This is a day of thanks. While this day is set aside for a feast and reflection, shouldn't we give thanks each and every day?

Those first two sentences are going to be heard and read throughout the day, because no matter what the circumstances, people think it's an original (if not righteous sounding) motto to bestow upon readers and listeners before the gluttony and shopping that follows.

However, this year, more than any other I've experienced in my lifetime (that I was aware of – which isn't saying a hell of a lot). Last year, at this time, we were awaiting our new President, and seeing a slight downturn in our economy. This year, we have had a chance to experience the magical ways of Obama, and the economy is still giving into gravity to the point where I'm going to stop this to keep you from getting indigestion before you actually eat anything.

This is a humbler year for many. Maybe the spread at the table isn't quite as large or diverse as one it used to. Maybe family and friends cannot be at the table because of travel expenses. Maybe you actually care how the Lions do. Any way you slice it, it's far from the Norman Rockwell ideal.

But this isn't really about food, or making sure the right people show up to your home. We all have a number of things to be thankful for. Just being able to celebrate the day is something in itself! Being able to have loved ones with you is even better. I'm not saying this for selfish reasons; I'm pointing out that this is a time to pause and enjoy human contact. It seems to be a rare thing these days.

Less Than Credulous would like to wish you all a wonderful holiday. If you are with family, or if you are alone, take this time to appreciate that you can pause and reflect on what you've learned, the love you have for others, and how you have bettered yourself and contributed to society.

As we enter the holiday season, remember that while gifts seem to be the tradition, there is no need to go broke in the spirit of giving and the reward that comes with seeing a person's face upon receiving a great gift. Handcraft something to light up someone's heart. Cook a meal for someone who has no one around during the season. Volunteer at a soup kitchen. Share stories and fond memories. Write letters (a disappearing art in itself) to those close to you. It may be something as simple as giving someone a hug or inviting someone over to help decorate for the holidays. What matters, more than expensive gifts, is letting those close to us know how we feel about them, and letting them know they are welcome. While this is a philosophy that should be carried with us every day, we sometimes lose track until this time of year rolls around.

So to everyone, Happy Thanksgiving!

Shame on you for enjoying the Alien Nation series

The reasoning behind the complaint is that the costume negatively depicts terrestrial-based immigrants and aliens, and that it only enforces the negative views and stereotypes many have about people from other countries trying to make headway in The United States. Target has even gone so far as to say that the costume was accidentally included in this year's line, and that it was never intended to be made available.

Have we completely lost our spirit of fun? I've looked at the costume for a long time now, and even at first blush I did not get the impression that this was a slight against any particular minority culture. While I groaned more than I chuckled, all I saw was a visual pun – a physical representation of a play on words. I'm probably going to get flack for this, but I anticipate a day when I can no longer buy polish for my boots because I might use the stuff to negatively portray a person or group (I'm not saying I would, I'm just saying that we should remove the possibility all together). If we are going to shed whatever strains of xenophobia we have (no matter how subtle), in order to celebrate and fully enjoy an all-inclusive Hallowe'en, then I think it's time we take a long hard look at the mainstream costumes that are out there, and join hands in forming a coalition that tells these corporations that we refuse to spend money to negatively impact minorities or those disadvantaged in our gentle society.

I've been looking at other costumes available through Target; ones that are popular, widely accepted, and purchased without forethought. I have to say, after my research, I am ashamed of you people for being so insensitive. Here is my (personal) list of offenders:

The Vampire:

We are misunderstood

This is a classic. If you've ever been out and about on October 31st, or wandered through the mall on any other day, you've probably seen people dressed like this. Pale skin, dark clothing, afraid of sunlight, with an insatiable thirst to feed on live humans or animals for the nutrients their blood provides.

Why this is offensive:

There is a rare condition known as porphyria, which makes individuals very sensitive to direct sunlight, and also leaves those affected with low blood-sodium levels, and (in some cases) blood-iron deficiency, which causes a craving for those things which contain what they are lacking.

Who to contact to complain about insensitivity: Porphyria Foundation

Positive portrayals: Paula Frías Allende and King George III

The Werewolf/Wolfman:

Centuries of negative PR

These are also classics, having been portrayed in The Howling series of movies, as well as numerous Lon Cheney films. A seemingly normal person is transfigured by the full moon into a beast that terrorizes and reminds us why we have to keep our basest of desires in check.

Why this is offensive:

Hypertrichosis or Hirsutism. These are conditions by which people have excessive, and in some cases, what is known as “terminal hair.” This is a condition that knows no gender, race, or any other qualifiers. In extreme cases, the sufferers are covered from head to toe in a thick layer of hair.

Who to contact to complain about insensitivity: Hairscientists.org

Positive portrayals: Larry Ramos Gomez (He may be getting a reality show soon, which, like “Little People, Big World” will not have a single hint of exploitation.)

Characters From the "Twilight" series

I haven't seen the movie or read the books, so I hope I got the right costume here.

Why this is offensive:

Not all Mormons shop at Hot Topic

Who to contact to complain about insensitivity: The Church of Latter Day Saints and every teenager you know

Positive portrayals: Still researching this one

The Pirate

This is how EVERYONE sharing games and music on-line really looks!

Why this is offensive:

This costume promotes fun and anarchy, which is only feeding into and encouraging people to support Somalian privateers, offenses against the music and software industries, and bringing about the demise of the lime industry.

Who to contact to file a complaint about insensitivity: BSA and Ecoterra

Positive portrayals: Captain Morgan

Now that I've bothered to make you aware of the unwitting and subliminal insensitivity that many people have been portraying during the Hallowe'en season (the list can go on and on, if one looks hard enough), I hope everyone will think carefully before going out dressed up as their favorite "monsters" and promote inequality, misogyny, violence, and overall undermining of a progressive society bent on change. I think it's high time for a shovel-ready movement to abandon these antiquated notions of what is scary or fun, in the name of scoring a few pieces of candy. I want a world where I can go into a store and not see monster costumes, or exploiting outfits - because we've become so enlightened that we can see these archetypes not as laughable or freakish, but for the sensitive and struggling groups and individuals that they are.

Do you know of an insensitive costume? Are your neighbors dressing the kids as Kim Jong-Il this year? Henry Ford? The Dutch oppressors of Indonesia? Daffy Duck? Elizabeth Bathory? Please send us your opinions on what's really offensive (including this article), and any pictures of costumes that you find truly insensitive (or hilarious).

Now, despite the seemingly skewed statistics (or lack of complete statistics, as they are presented) the article sums up that there is a direct link to children being given candy as a means of keeping them quiet or sated and the development of tendencies to satisfy immediate gratification later on in life. If a child cries or complains, feel free to give her or him sweets to calm the tantrum, but understand that the child may grow up to use more nefarious means to get what she or he wants when the world isn't going right.

Lots of candy during the formative years = a violent society later in life.

I take issue with this on a number of levels. Firstly, instead of having those with violent tendencies own up to their mistakes (not everyone has a chemical imbalance caused by sweets that is irreversible and must have constant psychiatric supervision), or looking toward poor parenting (I'll touch on this in a little bit), we are looking to the manufacturers of confections and the stores that make them available to the general public.

Maybe, here in the United States, we should appoint a Candy Czar (who will, I predict, resign within a month of appointment when it's discovered that she/he once gave candy to a minor) to make certain that sweets are given warning labels based on sugar intensity, flavor, and portion size. Maybe those ratings could be devised by a federally-funded third party that works in conjunction with the FDA to audit what is allowed on store shelves and what a proper age is for someone to buy certain candies without a parent or guardian being present. Perhaps we can keep candy locked up (much like razors in many stores here), or allow only a certain amount of sugar to be purchased in an allotted period, much like certain over the counter medicine is in many states. There should be panic in the streets! Parents should arm themselves in protective gear and crowd control devices in case roving bands of elementary school students start to exhibit violent tendencies or become overly exuberant when out trick-or-treating this year, either from too much candy, or from being denied candy. (Don't forget to look for popular gang colors in the kids' costumes, as well. To help the parents reading this, black, orange, red, green, and purple are good indicators.)

I am not a parent, and probably will not have an opportunity to raise a person from childbirth to adulthood. However, I have been a child (and still have the mentality of one, as both my proponents and detractors will tell you), and observed the methods my parents (and others) have used throughout the years, and have looked back at what I and others used to do as kids.

Kids can be terrors. You set boundaries, and children always want to know why those lines are drawn, and what's on the other side. Kids cry, yell, and (when they think no one is looking) will explore to see what is denied them by the powers that be, and will go to great lengths to get what they want. This is burgeoning human curiosity, and something to be commended.

However, when this curiosity is not sated, or the reasons for restrictions are not explained in full (or in a manner that a child can understand), then the rebellious behavior increases. Many parents would see it as a win-win situation just to give the damn kid the candy and have peace and quiet, rather than yelling and crying or destructive behavior.

I don't want to limit this to candy, either. Candy seems like a concern because it is present almost everywhere we go. It is tangible and attainable by people of virtually any age with loose change in their pockets. It's colorful, sweet, and often advertized in an appealing manner in print, on-line, and during commercial breaks on television when broadcasting shows intended for children. Candy manufacturers are not preying upon children. There is no evil candy conglomerate working in association with The Illuminati and The Rand Corporation to corrupt the youth of the world and have them as a sugar-addicted army bent on crushing all existing authority; ready to carry out any order blindly for a taste of a chocolate bar (or one of those very sour candies, if you are the author of this article). Candy companies know their target demographic, and want to do what most companies in any industry want to do: make money.

I think we all know what they're getting at here.

Do you want to help fight the evils of sugar? Do you want to curb the potentially violent tendencies of children (especially yours, even though I'm certain you know they are darlings without any faults directly or indirectly related to how you raise them)?

Then stop combating the large corporations who make candy, the television networks who advertise candy, and companies who may make and publish games, movies, and books for children featuring candy, and take responsibility into your own hands! “No” means very little to most children, except as a cue to scream louder and be more persistent. This is where you need to start thinking and reasoning. I'm not talking about cheap bargains like offering the child a new toy if he or she stops crying about wanting candy for five minutes, or anything like that. You've lost the war and given your child the reins at that point. You need to reason with your child. Let kids know why you are denying them things like a ton of candy, hours in front of the television, or a later bed time. Explain it in a way they can understand, and encourage them to question why you do things as a means of understanding and (in some cases) compromising. Heck, all parties may even learn something about each other.

However, this can be very taxing, in which case I advise you to cut a few lines of Pixy Stix on the Sit N' Spin and let the little tykes have at it. Then tell them you'll show them how to smuggle condoms filled with peanut butter cups via a demonstration using a Mr. Potato Head figure (that hatch is not just for storing the pieces and accessories). Tell them if they do a good job, that you'll take them to the store and get them anything they want, if they go out and bring you the neighbor's credit card. Oh yeah, tell them where the neighbors keep their candy before you send them out to ply the knowledge and trade you taught them, through the power of good and responsible parenting!

Contraband goes here.

Now, where are my cigarettes? I swear I'll just kill someone if I don't have one now.

I came to Less Than Credulous after a sixteen month project with my co-host and co-writer, Shane. When we were younger, we often talked about being able to publish music, our writing, and voice our thoughts with little cost to us, and having a wide reach. In 2008, technology had finally caught up to where our ideals were fifteen to twenty years ago.

What initially started out as collaborative project for the sake of doing something quickly gained a life of its own, and became The Libertarian Dime podcast. Each week, we would tackle topics ranging from taxes to the economy to the elections (it certainly cannot be said that our timing was bad for starting such a venture). We had on great guests, honed our interviewing skills (which I'd never done in a public forum), and garnered a decent following of both new and regular listeners. The fact that (with the exception of one week) I continued with this show was a testament to my lack of laziness (or sanity), and it was something I enjoyed and a project in which I believed.

At the beginning of 2009, our show saw a great boom in popularity and guests. However, after the first quarter, something started to scratch at the back of my brain. I had been spending my waking hours (that weren't with my job and my fiancée, Nicole) thinking about politics and researching for our podcast. After a while, everything could be seen from a libertarian angle, right down to labels on the salad dressing I was using during dinner. News sites and political venues were becoming the equivalent of cable television or a (bad) Bruce Springsteen song. It was getting stale, despite the change we were all promised. However, unlike the current administration, we did move forward.

We added Mike Fairman to the cast, who offered a third perspective during our round table discussions, and when we were interviewing guests. This certainly livened things up a bit, but did not change the fact that the state of current events (to use a term I picked up in my political science courses) sucked. I found myself turning to video games and music more than politics and current events.

Whether it was a subconscious decision on Shane's part or if it was intentional, we started to veer from the realm of politics and discuss things such as personal finance, how to get a job in the current market, and even time travel. It was a breath of fresh air. However, while I have always been one for individuality and being able what one wants, I would walk away from our weekly podcast and wonder if The Libertarian Dime (if by name alone) was too restrictive in scope for what Shane and I had talked about doing for a long time.

Shane approached me one night and mentioned stopping The Libertarian Dime (in all fairness, we weren't putting out much written content – just weekly podcasts, which we were finding draining at this point). As much as I knew Shane not to give up on an idea, this was a relief to me. We talked for a while, and came to the conclusion that we weren't quitting per se, just that we had seen The Libertarian Dime through its full life-cycle, and when something that started out as inspiring becomes an obligation, then to continue to do it only diminishes the joy and enthusiasm of those running the project, which in turn ruins the experience for the listeners and readers.

Well, like the mythological phoenix (I only say “mythological” because we haven't disproved its existence...yet), we reinvented ourselves and started Less Than Credulous as a way to take in and write to the larger scope of our ideas and opinions. Sure, we may talk about politics, but this platform will also allow us to write about other topics as well (be it music, the paranormal, video gaming, vegetarianism, or anything that strikes our fancy).

At heart, I've always been (or have fooled myself into believing I am) a better writer than a speaker. I've also never really had the desire to talk about politics every waking hour, when there are myriad other topics to research and discuss. When I think about it, most of my mental energy goes into thinking and researching a concept or subject. Writing about it comes easily, but after that, I want to move on to a new topic, and discuss the previous ones at leisure. Less Than Credulous will allow for that.

Now that this exegesis is coming to a close, expect more (though possibly less prolix) articles from me in the future about, well, who can really say? It depends on what strikes me, but I can guarantee that the topics will be researched before I offer an opinion. Some articles may be informative; some may be snarky; and some may just be random musings on my part. I look forward to writing for Less Than Credulous, and encourage you to read and respond to us!

I emailed my co-hosts as soon as it crystallized in my mind that I needed to quit doing the podcast.  Jonathan, who started the podcast with me, messaged me a couple days later and seemed to have independently come to the same conclusion.  We were done, we quit, and we moved on.  The show was well received by our listeners and guests , but in addition to be burned out, we realized we weren't that popular, and probably would never be that popular.

Were we quitters who couldn't hack it when the going got tough?

I have pondered this a lot since we ended The Dime,  and, surprisingly, I have come to the conclusion that "quitting" was the smartest thing we could have done.  Creative projects have finite lifespans.  If you don't believe me, go back and watch the last 2 seasons of the X-Files.  Would anyone fault Chris Carter now if he had decided enough was enough once David Duchovny left the show full time?  While The Dime was in no way in the same class of art as the X-Files, we did do some good work, talked with a lot of cool guests and learned a whole lot about interviewing people live (and often without notes).  I learned to stop hogging all the airtime (eventually anyway), and Jonathan's two part questions with multiple sub-parts became much tighter as time went on.  However, we just didn't find an audience and an audience didn't find us.  Alas, between that and burnout we "quit."

I think quitting is underrated.   During my twelve years at my current company, there have been two times I wish we had "quit" working on the project I was working on.  The first time, we didn't, and I continued on a career death march for another year.  The second time, we quit at the perfect time and my sanity was maintained.  Quitting was the right thing to do, as it freed up resources and allowed us to take a fresh perspective on the different markets we were trying to succeed in as a company.

I feel the same way about The Dime.  Jonathan and I spent a ton of time working on the podcast and didn't have as much time (or any) to focus on writing for the website.  The time we spent on the podcast will now be dedication to writing content for LessThanCredulous.com.

LessThanCredulous.com is the first formal project than Jonathan and I have undertaken that will be about writing original content from an investigator's mindset.  One thing that I learned while doing the podcast, was that we both had a knack for asking questions that the interviewee hadn't heard of or though of before.  We choose to look at this as a positive.  We will take this knack and apply it to a broader range of topics.  Nothing will be out of bounds, even politics if we can muster the strength.  There will be interviews, there will be speculation, there will be humor, there will be Bigfoot I'm sure.  I can't wait.

So you see, I didn't quit out of laziness or fear, but because I wanted to do more.  I'd say that's a fine reason for quitting.