Cupcake Wars

It's obvious, even to an idiot like me, that reality television is here to stay. It's beyond popular, which explains why there are so many shows and networks devoted entirely to that genre. It's also cheaper to produce, film, and air a reality based show than a scripted one with actual characters and plot. Reality television isn't going anywhere. And that's a damn shame. 

I have many problems with reality television, the biggest being is that very little of it actually seems based on any kind of reality. Calling Jersey Shore realistic is just plain scary. Same goes for any show with the word "Housewives" in its title. Honestly, if I knew anyone who was remotely like any of these people, I'd move far away. 

Do I hate all reality TV? No. Do I hate most of it? Damn straight. But, my most pure and raw hatred of reality programming gets funneled into one show, Cupcake Wars. 

The reasons for my disgust with this show is tenfold. But, for any poor soul who actually reads this and for my own sanity, I'll pare it down. 

My first problem with the show is the title. Wars? Really? I'm ashamed to say I've seen this show numerous times. (When I first became a father, I knew all parents made sacrifices for their children. But, I didn't truly understand the level of pain I'd have to endure until my daughters discovered this show.) I've yet to see anything close to a skirmish, let alone a war, on any episode. Though, personally, I'd be all for it. Lord knows I'd love for that French judge to get a spatula upside the head a few times an episode. I think the final two bakers, their assistants, and the extra cupcake helpers should tie their wrists together in pairs, give everyone a butter knife and a set of measuring cups, and let them throw down like West Side Story (or a Michael Jackson video). Good times guaranteed. 

A quick side note. Any time the word Wars is used in a title, the host should be a bit more, uh, rough around the edges. Wearing a tie and sweater vest isn't exactly standard issue for most armies. At least wear some khaki cargo pants like the Survivor host. Give an effort, for God's sake.

I think the judges should be able to get more involved. That French dude is mean. I've heard him call cupcakes "inedible" and a "nightmare", which I think is harsh. If he's that pissed about the taste and/or texture of a cupcake then I think he should show us. We can barely understand him anyway. He could throw it back at the baker and scream, "How dare you offend my palate in this manner." He could gag and throw up in a trash can. All three judges could turn their backs and shun the offending cook like the Amish. That would be entertaining and would keep the viewers on the edge of their seats, or at least wake them up.

I also dislike how various contestants are simply set up for failure. I saw a perfect example of this on a recent episode. One of the competing bakeries uses beer in all their cupcakes. (Genius!) Obviously, this baker must be talented, or she wouldn't have been chosen to be on the show. (Either that, or she gave free samples to the producers.) So, what episode do they choose for this beer-in-the-cupcake-batter baker? The 100th Anniversary of the Girl Scouts. 

Obviously, this baker and her assistant chose to stick to what they actually do for a living and what got them on the show in the first place, bake cupcakes with beer in the batter. Guess who was booted off in the first segment? Guess why she was booted off? For using beer to make cupcakes for Girl Scouts. Even though the alcohol burns away, the judges were concerned with the idea of beer batter cupcakes being given to Girl Scouts. Well, duh. How about being concerned that the person who chooses which contestants appear on which episodes is a moron?

My biggest problem with this show is its predictability. There is never any mystery in any episode. Ever. 

At least two of the four contestants will have a family member as their assistant. Everyone mentions how they are there to win and how helpful ten grand would be to their business. No kidding. No one shows up to place third and go home with nothing. Money tends to help most businesses.

There always has to be one competing bakery who is gluten free. (One day, we're probably going to find out that gluten is as harmful as asbestos. People will have to call in professionals to clean up their pantries.) This baker is guaranteed to make the final two. Apparently, gluten makes cupcakes taste worse because those without the evil ingredient are always quite successful on Cupcake Wars.

By the end of the second segment, it's obvious who's going to win. There's always one standout baker who has nailed the first two rounds with inspirational cupcakes and three who don't. Of course, one of those three has to make it to the finals. 

In the final round, the baker who is just lucky to be there is always impressive with their final one thousand cupcake display and improved cupcakes. Guess what? They still lose. Of course, they are shocked and disappointed that they lost. Never mind that the final winner is decided by the accumulated skills they've shown thus far in the show. Here's a hint. If you've made it to the final round simply because the other two contestants were even worse than you, and your final opponent has received nothing but praise, you're going to lose. 

Here's a few more guarantees when watching Cupcake Wars. 

• Every contestant is apparently unable to read a rather large decreasing digital clock. I realize they are quite busy and stressed because they're going for ten grand on national television and they aren't given much time. All the more reason to glance at the clock once in a while, isn't it? I guess not. Every time the overdressed host yells out the time, each contestant must scream and repeat the time to their assistant, who is apparently also unable to read time or hear what was just yelled a few feet away.
• The judges eat their cupcakes with a fork. Why? If I used a fork to eat a cupcake, I'd have to turn in my man card and get my ass (rightfully) beat by my union brothers. This isn't afternoon tea with the Queen. Eat the damn cupcake with your hands.
• It takes the bakers approximately six minutes to fully describe their cupcake. "It's a chocolate peanut butter cupcake, with real peanut butter inside the cake, with a peanut butter chocolate ganache frosting, with a fondant peanut on the top..." Good God, it's a chocolate peanut butter cupcake! I'd cut your ass from the show just for using fifty-six words to tell me about something that I've already finished eating by the time you're done telling me what it is.
• By the way, the response by the French judge to such a cupcake would be something like, "I can't taste the peanut butter". The baker is obviously stunned and confused by such a statement. Either the baker is a fool who doesn't realize if you use the words "peanut butter" seven times in describing your cake, it better taste like a jar of Jif, or the judge is just a dick.

I have just two more guarantees. Cupcake Wars will continue to air for quite some time. I will also be forced to watch many more episodes with my daughters. 

On the plus side, I should be able to continue to convince my girls that their dad is psychic by correctly guessing who will win each episode. That belief should come in handy in the future when I try to convince my daughters that their dates will be intimidated by their beauty and intelligence and thus will be unavailable for further contact. Perhaps, reality television has its good points too. 

Politics

Summer is supposed to be a fun time of year. Warmer, drier weather. Outdoor activities. Baseball games. Reading books. Lots and lots and lots of grilling. Summer then leads us into my favorite season of the year, fall. Cooler temperatures. Stunning bursts of orange, yellow, and red that seem to pop up on every mountain, hill, and neighborhood street. Then, right around the corner are the black and orange and fun of Halloween. The NBA arrives, as well. And, of course, most importantly, football. 

Those are supposed to be good times for the vast majority of us. They often are. But, every four years, summer and fall take a dark, sinister turn. A cloud of dismay and disgust envelopes us. Anger and frustration float from person to person, wrapping around us like dense fog. All the vibrant colors seem muted into greys and browns. The normally crisp, invigorating weather never seems to come, instead everything seems damp and dark, leaving us sodden like wet cardboard. We all know it's coming; we all dread it's arrival, but know we can do nothing to stop it. Election year.

I hate election years with a consuming passion. I know I have a huge amount of "likes" with that statement. That alone should tell us something about the state of our country. Of course, it's not us that needs to listen to such a statement, it's our elected leaders. I know, I know. Fat chance of that.

Americans hate election years for one main reason: those running for office are, more often than not, people we can't stand to look at or listen to by the time November rolls around. Or August. Perhaps, May. This is not a good thing. 

Maybe I'm just an idealist, but I think an election year should be an exciting time. I think this for two main reasons. First, if our country is doing well (don't laugh, it's happened before), then an election year should be a chance to continue that cycle, by re-electing those currently in office who we think are doing a solid job. But, if our country is not doing well, then we have the chance to get those leaders who we feel are not doing a good job out of office and vote in those we feel would lead us to stronger times. But, neither of those feelings tend to happen for many of us. Why is that?

To me, the answer is simple and blunt. Most of our elected officials suck. That wouldn't be so terrible if we had faith in those running against the incumbents. But, that rarely happens. 

If that wasn't bad enough, the way politicians run their campaigns tends to disgust most of us instead of inspire us. Let's start with those insipid commercials. The ones that seem to air all day, every day. The commercials that cause so many of us to turn the channel, or watch a movie instead, or even (GASP!) turn off the television. Do these people actually think the average person believes anything in a political commercial? Apparently so. Otherwise, why continue to spend so many millions of dollars making and airing those things? Simple. It's not their money. One would think a smart man/woman would find a better way to spend than that money than on commercials, actually helping their constituents, perhaps. But, I digress. 

A close second in my hatred trilogy of election year standard operating procedures are political signs. The signs that clutter people's front yards, small sections of farmland that abut to freeways/highways, and everywhere else they can scrounge permission to place those things. Am I supposed to be swayed to vote for someone based on their sign? Really? What is the philosophy of putting the signs of a dozen candidates in the same thirty foot area along I-5? Am I expected to slow down from my cruising speed of 70 MPH to see who has the most impressive sign? It takes all my inner strength not to simply plow through them on my daily commute. 

What is the logic behind those things? Apparently, I'm supposed to be so impressed by one candidate's sign over the others that he/she earns my vote. Uh, not happening. (Besides, I think we've used up all the possible combinations of red, white, and blue. I'm as patriotic as the next American, but there are other colors. It's really okay to try something different.) I hate to break it to those hard-working, ethical campaign managers, but I've yet to have my vote swayed by a political sign. It doesn't work with me. 

Neither does the hard-hitting, in-your-face reporting of CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc, etc, etc these months leading up to the elections. For the love of God, two of those major networks aired the wrong information on the most important United States Supreme Court ruling in recent memory. Am I supposed to be impressed by any news network after that debacle? They're so concerned with being first, they forget it's more important to be accurate. I don't let my seventh grade students get away with that crap. Am I supposed to give professional journalists a free pass? Again, not happening.

Besides, I don't need to watch those networks because they are as predictable as watching Cupcake Wars. One network loves Republicans and hates Democrats. Another network is the opposite. I wonder if their stories, daily shows, and reports from the campaign trail might follow along those guidelines? Hmmm. I have to watch Cupcake Wars occasionally because my daughters love that show. Thankfully, they have no interest in watching political networks. Neither do I.

Since I can't seem to find a show or network that represents all sides fairly, I tend to ignore them. Instead, I look to other avenues.

Recently, I watched (again) the movie Primary Colors. I found myself longing for a candidate who followed the same strategy of one of the movie's characters running for president. No, not the Clinton clone, Jack Stanton, played so well by John Travolta. No, it was Larry Hagman's Freddie Picker. The man got thousands upon thousands of people to donate blood everywhere he went. Picker didn't pay for polls or air commercials. He even saved his main opponent from being grilled on national television by Geraldo. Nobody knew how to handle him because he wasn't playing by the rules. He was going to listen to people and act accordingly. Shocking. Genius. Fiction.

Sure, Picker was a former coke fiend who slept with a man during a drug binge. What politician hasn't? How else do they earn so many outrageous donations? Male, female, gay, straight, white, black, Catholic, Mormon, atheist, married, single, underage, overage, who cares when it comes to campaign contributions? To be fair, not all major donations involve sex. I'm sure some involve powerplays, extortion, promises for future favors and various judge and job title appointments, along with other such political mainstays. 

If they're going to do all that anyway, why can't they pull those pathetic commercials so Americans can watch reality television in peace? Lord knows, there's nothing real about campaign promises. What does it say about our political system that we can get more honesty on television from Howard Stern and Sharon Osborne than any presidential candidate? 

Why can't we have an election system that actually makes sense? Seriously, it's 2012. My iPhone does more for me than my elected officials. SIRI gives me more concrete answers than any politician. And yet, I'm supposed to vote for these people based on a paragraph in the voter's pamphlet. Really? 

We wait all these months, through the primaries, the nausea-inducing commercials, the fluctuating polls, the annoying clusters of political signs, the seemingly endless parade of possible scandals, before we see these candidates actually speak at a debate. By then do we even care? Have we been so bombarded by political propaganda that nothing said will sway our votes? Hard to say, really. And that is beyond frightening. 

On the plus side, at least the NFL and NBA lockouts didn't happen in an election year. That would've really scary.

What Now?

A few months back, my wife and I took our kids to Disneyland. Overall, the trip was a success, with one notable exception. The most difficult part of our trip actually wasn't even in California. No, it was trying to reserve a hotel room online. 

We tried Travelocity, Priceline, Kayak, and the website of every major hotel chain we could think of. Denied. With extreme prejudice. Why? We have four kids, that's why. Yes, four. The vast majority of hotels do not allow families of six to book a hotel room online. Obviously, we were able to get it done. By phone. 

I realize this is not the most fascinating story. I apologize. But, it does relate to the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado. I'll get to that in a minute.

These past few days, I've been involved in Facebook discussions with a cousin in the Seattle area and a friend in Arizona. Like me, and so many others, they're upset with the Aurora shooting. We were asking, what do we do now? Again, like so many others.

Once I started asking that question, I did a little online digging based on curiosity. Where do I, and everyone else, find out how we can help? I figured there must be some organization that counters the NRA. I didn't know of one offhand, but I don't know a lot of things, so I searched. I Googled anti-gun organizations. The first three links were articles written by gun activists listing anti-gun celebrities. I'm not kidding. I couldn't find a seemingly strong gun control group among the first page of links.* That explains the silence.

What happens when there's a natural disaster anywhere in the world? Aid is sent ASAP. The Red Cross is mobilized. The National Guard is sent out. Camera crews are there faster than anyone else. Celebrities hold telethons and special concerts. An eight hundred phone number is set up, donations are requested and sent. En masse. If it's a foreign country, the nearest naval ships are sent with food, water, medical supplies, etc. You know the drill.

So, where's the drill for Aurora?

Ever notice anytime a gunman is involved in an American tragedy none of those same emergency responses are activated? Is it because there's actually someone to blame? Is it because the tragedy was caused by humans instead of Mother Nature? What is it? Granted, a hurricane or something similar causes far more structural damage than a lone gunman, but that is beside the point.

Aide is needed. It may not be rebuilding actual structures, but that doesn't demean its importance. Feelings of trust and security need to be rebuilt. Families can be broken and damaged just as if they were made of brick and wood and stone. They need to be rebuilt too. There are ways to accomplish that. But, someone has to step up and make the first move. And we all know it.

I'm beginning to wonder if we're so charitable at other times because we know that Mother Nature is random. We can't predict her or stop her. No one can reliably foresee a tsunami or hurricane or tornado or earthquake or flash flood or a lightning strike that causes a massive forest fire. We realize that and we sympathize when it happens, because we know it could be us. But, what happened in Aurora could also happen to us. That's a far more sobering and disturbing thought.

The more we learn about the people inside that movie theatre, the more we see ourselves, I think. At least three of the victims were men trying to save their girlfriends. All three succeeded. All three were killed. All three were several years from their thirtieth birthdays. How many of us, man or woman, would do the same? I'd like to think most of us would. A man was killed on his twenty-seventh birthday, and just shy of his one year wedding anniversary. How many of us go to the movies for our birthdays? How many of us have loved ones we would die to protect? How may of us attend the premiere of a highly anticipated movie? That could have been us. And that's a scary thought.

A six-year-old girl was killed. Which brings us back to the blame game I mentioned earlier. I've already heard people blaming the girl's mother. I questioned her myself. What's a six-year-old girl doing at any showing of that movie? The truth is, it's none of my business. Or anyone else's. The girl is dead. Her mother is critically wounded. And yet, some people insist on blaming that mother, as if she could have seen this coming. Are we any different than her?

We've all made parenting errors. How many of our kids heard and used their first swear words after listening to us? How many of us have forgotten to actually buckle in our baby after placing her into the car seat? How many of us have made similar errors in judgment that could have been disastrous? How many of us have paid as heavy a price as this mom? Let's move on.

I saw on Facebook a picture and blurb of a Florida man in his seventies who recently stopped a bank robbery because he was carrying a licensed pistol. The point being if a few of the patrons in the movie theatre had their own guns they could've taken out the gunman before he caused as many deaths and injuries as he did. I have several problems with this line of thinking.

First, the shooter was covered in armor from head to toe. Any bullet fired at him would have had no effect. On him anyway. The gunman naturally would've taken swift and deadly response to anyone shooting at him, and quite possibly any bystanders next to him.

Second, blaming anyone for going to the movies unarmed just seems perverse to me. I wonder if I should bring my Glock to Batman. Just in case. Who thinks that? If I ever do, I'm moving to a new location shortly thereafter. I don't live in Kabul for that reason. Many reasons, actually.

Lastly, maybe no one had a gun with them that night because most people don't like the idea of it. I know I don't. The old west is gone. Most of us don't carry guns with us for a reason. We don't want to. Ever notice in Western movies and television shows that no one smiles? Maybe that was one reason why. That and wooden toilet seats. I don't think wearing a gun makes you any safer. Just like having a calculator doesn't make you any smarter.

Why do we do this? Why do we look to blame instead of to solve? Why is it so difficult for a family of six to book a hotel room online, but so easy for one man to purchase guns, ammo, and body armor? Why don't our politicians bring up their ideas and thoughts on gun control until they're asked on national television or immediately after a tragedy? The answer to those questions are simple. Because we allow it.

Whenever there's a large enough outcry over anything, something happens. Politicians need voters. Without voters, there's no money and no power, and that simply won't do. The truth is, if we want things to change, we need to step up. We need to stop blaming and start solving.

We need to brainstorm. We need to talk. We need to try new ideas. Then try again. Then try some more. Try. Try. Try.

We need to ask our elected leaders their thoughts on gun control. We need to ask why there isn't a system to track online sales of assault weapons, ammunition, and body armor. Think about it. What rational reason is there for anyone to buy what the Aurora gunman used that night?

Look how quickly and massively things have changed at our airports. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass. A girl can feel like she's lost her virginity to a TSA agent. Hell, so can a guy. But, they're both more likely to get to their destination safely. We all are. No one enjoys taking off their shoes at the airport, or buying hair gel and sunscreen in three ounce clear containers. But, we do it. Annoying or not, you have to admit, it seems to be working.

Steps can be made to make buying automatic weapons online visible to the proper authorities. What would've happened if an FBI agent in Denver was notified that some graduate student dropout had been buying automatic weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition? Everything used that night were bought over a period of at least four months. What if one of those purchases had raised the eyebrows of any law enforcement officer? Think what else would have been discovered. Think what might have been avoided. Then try not to scream in frustration.

Things can get done. If we demand it. Again. And again. And again. It's up to us. Whether it should be or not, doesn't matter. That's the way it is. Politicians have annoyed us since ancient Rome. Let's return the favor. Let's get organized. Let's get mobilized. Let's get LOUD.

Let's. Get. Busy.


*I tried the same Google search last night. This time there was a link to the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" petition being sent to President Obama and Governor Romney. I signed it and encourage others to do the same. It's a start. Here's the link: http://www.bradycampaign.org/

Guns

I'm guessing most, if not all, of us have seen or heard the sentiment, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

True enough. We've been killing each other without guns since humans first graced this planet with our presence. People do kill without guns and we do so quite effectively. But, guns help people kill people. A lot of people. A lot of innocent, good people. Including twelve in Aurora, Colorado. 

In less than forty-eight hours after the ambush, I've seen several editorials on both sides of the gun control debate. I can't help but feel a sense of deja vu. Some well-armed gunman enters a crowded, public place and opens fire for no apparent reason. People die. More are wounded. Members of the media swarm in like locusts. Social networking kicks into overdrive. Guns are the problem. No, they're not, we're the problem. If everyone had a gun, like in other countries, he would've been killed in nothing flat. Americans worship violence, what do you expect? Blah, blah, blah.  

Same old. Same old. 

Apparently, gunmen like the coward (who I won't name) in Colorado, feel the need to impress upon the rest of us living folk how bullied, harassed, oppressed, frustrated, smart, lethal, and cowardly they are. I, personally, am quite impressed. Is that enough? I'm truly impressed with the intelligence and, uh, bravery it took to plan and implement this attack on a movie theatre and booby-trap your apartment. Well done. Mission accomplished. Will this stupid bullshit stop now?

I'm sure in the heads of gunmen like the Colorado coward, it makes sense to arm themselves to the teeth, wear enough armor to last through a showing of Eat Pray Love in Afghanistan, find a public place with hundreds of unarmed people, and open fire. Apparently, these victims harmed this man in some awful way that demanded their death while watching a Batman movie. I'm sure the teenagers were especially mean. They can be so cruel, after all. Especially against a medical student. 

He must have also thought these people were all armed, as well. I know this because in addition to the protection he wore, he brought tear gas (or something similar), a gas mask, multiple guns, and hundreds of rounds of ammo. Yes, this is truly a brave man to attack these seemingly harmless people. It's a good thing he could legally get his hands on those weapons and ammunition.

Obviously, this man is disturbed. He might have flipped like this anyway, whether he had a machine gun, shot gun, and two handguns, or no guns at all. It's entirely possible he would've killed these same twelve people and wounded the same fifty-eight others by using a blow-dart gun and bow and arrows while wearing jeans and a hoodie. He could have booby-trapped his apartment Rambo-style with sharpened sticks and logs dropped from above. Surely, it would've been as dangerous and deadly as the IEDs and God knows what else he used instead. But, somehow I doubt it.

I'm quite sure the NRA will come forth with the same, tired exclamations of how tragic and senseless this episode is; they pray for the victims' families, and continue to herald the responsible, constitutional right to bear arms. Been there. Heard that.  

It doesn't matter what the NRA says or what everyone else says. Nothing is going to change. This awful, stomach clenching tragedy will eventually pass. After a few months, or years, if we're lucky, another similar tragedy will occur somewhere else. Others will die. Others will be wounded. More outrage. Cue tape.

Unless we actually starting doing something different, nothing different will happen. 

Posting our proclamations to pray for those families and friends of the victims on Facebook, along with our questions of why and how such a thing could happen, and our rantings for/against gun control and violence won't change a damn thing. I know. I posted similar thoughts myself. It feels right to do those things, and maybe it is. But, it also doesn't feel like enough.

Nothing will change. Unless we actually do something with our fear and weariness of the same old problems. 

It's happened before, and rather recently. Close to four years ago actually. You think a black man named Barack gets elected over a war hero any other way? He made so much money during his election against Hillary Clinton and John McCain he broke every national record in regards to campaign donations and spending. (Ironically, a man named Mitt is breaking those records. But, that's another topic for another day.) According to the Washington Post, Obama raised over half a billion dollars online alone, with the average donation being eighty dollars. 

How did that happen? Simple. People finally reached the boiling point. Enough was enough. Most people didn't care what color he was, or what his name was, or where he was born. The size of our problems finally outweighed the normal political propaganda bullshit. People knew eighty bucks wasn't much, but hey, it's what they could give. Good luck to you. Guess what happens when millions upon millions of Americans have that same attitude and take that same step? Things change.

I realize people are upset with Obama and want him out. Some people think he hasn't done enough, or they disagree with what he's done. Of course, many people have the exact opposite point of view. The point is, the man doesn't get elected if we, as a country, don't decide to try something different. Remember, whether you agree with the man's health care changes or not, the Supreme Court upheld it. Our national health care system is changing. No other president has ever done that. 

The NRA has more money and power than its opponents. The gun companies have more money and power than their opponents. The politicians supporting both have more money and power then those running against them. Therefore, nothing changes. 

What if all the people who posted on Facebook and Twitter their support and outrage and prayers for the victims and their families in Aurora actually decided to do something more?  What if Americans gave the same amount of money and attention to this situation as we did for the tsunami victims in Japan and the earthquake victims in Haiti? What would happen? What would change?

Interesting questions, I think. Maybe things would stay the same and in six months some other gun toting prick would do the same thing, and we'd be running up the same hamster wheel. But, what if something else happened? Something that changes lives and maybe even saves a few. 

What if wasn't legal to buy an "AK type" automatic weapon? What if it wasn't legal to buy a drum clip with a hundred rounds inside it? Would that pathetic coward have still found a way to purchase those weapons? Or the next loser with the same idea? Would they have been caught if they did try? I don't know. 

Seems like the chances are fifty-fifty. I'd take those odds. We pay millions every month for a pipe dream called the lottery with far worse odds of winning. Probably about the same odds as getting shot in a movie theatre. Or at a high school. Or a middle school. Or an insurance office. Or a factory. Or an army base. Or at a university. Seems like those odds are climbing. 

What are we going to do about it?

Man Flag

This morning over breakfast I was talking with my brother-in-law. Not surprisingly, the talk turned to bacon. It didn't matter that we weren't eating bacon. Either way, many of our conversations rightfully turn towards the wonder that is bacon. Someway, somehow the idea of a man flag popped in my head. 

When that thought did show itself, I began to dig deeper into what would be on such a flag. It would be blue, of course. Navy. That seems properly manly to me. So is black. But, it's also depressing. I don't want that. This flag should be inspirational, and, uh, manly. 

It should go without saying that a man flag must have the most important animal ever created grace its fabric. That animal could only be, you guessed it, the noble pig. What other animal has given man so much pleasure? Yes, the Bald Eagle is very impressive and is the rightful symbol of our country. That could never, and should never, be changed. But, I'm not talking about replacing our country's flag or national symbol. I'm talking about glorifying a truly remarkable specimen of nature upon the man flag. Think what this amazing animal gives us. Bacon! Ham! Pork chops! Bacon! 

The pig also has other important qualities that earn and demand our respect. They are not endangered. There are plenty of pigs and that's the way it should always be. I can only imagine the horrors that would beset this planet of ours if there were ever, God forbid, a pig shortage. We can handle almost any other malady: tsunamis, tornadoes, heat waves, rising unemployment and gas prices, high crime rate, poverty, zombie apocalypse. The list goes on and on. We find ways to adapt to such difficult challenges. But, that is nothing compared to what would happen if there were ever a shortage, or rationing, of bacon. Shudder. I prefer not to think about it.

Another quality of the pig that I appreciate is that it's not exactly a difficult animal to catch. They are not swift. They don't fly. They don't sting. They have no talons, rows of razor-sharp teeth, or other defensive weapons that we fear. They are not quiet or stealthy. People used to actually grease pigs up. Men (of course) tried to catch them in front of crowds at county fairs. Why this became such a phenomenon, I don't know. Perhaps, they promised bacon after the event. The point is that Ray Charles could track and kill a pig. And I'm thankful for that.

I realize I'm alienating vegetarian men (both of them) and a major religion who don't eat pork. Tough shit.

Obviously, there would be other things on the man flag. There would be an ode to sports. I picture this part to be holographic. With our technology, there must be a way to have multiple logos of sports teams within one impressive holograph. It would no doubt cause most men to stare for lengthy periods of time trying to find our respective favorite teams' logos. This would take up large amounts of our valuable time, but sports do that anyway. 

Women would also have to be included in some form. And, no, I don't mean like that silhouette on those classy mud flaps on so many pickup trucks and semis. Seriously, on a mud flap? Whose brilliant idea was that? Probably the same kind of men who buy those things. I would never endorse such a version of the female form anyway. Whenever I see that specific woman, I think of one thing. Pole. Since I've vowed that none of my daughters will ever adorn a pole, I can't allow such a thing on the man flag.

This is sensitive territory. The biggest problem is, no matter what woman, in whatever way, is put on the man flag, wives and girlfriends the world over will be questioning if their husbands and boyfriends think the flag woman is prettier than they are. That is a major problem. Couples have enough to fight about. The man flag should not be one of them. It taints it. I won't allow that to happen to bacon.

My idea is this. The flag will have a blank space. That area is for each man to add a photo, or avatar if you will, of his love. (That love must be real and reciprocated, gentlemen. I don't want to see a thousand flags with Megan Fox on it. It would be wrong and would cause fighting within our union. That can't be allowed.) It goes without saying that the woman in question can choose what photo, or part of her body, is emblazoned on the flag. But, she must allow something up there. Each flag must be complete. It's in the contract that comes in every package, along with the rules of treatment. In short, it must be treated with the respect it deserves. 

It may be used as a bib, but only when on an important date. It will be flown at half-mast after every playoff loss your team suffers. It must never touch the hands of a vegetarian. If it is flown rigid for over four hours, consult a physician. 

That brings us to alcohol, beer specifically. I picture logos of as many beers as possible along the edges of the flag. They would be small, but they would be there. In fact, there could be numerous rows of beer logos, if needed. Perhaps, those inner rows should have poker chips and playing cards instead. Hmmm. We may need to take that issue to a vote at the next meeting.

That's about it. I toyed with the idea of having the pig be scratch 'n sniff. Bacon. But, that would confuse intoxicated men. We couldn't have our sacred flag damaged by teeth and frustration. That would be wrong.

I know what some of you are thinking. What about the woman flag? Those of you who know me well, know that I have a wife and four daughters. Surely, I would be qualified to at least theorize about what would adorn the woman flag. Uh, no I wouldn't. I am not the brightest bulb in the box. I commit acts of stupidity on a daily basis. If I'm lucky, it's just once a day. But, I am not suicidal. 

Which brings me back to stupid. I'll surmise about two things that might find their way onto the female flag. I'm guessing having an image of a male completing a common household chore (vacuuming, washing dishes, cleaning the toilet) would be somewhere in the middle area. I'm also assuming they would use the same idea of using a photo of their specific spouse or boyfriend for the task in question. Either that, or Channing Tatum. The words, "I'm wrong", in every language, would no doubt be present, as well. Beyond that, I'm done. Someone else can take it from here.

I really think the man flag should happen. It would unite men of all races. After all, we have so many differences. Actually, we don't. But, it would be another reason to get together to drink beer and watch sports, to high-five each other for other people's accomplishments, to grill various kinds of meat in properly cool aprons and t-shirts, to play fantasy sport after fantasy sport, to play poker, to watch pay-per-view sporting events and Arnold Schwarzenegger movies. And, of course, to eat bacon. 

What could be more important than that?

Million Dollar Rooms

I guess I'm unusual in many ways. I have four daughters. I have three jobs, all involving teaching kids. I'm a lifelong fan of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who has never been to Florida. I'm an Irish Catholic who doesn't drink much. And, I do not like reality television.

I could care less about American Idol or Survivor or The Bachelor/Bachelorette. I've never seen Jersey Shore or The Amazing Race. I simply don't care. In fact, just the premise of most of those shows annoys the hell out of me.

Of course, none of that means that I don't watch reality television. It's borderline impossible not to. It seems like two thirds of the networks available revolve around reality shows. There are some shows I rather enjoy. Not surprisingly, they revolve around sports and food. (Chopped is my personal favorite.)

But, since I am married with children, I end up watching far more reality shows than I normally would. Our girls love the Food Network. Cupcake Wars is quite popular, along with Sweet Genius (though, I swear that host is the creepiest person on television, with the possible exception of Kim Kardashian). 

Like many families with kids, we allow our children to watch a limited number of stations on television, basically three. HGTV, the Food Network, and if we're really in the mood to be tortured and outraged, the Disney Channel. (I'll get to that disaster of a network at a later time.)

My wife enjoys real estate reality shows. I watch quite a few with her, and I don't mind them too much. Except for one. Million Dollar Rooms may be the most vile show on television not airing on Fox. To put it bluntly, that show pisses me off almost instantly. If you haven't seen it, it's not hard to guess its premise. It's a show that gives the viewer tours of amazingly beautiful rooms that cost over a million dollars to create. Not the most original concept. Anyone remember Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous?

Each episode showcases several homes. The host gets a guided tour, either by the home owner, a member of the owner's entourage, or a realtor. We're supposed to be blown away by the glorious materials (ivory from Africa, granite from Italy, metal from the third moon of Saturn, etc), along with the beauty and creativity of its design. Of course, everything is impressive. Spending $250,000 on a staircase better buy some open mouths and bulging eyes, along with a massage and sound financial advice. It also buys extreme agitation and disgust.

Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous had such a long run for two main reasons, I think. One, at that time period (mid '80's to mid '90's), there were far fewer television networks and shows to watch. This was one of them. That, and Robin Leach was just fascinating to watch. The man was weird. Second, the country wasn't in the shitter back then. 

Don't get me wrong, there have always been rich people and poor people. There always will be. Rich people waste money on "necessities" and complain about paying taxes. Poor people complain about rich people and drink Old Milwaukee. It's a time honored tradition. Rich people have lots of money, the rest of us don't. I get it. It doesn't mean it should be broadcast internationally. 

I saw a happy couple on the show last week glowing with pride about their Mayan indoor pool. (I sincerely doubt there were too many glass encased indoor pools in ancient Mexico, but I digress.) Even though the "room" cost well over a million dollars, "It's paid for itself a thousand times over" because of the joy it's brought their two children. Yeah. Whatever. I grew up with a Slip 'n Slide and a squirt gun and was quite pleased. Kids down the street run through a fifteen-year-old sprinkler in their underwear and have a blast. And the neighbor kids don't have to sign an insurance waiver to play. Of course, they aren't driven over in a limo either.

Another woman, after showing her breathtaking home, took the camera crew up in her helicopter, so they could truly "appreciate" the view. Really? Everything looks better from a helicopter. Tijuana looks like a splendid city from up there.

I realize people can spend their money however they please. If someone wants to drop millions of dollars on a 18,000 square foot house for their family of four, more power to them. I'm sure they give gobs of their money to the local soup kitchen too. But, that wouldn't be interesting television, now would it? That's what bothers me the most. Television executives decided this would a show worth broadcasting. Apparently, they were right. Obviously, I've seen it myself. 

I'm curious, though. How much thought and discussion is put into showing citizens who use their money to help people and inspire others? Even more important, how many of us would watch it if they did?

Kohl's

Everyone likes to save money. In America, we all know that to save money, we have to spend money. I'm sure other countries would disagree with that, but there is simply no way the most powerful country with the most outrageous debt could possibly be wrong. Spending money to save money is what we do. 

But, spending isn't enough; the consumer must know exactly how much they saved. After all, how could we possibly know how much we saved without being told? It's too important to leave to chance. Just ask Kohl's.

One of the main pleasures of shopping at Kohl's is being handed the receipt. The helpful and polite cashier doesn't just hand over your receipt, she tells you how much you saved. She even circles it! The hard part is not laughing too hard when this ritual is done. Apparently, I'm supposed to be impressed by this rather large number circled and printed in bold type.

Our last visit to Kohl's was pretty typical. We bought a few t-shirts and gift items for Father's Day that were on sale (more savings!). Apparently, the sale was even better than we thought and what was advertised. We paid $50 and saved $80! Uh, no we didn't. There is no way those items were worth one hundred and thirty clams. How do I know this? Because we were at Kohl's. 

The clothing in question were no doubt made by oppressed children in the Philippines, or some place similar. As Martin Starr says in the great movie Adventureland, "We pay little Malaysian kids ten cents a day to make these things. We can't just give them away." Too true. But, at these (sale) prices, we come pretty damn close.

The idea behind this entry is not to discuss child labor practices in third world countries. Honestly, I have no idea where Kohl's clothing is made. It could be in Akron, Ohio for all I know. I'm just curious. Why pretend that every consumer is saving dozens, if not hundreds, of dollars with every single purchase? Why isn't it enough to simply sell your merchandise at a fair price and leave it at that? 

The answer is not difficult to surmise. We love to feel like we've accomplished something, even when we haven't. It makes us feel important, like we're actually doing something. Pretty powerful stuff, really. Just ask any politician. 

It's so much nicer to think, Not only did I buy three kickass shirts, but I saved $37! We get so impressed with ourselves that we update our status on Facebook. That way, our "friends" can be impressed too. Life is sweet. 

Of course, it doesn't seem to matter that we never would spend the supposed full price for those same shirts. Instead, we would drop the price tag as if it had Herpes, laugh at the price, and move on. Perhaps, we would even criticize the color, the quality of the material, and the ever-so-clever phrase across the chest. But, once we realize how cheap the shirt is, and how much we would save if we bought it (of course, we have to wait for the cashier to tell us), the shirt suddenly seems like quite the deal. It's just too good to pass up. Especially with so many colors and patterns to choose from! Like so many other things in life, it's all in the perception.

All that being said, it really isn't Kohl's fault. If they didn't have data showing we were actually impressed with these tactics, they wouldn't use them. It's really quite disturbing when you think about it. But, so is the idea of little Malaysian kids possibly making these shirts. Either way, the more I know, the more I Kohl's. Which is far better than Wal-Mart. Always.