American Reality Television's Next Big Step?

Back in July, I posted an entry about a new show in the UK called "Private Stars," a new reality show that put five beautiful female porn stars in a house with five regular guys. The housemates are screened 24 hours a day as they produce their own X-rated videos. The men are eliminated one by one based on their abilities -- or lack thereof -- until one winner remains, who is then offered -- what else?!? -- a contract with a porn producer!

Now, it seems, this show has been such a success that talks are underway to bring it to America. Yahoo! News reports that the first ten episodes of the UK version were so successful that they were rerun 76 times in Europe on the UK Bravo channel.

There is no word on who would air the channel or how it would be produced and edited. One can only imagine.

"Merry (GASP!) Christmas!"

I found an interesting newspaper article about a local business man who "has a lot of nerve," as the columnist writes: "You say 'Happy Holidays' to him and he'll come right back with 'Merry Christmas!'"

This businessman owns a local office park is fed up with the "political correctness" that seems to want to remove "Christmas" from Christmastime. So, unlike many other businesses that have replaced mentions of Christmas with more generic holiday wishes, his proudly displays banners with heralding angels and a manger scene.

Noting that more than 90 percent of this country's residents celebrate Christmas, he says, "the Christians are not taking a stand. They're letting a small amount of people demean the holiday and the reason for the season. Somebody has to take a stand. It ought not be me -- it should be the preachers of Richmond."

Christmas, a holiday intended to commemorate Christ's birth, finds itself at the center of a "holy war." Ironic, isn't it?

One of the business park's tenants doesn't share its owner's enthusiasm. "We think that the winter solstice is the reason for the season," said a doctor who did not want to be identified. He says the Christmas banners make him feel "proselytized and excluded. It's an imposition of a world view -- we don't like it shoved down our throats."

He calls for "less-charged iconography"...like holly, snowflakes, and Frosty.

(Nothing says "winter solstice" like Frosty, right?)

Asked if he was offended enough to relocate, he said that he wasn't. He likes the location.

Retail outlets are quietly removing mentions of "Christmas" in their advertising and signage. Yet they continue to decorate their stores with Christmas trees and images of Santa Claus -- the famous "Father Christmas" who does his magical work on Christmas Eve -- hoping that those who celebrate Christmas won't notice.

Some retail outlets have signs that wish shoppers a "Happy Hanukkah." Even more will pull out the "Happy Kwanzaa" signs soon. Why is it okay to wish these sentiments if Christmas has to be lumped into generic ones? If I walk by a sign that says "Happy Hanukkah," it doesn't impose someone else's view on me. I understand what Hanukkah represents, and though I do not celebrate it myself, I find nothing offensive about being reminded that others do. I understand what Kwanzaa means, and I'm fairly certain from conversations I've had in the past that I understand the history of Kwanzaa better than at least a few who do celebrate it. It doesn't impose someone else's views on me if I pass a sign that wishes me a happy one.

I don't understand why it bothers people who don't believe in Christmas to see the word. If someone wishes you a "Merry Christmas" and the concept of Christmas means nothing to you, at worst, they've still told you that they hope your 25th of December is pleasant. Is that so terrible? When I wish someone "Merry Christmas," I don't do so because I want to convert them. If I know that they don't celebrate Christmas in any way, I say something else. But if I don't know their holiday plans, I assume that they are celebrating what most people celebrate, and so far, I've never been challenged. (If one ever is offended enough to correct me, I wish them happiness at the holiday of their choice. I don't generally ask a complete stranger what religious affiliation they are right off the bat because that's often considered more offensive than wishing a non-celebrant "Merry Christmas.") Oy vey!

If these stores are going to pretend that it's not about Christmas, they should stop with the Christmas decorations. Yes, it would mean they'd have to put their money (or lack of it from potential lost sales) where their mouths are, but if it's really that important to them, they shouldn't be afraid to do so, right?

The owner of that business park thinks it's important enough to him to risk offending people whom he wishes "Merry Christmas," whether they want to have a merry one or not. The doctor who rents space is offended, but doesn't want to identify himself or relocate because he's afraid of losing clients.

And on December 26th, when that "certain holiday" is over for another year, who's really hurt by people having wished each other a merry day?

Nudity on NBC? Not!

The news media reported recently that the FCC had requested tapes of NBC's broadcast of the opening ceremonies of the Summer Olympics. That fact is important, because the FCC requests tapes when it investigates complaints of indecency, and because it only investigates possible indecency when it receives a complaint to begin with. So, it is logical that someone had to have complained about indecency in NBC's broadcast.

So let's review the opening ceremonies.

There were male dancers dressed in gray body paint and gray bikini bottoms with prosthetics to simulate the nudity of Greek statues. The prosthetics could certainly be offensive to some.

The only problem, of course, is the time difference. When NBC broadcast the opening ceremonies in America, it had already had seven hours to edit out all of the potentially-offending fake genitalia. The American audience -- presumably where the complaint originated -- never saw it.

It is possible that someone read a description of the opening ceremony as performed or attended in person and assumed that the ceremony aired in all of its glory (pardon the expression).

But if you think that television is always looking for new lows to sink to and that standards are out of control, perhaps this single example is enough to convince you that there are those on the other side of the fight who have run somewhat amok as well!

When we're resorting to complaining about nudity that doesn't even exist, it's no wonder that we're in the middle of some kind of culture war.

Marine Gives 'Em the Finger!

When I first heard this story, I honestly thought it was the setup for some kind of joke:

A Marine wounded in Iraq is being treated by physicians. They tell him that they have to cut his wedding band to treat his badly damaged finger. He tells them that he can't stand the thought of them cutting his wedding ring and instead tells them to cut off his finger!

Really...I thought it was a joke! Unfortunately, it isn't. It really happened.

Supposedly.

CNN (link corrected), ABC News, and Military.com all report the same basic story, originated by the Associated Press: the 19-year-old suffered a mangled left hand and serious wounds to his legs.

Doctors were preparing to cut off his wedding ring in order to save as much of his finger as they could.

"But that would mean destroying my wedding ring," he said. "My wife is the strongest woman I know. She's basically running two people's lives since I've been gone. I don't think I could ever repay her or show her how grateful ... how much I love my wife, my soul mate." The article goes on about how they met in eighth grade, etc.

If you're sighing in admiration, if your eyes are welling up as you blissfully float within some kind of romantic haze, I have four words for you:

Snap out of it!!

This isn't some sweet gesture...it's just stupid!

Here's a 19-year-old, wounded in a war, probably in shock, suffering several shrapnel wounds and resulting blood loss. A doctor tells him that they need to cut a piece of metal to save one of his fingers and he somehow decides for himself that the finger is less valuable than the ring?? And what's worse, a doctor agrees to this?!?

Yes, yes...I've left off one important part of the story. In the ensuing chaos, the surgical team managed to lose the ring the Marine sacrificed a finger to save. Perhaps they were so shocked by his ridiculous decision that they forgot what they were doing. When the person telling me this story got to the part about them losing the ring,I then had no doubt that it was really a joke.

People, let's get serious here. A ring isn't a marriage. It's a piece of jewelry. If a doctor tells you that they have to cut your ring to save a portion of your body, let them! The ring can be taken to a jewelry store and repaired to the point that no one would ever know it had ever been cut to begin with. It doesn't work that way with severed digits.

And if the worst happened (as it did here) and they lost the ring, you could always buy a new one! You could even have a new wedding ceremony or have it blessed by clergy. The point is, you'd still have the finger on which to wear the ring!!

Do you think that the spouses of soldiers currently in combat would prefer that their loved ones return with their wedding rings intact, or themselves intact? Do you think that letting them cut the ring off would have honestly ended the marriage?

I am most surprised that a doctor, treating Marines wounded in action would even entertain such negotiation in an operating room.

I know I sound insensitive here...but this whole story just sounds very fishy to me. I'd love to hear from any medical professionals out there: would you have agreed to amputate an appendage that you didn't have to?

Which Political Persuasion Are You?

For someone who is willing to consider both sides of the issue, I wasn't surprised by the results of this one:



You Are a Liberal Republican

When you tell people that you're Republican, they rarely believe you. That's because you're socially liberal - likely pro-choice and pro-gay rights. You're also not so afraid of big goverment, as long as it benefits people and not politicians. You are the most likely of any Republican type to swing over to the Democrat side sometimes.

What political persuasion are you?

More on the Death Penalty

I wanted to respond to a few of the comments and E-mails I have received about the death penalty entry.

A friend E-mailed me to remind me that after the Bible's first recorded murder, God punished Cain for the death of his brother, Able, not by putting him to death but rather by making him live in the shame of his deed.

Genesis 4:
11 "Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 "When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth."
13 Cain said to the Lord, "My punishment is too great to bear!" 14 "You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
15 So the Lord said to him, "Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold." And the Lord appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him.

Not only does the Lord not kill Cain, he shows him mercy by making sure no one else will take the law into his own hands!

Several, including Neil of Neil's Journal, have asked how a Christian society can really support the death penalty. But capital punishment does exist in the Bible, as issued from God to Moses.

Exodus 21:
12 "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death."

This chapter contains the famous phrase, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth..." and outlines several offenses considered appropriate for punishment by death. This, presumably, is the series of examples that justify to Christians that there are crimes in which death is a sufficient penalty. I believe that no matter what we as a society do to the guilty party, the ultimate punishment will come from God. But that does not mean that as a society, we should ignore the crime. I do not believe that God meant for his people to live in a society without rules or discipline.

Candace of Better Than Kicking the Dog, reminds us that Illinois and Texas have overturned convictions of death row inmates that were later found not to have committed the crimes of which they were accused. As I stated, I support any legal measures taken to ensure that only the guilty face any punishment. I support the concept of the death penalty for those guilty of murder. I also support any reform guaranteed to make the process work properly. That's only reasonable.

Scott of Stories from My Ambulance makes an excellent point about the lengthy amount of time death row inmates spend on death row. He states that "if a person is accused of a crime, tried, and convicted based on confession or ABSOLUTE proof such as DNA evidence, I say execute them that day. If the absolute evidence is not there, even though my gut may tell me they are guilty, then I cannot support the death penalty because we have all heard about those who were wrongly convicted." If there is no doubt of their guilt, based on overwhelming evidence, there is no reason why those sentenced to death should spend decades waiting for their sentence to be carried out. Kelly of In My Opinion is right when she says that the "cause and effect" portion of the death penalty "loses its punch" when it takes that long.

Is the death penalty a deterrent to crime? I honestly believe that if it was administered properly, it would be a deterrent to anyone who could be deterred from committing such a crime. I think it is safe to say that anyone who would commit first degree murder isn't operating with the same set of principles that the rest of us live by. But even those people might be discouraged from committing murder if they knew that they would be put to death if evidence showed that they were guilty. I think many who commit murder assume that they will either never be caught, that they will receive a lesser sentence, or that by the time they are scheduled to be executed, their sentence will be reversed because of legal maneuvering.

If stiffer penalties can't be a deterrent, then why do localities increase fines for speeding through school zones and quiet neighborhoods? If speeding is wrong, it's wrong, and that should be enough to prevent drivers from ignoring posted speed limits. How much one should pay should have no effect, right? I think the death penalty, though certainly the most extreme example, is an extension of this punitive philosophy.

The issue of being humane is one of the most troubling parts of this debate. Armand of Uncommon Sense states: "Death Penalty opponents argue that it is too expensive to execute someone, but they can't possible be comparing that to the price of a roof over their head, 3 squares, cable tv, weight rooms, education, libraries, security and every other amenity we hoist upon the guilty (but wouldn't dare divert to our nation's homeless veterans)." We shouldn't expect prisons to be palaces, and for the most part, they aren't. But some are unquestionably better than others: for example, should those who break the law be sentenced to serve time in penal facilities with charming nicknames like "Camp Cupcake?"

A fellow journal writer sent an E-mail with a very different picture of prison life: "The three square meals are no by any stretch of the imagination wholesome." She knows one prisoner who was hospitalized for food poisoning on four different occasions. "Often the fruit, which was donated was spoiled and the few times cookies were given twice they were found with mold on them. There is not a lot of inspection that goes on when it comes to jail food. Especially when it comes to county jails."

But then this is where the "humane" argument reaches a snag. Let's use as an example, the 30-year-old convicted murder who can either be put to death or can be sentenced to spend the rest of his natural life -- let's say 40 years -- in prison. If we are to accept that capital punishment is never humane, and we accept that prisons are little better than modern "torture chambers," how is a life sentence in such deplorable conditions more humane? If, because the death penalty is inhumane, we should stop administering it at once, what should we do about prisons that are like the one described? Should we close them down at once and release all of the prisoners back into society as if their crime had never been committed? Where does the concern about humane treatment begin and where should it end?

Dave of Random Thoughts of a Progessive Mind points out disturbing statistics about race: a black convict is eight times more likely to receive the death penalty than a white convict charged with the same crime. But this isn't the fault of the death penalty: it's the fault of prejudices within the system. Think about it: if this disproportionate number exists for this form of punishment, isn't it conceivable that blacks are more likely than whites to receive stiffer sentences for lesser crimes as well? If the system did what it was supposed to do the way it was supposed to, race wouldn't be a factor...ever.

As for the cost of the death penalty, this depends, once again, on the legal process. Why is it cheaper to just stow a prisoner away in a cell for the rest of his life? Not because carrying out the death penalty is so expensive: it's the cost of the nearly-endless appellate process given to all of those on death row -- even those for whom the most scientifically-accurate DNA evidence proves are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Should there not be limits to this process when scientific evidence -- the same kind that has proven some on death row couldn't have committed the crime -- proves that others did?

I'm not saying that our legal system -- every part of it -- doesn't have problems. It does. They all need to be addressed.

Finally, Brian of All The Makings of Insanity" asks, "doesn't anyone feel that it's disgusting and barbaric when a huge crowd outside of a courthouse actually screams and cheers when it's announced that someone is going to be put to death for their crimes? Humanity at its worst if you ask me." I agree completely with him. As I indicated in the earlier entry, the family I know who losta loved one to violent crime did not cheer or celebrate the deaths of those who murdered him. It was not a happy day for them, but there was at least, a sense of closure. Someone being put to death -- or being sentenced to die -- is never something to be happy about.

That's my opinion. I respect the opinions of those who do not agree with me. I'm merely suggesting why I support the concept of capital punishment. But I would certainly welcome changes to the system to make sure the guilty paid for their crime without concerns that the innocent might be paying the same price.

Death Sentence

The Scott Peterson jury has recommended the death penalty for the convicted killer. This, of course, has renewed debate about the death penalty, its effectiveness as a deterrent to crime, and its place in our society.

I do support the death penalty.

I don't see the death penalty as society telling criminals that it's "okay" to kill. or "society sanctioning murder." That argument has never made sense to me. For one thing, it's not about "society" making that statement, it's about one's peers, in a courtroom, listening to evidence and deciding that the punishment is appropriate in that given case. It's not decided by "lynch mobs" who hang around outside the jail with burning torches.

And it's not like criminals who are contemplating the murder of someone are really interested in taking any cues from "society" about what is and isn't acceptable. Surely most people would agree that murder isn't generally an acceptable first choice, anyway. Is it less offensive to the sensibilities of a would-be murderer to know that if he is caught, society will lock him up for the rest of his life? Is that option really so much more desirable to him?

Is it possible than an innocent person could end up on death row? One would hope not, but one can imagine the possibility. But as a supporter of the death penalty, I also support any legitimate and reasonable reforms made to avoid the wrong person being punished for a crime. I'm not sure how anyone can support the death penalty without wanting to make sure the innocent don't get punished as if they were the guilty. But then, this should be the case no matter what the punishment might be, right? An innocent person shouldn't have to spend so much as five minutes even in handcuffs.

But I don't have a fundamental problem with death as punishment for murder. Perhaps my opinion is influenced by the fact that a close friend's husband was murdered by two armed robbers who had already gotten the man's money. He wasn't resisting them, he wasn't threatening them. But they killed him anyway before leaving. From prison, they threatened members of the victim's family, vowing to make them pay as soon as they got out. They were executed after many long years of the appeals process.

Did it bring the victim back? Of course not. What ever could? Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole doesn't, either. That's not an argument.

Was the family "happy" that they were put to death? No. It was a very sad day for them, actually. Not as sad as the day their loved one was killed for no real reason, to be sure, but still a sad day. Unlike the way many opponents of the death penalty might have you believe, this family didn't stage a grand party with cake and ice cream to celebrate. They marked the occasion as another dark chapter of their lives.

But they sleep better at night, knowing that the people who murdered their loved one can't possibly escape and carry out their promises of revenge. They rest easier knowing that those men who received the "ultimate punishment" in this world are now receiving the ultimate punishment...from God.

Dave, of Random Thoughts From a Progressive Mind, suggests that the death penalty undermines the notion that murder is wrong, because murder rates are higher in those states that have the death penalty. I'll have to think about that one. I'm not sure that it is completely a "cause and effect" situation; perhaps the murder rates were higher before the death penalty was adopted, or perhaps the death penalty was adopted because the murder rates were already high. Perhaps, even if those murder rates have grown since the death penalty was adopted, there may be other, more pressing social problems leading people to contemplate killing their fellow man. I'm just not sure I believe that the death penalty alone is enough to make people commit murder. I don't have historical facts in front of me on that; I'm merely guessing there.

But it comes to this: there is no humane punishment appropriate for someone who commits murder. If you believe that the death penalty is inhumane, and you prefer the notion of having someone in his thirties "suffer" in jail until they died of natural causes, presuming that someone in their 30s could live into their 70s or 80s, is it really so much more humane to want someone to "suffer" for decades, spiraling into a mental, psychological abyss? Can you complain about one punishment being too harsh if you prefer to see someone "suffer" for that long?

There's no right or wrong answer, here: I'm just telling you what I think. The death penalty doesn't seem so egregious to me in certain circumstances.

Happy Birthday, Bob!

One of my heroes in the world of television, one of those people I watched while growing up that convinced me how much fun television can be, is celebrating a birthday today.

Legendary host and animal rights activist Bob Barker is 81 today.

I can only hope that when I'm 81, I still am as energetic as he is, and that I will still be working in a job that I love as much as he still loves "The Price is Right."

Happy Birthday, Bob!

Wristband Red Flags

Feeling under the weather? Then you'd better remove that rubber bracelet...just in case.

They come in a wide selection of colors, but the most famous is the Lance Armstrong "LiveStrong" yellow bracelets. The Lance Armstrong Foundation has sold 28 million in 60 countries.

But there are plenty of others choices, depending on your charity of choice: pink bracelets often raise money for breast cancer research. 7-Eleven stores sell green bracelets with a portion of the cost going to the USO. The Diabetes Research Institute sells red bracelets, and My*Soldier also sells red ones. Ohio State University does, too, to raise money for the Buckeye athletic scholarship fund. Virginia Tech sells orange bracelets to benefit the United Way, and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation also sells orange bracelets to raise funds for their research projects. American Eagle Outfitters offer customers a selection of either red, blue, orange or green when making a donation to support the YMCA National Safe Place or Jumpstart programs. Athletic shoe chain Finish Line sells blue bracelets to raise money for local Boys & Girls Clubs. Choosehope.com sells purple and magenta bands to raise funds for cancer research.

And that's just some of the many options available.

But if you become ill and end up in a hospital, those fashion statements for a good cause could cause unexpected trouble. Some hospitals place similar bracelets on their patients -- for very different reasons, according to an article from the St. Petersburg Times (no direct link available).

For some hospitals, a yellow bracelet stands for -- of all things -- "Do Not Resuscitate." Several Florida hospitals associated with BayCare Health Systems use a similar color coding, and use purple on patients at risk of falling down and red on patients who have allergies.

Some hospitals have begun asking their patients to either remove the bracelets or cover them with white tape for the length of the stay. They certainly wouldn't want one's charitable act to cause a medical blunder!

Fairness in the Blogosphere

I call it being fair.

When I have had a dispute with a fellow journal writer, I have printed their words and responded to them. Unlike some others in J-Land, I think it's important that readers who are going to involve themselves (even in a spectator fashion) in a dispute should be able to read both sides of the dispute.

If someone accuses me of something that I think is unreasonable, I'd like for you to see what they say, not my representation of what they say. Likewise, if I choose to respond to their words, I'd like for you to be able to read my response, not the portion of my response that they are willing to share.

The word journalist has taken on a new meaning thanks to the world of blogs. In the 21st century, anyone who has has an online journal can be called a "journalist." I am careful not to describe a journal writer as a "journalist," because I prefer the traditional, 20th century definition of a "journalist," which I define as one who believes in reporting the truth fairly, considering both sides of a story.

Even when I believe I am right, there is at least some part of me that thinks I may not be. There are very few issues on which I am so supremely confident that my opinion is correct that I refuse to let that opinion be adjusted. My belief in God is one of them.

On those issues where there may be a trace of doubt, I might choose to relate details of the dispute so that you, my readers, can weigh in. I value that communication. I have learned from it. I never make mention of a dispute to encourage anyone to "have it out" with someone else on my behalf. I can fight my own battles on my own, thank you very much. But I do, at times, like to know what you think here. And I appreciate it when you are honest with me, even when you disagree.

Some people do not like to have their views challenged. I understand that. In fact, I'm sure that most of us like to have some views with which everyone can agree. We like to feel that we possess the "popular" opinion on at least some issues.

It is my opinion that those who never wish to be challenged should avoid challenging others. Those who don't like to be critiqued shouldn't critique others. And those who like to air their side of a story without allowing the other side equal time shouldn't have a problem with the other side airing theirs.

Like I said, I call it being fair.

Am I ready to let this matter go? Sure. More than ready. I hope the other side is as well.

Step Away From the Computer!!

Technology experts warn that it's a good idea to "unplug" yourself from your computer from time to time and get away from the constant web surfing that is rapidly becoming a way of life for more and more of us.

Two psychologists say that they're noticing that more and more people are getting stressed out or fatigued by technologies that are supposed to make life easier. (I could have told them that just after seeing someone try to program a VCR!)

But exactly how to unplug depends on the individual and how far he or she is willing to go to escape instant messages, text messages, and E-mail.

But the Associated Press happily offers tips to help if you feel that you need a break from it all.

Of the tips they offer, I have my doubts about setting a time limit for web surfing. I'd only hit the "snooze" button and go a little longer!

Rubber Reports

Earlier, I reported that a recent survey showed that most Germans wear the wrong size condoms.

Reuters, unquestionably suffering from a string of slow news days, has done more investigative reporting and come up with another startling fact about Germans: given the choice of having more money or more sex, a whopping majority chose the cash. Is there a pattern here? Maybe if they wore the correct size, they might enjoy sex more? Hmm...perhaps Reuters should continue their investigation!

In another condom story, it seems that South Koreans prefer the American name for the prophylactic over a suggested Korean word, "ae-pil," which is derived for Korean characters for "love" and "necessity." (A rather interesting meaning, is it not?) The controversy springs from the fact that there are some South Koreans whose names contain similar characters and they fear that they will be teased.

Only about ten percent of people in South Korea use condoms.

Isn't that information you couldn't have lived without?

"Oldest Teenager" Suffers Stroke

Legendary host and producer Dick Clark has suffered a mild stroke, according to the Associated Press.

Clark, 75, has been hospitalized in Los Angeles, but his publicist gave few details. He has been scheduled to host ABC's "Dick Clark's Primetime New Year's Rockin' Eve" and "Dick Clark New Year's Rockin' Eve" on December 31st, as he has for the past 32 years.

It is possible that Clark may not be able to host the event this year.

I'm not sure, but I think there's some rule by now that the new year can't officially begin without Clark counting us down to midnight. I wish him a speedy recovery. I'm ready to leave 2004 in the dust!

The King of Cheese

What's the most cheesy movie line you've ever heard? That was the question a British baker asked of customers as part of a promotion for the launch of their new cheese-flavored crumpets.

Topping the list was Leonardo DiCaprio's "I'm the king of the world!" from Titanic. The rest of the list, as reported by the Associated Press, can be found here.

I must say that I'm happy that Ghost, a movie that dripped with cheese, ranked pretty high on the list. Don't get me wrong: I liked the movie...but let's face it...it did drip with cheese!

It Could Only Happen to Me...

A friend of mine got married last night. I had listened to her wedding planning angst -- and there had been a lot of it through no fault of the happy couple -- for the past few months. It was fun, because through all of the scheduling conflicts and delays, she kept a great attitude. I always took great pleasure in making her smile when I would point out how cool she seemed despite the apparent conspiracy others engaged in to threaten the event.

Anyway, I'm not great with directions. I don't go out and just drive around looking for new streets. Perhaps I should do it more often, but you never know where you'll end up. With my luck, I'd probably end up in a sinkhole. Which brings me to the point of this entry.

No, not a sinkhole...I mean the part about my luck.

I was running uncharacteristically early. I had plenty of time to get to the wedding. That should have told me a lot.

I got in my car and departed my humble abode for the wedding. On my way towards the office at my complex, it occurred to me that I hadn't payed my rent, yet. The office is closed on Sundays -- actually, the sign says "Call for Appointment Times on Sunday," but there never seem to be any -- and since a fluctuating water use fee is added to the rent each month, I didn't know my exact amount due. Therefore, slipping a check into the dropbox wasn't a reasonable option.

So I stopped at the rental office and paid my rent. No problem. It took all of one minute.

I get in my car, feeling proud of myself for remembering to get the check in before Monday, when it would have been late. I turned the key. The car rumbled. Then I heard some unpleasant clicks. Then nothing. Dead battery.

I sat there staring at the darkened dashboard for a moment. I think the thought going through my head was one of complete amazement and bewilderment that slowly evolved into a more realistic and colorful series of expressions that I couldn't transcribe in their entirety because of the AOL TOS police. But you get the idea.

My only real option was to call the station. I live just about two minutes away, thank goodness, and I was able to get someone to take me to the station where I could then borrow a vehicle. I made it to the wedding, finally, in time for the reception.

After the wedding, I went back to my apartment and checked my car. Suddenly, as if nothing had ever been wrong, it started beautifully. I immediately drove to a local auto parts store and bought a new battery. I listened to a worker complain for fifteen minutes that he would prefer to change batteries farther away from closing time. Eventually, I decided that I couldn't beat him so I joined him in his commiseration, kindly and politely agreeing with him that the battery was terribly insensitive not to take his store hours into account when it decided to provide just enough power to start the engine. At this point, he mellowed considerably.

But I have a new battery and a car that runs. At least I got to see the bride and groom, give my congratulations, and partake of some stellar food at the reception.

I guess the day wasn't a total loss after all!

Questioning Motives

What do you do when you encounter a journal written by someone of a different gender, a different faith, a different sexual orientation, or a different background?

Do you read what that person has to say, or do you close that window and run to the relative safety of someone just like you? If you read it and find that you disagree, what do you do then? Do you just shake your head in disgust and go away, or do you drop them a respectful reply stating why your opinion differs?

Okay, okay...

I need to vent here. I'm not trying to stir up trouble, not trying to start an argument. But I need to get a few feelings out of my system.

Yes. It's going to be one of those entries! If you don't want to hear me whine and moan, just skip to the next entry. It'll be a lot more entertaining, I promise.

Now, on with the show.

One of my regular readers sent me an E-mail to inform me that she was no longer going to be reading my journals.

This reader and I have disagreed several times on different issues, but I have always taken that disagreement in the spirit of discussion. Sure, it can be annoying at times when one person constantly disagrees with what you have to say, but at the same time, that disagreement makes you think. It challenges your views. If you are reasonable, you consider the alternative viewpoint and judge it alongside your own: if you decide that the alternative viewpoint is wrong, you've added a little more concrete to your own position. If you begin to realize that the alternative viewpoint has merit, you may adjust your own view. In any case, you have benefitted from the exchange.

The specific incident that inspired this E-mail centered on (not "centered around") one specific word I used in a whimsical entry. It was after my second use of the word in a second whimsical entry that this reader challenged my use of the word. I explained that I didn't have the intention of offending anyone, and explained why I chose the word in question. The reader was implacable, insisting that while she might accept my explanation that I didn't set out to offend, I should be aware -- as a writer -- that I should do a better job of choosing words since other people may read them differently. In any case, the wordstill offended her, and since she chooses to avoid things that offend her, she has decided to stop reading what I have to say.

It bothers me to lose a reader. Maybe it shouldn't.

I sent her a reply and suggested that there should be give and take in the writer/reader relationship: just as a writer should be willing to pay attention to his choice of words because certain words can be taken in different ways, a reader just might have an equal responsibility to accept the fact that the way they read the words may not be the way the writer intended.

What annoyed me most was her contention that I might be operating within one or more of three possible methods:

1. I set out to offend.
2. I don't choose my words carefully enough to avoid offending.
3. I choose my words noting the possibility that alternate interpretations may be offensive, but that the alternate interpretations might not matter to me.

It seems to me that either of the three scenarios would be an indictment on my character. I either sit down at the keyboard with the goal of upsetting people, I am reckless with the way I use my words, or I know my words might be offensive but I just don't give a damn.

That offends me.

I spend far too much time worried about other people's feelings. I have spent much of my life -- most of it, in fact -- putting my feelings behind others. I have done this with my family and with my close friends. Perhaps it is a character flaw. I'm sure it is, actually. But it's the way I do things.

I don't mean to sound like Captain Queeg in The Caine Mutiny: "I'm not such a bad guy...my dog likes me." (Although both of mine seem to.)

I certainly have other faults. I definitely have offended others before. I didn't mean to do it, but I have. I'm pretty sure all of us have been guilty of this at some point in our lives. None of us is perfect, last time I checked. But there is a big difference between intending to offend someone from the outset and doing something with innocent motives that someone else takes as being offensive.

The former is something I can usually avoid; the latter rarely is. When I have offended someone in the past, I address the matter. When I feel an apology is the right thing to do, I apologize. When I feel that an explanation of my original intent is appropriate, I explain myself. If someone is unwilling to accept my apology or my explanation, I don't know what else I can do.

So what's my point here? I really don't know for sure. Perhaps this is a long, convoluted way of thanking those of you who read what I have to say, particularly those of you who find yourself in disagreement with me on certain ideas. I don't think it's the end of the world when we don't agree. It might just be a boring world if everyone was the same.

Those of you who have read what I have to say for any period of time hopefully know that I'm a pretty decent guy, if a bit verbose. I'd like to think that those decent portions of my character do shine through all the words every now and then. And I'd like to believe that I don't come off sounding like an uncaring jerk all that often. I certainly don't mean to.

I value the fact that there are those who actually come here looking to see what I've written next. It's an intimidating thought at times, but one that makes me grateful. Sooner or later, I'll likely disappoint more of you. I've never promised to be anything other than human, after all. When I do disappoint, know that there is an excellent chance that it wasn't my intention to do so.

I hope that for the rest of you who are still willing to brave these waters, that counts for something.

...And You Thought One Size Fit All!

A German study has concluded that most Germans wear condoms of the wrong size, according to a Reuters news article.

The study began by asking more than 2,500 men to measure their erect penises. Most condom boxes in Germany indicate the size, but men either rarely check because of embarrassment or vanity or simply bought those marked "extra large," according to a researcher.

So men lie about such a statistic? This is a surprise to anyone??

The study also determined what is the average size (click the link to find out) of those who participated. When this information was compared against the condoms participants used, only 18% were found to be using the right size. Nearly half were "squeezing" into condoms that are too small...a delightful thought...and 34% fit into the "I'll just take the extra large and pretend" category.

I don't know if such a study is being planned for American men or not, but I would hate to think about the "lengths" researchers might have to go to in this society to make sure they were getting accurate numbers!