I finally made it back into the RedEye, folks! And this time with a picture and everything!
It all started last Wednesday when I e-mailed my answers to the Sports section's "5 on 5" request. I thought my answers were rather amusing, so I sent it in.
Well, I didn't get in, but the guy said he'd be connecting me to someone who will get back to me and will put me in the Tuesday "5 on 5" instead because he already booked the Thursday one! So I waited patiently and on Sunday night, I got this e-mail:
"Hey Aaron, [Columnist] gave me your contact info so we could get you into 5 on 5s this week. I'm filling in for him while he's on vacation. Thanks for getting in touch with us. The questions are below, and I need your answers by 2 p.m. Monday. Let me know if there are any questions, and definitely send us a picture (a head/shoulders shot will do) if you have not done so already.
1. What else can be solved with a bracket-type tournament?
2. Create a rallying cry for a team in the Sweet 16.
3. With their 10-game skid snapped, what do the Bulls do for an encore?
4. Whom would you like to see announcing March Madness games?
5. What will Ozzie Guillen do when he bores of Twitter?"
So I sent in my responses.
As is customary, I wrote too much and they had to cut it down to make it fit. So here are my responses in full and I'll bold the parts that got kept in.
1. What else can be solved with a bracket-type tournament?
Government bailouts. I don't want my money going to bail out a company that hasn't fought from a Sweet 16 to the Championships. [won a tourney.]
2. Create a rallying cry for a team in the Sweet 16.
"Northern Iowa Panthers: Your Office Probably Hates Us Now!"
3. With their 10-game skid snapped, what do the Bulls do for an encore?
The obvious answer is "an 11-game skid", but I think they could hit 12 or 13 easily. Can't underestimate the Bulls!
4. Whom would you like to see announcing March Madness games?
We need a new insulting, snarky Brit to handle sports like Simon Cowell does for singing and Gordon Ramsay for cooking. And put him courtside with a bullhorn for maximum chance of crying.
5. What will Ozzie Guillen do when he bores of Twitter?
He'll spend his days updating his status message on Facebook and throwing sheep at the managers of other teams.
I also sent in two headshots for them to pick from. One was my famous "sombrero" picture, which I realize didn't have the standard headshot look with shoulders that they tend to use, so I included a backup picture of me in my suit and power tie. And sadly, that's the one they used. Though it's a hilarious contrast from the other pictures in the column.
You can see for yourself in the ONLINE edition if you're not a Chicagoan and have access to the actual paper today.
Well, that's all for now! Maybe someday I'll finally get a gig as a guest columnist for the RedEye!
Hey - Digg this article!
Read more!
Showing posts with label RedEye. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RedEye. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Tweet to RedEye: Paula and Idol
Okay, just a quick update. It's been a very long time since I've had anything of mine posted in the RedEye - especially since it's been six months since I've done much writing/blogging/anything other than my normal rut. Well, thanks to Twitter (or actually, thanks to the Gmail app that added Twitter to my Gmail inbox) I've at least been able to do some Tweeting in response to the RedEye's Tweets and well...
redeyechicago: Paula Abdul is not coming back to Idol. Wow. Will you miss her? http://su.pr/1cYuHX
@AaronBSam: Not like they're killing her off - the show will manage and if ratings really drop, they'll beg to get her back. No biggie.
And it got printed in today's RedEye!
I'm making my way back, baby! 140 characters at a time!
Read more!
redeyechicago: Paula Abdul is not coming back to Idol. Wow. Will you miss her? http://su.pr/1cYuHX
@AaronBSam: Not like they're killing her off - the show will manage and if ratings really drop, they'll beg to get her back. No biggie.
And it got printed in today's RedEye!
I'm making my way back, baby! 140 characters at a time!
Read more!
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
RedEye Criticism
I'm getting a little tired of the constant stream on nonsense being paraded around on the covers of the RedEye newspaper every day. At least once or twice a week, it's a fluff story about some trend in Chicago (or in the U.S., or in life in general) with an accompanying picture of some Chicagoan who falls into the trend. It's got little, if anything, to do with real news - and is accompanied by half a page of statistics about the trend and sometimes a SECOND story wedged in the margin about how the trend relates to ACTUAL news, like maybe a news story where this trend played a role.
Today was no different, as is evident in the two-page spread about some guy who had a vasectomy at age 27 and how many men have vasectomies.
Okay, I'll give them credit that they at least do their research on the trend, providing a doctor's or professional's commentary to supplement the opinion and story of the random person they chose in Chicago who graces the cover and another picture in the article.
In today's case, they supplement the "guy who just never wants to have a kid" opinion with an actual doctor who has an anecdote about some 18-year-old who wanted a vasectomy and the doctor said he was too young and to wait a year and then he came back a year later and the doctor did the procedure. It further goes on to describe the "extreme counseling" that these doctors have to take their prospective clients through before agreeing to do the procedure.
I enjoyed the fact that they mentioned that vasectomies take 15 minutes and cost $1,000 - but that vasectomy reversals take 3-4 hours and cost $10,000 to $25,000 and don't always work. Oh, and a lot of guys who have vasectomies early on tend to wind up getting reversals after a divorce, because most women out there are turned off by the idea of never getting to have kids.
But I digress. My real beef here isn't with the vasectomy article - it's that it's taking up two entire pages in my RedEye today!
I just don't understand how the RedEye decides to go with these stories. Do they work backwards, stumbling upon some new numbers from the U.S. Census or a research study that shows this is the new trend in employment or lifestyles - and THEN create the fluff story around it by tracking down someone picturesque who is a victim/supporter of the trend? Or do they stumble upon some weirdo and jot a couple of notes down and then do the research to find out that person isn't alone and then they go back for the photo shoot and a couple more readable quotations?
I'm half-inclined to just send them my contact information and say "hey, let me know when you plan to do a fluff piece on any of the following things: people who like anime, men who have beards, fat people in Chicago, people in Bridgeport, people who hate PETA, or the idea that we should eat away our pet overpopulation instead of spaying/neutering them."
I can see it now - a dorky photo of me, possibly stroking my beard - with an article about how beards are making a comeback. And they can have statistics like "only 1 in 100 men today are sporting a beard or mustache, but only .005% of the male population can be described as having a 'kick-ass neckbeard'." And they'll take up the entire margin with celebrities who have beards. And they can pose the question, "Are beards in or out? Send us your comments!"
What do you think? Are beards in or out? Do you hate fluff pieces as much as I do? Oh wait, is THIS a fluff piece? Leave us your comments! Read more!
Today was no different, as is evident in the two-page spread about some guy who had a vasectomy at age 27 and how many men have vasectomies.
Okay, I'll give them credit that they at least do their research on the trend, providing a doctor's or professional's commentary to supplement the opinion and story of the random person they chose in Chicago who graces the cover and another picture in the article.
In today's case, they supplement the "guy who just never wants to have a kid" opinion with an actual doctor who has an anecdote about some 18-year-old who wanted a vasectomy and the doctor said he was too young and to wait a year and then he came back a year later and the doctor did the procedure. It further goes on to describe the "extreme counseling" that these doctors have to take their prospective clients through before agreeing to do the procedure.
I enjoyed the fact that they mentioned that vasectomies take 15 minutes and cost $1,000 - but that vasectomy reversals take 3-4 hours and cost $10,000 to $25,000 and don't always work. Oh, and a lot of guys who have vasectomies early on tend to wind up getting reversals after a divorce, because most women out there are turned off by the idea of never getting to have kids.
But I digress. My real beef here isn't with the vasectomy article - it's that it's taking up two entire pages in my RedEye today!
I just don't understand how the RedEye decides to go with these stories. Do they work backwards, stumbling upon some new numbers from the U.S. Census or a research study that shows this is the new trend in employment or lifestyles - and THEN create the fluff story around it by tracking down someone picturesque who is a victim/supporter of the trend? Or do they stumble upon some weirdo and jot a couple of notes down and then do the research to find out that person isn't alone and then they go back for the photo shoot and a couple more readable quotations?
I'm half-inclined to just send them my contact information and say "hey, let me know when you plan to do a fluff piece on any of the following things: people who like anime, men who have beards, fat people in Chicago, people in Bridgeport, people who hate PETA, or the idea that we should eat away our pet overpopulation instead of spaying/neutering them."
I can see it now - a dorky photo of me, possibly stroking my beard - with an article about how beards are making a comeback. And they can have statistics like "only 1 in 100 men today are sporting a beard or mustache, but only .005% of the male population can be described as having a 'kick-ass neckbeard'." And they'll take up the entire margin with celebrities who have beards. And they can pose the question, "Are beards in or out? Send us your comments!"
What do you think? Are beards in or out? Do you hate fluff pieces as much as I do? Oh wait, is THIS a fluff piece? Leave us your comments! Read more!
Monday, August 18, 2008
Letter to RedEye: Manly Hair
In response to a horrendous article about several men who remove their body hair for various reasons and detailing the numerous ways that men can remove their body hair and posing the question, "Should men be removing their body hair?" or something like that:
I think it's time for hairy men to be proud of who they are. I remember a time when there were huge uproars over supermodels and their effect on women and teenage girls who were destroying themselves with diets and plastic surgery. So why is it that nobody is batting an eyelash when men are being just as vain with diets and fashion and "manscaping" just to look like the Abercrombie & Fitch catalog models? It's a double-standard!
There are only two situations in which it should be socially acceptable to remove your manly hair:
1) You are a model or actor or another profession in which the absence of hair naturally accents toned muscle mass and that's how you make your livelihood/paychecks.
2) It is a hazard for you to have this hair for aerodynamic or flammability reasons.
Aside from those, manly hair is manly and should never be looked down upon. What should be looked down upon is the continued persistance of "metrosexuality" and other effeminate trends. For the love of beer and steaks - they even have pantyhose for men now! I may not know a thing about pantyhose (being a manly man and all), but I'm guessing if you fall into the "man leggings" category, you've already shorn off your leg hair.
I find it depressing that most screen time that male body hair can get is when it's the butt of a joke (see: 40-Year-Old Virgin). I'd like to think that maybe Hollywood can grow up and let men be men and that includes having body hair. Hopefully the recent trend of beards coming back into popularity may suggest an eventual turn AWAY from smooth and back TOWARDS the roughness. I love having a beard and I get compliments for it, too.
I feel confident that your reader response has turned up a majority of females who like the body hair on their partners. That's how our brains are programmed. Plus, I didn't spend several years of puberty waiting for a bumper crop of manly hair to sprout just to wax it all away!
Oh, and sorry, ladies - this hunk o' man meat is spoken for.
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
(As always, I'll bold anything if this gets posted. I even got to send a picture with it because they're trying to lure in more reader response with the promise of posting your picture if they print your "mini-article" reader response.)
Do you agree about men and body hair being manly and not something to remove?
UPDATE!
"Hi Aaron,
Thanks for your letter. We appreciate the feedback!"
(Maybe they'll post it?) Read more!
I think it's time for hairy men to be proud of who they are. I remember a time when there were huge uproars over supermodels and their effect on women and teenage girls who were destroying themselves with diets and plastic surgery. So why is it that nobody is batting an eyelash when men are being just as vain with diets and fashion and "manscaping" just to look like the Abercrombie & Fitch catalog models? It's a double-standard!
There are only two situations in which it should be socially acceptable to remove your manly hair:
1) You are a model or actor or another profession in which the absence of hair naturally accents toned muscle mass and that's how you make your livelihood/paychecks.
2) It is a hazard for you to have this hair for aerodynamic or flammability reasons.
Aside from those, manly hair is manly and should never be looked down upon. What should be looked down upon is the continued persistance of "metrosexuality" and other effeminate trends. For the love of beer and steaks - they even have pantyhose for men now! I may not know a thing about pantyhose (being a manly man and all), but I'm guessing if you fall into the "man leggings" category, you've already shorn off your leg hair.
I find it depressing that most screen time that male body hair can get is when it's the butt of a joke (see: 40-Year-Old Virgin). I'd like to think that maybe Hollywood can grow up and let men be men and that includes having body hair. Hopefully the recent trend of beards coming back into popularity may suggest an eventual turn AWAY from smooth and back TOWARDS the roughness. I love having a beard and I get compliments for it, too.
I feel confident that your reader response has turned up a majority of females who like the body hair on their partners. That's how our brains are programmed. Plus, I didn't spend several years of puberty waiting for a bumper crop of manly hair to sprout just to wax it all away!
Oh, and sorry, ladies - this hunk o' man meat is spoken for.
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
(As always, I'll bold anything if this gets posted. I even got to send a picture with it because they're trying to lure in more reader response with the promise of posting your picture if they print your "mini-article" reader response.)
Do you agree about men and body hair being manly and not something to remove?
UPDATE!
"Hi Aaron,
Thanks for your letter. We appreciate the feedback!"
(Maybe they'll post it?) Read more!
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Butts and the Homeless
Apparently today's RedEye decided to spend an entire page of print regarding the problem of too many cigarette butts littering the beaches and streets of Chicago. Because with gas prices and a war and failing public transportation - it's the perfect time to rub more salt into the wounds of smokers who have been chastized out of every building and shunned a distance of 15 feet from building entrances.
They apparently followed around some environmental organization member and watched her pick up cigarette butts on the North Avenue Beach and she collected "137 butts in a few minutes."
The city is now going to start issuing $500 fines this summer to "anyone caught puffing or tossing a cigarette scrap within 15 feet of a beach."
So on one page, there's an article about this woman picking up butts and complaining about smokers - next to that is a blurb about how deadly and toxic and non-biodegradable the components of cigarette filters are - and under it all is a statistic-laden indictment of how few butts make it to trash cans and how dirty the city really is. There's also the burning question calling for feedback:
"Are cigarette butts blighting the beach, or should non-smokers lighten up?"
Well, here's my reply I plan on sending:
If the city drives all the smokers from indoors (where there are lots of garbage cans) to the outdoors (where garbage cans are scarce), the inevitable fact is that the outdoors becomes littered with cigarette butts. Smokers may be to blame for their garbage, but more to blame are the people who drove them away from the bounty of indoor trash bins.
As for the solution, local businesses should be able to enroll in a city program where they can issue plastic bags to the homeless and pay them $5 for collecting a full bag with cigarette butts. The homeless do honest work and get paid (rather than harrassing passers-by for money), the city gets cleaner and maybe the businesses get some reward for participating in the program. Win-win-win.
--Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
Do you think it's a crazy idea? I know, it's different from my usual method of dealing with the homeless (read: ignoring them), but anything that gets them off my case can't be a bad thing.
Update: They sent back an e-mail saying:
Thanks again Aaron.
Best,
RedEye staff
Which I think is their way of saying "we appreciate the response, but we won't be printing it." Oh well, at least that's what I have a blog for! Read more!
They apparently followed around some environmental organization member and watched her pick up cigarette butts on the North Avenue Beach and she collected "137 butts in a few minutes."
The city is now going to start issuing $500 fines this summer to "anyone caught puffing or tossing a cigarette scrap within 15 feet of a beach."
So on one page, there's an article about this woman picking up butts and complaining about smokers - next to that is a blurb about how deadly and toxic and non-biodegradable the components of cigarette filters are - and under it all is a statistic-laden indictment of how few butts make it to trash cans and how dirty the city really is. There's also the burning question calling for feedback:
"Are cigarette butts blighting the beach, or should non-smokers lighten up?"
Well, here's my reply I plan on sending:
If the city drives all the smokers from indoors (where there are lots of garbage cans) to the outdoors (where garbage cans are scarce), the inevitable fact is that the outdoors becomes littered with cigarette butts. Smokers may be to blame for their garbage, but more to blame are the people who drove them away from the bounty of indoor trash bins.
As for the solution, local businesses should be able to enroll in a city program where they can issue plastic bags to the homeless and pay them $5 for collecting a full bag with cigarette butts. The homeless do honest work and get paid (rather than harrassing passers-by for money), the city gets cleaner and maybe the businesses get some reward for participating in the program. Win-win-win.
--Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
Do you think it's a crazy idea? I know, it's different from my usual method of dealing with the homeless (read: ignoring them), but anything that gets them off my case can't be a bad thing.
Update: They sent back an e-mail saying:
Thanks again Aaron.
Best,
RedEye staff
Which I think is their way of saying "we appreciate the response, but we won't be printing it." Oh well, at least that's what I have a blog for! Read more!
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Printed in the RedEye Again!
Chicagoans - pick up a copy of the RedEye today (May 29th) if you're interested in seeing my name printed in the paper. I usually try and let you all know when I get printed by posting here when I SEND the letters to the editor, but this time was a little different.
To be honest, it was more of a personal response and I decided I wouldn't post here until they actually printed it.
I submitted the letter on Thursday, May 15th upon reading the article about people in relationships parting ways and "wanting to stay friends". They replied later that day with:
Thanks for writing Aaron. Will publish your letter in Friday's RedEye
Friday, nothing. Saturday, nothing. This continues for a while. On Monday, May 26th, they replied again with:
Thanks for writing Aaron,
We'd like to publish your letter in RedEye. Please email back to confirm that the following info is correct. Thanks
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
I replied that it was correct. Nothing on Tuesday, Wednesday, and finally today - they printed it. Obviously not in its entirety, so I'm going to do my usual. Italics is what they didn't print, and boldface is what they did print.
One of my ex-girlfriends and I did not actually end things with those five little words of "I want to stay friends," but circumstances led to that happening anyway. After we did what we were supposed to do and broke up, moved on, and ceased communication - she wound up dating one of my friends and the two have been in a relationship for a while now. This led to a bit of awkwardness at parties when we were both invited by mutual friends, especially when those friends changed their tune from a post-breakup "we've got your back" to "you have to accept this and get along," which is what we did. I wouldn't say we're friends now, but we've agreed to be amicable acquaintances.
Of course, my other ex-girlfriend and I did end things with those five little words - and after several years without communication (I guess we weren't THAT good of friends), we found each other again after a random series of events and we've been together again for five months. She's actually moving in with me this weekend, and I couldn't be happier.
--Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport Read more!
To be honest, it was more of a personal response and I decided I wouldn't post here until they actually printed it.
I submitted the letter on Thursday, May 15th upon reading the article about people in relationships parting ways and "wanting to stay friends". They replied later that day with:
Thanks for writing Aaron. Will publish your letter in Friday's RedEye
Friday, nothing. Saturday, nothing. This continues for a while. On Monday, May 26th, they replied again with:
Thanks for writing Aaron,
We'd like to publish your letter in RedEye. Please email back to confirm that the following info is correct. Thanks
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
I replied that it was correct. Nothing on Tuesday, Wednesday, and finally today - they printed it. Obviously not in its entirety, so I'm going to do my usual. Italics is what they didn't print, and boldface is what they did print.
One of my ex-girlfriends and I did not actually end things with those five little words of "I want to stay friends," but circumstances led to that happening anyway. After we did what we were supposed to do and broke up, moved on, and ceased communication - she wound up dating one of my friends and the two have been in a relationship for a while now. This led to a bit of awkwardness at parties when we were both invited by mutual friends, especially when those friends changed their tune from a post-breakup "we've got your back" to "you have to accept this and get along," which is what we did. I wouldn't say we're friends now, but we've agreed to be amicable acquaintances.
Of course, my other ex-girlfriend and I did end things with those five little words - and after several years without communication (I guess we weren't THAT good of friends), we found each other again after a random series of events and we've been together again for five months. She's actually moving in with me this weekend, and I couldn't be happier.
--Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport Read more!
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
How Much is Enough?
This morning I stumbled upon the RedEye's cover page which featured the word "fat-osphere" and nearly lost my cool. It's not often that I get the chance to lose my cool before 7am, but there it was, staring straight at me. Begging me. Just dangling that abomination of the English language in front of me as if I weren't going to lose my cool.
The article (if you can call two pages of fluff about "fat people blogging" actual journalism) was not what offended me. There's a bunch of people out there who are overweight and are blogging to spread acceptance of the overweight to all of the internets and kudos to them and let's all eat a Kudos bar (whatever happened to Kudos bars? you never see them around anymore) and ha-ha we came up with this word "fat-osphere" to join fat people and the blogosphere. What got me going was the picture(s).
"These people are FAT??"
Maybe it's that I'm an elitist when it comes to my own disability/minority/issue. I AM FAT. One look, no question, case closed. I SEVERELY dislike people using the word "fat" in my presence when it is being used to describe someone who is not on a "one look, no question, case closed" level of obesity. Any time it happens, I want to shout, "THAT is NOT FAT! THIS is FAT!" It especially aggravates me when it's someone complaining about themselves being fat in my presence when the numbers don't lie and I AM TWO OF YOU PUT TOGETHER, YOU DUMB BITCH!
Are the people being talked about in the article overweight? Probably. Even though "overweight" and "obese" are currently overused as subjective words and their objective meanings are even more ridiculous because they rely on the BMI - a system created by a mathematician several centuries ago doing population studies and has nothing to do medically with anything.
Does that mean that they should unquestioningly call themselves "fat"? I don't think so. I think there's reasonable doubt. And while a debate could ensue and they could possibly win the argument to use the term, that's not a solid enough case off the bat to unflinchingly use it without the debate.
I can't be the only one out there with this problem.
I'm sure that there are people who have gone completely bald and overhear some guy with a receding hairline talking about how he's "going bald" or maybe a guy with legit symptoms of male pattern baldness (in a classic horseshoe pattern) using the term "bald" to describe himself and these completely-bald people get offended because THAT guy still HAS SOME HAIR and it's not a slam-dunk case of baldness, buddy!
Even in current politics, we've got the issue of the two "fighting minorities" on the Democratic ticket: the woman and the black guy. And yet, Obama's been put under the microscope about getting to use that term "black guy" for himself. Depending on who you are and your background, you might think that's up for debate and not at all a slam dunk case. You could be a well-to-do high-class attorney who thinks that any skin tone darker than a week in the Bahamas is "undoubtedly black". You could be an African-American who emigrated from Nigeria and judge the term "black" on roots and heritage connecting back to Africa and judge Obama accordingly. Many people have been judging Obama's decision to be the "black candidate" - and battle lines have been drawn numerous times as a result.
I'll even throw in a quick joke about Hillary Clinton getting to refer to herself as the "woman" candidate. Sure, most of America takes it at face value and simply assumes that it's correct, but I KNOW people out there who doubt it. Usually jokingly, but sometimes a little scary on the seriousness side as well. And frankly, I've never seen any proof either way. Of course, I don't use the internets for searches of presidential candidate pornography. I have much bigger tasks at hand. Like complaining about people calling themselves "fat", I suppose.
Which brings me back to the question: How fat is "fat"?
I'm an objective person. I'd like to say that the cutoff for unquestionable "fat" terminology would likely be a cutoff between 270 and 290 pounds, provided that the stomach sticks out further than anything else. I wouldn't want to discriminate against the weightlifters, who have lots of muscle mass that weighs a lot. You really don't want to discriminate against people who can break your spine.
Please, let me know what you think. Are you a member of some terminology that is also being infringed upon by those whose status is debatable? Are you "fat" and have a different idea for a cutoff point for those who want to be in the club without having to argue over possible membership? Do you just want to call me an "asshole"? Are you an "asshole" who wants to suggest a cutoff point because too many "half-assholes" are infringing upon your unquestionable "asshole" status?
Please leave a comment. And let's explore.
(RedEye - the "fat" picture/article is rotating screen #2)
Read more!
The article (if you can call two pages of fluff about "fat people blogging" actual journalism) was not what offended me. There's a bunch of people out there who are overweight and are blogging to spread acceptance of the overweight to all of the internets and kudos to them and let's all eat a Kudos bar (whatever happened to Kudos bars? you never see them around anymore) and ha-ha we came up with this word "fat-osphere" to join fat people and the blogosphere. What got me going was the picture(s).
"These people are FAT??"
Maybe it's that I'm an elitist when it comes to my own disability/minority/issue. I AM FAT. One look, no question, case closed. I SEVERELY dislike people using the word "fat" in my presence when it is being used to describe someone who is not on a "one look, no question, case closed" level of obesity. Any time it happens, I want to shout, "THAT is NOT FAT! THIS is FAT!" It especially aggravates me when it's someone complaining about themselves being fat in my presence when the numbers don't lie and I AM TWO OF YOU PUT TOGETHER, YOU DUMB BITCH!
Are the people being talked about in the article overweight? Probably. Even though "overweight" and "obese" are currently overused as subjective words and their objective meanings are even more ridiculous because they rely on the BMI - a system created by a mathematician several centuries ago doing population studies and has nothing to do medically with anything.
Does that mean that they should unquestioningly call themselves "fat"? I don't think so. I think there's reasonable doubt. And while a debate could ensue and they could possibly win the argument to use the term, that's not a solid enough case off the bat to unflinchingly use it without the debate.
I can't be the only one out there with this problem.
I'm sure that there are people who have gone completely bald and overhear some guy with a receding hairline talking about how he's "going bald" or maybe a guy with legit symptoms of male pattern baldness (in a classic horseshoe pattern) using the term "bald" to describe himself and these completely-bald people get offended because THAT guy still HAS SOME HAIR and it's not a slam-dunk case of baldness, buddy!
Even in current politics, we've got the issue of the two "fighting minorities" on the Democratic ticket: the woman and the black guy. And yet, Obama's been put under the microscope about getting to use that term "black guy" for himself. Depending on who you are and your background, you might think that's up for debate and not at all a slam dunk case. You could be a well-to-do high-class attorney who thinks that any skin tone darker than a week in the Bahamas is "undoubtedly black". You could be an African-American who emigrated from Nigeria and judge the term "black" on roots and heritage connecting back to Africa and judge Obama accordingly. Many people have been judging Obama's decision to be the "black candidate" - and battle lines have been drawn numerous times as a result.
I'll even throw in a quick joke about Hillary Clinton getting to refer to herself as the "woman" candidate. Sure, most of America takes it at face value and simply assumes that it's correct, but I KNOW people out there who doubt it. Usually jokingly, but sometimes a little scary on the seriousness side as well. And frankly, I've never seen any proof either way. Of course, I don't use the internets for searches of presidential candidate pornography. I have much bigger tasks at hand. Like complaining about people calling themselves "fat", I suppose.
Which brings me back to the question: How fat is "fat"?
I'm an objective person. I'd like to say that the cutoff for unquestionable "fat" terminology would likely be a cutoff between 270 and 290 pounds, provided that the stomach sticks out further than anything else. I wouldn't want to discriminate against the weightlifters, who have lots of muscle mass that weighs a lot. You really don't want to discriminate against people who can break your spine.
Please, let me know what you think. Are you a member of some terminology that is also being infringed upon by those whose status is debatable? Are you "fat" and have a different idea for a cutoff point for those who want to be in the club without having to argue over possible membership? Do you just want to call me an "asshole"? Are you an "asshole" who wants to suggest a cutoff point because too many "half-assholes" are infringing upon your unquestionable "asshole" status?
Please leave a comment. And let's explore.
(RedEye - the "fat" picture/article is rotating screen #2)
Read more!
Friday, January 11, 2008
Sandler and the CTA!
Stop the presses! I've just solved the CTA's money problems and if we can get this screenplay together in less than a week, we can present it to Hollywood and sign a contract for millions of dollars and that plus royalties should keep the CTA afloat!
Here's where it all began:
I'm reading the RedEye like I usually do in the mornings, riding the #44 bus (until it's killed on Doomsday) and the Orange Line train I take to get to work downtown, and the article about the CTA Doomsday and Blagojevich's legislation nonsense and that's when I see it. It's the first time I've seen a photo of the CTA President, Ron Huberman. My first instinct?
Man, that guy looks a LOT like Adam Sandler!
Well, maybe it's that Adam Sandler could easily portray this guy with a slightly different haircut and not much else. That's when I get my big idea: creating a movie about the CTA starring Adam Sandler as Ron Huberman. Or, well, not necessarily him completely - the movie's going to TECHNICALLY be fiction, but the plot setup is rather true-to-life.
Possible plotline:
Ron Huberman arrives to his office on the first day of his new position of CTA President, only to find out from the staff that there's no money, no funding, and the previous president has already created Project Doomsday which is now in motion. Ron learns that almost half of the bus lines will be axed (as well as the drivers), fares will need to be increased to almost double, and the entire Santa's Holiday Train project will be scrapped this year - all with 30 days as the deadline to get the money or funding before the CTA goes literally broke.
(I think he'll come to work on that first day right after Thanksgiving and the Doomsday will be maybe like Christmas, so this can become a holiday season movie.)
All the while trying to fight a few high-up legislators who never agree, like Mayor Daley and Governor Blagojevich, Ron must attempt some crazy stunts to try and create funding for the CTA. Basically it's every hilarious idea that the RedEye readers have sent in, plus some of the decent ones which accidentally go horribly awry (in comedic fashion). I'm picturing everything from a Bake Sale scene to possibly Ron talking to a mob boss (this is Chicago, after all) at one point. All the while, most of this takes place along the Red Line because you don't even need to exaggerate it that much to turn it into comedy.
I'm thinking a possible scene could be having Ron wrangle up all of the homeless musicians from along the Red Line stops and having a huge concert featuring the Red Line Players or something hilarious like that. It'd be fun to get musician cameos with popular musicians dressed as hobos!
The movie finally ties together - in the exact same way that reality would! Ron's last idea is his best ever; he creates a CTA screenplay and pitches it to Hollywood! The last few scenes would be Ron receiving the huge check from the movie studios and celebrating by riding in the sleigh along the Red Line with Santa's Holiday Train as riders cheer him on. There's a brief fade and we notice it's now an ACTOR playing Ron in the sleigh and as the credits roll, the camera pans out to a movie theater where Ron is having a screening with the other characters - still celebrating the victory and having one last laugh before the real credits roll.
Possible actors/actresses:
Adam Sandler as Ron Huberman. I think he can pull it off and make even Doomsday seem funny - at least to everyone not from Chicago. Plus, he's got the "nice guy" attitude until something pisses him off and he does the classic Adam Sandler yelling and freaking out stuff.
Tom Cruise as Governor Blagojevich. When was the last time we saw Tom as some kind of bad guy? I think Tom could bring some weird devilish evilness as a governor who's ruining the funding process.
Fred Thompson as Mayor Daley. Well, he's gotta have something to fall back on once he eventually drops from the presidential primaries. He can at least settle for mayor in a movie!
The usual Happy/Madison members like Rob Schneider and [those other guys] as CTA Red Line riders. If you've ridden the Red Line, you'd know what I'm talking about.
Morgan Freeman as a kindhearted hobo, offering sage advice in-between selling items on the train (the items change randomly in every scene he's in).
Perhaps some actress as a Blue Line rider who becomes the love interest after constantly bumping into Ron in the Jackson transfer tunnel. Perhaps a slow-motion Jackson transfer tunnel reconciliation montage near the end?
That's all I have so far. Maybe you're not all that interested, but I think there's a chance that Hollywood would go for it. And sign a big fat check that would take care of enough of the REAL CTA's Doomsday woes with potential royalties supplying the rest?
That's my big idea. What ideas have YOU offered to save the CTA from Doomsday? Well, mine's better. Because my idea could incorporate yours as a comedic scene!
Read more!
Here's where it all began:
I'm reading the RedEye like I usually do in the mornings, riding the #44 bus (until it's killed on Doomsday) and the Orange Line train I take to get to work downtown, and the article about the CTA Doomsday and Blagojevich's legislation nonsense and that's when I see it. It's the first time I've seen a photo of the CTA President, Ron Huberman. My first instinct?
Man, that guy looks a LOT like Adam Sandler!
Well, maybe it's that Adam Sandler could easily portray this guy with a slightly different haircut and not much else. That's when I get my big idea: creating a movie about the CTA starring Adam Sandler as Ron Huberman. Or, well, not necessarily him completely - the movie's going to TECHNICALLY be fiction, but the plot setup is rather true-to-life.
Possible plotline:
Ron Huberman arrives to his office on the first day of his new position of CTA President, only to find out from the staff that there's no money, no funding, and the previous president has already created Project Doomsday which is now in motion. Ron learns that almost half of the bus lines will be axed (as well as the drivers), fares will need to be increased to almost double, and the entire Santa's Holiday Train project will be scrapped this year - all with 30 days as the deadline to get the money or funding before the CTA goes literally broke.
(I think he'll come to work on that first day right after Thanksgiving and the Doomsday will be maybe like Christmas, so this can become a holiday season movie.)
All the while trying to fight a few high-up legislators who never agree, like Mayor Daley and Governor Blagojevich, Ron must attempt some crazy stunts to try and create funding for the CTA. Basically it's every hilarious idea that the RedEye readers have sent in, plus some of the decent ones which accidentally go horribly awry (in comedic fashion). I'm picturing everything from a Bake Sale scene to possibly Ron talking to a mob boss (this is Chicago, after all) at one point. All the while, most of this takes place along the Red Line because you don't even need to exaggerate it that much to turn it into comedy.
I'm thinking a possible scene could be having Ron wrangle up all of the homeless musicians from along the Red Line stops and having a huge concert featuring the Red Line Players or something hilarious like that. It'd be fun to get musician cameos with popular musicians dressed as hobos!
The movie finally ties together - in the exact same way that reality would! Ron's last idea is his best ever; he creates a CTA screenplay and pitches it to Hollywood! The last few scenes would be Ron receiving the huge check from the movie studios and celebrating by riding in the sleigh along the Red Line with Santa's Holiday Train as riders cheer him on. There's a brief fade and we notice it's now an ACTOR playing Ron in the sleigh and as the credits roll, the camera pans out to a movie theater where Ron is having a screening with the other characters - still celebrating the victory and having one last laugh before the real credits roll.
Possible actors/actresses:
Adam Sandler as Ron Huberman. I think he can pull it off and make even Doomsday seem funny - at least to everyone not from Chicago. Plus, he's got the "nice guy" attitude until something pisses him off and he does the classic Adam Sandler yelling and freaking out stuff.
Tom Cruise as Governor Blagojevich. When was the last time we saw Tom as some kind of bad guy? I think Tom could bring some weird devilish evilness as a governor who's ruining the funding process.
Fred Thompson as Mayor Daley. Well, he's gotta have something to fall back on once he eventually drops from the presidential primaries. He can at least settle for mayor in a movie!
The usual Happy/Madison members like Rob Schneider and [those other guys] as CTA Red Line riders. If you've ridden the Red Line, you'd know what I'm talking about.
Morgan Freeman as a kindhearted hobo, offering sage advice in-between selling items on the train (the items change randomly in every scene he's in).
Perhaps some actress as a Blue Line rider who becomes the love interest after constantly bumping into Ron in the Jackson transfer tunnel. Perhaps a slow-motion Jackson transfer tunnel reconciliation montage near the end?
That's all I have so far. Maybe you're not all that interested, but I think there's a chance that Hollywood would go for it. And sign a big fat check that would take care of enough of the REAL CTA's Doomsday woes with potential royalties supplying the rest?
That's my big idea. What ideas have YOU offered to save the CTA from Doomsday? Well, mine's better. Because my idea could incorporate yours as a comedic scene!
Read more!
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Letter to RedEye: Doomsday Gloom Days
Just felt like writing in a letter to Hey CTA in the RedEye. It's a little call-to-arms for all of the bus lines getting the axe in a few weeks to cheer up a little. Die with your head held high, because right now... Well, it's explained in the letter.
(As always, if they publish anything, I'll make it bold in an update.)
Doomsday Gloom Days
My bus drivers have been getting grumpier and less friendly over the past few days. I frankly don't blame them for feeling that way, but it's rather rough on the customers who are trying to enjoy the last few days we have together. I remember it like it was just two weeks ago - because it was - and my #44 bus driver actually flagged down a #62 bus on the opposite side of the street so that it would stay there for a minute while an elderly passenger disembarked and crossed the street to transfer without having to stand out in the cold at the Halsted station waiting for the next one. Friendly smiles, salutations and reminders to "watch your step" now seem like fading memories.
The change happened just after Christmas, probably as all the CTA employees got nothing in the stockings except reminders of the Doomsday money shortage. By January 1st, all hope seems to have faded from their eyes, and it feels like they're transferring their wrath onto the passengers. My bus line is being executed on January 20th and there's no call from the governor yet. In fact, the governor is just taunting my bus line, saying he'd LIKE to call and issue a pardon, but there's a bad phone connection and the operator keeps hanging up on him and "yadda yadda yadda" you're going to die, just like all the others.
In just two days, I've heard more complaints about my slated-to-die bus line than I've heard in the past two weeks, and in those two weeks it's been more than I've heard in months and months. My bus line is often neglected, rarely fully-functional and yet still ran on-time with moderately-friendly service at worst. Now, it's running 15 minutes late at times, kicking off my friend who was having a card issue and I even heard of one bus driver texting while at the wheel and the bus was in motion.
Please, bus drivers on lines slated to die, don't make this as hard on your passengers as I'm sure it must be for you. I understand that your job is on the line and nobody can tell you it's going to be okay. But please, if you have to die - at least die with your head held high. Remember to be kind to us, and we'll return the favor by trying to make your last days as comfortable as possible.
Trust me, we're going to miss you when you're gone.
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport Read more!
(As always, if they publish anything, I'll make it bold in an update.)
Doomsday Gloom Days
My bus drivers have been getting grumpier and less friendly over the past few days. I frankly don't blame them for feeling that way, but it's rather rough on the customers who are trying to enjoy the last few days we have together. I remember it like it was just two weeks ago - because it was - and my #44 bus driver actually flagged down a #62 bus on the opposite side of the street so that it would stay there for a minute while an elderly passenger disembarked and crossed the street to transfer without having to stand out in the cold at the Halsted station waiting for the next one. Friendly smiles, salutations and reminders to "watch your step" now seem like fading memories.
The change happened just after Christmas, probably as all the CTA employees got nothing in the stockings except reminders of the Doomsday money shortage. By January 1st, all hope seems to have faded from their eyes, and it feels like they're transferring their wrath onto the passengers. My bus line is being executed on January 20th and there's no call from the governor yet. In fact, the governor is just taunting my bus line, saying he'd LIKE to call and issue a pardon, but there's a bad phone connection and the operator keeps hanging up on him and "yadda yadda yadda" you're going to die, just like all the others.
In just two days, I've heard more complaints about my slated-to-die bus line than I've heard in the past two weeks, and in those two weeks it's been more than I've heard in months and months. My bus line is often neglected, rarely fully-functional and yet still ran on-time with moderately-friendly service at worst. Now, it's running 15 minutes late at times, kicking off my friend who was having a card issue and I even heard of one bus driver texting while at the wheel and the bus was in motion.
Please, bus drivers on lines slated to die, don't make this as hard on your passengers as I'm sure it must be for you. I understand that your job is on the line and nobody can tell you it's going to be okay. But please, if you have to die - at least die with your head held high. Remember to be kind to us, and we'll return the favor by trying to make your last days as comfortable as possible.
Trust me, we're going to miss you when you're gone.
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport Read more!
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Letter to RedEye: Micro-Racism
Technically this is about Wednesday's articles, but since I didn't get to complete a response, I finished it today. I dislike doing that, because it leads to very disjointed arguments if I'm not careful. My arguments one day differ greatly from my arguments the next day - after they've had time to stew and mutate from my radioactive brainwaves or something...
Anyway, the articles were about Micro-Racism, and are available online at:
The racist in all of us
Micro? What about the macro-racism?
Racism on campus
(As usual, it's all in italics, and anything they actually print I'll put in boldtype later in an update.)
Micro-Racism on Whose Part?
So I read all of the articles about micro-racism, and while some incidents were truly signs of racism (with little "micro" about them) - a lot of these things seem like the racism was only in the victim's mind. The white guy cutting in from of the black guy at a reception desk - is that really about race? Which is the more likely scenario: that a white guy cut in front of a black guy because he thinks so much less of black people or that they "don't matter" enough to wait, or that one person is a jerk and doesn't want to wait in lines with other people? This is just one example of "micro-racism" that I'm pretty sure is only racist on the victim's part for thinking that racism was a motivation for an incident. Why can't the question "Where were you born?" refer to a state or city in America? Why does it have to be implied that the questioner was asking about an Asian country of national origin just because the questionee happens to be of Asian descent?
When will people learn that stereotyping isn't always an "evil racist menace" - because it's just a common necessity for our human brains to work? To the brain, a stereotype is just a simplified collection of all your opinions for a specific subject based on experiences, hearsay and logic. It's okay to stereotype an elephant as large and gray with big ears, isn't it? Unless you've seen elephants that are NOT large or NOT grey or with SMALL ears, that's just how you're going to stereotype them. If you were beaten up by tall and muscled kids during school, you're likely to stereotype all tall and muscled people as potential threats. It's not because of anything personal against them or what they look like or who they are - it's just what you're used to and what you've experienced. If you really want to tackle negative stereotypes, you'd have to get people to stop doing those negative things the lead to the association.
Of course, any attempt to stop groups of people from doing the negative things they are associated with would almost certainly be seen as evil stereotyping or "racism".
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
Any thoughts from my readers? Am I wrong? Read more!
Anyway, the articles were about Micro-Racism, and are available online at:
The racist in all of us
Micro? What about the macro-racism?
Racism on campus
(As usual, it's all in italics, and anything they actually print I'll put in boldtype later in an update.)
Micro-Racism on Whose Part?
So I read all of the articles about micro-racism, and while some incidents were truly signs of racism (with little "micro" about them) - a lot of these things seem like the racism was only in the victim's mind. The white guy cutting in from of the black guy at a reception desk - is that really about race? Which is the more likely scenario: that a white guy cut in front of a black guy because he thinks so much less of black people or that they "don't matter" enough to wait, or that one person is a jerk and doesn't want to wait in lines with other people? This is just one example of "micro-racism" that I'm pretty sure is only racist on the victim's part for thinking that racism was a motivation for an incident. Why can't the question "Where were you born?" refer to a state or city in America? Why does it have to be implied that the questioner was asking about an Asian country of national origin just because the questionee happens to be of Asian descent?
When will people learn that stereotyping isn't always an "evil racist menace" - because it's just a common necessity for our human brains to work? To the brain, a stereotype is just a simplified collection of all your opinions for a specific subject based on experiences, hearsay and logic. It's okay to stereotype an elephant as large and gray with big ears, isn't it? Unless you've seen elephants that are NOT large or NOT grey or with SMALL ears, that's just how you're going to stereotype them. If you were beaten up by tall and muscled kids during school, you're likely to stereotype all tall and muscled people as potential threats. It's not because of anything personal against them or what they look like or who they are - it's just what you're used to and what you've experienced. If you really want to tackle negative stereotypes, you'd have to get people to stop doing those negative things the lead to the association.
Of course, any attempt to stop groups of people from doing the negative things they are associated with would almost certainly be seen as evil stereotyping or "racism".
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
Any thoughts from my readers? Am I wrong? Read more!
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Letter to RedEye: Smoking Ban
Still trying to get published again. I'll let you know if anything comes of this one.
(UPDATE: Got published! As usual, everything in bold is what they printed - you get to see the entire unedited version!)
I think that the smoking ban is a horrible idea. Banning the use of something that is approved for sale is a ridiculous notion, even if it's for the supposed "greater good" of preventing secondhand smoke. The product can be sold at any establishment and is regulated by the federal government, but with this ban anyone purchasing that product is like a pariah. That makes as much sense as saying, "Here is your cupcake - now go outside if you want to eat that because you're offending the other customers with your cupcake-eating. You're putting them all at risk of being killed by getting crushed by a fat person!"
While I'm not going to turn a deaf ear to all of the scientific research about secondhand smoke and its effects, my gut is telling me that most of the secondhand smoke damage is done either at home over a prolonged period of time, or working in a previously-smoke-friendly location - not having to be in the same area as a smoker during lunch a few times a week. My gut also tells me that I inhale more poisons into my body from crossing one traffic-filled street downtown than I would by spending an hour in the non-smoking section of a restaurant (even if the entire smoking section were filled with chain-smokers). And that's just one street-crossing. So unless the government plans on foolishly trying to remove all cars from the downtown area (oh wait, Alderman Burke proposed a downtown toll) or removing all the buses as well (oh wait, Doomsday in January's got that covered) - I'd prefer if lawmakers started focusing on real crimes and enforcing laws that keep real dangers from harming me. Stop taking away our liberties. Oh, and just for the record, I'm a non-smoker.
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport Read more!
(UPDATE: Got published! As usual, everything in bold is what they printed - you get to see the entire unedited version!)
I think that the smoking ban is a horrible idea. Banning the use of something that is approved for sale is a ridiculous notion, even if it's for the supposed "greater good" of preventing secondhand smoke. The product can be sold at any establishment and is regulated by the federal government, but with this ban anyone purchasing that product is like a pariah. That makes as much sense as saying, "Here is your cupcake - now go outside if you want to eat that because you're offending the other customers with your cupcake-eating. You're putting them all at risk of being killed by getting crushed by a fat person!"
While I'm not going to turn a deaf ear to all of the scientific research about secondhand smoke and its effects, my gut is telling me that most of the secondhand smoke damage is done either at home over a prolonged period of time, or working in a previously-smoke-friendly location - not having to be in the same area as a smoker during lunch a few times a week. My gut also tells me that I inhale more poisons into my body from crossing one traffic-filled street downtown than I would by spending an hour in the non-smoking section of a restaurant (even if the entire smoking section were filled with chain-smokers). And that's just one street-crossing. So unless the government plans on foolishly trying to remove all cars from the downtown area (oh wait, Alderman Burke proposed a downtown toll) or removing all the buses as well (oh wait, Doomsday in January's got that covered) - I'd prefer if lawmakers started focusing on real crimes and enforcing laws that keep real dangers from harming me. Stop taking away our liberties. Oh, and just for the record, I'm a non-smoker.
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport Read more!
Friday, November 30, 2007
Public Displays of Affection
Most of the time, I get my ideas for what to write about directly from the morning paper. My morning paper of choice is the Chicago RedEye, mostly because I live in Chicago and it's also free. The paper is pretty much just all of the popular stories from the Chicago Tribune (the RedEye's parent newspaper), and reading through everything but the sports and clubs/bars/annoying-music sections takes me about 10-15 minutes.
The focal story on the cover is about PDA (the kissing kind, not your damned PalmPilot kind) - and the sidebar invites readers to respond to: "Do you think PDA is OK? If so, what types are acceptable? And where?" So here are some of my thoughts on the subject.
I think that PDA is completely fine, in theory. I mean, call me a nerd, but I take the term at its completely-literal meaning. Public displays of affection are just that, basically "letting everyone know how you feel." Everyone seems to have decided that PDA only refers to one particular type of affection and a limited list of display options. I'll address the common denominator first.
You have love/lust for someone and don't want to hold back in public. Fine. I really don't care, and I think it's fine at pretty much all levels. From hand-holding to humping, whatever you want to do, you do it. As long as the recipient is willing, of course. I'm perfectly comfortable being on the same train as a man who's dry-humping a woman while he licks her face and also tenderly holds her hand - I'd just prefer it if she actually wanted these things done to/with her. My guidelines are that it's all good - but it's up to the PA-displayers to make sure that what they're doing doesn't violate any actual laws.
Frankly, the public indecency laws need to be abolished. We shouldn't be allowed to dictate what is "decent" and arrest those who don't follow the code. If that's truly acceptable, then I want Fergie to be deemed "indecent" due to her song "My Humps" and have her locked up for life, if not given the death penalty for corrupting the minds of preteen girls nationwide.
The last question asks where it's acceptable, and the answer is right there in front of your face. "In public." If it's being done in a location that is not public property, I find it wrong to consider it a "public display of affection." People can argue that the 'public' refers to "the general public being able to see it", but I see it as the guideline itself.
For example, a Walgreens is not a public place. It's open TO the public, but the business owner reserves the right to refuse service for whatever reason. You are a guest in that person's establishment - it is not public space wherein you can do whatever you want. The CTA, however, is a form of public transportation and I think that PDA is acceptable there.
So in conclusion, PDA is acceptable to me at any legal level in any public place. In the words of my newest role model Scott Adams, "But of course, there are obvious exceptions." One such exception is my parents. I am not comfortable with THEIR public displays of affection, in any venue or at any level. I'm also not very comfortable with PDAs made by anyone grotesque or ancient. Sorry, but if I'm barely comfortable looking at you, I'm certainly not going to feel comfortable looking at you while you're doing anything of that nature. Abe Vigoda could be tonguelocked with Heidi Klum - I'm still not going to find it pleasant. However, my comfort levels have nothing to do with things being OK or acceptable.
Lastly, I just want to touch upon the common misconception that all PDA involves this love/lust concept. Affection is based on "affect" and refers to ANY feeling or emotion. Crying on a park bench is a public display of affection. Screaming really loud when someone scares you in the park is a public display of affection. Even two screeching girls reminiscing on the street about how long it's been since they've had a martini-induced night of debauchery would constitute as a public display of affection.
Start limiting one, and you'd have to start limiting all of them.
Just remember - even though you should accept it, that doesn't mean you should always be comfortable with it. You just can't punish them because you aren't comfortable with it.
(The RedEye article online)
Read more!
The focal story on the cover is about PDA (the kissing kind, not your damned PalmPilot kind) - and the sidebar invites readers to respond to: "Do you think PDA is OK? If so, what types are acceptable? And where?" So here are some of my thoughts on the subject.
I think that PDA is completely fine, in theory. I mean, call me a nerd, but I take the term at its completely-literal meaning. Public displays of affection are just that, basically "letting everyone know how you feel." Everyone seems to have decided that PDA only refers to one particular type of affection and a limited list of display options. I'll address the common denominator first.
You have love/lust for someone and don't want to hold back in public. Fine. I really don't care, and I think it's fine at pretty much all levels. From hand-holding to humping, whatever you want to do, you do it. As long as the recipient is willing, of course. I'm perfectly comfortable being on the same train as a man who's dry-humping a woman while he licks her face and also tenderly holds her hand - I'd just prefer it if she actually wanted these things done to/with her. My guidelines are that it's all good - but it's up to the PA-displayers to make sure that what they're doing doesn't violate any actual laws.
Frankly, the public indecency laws need to be abolished. We shouldn't be allowed to dictate what is "decent" and arrest those who don't follow the code. If that's truly acceptable, then I want Fergie to be deemed "indecent" due to her song "My Humps" and have her locked up for life, if not given the death penalty for corrupting the minds of preteen girls nationwide.
The last question asks where it's acceptable, and the answer is right there in front of your face. "In public." If it's being done in a location that is not public property, I find it wrong to consider it a "public display of affection." People can argue that the 'public' refers to "the general public being able to see it", but I see it as the guideline itself.
For example, a Walgreens is not a public place. It's open TO the public, but the business owner reserves the right to refuse service for whatever reason. You are a guest in that person's establishment - it is not public space wherein you can do whatever you want. The CTA, however, is a form of public transportation and I think that PDA is acceptable there.
So in conclusion, PDA is acceptable to me at any legal level in any public place. In the words of my newest role model Scott Adams, "But of course, there are obvious exceptions." One such exception is my parents. I am not comfortable with THEIR public displays of affection, in any venue or at any level. I'm also not very comfortable with PDAs made by anyone grotesque or ancient. Sorry, but if I'm barely comfortable looking at you, I'm certainly not going to feel comfortable looking at you while you're doing anything of that nature. Abe Vigoda could be tonguelocked with Heidi Klum - I'm still not going to find it pleasant. However, my comfort levels have nothing to do with things being OK or acceptable.
Lastly, I just want to touch upon the common misconception that all PDA involves this love/lust concept. Affection is based on "affect" and refers to ANY feeling or emotion. Crying on a park bench is a public display of affection. Screaming really loud when someone scares you in the park is a public display of affection. Even two screeching girls reminiscing on the street about how long it's been since they've had a martini-induced night of debauchery would constitute as a public display of affection.
Start limiting one, and you'd have to start limiting all of them.
Just remember - even though you should accept it, that doesn't mean you should always be comfortable with it. You just can't punish them because you aren't comfortable with it.
(The RedEye article online)
Read more!
Monday, November 05, 2007
Letter to RedEye: Double Dose!
It's been a while since I wrote anything to the RedEye, and longer still since they've published anything I've sent. So this morning, after a large bit of network trouble here at the office, I managed to shoot them a double-dose of ranting. The first letter is in response to an article about the Boomerang Generation being the new wave - students returning home from college to mooch off their parents.
Boomerang Generation: New Ways to Fail
The whole notion of the Boomerang Generation is just another brick in the wall of coddling children separating them from the real world to which they should be properly contributing. I read in a study that humans are the most immature animals on the planet - in the sense that it takes our young nineteen years on average until they are able to contribute enough back to the society that has been supporting it through childhood. Think about that for a second - on average, it takes our children nineteen years until they can give back more to society than they are taking and become full-fledged adults.
And now we're letting them stay sheltered even more? Where is the outcry of older generations to put these whippersnappers in their place with stories of how far they'd advanced "by your age" and been married with a job and supporting two kids of their own and whatnot? "Five miles uphill both ways in the snow" and so forth! I'm all for the notion of letting children be children, but at some point, you have to cut the umbilical cord - and keep it cut. Maybe this isn't about children being a boomerang generation, but about parents not coping with their Empty Nest Syndrome.
My parents had the right idea, strangely enough. Two days after I moved to college, before I'd even finished unpacking my things, my parents threw out my bed back home. The message was clear: "The cord is cut. You're in the real world now." I love them for doing that, because I have my own place, my own job, my own bills and maybe someday my own family as well.
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
This second letter is in response to their article about how people really can't trust the CTA, who just got bailed out yet again, meaning no Doomsday Plan needs to be enacted until . . . oh, a few more weeks. And the Doomsday Scare will resume anew. So here's my response, which I've been thinking about for WEEKS.
Lack of Trust for the CTA
My problem with the CTA isn't about the constant whining for more financial support and then further whining upon receiving "not enough" financial support. My problem is about the lack of follow-through. Here's a random analogy that may or may not shed light on my concerns:
A pie shop sells apple pies. But they realize their apple stock is running low and they won't be getting any deliveries in for a while. Frantically, they start discussing pears. They invest money on methods to quickly obtain pears, debate over the price difference, research recipes for pear pies, perform taste tests and do market research to see if people can handle pear pies, advertising new pear pies due to lack of apples, and after an entire month of this nonsense - a truckload of apples comes in and apple piemaking resumes and nobody does anything about pears until a few weeks later when the apples are running low again.
I'd just like to know how much money went into purchasing ad space to warn people about the Doomsday plan, how much went into planning the Doomsday plan out in the first place, how much was spent on wages for people handing out fliers about Doomsday or putting up notices in stations and on buses instead of their regular jobs and how much was spent on all of the pamphlets and fliers and signs themselves. The worst part is that even though they got their money, that means all of the money spent warning about Doomsday was a waste because the plan was never used and the money just creates a further drain that speeds up the next Doomsday when it all repeats.
At some point, you just have to DEMAND that they have a little follow-through, so maybe they can finally fix the problem and stop wasting all this extra money in the meantime. I hate the thought of paying extra money, but I hate the thought of WASTING money a whole lot more.
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
Actually, I just got an e-mail back from Kyla at Going Public in response to my CTA letter!
Hi Aaron:
Good points, and spoken like someone with a true business mind. Good analogy. I will try and get this into reader letters, but we may have to trim a bit for space. Thanks so much, and have a great rest of the week!
Best,
Kyra
So it's not only shocking to get a reply TEN MINUTES after I sent these off, but such a positive one at that! I was flabbergasted to read "Good analogy." Seriously. I chuckled at the notion that I have a true business mind. Strange how everyone mistakes "common sense" for a "good business mind".
Well, if they print anything, I'll let you know (and make it bold here)! Read more!
Boomerang Generation: New Ways to Fail
The whole notion of the Boomerang Generation is just another brick in the wall of coddling children separating them from the real world to which they should be properly contributing. I read in a study that humans are the most immature animals on the planet - in the sense that it takes our young nineteen years on average until they are able to contribute enough back to the society that has been supporting it through childhood. Think about that for a second - on average, it takes our children nineteen years until they can give back more to society than they are taking and become full-fledged adults.
And now we're letting them stay sheltered even more? Where is the outcry of older generations to put these whippersnappers in their place with stories of how far they'd advanced "by your age" and been married with a job and supporting two kids of their own and whatnot? "Five miles uphill both ways in the snow" and so forth! I'm all for the notion of letting children be children, but at some point, you have to cut the umbilical cord - and keep it cut. Maybe this isn't about children being a boomerang generation, but about parents not coping with their Empty Nest Syndrome.
My parents had the right idea, strangely enough. Two days after I moved to college, before I'd even finished unpacking my things, my parents threw out my bed back home. The message was clear: "The cord is cut. You're in the real world now." I love them for doing that, because I have my own place, my own job, my own bills and maybe someday my own family as well.
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
This second letter is in response to their article about how people really can't trust the CTA, who just got bailed out yet again, meaning no Doomsday Plan needs to be enacted until . . . oh, a few more weeks. And the Doomsday Scare will resume anew. So here's my response, which I've been thinking about for WEEKS.
Lack of Trust for the CTA
My problem with the CTA isn't about the constant whining for more financial support and then further whining upon receiving "not enough" financial support. My problem is about the lack of follow-through. Here's a random analogy that may or may not shed light on my concerns:
A pie shop sells apple pies. But they realize their apple stock is running low and they won't be getting any deliveries in for a while. Frantically, they start discussing pears. They invest money on methods to quickly obtain pears, debate over the price difference, research recipes for pear pies, perform taste tests and do market research to see if people can handle pear pies, advertising new pear pies due to lack of apples, and after an entire month of this nonsense - a truckload of apples comes in and apple piemaking resumes and nobody does anything about pears until a few weeks later when the apples are running low again.
I'd just like to know how much money went into purchasing ad space to warn people about the Doomsday plan, how much went into planning the Doomsday plan out in the first place, how much was spent on wages for people handing out fliers about Doomsday or putting up notices in stations and on buses instead of their regular jobs and how much was spent on all of the pamphlets and fliers and signs themselves. The worst part is that even though they got their money, that means all of the money spent warning about Doomsday was a waste because the plan was never used and the money just creates a further drain that speeds up the next Doomsday when it all repeats.
At some point, you just have to DEMAND that they have a little follow-through, so maybe they can finally fix the problem and stop wasting all this extra money in the meantime. I hate the thought of paying extra money, but I hate the thought of WASTING money a whole lot more.
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
Actually, I just got an e-mail back from Kyla at Going Public in response to my CTA letter!
Hi Aaron:
Good points, and spoken like someone with a true business mind. Good analogy. I will try and get this into reader letters, but we may have to trim a bit for space. Thanks so much, and have a great rest of the week!
Best,
Kyra
So it's not only shocking to get a reply TEN MINUTES after I sent these off, but such a positive one at that! I was flabbergasted to read "Good analogy." Seriously. I chuckled at the notion that I have a true business mind. Strange how everyone mistakes "common sense" for a "good business mind".
Well, if they print anything, I'll let you know (and make it bold here)! Read more!
Friday, October 26, 2007
Letter to RedEye: Nas and the N-Word
It's been a while, so I decided to respond to one of today's RedEye's reader response boxes. The article was about some rapper named Nas who decided his next album's title was going to be "NIGGER". This has, obviously, turned heads and raised eyebrows and [verb]ed many [other body part]s. So the question was whether or not this was an acceptable move to make. After all, the rapper is just making a statement that just because the NAACP holds a ceremonial burial for a word, that doesn't mean it's dead. Not by a long shot. He sees it as empowering. Many kind of see it as nothing but hateful and/or stupid.
Here's my response:
Nas has every right to use that word as the title of his album. Words are just ways we convey ideas, and thankfully we can't control people's ideas the way that we seem to be attempting to control people's words. Sometimes I wonder what ever happened to this "Freedom of Speech" concept I learned about all throughout my education. You can't just banish or bury a word because you don't like the ideas it's conveying (whether or not it's conveying that exact idea you dislike). I still recall hearing that when they tried to banish one form of that word, people started replacing it with "ninja" instead. Are you going to banish that word and all its history and culture just because someone used it to possibly convey an idea of racism?
Frankly, I'm more upset over everyone hiding behind the term "N-word" instead of just saying it. Didn't Harry Potter just spend seven years of his fictional life trying to teach us that saying "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" only increased Voldemort's power over people? So why is it that nobody's allowed to use "That-Which-Must-Not-Be-Spelled", even if only to discuss it sensibly? We need to stop fighting the tool of lanugage and start fighting the real culprits - the ideas of racism and hatred that create the need for these words to be expressed. In the end though, I'd rather have people using words to express these ideas than actions.
Oh, and before you call me a hypocrite for saying "N-word" - I'm pretty sure this wouldn't get printed if I spelled it out just to make the point.
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
As always, I'll keep you all informed if it gets printed. I doubt it, but it's worth trying.
Besides, I just wanted to get something new printed with my age now as 24... Read more!
Here's my response:
Nas has every right to use that word as the title of his album. Words are just ways we convey ideas, and thankfully we can't control people's ideas the way that we seem to be attempting to control people's words. Sometimes I wonder what ever happened to this "Freedom of Speech" concept I learned about all throughout my education. You can't just banish or bury a word because you don't like the ideas it's conveying (whether or not it's conveying that exact idea you dislike). I still recall hearing that when they tried to banish one form of that word, people started replacing it with "ninja" instead. Are you going to banish that word and all its history and culture just because someone used it to possibly convey an idea of racism?
Frankly, I'm more upset over everyone hiding behind the term "N-word" instead of just saying it. Didn't Harry Potter just spend seven years of his fictional life trying to teach us that saying "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" only increased Voldemort's power over people? So why is it that nobody's allowed to use "That-Which-Must-Not-Be-Spelled", even if only to discuss it sensibly? We need to stop fighting the tool of lanugage and start fighting the real culprits - the ideas of racism and hatred that create the need for these words to be expressed. In the end though, I'd rather have people using words to express these ideas than actions.
Oh, and before you call me a hypocrite for saying "N-word" - I'm pretty sure this wouldn't get printed if I spelled it out just to make the point.
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
As always, I'll keep you all informed if it gets printed. I doubt it, but it's worth trying.
Besides, I just wanted to get something new printed with my age now as 24... Read more!
Friday, September 28, 2007
How can we stop racism?
Short answer: By not acting on our prejudices.
Long answer: We can't, because "racism" is comprised of two separate concepts and one of them can't be stopped, while the other one takes more self-control than most people are capable of conjuring. The two sides of racism (in my opinion, and in definition) are "having prejudices based on race" and "acting on those prejudices." The biggest problem with stopping racism is stopping the first half of it from happening, which we cannot do.
We all have prejudices. The word "prejudice" comes from "pre-judging" - which is supposed to deal with judging someone before it's proper, I think. There is no appropriate time to judge someone where you can jump the gun, except of course in a court of law with an actual judge and jury. You judge people when you want to, in whatever fashion, for whatever reasons - and we'll never be able to change the way the human mind works. I have read in several places that a woman has judged a man and knows if she will or won't have sex with him within the first [times range from two minutes to twenty-four hours] of meeting him. If that isn't clear evidence that we "pre-judge" and will never be able to stop it, I don't know what is.
What CAN be stopped is acting on these prejudices. The obvious acts we'd like to stop are violent crimes because of race. Which, I've found, are just normal violent crimes that are either exacerbated because of the prejudice of the enacter or exaggerated by observers transferring their own prejudice onto how they see the violent crime. In each incidence, you really have to ask, "Do we see this as racism because the black guy hit the white guy, or because of how we feel about either the black guy or the white guy?" I have to admit that I overhear a lot more chatter from black men about "the white man trying to keep the black man down" than I hear evidence of any white man actually trying to keep a black man down.
The only theoretical way I can see to "stop" racism is by having people set better examples. Every stereotype out there that causes us to pre-judge is based on elements of truth, hearsay and personal experiences. If some woman gets her purse stolen by a black person, she's likely to think less of them, be more afraid of them, and act accordingly. If a man watches a group of white men tip a waiter of their race poorly, he's likely to see white men in a more-negative light. The real problem is that nobody (especially the media) bothers to bring good examples to our attention. You never read in the paper about all the Asian drivers who drive exceptionally well - but you read one article about a stereotype that seems to prove true, and it just strengthens that prejudice in your mind.
So the only way to stop racism is to have everyone get along and play nicely with each other, so nobody will have a basis to form negative stereotypes or have reasons to act on any of them because they wouldn't have any. Of course, if everyone's getting alone and playing nicely with each other, we've already stopped racism. So I guess it's pretty much a Catch-22. Which if why I like my short answer better: not acting on our prejudices. And you know the best way to do that?
- Stop taking everything so personally.
- Learn to laugh at our differences. (We're all different - and if we can't laugh at our differences, we wind up doing less-positive things because of our differences and that's where the hating starts.)
- Remember that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. (You have the right to dislike and pre-judge and have bias. Everyone else has just as much right to do the same.)
- Obey the law. (That's why we have them - to objectively define what can and cannot be done, regardless of opinions. You can dislike someone based on race as much as you want, but you can't do anything ILLEGAL about it. Just be careful, because even if you have freedom of speech, if the things you say trigger the illegal assault and battery, you're going to be at fault.)
- Be yourself. (You can't be expected to be who you're not. Your opinions, your ideas - they're a part of you and you can't deny them. You can do whatever you want to try and change who you are and what your opinions and ideas are, but never be ashamed of who you are. Be free to be you.)
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(Sorry, just being myself!)
(The RedEye columnist who posed the question of "How can we stop racism?")
Read more!
Long answer: We can't, because "racism" is comprised of two separate concepts and one of them can't be stopped, while the other one takes more self-control than most people are capable of conjuring. The two sides of racism (in my opinion, and in definition) are "having prejudices based on race" and "acting on those prejudices." The biggest problem with stopping racism is stopping the first half of it from happening, which we cannot do.
We all have prejudices. The word "prejudice" comes from "pre-judging" - which is supposed to deal with judging someone before it's proper, I think. There is no appropriate time to judge someone where you can jump the gun, except of course in a court of law with an actual judge and jury. You judge people when you want to, in whatever fashion, for whatever reasons - and we'll never be able to change the way the human mind works. I have read in several places that a woman has judged a man and knows if she will or won't have sex with him within the first [times range from two minutes to twenty-four hours] of meeting him. If that isn't clear evidence that we "pre-judge" and will never be able to stop it, I don't know what is.
What CAN be stopped is acting on these prejudices. The obvious acts we'd like to stop are violent crimes because of race. Which, I've found, are just normal violent crimes that are either exacerbated because of the prejudice of the enacter or exaggerated by observers transferring their own prejudice onto how they see the violent crime. In each incidence, you really have to ask, "Do we see this as racism because the black guy hit the white guy, or because of how we feel about either the black guy or the white guy?" I have to admit that I overhear a lot more chatter from black men about "the white man trying to keep the black man down" than I hear evidence of any white man actually trying to keep a black man down.
The only theoretical way I can see to "stop" racism is by having people set better examples. Every stereotype out there that causes us to pre-judge is based on elements of truth, hearsay and personal experiences. If some woman gets her purse stolen by a black person, she's likely to think less of them, be more afraid of them, and act accordingly. If a man watches a group of white men tip a waiter of their race poorly, he's likely to see white men in a more-negative light. The real problem is that nobody (especially the media) bothers to bring good examples to our attention. You never read in the paper about all the Asian drivers who drive exceptionally well - but you read one article about a stereotype that seems to prove true, and it just strengthens that prejudice in your mind.
So the only way to stop racism is to have everyone get along and play nicely with each other, so nobody will have a basis to form negative stereotypes or have reasons to act on any of them because they wouldn't have any. Of course, if everyone's getting alone and playing nicely with each other, we've already stopped racism. So I guess it's pretty much a Catch-22. Which if why I like my short answer better: not acting on our prejudices. And you know the best way to do that?
- Stop taking everything so personally.
- Learn to laugh at our differences. (We're all different - and if we can't laugh at our differences, we wind up doing less-positive things because of our differences and that's where the hating starts.)
- Remember that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. (You have the right to dislike and pre-judge and have bias. Everyone else has just as much right to do the same.)
- Obey the law. (That's why we have them - to objectively define what can and cannot be done, regardless of opinions. You can dislike someone based on race as much as you want, but you can't do anything ILLEGAL about it. Just be careful, because even if you have freedom of speech, if the things you say trigger the illegal assault and battery, you're going to be at fault.)
- Be yourself. (You can't be expected to be who you're not. Your opinions, your ideas - they're a part of you and you can't deny them. You can do whatever you want to try and change who you are and what your opinions and ideas are, but never be ashamed of who you are. Be free to be you.)
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(Sorry, just being myself!)
(The RedEye columnist who posed the question of "How can we stop racism?")
Read more!
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Letter to RedEye: CTA Suggestions
Recently, the RedEye's Going Public column opened the floor to hear suggestions for the CTA so they could improve service and reliability and all the other things we want the CTA to provide because it doesn't.
I came up with a few ideas. Here's my letter. We'll see if any of it gets printed, since I didn't see that they did today.
Since the RedEye is calling for suggestions for the CTA, I can't resist drafting my own list of suggestions:
1) Bus tires.
I don't know what is wrong with the tires on every single bus I get on, but there seems to be a near-constant, squealing, screeching noise coming from the wheel areas. It almost sounds as if some of the wheels on my bus aren't going 'round and 'round - but are literally being dragged along the ground all the time. If this is the case, I'm sure it's affecting the gas mileage of the bus, and fixing this problem would lead to better gas efficiency, better speed and handling, and IT WOULD STOP THE SQUEALING NOISE!
2) "Approximately one minute."
I'm getting a little sick of the "Attention customers: an ___BOUND train, ___ the Loop, will be arriving in approximately one minute" messages. Okay, some stations just have an "arriving shortly" message, but the whole system is a moot point. By the time these messages are playing and being displayed, the train is IN SIGHT. I like the suggestion I read about replacing it with just a sign that flashes with the direction of the train (inbound/outbound) that would do the same thing, quicker and easier, but I'm taking it one step forward. If we have some ridiculous trigger or sensor that alerts the sign to scroll some text and play that dumb message, why can't we move it back farther, maybe to the previous station, and have a countdown of the minutes we'll be waiting for the next train? This would alleviate rubberneckers who lean INTO THE TRACK AREA to fight over catching the first glimpse of an incoming train - which always happens BEFORE any message plays. Just give us a countdown so people can just relax and wait, rather than endanger themselves because we never have a clue when a train is REALLY coming in this whole system until we actually SEE it.
3) Leaks and puddles.
Dear CTA: You know where the roof is leaking. You know it's causing puddles. Spend $5 and get a freaking TARP for the leak to divert the puddle AWAY from customers. The end.
4) Bus-bunching research.
Here's how you can PROBABLY solve the entire bus-bunching phenomenon for about $100 per bus route (though we all know I'm talking about the #8 Halsted, because if THAT could be fixed, anything could be fixed four times as easily). Buy twenty one-day passes. Give them to twenty college students who have nothing better to do than spend a day fixing the CTA. Tell their professors to give them extra credit if they're civil engineers or something. Have them board the bus route at one end, one per bus, so you've now got twenty researchers on twenty buses in a row, all with a watch, notepad and pen. Have them record the time as they get to each stop, and take notes on anything significant that's delaying the bus, whether it's unruly passengers, traffic accidents, or the bus is just going REALLY SLOWLY. When they get to the end of the route, have them get off and board going the opposite way, and repeat. In one day, you'll have enough data to plot the movement of the buses, make all kinds of graphs and charts, and I'm sure you'll have a thousand times more information about the bus-bunching phenomenon than you ever did before. All for a lousy $100. You're welcome!
5) Enforcing the rules.
At every level, from the CTA to the federal government, it winds up with the fact that we have too many laws and not enough enforcement. I read the entire debate over whether or not there are CTA rules about strollers on buses and trains, but where's the debate over actual-factual rules that simply aren't being enforced? We all love to argue over the cleanliness (or lack thereof) of the buses and trains, but when was the last time you saw anyone being fined or punished for eating/drinking on the CTA? The signs and loudspeakers make it clear that there IS a rule, but nobody enforces it. And the soliciting! My goodness, it's like I can't take one ride on a train without being harassed for change, asked to buy something that was probably stolen, or hit up for money by children and their fundraisers. No soliciting means NO SOLICITING! One of these days, I'm going to snap - grab the solicitor by the scruff of the neck, threaten to drag them off the train and to the nearest police officer or security person, and fine them to the full extent of the law. That is, of course, unless they pay me some hush money. The irony alone of hitting up solicitors for money as a threat is delicious enough to make it worth trying at least once.
6) More buses, more trains.
As long as they're all borderline-functional, why not drag out the rest of the monstrocities hiding in storage or CTA garages? If what they've got on display now is the cream of the crop, how far down could their B-team of vehicles really be? Get more trains and buses out there, especially during rush hour, and this will alleviate a huge portion of the crammed-full trains and all of the problems it brings to commuters. It does no good being in a seat if three stops later, every pathway is stuffed to capacity with people blocking any chance of exit, and you're literally SHOVING people out of the way because they don't understand that this is your stop and they CAN step out of the train momentarily to clear a path and then GET BACK ON! Between 4:45pm and 5:45pm, there should be a non-stop flow of trains rotating around the Loop. Believe me, even if the duration between trains were the two minutes for it to pull out, have the other line's train pull in and pull out, then have the next train pull in - by the time they left the Loop, they would be 3/4 full. And 3/4 full allows for room to wiggle your way out of the train with few problems, unlike sardine-stuffed trains.
These are just a sampling of the numerous suggestions one could make on improving the CTA. Feel free to print any/all of them - the faster they can reach Ron Huberman, the better!
Aaron Samuels, 23, Bridgeport
Like I said, I submitted this yesterday, and nothing in today's paper. Maybe tomorrow. We'll have to wait and see, but I thought I'd at least throw it out there for you readers, just in case.
Read more!
I came up with a few ideas. Here's my letter. We'll see if any of it gets printed, since I didn't see that they did today.
Since the RedEye is calling for suggestions for the CTA, I can't resist drafting my own list of suggestions:
1) Bus tires.
I don't know what is wrong with the tires on every single bus I get on, but there seems to be a near-constant, squealing, screeching noise coming from the wheel areas. It almost sounds as if some of the wheels on my bus aren't going 'round and 'round - but are literally being dragged along the ground all the time. If this is the case, I'm sure it's affecting the gas mileage of the bus, and fixing this problem would lead to better gas efficiency, better speed and handling, and IT WOULD STOP THE SQUEALING NOISE!
2) "Approximately one minute."
I'm getting a little sick of the "Attention customers: an ___BOUND train, ___ the Loop, will be arriving in approximately one minute" messages. Okay, some stations just have an "arriving shortly" message, but the whole system is a moot point. By the time these messages are playing and being displayed, the train is IN SIGHT. I like the suggestion I read about replacing it with just a sign that flashes with the direction of the train (inbound/outbound) that would do the same thing, quicker and easier, but I'm taking it one step forward. If we have some ridiculous trigger or sensor that alerts the sign to scroll some text and play that dumb message, why can't we move it back farther, maybe to the previous station, and have a countdown of the minutes we'll be waiting for the next train? This would alleviate rubberneckers who lean INTO THE TRACK AREA to fight over catching the first glimpse of an incoming train - which always happens BEFORE any message plays. Just give us a countdown so people can just relax and wait, rather than endanger themselves because we never have a clue when a train is REALLY coming in this whole system until we actually SEE it.
3) Leaks and puddles.
Dear CTA: You know where the roof is leaking. You know it's causing puddles. Spend $5 and get a freaking TARP for the leak to divert the puddle AWAY from customers. The end.
4) Bus-bunching research.
Here's how you can PROBABLY solve the entire bus-bunching phenomenon for about $100 per bus route (though we all know I'm talking about the #8 Halsted, because if THAT could be fixed, anything could be fixed four times as easily). Buy twenty one-day passes. Give them to twenty college students who have nothing better to do than spend a day fixing the CTA. Tell their professors to give them extra credit if they're civil engineers or something. Have them board the bus route at one end, one per bus, so you've now got twenty researchers on twenty buses in a row, all with a watch, notepad and pen. Have them record the time as they get to each stop, and take notes on anything significant that's delaying the bus, whether it's unruly passengers, traffic accidents, or the bus is just going REALLY SLOWLY. When they get to the end of the route, have them get off and board going the opposite way, and repeat. In one day, you'll have enough data to plot the movement of the buses, make all kinds of graphs and charts, and I'm sure you'll have a thousand times more information about the bus-bunching phenomenon than you ever did before. All for a lousy $100. You're welcome!
5) Enforcing the rules.
At every level, from the CTA to the federal government, it winds up with the fact that we have too many laws and not enough enforcement. I read the entire debate over whether or not there are CTA rules about strollers on buses and trains, but where's the debate over actual-factual rules that simply aren't being enforced? We all love to argue over the cleanliness (or lack thereof) of the buses and trains, but when was the last time you saw anyone being fined or punished for eating/drinking on the CTA? The signs and loudspeakers make it clear that there IS a rule, but nobody enforces it. And the soliciting! My goodness, it's like I can't take one ride on a train without being harassed for change, asked to buy something that was probably stolen, or hit up for money by children and their fundraisers. No soliciting means NO SOLICITING! One of these days, I'm going to snap - grab the solicitor by the scruff of the neck, threaten to drag them off the train and to the nearest police officer or security person, and fine them to the full extent of the law. That is, of course, unless they pay me some hush money. The irony alone of hitting up solicitors for money as a threat is delicious enough to make it worth trying at least once.
6) More buses, more trains.
As long as they're all borderline-functional, why not drag out the rest of the monstrocities hiding in storage or CTA garages? If what they've got on display now is the cream of the crop, how far down could their B-team of vehicles really be? Get more trains and buses out there, especially during rush hour, and this will alleviate a huge portion of the crammed-full trains and all of the problems it brings to commuters. It does no good being in a seat if three stops later, every pathway is stuffed to capacity with people blocking any chance of exit, and you're literally SHOVING people out of the way because they don't understand that this is your stop and they CAN step out of the train momentarily to clear a path and then GET BACK ON! Between 4:45pm and 5:45pm, there should be a non-stop flow of trains rotating around the Loop. Believe me, even if the duration between trains were the two minutes for it to pull out, have the other line's train pull in and pull out, then have the next train pull in - by the time they left the Loop, they would be 3/4 full. And 3/4 full allows for room to wiggle your way out of the train with few problems, unlike sardine-stuffed trains.
These are just a sampling of the numerous suggestions one could make on improving the CTA. Feel free to print any/all of them - the faster they can reach Ron Huberman, the better!
Aaron Samuels, 23, Bridgeport
Like I said, I submitted this yesterday, and nothing in today's paper. Maybe tomorrow. We'll have to wait and see, but I thought I'd at least throw it out there for you readers, just in case.
Read more!
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Letter to RedEye: Gay Marriage
Well, another letter in to the RedEye. This one, I'm kind of hoping DOESN'T get published, because my friends read it - and most of them are gay. So if you hadn't guessed, this is a "gay marriage" thing. Which, frankly, means that my opinion doesn't really matter at all. I'm not gay. I'm not even married. I can't even manage to land a girlfriend - so I really have no say in what's right or wrong about gay marriage in the first place.
So of course, when the Boy on Boystown guy opens the floor to gay marriage debate - I jump at the chance to make a fool of myself. It's the problem with being a realist. "Should" just isn't a huge part of the process - because what matters most to me is what "is" and what "will" be rather than what "should" be. SHOULD gay marriage be accepted? Probably. WILL it? Probably not - at least not for a while yet. I'm in favor of it, really I am. But you know what scares me the most about gay marriage?
The inevitability of Gay Divorce Court on TV.
Anyway, here's the letter I sent:
Whenever I'm faced with the actual question of whether gay people should be allowed to get married, I have to quote Kinky Freidman by saying, "I support gay marriage because I believe they have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us." In all seriousness, I do believe that homosexuals should be allowed to get married - same as the rest of us.
However, the real question isn't one of SHOULD it be allowed, but WILL it be allowed - and I have to say that I doubt it will be happening anytime soon, no matter how many "should"s you throw at it. The fact is that marriage is, as was pointed out, a government institution (despite its pseudo-religious history). Which means that government gets to decide, and it's been made evident in many ways that the government (which is made of elected officials who REPRESENT the country) is not ready to accept homosexuals at a level that allows for them to officially marry. Maybe once there are a decent number of elected homosexual representatives in the government (openly homosexual BEFORE election), gay people will be able to have a better chance of beneficial legislation.
My question back to you is why aren't homosexuals trying to make lemonade out of the lemons that they've been handed? If marriage is exclusive to opposite-sex couples, and civil unions are exclusive to same-sex couples, why is it that the fight is to ignore civil unions and rally for marriage instead of rallying to get benefits and government legislation attached to civil unions? If the only reason for wanting marriage instead of civil unions is the various governmental benefits in the marriage package, why not fight harder to get pieces of that benefit package added to civil unions (if not the whole thing in time)? Why not even go for DIFFERENT benefits or MORE benefits? I think that the civil union is only a weak/unacceptable version of marriage because few are fighting to make it any better. In many countries, civil unions have benefits similar to marriage (and a few have equal benefits) - so why does it seem like here in the USA there would still be a homosexual uprising if civil unions provided the EXACT SAME benefits as marriage but had a different name because of the difference in gender-combinations?
Rally the troops to buff up civil unions and leave marriage alone. Besides, if you follow the news you'd see that when it all comes down to it, gays already have the right to get married. They just aren't able to marry each other yet.
Aaron Samuels, 23, Bridgeport
I'm sure there'll be a flood of comments on how wrong I am or how wrong my logic is. It really doesn't matter to me - like I said, my opinion doesn't matter in the long run. I'm not gay, and I'm not getting married anytime soon.
But let's face the facts - how can gays expect to be given equal rights from the legislative branch when the truth is that the POSSIBILITY of a representative being gay coincides with being asked to step down and resign. You've seen it in the news - and while people are supposedly more against him for the criminal nature of his sexual transgression, the fact that it was of the homosexual persuasion is what's raising all of the eyebrows and shaking fists... If a senator has to protect his career by announcing (denial or not) that he is NOT GAY - what chance do gay people REALLY have at this point to be taken seriously or as full equals in every sense of the word?
No, that's not how it SHOULD be. It SHOULD be different. But this is what it IS and HAS BEEN. Maybe in the future, things WILL be different...
Read more!
So of course, when the Boy on Boystown guy opens the floor to gay marriage debate - I jump at the chance to make a fool of myself. It's the problem with being a realist. "Should" just isn't a huge part of the process - because what matters most to me is what "is" and what "will" be rather than what "should" be. SHOULD gay marriage be accepted? Probably. WILL it? Probably not - at least not for a while yet. I'm in favor of it, really I am. But you know what scares me the most about gay marriage?
The inevitability of Gay Divorce Court on TV.
Anyway, here's the letter I sent:
Whenever I'm faced with the actual question of whether gay people should be allowed to get married, I have to quote Kinky Freidman by saying, "I support gay marriage because I believe they have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us." In all seriousness, I do believe that homosexuals should be allowed to get married - same as the rest of us.
However, the real question isn't one of SHOULD it be allowed, but WILL it be allowed - and I have to say that I doubt it will be happening anytime soon, no matter how many "should"s you throw at it. The fact is that marriage is, as was pointed out, a government institution (despite its pseudo-religious history). Which means that government gets to decide, and it's been made evident in many ways that the government (which is made of elected officials who REPRESENT the country) is not ready to accept homosexuals at a level that allows for them to officially marry. Maybe once there are a decent number of elected homosexual representatives in the government (openly homosexual BEFORE election), gay people will be able to have a better chance of beneficial legislation.
My question back to you is why aren't homosexuals trying to make lemonade out of the lemons that they've been handed? If marriage is exclusive to opposite-sex couples, and civil unions are exclusive to same-sex couples, why is it that the fight is to ignore civil unions and rally for marriage instead of rallying to get benefits and government legislation attached to civil unions? If the only reason for wanting marriage instead of civil unions is the various governmental benefits in the marriage package, why not fight harder to get pieces of that benefit package added to civil unions (if not the whole thing in time)? Why not even go for DIFFERENT benefits or MORE benefits? I think that the civil union is only a weak/unacceptable version of marriage because few are fighting to make it any better. In many countries, civil unions have benefits similar to marriage (and a few have equal benefits) - so why does it seem like here in the USA there would still be a homosexual uprising if civil unions provided the EXACT SAME benefits as marriage but had a different name because of the difference in gender-combinations?
Rally the troops to buff up civil unions and leave marriage alone. Besides, if you follow the news you'd see that when it all comes down to it, gays already have the right to get married. They just aren't able to marry each other yet.
Aaron Samuels, 23, Bridgeport
I'm sure there'll be a flood of comments on how wrong I am or how wrong my logic is. It really doesn't matter to me - like I said, my opinion doesn't matter in the long run. I'm not gay, and I'm not getting married anytime soon.
But let's face the facts - how can gays expect to be given equal rights from the legislative branch when the truth is that the POSSIBILITY of a representative being gay coincides with being asked to step down and resign. You've seen it in the news - and while people are supposedly more against him for the criminal nature of his sexual transgression, the fact that it was of the homosexual persuasion is what's raising all of the eyebrows and shaking fists... If a senator has to protect his career by announcing (denial or not) that he is NOT GAY - what chance do gay people REALLY have at this point to be taken seriously or as full equals in every sense of the word?
No, that's not how it SHOULD be. It SHOULD be different. But this is what it IS and HAS BEEN. Maybe in the future, things WILL be different...
Read more!
Monday, August 27, 2007
Why Isn't This Mandated??
I was just idly reading my RedEye this morning (okay, not "idly" as much as "looking for something to rant about") and a tiny blurb caught my eye. Buried deep in the Chicago news section was one paragraph that reads the following:
"Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Friday signed a new Illinois law requiring first-time drunk driving offenders to install breath test devices in their vehicles and pass the test every time they try to start their engines. If the driver's breath exceeds the alcohol limit, the alcohol ignition interlock device - which costs about $150 to install, plus monthly fees - ensures the car won't start."
Why isn't this mandated already? Why isn't this a standard??
Forgive me from taking a turn away from my usual "keep the guv'ment out of mah business" type of rants, but this is about safety and about being realistic. We're already stuck in a crappy society with a government that actually tickets people for not wearing a seatbelt and can arrest you for driving without insurance.
Got that? Make you pay money for not protecting YOURSELF and arrest you for not being FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE and CAUTIOUS.
So why are they letting people drive around without protecting OTHER PEOPLE and stopping drunk drivers before they even begin the driving part of the equation?? Now I don't own a car, and I've never bought a car, but if they threw in a mandatory $150 extra when you bought your car, new or used (if the used car didn't have it already) to install this breathalyzer device - would it really be that noticable? I mean you're already paying thousands of dollars, and likely the car dealer's going to be screwing you out of a lot more with "add-ons" anyway, right? Call it a "car tax" if you will, since the government should be making it mandatory for cars to have it and undoubtedly it's the buyer who foots the bill.
And as for the "plus monthly fees"? Again, not a car owner, but I reckon most car owners wind up paying a pretty penny on upkeep for their vehicle every month anyway, if not every other month or so. Between the already-stupid mandatory insurance, vehicle repairs, and that ever-rising price of gasoline - is an extra monthly fee really that noticable? Besides, if you tacked it onto your insurance plan, it'd benefit in the long run. Fees could go down for good drivers, get raised for those who still manage to mess things up. Just like your normal insurance plan screws you over, you know?
Think about the end results, though! No more drunk drivers! (Okay, well, a severe decrease in drunk drivers!!)
It's true - you'll never get rid of drunk drivers. After all, who's to say what goes down after the car's been started? Wouldn't be the first time someone was drinking while AT the wheel - won't be the last. I'm sure plenty of sober idiots would be blowing into their friends' breathalyzers as payment for a ride home or something. And luckily, DNA evidence would prove who was driving wasn't the person who blew into the device last, and more people could be arrested for "enabling" the drunken driving dilemma.
I won't say it's the best idea I've had - or the most practical to put into effect - but at least it's an idea. It's an idea that has some potential. Maybe in the hands of some other sane and rational people (not government officials, I need some RATIONAL thinkers here) it could become a feasible idea, and a practical one. Maybe then it could be passed to the legislators to hem and haw over until someone shows them Red Asphalt and they all cry, "Yes! Make this a law so there's no more Red Asphalt!!"
After all, that's how it worked with the whole "foie gras debacle". Let's get to brainstorming and make this happen. Then maybe we can get to work on abolishing the pointless seatbelt laws...
Read more!
"Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Friday signed a new Illinois law requiring first-time drunk driving offenders to install breath test devices in their vehicles and pass the test every time they try to start their engines. If the driver's breath exceeds the alcohol limit, the alcohol ignition interlock device - which costs about $150 to install, plus monthly fees - ensures the car won't start."
Why isn't this mandated already? Why isn't this a standard??
Forgive me from taking a turn away from my usual "keep the guv'ment out of mah business" type of rants, but this is about safety and about being realistic. We're already stuck in a crappy society with a government that actually tickets people for not wearing a seatbelt and can arrest you for driving without insurance.
Got that? Make you pay money for not protecting YOURSELF and arrest you for not being FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE and CAUTIOUS.
So why are they letting people drive around without protecting OTHER PEOPLE and stopping drunk drivers before they even begin the driving part of the equation?? Now I don't own a car, and I've never bought a car, but if they threw in a mandatory $150 extra when you bought your car, new or used (if the used car didn't have it already) to install this breathalyzer device - would it really be that noticable? I mean you're already paying thousands of dollars, and likely the car dealer's going to be screwing you out of a lot more with "add-ons" anyway, right? Call it a "car tax" if you will, since the government should be making it mandatory for cars to have it and undoubtedly it's the buyer who foots the bill.
And as for the "plus monthly fees"? Again, not a car owner, but I reckon most car owners wind up paying a pretty penny on upkeep for their vehicle every month anyway, if not every other month or so. Between the already-stupid mandatory insurance, vehicle repairs, and that ever-rising price of gasoline - is an extra monthly fee really that noticable? Besides, if you tacked it onto your insurance plan, it'd benefit in the long run. Fees could go down for good drivers, get raised for those who still manage to mess things up. Just like your normal insurance plan screws you over, you know?
Think about the end results, though! No more drunk drivers! (Okay, well, a severe decrease in drunk drivers!!)
It's true - you'll never get rid of drunk drivers. After all, who's to say what goes down after the car's been started? Wouldn't be the first time someone was drinking while AT the wheel - won't be the last. I'm sure plenty of sober idiots would be blowing into their friends' breathalyzers as payment for a ride home or something. And luckily, DNA evidence would prove who was driving wasn't the person who blew into the device last, and more people could be arrested for "enabling" the drunken driving dilemma.
I won't say it's the best idea I've had - or the most practical to put into effect - but at least it's an idea. It's an idea that has some potential. Maybe in the hands of some other sane and rational people (not government officials, I need some RATIONAL thinkers here) it could become a feasible idea, and a practical one. Maybe then it could be passed to the legislators to hem and haw over until someone shows them Red Asphalt and they all cry, "Yes! Make this a law so there's no more Red Asphalt!!"
After all, that's how it worked with the whole "foie gras debacle". Let's get to brainstorming and make this happen. Then maybe we can get to work on abolishing the pointless seatbelt laws...
Read more!
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Letter to RedEye: Political Book-Reading
I think I'm going to start entering my reader-response letters that I send to the CTA here on my BlogSpot, since only 1 in 4 at best actually get printed in the paper. That number will probably drop thanks to the fact that I'm writing more often, due to increased boredom while in possession of the RedEye in the mornings.
Here's one I sent yesterday, in response to their call for comments about an article saying that liberals read more books than conservatives. There was some kind of poll done (which I'm sure was done haphazardly with either poor sampling or poor logic in general, judging by the results and how they're being generalized) and the end results show liberals reading more books than conservatives. So here's my response:
(UPDATE! They printed! Grab a copy of your Friday RedEye if you're in Chicago and see my response in the Powerpoints section! I have bolded the parts they printed.)
A poll showing that liberals read more books than conservatives doesn't mean very much to me. When you think about it statistically, wouldn't you have to take into account the fact that there are a lot more books being written by liberals or with liberal points of view than on the conservative side? I'd like to think that the difference between liberals and conservatives would be about the same between books available to read and the readers themselves. After all, it seems doubtful that one would pick up a book geared towards the other.
Either way, it really shouldn't matter about which political party reads more books or worrying that readership among the parties is low - it should be about making sure that CHILDREN are reading. They're the ones who need to be given access to ALL ideas, left or right, so they can learn to think for themselves and in turn become upstanding citizens and members of whatever political party they see fit. We need more Harry Potters turning kids on to reading and less books that result in older stubborn people turning against each other in a "who's more well-read than whom" spitting contest.
Aaron Samuels, 23, Bridgeport
(I sincerely hope that my response doesn't trigger a score of "President He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" jokes.)
Your thoughts? Your opinions? I know that liberals love to make more-learnéd-than-thou remarks about certain "dumb Republicans" - but doesn't MY argument make sense? Read more!
Here's one I sent yesterday, in response to their call for comments about an article saying that liberals read more books than conservatives. There was some kind of poll done (which I'm sure was done haphazardly with either poor sampling or poor logic in general, judging by the results and how they're being generalized) and the end results show liberals reading more books than conservatives. So here's my response:
(UPDATE! They printed! Grab a copy of your Friday RedEye if you're in Chicago and see my response in the Powerpoints section! I have bolded the parts they printed.)
A poll showing that liberals read more books than conservatives doesn't mean very much to me. When you think about it statistically, wouldn't you have to take into account the fact that there are a lot more books being written by liberals or with liberal points of view than on the conservative side? I'd like to think that the difference between liberals and conservatives would be about the same between books available to read and the readers themselves. After all, it seems doubtful that one would pick up a book geared towards the other.
Either way, it really shouldn't matter about which political party reads more books or worrying that readership among the parties is low - it should be about making sure that CHILDREN are reading. They're the ones who need to be given access to ALL ideas, left or right, so they can learn to think for themselves and in turn become upstanding citizens and members of whatever political party they see fit. We need more Harry Potters turning kids on to reading and less books that result in older stubborn people turning against each other in a "who's more well-read than whom" spitting contest.
Aaron Samuels, 23, Bridgeport
(I sincerely hope that my response doesn't trigger a score of "President He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" jokes.)
Your thoughts? Your opinions? I know that liberals love to make more-learnéd-than-thou remarks about certain "dumb Republicans" - but doesn't MY argument make sense? Read more!
Monday, August 20, 2007
Another Letter to the RedEye
I'm doubtful they'll be printing any of this, especially since they just printed something of mine last week and they're not all that keen on conservative viewpoints. (Thanks a lot, Northsiders...) So I figured I'd post it here instead, although it's nothing new from what I've already posted about the immigration debate and the Elvira Arellano debacle. I'll be sure to update if they actually print any of it.
RedEye: How do you think Elvira Arellano's arrest will affect the debate on immigration?
Hopefully Elvira Arellano's arrest will remind the populous that illegal immigration is illegal. I know, it sounds so easy and logical, but apparently there are too many people out there in our country who keep forgetting that simple fact. It's illegal to enter the United States without proper legal documentation. It's also illegal to steal a social security number in order to build an ill-gotten life here, like Arellano did once before.
What saddens me the most about this incident is that the federal agents didn't just enter the church and arrest her back on August 15th of 2006. Instead, they succumbed to the notion of "sanctuary" - which does NOT protect you from a federal agent who's come to deport you. The fact that they backed off and let this continue for an entire year just opened the door for other illegals to pull the same tactic - a tactic that the ICE is supposed to ignore and get the job done, no matter what.
With hope, this will empower the ICE to get back to taking action. Yelling "sanctuary" from inside a church should simply act as a beacon to get federal agents right over to that church and arrest the criminals hiding within, proving that not only is there nowhere to run but also that there is nowhere to hide now.
Yes, arrest the criminals. After all, illegal immigration is illegal. And if you do something illegal, that makes you a criminal. Because you broke the law. It's that simple. Now we just have to keep enforcing that.
Aaron Samuels, 23, Bridgeport
We'll see what happens.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
Read more!
RedEye: How do you think Elvira Arellano's arrest will affect the debate on immigration?
Hopefully Elvira Arellano's arrest will remind the populous that illegal immigration is illegal. I know, it sounds so easy and logical, but apparently there are too many people out there in our country who keep forgetting that simple fact. It's illegal to enter the United States without proper legal documentation. It's also illegal to steal a social security number in order to build an ill-gotten life here, like Arellano did once before.
What saddens me the most about this incident is that the federal agents didn't just enter the church and arrest her back on August 15th of 2006. Instead, they succumbed to the notion of "sanctuary" - which does NOT protect you from a federal agent who's come to deport you. The fact that they backed off and let this continue for an entire year just opened the door for other illegals to pull the same tactic - a tactic that the ICE is supposed to ignore and get the job done, no matter what.
With hope, this will empower the ICE to get back to taking action. Yelling "sanctuary" from inside a church should simply act as a beacon to get federal agents right over to that church and arrest the criminals hiding within, proving that not only is there nowhere to run but also that there is nowhere to hide now.
Yes, arrest the criminals. After all, illegal immigration is illegal. And if you do something illegal, that makes you a criminal. Because you broke the law. It's that simple. Now we just have to keep enforcing that.
Aaron Samuels, 23, Bridgeport
We'll see what happens.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
