WTF?

 At the beginning of every month, I drive my elderly tenants and former tenants around town to pay bills, pick up prescriptions, buy groceries and visit friends.
I thought I was being helpful to those in need - but am I just adding to the benefits received by many of those we would consider as being 'poor'?

There are many hustles being made on the Federal, state and local governments.
The most recent example is the one where people who receive federal aid are eligible to receive a free cell phone.

Really?
Is paying for someones cell phone Constitutional?
Does one really need a cell phone to survive?
When did something once considered a luxury become a 'necessity'?

 From free Glucose Meters, to free food programs, to free assisted lift recliners - the government is doing far too much for those who really don't need it.
When did the 'poor' having the latest goods become part of our entitlement programs?
The thing that struck me was that many of these under skilled, undereducated ladies had access to goods and services for which other people work.
These women are ready to fight for their 'right' to all the goods these services provide while the whole time they rail against how America treats them poorly.
Many of these elderly women had assisted lift recliners which were paid for by Medicare?
All of them had walkers, canes and scooters which were rarely used or needed.
All of these women thought that they had earned these things.

What ever happened to poor people actually being poor?
When did being poor become so comfortable that there was no longer a need to escape it?

The thing about all those scooters is that they often take the place of a person actually walking.
Look around - those who cannot walk use wheelchairs, while those who are too fat or too lazy to walk use scooters.
But if these fat/lazy people walked to the store instead of rode a scooter they would lose weight and be able to walk better.
This is just another example of a government solution causing a bigger problem than the one it was attempting to solve.
Maybe the Tea Party is right.

N.V.

Is Reggie Bush effing you?

NO?

Then EFF YOU!

Your problem isn't really with Reggie Bush messing with a non-Black Kim Kardashian - your problem is that it is not you who is enjoying all the perks of being considered a "Hot Chick"

Vapidity aside, Kim is baad.

Kim just happens to possess many of the phenotypical traits (large eyes, lips, arse, breasts and a small waist with her own thick long natural hair) favored by a large number of men.

(Although, for me,  making a sex video with Ray J kinda' lowers her resale value a bit.)

 This envy could also be seen in many of those who were waiting for Tiger Woods to fail.

Most golf fans were (are)  middle class white guys with mundane lives married to homely wives.

But Tiger messed up the whole perception of golf.

How could this usurper ride in and steal all those titles, all those endorsements, ... all those white women who looked better than the women most golf fans have to look at everyday?

Most of those who hate on Tiger Woods are not really mad at him - they are just mad that they are not him.

 This envy is seen on the national level by many of those within the Tea Party Movement.
The game was seen as fair as long as one who was considered one of their own was running things.
Barack Obama is seen in much the same way as many view rap stars or athletes.
Each is seen as somehow having cheating the system.
Each is seen as undeserving and unqualified for their esteemed position in pop culture.

This explains much of the appeal of Sarah Palin.
Ms Palin is often championed as "one of us" or "one of our own" by her fans.
"She seems like someone I could have a beer with", some might say.
Sure, I'd have a beer with Sarah Palin - I would also have a beer with my drunk uncle Larry.
But I wouldn't let my druncle steer my car...
and I wouldn't let Sarah Palin steer the country.

Antecedent

 If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery - many of today's most popular female performers are on the verge of being sycophantic.
The less than attractive Lady Gaga is to Missing Persons' Dale Bozio -

 what Amber Rose is to whom?

 Still have no idea who this iconic antecedent could be?

Judging by the outfit worn by Nicki Minaj at the recent BET Awards show - maybe Strange' (from the movie Boomerang) wasn't so strange after all.
Maybe Grace Jones was just twenty years ahead of her time.

The 90's

I could never get into the morose nature of Seattle's Grunge scene.
While groups from the Northwest (Nirvana, Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden,...) dominated the genre - groups from SoCal (Hole, L7, Stone Temple Pilots,...) were also represented.
But for me, the 90's rock groups that mattered were the more ethnically influenced and political SoCal bands.
LA bands are different.
Rock is not just for white people when ones culture is so intertwined with the cultures of those from surrounding areas.
In all honesty, The Red Hot Chili Peppers have more street cred than do many bourgeoisie Negroes
(Have you been to Fairfax High School?) while Jane's Addiction is largely influenced by Hispanic culture and Rage Against the Machine makes DeeVee's site seem like The O'Reilly Factor.
I'm more of an 80's aficionado - but when I get sick of the R&B and Rap I hear every night at the clubs or on commercial radio - I gotta' go back to the socially relevant Los Angeles area groups for balance and perspective.

Is Virtue a Luxury?

It is said that we should look after one another, that we should treat people the way in which we would be treated, that we should do unto others...

But most people do not practice this philosophy.

Most people are only here to get what they can for themselves.

But is this being selfish?

Can a man give when he has nothing to give?

Or should a man give from his substance and not only from his abundance?

It is said that where much is given, much is expected.

But should we expect less from those who have less?

Should we even expect those who have nothing (Which is almost an impossibility in modern America) to contribute nothing to society, their families or even themselves?

Should we expect those with nothing to seek a higher goal than that of being consumers of goods which they cannot really afford?

Should we expect those with nothing to even comprehend the value of helping others?

Is virtue to be valued by those in the upper classes alone?

Is doing good for others something that is reserved only for those from the upper classes - or are those from the upper classes members of the upper classes because they practice doing good for others as a way of life?

This Does Not Make You That

 It is better to be than to seem - but most are only concerned with seeming to be what they wish they were.
I'm more of a 'regualr guy' type - I'm not impressed with all the hype.
But I meet a lot of people from across the economic stratum who imagine that having 'better' goods makes them better people.
It's odd - most people with the least are often those who spend the most to try to appear to be the best.
But this philosophy is usually what keeps them at the lower levels of our social order.
Maybe this way of life is a way for them to compensate for their personal shortcomings.
Many imagine that having the goods of the upper classes makes them a member of the upper classes.

 But wearing a Brioni suit does not make a man smart.

 Having Halle Berry as a trophy wife does not (permanently) make a guy's penis larger.

 Driving a Lambo does not make a man famous.

 Wearing Jordans does give a man Jordan's athletic ability.

Living in a nice home does not make a man rich.

These are the rewards that come after much of the hard work is done.
These are not meant to replace the work itself.

The Missing Step

 Most monkeys see the end result but attempt to skip the middle (and most valuable) steps.
Most just see a guy and all that he has and then seek to emulate the lifestyle they imagine the other guy having.
This is why many poor people are fixated with material goods - even if they stay broke buying them.
Many imagine that having the same goods as a successful person makes them successful as well.

Uh uh, brohammas,
I don't view money as anything other than a tool with which one seeks to reach his goal of having a good quality of life.
But just as I have to visibly work in order for my young nieces and nephews to understand that I do more than go to lunch or to nightclubs - I have to visibly work in order for those I help to understand that one does not become comfortable by buying more useless stuff.

What Would Amy Do?

Or Lindsey, or Paris, or ...

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

Those Who Can't Teach, Do

Okay, I'm dumb.
If the paraphrased George Bernard Shaw axiom, "Those who can't do, teach." is correct, maybe the inverse is also true.
I think I've wasted time, money and resources trying to educate a population which wasn't ready to learn.
I forgot a step taught in teaching circles for the effective transfer of knowledge.
1 I tell
2 I do
3 You do
I forgot that most people are monkeys who do what they see others doing.
If these monkeys never see something being done, they have nothing to imitate.
Regardless of whether what I was saying was true or not - I forgot to actually do something.

I thought I was being selfless by focusing on others.
It's what I wanted to do - but it is not what needed to be done.
What was needed was someone to actually lead by example.
If that meant that I should build a company from scratch, that's what needed to be done.

Working for fun or for free was a bad example.
I was practicing the beliefs from the middle-ages that if knowledge was a gift from God, it was unjust to charge for it.
I forgot that people see things which are free as worthless while things which are overpriced are seen as priceless.
And what is more beyond the price of rubies than knowledge?

In doing too much for others I robbed them of the character needed to survive when my help was no longer available.
In doing too much, I hindered the progress and efficiency of those I was trying to help.
Maybe being selfish is (in some situations) being selfless.