Private Information, Yeah Right, Tell Me Another One Bub

-
Recently, I wrote about the inaccuracy of websites which fail to update outdated data. I found such laziness to be annoying. Little did I realize, just how big, or how frightening, the problem actually was. A few days ago, my friend, Sarah, alerted me to a site called spokeo.com, where surfers can look up stats on other people. For free, users can view a person’s postal address, marital status, hobbies and interests, income level, neighborhood stats, and a picture of their home. Plus, for $2.95 a month, surfers can access even more detailed data about a person including their financial credibility.

If that’s not enough to give somebody the screaming willies, making matters worse is the fact that much of the information is wrong. I looked my name up to find I have “some college,” implying I didn't graduate, I've only lived in my current home for 12 years, and that I play baseball as a hobby. Even if you only count the time I’ve lived in my current home since graduating from Oregon State University, I’ve lived in my current home since 1994. Of course, people who know me, know the idea of me playing baseball is downright laughable.

The site also claims that my brother, Jeff, has kids, and my friend, Sarah, lives at her office. OK, a case can be made for saying Sarah lives in her office. Still, I think Jeff would be dismayed to see offspring being attributed to his loins.

Fortunately, there is a way to delete one’s info, by going to http://www.spokeo.com/privacy and following the directions. The deletion is instantaneous. I was just feeling relieved about having deleted my info, when my friend, Leasa, directed me to a similar site, pipl.com. It was then I realized just how wide spread this thing is.

I went to Google, typed “people search,” and found 370,000,000 results. While many of these sites probably aren’t as detailed as the sites I’ve mentioned, numerous sites boast the ability to list unlisted phone numbers, access court records, and/or run credit checks on anyone. With so many sites offering such services, it’s impossible for a person to remove themselves from every single site, even if said person kept at it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, year ‘round.

Forget Big Brother. Now, any brother, sister, cousin twice removed, or complete stranger with an internet connection can learn practically anything about anyone. I don’t know what’s creepier, the fact that personal information can be accessed with a click of a mouse, or the fact that there seems to be no system in place to fact check said information.

Not Everything On The Internet Is Accurate

-
Yes, it’s true, not everything on the internet is accurate. I know, I can hear the collective, “WELL DUH,” I just got in response to that statement. However, before you write me off as a John Madden-esc conveyor of the stupidly obvious, I’m not referring to online rumors which question Obama’s citizenship, warn us of death panels, or outline alien conspiracies lead by Hillary Clinton who’s actually an extraterrestrial reptile in disguise. Intelligent people can shrug off such nonsense as being the ravings of lunatics who thought The X-Files was a wonderful series of docudramas. No, I’m talking about businesses/organizations which don’t update their websites.

Anyone who knows me, and even some folks who don’t, knows I’m sending out proposals, hoping to get my book published. It’s, more or less, the defining fact of my existence, other than being a remarkably virile specimen of manhood that is. Anyway, when approaching publishers with new work, writers go to The Writer’s Market online, compile a list of publishers who accept a particular kind of work, visit each publisher’s site to obtain their submission packet guidelines, and begin mailing out packets. So far, I’ve received half my packets back, marked return to sender, from publishers who’ve gone out of business without mentioning it on their sites.

If the waste of postage isn’t irksome enough, my nurse & friend, Dani, just drove downtown to visit an abandoned museum/church. She’s a huge Elvis fan, and I had heard of The 24 Hour Church Of Elvis, so I looked it up and found http://www.24hourchurchofelvis.com/. On the very top of webpage it says, “408 N.W. Couch The new location for the 24 Hour Church of Elvis!!” in big blue letters. The site advertises movies visitors can watch, souvenirs one can buy, etc… So she packed her family in the car, drove downtown, paid six bucks to park, and found a single window displaying a cardboard cutout of Elvis surrounded by Barbie dolls. Next to the window is a coin slot and a hole in the wall, where visitors can watch a minute long movie for $.50. That’s it, no museum of Elvis memorabilia, no experts to answer questions about his life or the church’s defining philosophy, no gift shop, just a window of disturbing imagery and a hole in a wall.

It’s not the wasted postage or the six bucks blown on parking that bothers me most, although those things do irk me. What really bothers me is the laziness and sloppiness which contributes to outdated information being left for people to find and act upon. These are tough economic times, businesses fold, I get it. However, it takes five minutes to update a website to keep people from wasting their time. Get it together people.

Taking Personal Responsibility

-
Psychologist Sarah Allen Benton, has written a blog attacking the availability and perception of wine, because alcoholics feel forced to drink. In response, Steve Heimoff has written a blog arguing that self control is the real issue. Yes, Like Steve, I agree with Benton that some people suffer under the mistaken impression that wine is less of an alcoholic substance than beer or liquor. Of course, that's wrong. One can get blitzed on wine, just like one can get blitzed on scotch, gin, or beer.

What bothers me, and what Steve failed to address, is the trend of trying to regulate things, simply because those things may cause problems for some people. We've banned the importation of unpasteurized cheese, many states have banned gambling & public smoking, New York City has even banned trans fats in restaurant food. Where does it end?

Sadly, there ARE alcoholics in the world, and tempting alcoholics with wine is just plain immoral. Personally, I have a hard time picturing adults trying to pressure alcoholic friends and family members to drink at social events. If such behavior is in fact happening, beyond the ninth grade level, as Benton claims, such behavior belongs high up in the @$$hole category along with teasing drug addicts with crack. Yet, the taunting of alcoholics, by moral cripples, is still no reason to legislate access to wine for the rest us. I want to be free to play poker at my local bar while downing a triple cheeseburger, fries, onion rings, and a hunk of French Brie. I want to be free to wash it all down with a good bottle of wine as thick smoke hangs over the table like a cloud.

Not every harmful substance/activity should be banned, and not every bad idea should be illegal. Trying to legislate morality, or even common sense, is not only futile, it's counter productive. Half your population is going to turn to organized crime to get their fix of whatever it was you banned, and the other half will be molded into high fiber eating conformist robots who can no longer think for themselves. Instead of making laws, how about pumping money into education, so folks can make informed decisions about how to spend their Saturday nights and what to put into their bodies?

Better yet, how about taking personal responsibility for our actions, and accepting the consequences, instead of having big brother dictate every little piece of the puzzle? And, if you do have a problem with, alcohol, gambling, or cholesterol, how about surrounding yourself with people who are going to encourage you to do the right thing, instead of tempting you with the substance/activity you’re trying to avoid?

Being Well Watched

-
The 82nd Annual Academy Awards were held last Sunday. Among the winners were:

Best Motion Picture of the Year
Winner: The Hurt Locker - Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Nicolas Chartier, Greg Shapiro

Best Achievement in Directing
Winner: Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Winner: Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Winner: Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart

Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
Winner: El secreto de sus ojos (Argentina)

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Winner: Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Basterds

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
Winner: Up - Pete Docter

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original [^] Song
Winner: Crazy Heart - T-Bone Burnett, Ryan Bingham(“The Weary Kind”)

Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
Winner: The Hurt Locker - Mark Boal

Best Short Film, Animated
Winner: Logorama – Nicolas Schmerkin

Best Documentary, Short Subjects
Winner: Music by Prudence – Roger Ross Williams, Elinor Burkett

Best Documentary, Features
Winner: The Cove (2009) – Louie Psihoyos, Fisher Stevens

Best Short Film, Live Action
Winner: The New Tenants – Joachim Back, Tivi Magnusson

Best Achievement in Makeup
Winner: Star Trek – Barney Burman, Mindy Hall, Joel Harlow

Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published
Winner: Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire – Geoffrey Fletcher

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Winner: Mo’Nique for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

Best Achievement in Art Direction
Winner: Avatar – Rick Carter, Robert Stromberg, Kim Sinclair

I’d seen Avatar, Up, Inglourious Basterds, and Star Trek, plus I kinda knew what The Blind Side was, but that’s it. I was embarrassed not to have been more familiar with films which were being touted as the best. I can’t feel too bad about not being familiar with the short films, documentaries, and foreign offerings. Unless, one lives in New York, or a college town, it’s pretty hard to be exposed to such fair. Still, I must admit that Hank Green, a video blogger whom I follow, recommended The Cove months ago, and I pretty much shrugged it off.

So what? After all, the academy has praised some real stinkers in the past. I still can’t watch Harvey Keitel in a movie without having flashbacks of his free willy from 1993’s, multiple Oscar winner, The Piano. And, don’t even get me started on American Beauty. Yet, for a guy who listens to Fresh Air & Writers’ Almanac, keeps up on the news, a prides himself on his academic prowess, it feels weird to have to admit that films such as The Hurt Locker, Crazy Heart, and Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire weren’t even on my RADAR, man.

I consider myself to be a pretty well read guy. OK, I could stand to brush up on my Melville and Hemingway, but, for the most part, I’m familiar with many of the classics and a good share of contemporary fiction. However, in a day of multiplexes, straight to DVD releases, independent films, and original web content, perhaps being well watched is as important as being well read. To that end, I’ve added the Oscar winners, including 2007's Juno, to my Netflix queue, and I plan to see such movies as The Green Zone and The Ghost Writer when they hit theaters. Will such an endeavor help make me more well rounded as a writer and a person? Hell, I don’t know, but it’s a question worth exploring.

The Marriage Ref Penalizes Intelligent Viewers

-
I must begin by confessing to a general bias against, what has come to be known as, reality TV. Most of it is centered around seeing who can back stab whom in order to further their own interest. If back stabbing people to achieve one’s goals is a reflection some people’s reality, those people probably aren’t living a healthy life style. There are reality shows though, which focus on finding talented individuals, which is a laudable goal. However, in addition to seeing top notch talent, viewers tune in to see untalented buffoons make asses of themselves, and the interplay between the nice judges and rude judges.

Like everyone else, I heard Jerry Seinfeld was creating and producing a new reality series. Being a big Jerry Seinfeld fan, I decided to put aside my general distaste for reality TV and give The Marriage Ref a shot. The premise of the show involves real life couples who have been having an on-going fight for a long time. A video clip is shown to the three-member celebrity panel, showing both sides of the argument. The celebrity panel, made up of comedians, actors, and pop stars, then make jokes under the guise of, "discussing the merits of each side of the argument." Then the panel votes on who they think is right. While the Marriage Ref, Tom Papa, may take their advice, he is free to make up his own mind about who is right, and he announces a winner of the argument.

The first, regularly scheduled, episode began with Paula's gripe about her husband, Joe, a retired Passaic County cop, spending so much time grooming himself that she has to do all the yard work and take the kids to their games, which he won't attend anyway because there are bugs. The panel of Tina Fey, Jerry Seinfeld, and some Desperate Housewives actress made Jr. High School level jokes for a few minutes, then advised The Marriage Ref that cleanliness is good, so the husband was justified in practically living at the salon, at the expense of his family. The Marriage Ref agreed.

I couldn't bear to watch another minute of this shallow minded tripe. OK, Joe’s propensities for getting manicures, pedicures, waxings, hair stylings, and tanning touched on the feminine side of the behavioral spectrum. In fact, he referred to himself as a metro sexual. Thus, I can kinda see celebs leaning his way out of fear of being labeled as homophobic. I get that. However, the core issue wasn’t feminine versus masculine leanings. It wasn’t even about cleanliness. The issue boiled down to selfishness. Primping to the extreme extent he did took it from being about grooming to being a hobby. Joe, putting his hobby before the needs of his family, demonstrated a gross level of selfishness on his part. The fact that nobody on the show was smart enough to recognize the fundamental issue, only proves how unqualified they are to be diagnosing people’s problems.

Now let’s be fair, The Marriage Ref is a comedy show, first and foremost. If you want to gawk at losers so you can talk about them around the water cooler at work, you’ll get a few sophomoric chuckles from this show. However, if your sense of humor, intellect, and moral sensibilities have evolved beyond those of a fifteen year old, I strongly suspect you’ll be offended at the reduction of people’s problems into a string of juvenile one liners topped off with a helping of super shallow advice.