Why Do People Want Jobs?

I am very serious when I ask this question. I'm asking it with a straight face as I type, I promise.

Why do people want jobs so badly?

I'm tired of people frantically hoping and wishing they had a job, or a better job, or discussing how much their job sucks, or even how much they love their jobs (though this is less annoying than the other ones). Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.

I'll get to my point.

I'm tired of people very lovingly embracing their indentured servitude, or reluctantly embracing it because they hate their jobs now, but believe they will find a better one with better terms, etc. in the future.

This doesn't make sense to me, and here's exactly why:

Why can't I here more stories about individuals creating their own jobs, to the point that it doesn't feel like a job anymore?

Why can't I hear more stories about someone self-publishing their books? Individuals creating their own products and selling it online or at brick and mortar stores, or both? People having successful blogs and websites?

Why does everyone seem so eager to work for someone else?

There are a lot of excuses that could easily be refuted when it comes to entrepreneurship:

1. It's a huge risk. A life without risk is a pretty ordinary, likely boring life. And everyone supposedly wants an exciting one. How can you have a rewarding, challenging life without risks? If everyone is persuaded to take the same path to success, for example, many years of school and then hopefully a job later, how is that unique or even a viable option with all the competition for jobs in the world on that same path of success?
2. It's less of a risk if you work for someone else instead of being your own boss. Again, it's a risk for the boss, so if your boss fails, you fail. At least you won't traditionally be unemployed being your own boss.
3. It costs too much. The internet has greatly reduced the price of conducting business and finding business-related information. Hell, this blog was free!
4. You can't do it. You need to be an expert. No, there are many successful small and big-business owners who didn't finish school because they felt the school was going to slow and had outdated materials!

Don't get me wrong. School can be good. I went to school and have a degree, but schools should teach students to be self-sufficient and to realize that with a job, your time is not your own. Your employer could care less about your personal life and need to socialize with family and friends since you owe the money you get from him/her to have time for a personal life. You are dependent on the boss. Your boss knows this, and this is why he can get away with acting almost any kind of way to you (at least, domineering) because you owe your lifestyle to him. He has no allegiance to you but you have all allegiance to you. Stop being a slave with slightly more freedom and follow your passion.

So stop looking at someone crazy when they want to achieve their dream their own way, because a lot of successful man did it like that, and be sure to support the geniuses of the future. More people need to have their voices heard rather than the ones already successful and their own boss.

Dating Money: A First, Formal Date

I dated the 'thing' called money, and this was how I felt about him...

He was a blank slate, with an even blanker expression.

He thought he was such a great catch, without even trying to be, or he thought his clothes were enough to qualify him as a great catch.

His looks certainly were not.

And his clothes...well, they were unique, but somewhat questionable and distasteful.

He actually wore some 'male' make-up to highlight, from his words, 'sharp, prominent cheek bones', and he went a bit overboard with the bits of alligator skin here, bird skin there, shiny sheen here, bright dyes, diamond encrusted cuffs, etc.

He was too exotic for my taste. It was like he was trying to incorporate everything that was cool and eye-popping; he was trying too hard to impress every kind of person and have appeal to everyone.

He obviously wanted to be well-liked, even if it was only superficial.

But, to his credit, he had some mesmerizing green eyes, but those green eyes were the color of envy whenever another guy complimented me on our date.

He'd grab my hand really hard, and say, "no one will be able to love and care for you like me."

A red flag went up that this guy was really possessive, far too quickly.

Anyway, every time I tried talking to him, he simply nodded, like he had nothing important or intellectual to say to me.

Not even to impress me.

He stared intently into my eyes, which was about it, giving and wanting compliments.

But he was also staring at me as if he was waiting for me to entertain him first. I guess I could've blew a few kisses his way, and maybe he would've warmed up after that, but I'm not that kind of gal on a first date.

Although he mentioned working with some intelligent and important people...and some idiots.

The story about the idiots was side-splittingly funny.

But when he stopped telling these stories, he stopped being funny.

After he told me what he did for a living, which was to 'make people happy' through hypnotic therapy and some appraisal on the side (which I thought was a little arrogant in his explanation).

After that, all he wanted to do was comment on peoples' clothes and jewels and estimate the cost.

He was so dam pompous.

It was slightly amusing though.

He had good taste when talking about other peoples' things and lives, which I could appreciate, but when he started assessing the cost of my clothes and jewelry, and criticizing me, saying that I needed an upgrade, I knew he was not life-long mate material and that was the end of the date.

No Need to Do Anything Coolz

Disclaimer: This is mostly for humor purposes.

Fashion can speak for itself in many ways.

Sometimes speaking to what kind of person you want to come off as or the person you really are, even if that's just being a trendy, apple-lover, and up-to-the trends kind of person. But fashion has done this for little awhile, and more especially now.

Nowadays, it seems that we want a style that will make people look twice because they're not quite sure what they just saw; it's how people stir up a little bit of controversy and excitement in their lives. We are a controversial society that loves controversy for some reason.

So, the rules and the definition of cool have changed.

The unofficial question is this: Who can top another person in the most outrageously fashionable clothes?

Who can have the most edginess, like new places to pierce rings in and ruffle hair. Or the dorky of dorkiest, like the best ironic 80s t-shirts?

And...who can pull off the most colorful and flamboyant pants, shirts, shoes, or sheer materials and make them look wearable?

Everything perfectly in place, or all matched for sense, seems a bit boring for some.

Our generation is all about perfectly imperfect.

Flawless flaws and Flawlessly flawless.

Smooth unsmooth hair...if that's even possible.

Unkempt kempt.

So, you get the point.

So sloppy without fully being sloppy because its new; it's newness people are after.

And whoever can do this the best, and balance these styles out, kinda wins in being the neon light of self-expression.

If you stick out like a sore thumb, the better, and it should be done before people start copying your style or the mainstream gets a hold of it, and then it's no longer your style.

I guess that's why the mainstream has so many different trends going on to make people feel more unique and happy, though people could create their own versatility.

I guess we don't want styles we've seen before, that's why we're in a rush to find the edgiest, most unseen style ever.

Is this people seeking individuality, because we can't find it at work, or among our family, or our schools?

Or is it because we want to be so different from generations that came before us, so we're generation unpredictable, or generation 'throw it together and see what stick''? Or Generation experimental.

I mean, Geek Chic is in, and being different is in...and its because its all about standing out as this cool outcast that the mainstream still eventually ends up latching onto and making popular. Because the mainstream likes selling new kinds of cool that used to be seen as uncool, but is now getting its due credit for being unique.
 But is being an outcast the goal, because society and the mainstream has gotten so crappy?

Or is it just peacocking taken to the extreme or maybe a wider opportunity for people and their self-expression?

I hope it's just more self-expression.

I hope its not people trying so hard to stick out because originality is hard to come by. I hope there's still a lot of originality out there that people just haven't found yet.

More Flesh Is IN as The New Fashion Trend?

 

Baring Flesh, as much flesh as you can get away with (I'm looking at some famous females here), is IN as the new fashion trend, as the title suggests.

But I have a couple problems with it. It's only a few that I'll get through pretty quickly.

#1-Every celeb is trying to say that it's for artistic expression or a 'statement.'
I think they should re-phrase that. It's there to stir controversy so they can get peoples' attention to listen to their music and their various other projects. It kind of ceases to be artistic/a statement, and more like a calculated move. Also, what other quick way can they get attention like good, old-fashioned nudity. Oh, I forgot, behaving badly with the law.

#2-What is the artistic expression or statement?
If more and more female and male artists are gratuitously baring flesh for all the world to see, doesn't it stop being an artistic expression, at least a unique one, since everyone kind of does it? And what's the (very vague) statement here? That it's difficult to bear it all for the world to see but when you do it, you're fearless because you're not afraid of what the world thinks of you, like the world should take notice? The world doesn't take notice of a lot of good things people tend to feel and do. And I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to invite that kind of scrutiny in my life. Also, it's sad that this is great material for Peeping Toms and perverts. That being said, I think people were meant to cover up some things...

#3-People were meant to cover up some things because celebrities will get ordinary folks thinking that they have the body to flaunt it half-naked in the supermarket. Some people don't need to show off their bodies, and I'm sorry if I've offended people with that statement. That's why everyone should not start 'baring it all' for the world to see. And because no one wants to get any unpleasant sights when they're simply trying to buy food from the store and get out without getting scarred or, extremely uncomfortable. They should have some right to that, at least out of politness.

If Your Dog Doesn't Eat It, You Might Not Want to Eat It Either

Dogs have an excellent sense of smell.

We experience the world through our eyes, they experience it through their noses, an adage a dog trainer once told me.

Dogs may be able to smell every single ingredient in their food, possibly toxins and other unappetizing additions.

Since dogs can actually smell cancer and other diseases on human companions long before the human companion finds out for themselves, this isn't too far of a stretch.

It stands to reason that some would be picky with their food because of this.

If you sometimes feed your dog 'human' food like I do (mostly bits of turkey and chicken), then maybe you should, at a slight distance (it's your preference), have your pet sniff the food for you to see if its up to par to be consumed.

(kidding, though it would be cool for people to experiment with this too. There were times I tried giving my dog pieces of meat off my plate and he didn't want it, then I ate the food and it actually was disgusting).

So, if a dog isn't eating the food you give him, he probably smells something suspicious, or just isn't hungry.

Why the Economy is Fake: Simple Explanations

 

I remember reading a quote one day that said something on the lines of this: 'The Economy is the business of making natural resources into private commodities that were once accessible to the people without charge.'

 

So, by this quote alone, private ownership is taking over natural goods and resources that were once available to everyone, and not making it available to everyone because it now has a price attached to it.

 

This is where I start believing that the Economy is fake, just a human creation that's supposed to work for us (to make things easier), not a natural force or an 'invisible hand' that easily and effortlessly and without provocation, silently moves everything into its proper place.

 

It's an invisible hand that's had to do a lot of hand gymnastics for the current economy that we have now to exist.

 

Here's a small example of it: A lot of stuff we buy is bought in small or medium-sized cans and packages, because then you'll have to come back and buy more of the things you need. Even with big packaged items, they only look like that way in appearance. Ha, it's like when I buy a large-looking bag of candy, but all of the candy is towards the bottom of the bag.

 

The economy could not survive if everyone got real, big jumbo size packages of food and other goods to last them a year or more, because then they are having more access to the goods without paying more over a year.

 

The economy would suffer because it needs people constantly buying things that they need/want, and those things that they buy eventually breaking or running out (planned obsolescence?), and buying it all over again because this is how a company becomes very profitable.

 

Only giving a little bit of access.

 

This can create a dilemma because the more companies compete and take each other over, there will be only a few companies standing afterwards, so this is why I think we should have a balance of public and private goods.

 

So, just remember, you have less and more power in the economy than you think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Wealth Doesn't Really Exist: A Simple Economics Review

Wealth doesn't exist.

At least not in the way we think of it.

Every time money is made, its almost immediately used to buy things, and its mostly the things we need. Something that's either eaten in a matter of a few weeks or breaks down in a couple years so that you have to get another.

Once the money is spent in this way, its lost any real potential to grow wealth for the spender, but it grows something close to wealth by the retailer/producers.

And this makes sense because the economy requires that money for it continue (money is separate from wealth, which I will explain momentarily).

People require money for the necessities the economy provides them.

So money is in a constant cycle of changing hands and when its not in a constant cycle, it's called a recession or depression.

It's good that people buy things that they need, or a few luxury items like TV and other electronics, but its gotten to a point where people are encouraged to buy it on credit if they don't have it, which re-emphasizes the point that simply having money and things is not real wealth.

If a person were to get laid off, they probably don't have a lot of savings after their job, which puts them in a precarious situation.

This gets me to wealth. The closest anyone will get to wealth is having control over a resource, something that won't fade or disappear (like one hit wonders), such as water and land which will mostly pay for itself with smart management and having more positive than negative transactions with it.

Even owning the rights to water and land, and other resources like gold, still isn't wealth unless you can derive power from them and use it to make public policy go your way, because many people rely on your products in society.

Wealth then is the power you get from owning resources and 'giving' it to grateful consumers.

The other type of wealth is to earn money through your own labor, but selling your labor yourself instead of selling yourself and skills to a company. When you sell your own labor yourself, you are a potential hub for wealth.

And this is what I've come to believe.

Feminisim is OverCooked Part 2

I use images like these to make fun of stereotypes and dogma, so don't complain that I'm anti-female.

In the last segment, I mentioned how the word feminist is thrown around like it still needs a lot of attention under a constant spotlight, which is why its overcooked, in my opinion.

It's obstructing our view to other issues, like, I don't know, access to water for victims of drought.

Anyway, women, I know this will be hard to hear, but we are still being coddled.

No matter what we do, if we're still being hysterically cheered on by society to embrace the now well-known and old ideals of feminist independence, we will never be treated equally to men. And anyway, do you really want to be treated just like a man? Who are often seen as so tough that they are disposable and can fend for themselves?

...Where was I? Ah, yes, I hate to say it, but we are being coddled into accepting what the mainstream deems as jobs that are better for us, more befitting and worthy of good feminists.

Because the plot is to have every woman in  every leadership position to cement that women have taken over men and society!

Kidding, though that could be plausible....

In lieu of all these commercials (for example, the 'why do women apologize?' commercial. Personally, sometimes I apologize because there's nothing else to say when awkward silence sets in) and many other campaigns that beat up the feminist drums once more.

We are still being coddled because we are still in a position where we 'need' help by way of campaigns, commercials, congresswomen, and empowered female celebrities to encourage us to liberate ourselves for ever greater goals and accomplishments, although we could have found this out for ourselves and didn't necessarily need a broadcasted message. I've mentioned this in the previous segment, but I'll re-state it; it's been statistically proven that women have fared much better than men when it comes to jobs and by all means already have the resources to be independent. So what's with all the beating of drums?

It seems that there will never truly be equality because of the emergence of this power-grab between men and women in all important aspects of life, like work, school etc., that someone can be deemed successful in, and its an ugly battle.

Wear your helmets.

Feminism is OverCooked

I might get a lot of slack for this, especially for that little pun in the title there above (ha!), but I think the word 'feminist' is thrown around too much in situations where it isn't needed and it becomes overblown.

In instances where it does very little, especially when you compare it to reality.

We are, in my opinion, in an era of post-feminism.

We mostly have equality with men. (I'll get to the 'mostly' part later.)

And as far as not getting paid the same, there have recently been statistics showing that women have actually fared much better in this unstable economy we currently have.

Translation, women have actually recovered in the job market far better than men.

Now, let's go back to the 'mostly' part.

I feel that women actually have more of an advantage than men.
We have to admit that after we got the right to vote and the ability to achieve higher positions than the often hated on secretarial positions, we were set from then on out.

Not that it's inherently a bad thing, but we have a 'woman' friendly society.

Yes, maybe other countries don't, but this country does.

Just recently there was a campaign to ban the word 'bossy.' The logic behind it?

The word prevents girls from wanting to enter fields in science, math and business. It gives them low self-esteem when their trying to grab leadership roles in school.

...Um, last time I checked bossy meant that someone was being too demanding, man or woman, girl or boy. Or, in a less delicate definition, bussing peoples' chops because the boss feels the worker bees are beneath them.

Is this what we're teaching women?

Anyway, women are encouraged and coached left and right, with more campaigns than the one mentioned above, which will be talked about in another installment, because its just too much for one post.



TO BE CONTINUED: WHY I'M NOT A FEMINIST: FEMINISM IS OVERCOOKED PART 2

Heart-Tugging but Heart-Breaking Commericials?

Whenever I watch commercials that have intricate stories, where there are very different people engaging in various, fun and inspiring activities, it half-heartedly tugs at my heart.

I like the story behind it, but its completely soured by the fact that the potentially beautiful story is focused on a mediocre, plastic, and soulless product, and in some instances the product isn't even present until the end of the commercial, right around the time you've completely forgotten about the product entirely.

I guess its the advertisers attempt to try to infuse a soul into something that is lifeless.

Think of the creator of Frankenstein trying to electrify a can of coke so it can get a heart beat out of it.

It's kind of like the betrayal you would feel if I showed you an image filled with rays of sunshine, and a woman and man are laying in clear, bright High-definition fields of barley, and they're looking up at the sky with hopeful expressions; I can admire the simplicity and quiet normalcy of this scene, but then a corporate logo is suddenly smacked right on top of it, and the story is gone.

At least, the meaning is gone.

The feeling of being manipulated is very palpable, and all the values and interesting activities of the people in the story, seem unreal because they didn't belong there; they belonged somewhere else.

Plus, who gets so excited about a product that they decide to go surfing, like in one commercial for pepsi. I guess even the advertisers realize that it's a far stretch to have someone enjoying surfing because of a pepsi can that they couldn't even take surfing with them. They'd much rather take their friends.

Plastic Faces Disorder: A PSA

Side Effects- A face that looks tight and has a lot of sheen (so forever oily and shiny looking)

I know there might be a lot of people who wish they looked like their favorite singers and actors.

Who wouldn't want to be similar to a powerhouse man or woman, in some way; someone who doesn't tolerate any nonsense, and receives attention for that brassy, no-crap, glamorous persona that's made them so fabulously wealthy?

There are many willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes millions to have the special, talent-producing features of their favorite celebs (though we could argue that stars have gone under the knife and you're imitating a copy of a copy of a copy of a former person).

This is probably due to the spectacle, the attention people get for doing something so drastic all for their beliefs and future hopes. They want everyone to see their new face, their new body, their new personality, and what they're going to do with that new face that will open up doors for them. But I sincerely hope people are doing something this life-altering measure for the true benefit of themselves and not some stupid bully that unfairly picked on their younger selves.

Because if you're doing plastic surgery, do it for yourself.

Get some 15 minutes of intoxicating fame.

I kind of just wish there were more unique/original faces people imitated.

There are too many people looking like Justin Bieber, Beyoncé, and Kim K. Soon, there will be large groups of look-alike celebrities in the crowd.

Maybe plastic surgery to look like your Mom or other family members-which would make cool pranks-though it is creepy.

Hell, maybe people can don masks to look like powerhouse people like George Washington or Martin Luther King Jr...for a day, of course, unless people want to get plastic surgery to look like these extraordinary men everyday.

I'm sure someone who looked like George Washington would get into a lot of historical places for free...but I think he and Martin Luther King Jr. would much rather have had people look into them than look like him since everyone should be judged by their own characters and personality, not entirely on their looks.

Maybe putting on an afro, which is a symbol of the civil rights movement, would be much better than looking like Martin Luther King Jr.

Maybe a mini statue of the person you admire, whoever it may be, instead of plastic surgery. Mini statues of actors and singers, and important leaders.

Maybe just trying to imitate the personality trait or characteristic you find so inspiring in a famous, wealthy or influential person is the best way to emulate and look up to someone, whoever that is, instead of only looking like them in appearance and nothing else.

Also, some of these stars people model after, will probably fade into the distance.

Lazy Games 2: Good Laziness vs. Bad Laziness

 

Bad Laziness

Using books to hold cups, glasses, jewelry, or other miscellaneous objects, and to keep doors open.

Also, using books as decorations to trick people into thinking you are a bookworm.

Playing bingo as a job.

Fixing toast because that's the easiest thing to cook.

Looking up plane tickets to imagine escaping somewhere else.

Lots of daydreaming.

Looking at celebrity's twitter quotes hoping their tweets rub off on you and your a success.

Good Laziness

Someone saying, "I want to take a vacation with my family since I haven't seen them for weeks because of my work hours."

Taking long baths and showers because you can never be too tidy and relaxed.

Using television as background noise to complete work and/or school assignments; as long as it doesn't distract.

Walking the dog.

Retiring in 20s, 30s, and early 40s, because you can.

Having hobbies.


TO BE CONTINUED

The Economy is A Person??!!

Below is what I expect peoples' responses to be when they talk about the person named 'Economy', because Economy is treated like a person and worried over just like a person, through her many recessions, depressions, or moments of faltering: As you can read below, the person called Economy has lots of mood swings and seems a tad bit selfish.


BAD MOOD: When she gets angry and sad......

'We have to save the Economy!!!'

'Let's throw money at the people in charge of money so they can help save the Economy!!'

'Bankers, please take our money so you can give lots of loans to people, especially higher-up people so they can save the economy!!!'

'You! Work harder, so you can have money to save the economy!!!'

'You need to buy stuff in order to save the economy!!'


This is us trying to flatter the Economy into submission....

'The Economy is God.' (bowing to retail shops, an extension of the Economy)

'The Economy protects our way of life.' (Kissing shopping bags)

'You must obey'. (Rubbing money on our chests and watching tons of commercials as you do it)


GOOD MOOD: She's gotten what she wants because everyone is giving her LOTS of care

'Ah, the Economy gives people such a good standard of living!'

'Look, the Economy gives people water, food, shelter!'

'It's the Economy, I tell you, all from the Economy.'

=

The economy doesn't really work for us, it works for itself and the people in charge of it..


"It is time we stop looking at the economy as some sort of natural force that needs to be protected from the envious so the country can do better. The economy like every other social arrangement is a social construct. We invented it to serve us, not the other way around. Societies found that bartering is too limited so with the invention of money we could trade presumably in a manner that was fairer to both parties in the exchange. We also found that having a bigger market worked better for prices so societies built infrastructures at cost to the whole communities and we let the producers that benefited from the larger market made possible by the socially paid infrastructure keep all the profits from this arrangement. With all the difficulties visited on families by instability it is clear that European societies have gotten a better arrangement for the benefit of the largest possible segments of societies than we have, with our culture of "the best economy is the 'truest' free enterprise". The joke is on us."- Lila B.

Let's play...Oh, Don't Blame Capitalism!: True or False Edition

These are my opinions, brought to you by my observations and some facts, and the fact that we have to criticize every system we live by just to know the flaws of it, no exceptions. Let's begin: Can we blame capitalism a little?

• Government murders jobs and Capitalism saves them= True or False?

False=Actually, when private employers aren't hiring people (which can be for many reasons), government tends to get bigger so they can come to the rescue (they want positive poll numbers)-they hire people and also give them social benefits until they find jobs with the private sector.

And...True...somewhat=When Government puts out too many regulations on small-time business owners that corporations can easily get out of, government kills jobs.

• Capitalism dumbs down things-True or False?

True= When advertisements of products say, 'You just can't have one' that's not enough information to make an informed choice, especially if you really want to know the bad and good of it. It's just a happy, smiley advertisement, that makes you all gushy and happy inside and makes you want to buy it. And there have been cuts in public education because states don't have enough revenue, because they don't tax enough higher income people. Also, capitalism is only concerned with you buying things. You don't need to be smart to buy stuff. You just have to have a job, any kind of job, to buy stuff that may or may not work.

• Capitalism bribes the naysayers-True or False?

True= Government is supposed to be a big hater of capitalism because capitalism controls most of its territory. Government loves to control things. The capitalists bought it off and shut it up with a little bit of money and they're now working together.

• Capitalism is all about giving people freedom in their choices=True or False?

False=Well, this is a tricky one, because hard-core capitalists, you know, the ones who have the money to buy up any good acreage for property to do business in, definitely have lots of choice. But the average folks do not, because one company can be so good at producing things that it starts buying up its competitors and you have the illusion of lots of choices by the same company. Just ask General Mills. Also, do people really want to work at crappy jobs in the meantime 'til they find a less crappy job?

• Capitalism is all about separating the good ideas from the bad ideas in markets-True or False?

False=A man just made thousands of dollars on Kickstarter for making potato salad. Last time I checked, it didn't cost that much. And I don't know if you've listened to music lately, but songs like 'wiggle wiggle' which is a rap about butts shaking in the club, that plays on the radio every single day, isn't musical genius. Speaking of musical genius, why do I only hear 5 or 7 of the same pop/rap songs on the radio? Is music that centralized now? So, even mediocre things can become successful. And helpful things, like alternative energies, gets bashed.

• Capitalism makes you work hard-True or False

True Boy, does it. It especially makes little kids work from countries across the world. It makes old people work who thought they had enough money to retire only to see prices go up. It makes a lot of people work all day. Yay work! I guess working hard is good in and of itself.

Please contest these if you'd like. I like to hear different sides.



....TO BE CONTINUED IN A 2ND EDITION.

Vanilla and Purple Prose Offenders: Fifty Shades of Grey vs. Twilight

 

Which is the worst offender when it comes to squishy, mushy, purple prose writing?

Well, you can decide with the compiled list of quotes below, 'cause I just don't know how to choose this one.

And for those of you who aren't familiar with purple prose, it's basically super-sweet, flowery language that bears no relation to how people really talk and write in real life, so I guess that means we're just not as sweet (or delusional) as the purple prose people. It goes like this:

'I looked deeply into the blue, bright orbs that were her eyes, and in that moment she could command me to do anything, anything, and it would be done without hesitation.'

Let's begin:

 

Fifty Shades of Grey

 

 

 

"His voice is warm and husky like dark melted chocolate fudge caramel... or something."

 

“I'd like to bite that lip.”

 

“You have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find your prince.”

“I've kissed a prince, Mom. I hope it doesn't turn into a frog.”

 

“I gasp, and I'm Eve in the Garden of Eden, and he's the serpent, and I cannot resist.”

 

“He's naked except for those soft ripped jeans, top button casually undone. Jeez, he looks so freaking hot. My subconscious is frantically fanning herself, and my inner goddess is swaying and writhing to some primal carnal rhythm.” 

 

“The candle flame is too hot. It flickers and dances in the over-warm breeze, a breeze that brings no respite from the heat. Soft gossamer wings flutter to and fro in the dark, sprinkling dusty scaled in the circle of light. I'm struggling to resist, but I'm drawn. And then it's to bright, and I am flying too close to the sun, dazzled by the light, fried and melting from the heat, weary in my endeavors to stay airborne. I am so warm. The heat... It's stifling, overpowering. It wakes me.”    

 

“I have fallen for someone who's so emotionally shut down, I will only get hurt- deep down I know this- someone who by his own admission is completely fucked up.”

 

Twilight

 

 

 

“Do I dazzle you?”  

 

“You're intoxicated by my very presence.”

 

“Even more, I had never meant to love him. One thing I truly knew - knew it in the pit of my stomach, in the center of my bones, knew it from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet, knew it deep in my empty chest - was how love gave someone the power to break you”  

 

“And so the lion fell in love with the lamb.”

 

“So what you're saying is, I'm your brand of heroin?" I teased, trying to lighten the mood.
He smiled swiftly, seeming to appreciate my effort. "Yes, you are exactly my brand of heroin.”   

 

“The bond forged between us was not one that could be broken by absence, distance, or time. And no matter how much more special or beautiful or brilliant or perfect than me he might be, he was as irreversibly altered as I was. As I would always belong to him, so would he always be mine.”      

 

“It never made sense for you to love me.”

 

 

...Hmm, I might have to go with 50 Shades of Grey because at least I can excuse the twilight bunch for being whiny and mopey since their adolescent teenagers.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hollywood Clone Games

 

 

 

In light of the recent news of Kim K's successful video game, Kim Kardashian: Hollywood, why don't we make a new game genre that exclusively deals with the life of celebrity; we can call it Hollywood Clone since it's getting so dam addicting trying to be just like our favorite stars. I'm sure more celebrities will be a part of it seeing how lucrative it is and how it augments the fan's experience with their favorite celebrity, as well as encourages them to buy things advertised in the game to be just like their fav star. Let's face it, advertisement dollars are better spent with a celebrity backing products with their bright, smiling faces because we want to get closer to them anyway possible.

 

Let's take it a step further and let the players be the celebrities or move up the levels of the game in order to be the friend of their favorite celeb or the celeb's back-up dancer.

 

A good example of a Hollywood Clone game already in existence is Katy Perry and her cavity-causing, cotton-candy swirling, rainbow-crapping unicorns' debut in the world of Sims.

 

The imagery was beautiful, if you don't mind having your eyes murdered by pinks, purples, all blended with blinding glitter and sparkles.

I think a Hollywood Clone game we should look out for is a Justin Bieber game, called...Underbelly Hollywood...or maybe Seedy Hollywood and Tough in Hollywood? The title doesn't really matter at this point because maybe it would get more attention just being self-titled.

The objective of the Justin Bieber game could be this: how many criminal charges can you get to break Justin's criminal record and still get into the fabulous clubs and restaurants in Hollywood? Also, to see if you could get a rap career and keep a pop career at the same time!

There could be a Beyoncé Hollywood Clone game too, where you have to make at least a million bucks every minute you give a lap dance or your butt will shrink, get old, and you'll be booed off stage.

Fun games, fun games they will be, especially when you can be the top celebrity yourself or the backup dancer, groupie or friend of the title celebrity if not the title celebrity. All different levels to get to in order to be the star.



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Announcing The Battle of...

The Lazy Games  

What exactly is lazy?

That's what the lazy games will be about, pin-pointing exactly what the word lazy means, with some questions and answers to choose from to help us along and finally deduct what the meaning is.

The definition, though seemingly and deceptively clear, can be in a bit of a grey area in certain situations.

This is why it'll be so fun to figure out through questions and a poll.

When you think of a lazy person in angry indignation, I'm sure the first thought that comes to mind is a man (Because the feminist movement has been successful in instilling in every woman a robotic-like ambition to step on the face of men and be dominant with their careers, for some strange reason...).

A man (or bum, if you're angry enough), in sweaty sweatpants and shirt even though he hasn't worked up a sweat...or he worked up a sweat vigorously attacking food.

So he's most likely in a reclining chair complaining, not having any work and living off his immediate family members or 'living off of the system' with welfare benefits.

We're taught that this is a traditionally lazy person.

But are we ever given a radically different, though just as realistic portrayal?

Lazy is directly equated to not working.

If a wealthy person who inherited their wealth, didn't want to work because he could very comfortably and justifiably make that decision, is that lazy as well?
Especially if they make sure to protect and maintain their wealth through law, similarly 'living off the system.'

Now comes the question of work in this lazy scheme.
If a well-off person still wants to invest in business interests, create, and things like that, is it considered work, because they didn't have to work but chose to?

Work is always considered begrudgingly by people who have to work, because often times its doing something they don't like just to survive, until their able to do what they want, and find that they're pretty successful at it. Maybe successful enough where they don't have to work as hard at it because its innate and people demand their expertise; an environment where you can set your own hours and maybe retire a little earlier than planned. (See Workaholics and Young Retirees)

So......

Is having the option to be lazy the real goal in working so hard?
	Yes
	No
pollcode.com free polls

Asking advice from the NSA: A Mock Letter

Dear NSA,

You have some pretty good insight into my love life, and I was hoping I could get some advice since you are all-knowing on many topics, especially this one since you have something called 'Love-INT.'

I'm hoping 'Love-INT' is a special, love hotline. It sounds like it.

Do I come off too strong? Or too compliant?

I just want to know that I'm doing the right things to find the right guy (or the wrong things, and you should know 'cause you classify the wrong things people do all the time), or if the guy is worth all the time I'm investing in him.

I know you can't spend too much time on one question or one person, so I'll try to be quick.

Like, can you tell me if the guys I talk to are seriously looking for someone special or do they just want to put me in the friend zone? Or party guys, just looking for a good time?

Like, are they looking for the same things in a relationship that I am?

You must learn a lot about human nature and behavior, so you're my expert now. And friend. Because the Government said that you are my friend.

And can you tell me if the man I'm talking to now is talking to someone else, because I don't like to be two-timed.

You can track him for me, can't you?

We are friends, right?

That's what you always say to the public too.

Because I believe you'd be using your power for good in many relationships.

You could be a secret cupid.

Please help me, Delusional In Love.


***Please send me some of your letters to the NSA, and what you'd really like to tell them or just do something comical like I did, and put it all in the comments section below. It really lets off some steam. I'll pick one I like and put it up here.***

Fashionably Delusional Relationships

 

-Bella Swan

 

An Addictive love, though it can be fun, is probably the worst kind of love to feel, because it requires so much sacrifice. The symptoms are as follows:

• The 'need' to unnecessarily be self-sacrificing 'to prove your love.'
• Severely exaggerating your lover's qualities or not noticing your love's true qualities.
• (Guys or Girls) Constantly proving your love by outrageous, sometimes dangerous stunts of courage
• Constant fear of saying the wrong, unromantic things (So basically having a constant filter or looking on quietly with a faux worldly expression at your love)
• Because you have a filter, you can't deeply confide with significant other
• Constantly waxing poetically
• Doesn't require much growth, development, or serious commitment
• No capacity to deal with lover's bad habits because...they don't have bad habits (for all you know)
• Projecting a picture perfect ideal onto your lover
• An overdramatic view of how love should always be very intense and not fun.
• not having a solid foundation of friendship

Everything then equates to the bullets below=

• Very unrealistic expectations
• Irresponsibility
• Short-lived
• Running on passion alone, and not firm understanding
• Not rooted in reality
• Requires perfect, neat little images of both lovers...
• Blindness to faults
• Unauthentic
• Doesn't require fun
• All about appearances
• Devoid of natural, easy-going conversations or having other interests outside your significant other to share with them

 

Sugary/addictive love is more concentrated on the giddiness of seeing a particular person and feeling very important to them, but not much else of substance. This love, built on grandiose notions and intense 'passion', will cannibalize itself.

Fatale Woman Wisdom: Daisy Buchanan's Daisies

DAISEY'S DAISIES:
What She Really Meant.....In Quotes/Dialogue

Quote 1:

"'Oh, you want too much!" she cried to Gatsby. "I love you now – isn't that enough? I can't help what's past." She began to sob helplessly. "I did love him once – but I loved you too." Gatsby's eyes opened and closed.
"You loved me TOO?" he repeated.' (7.264-266)

Translation: 'All I ever had to do was look pretty and pout when I had trouble with something, so this is very hard indeed! I can't make up my mind; never had to make up my mind before because my choices were always made for me in neat, clean and sterile little packages devoid of any compassion, with a little, pretty, pink bow on top of it and my father screaming at me to do it.'

Modern Woman Speak: "Why can't we just continue this big, bold love affair like the rest of the world doesn't exist, including my boyfriend/husband? Who has been very unromantic as of late."

Quote 2: 

"'Before I could answer her eyes fastened with an awed expression on her little finger.
"Look!" she complained. "I hurt it."
We all looked – the knuckle was black and blue.
"You did it, Tom," she said accusingly. "I know you didn't mean to, but you did do it. That's what I get for marrying a brute of a man, a great, big, hulking physical specimen of a– "
"I hate that word hulking," objected Tom crossly, "even in kidding."
"Hulking," insisted Daisy."' (1.67-72)

Translation: They are all being complicit to 'light' domestic abuse here because this scene is probably one of the few exciting moments to happen in the book, so the characters stare in awe since they can't stare in awe at a golden statue or string of pearls and be just as excited.

Modern Woman Speak: "I like how muscled you are, and how dangerous and alluring you can be, and how you could probably exert your will on me at any delicious moment, but I'm also to be respected, dammit, and that hurt, even if you didn't mean it! I want to wear the pants too! And be treated like a delicate thing you must be very careful with."

Quote 3:

"'Suddenly, with a strained sound, Daisy bent her head into the shirts and began to cry stormily.
"They're such beautiful shirts," she sobbed, her voice muffled in the thick folds. "It makes me sad because I've never seen such – such beautiful shirts before."' (5.118-119)

Translation: 'My life has been so boring and dispassionate up until now that I have nothing else to get excited for or care about but big, shiny toys and pretty fabrics. Everything I want has always been given to me, but I can't have you. I have to earn you, or better yet, you have to earn me. But you do have such a beautiful collection of shirts. These shirt's aren't as fine as Tom's though, so I can't see this working!'

Modern Woman Speak: "Oh my gosh, Lana. He had the nicest clothes. He could probably take me shopping how well-dressed he was on our date last night."

My interpretations tend to veer on the cynical side (especially if its a dry book), so pick a quote from the Great Gatsby and give me your interpretation of it in the comments-hopefully its cheerier than mine.