a man has always resided in his ability to have, hold and care for his woman. Many wars have been fought over women. When the Black man's ability to have faith in his woman was taken, he was truly redefined.

Once freed from his shackles, the assault didn't end there. Systematically, Black men were separated from their families. This was achieved by denying Black men opportunities to adequately provide for their families then providing Black women opportunities to provide for their selves (welfare) provided that there was not a man in the house. That was the rule; you could not receive the assistance you obviously needed unless you got rid of your man. The government became the Black woman's man. This was a "divide and conquer" tactic that carried on from slave days. Bitterness and resentment was developed between the Black man and woman as a result of these tactics. The Black man became this homeless, loveless rage filled entity just stumbling his way through life and our good government encouraged our inner chaos to grow. Remember the trains filled with guns that the CIA used to stop and unlock near the ghettos of Los Angeles? Remember the brain stifling experiments government sanctioned scientist used to run on Blacks on the east coast? I remember the outrageous documentaries made by Gregory Hines on those experiments. Remember the experiments on the southern Blacks which are too numerous to mention. The American Black male has survived some horrendous things. The Black woman has been through her share of crap, perhaps more than anyone, but a man needs to be able to depend on his woman no matter what. When the Black man lost his faith in his woman, he lost everything.

Today, we have come a long way. It has been a long hard road but with persistence, we have managed to get those opportunities that were once denied us and we are slowly reconnecting with our women. Remember when we first started tasting success that the first thing we did was run after White women? I remember all of those pro-ballers and athletes who were the first to acquire real wealth. It was very telling about the psyche of the Black man to see what he did with that wealth and who he wanted to share it with. The faith in the Black woman had been diminished. Even now, there are many of us remaining who place a higher value on everything before a relationship with a woman (bros before hoes). Not only do we need to work on repairing ourselves but our women need to work on giving us reason again to value them. Our faith in the Black woman needs to be restored but it's difficult when the Black woman doesn't realize what her role is in restoring that faith. There are still efforts to hold us back through dividing us. If you haven't noticed, an especially attractive/successful Black woman, all of a sudden becomes an acceptable mate for some White men. It's rare that you see White men with Black women unless they are either exceptionally attractive, successful or both.

I got over my anger about the past a long time ago because I see the unintended benefits of our tampered existence here in good ole America. I look at all of those hostilities committed against us as immunization shots. We didn't die from any of it so it only made us stronger. That's why we are unique and the more we are opposed, the stronger we get.

So; Who is the Black man? If you're asking about the American Black male of slave descendency, I'll say that he is altered but stronger, bent but not broken, self-destructive but a survivor, lonely but hopeful, uncertain but persistent, uneducated but intelligent, homeless but free. In other word - I don't know what the hell is up with us Black men! We are such a convoluted mess of success and failure, subduction and conquest, that I don't know if we're coming or going. The Black man is in a state of restoration from an age of disrepair. What we are right now is, changing. Ask me in twenty more years about the Black man. Maybe then I'll have something substantial to say. Anywho, I'm vented.

Gripe of the Day: Laws Against Prostitution

We Americans are gradually learning to be more tolerant of other cultures - within our culture as we at last, in earnest, accept the notion of the melting-pot concept. We have touted ourselves for generations as they tolerant nation but never have we actually lived up to those claims. In this day of our history I believe that we can genuinely say that, while not fulfilled, our efforts at tolerance are true and sincere. It is the brilliance of the rule-of-law, even more than the ideals of Democracy, that has delivered us to a greater state of acceptance. The Law is our rock and foundation but it is also our controversy.

There is the absolute, objective and literal law, then there is the spirit of the law. Those two issues are grounds for constant debate and controversy but then you add to that, the idea of the foundation of the law, and you have a real set of problems. The foundation of the law is basically the moral reasoning for its codification. Many laws are non-objectionably aimed at moral control; it is illegal to murder; it is illegal to steal; it is illegal to rape; it is illegal to prostitute. While there is clear and just reasoning for many moral-laws as they ensure the survival of our civilization (it is illegal to murder), others, I believe, cross the line of protecting society to meddling in people's right to have their own personal set of morals - so long as they cause no injury to society at large.

Laws against prostitution cross the line. While I'm not one to solicit the services of a prostitute, a very reasonable case could be made for the social benefit of their existence. I will not make that case because it's besides the point - a diversion from the real issue. The real issue is whether we have a right to legislate personal morality. I think not. This is a freedom we are born with - to live as righteously or as wretchedly as we choose. The government's role is to ensure that regardless of our decision, the opportunity to walk either path is not obstructed and its role is also to ensure that my wretchedness doesn't pollute your righteousness or that your righteousness doesn't intrude upon my wretchedness. Though some may judge a life of prostitution to be a wretched choice of existence, it is none the less, a choice and it is a choice.

Imagine if we made a law against promiscuity. This is essentially what the laws against prostitution are. The only difference between being a promiscuous person and a prostitute is the fact that a prostitute gets paid for their promiscuity. I fail to see how the fact that a person is paid for sex acts with lots of people, all of a sudden makes this such a bad thing that a law is needed to prevent it. Are we saying that it's okay to be promiscuous up to the point that someone gives you money, at which point, it turns into something so horrendous that the government has to intercede? That is the silliest proposition I have ever heard.

We all know one thing about prostitution if we know nothing else about it and that is that it has been around since man has recorded history. Why do you think that is? Do you believe that those engaging in prostitution have been so oppressed, historically, that they have had no other choice but to resort to prostitution? Do you believe that there is an inherent evil within the human condition that will always express itself in ways such as vial acts of promiscuous sex? Perhaps you believe that certain people are natural born predators who have victimized people throughout history - imposing this perverse condition of compromised morality on the weak and susceptible. With the exception of a state of prostitution against personal will, the fact that this is an issue of personal moral concern can not be avoided.

Judgmental people really get under my skin. One sad fact about the psychology of people is that, when we choose to commit to something we have an almost insatiable desire to have others agree and commit with us. It is a result of our need for companionship, fellowship, communion; socializing with the equally yoked and like-minded. This need to have people agree with us - to not be alone in our convictions - to have our beliefs validated, lead to our attempts to convert others so that we have company and comfort in our ideals. Most people's morality is derived from their religious laws. Thus comes proselytism and judgment of others. We almost can't help ourselves. It is perhaps, the most important and difficult cultural evolutions of time - to truly accept other people and their personal morality without sensing a need to change/convert them. Who a person has sex with; how many people a person has sex with; how often a person has sex; these are all very personal decisions and only the participants in the act(s) incur any real consequences for participating.

I watched the episodes of the Tyra Banks show wherein she confronted women who were working as prostitutes for a legal brothel. I could not help but to be irritated by the thickness of the judgment in the air. It looked like she was telling grown women who or what was the appropriate person or manner to be penetrated. It appeared that Tyra was doing everything she could to dance around a prevent from revealing the reality that she was simply judging these people for choices that have nothing to do with her self. No one wants to be guilty of being judgmental but this fact has to be admitted to and resolved before those who care to stop prostitution will ever have the attentive ear of those on the other side of the table.

Personally, I don't care what people do in private, especially with the one thing that is truly their own; their bodies. When whores start having sex on the streets, for all to see, blocking traffic, that's when I'll care. Until then, stay out of people's bedroom why don't cha! Anywho, I'm vented.

Gripe of the Day: Ethnic Hair Weave

CORN ROWS (A NATURAL WAY A STYLING BLACK HAIR)


WEAVE (UNNATURAL WAY OF STYLING BLACK HAIR)


Every generation of people go through a faze where it searches for its identity. What happens is that we grow, mature and evolve culturally, intellectually, emotionally, spiritually and even physically, only so much before it becomes necessary that we rest. The moment of rest is what keeps us from stretching out so far that we break. That moment of rest is also when we reflect and re-establish our connection to the source - the root - our past - the ground upon which we stand. For Americans as a whole, this isn't a difficult thing to do but it has always been difficult for Americans of African American slave origins because the past before slavery is a blurry mess of confusion. Most African Americans have no idea where they came from prior to slavery and have no interest in identifying the captive and molested state of slavery as their origin. Thus it is true that existence as an African American of slave origin, a unique condition as it is one without substantial culture, root, ground or independent history. The African American of slave origin is as a feather in the wind - aching for moments of rest and reflection but having no ground to rest upon and but minimal control over its own direction.

You might ask yourself, what does any of this have to do with hair weaves. I'll get to that. When African Americans were freed from slavery and began the process of attempted integration into the larger society, they entered into this endeavor with the same sensibilities of an immigrant group; wanting to be accepted, learning to appreciate the culture they were attempting to become a part of; pledging and committing to its defense. What they got in return was a disdain and utter abhorrence of their very existence. This culture that they want so much to be accepted by, in no uncertain terms, made it clear that they were despised in every way a person could be despised: the way they talked, the very fact that their skin was dark, their lips, their noses, their smell, and yes, even their hair. This feather in the wind, no longer attached to the bird from which it was removed and despised by the bird in the nest it had landed in, for being different, attempted to become what it was not.

By now you should see where this is going and how hair weave is relevant to all of this. Homeless, and having no place to go, the African American did what he/she thought was necessary to survive a hostile environment by altering their appearance to become more acceptable to the culture and people who were literally killing them for being what they were. If you are not an American of African slave origin then you are probably not all that familiar with the embedded psychology within the current Black-American culture that started off as a means to survive but has been distorted into a sense of self-loathing. The fact is that African American, as everyone knows by now, places a higher value on lighter complected Black people. There is also a higher value placed on Black people with straighter/longer hair - even colored eyes. This sense of value is the distorted remnant of what could be described as an evil that was once necessary.

Black women today wear weaves because unconsciously, they still believe that what they are by nature, is not beautiful. They believe that if their hair doesn't naturally grow long enough then it's not beautiful and if their hair isn't straight enough, it's not beautiful. Black women trapped, measuring their selves by a standard that they can never naturally achieve and therefore are they captives or masks and wigs and an assortment of other tools for disguising their true selves. During the sixties, a generation of Americans began the state of reflection and of re-association with their roots. African Americans found few prideful things to reconnect to but they did have a legacy of freedom fighters who had made their freedom possible. Thus was the Black Panther and other such Black Liberation movements born. One thing the freedom fighter attempted to instill in the people was a sense of pride for the natural-self. Thus were the Afro and Corn-Row hair styles exalted like never before. Dark skin was in again. Like all fazes, it came to an end and the African American was left with the day-to-day reality of living in a world that still undermined everything about them. Being a very small minority at that time, in a very large nation, was far too much pressure. Again, the African American resorted to the mask.

During the mid eighties to mid nineties, there was another moment of reflection. This was the generation I participated in. I remember very well the resurgence of Black pride. Black people were again wearing dishikes, afros, corn-rows and making music with ethnocentric themes; remember Public Enemy? Remember the X-Clan? Remember Queen Mother Rage(perhaps the most intelligent rap artist ever)? Remember Isis? Remember Professor X? Remember Professor Griff? Remember when Ice Cube made a pro-Black record and cut off his Jerry Curl? Remember when Queen Latifah wore an African head wrap and garb (hence the "Queen" title)? Remember the Poor Righteous Teachers(PRT)? Remember Sistah Soulja? That all happened in roughly the same time period and it was all a part of the process of reflection and reconnection with the proud past. What is unfortunate, I believe, is that when these fazes end, African American take little from them with them into the next stage or growth. It's like starting all over again.

I remember what Black people really look like because I was alive in a day when they took off the masks. I miss the truth. I thought it was beautiful. BURN ALL THE WEAVE SHOPS! Anywho, I'm vented.

Gripe of the Day: Laws that protect Me from, Me

While I am aware that our political system is corrupt, politicians are purchased & lobbyists are our actual law-makers, it disturbs me to realize that those lofty and grandiose documents such as the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, have lost the fight against capitalism. Once you commit to living the doctrines of capitalism, it's as if you swallow a pill that displaces your ability to sense when you have eaten your fill. In other words, you become greedy - "enough" will never be enough. It is because of the insatiable appetite that our politicians can't turn down a dollar - they'll sell the halls of Congress for the right price. There are many laws that pass through the halls of Congress that have the taint of all kinds of 'isms on them but it is the laws against the people's right to be wrong that get under my skin the most.

We are supposed to have the right, in this country, to do wrong or be bad people, especially when the wrong that is done, directly affects the offender only. We have a law enforcement structure in this country that's supposed to issue the consequences to those who offend others. The legal system is now being used to prosecute people for harming their selves. That's ridiculous!

Here are a few things the government now governs that it shouldn't:
1 - Child Support
2 - Car Insurance
3 - Seat-belt/Helmet Laws
4 - Natural Resources
5 - Marriage

CHILD SUPPORT

Why is the government involving itself in the personal lives of people to such an extent that it's deciding how much money a child is worth? First off, it takes two people to make a child so if you want to penalize a father for having an unplanned child, where's the penalty for the mother who made the same decision? Are we saying that her penalty is that she's usually the person stuck with this undesired offspring? Are we saying that raising a child is a bad thing? But then, the system also ensures that the father is involved in the raising of the child so does that mean he's punished twice? For those of you who aren't familiar with financial concept of the child support system, allow me to explain. The system says that there are two parents and these two parents earn, collectively, whatever amount of money. Based on their formula, a particular percentage of that collective income would go towards the raising of the child. This figure supposedly accounts for average food, clothes, housing, etc., costs for the raising of a child who grows up in a household within a particular income bracket. The system then says, if the family breaks up, the child should continue to receive the same financial benefits it would have received if both parents were still together. Thus; the non-custodial parent has to pay their portion in the form of child support to the custodial parent. The justification for this system is that too many children are been born to people who don't want them and therefore, don't take care of them once they arrive so to protect society-at-large from having to pay the cost for these bastard children, the system was established to make the irresponsible pay for their own bastards.

Issue one with the system is it does nothing to discourage or eliminate what it perceives as a problem. In fact; the very existence of the system offers incentive for irresponsible women to get pregnant because it's a guaranteed pay-day. Child support is nothing but an attempt to replace welfare. This is made clear with issue two which is that the father or non-custodial parent is required to repay if full, any public assistance the mother might have received for the care of the child including food stamps. Now, if this was about equity, wouldn't both parents be held responsible for repaying an equal share. Then there is the criminalization of the father or non-custodial parent if that parent can't, for lack of a job, pay the child support. If you lose your job and get more than two or three months behind on paying child support, a warrant is issued for your arrest and you can be sentenced to jail time. Correct me if I'm wrong but, if you are married and you lose your job, doesn't the entire family suffer? I don't know of anyone who has to go on the lamb because they lost their job and now must fear the police kicking down the door because their kids can no longer eat steaks for dinner. If you pay child support, this is your unfortunate circumstance. This leads me to my final issue with the system which is that when the non-custodial parent is out of work and unable to pay support, they accrue a passed due amount. That's insane! If I lost my job and my family had to go from steaks to roman noodles, from the suburbs to the projects, there would be a problem if my child came up to me with a bill notifying my that I owe them for the steaks they didn't get to eat. Why the hell is their a bill accruing! When a family loses an income, the family has to change the standard of living they are accustomed to. Sometimes that means that there is only one income where there used to be two. Sometimes that means that there might not be an income at all. According to the system, if you lose your job, the child's standard of living shouldn't change simply because you're out of the house as opposed to in the house. The thing is, there is no just way to have a system that runs this aspect of people's lives. Get out of people's personal business!!!

CAR INSURANCE

Anyone who doesn't know that the mandatory insurance laws were written by the insurance industry lobbyist and passed by the politicians they bought, just isn't paying attention. These laws were fairly easy to pass because they generated income for municipals through traffic citations. The fact of the matter is that this is another case of the government attempting to regulate, legislate and adjudicate morality. I remember the 1980's and before, it was a time before these mandatory insurance laws, life wasn't as hard, people could stretch a dollar further, the working poor (who ofter get falsely counted as middle-classed) as well as the middle class, were more content. Most people, who could afford it, purchased insurance all on their own without government meddling. Insurance was far more affordable. I remember buying my first car when I was a teenager working a minimum wage job and paying bills at home - I could afford car insurance. I remember clearly the time the law took affect because almost overnight I could no longer afford insurance. The reality is that most people can't afford the new cost of insurance. Tons of crappy temporary auto insurance companies sprung up over night to provide ways for people to maintain their right to drive. They achieve this by issuing bogus insurance cards that everybody knows are only purchased to meet the requirement but doesn't provide any real protection for anyone. In other words, can can't make mandates on people's money, if they don't have it, without breeding more corruption. If you're going to pass a law on the citizens, you should first have a reasonable expectation that the citizens have the means to abide by the law. When you have a country filled with urban ghettos and semi-middle-classed people living pay check to pay check, how is it reasonable that they can afford to abide by a law that tells where to spend their money? The only expectation I have is that people are forced to become more and more corrupt themselves in order that they survive.

The justification for the mandatory insurance laws was that the public has to pay the cost for people injured by uninsured drivers because the hospitals have to jack up the costs of care on everybody to cover the losses incurred from treating people without a means to pay. The mandatory insurance laws were supposed to insure that those costs were provided for and therefore, not transferred to the greater society. That is a bogus and over simplified argument. These laws have been in place for more than 20 years now - have health care costs been impacted at all by these laws? The answer is a resounding, no! That's because the whole premise was faulty. If they were truly interested in insuring that every motorist had insurance, they would have began by insuring that every motorist could actually afford insurance. Either they should have calculated the average cost of living in this country and juxtaposed that to the average income to arrive at a proper minimum wage or a proper price for insurance; or they should have provided an income level within the law that determines at what point the law kicks in. In other words, if you are one of the working poor, the law does not affect you but when/if this country provides you to opportunity to prosper and rise out of your plight, then you are held responsible for these additional costs. There are a million other approaches to mandating auto-insurance that are conceivably more fair but as we know, these laws weren't about public safety - they were a result of backroom deals.

SEAT-BELT/HELMET LAWS

Seat-belt and Helmet laws are an easy example of government intrusion on your freedom to move unrestricted. A seat belt law is as ridiculous as the suicide law. If I don't care to protect myself against the dangers in the world, I get what I get. That's the way it should be at least. The government seems to think that it is their business whether or not I protect myself against injury in a car accident. Their reasoning, once again, you guessed it: the cost of health care. Once again, this is a faulty argument and proof is in the pudding. The cost of health care has escalated in spite of these intrusive laws. What's the penalty for not wearing a seat-belt or helmet? They want money - of course! It always gets back to the dollar.

It bothers me that the government is able to pass so much crap on us using the same old wrong argument because enough people believe what they're saying is true, in spite of real evidence. It bothers me that so many people are so bothered by the idea of helping people less fortunate, that they'd rather surrender their freedoms. What happened to the breed of American that didn't depend on the government to fix everything they had a problem with? What happened to that breed of American that would have rolled up their sleeves and said, I'm not paying for other people's ignorance but point me in their direction so that I can help them to have what they need to live without being a burden on everybody else. Remember the "Little House on the Prairie" TV show? If a person's house was destroyed in a storm, the community came together and rebuilt it, they didn't depend on an insurance company to take care of it thereby jacking up the cost of everybody else' insurance. People didn't resort to those lengths until absolutely necessary. Contrary to what some people are brought up to believe about other people in our society, no one wants to be a burden on others. No one wants to not have everything they need to live happily. No one is content with misery. Again, another money-grab by politicians and corporations. At some point they are going to have to realize that the juice was drained from this fruit a long time ago. Their greed is so enormous that they've been settling for robbing you on paper - having no actual substance to back it. This recent economic collapse should have informed the politicians and the corporate leaders that they have eaten everything on the plate and are no longer eaten a meal, but the plate itself. In their blind lust for monetary gains, they realize nothing. They are pointing fingers everywhere but at the truth and the saddest thing about it all is that they might be truly convinced that they are right. Do you know that in the middle of this economic collapse, we had energy companies petitioning the government for rate hikes! That's just a total detachment from reality. The fields are barren, the field hands are starving and corporate America is demanding that the field hands provide more potatoes!

NATURAL RESOURCES

There used to be a time in this country when we were all free to dream, explore and experiment. It was this freedom that advanced this country time and time again. Most major advancements in this country were made by regular people with either a dream or vision and unobstructed freedom to explore and experiment to realize that dream. In the world today and in the political and legal environment of today, many of the accomplishments of the past would not be possible because our political and legal systems have been hi-jacked by corporate capitalists. These corporate capitalists are uninspired people who's only skill is generated income without working for it. One of the many disgusting things that these people have paid off our politicians to do for them, is restrict access to natural resources - the same resources that their scientists used to find the means for making their latest product. This is a way for them to lock down markets. In other words, if they discover an alloy somewhere that can be used to build a better battery, they have the government to restrict access to those resources so that no one else can explore or experiment with them. The issues are obvious. The justification for such restrictions are always something relative to national security. In other words; the government is protecting you from yourself. The next Einstein, Ford or Emerson might not ever come to be because only those who are part of the establishment, have access to the resources needed to explore and experiment with new ideas. The corporate capitalists have gone so far as to insure that there are even restrictions on growing your own food. In most parts of this country, you need local government approval to plant a fruit tree. Why would such laws exist? They exist to protect the income generating abilities of our corporate food suppliers. If you're growing your own food, what do you need them for? Paying for water used to be my biggest gripe when it comes to the controls placed on natural resources until they built a machine to sell air! Get a low tire on your vehicle and pull up to the local gas station, you have to pay to fill your tire with air! You have to pay to use a vacuum cleaner to clean your car! Both of these devices are nothing more than glorified high school science projects - they're not more than simple rotors packaged to look like something else. They cost almost nothing! I can build one of these things with scrap electronic devices I have laying around the house. I tell you, their appetite is insatiable.

MARRIAGE

I really would like for someone to tell me why it is necessary for the government, local or federal, to recognize marriage of any sort. Marriage is a personal commitment and contract between two people and if they are religious, it is also a matter of their faith. What business is it of the government, if you are married or not? As far as taxes go, you don't have to declare that you have committed to spend the rest of your life with someone for the government to collect taxes. All the government needs to know is whether or not you live together, have assets in common, are caring for a child, etc. None of that information requires a marriage certificate to ascertain. I have heard no justification for marriage laws but it is obvious that they generate income for the state. The only time it becomes necessary to prove marriage, is when one of the parties to the marriage is incapacitated and the other needs to make decisions on their behalf and again, this doesn't require government intervention. All that is really needed is that when a person decides that someone else should have such authority under such circumstances, they sign something establishing that authority, whether they're married or not. In other words, if two people make a personal commitment to each other to be with each other forever, they should have a way to establish all of the rights and privileges that are currently only afforded to people with marriage certificates. Then again, you have to pay the government for marriage and divorce so again, it's back to the dollar. Anywho, I'm vented.

Gripe of the Day: Christian Proselytes!

I don't know about you but I am so irritated and offended by those Christian commercials. Although I don't have anything against any particular religion, me being a non-religious person and all, I can't help but to feel the agony of those non-Christian folk who have to deal with this crap. Imagine yourself as a good Christian person, trying to raise your children to be good Christian people, and every time you turn on your television or radio, there's this person, speaking with genuine passion - the kind that the innocent mind of a child is open to, and the voice says, "Satan loves you. Pray in his name and you will get REAL results. Satan fell from heaven for you because he believed in your right to have free-will." I imagine that for Muslims, Some Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists and a host of other non-Christian folk, this must be exactly what they feel. Then there's the constant Christian programming, especially on Sundays.

What's the deal with this commercialization of & relentless promotion and proselytizing by Christians on behalf of the Christian religion? Christians claim to be so tolerant and accepting but they constantly violate other people's faith and make conscious efforts to obstruct their practice and under-mind their beliefs. It's this lack of tolerance and the hostile stance the Christian religion has towards other people's beliefs that will be its downfall. What the Christian religion is practicing is a system of conversion that is antiquated and goes back to the bloody days of the Holly wars and British colonization. Why, if you believe that your God is the one, only and true God, would anyone feel the need to force-feed their beliefs down another person's throat? Let's think about this: THE God, creator of everything, all powerful entity, doesn't see fit to make everybody Christians, but the Christian faithful know better. I say, if you're right about your faith, then a person who wants to find God, will find their way to the truth - you don't need to be offensive towards every other faith to promote your beliefs if they are true.

I am impressed by the Dali Lama, a very wise and good person, but I never see him on TV telling me that I need to believe what he believes, yet millions find their way to him. These are new times and the world is way more diverse. There are hardly any pure race people remaining on this planet because our cultural integration has lead to our physical inter-breeding. In old times, religion was almost synonymous with race or ethnicity because every group of people lived in their own little corner of the world and had developed their own distinct beliefs and relationships with the "greater-power". As people left their little corners of the world and explored the planet at large, they found other people with other beliefs and they even looked different - alien even. Some people could accept the differences and some, out of fear, thought that they had to conquer and convert. They saw faith as some sort of competition wherein the correct faith would be determined by which one was left standing. The religious wars started and today, it seems that the only people still interested in fighting are the Christians. Everybody has pretty much realized that religion is very personal and people are going to believe what works for them within their culture. In fact, Christians have so many dominations of their faith because at some point, the conventional practice no longer worked for someone so they altered it.

No one proselytizes any more but the Christians. They seem to be the slowest and most obstinate when it comes to change and tolerance. They seem to still want to be the "winners" of a long ago fought war. They haven't even noticed that they're the only ones left on the battle field. That doesn't stop them from provoking everyone else, every chance they get. They insist that there be a fight. You MUST believe what they believe or they'll harass your congregations, under-mind your beliefs and if need be - kill you! Christianity sucks. Anywho, I'm vented.

Gripe of the Day: News RSS Feeds

Okay, this one is just one of those things. I subscribe, via Google Reader, to multiple news feeds. Of course, I get my local news outlets and I also get CNN, which is one of my favorites. I also subscribe to a large variety of other feeds that cover celebrities and what not. The celebrity sites are always pumping out feeds. Every minute my reader is fetching a new set of feeds from these sites. That's acceptable because the celeb-watch bizz in highly active and persistent so I expect it but I have a problem with these news feeds. The news feeds are pumping out as much crap as the celeb gossip sites and just as fast. How can anybody take the news seriously if it's pumped out like celebrity gossip?! There is no way that what the news feeds are pumping out can be substantive when they're sending it out as fast as they get it. In fact, they often send out the same story three or more times due to the fact that the facts change as the story either develops or they actually research the info. I would prefer that they waited until the stories are more developed before they sent them out. I also have an issue with the volume of info their sending out daily. They send out enough junk to write an entire book on a daily basis. Who has the time to keep up with that much junk?! I would like to take the news seriously and they are making it difficult. It's gotten to the point that I delete 99 percent of the news fed to my reader without even attempting to read them because it's just too overwhelming. One feed I get from CNN is the Cafferty File. I love the Cafferty File because he doesn't overload you with hourly crap. I'll take my time and read what Cafferty has to offer because I know that he doesn't just send out a feed for every little thing that comes up, before he's done some work on the story before hand. I hope these news guys get out of the business of political gossip and rumor milling so that we can take our news seriously again. I love CNN but they are the biggest perpetrators here. Anywho, I'm vented.

Gripe of the Day: PBS PTV Nudity

Perhaps one of the most infuriating, racist & offensive things that I have ever seen is the nudity that is allowed on PBS when they do shows on African villages and their culture. It has forever been against FCC rules to show human nudity on public television but their has always been an exception made for PBS coverage of so-called "third world" cultures. As a person of color, this infuriates me!!! What they are saying is that these people are sub-human and therefore a display of their nudity can not be considered a display of human nudity. It also goes further to imply that there is nothing sexual or attractive about a nude woman of color thus it is safe for viewing on the one channel that specializes in child programming - where children are likely to be the audience! The arguments against what they are doing are so obvious and so valid that it almost doesn't deserve discussion. I am so disgusted by the lingering supremest attitudes that persist that I just had to exhale a bit. Anywho, I'm vented.

Gripe of the Day: Digital TV

This whole, switch to digital TV, thing is nothing more than a power and money move. This thing came out of nowhere and hit us like a brick smack in the face. They announced this crap and then gave us a matter of months, in a weakened economy, to get ourselves on the ship or basically, be left behind. Why would they do this? Why would the FCC do this? What were they telling us was so urgent that they had to force this down our throats right now!? What they said at the time was that digital is so much better but those of us who have had digital satellite TV knew that, that was a crock. Every time it rains, snows, gets cloudy or the wind blows too hard, you're left with a chopped up mess of a signal that leaves you all of the sudden wondering whey the hell you're paying for it. One thing is certain and that is that my old analog signal with my old rabbit-ear antenna worked perfectly, rain, sleet or snow and when it didn't, all I had to do was adjust the ears. Not with this digital crap! You either have a good signal or you don't. This is more of the same old same with these large industries in America. There used to be a time when a red blooded American man could roll up his sleeves and fix just about anything. That isn't good for business however. If you can fix it, why would you buy another? In case you haven't noticed folk, the ship has been overtaken by money men with numerical souls who see and think in digits. That can't rule your world but they want to be kings so they're changing your world into something they can control. Back to the topic.

This was definitely a back room deal with a "rush" stipulation attached to it. That's the only explanation for why this thing was done in such a hurry. Then they realized that the economy is failing and people (every single person with a TV) probably can't afford to do this right now, so they offered us coupons. These coupons expired before the national deadline date for the changeover to digital TV. What the F**k was that all about?! People were in the middle of trying to survive a recession and this was the best they could do? What a load!

As the deadline drew nearer, they realized that no where near enough people were ready for it so they had to extend it but notice that they didn't extend the life of the coupons. Then they began to drum up new reasons to explain why this will be so good for us all and why they had to make this change. One such reason was that each of your local networks would now have more than one channel on which to broadcast which should mean more diverse programming and a larger set of options to chose from. I thought to myself, "that could be good. Perhaps now I can actually have some good choices for the terrible weekend lineups on most network channels". And they asserted that emergency responders needed the old analog frequencies for national emergencies such as that of 9-11. I though, "that could be good. They could use a dedicated network".

So I, being one of those with a useless expired coupon, went on line and found myself a cheap converter box for one of my televisions. I no longer have satellite TV so I had to do it. I already had a pretty good antenna so I hooked it all up and got it all up and running. First thing I did was scan through all of these great new channels to find all of this wonderful new programming they promised. I wasn't all that surprised to find nothing but crap on top of more crap followed up by supportive crap! To add insult to injury, it's been cloudy or raining since I got the damn thing and I haven't been able to watch a show without interruption, yet! Then I thought a little deeper and now I'm wondering why, if this digital thing was so great and had the potential to send out so many various frequencies and bands within bands and whatnot, why the hell didn't they leave us alone and let the emergency responders use it?! Wouldn't it have been easier to let them set up their new systems on this new technology rather than forcing the entire freakin' nation to throw away millions of dollars unnecessarily?! Is it me or is there a dirty, dead stinkin' smelling rat in the room? Anywho, I'm vented.

Gripe of the Day: TV Commercials

Like most of us, I HATE TV commercials with a passion - even the ones I like, if that makes any sense.

Here's my list of issues with commercials:

1-They exist
2-There are too many
3-They are too long
4-The music
5-They seem to run on every channel at the same time
6-Narration
7-Sound condensing

1 - Why don't they get rid of commercials and build product advertising into the shows? I know they do this a little now but if they put in the effort, I'm sure they could find a way to get it done. I don't know about you but I was more interested in finding a good coffee house to hang at after seeing the Friends show than any commercial about coffee.

2 - Commercial space is more than 50 percent of air time on most networks now. Half of the show time is actually commercial time and then there are tons of commercials between every show. How about maybe no or at the most, one commercial break during shows and increasing the commercial time between shows. I know that only benefits the viewer because the advertisers want to catch you while you're watching the show but doesn't it say something about how successful you can be if you have to ambush the viewer. If the viewer is so turned off by the current way they are marketed to that they have to be forced to watch ads, that should tell the advertisers that they need to change something.

3 - I could probably tolerate more commercials and pay a little more attention to them if they weren't so damn long. The fact is that most commercials have a specific target market and what that means is that everybody else, us non-interested viewers, have to suffer through those ads. Make your point and move on!

4 - I remember watching some old grainy episodes of some old black & white TV shows I found on the internet once and they still had the original commercials attached to them. I loved it! There wasn't a whole lotta hyped up music which may or may not irritate the hell out of you because it may not be your genre of music. There was just a guy, in a suite, speaking with a normal voice, telling you about the product and demonstrating what it does. It was simple, to the point, not irritating and I didn't feel as though I was being conned by a whole lot of smoke and mirrors.

5 - Why, for crying out loud, are the networks foolish enough to not stagger their programming so that viewers of shows on competing networks can have a chance to see the show running on their network? When the commercials start, I start channel scanning but it gets me no where because all of the networks start their programs at about the same time and therefore, run their commercials at about the same time. It would seem to me that it would just be a smart tactic to not have the same schedule as your competition. I might be channel scanning and discover that I'd rather see the show on your network.

6 - The commercial voices/narrators/voice-over people or whatever their actually called, are frustrating. These are the voices yelling at you, attempting to get your attention. Someone needs to shoot these guys. Why is it that their voices seem to be louder than the sirens you heard on that episode of CSI you were watching? That brings me to my last point.

7 - I used to own a recording studio so I'm familiar with a very cheap device that most studios use called a "sound condenser". The device was designed to ensure that when a person sings while recording a song, their voice doesn't blare out through the speakers, even if they yell. It keeps their voice at the same volume no matter how loud they yell and if they don't speak/sing loud enough to be heard, it brings up their voice. Some condensers even reduce or remove background, white and static noise. So, with this relatively cheap technology being available since forever, why do I still need to watch TV with my remote in my hand trying to keep from disturbing my neighbors in my apartment building, while I'm watching TV late at night? I'll tell you why. It's because the networks don't have sense enough to run their broadcasts, commercials included, through a condenser. So I'm peacefully watching a quiet talk show for which I have to turn up the volume the hear properly, then a commercial comes on at a volume twice as loud and I'm scrambling to turn down the volume, which I'll have to again turn up once the commercials end. It's so frustrating.

Anywho, I'm vented.

Gripe Of The Day: Weekend Network TV Programming

I don't know about you but I find weekend Network TV programming to be terrible. It's as if the networks decided at some point that Saturday and Sundays are just throw-aways. The crapiest crap airs on network television over the weekends and it would seem to me that this would be the best time to attempt to lock down an audience considering the fact that most Americans are free on the weekends and are therefore, more susiptable to being captivated. Either the networks have simply decided that they themselves need these days for themselves or, they just don't believe the market for top-rate-worthy shows will be there. I think they're wrong.

I have a couple of ideas. Perhaps they should try re-airing all of the weeks episodes of all of the top-rated programs that ran during the week - have a marathon of progamming every Saturday or Sunday. This would give everyone a chance to check out the shows they never have and catch the episodes of their favorite shows that they might have missed. Note to the networks: everyone isn't a sports fan! I hate, hate, hate Sunday TV. I'm not a sports fan and apart from infomercials, which everybody hate, there is just sports. Sure, I could just do cable or satelite programming on the weekends but this isn't about what other options I have. This is about the public networks.

Here's another suggestion. How about earmarking Saturdays or Sundays as pilot-show days. This would give aspiring shows a full day or so to check out what could be and give the networks feedback as to whether or not they would like to see more of a specific pilot. I can think of thousand uses for weekend air time that would be more beneficial and entertaining to the public than the current use. Anywho, I think I'm done venting.

Gripe Of The Day: Death To The Airbrush Artists!

Do you have any idea what the so called 'hot' vixens, models and celebs really look like? If you follow their magazine spreads then you have no idea. The reason we are all so clueless about what they really look like is because of the notorious airbrush artists. I have real issues with airbrushed pics. It's as if the industry thinks that we don't appreciate authentic true-to-life beauty - flaws and all. The industry has really mad a bad turn on this one. Perhaps one of the biggest victims of the airbrush artists are the vixen and adult models. I recently checked out the Playboy galleries and realized that it was like watching a freakin' cartoon. The girls all looked plastic or animated. The Playboy master, Heff, already has problems with the magazine due to the fact that it's stuck on an old-school idea of beauty that has been slowly dying since the civil rights movement succeeded. Add to that the fact that, for the few remaining a-holes who refuse to accept that the pot is actually melting its ingredients, they're stuck watching the same old look-a-like chics roll out and they don't even get the satisfaction of seeing real skin - just paint. It's a sad affair.

I, of course, have tons of pics of the babes I love, candids and photo shoots, and when I compare the images I find that I prefer the real thing. The photo shoots are glamorous and all but they miss the point. Some how the industry has lost touch with the fact that MEN are the ones looking at hot, scantily clad chics. Especially in this internet age where men can easily access the images without the embarrassment of buying some chic mag at a store. I shouldn't have to say this but men don't want to see paint, we want to see skin and the flaws are a plus because they let us know that what we're seeing is real. So, let's compare some images and see if you concur with me.

Here's a candid pic of Vixen, Angel Lola Luv out at a birthday party.

























Here's a midly airbrushed pic of the same vixen.
























Here's a seriously airbrushed pic of this vixen.
























I don't know about you but I find the regular ole girl without the touch-ups, the sexiest.

Gripe Of The Day: "Special Reports"

I'd like to gripe about those annoying so called, "Special Reports" that our local news programs just love cutting off our favorite shows to advise us about. The first and most common kind of Special Report is the Weather Alert. Unless a tornado mysteriously appeared out of no where and is less that 5 minutes away from a residential area, why is it necessary to interrupt a TV show to announce it? TELL US DURING THE COMMERCIAL OR POST IT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN (SCROLL BAR)!!! Then there is the extremely unnecessary report about someone's freakin' house burning to a crisp or a business. Again; why is this so important that everything everyone is doing needs to stop?! SAVE IT FOR THE COMMERCIAL BREAK!!!! Then there are the Amber Alerts. How likely is it that if I'm sitting at home watching TV that I'm going to run across this missing kid? NOT VERY! SAVE IT FOR THE COMMERCIAL.

Perhaps the most annoying things about these program interruptions is the fact that the local station makes no attempt to make up for it by rebroadcasting the lost episode or at the very least, picking it up from the point they cut in at.

If this crap is so important that it requires a "Special Report," why not interrupt the commercial break for it? They don't because those reports aren't that important that they are willing to lose a dollar over them. Anywho, that's my grip.