The Decision

So I started posting on this site with a dilemna I had. I didn't know whether or not I should take a promotion at a job that meant absolutely nothing to me. I thought about it, then some more, then some more after that, and ultimately I turned it down as of this past Sunday. Why? Because at the end of the day I just couldn't sell out over another 1.75 an hour and a future at a company that means nothing to me.

It's one thing to have a crappy job. It's another to have a crappy career. That just feels so permanent, and I couldn't have that. Maybe it's me-I'm sure I have commitment issues across the board. But, the thought of being at the same stupid meaningless job a year from now, two, five...it just kills me. I have dreams and goals, and I'm going to try like hell to reach them, and if I fail then I fail, but with 8 days before my 24th birthday I'm just too young to start settling for less.

The Anti-Vote™

I’ve decided there needs to be a new system for voting. Because Hilary and Obama suck, and Edwards, who used to be my number one, is pissing me off with this “America isn’t ready for gay marriage” bullshit, (Even though I guess in honesty everyone except Dennis Kucinich is pretty much saying the same bullshit; and how can anyone possibly vote for that guy? He looks like a pedophile. Seriously, I mean you can joke around about what a pedophile “looks like”, but God, have you seen this guy?) I don’t really want to vote for anyone. I mean, what does that even mean? America isn’t ready for gay marriage? When will it be ready? How will we prepare to get ready? But anyway that’s not the point.

I want to vote so I can exercise my freedom of choice, but these douchebags suck. So here’s what I propose: voting against a candidate instead of directly voting for one. Basically it’s the same principal as voting for Nader or Ross Perot, except you’re not directly flushing your vote down a toilet, so you don’t feel as bad.

Here’s how the brand new (and copyrighted) Anti-Vote™ works: you can either vote directly for a single candidate, like in the old days, or you can use your Anti-Vote™ against a single candidate. You either get one traditional vote or one Anti-Vote™. You can’t vote against multiple people or parties. When all the voting is done, all the traditional votes are added up. But then comes the new part. All the Anti-Votes™ are added up, and that number is subtracted from a candidate’s total number of votes. So, for example, had the Anti-Vote™ been in practice in 2004, everyone who realized John Kerry was a stupid douche (which I hope was pretty much anyone who voted for him) could have simply used their Anti-Vote™ against Bush. Now, ultimately Kerry would’ve won, because even though few people would’ve directly voted for him, so many people would’ve Anti-Voted™ against Bush that Kerry would’ve wound up on top. But, then at least for the next four years we all could have said, “Hey, don’t blame me. I didn’t vote for Kerry. I Anti-Voted™ against Bush.” And I think then we would have felt a lot better about ourselves when Kerry consistently fucked up, which he no doubt would have.

Because my hatred for jerks like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain outweighs any slight admiration I might still have for Edwards or any other Democrat, I would use my Anti-Vote™ against Rudy or McCain if either wins the Republican nomination. But I think the beauty of the Anti-Vote™ is that really it just adds more choice to our democratic election process. Now you would have to choose whether you wanted to vote for someone, or against someone else. You might actually have to think more about your vote. (I should add that the Anti-Vote™ would only be available in final elections, not primaries. Otherwise candidates might actually become more bland and generic so as to avoid pissing off potential voters who could vote against them.) Plus, with the new voting system, it would hopefully be harder for losers to contest election results in court because people wouldn’t simply be voting for one jerk or the other, but could also vote against certain jerks, making it more clear who should win or lose.

Christina Aguilera:The Unlikely Rock

So with all the celebrities our age having gone wild in the media lately: Britney, Paris, Lindsay, Nicole Richie, I think everyone who thought 5 years that Christina Aguilera lost her mind when she came out with the "Dirrty" video owes her a big apology...

'Cause clearly, she turned out to be the stable one. Like she's married now (to a guy who doesn't leech off her fame), she's been dressing all classy lately , she's doing jazzy little pop tunes... she's our generation's Aretha Franklin, quite frankly.

And, that's the thing right there, because, again, 5 years ago everybody was like "oww, she's gone too far!" Which, just shows how little we knew back then about what "too far" really was. Nowadays the biggest young female stars are going to jail, Britney, who was her biggest kind of competition has kind of gone over the edge, and Christina, like a real adult, has kind of grown-up and matured, and pulled herself together even moreso as opposed to following apart like her contemporaries. Which is, especially amazing when you consider the fact that she was actually the talented one. Like when Britney, Christina, and Jessica Simpson all came out at once-it was very clear with Aguilera, "Okay, this girl actually has the pipes. She can really sing." And, normally, it's the most talented people who usually fall hardest. Because while Janis Joplin, Jimmy Hendrix, and Jim Morrison all left this world way too early-clearly, in this topsy-turvy world, The Backstreet Boys will live forever...

So I applaud you, Miss Aguilera, for proving to our nation's youth that an entertainer who is actually good at her job can also stay off drugs and out of prison. Kudos.

Trying to Get In Shape

So a week ago I decided that I miss being in shape. See-long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away I actually did not have the body of Keith Richards. Oh, I used to swim laps, lift weights, I used to surf every day. You wouldn't know it to look at me now, but I was actually a human being once.

But, then I had a hernia that needed surgery, and I stopped working out, and I never really started again. On top of which I I started smoking, started drinking more, started referring to bacon and cheese as condiments...it's not pretty.

Now for a long time I was content to just give up on ever being healthy again entirely, and as much as I hate to be a flip-flopper, I decided I might need to settle in for the long haul. See-I never actually thought I would live this long. I always figured I'd go out young and leave a beautiful corpse like James Dean. However, from my experience, much like The Grimace, it seems as if no conventional means can kill me. As such, if I'm going to live a long life it's probably better to do so without emphysema, cirrhosis, quadruple bypasses, etc.

So this past week I gave up two staples of my very being-beer and cigarettes, or as I called them, "my comfort foods." And, I don't miss them...yet. Because the first couple days of giving up stuff is always relatively easy. Oh, they say it's the hardest time, but they are wrong. Let me tell you what the hardest time is-having to sit through anyone you find boring, annoying, or just plain stupid without a drink or a smoke. I don't claim to know anything about this world let alone if there is any sort of afterlife, but let me tell you that if there is a Hell then I'm pretty sure I'm going to be sitting in hot room between Paris Hilton and Al Gore with an empty pack of Pall Malls and a bone-dry bottle of Johnny Walker Black, begging for the devil to just stab me in the eyes with a pitch fork repeatedly instead.

The Internet-An Underrated Appendage

So I didn't have the internet for four days, and it kind of felt like being an amputee. Oh, I could live without a phone. Truth be told, when people call me on the phone I'm almost a little bit upset sometimes. It's like, "Why are you calling here? Just send me an e-mail. I don't need to hear actual voices. I'm good; I believe it's you."

And, I think that's a generational thing. I think every generation kind of adopts the newest technology as "their technology." When the phone was first invented people didn't even have them. And, then the cell phone came out, and I can remember less than ten years ago looking at people who had cell phones and drank bottled water, and saying, "Yuppie bastards..." Now it's ten years later, my primary phone is a cell phone, and while I'm not disgusted if someone hands me tap water, I pay for it in bottles like the rest of my peers.

But, we were basically the first generation to have e-mail. Readily accessible, anyway. We were the AOL generation. I do everything pretty much via e-mail right down to getting my schedule from my job. If I can't access my e-mail then I can't go to work. Not to mention my job involves me going somewhere different every day, without Map Quest I might as well take out a compass...

I think it was Thoreau who said, "A man is rich by the amount things he can live without?" You just don't realize how dependent you are on these things until they aren't there anymore.