I guess.

Well, there are things happening that are disrupting day to day living for some people, anyway.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has been going on for some time now, and after a few weeks (though some would say months - with even the small rumblings going back a couple of years) it seems to be gaining momentum.

I have been tracking this, but until last night, I kept asking myself and others what I thought was a very important question.

What exactly is this?

At first, it seemed very disparate, to say the least. I say pictures of people protesting. Sleep-ins at Liberty Square. People with signs ranging from "We Want A Democracy, Not A Corporatocracy," to those advocating animal rights, the obligatory analogy to Adolf Eichmann's "Just following orders" line, effectively slapping a Godwin on the movement before it got rolling. Oh, and let's not forget the free pizza, bagels, and occasional attractive person, because there's nothing more powerful than hooking up in the name of a social cause.

Really focused.

Then came the zombies.

This may have been an attempt to satirize the "suits" who are ravenous for the dollar at all costs - dead to the suffering around them. It may also have been an excuse to dress up and act like zombies.

It wasn't until last night that I read an "official" list of demands, which are as follows (my questions and comments are in italics):

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hour. I'm all for taxing the heck out of other countries, and bringing production inside our borders - especially those countries that refuse our goods. I guess that would mean saying bye-bye to anime and things of that nature. So we're off to a good start about trade (which will come back to bite us by the end of this list) but now we want a higher minimum wage? I thought that in a competitive market, an employer pays what it thinks the employee is worth. If you're good at something, you get paid. If you don't find a suitable job-to-wage ratio at one place, you can look elsewhere - or you can learn a viable skill in a different field. If this is an epidemic, companies will raise the rate of pay. Adaptability and growth are not just for industry. They're for individuals, as well.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.  Again, a great ideal. But where does this money come from? The people who have studied to be doctors, nurses, etc. - are they now considered public sector workers? Would it be illegal for them to open up private practices? Are you ignoring that the government payout (state or federal) is so low for those physicians already enrolled in public health programs that THAT is one of the main reasons the cost of treatment is so high?

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment. So if I don't work, I still get paid? Even the guy breaking his back for 17 hours a day? Suckers! Sign me up! This is no incentive to learn or excel at ANYTHING. See: Public sector jobs.

Demand four: Free college education. I think we should skip this and just give everyone degrees. If you're guaranteed a living wage and free healthcare, where is the need to compete? Or are you realizing that going to NYU for a degree in independent film studies saddled you with a lot of debt and no viable working skills? I mean, apart form working at Starbuck's, which is the PAYING equivalent of what you'd be doing on the set of a movie, anyway.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand. Agreed. You should note that these alternatives are mostly being cultivated in the private sector by people with money and good degrees. It's not cheap.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now. Where does this money come from? Cutting social spending? Military spending? Increasing taxes? Can you show me the breakdown of how you arrived at this number?

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants. Plant a freaking tree. Don't litter. Tear down the dams. Even if I stop being reactionary about this one, please look at my questions in the previous point. How is this supposed to happen and how does this money become available, exactly?

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live. You mean within this country, right? Or did you mean "immigration" instead of "migration?" Because the tariff thing in point one really goes against this, economically speaking, if you want a global village and to hell with restrictions on who comes into or out of our borders. 

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system. I'm all for checking and auditing ballots before we declare someone a winner. 

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period. Is this just filler? Were you guys dressing up as zombies or checking out the new iPhone announcement while an 8th grader got in and typed this? What I'm reading here is that you want your bailout, too. You were too busy, too young, or too ethical to jump on the bandwagon that was taking out loans left and right while the banks fell down, leaving people with nothing to repay. If you're in dire straits, and you know you're going to be financially screwing yourself by taking out a loan, you get resourceful or find assistance elsewhere. Tangentially speaking, if you're feeling a personal financial strain or things look shaky, it might also not be the ideal time to think about having kids.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies. Why? I mean, I'm right with you that the metrics aren't entirely standardized, and one little mark can mean the difference between getting a loan for a home and having to pay for things with money you actually have on hand (see what I did there?). This point (most of them, actually) tells me that you want a "do over." You made bad decisions, and now you find yourself responsible for the very real consequences - be they out of naivety or just plain hubris and stupidity. You feel disgruntled that some rich and powerful people/companies/organizations got "help," and, because they can't be held to the same standard you are when the banks shake their heads at you, or you get fired from your job for trying to organize a union, that you want yours. Power and money are wonderful things, and one of the most horrible feelings is that of helplessness. But no one gives power away. Just like people find ways of holding onto their money, if they don't want to end up in helpless positions.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union. You can do this! Workers(?) of the...um...country, unite! There actually is nothing preventing you from trying to organize the workers in your company. However, your employer is not obligated to accept your union, simply because you got together and demanded higher wages and a change in working conditions. Most likely, you will be fired. Oh, and don't get excited about the union members slated to join your cause. They're still getting paid during your demonstration, and a perfect example of the main flaw in unionization.

Now we'll move a couple of degrees and look at "We are the 99%." Go through the pages upon pages of people who have obscured their faces with notes about why they are scared or feel disenfranchised. (On a side note, obscuring your face with a complaint isn't showing me how committed you are to this. It's showing me that in the event of OWS falling through, you may actually have a chance to be hired by potential employers doing background searches. So at least there is some forethought involved.)

I'm certainly not a fan of Federal bailouts, and I loathe the Tea Party, but the longer you spend on this site, the more conservative (at least fiscally), you will find yourself becoming. I almost guarantee it, and it takes a LOT to garner that sort of reaction from me.

I see one or two anecdotal stories with legitimate complaints about failings in the healthcare system, and a few hard luck stories. The rest are people who have gotten degrees and can't find jobs in their chosen fields and have tons of debt. There is a complete lack in telling the public what these "highly specialized" degrees are. One was bold enough to claim that it was in Theatre Arts and another in Fine Arts - and I can tell you where the root of your problem is: Your flights of fancy over pragmatism.

There are others who are complaining about how they have put their debt on credit cards, and are now wondering how they are going to make ends meet for themselves and their babies (or babies to be). So the fiscal outlook seemed grim, and you decided to not only put your debt on a credit card, but also bring a child into the world? You've not only financially condemned yourself, but you've also pretty much stunted the kid's opportunities due to impractical planning.

Then there's this person:

Oh, and this one, who makes a great point that waving signs isn't going to get anything done - it's actual voting that changes policies (or at least lays the groundwork).

I am far from the 1%. My dream job was in journalism, and I got into that field right when every home was being populated by a personal computer. I was working toward a useless degree in a world where anyone with access to a computer could write an article and be a pundit. Oddly enough, there were (and still are) a number of jobs out there, and money to be had. If you're innovative, you can find niche employment without giving to the model you're protesting which you think screws over the little people. If you just wanted honest pay for honest labor, there's that as well - but it seems that it's been proven that American workers don't like actual work, and feel entitled to something - because you studied so hard for that communications degree so you could contribute something of value to society. And you wonder why employers outsource. (Remember this when Michael Moore is taking it upon himself to speak on your behalf. He is not the 99%, and his endeavors aren't essential to the day-to-day functioning of society. No artist's work is. It's nice, and sometimes fascinating, but it's not necessary nor is working as an artist an entitled right - it's a choice to be met with success or failure, like anything else.)

No job is permanent.

I wasn't guaranteed a job because I could spin words, nor was my college debt absolved. I took jobs dishwashing, bartending, writing reports for people too busy partying in college, and even took a job in a factory. I never joined a union. While I was learning about various aspects of the IT field, I was working retail, slinging books, clothing, and coffee to the people who actually had disposable income.

Luckily, I didn't have to sell my house, because the market's been too horrible in most places to buy one and throw money into it in the first place (it would've been a stupid fiscal decision on my part). I learned how to cook - not just restaurant cuisine, but so I could feed myself within my budget. I still do that, and it saves a TON of money. Self-reliance can be a very addicting and satisfying drug.

I don't have the latest gadgets. I'm not buying the newest cars. I'm not giving into the latest trends that will ultimately do nothing other than eat my wallet from the inside. If something confuses me or angers me, I tend to research it to find out the root of the problem, and what can be done.

I'm also not the 99% by any means, and that has as much to do with luck as it does adaptability and common sense (and not in a Thomas Paine sort of way, but a very common way). I don't buy the Mont Blanc when a simple pencil will do. I can wait when I have things shipped to my house, rather than blow more money for immediate satisfaction. Home-cooked meals taste better, and are cheaper than any prepared dish you'll ever have. All this, working jobs (as in multiple at once, instead of demanding some mythical permanent career with a union and benefits) I may not necessarily want, but ones that let me sleep at night, not worrying about the future, and I'm managing to save money.

I'm also human, and prone to mistakes - and many of them have been financial in nature. The easy thing would have been to refuse responsibility and possibly find someone else to blame. Better still, I could find a whole bunch of people with just enough pride to refuse ownership of failings and rally against some faceless organization who was only mildly involved in the decision-making process. That sort of wallowing and wasted energy wouldn't get me a job, wouldn't make me feel genuinely better, and wouldn't promote any change - either in myself or those around me.

As tedious and un-fun as it sounds, bureaucratic methods (except in egregious and immediate transgressions) are the way to accomplish things. Dressing up as zombies doesn't do it. Sleep-ins in Liberty Square don't do it. Drum circles don't do it. Yelling doesn't do it, no matter how loud and skewed you shout your watered-down version of John Locke's philosophy.

Investigation. Organization. Communication. Participation. This is how things get done. You guys are almost at the half-way mark in that chain, and if you're serious, I know you can do it.

Until then, you might want to focus on getting an actual message across to the people/organizations you're protesting, because if they can't figure out why you're angry, then you've lost a lot of ground and your finish line is even farther away than when you first started.

Jonathan Farr is a freelance contractor, writer, and all-around nerd. Please direct your comments, questions, rage, and angst to his inbox at jonathan.e.farr@gmail.com where he will be more than happy to respond when he's not working.

It's rarely that I've waxed political on this blog, but it should be noted that skepticism isn't solely for rubber bigfoot suits frozen in ice, or planets mistaken for UFOs. You can apply skepticism to almost anything around you, and that includes public policies, legislation, and political platforms.

I recently moved to the humble state of Texas, where the governor goes golfing with God on weekends. He (the governor - don't let the "H" fool you) is thinking of making a bid for the White House on a premise of faith. In his own state, the land is suffering from drought, and is convinced that a day of prayer and fasting will help end these troubled times.

Let he who is without nitrates cast the first stone...

These prayer gatherings have gone on throughout the summer for everything from asking God for rain, asking God for a better economy, to getting rid of those heathen gays who are clearly to blame for our country's decline (but not for his efforts to educate people on the matter of heterosexual intercourse). Thus far, God seems to be in it for the free publicity, but has failed at actually answering these prayers.

(Note: the economy in Texas is booming, but I think that's mainly to jobs opening up in the tech industry more than it is because of prayer. I haven't seen many tent revivals at the Google, Apple, or Dell offices here.)

"Dogs and cats, living together..."

Today it was reported that an earthquake occurred and caused not only the Washington Monument to lean (expect Jay Leno to provide hilarious insight into that one), but damage to the National Cathedral, as well.

What does it all mean? Could God very well be trying to send a message about how angry He is with the corruption in Washington, the prurient lifestyles of the decadent masses, and the travesty of the Obama Presidency? "All God's chill'un got birth certificates."

Not to be a damp towel on this speculation, and possibly the upcoming specials on TBN, The 700 Club, or The History Channel, but the earthquake happened for very simple and scientific reasons. Not only that, it happened in Virginia. Further studying will also show that there with earthquakes in Ohio and upstate New York - both places where, shockingly, nothing was happening in the political or financial realms.

Earthquakes happen when pressure builds in plates beneath the Earth's surface - either due to movement along fault lines, or a buckling and expanding deep in the plate itself. Contrary to popular belief, earthquakes do not occur due to high concentrations of gay people, or even people who oppose Moses and his buddy, God.

Now as for Rick Perry, his bid for the White House is a long shot, but to prove that he is somewhat more grounded (or to prove that the people want to be fooled by outrageous claims), he might want to focus on why businesses are growing in his state and why there might be a scientific reason for the drought, rather than getting into a debate that, as the late comedian Richard Jeni put it, "to see who's got the better imaginary friend."

Or better still, while everyone's riding on the atonement wagon, why he once may have looked at scientific data and believed in numbers, as opposed to Numbers.

]]> http://www.lessthancredulous.com/2011/08/23/giants-in-the-earth/feed/ 0 http://www.lessthancredulous.com/2009/11/26/225/ http://www.lessthancredulous.com/2009/11/26/225/#comments Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:57:08 +0000 Jonathan http://www.lessthancredulous.com/?p=225

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!

]]> http://www.lessthancredulous.com/2009/11/26/225/feed/ 0 http://www.lessthancredulous.com/2009/10/18/youre-going-out-in-that/ http://www.lessthancredulous.com/2009/10/18/youre-going-out-in-that/#comments Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:06:19 +0000 Jonathan http://www.lessthancredulous.com/?p=179 Yesterday it was reported that department store chain Target buckled under pressure from the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles to remove a Hallowe'en costume from their racks. The costume in question consists of a mask resembling a space creature, an orange jump suit with the words “Illegal Alien” printed on it, and an oversized green card bearing the words “Green Card.”

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).

]]> http://www.lessthancredulous.com/2009/10/18/youre-going-out-in-that/feed/ 0 http://www.lessthancredulous.com/2009/10/07/the-plight-of-the-candycapped/ http://www.lessthancredulous.com/2009/10/07/the-plight-of-the-candycapped/#comments Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:28:56 +0000 Jonathan http://www.lessthancredulous.com/?p=143 Just in time for Hallowe'en, Cardiff University recently released an article saying that a study showed a direct link between the consumption of sweets by children and violent tendencies later in their lives. The British Journal of Psychiatry studied the long-term effects of those who consumed candy regularly versus those who did not. According to the study, of the 69% who were violent by the age of 34, all had eaten candy nearly every day of their lives, compared to the 42% who were rather imbellic.

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!

]]> http://www.lessthancredulous.com/2009/08/20/why-i-traded-my-dime-for-credulity/feed/ 0 http://www.lessthancredulous.com/2009/08/19/is-it-true-that-quitters-never-win-and-winners-never-quit/ http://www.lessthancredulous.com/2009/08/19/is-it-true-that-quitters-never-win-and-winners-never-quit/#comments Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:46:17 +0000 Shane http://www.lessthancredulous.com/?p=8 The title of this post is inspired by the seemingly sudden decision I made with regards to my last internet project, The Libertarian Dime.  After sixteen months of podcasting mostly about libertarian politics, I reached my limit.  The last few weeks of the show we (we being myself, Jonathan, and Mike) found ourselves talking about everything but politics.  The format of the show had begun to feel stale, and I didn't know what to do.  Then I thought about it a little more, and realized I had an inkling of what needed to be done, but I didn't want to do it.  I couldn't continue to talk about politics.

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.