texting pictures

Now I have been hearing a lot about people sending other people pictures of various parts of their bodies.

Apparently men are sending women candid shots of their junk and it is not even just Joe Public that does it but politicians too (and if they do it, it must be okay...).

I don't see the point of this because women (especially women you are not in a relationship with) are going to have one of two reactions. First, they are going to be annoyed or disgusted. Two, they are going to be amused (which, I am guessing, is not the reaction that guys want). Women laughing (and then calling over their friends to see it--Joan, come here. You have to see this itty bitty thing...) is not quite the expected reaction. I would never send anything since people never want anything from me except to leave which gets thunderous applause.

Guys, on the other hand, would love to get candid shots from women. Reactions would be one of joy that some women showed her breasts. I would mention other parts but guys aren't that bright and would spend an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out what it is a picture of.

"Hey, Vern, I just got a picture text. I think it is a fur coat but am not sure. What do you think it is?"
"It looks like a set of mittens."
"Oh, right, that makes sense. I see it now."
Like I said, guys are stupid.

It would be really bad if you get all excited that some woman sent you a private photo and in your excitement share it with your friends before realizing your mom was the sender (Dad needed a pick me up cause he was having a bad day). At this point, you have seen it. Your friends have seen it. Anyone nearby has seen it. It is too late to put your eyes out cause even that cannot take the memory away.

One time I did get a series of photos of women au natural. I did not know who any of them were or who the senders (all female according to their profiles. I have come to the conclusion that these were shots of themselves) were (this was on AOL and the three senders all had AOL addresses). Eventually I was able to ask one of them why I was sent the pictures. Her response was to ask "Wait, aren't you a lesbian?"

"Uhm, no, but thank you for the pictures." I never heard from her ever again.

Anyway, guys would never complain (unless the above scenario happened and how would you actually start that conversation with your mother) about getting candid shots. Would they share it with their friends? ABSOLUTELY! The words wowzers and yeehaw would be used repeatedly. And there would be lots of giggling.

In fact, they might text back and ask for some more (which is the opposite of how most women would react unless they text back and ask for some more cause it was the best laugh they have had in some time).

Doctor Who's 50th anniversary special review and questions.

By now most people who are interested have watched the anniversary special and have their opinions about it. If you have not watched it than stop reading and go do something else since reading this could spoil it for you.

Go on then.









Here is one thing that is going to put me at odds with millions of people.

I did not like it very much. Yes, I know it has give the Doctor hope and given him a new purpose. Yes, there were humorous moments like Tennant and the rabbit.

Oh, it was great to see Tennant play the doctor again and seeing him interact with Matt Smith. Seeing Billie Piper again was good too. I just wish Rose Tyler had been in the special.

It was an ambitious episode that brought one of the big events in the Doctor's lives to light. It had great effects. But I found myself with more questions about it after watching it.

With 50 years of history I would have liked to seen more of the characters that made this show great. The episode only contained 1 companion, Clara. There was no Rose, Captain Jack, Mickey, Donna, Martha, etc. to assist the doctor. During the week leading up to the special Billie Piper and Catherine Tate did not do any of the commentaries. The end of David Tennant's run was more exciting for me than this was.

Here are some of the questions/problems I came away with.

1) William Hartnell (the 1st Doctor) said very plainly "You can't change history." Obviously they are going back on that. If history can be changed the Doctor can do it whenever he wants.

2) Paul McGann regenerated into John Hurt so only Eccleston, Tennant and Smith knew about the death of his people. How then did every Doctor suddenly appear around Galifrey to save it? Did the three go back and collect them all, taking time to explain what John Hurt had originally done? That would have taken time and, lets be honest, rather than this, why wouldn't McGann choose a different drink which would have created a different doctor? Simpler than circling Galifrey.

3) Are the Daleks really gone? Wouldn't they have stopped firing when they saw all the TARDISs circling Galifrey? Daleks are not stupid.

4) If the Tower of London was guarded against the Doctor getting in but he did anyhow than how can there be fixed points of time he cannot get to? He could save Amy and Rory. He is choosing not to. This also ties into number 1. History can be changed.

5) Taking away the death of his people is going to alter who the Doctor is. Since Eccleston there has been a darkness in the Doctor where he was torturing himself. It made him work harder to save as many people as he could (due to his guilt over his actions). That is gone now. It is like if Thomas and Martha Wayne had not been shot. Would Bruce Wayne become Batman if his parents had survived? No. That means the Doctor will be different.

Television and politics

People complain a lot about how the government has failed them and that there are so many problems in our government. That may be true but lets put this in perspective. More people vote on American Idol than in national elections.

More people can name the 13 Doctors in order than can tell you who their state senators are.

Now, I watch a lot of television as well cause, well, TV is more interesting than what goes on in the federal government.

There are ways to improve this.

Every week the senator (or House of Reps) with the least number of votes (based on votes called in by the American public) has to vacate their office No more job security. Make them work for their office. We give the one with the least votes an opportunity to stay if they are willing to fight a lion or bear unarmed.

Have Joss Whedon or George R.R. Martin start scripting for them. That way you will become attached to a senator and then see them get killed off.

Turn it into a Thunderdome. All the senators and representatives go in, one comes out. That person becomes the next president since they are obviously the one who does what they have to.

Install a laugh track.

Every Thursday they are required to do a Benny Hill chase sequence.

Animation.

Pie slapstick.

Clip shows.

Install a sound track. When an elected official is on their last day "I will Remember you" starts playing.

All problems are solved in 30 minutes.

All politicians must have catch phrases that make people laugh.

Guest appearances to bolster ratings. Who wouldn't want to see Snooki or JWow appear in the Senate?

Elect officials who will serve this country and not their political party or themselves (oops, sorry, wrong list).

misconceptions

People have a lot of ideas that they feel the need to share and I really wish they wouldn't. Below are some of the things that I have heard.

Hate isn't a family value.
                       Really? Than where to all the kids learn it? I have worked in public schools and know that is not where the kids pick it up. Kids get their racist, phobic of other kinds of people behavior from their families. Just like they get their hair and eye color (unless, of course, mom was having an affair and you are not really their father).

Women are attracted to a sense of humor.
                      Forget everything else and just make her laugh. The thud you hear next will be her panties dropping to the floor. WRONG! They say that but as soon as you get in a relationship with her the next thing she will say is "Will you be serious?" This goes along the lines of "I love you just the way you are. Now change everything about  yourself."

Women and Children first.
                      What if she is that woman from "Wild Things" or the kid from the "Omen" movies? What if there is only one Twinkie left? Besides, doesn't equality mean I don't have to let you go first, that it is perfectly okay if I shove you to the side so I can get on the lifeboat first?

Love means never having to say you're sorry.
                       What relationship are you in? I have never seen a relationship where one person has never apologized to the other. I have never said I am sorry to my significant other but that may be due to the fact I have never had a significant other (and why start now?). Plus, if this were true, than guys in relationships on sitcoms would have nothing to talk about since a majority of their time is spent apologizing to their significant other or trying to prove they are correct (they aren't) and that the S.O. is wrong.

We have started to teach children (like in kids sporting events) everyone who plays is a winner.
                        Excuse me, but no. Just giving kids a trophy for coming out is sending the wrong message. It means there is no point in getting better. "I tried so I won." If you lose, you know to who you lost and you know you have to improve. If this continues kids today are going to expect a lot more from us. Going to a job interview means you get the job. Coming to class means you automatically pass. Playing the lottery means you are an automatic winner. What kind of lesson is this?  Life is about competition and winners and losers. Tell these kids the same thing school coaches have been saying for years--"Walk it off!"