Merriment

The term "Merry" is rather archaic.

Every Christmas season we say "Merry Christmas" without really thinking about what "Merry" really means.  It is more of an 19th Century word, back when people, when they were happy, were deemed "Merry and Gay" - which has sort of taken on a different meaning today.

People don't say "Merry" anymore.  Two young stoners, for example, won't say something like, "Dude, I scored a bag of kush, come on over and let's get merry!" to which the other might reply, "I invited some babes over and there will be merriment for sure!"

Perhaps it is the attachment to "Christmas" that has removed "Merry" from our common vocabulary  Other than "Eat, Drink, and Be Merry!" the adjective seems to have attached to "Christmas" like Velcro® and fallen from common usage.

Most folks don't say "Happy Christmas" other than the British.   For some reason, Christmas should be Merry and not Happy.   Happy sounds too casual, like laughing at a joke, and Merry sounds more solemn, I guess.

But shouldn't Christmas be a solemn celebration of OurLordAndSavior® Jesus Christ's birth?  I mean, this is a major religious holiday.  It shouldn't be Merry, it should be stone cold.  The Muslims don't fall for this "Merry" nonsense - their religious holidays are serious - you have to starve yourself!

We never say "Merry Easter" of course, but "Happy Easter" which seems even less solemn.  Go watch The Passion of the Christ and then say "Happy Easter" to someone.  It is a holiday where we celebrate the torture and crucifixion of one person in the Middle East, 2000 years ago.  Sadly, it seems the folks in the Middle East are still into this kind of thing.

"Gay" is another happy-word that has fallen from favor.  We used to say someone was "Happy and Gay" back in 1910 and mean they were a jolly fellow (Jolly being another word that has fallen from the lexicon and seems to be associated only with Santa).

Today, it seems, we have fewer adjectives for "Happy" other than "Happy", "Very Happy", "Very, Very, Happy", and "Orgasmic."   People are no longer Merry, Jolly, or Gay.  And don't get me started on Blithe.  Or Convivial for that matter.

Could it be that our vocabulary is shrinking?   It seems a possibility in this day and age of texting and multiculturalism.   For people who are speaking English as a second language, the nuances of the various stages of "Happy" seem unimportant.   You have "Happy" and then the multiplicative modifier of "Very".

Maybe we can go to the metric system and rationalize this.   There is Happy (1x) and then Very Happy (Happy 2x) or if you are orgasmic, maybe 10K Happy.  Merry would fall along the lines of 5x Happy + 1x Solemn.  If we could quantify this, we could eliminate all those messy adjectives.

"Distrust adjectives" as Hemingway used to say.  Maybe he started all of this.

 It is interesting how the usage of "Merry" has declined over the years, until Fox News declared "War On Christmas."  Click to enlarge.

Merry Fucking Christmas!

Everyone has their own Christmas traditions....

If you've read this blog, you realize, I am not a big fan of "holidays" only because we are sold this idea that during something called a "holiday" we all have to line up, like lemmings and do the same thing at the same time, preferably at the highest cost possible.

And most people do this and are miserable.   They feel obligated by society to do certain things that they really don't want to do.  They go to visit relatives they hate and have a miserable time.  They spend hours in crowded airports paying top-dollar to fly at the busiest time of year when weather is most likely to cancel your flight.  And then they run around trying to buy the same thing everyone else is trying to buy.  It really makes no sense in the abstract.

And it really doesn't have much to do with Jesus, if you get right down to it.

And then there is the matter of repetition.   Only Teletubbies say "Again! Again!" and want to do the same thing over and over again 50-100 times in a row.   After more than 50 Christmases, well, the thrill is more than gone.   Decorating the Christmas tree - kind of boring after age 10.   Kind of gaudy from all ages.   As I noted in an earlier posting, if someone wants to describe something gaudy and ugly, what do they compare it to?  Yea, the phrases "lit up like a Christmas tree" or "looking like a Christmas tree" comes to mind.   Yet we set these up in our homes every year.   It's as American (and gaudy) as Elvis.

This is not to say I am anti-Christmas or bah-humbug.  Only that we need to put this "holiday" in perspective.   No, it is not the most wonderful time of the year - that would be in the Spring, I would think.   In fact, that song illustrates why we have a winter solstice celebration.  It's dark as fuck out, and people are depressed as shit.  So we have this over-the-top holiday to cheer us up. And maybe that's not a bad thing.

But it can be whatever you want to make it, too.   You are not obligated to any or all of it.  You can create your own traditions.   You can just take the day off and get caught up on your laundry.   Whatever.

And no, you don't have to have the perfect Christmas.   And in fact, trying to do so, is just going to cause no end of grief.

So, Merry Fucking Christmas to you.  And yours.  And a Happy New Year.   Time to get started on those taxes.....

Smart Phones and Sex Addiction

One reason I hate smart phones is that they turn their users into blithering idiots.

Every great invention has its drawbacks.   The automobile revolutionized transportation in this country.  It also causes tens of thousands of traffic deaths every year, pollutes the atmosphere, and consumes an inordinate amount of our incomes.  With every great advance, come great drawbacks as well.

And sadly, like the automobile, smart phones are becoming indispensable in everyday living in America.   Today, many young people are not only cutting the cord of their cable television, but also their high-speed internet connection.  For folks who don't work and live on the Internet, communication via smart phone is their sole source of interacting with the world - replacing the telephone land line, the high-speed internet connection, and cable television.  

As cell phone data speeds have improved, may young folks are gaming on their phones, watching videos on their phones, texting, accessing the Internet, e-mail, or whatever - all on their phones.  The only thing they are not doing is talking on them.   And since a smart phone can be used as a WiFi hotspot, you can even log into your e-mail from your laptop, using your smart phone as an internet portal.

And as smart phone penetration approaches 100%, more and more businesses are interacting with customers via smart phone.  It is getting to the point where not having a smart phone is like not having  car -  it can be a royal inconvenience.  Every bank or credit card company wants to text you with fraud warnings or balance updates.   Financial apps can help you balance your checkbook or credit card account.   Concert tickets and even airline tickets are now virtual apps on your phone.  The boarding pass on paper is becoming a thing of the past.

And the "electronic wallet" - an idea I've seen patents on since the 1990's - is finally starting to appear.   Carrying around credit cards and even a driver's license in physical form may be obsolete in 5-10 years at most.   It is getting to the point where you have to have one of these devices, and I detest being told I have to buy something I don't really want.

I have resisted buying a smartphone for years now, for a number of reasons.  First is the cost.  For about the price of a nice desktop computer or a laptop - or even two used laptops - you can buy a smart phone.   They are not cheap, to be sure, although there are some "low end" models out there if you look around.

Second is the whole status thing.  While looking at smartphones online, I was struck by how so many of these devices were sold on status - exclusivity or appearance.  The iPhone is the original "electronic jewelry" of course, but its cache as exclusive is rapidly evaporating as more and more people own them, and as other brands launch their own high-end overpriced models.

One company, One Plus, offers a phone to people by invitation only - as if you were standing in line to get into an exclusive night club.  It is clever marketing and their product isn't too bad.   But their prices are a bit on the high end, hence the clever marketing to make you want one.

But the worst thing about the smart phone is what it does to people.   It is safe to say the smart phone has changed the way we live, the way we type, the way we behave, and even the way we think.   And often, much of this is not for the better.

Compulsive smart phone usage is a curse on our society.  Not everyone with a smart phone is subject to this, but people who are predisposed to obsessive-compulsive behavior tend to be obsessive about their smart phones.  They touch them constantly, look at them, check them, message with them, tweet with them, and so on.   They live in constant fear that they are "missing something" in a parallel electronic universe, and if they don't keep looking at the smart phone all the time, they might miss out.

It is, of course, a Skinner box, and in a way like the "virtual pet" craze of a few years back.   If you recall that idiotic trend, small electronic devices were sold to kids (and even adults) that had a "virtual pet" program.   You had to feed and walk and pet your virtual pet every so often or it would get sick and die.  So you had to obsessively pander to this electronic device, lest your pet "die".  

Smart phones work the same way.  Once you start texting, you can't stop.   If someone sends you a text, and you don't respond, you are "missing something" and moreover they might get mad at you for not responding.  Once you are drawn into this virtual world, there is no turning back.

And people who obsessively smart phone are a pain-in-the-ass to be around.  You can't have a conversation with them, as it is constantly interrupted by their chirping or buzzing phone, or they look at their phone and text-message while they are talking to you. There is a third person in the conversation, but only one of you gets to talk to them.

Of course, some young people just cut to the chase and do everything by text.   You've seen it, no doubt, two young people, out on a "date" at a restaurant, not talking to each other, but each obsessively texting on their phones.   Why bother going out on a date at all?  Just text at home and eat virtual food and maybe have virtual sex.

And speaking of sex, one of the most popular "apps" for smart phones are the sex-related ones.   Whether it is Tinder or Grindr or whatever, people will post pictures of themselves online, along with their sexual preferences and habits, and hope to "hook up" with someone else.   Using tracking technology, you can tell if someone in the same room as you wants to have sex with you, right now.

This of course, caters to another obsession, sexual addiction.  Sexual addiction is not talked about a lot, of course, but it does happen, and happen a lot.  There are a lot of myths about sex in this country.  People believe that only "attractive" people have sex.  But even the ugliest of us can be a sex addict - often with the most attractive person (who is also a sex addict) and the smart phone has been like gasoline on the sexual addiction fire.

In the past, "hooking up" with another person would involve going to a singles bar (the "meat market") or some other "cruising" place to pick up someone of the same or opposite sex.  For middle-aged heterosexual singles (and marrieds on the sly) the local grocery store was often a huge pick-up spot.

There were classified ads in the local "dirty paper" (alternative paper) and when the Internet became popular, hooking up online started to take off - and is still popular today.    But increasingly, the smart phone is taking over as the go-to place for anonymous sex and a surprising number of people spend a lot of time looking at their smart phones, trying to figure out who they are going to fuck next.

Of course, whether this is just healthy human sexual behavior is something that could be debated.  I think, like any other addiction, it depends on how it affects your life.   Just as someone can be a "social drinker" or I suppose even a social marijuana user, when these drugs start to affect your family life, your marriage, your relationships, your job, or your financial situation, then maybe you have a problem.

With sex, obviously there can be issues, beyond the obvious ones such as STDs.   Compulsive sexual addiction can ruin marriages and tear apart families.   And it can affect your interpersonal relationships, particularly when you start to look at everyone in your life in terms of sexual conquests.   It can also affect your work life, particularly if you are sending and receiving dirty pictures at work or "leaving early" or taking a long lunch hour to have some sort of liaison (and yes, this sort of thing happens).  Your work performance suffers, and you could lose your job over someone seeing naughty photos on your smart phone while at the office (sexual harassment and all).  And let's not even talk about screwing your co-workers - something that often ends badly.

It can become such an obsession that people lose their jobs or forego career advancement because of their incessant need for sexual gratification.  And yes, I have seen this happen to friends of mine, firsthand, as they constantly troll sex sites on their smart phones, or respond to boops and beeps on these devices as they set off alarms telling them some sex partner is 134 feet away.  It is kind of sad, really.

Compulsive behaviors can be the most destructive behaviors, in terms of your personal life and finances.   And if you can harness other people's compulsive behaviors, it is like money in the bank.   Get people to smoke, or drink, or do drugs, and you can make huge profits because they cannot quit.   Sex, of course is the ultimate compulsive behavior - our minds are wired to do it, like it or not, as it is a desire that results in propagation of the species.

And like a Skinner box, the less frequent the reward (sex) the more the rat (you) is likely to push the lever (obsessively check the smart phone).   So infrequent but intense rewards tend to produce the strongest addictions.   Sex and smart phones are thus a perfect storm.

P.S. -

I am looking for a fairly decent mid-grade unlocked phone, preferably dual-mode (CDMA/GSM) with dual SIM cards, perhaps a removable SDRAM as well.  This would provide the best flexibility, but I may have to compromise, due to cost concerns.  I am hoping to purchase this and then use a non-contract low-cost carrier mostly for data (using my old GoPhone for voice) and of course, using WiFi wherever possible.  Since we travel, though I want to be able to use the phone for data in places where WiFi is not available.

It must have a removable battery, too - and a reasonable battery life.  Not too much to ask, right?

This article below has some interesting choices, mostly high-end machines (with the iPhone taking the top slot):

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2333905,00.asp

This article below, also from PC discusses some little-known low-cost non-contract plans:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2375644,00.asp

These are a good start, but obviously, I have more research to do.

One thing I have learned so far is to beware of smart phones sold on eBay or Amazon.  Many are China-market only devices which are not designed for the US market or warranted here.  As a result, they may or may not work, and if they break, you have no support.

Also, of course, check to be sure your phone supports the carrier you intend to use (CDMA or its derivatives, or GSM or its derivatives).   A dual-mode phone works with both, but they are more expensive to buy.

Of course, it is just a lot easier to go to the AT&T store or the Verizon store and hand them your wallet and say, "give me the latest iPhone, PLEASE!"   But that can get costly in a real hurry.

UPDATE: We ended up buying used Samsung Galaxy 4S models on eBay for $99 apiece.  After several years they were outdated (would not run some apps) and we upgraded to used 7S models (again, eBay) for $199 each.  A lot cheaper than $1200 for an iPhone!  The 7S models are getting long in the tooth and probably will be replaced with used whatevers in a year or so.   Works for me!  No worrying about breaking or losing a phone or buying "phone insurance" or such nonsense.

We Look For Complex Answers

As comedian Bill Burr put it, the difference between driving on the road and the sidewalk is a simple flick of the wrist.

We always look for grand explanations for simple things in life, when in reality, the explanations are usually very pedestrian (pardon the unintentional pun).  And maybe this is why people engage in conspiracy theories - the mundane explanations of the horrific things that happen in real life are not enough to satisfy us.

Recently, a lady drove up on the sidewalk and killed at least one person and injured dozens of others.   The reason for this slaughter (apparently) was that she was depressed over a recent breakup with her boyfriend and was homeless and living in her car.   Not a very compelling reason.

So within minutes, people started spreading conspiracy theories.  "She was yelling 'Allah Akbar!' as she drove!   She was a Muslim Terrorist!" some would say.   Because that makes more sense for a horrific event.   It is a more compelling reason than "I was depressed".

And yet, events generated by Muslim Terrorism, such as 9/11, are deemed by some to be grand conspiracies, involving thousands of people and government agencies all pulling the wool over our eyes.  Why?  Because the simple explanation of a dozen or so men and a few thousand dollars just isn't sufficiently worthy of such a major disaster.   We cannot accept mundane explanations for horrific events.

Or take the attack in San Bernadino.   Two unhinged people, radicalized online, acting independently, decide to shoot up a Christmas party, largely based on a personal beef that one of them had with a co-worker.   Not a very compelling story.  They had to be part of an ISIS sleeper cell, right?   Well, no.  Just crazy people with guns, once again.

And so on down the line.  The elementary school shootings in Connecticut?   The mundane explanation of a crazy young man with access to guns simply isn't sufficient for such a horrific event.   So people block it all out by denying it ever happened.  Grand events should have grand explanations.

Even the Kennedy assassination falls into this pattern.   The idea that one crazy guy with a rifle could take out a President - unbelievable!   But indeed plausible.  But the more complicated the conspiracy theory, the more it seems "worthy" of such a dramatic world-changing event.

"Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." --Occam's Razor

But of course, this trend is hardly new.  William Ockham, in the 13th Century addressed the same thorny problem.   And his solution was simple in its elegance.   Whenever you have more than one explanation for an event, the simplest answer is more often than not the correct one.   Friar Ockham realized back then that people tended to do the opposite - engage in flights of fancy, rather than look for simple answers.

In our own lives, of course, we tend to do the same.   We want to find complex answers to simple problems.   We can "get ahead" in life through cash-back bonuses and clipping coupons.  That has to be the answer, because it is complicated.  The simple answer of "spend less" seems too simple.

If you want to lose weight you have to consume fewer calories and that is the simple and correct answer.   People prefer, however, complicated answers, such as "not eating this" or "always eating that" or "eat all you want, so long as you...." - because those are complicated answers that are also appealing on a personal level.   And like the cash-back bonuses and coupon clipping, they do not work.

This is not to say the simplest answer is always the correct one, only that it is often far more likely to be correct.   The only glaring exception seems to be in politics, where "if we just do one thing..." always seems to be the wrong answer (e.g., throw out immigrants, bomb Iran, whatever).  Our political problems are often more complex than that.   Perhaps a corollary to Occam's Razor is to distrust any answer that is simpler than the question posed.

But most times the simplest explanation is the correct one.  It may not be sexy or compelling, but there you have it.

Or Is It Just Greed?

Are Liberals and Conservatives both motivated by greed?

"If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain"  --Winston Churchill (attrib.)

"Greed is Good"  --Gordon Geko 

Could it be that in the end we are all motivated by greed?   Or put another way, our own self-interest?

I thought about this the other day when I met a young man in his mid-20's and he was loudly proclaiming that we should switch to a Socialist State.   He had graduated from college and was chagrined to find that cushy, high-paying jobs were not for the asking for college graduates in Liberal Arts fields.

Moreover, like most of us at that age, he was paying almost half his income in rent and a big chunk in student loans.   He was effectively poorer (as most of us were) that he was when he was in college or high school.  It just wasn't fair.  Life suddenly sucked, it seemed, for no apparent reason.  Who took his money away?

What he was complaining about wasn't social justice for others but social justice for himself.   His list of demands was indeed, pretty self-centered:

• Student Loan forgiveness

• Guaranteed Jobs

• Rent Control or Housing Subsidies

• Free College

• Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour

In other words, he was for Socialism at age 25 because under that system he would make out like a bandit.   He was less concerned about helping others so much as helping himself - to other people's money.

And as the purported Churchill quote indicates, by the time he is 35, perhaps his priorities will change.   Working at a job and paying a mortgage, investing in the stock market with his 401(k) and having paid down his student loans, maybe his priorities will be don't rock the fucking boat here, I got a deal going!

Student loan forgiveness will seem less "fair" to him after making a decade of payments (and perhaps paying them off, as I did).   Rent control or housing subsidies might not be a big priority or seem "fair" as he now has a mortgage and an income that won't qualify him for subsidies.

And as for the evil corporations, well, he now owns stock in them through his 401(k) and wants the share price and dividends to go up, Up, UP!

Having to have competed for a job and worked his way up the ladder, he is less inclined to think that maybe some kid out of college should be "guaranteed" a spot.

And of course, paying taxes for over ten years, he is less inclined to think the government should be spending more.

In other words, self-interest, or greed, raises its ugly head once again.

The difference is, of course, that Liberals like to posit that they are the ones who are not greedy and are just thinking about the welfare of others.   But a lot of people protesting for things like "a living wage" stand to gain a lot if the minimum wage is increased to $15 an hour - as they are working at these shitty, minimum-wage jobs.

The guy who started out at a shitty minimum-wage job and had to work his way up the ladder to $20 an hour might think that paying unqualified people not a lot less than he's making is a shitty deal.   And of course, it will mean he will want more money, which in turn leads to wage inflation, which in turn leads to real inflation.  This in turn wipes out any real gains for the minimum wage earners - and wipes out the value of the older guy's savings.  It is a zero-sum game.

Conservatives are at least a little more honest about their self-interest and will tell you that everyone acts in their own self-interest despite what people say otherwise.   Many Liberals take a "holier than thou" approach to politics and rather than argue the merits of political positions, just castigate anyone who disagrees with them as "evil" which is not a logical argument, but an emotional one.   

And my young friend, by age 35, will probably figure out that the slogans and emotional thinking of age 25 were indeed pretty stupid, which is another reason he will become more conservative.

But what about the so-called "Limousine Liberals?"   The rich folks - or the near-rich - who profess to want to "help the little people" by supporting certain causes and whatnot.   Aren't these folks acting for the good of humanity - and not in their own self-interest?

Maybe.  Maybe not.   People support politicians for a number of reasons.  And one is to influence the government.   Many business people donate money to both parties and both candidates in order to gain influence and hedge their bets.   If you are running a business, you want to make sure legislation doesn't pass that could negatively affect your company - or worse yet, regulations.

A client of mine from Texas was developing a paging system (back in the 1990's) and we wrote a Patent Application for him.   Then Bill Clinton was elected and he said to pull the plug on it.   I asked him why, as it appeared it might be allowed.   "Hell," he said, "I thought Bush would win!  I don't know any demmycrats!   How can I get my allocated frequencies from the FCC if I don't have any pull?"

He should have hedged his bets and supported both sides.  Hell, even Rupert Murdoch supported Hillary.

Others, such as Hollywood stars, well maybe they believe in these causes.   They also know that being a causista can help their "brand" in Hollywood - and with their fans.   Just as Jackson Brown would support Bernie Sanders (and know it would resonate with his fans) Ted Nugent knows that supporting someone like Donald Trump will resonate with his.

And of course, there are a lot of people - both Liberal and Conservative - who get caught up in "social issues" - the window-dressing that both sides use to corral supporters who logically would vote for the other side.

The redneck living in the trailer park is attracted to Trump because he will support their right to fly the rebel flag, keep his boy from getting gay-married (or turning Muslim) and prevent his daughter from getting an abortion.   Never mind that Democrats are more likely to preserve his job rights and provide him with subsidies for housing, food, and child care - as well as raise his wages.   He votes against self-interest only because he perceives social issues as his self-interest.  And conservatives convince him that social welfare programs will only benefit others (read: blacks) and thus cutting off these programs (and lowering taxes for the wealthy, so benefits and jobs will "trickle down") is actually in his own self-interest.   He is still acting in his own self-interest, at least as he perceives it.

The wealthy liberal, whose financial interests might be served better with lower taxes, less spending, and fewer social welfare programs, actually votes the opposite, again based largely on social issues.   They want to support gay rights, rights for minorities and women, and abortion.   And the Left has done a good job of convincing them that these things are in their self-interest, and that social economic programs are also in their self-interest.  It is only when the bill comes due (as it has with Obamacare) that some might question this logic.

So what's the point of all of this?   Only that we are all human and act in what we perceive to be in our own self-interest.   The young protester who wants a lot of free shit from the government isn't being altruistic, but indeed, selfish.  He's racked up a mountain of debt and wants it all forgiven - plus a raise doubling his salary and a guaranteed job for an art history major.  In a few years, once he's invested in the system, his attitudes will change.  Like clockwork.

Of course, some older folks still cling to liberal values.  Not surprisingly, they are poor and tend to be suckling off the government teat - or would like to.  And by the time they reach retirement age, many old people, particularly those dependent on Social Security and Medicare will tend to veer Leftward once again.   Funny how that works.

It is predictable as the sun rising in the East.   We all act in our own (perceived) self-interest.

Just get over it and stop pretending otherwise.  Because the holier-than-thou crap is getting old.