My Thoughts: Tattoos

"Hey nice tattoo."

"Thanks!"

"Yeah I've got a bitchin' tat of an Eagle soaring across my back."

"REALLY?!"

"No."

And just like that a blog post was born. I'm standing around watering at work today, when I notice, and decide to comment upon a co-worker's tattoo. I then proceeded to bamboozle my co-worker with a fabrication, which clearly worked. And it got me thinking.

Who would ever want an eagle soaring across their back?!

I mean, I get it. Tattoo's are a way for someone to represent something they feel they need to represent at all times, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And when it's something like a family motto, or a cross, I get it. You like your family and you like Jesus. Hey, fine by me.

But then you come across people who have chinese characters, and tribal tattoos, and you think to yourself, "Well maybe he spent some time immersed in another culture." If that is the case, then awesome, but 99% of the time, that person is a douche. To be clear, I'll define douche as a person who is fake to the point where they compel others to dislike them. I mean, you can walk up to tons of jacked bro's out there with their little tribal tat's going around their biceps, and say, "Sweet tat man, what is it?" to which they'll respond, "Thanks bro/dude, it's tribal." Ask them what tribe. Please. If not only to get their best, "Uhhhhhhhhhh" face, then to publicly decry them for the douche they are.

If you have a good reason for getting a tattoo, like if you and your best friend get matching tattoos of something that bonds you two forever or whatever, power to you. If you're obsessed with something to the point where you feel it needs to be permanently etched into your skin, just don't go too big, and you're cool. And if you're in the Armed Services or something and get your unit tattoo'd on you, you're golden. But when you take off your shirt to reveal a giant majestic eagle/other animal, a tribal tattoo of any sort, or worst of all a tattoo of any sort on the small of your back (a.k.a. a tramp stamp) you're just begging for people to think less of you. It's like introducing yourself to someone for the first time by telling them you never tip anyone ever. Horrible first impression.

If you have to do it, make sure you can't live without it, because even with most of these new laser and chemical removal options, you're gonna leave some sort of mark, that you'll remember forever. If it's just a little something that you can hide by wearing a t-shirt, or pants, and makes you feel good when you see it reflected back at you, great. But just don't fall into the trap of putting something on you that has nothing to do with you. Tribal tattoo's don't count as "artistic expression." It's just lines. Put at different angles from other lines. It's dumb.

So save for Jesus, Mottos, or something with immense symbolic meaning that you hold dear, I'd sleep on it. And maybe sleep on it again. But if you have to get ink permanently inscribed into your flesh, just keep it classy, because the second you show someone your tattoo, and you hear, "Ohh... It's.... nice?" You've screwed up.

My Thoughts: Halloween

When it comes to Holidays, everyone usually touts their birthday and Christmahanukwanzaka as their favorites. But lets not forget good ole Halloween. For everyone between the ages of 3 and 30, it's pretty much the best night of the entire fall.

On Halloween you get what you want pretty much. When you're a kid, you want to just binge out on candy, BOOM Halloween. When you're a teenager, you want to hang out with your friends, play some pranks, and have some candy on the side, SNAP Halloween. Then when you're a young adult, all you want to do is get drunk and mack on some chicks (or dudes if you're in to that,) BAM Halloween. As most holiday's are, Halloween is a great excuse to buck shackles normally forced upon you by convention and The Man, and go out and just have some fun.

For some reason, some guy, some where, decided that Halloween costumes should attempt to be less realistic, and more slutty. He was definitely a bro. I believe I speak for most men when I say, Thank You. Halloween has become one of the most fun weekends on campus at college in part for this reason. I, for one, never knew that the dress codes for sailor women, army women, firewomen, and particularly nurses was so... how do you say.... form-fitting. And while I think everyone enjoys this variety of delicious eye candy, it's also just a great way to meet new people.

On Friday night, I dressed up as Jimmy Neutron. I know, I know. Awesome. Equally awesome though, was the calls of "Hey! Jimmy!" when I was walking through the dining hall, and later walking around. Being able to walk up to somebody and strike up a conversation with a "Hey, what're you dressed up as?" or a "DUDE! SWEET COSTUME!" makes going out on Halloween one of my favorite nights of the year. I walked up to one kid who was wearing a Purple Parrots shirt, and argued why Purple Parrots sucked and why Green Monkeys dominated, tried to convince a sailor girl that Zeus was in fact not Pikachu in vain, quacked with the Mighty Ducks, high-fived a pedophile for being awesome at flip cup, and made friends with Sloth, Envy, and Greed. I mean seriously, can you say you did that any other night of the year? No, and that is what makes Halloween one of the best, and most underrated holidays of the year.

I am personally of the opinion that there should be more Holidays like Halloween. There's Christmas in July. Why not Halloween in April?

My Thoughts: Alcohol

First things first, I will not be talking about alcohol and myself, or anything related to that. Perhaps I'll cover that someday down the road.

Moving on, what I want to talk about is the Drinking Age. You hear it everywhere. "21 means 21." Well over in most parts of Europe "21 means you've been drinking for a while now." I personally believe that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. Or if I'm really hoping on hopes, lower.

Reason 1: You can vote, why can't you drink? Would somebody be able to guide me through the logic that an 18 Year Old has enough sense, reason, and maturity to be able to vote for the President of the United States along with other elected officials, as well as serve in the Armed Services, but isn't smart or reasonable enough to handle and willingly imbibe alcohol? I would have to say that's kind of messed up, wouldn't you?

Reason 2: College. Most people either went to college, visited a friend at college, heard about college from a friend, or just sat down and watched Animal House. The point being that everyone, and I mean everyone, knows what goes down at colleges in terms of parties and the like. Kids go off to college, and they become immersed in this subculture of a drinking hierarchy. Everyone goes to school during the week, then Friday night comes along, and everyone goes out to party. (Okay, not everybody, but enough that I make a valid point.) I know at UMass there's some crap statistic floating around on different posters around Campus saying "3 out of 4 UMass Students know how to have fun without Alcohol. Do you?" First of all; Yeah I do. Second, I also know that all four of those students probably know how to have fun with Alcohol too. Plus, that they get this statistics from mandatory classes that have to be taken after students get busted for Alcohol tends to make these statistics invalid or at the very least heavily skewed.

Back to my point though, Parents send their kids off to College knowing that they're going to be all around drinking, and that they're not going to be there to watch over their shoulder. So it's best to let them just drop into this new setting, not knowing how to drink, and let those Frat Boys show them how to do a keg stand, right? Were the drinking age to be dropped to 18, most students tend to turn 18 their senior year of High School, when they still live under their parents Sauron-like gaze, which would allow parents to set a good example. That couple of months should be long enough for parents to give their kids some idea of how to drink responsibly. And if you don't think so, what's wrong with you that you can't sit down for maybe 1 night and tell your kid that drinking too much alcohol is bad for them? All I'm saying is that kids are going to school and most likely will be drinking before the age of 21. If you'd like them to learn how to drink from Frat Boys and other excess drinkers and party goers, keep 21 21. But I think it'd be a lot more reasonable to have kids learn how to drink under their parents than under Brother Buster at Beta Tau Omega.

Reason 3: Not every kid is as dumb as you give them credit for. Lots of people tend to have a big argument about lowering the age as 18 year olds simply aren't smart enough to handle this huge responsibility. Well maybe if you treated it more like a responsibility and less like a privilege, less people would take it for granted. I'll put it like this. Hypothetically, if the age were lowered, maybe even lower than 18, and younger kids were taught that alcohol wasn't to be abused, but used in moderation, and were allowed to experience this in little steps as they got older, they wouldn't just have this idea of alcohol as the forbidden fruit that the American School and Police system make it out to be. I remember back in the day sitting in my 5th grade classroom with the D.A.R.E. officer coming in to tell us all about how drugs and alcohol are bad. He was basically like, "Well Alcohol is horrible and you should never use it ever, but when adults drink it, because we're old and mature and can handle it, it allows us to relax, and have a better time hanging out with friends." Or at least that's what I remember. Given that description, kids would be dumb to not try it to prove how mature they were. If you were to ease kids into it instead of making it out as this Golden Apple, I am positive that it would definitely lose most of the allure that young kids see in it nowadays. It's only a big deal because some jackhole decided to make it a big deal. If you treat your kid like he or she is adult enough to handle it, they'll do everything they can to prove to you that they are in my opinion.

I could go on, but I know that some people have their minds all made up, and will disagree with what I said, as I am set in my way about this. So if anyone cares to write back and explain how flawed I am in my thinking, I would thoroughly enjoy getting into a heated debate about it, but otherwise I've said my thoughts. Jim out.

My Thoughts: Reality TV

First, as my Discussion and Debate teacher Mrs. Clough taught me, let's define our terms shall we?

• Reality TV, (re-al-it-ee tee-vee), A Television program that is based around real people, not acting, participating in some sort of series of events.
• Series of Events, (cee-ree-zuh ov ee-ven-tuh-zz), Situations set in to place solely to cause drama among participants.

So I think that just about covers it. Unless you want me to define Drama for you, but I think you can grasp that. I'm not trying to bore you all to death...or am I?

So. Blunt and simple, Reality TV SUCKS. It started with Survivor. At least that's when I picked up on it. And I've watched my few shows from here to there. I even liked Celebrity Mole. But at a certain point, I saw Reality TV for what it was, and is. Cheap money.

Flashback to the late 1990's....

Bill: "John we're running out of cash, and we need a new idea for a TV show."
John: "I know Bill but we don't have the money to hire anyone! No screenwriters, and certainly not a cast of characters!"
Bill: "I know! I know, but damnit we have to try! What about picking somebody up off the streets? See if they can act?"
John: "No no no, that won't work...but you might be on to something.... What if we just went around and picked some people up off the streets, and threw them into some situation just to see how they'd act?"
Bill: "I see where you're going...but where could we put them?"
John: "Someplace....desolate....Iowa?"
Bill: "Too boring...What about... an Island?"
John: "Brilliant! We'll throw some random people on an island.... but what will we do there?"
Bill: "I don't know...Survive?"
John: "Yeah...or maybe do an obstacle course or something?"
Bill: "Yeah! We'll throw 'em on an island, put them through an obstacle course or something, put a cash prize at the end, and all they've got to do is survive it all and they win! But what to call it?"
John: "I don't know....Survive? Survivor?"
Bill: "Survivor! That's it! If we do weekly eliminations I'm sure we can get a whole season's worth of drama out of this crap!"
John: "We'll have them talk trash about the others to the camera and just fill up half the episode with it! Cuts down on production time, and money! I think we've just saved our jobs!"
Bill: "No John, I think we've just started... a revolution..."

Or at least that's how I think it went. Anyway. Those guys should die. Because eventually after people got bored of filming real people in obviously fake situations for money or fame or love (e.g. Survivor, American Idol, The Bachelor,) they started trying to film people in obviously fake situations for absolutely no reason, and passing it off as Reality TV. I'm talking about crap, B.S. show's that have descriptions like "Follow Jill as she goes through the rigors of marriage, but watch out cause she's really feisty!" or "Watch as little Annie Sue struggles through her pregnancy...as a 16 year old!" JESUS CHRIST. WHAT IS WRONG WITH AMERICA THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY WATCH THIS SHIT? I'm sorry but your "Watching their lives fall apart makes me feel better about my life," Excuse isn't going to fly with me. You want to feel better about your life? Take a f*cking walk through Boston, and look at all the homeless people. Oh but that would involve you getting up and moving wouldn't it? And we don't want to do that now do we?

The crap they put on the air is mind-numbing, if not mind-draining in its stupidity. Here's how they come up with their shows:

• They say they're making a show about brides getting ready for their weddings.
  
• They find ones who have a tendency to freak out when something goes wrong.
• They tell them they've been selected.
  
• They put a camera crew out there. Throw in a few bucks so it's a good deal.
• THEY MAKE SHIT GO WRONG.
  
• Then they sit back and tape the fireworks.
• A little editing and post-production, they have a show.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to watch these shows, you should have to pay money, and give it to some sort of charity. Maybe a school or something so people will be smart enough to not watch these shows some day.

Now, to take a breather, I am not hating on all Reality TV. Some shows actually do good and help people. Extreme Home Makeover (even though I've heard it's a ripoff) they still give families a nice home. Pimp My Ride, they give some kid a really nice car, that they'll probably end up selling, so they'll at least get some cash. And some shows like Man vs. Wild, I wouldn't even classify as Reality TV in the sense I've previously defined, as it offers something that all these other shows do not. Knowledge. Which is goning to serve you better than that warm feeling you get after you watch Brian finally propose to Sue, because you know in your heart of hearts, that by the time that episode aired, they've already broken up, and she's in talks working on the deal to be the next Bachelorette.

So do yourself a favor. Next time you sit down to watch another pregnant 16 year old from a white trash family whose Dad was an abusive alcoholic and left the family, which resulted in the psychological problems that caused her to have unprotected sex at 16, hit the "Guide" button on your remote, and see if you can't find something with some sort of social relevance, or at least something that isn't as petty enough as to profit off of a 16 year old's bad decisions. If everybody just says No, maybe we can put a stop-gap in the fall of our society into chair-ridden fat asses.

For worst case, and most probable scenario at this point, watch Idiocracy.
For a better case, and still pretty probable scenario, see WALL-E. PEACE. I'M OUT.

My Thoughts: Clothes

Alright now before I go anywhere the following post doesn't give you "23 New Fashion Tips!" or "100 Ways to Please Your Man," (sorry ladies) but merely contains my thoughts when it comes to clothing.

So. As I was getting ready for my big night out tonight, (sitting in my friends' den watching the Sox game,) I had an epiphany. Well, more like I remembered why I love my jeans so goddamn much. I've got three pairs of Vans Jeans. They are the same exact jeans, except that I have them numbered 1, 2, and 3. I can tell which is which by the wear and tear and a little help from the tags. Pair one has some cuts on the front from a little spill I took one night at school (no, not my birthday.) Pair two has a red dot on the tag, and the bottoms of the legs aren't nearly as worn out as the other two (they're my dress pair.) Finally Pair three has a little flip on the tag, and doesn't have the cuts on the front.

"Jim, I don't give a flying f*ck about your jeans."

Ok, fair enough, but the point is that I do. These 3 pairs of jeans, used in a rotation, got me through my winter at school. I love these jeans. Being Summer, and Summer being hot (except for this June, where it rained 28 out of 30 days...which I'm still pissed about) I do not get to wear my jeans nearly as much as I like. So getting the opportunity tonight, as it was overcast and 60's going into the evening, I jumped at the chance. Changing out my work jeans for my Vans jeans (pair one) was like changing out a wool sweater for a silk shirt. I kid you not. Throwing these jeans on was like popping on my P.J.'s. You gotta love your clothes because as the saying goes, "Clothes make the man."

In my mind, all clothes should be like this. I realize that with girls, there's some sort of fashion aspect, but to me it's one of those things where if you're comfortable in your clothes, you shouldn't have to worry about all that high fashion crap. I'm not saying I want everyone to throw on sweatpants and sweatshirts and just walk around like slobs; but if you can find a nice comfy pair of jeans, and a cool broken in t-shirt, throw your high heels to the wind. There are times to dress up, and times to just chill. In my opinion, people all too often confuse the two. I'm looking at you girls. Especially you girls who wear heels and dresses to parties at dilapidated frat houses. You know who you are.

Dressing casual is vastly underrated. I'm gonna go talk to that girl who's wearing the jeans, sandals, and sweet Sox Tee, before I head over to talk to the girl who's all glammed up, and blinds me every time the light catches her earrings and/or dress. (Which is every 4 and a half seconds.) So next time you're getting ready to go out, skip your heels, grab your high-tops, and chill for a bit.

My Thoughts: Private School

Alright, so for those outside of the loop, I went to public elementary school, then for 5th and 6th grades I went to a Charter school, and for 7th and 8th I went to another private school in town, all before returning to the local public high school, and then attending the lovely University of Massachusetts. Now that that's out of the way, let me say this. Private schools are dumb.

I don't know who decided that rich parents should put rich kids into a different school with other rich kids, but that guy should be shot. The entire premise of private schools is that they are some sort of nurturing environment for these children to learn, and to come to their full potential. B.S. Seriously. Having experienced both systems, I can honestly say that there's no big difference scholastically. I could have easily learned the three or four things I remember from 7th and 8th grade at a public school. So now that we can say that the education is the same, some people would still argue that this small nurturing environment protects their kids from the social deviants one might run into at a public school.

This is one subject that I'm very heated about. The idea that going to this small private school will somehow nurture and protect their child from the outside troubles of the world is ridiculous and frankly naive. Every single person that I know who went to private school either had an older sibling or was friends with someone who had an older sibling, and when rich kids get older, they have more access to more stuff, like alcohol, and when the younger kid sees the older kid drinking, they get into it earlier than their sibling did. And boarding school? I'll hit that in a bit because that is a WHOLE different can of worms. So when these parents are sending their kids to private school to protect their children, they're actually screwing their kids over.

See, in public schools, yes, as the grade ladder is climbed by kids, drinking eventually becomes a factor. Some kids do, some kids don't. Some kids friends try it, and then go hang out with a different crowd, other kids decide not to try it and go find other friends to hang out with. It's a big deal at some point. But by sending your kid to your small nurturing school, where you can almost count the number of kids in your grade on your fingers, these kids are trapped. The following ensues:

• Bobby sees their older sibling, Charlie drinking a beer!
• Bobby trys it, or sneaks one, or is given one by Charlie.
• Of course Bobby now thinks drinking is mature, and the coolest thing to do.
• Bobby gets his close friend Frank to drink too!
• Bobby and Frank now spread this "cool drinking" fad around the grade.
• Eventually little Sammy is hanging out with Bobby, Frank and the other 5 guys that consist of the grades male population.
• They offer him a beer.

And then Sammy either has to choose social exile or drinking. What would you choose? Private school kids are rather unkind. If Sammy had attended public school, he could had chosen to go hang out with some other cool kids who don't drink. I mean, this scenario eventually happens to everyone, but normally it happens a little later. All I'm saying is, private school causes kids to choose between conforming, or being social outcasts. And often times shoots would be good kids down a nice path of drugs and alcohol nice and early in life.

Boarding school. Boarding school takes this scenario and kicks it up a notch. By removing the parents from the equation, Bobby up there is gonna be boozing it up after lights out whenever he wants cause Tom, from the grade above, sold him a bottle of cheap watered down vodka. I'm sure parents thought to themselves, "Oh yeah. Sending Sammy off to boarding school will be great for him. Knowing I'm not there to help guide his moral compass at an important time in his life is gonna be great for him!" Seriously. That and "I know I can't get Sammy to do his homework now, when I'm around, but I'm sure if he's off at school living with a bunch of other kids, who probably don't do their homework either, they'll live together and I'm sure they'll do all their work before they go off to play!" College is fine though, because after high school, any moral compass guiding you attempt to do with your son and/or daughter will be met with laughter or awkward faces and yelling to "GET OUT OF MY ROOM!!!"

Sending your kid to private school and then telling them their special and get preferential treatment like you do growing up going to public school just teaches your kid to believe that he's better than those kids over at John Woods High School. Some kids get out of private schools relatively unscathed, and have been tempered by the fires of private society. They lead productive, happy lives, and are not snobbish high brow pricks. They are in the minority. So just do your kids a favor folks, instead of sending them off to Oceanside Academy for Prestigious Students, drive 'em down to your local public school 5 days a week, and let them navigate the wilds of public school. You raised 'em right, they'll be fine. And if you see 'em taking a sharp left instead of a right, just give 'em a swift kick in the right direction. Till next time.

My Thoughts: Wikipedia

Anyone who knows me knows I love Wikipedia. To me it's like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but real. (And yeah, I know there's H2G2, but I like Wikipedia better.) Anywho, whenever someone new discovers I use Wikipedia, and I love it, they have one of two reactions for the most part.

1. They completely agree, and think Wikipedia is the shit.
2. They completely disagree, and think Wikipedia is bull shit.

I think Wikipedia is the shit. However I sympathize with those who disagree. The trick is with Wikipedia, you have to take everything with a grain of salt. You can't go on Wikipedia, and expect everything written on it to be stone cold fact. That is dumb. But I for one, would rather go on Wikipedia, look up a topic I know nothing about, and then be able to know something about it. Then later, if I'm talking to someone about it and I say something I learned, and they know for a fact it is wrong, they can call me on it, and I'll willingly, nay, eagerly let them correct me. Wikipedia just gives me a good head start, but it doesn't fill in all the gaps along the way.

When it comes to papers however, even some people who love Wikipedia will turn their back on their old friend. I laugh at these people. Teachers have told us since we were old enough to look up computer sources; we need to cite our work. They also told us Wikipedia was not a viable source, and we can't cite it. Naturally most people hear this and don't bother looking at Wikipedia. That's their mistake. Wikipedia articles, when it comes to scientific fact, or most facts in general, have citations and links to credible websites following the articles themselves. By going on Wikipedia and looking up their topic, students can gain an overall understanding of their topic, and then can venture into other websites knowing what they need to look for. I know when I had an extra credit paper due last semester on Osteoporosis I needed to have 3 citations from PubMed, a scientific article database. First thing I did was go look up Osteoporosis on Wikipedia. While reading the article, I opened the citations in new tabs (Firefox of course,) and after I was done reading I looked at what the citations linked to. Interestingly enough, they linked to PubMed articles! I then looked through those articles, found the information I needed, and finished the paper in no time. It was that simple. And it's not cheating. If anyone would like to argue that using facts from a certainly credible scientific article is not valid due to being linked there from another website, please, do so. Just because it was linked from Wikipedia doesn't make it any less credible.

So please, next time your friend is yelling at you and saying you can never take anything you read on Wikipedia as fact, and nod and pat them on the back, but tell them that they're still wrong, because the scientific article they took the information from had more credentials than their dad.