Observations

It's good to read. Supposedly. I would say it is good. But not in an absolute sense. Reading does have some potential drawbacks. I mean, the fact of the matter is, if you examine all the written content out there, you'll find that the majority of it falls under the category of "basically deranged."  This is especially true on this invention known as the internet. If you read something online, think twice about how much validity is actually contained in the words you read. Think twice, and then think twice again. Internet content requires a double twice-thinking procedure. And no, I'm not just referring to what’s posted on social media and message boards and YouTube comments. Even the articles you find on the internet have a tendency to deliver more derangement than validity. Have you ever come across one of those internet articles that do their darndest to prove the US is a bottom of the barrel country? They give you a bunch of numbers for different countries--an...

One time I came across a business article that said in 2015, ExxonMobil only made $20 billion. The article used the word “only”—because the Wall Street experts expected ExxonMobil to make much more than $20 billion. The primary lesson I learned for that article is ExxonMobil has to do a lot in order to impress the Wall Street experts. A $20 billion profit is “only” according to Wall Street. Wouldn’t it be something if those experts were in the habit of analyzing the entire world the way they analyze ExxonMobil? “Shakespeare only wrote 37 plays. He was a loser.” “Michael Jordan only won six NBA championships. The hell with him.” “Neil Armstrong always acted like he was some hotshot space explorer--but the only time he actually blasted off into space, he stopped at the first celestial body he came across, and then he headed right back to earth, like some kind of sissy. Also, when he golfed on the moon, he shot one birdie, one bogey, and three double bogies. A truly dedicated astronaut-go...

"Different people prefer different jobs." That's the prevailing theory regarding people's job preferences. And as far as I'm concerned, that prevailing theory is pure hogwash! Yeah. That's right. I said it. I used the PH word. Pure hogwash. I'm a keen observer of human nature. I bring some serious, high grade keenness into the equation. And I can state with complete certitude that men do not have different job preferences! There is no diversity whatsoever when it comes to this. All men want one job, and one job only: the job of Miami-based drug dealer. If you have any doubts regarding the veracity of that statement, I invite you to conduct the following experiment: get a bunch of men in a room with a TV and Blu Ray player, and start playing the movie Scarface . The men will all be mesmerized by this movie--and over the next 96 hours, they will all go very far in emulating an individual by the name of Tony Montana. I am not making this up! This is an easily...

I'm not so sure I'm too fond of this Amazon.com thing. After all, it's a website that floods you with some truly barbaric and deranged reading material known as Amazon customer reviews. Who the heck wants to read that kind of stuff?! I mean, all Amazon customer reviews are written by people who are mentally unstable. Each one should make you feel compelled to head on over to a Zoloft bottle and ingest several hundred milligrams.  No one has ever said anything remotely sane in an Amazon customer review. The site has been around for two and a half decades, it's attracted hundreds of millions of reviews, and we're all just sitting in front of our computers with our popcorn, waiting to encounter one review that shows some semblance of rational thought. Here's an Amazon review for Dixon-Ticonderoga pencils. "I'm a teacher, and so I know first hand the important quality difference between good pencils (like Ticonderoga) and cheap knock-offs. Although the gra...

CSPAN claims to show you political proceedings that are 100% unfiltered. But it sure does seem like they do their fair share of filtering--doesn't it? Whenever you watch CSPAN, you get the impression that they filter out all the highlights, and they only show you the extremely dull parts. They must. After all--no one has ever come across anything even slightly interesting on that channel. You watch it for two hours straight, and the most interesting part is some boring retort that the gentlewoman from Arkansas made in response to the even more boring remarks made previously by the gentleman from Florida. That's CSPAN. And then there's CSPAN 2, which utilizes an entirely different approach, and focuses on assaulting you with massive amounts of a show called Book TV. The people running CSPAN 2 adamantly believe that every day is a suitable day for a Book TV marathon. As if we're all sitting at home thinking, "Gosh. You know what would really hit the spot right now? M...