20 Arguably Famous People Who Prefer to Wear Black

Note: This list is not in any particular order and I chose not to include any mention of the film Men in Black or include to any Goth or Emo types because that would just be too easy. 

20. Richard Lewis
Lewis is probably best known for his HBO comedy specials, his literally hundred or so late night TV appearances, his role on Curb Your Enthusiasm, and as the only man who beat out Billy Ray Cyrus for the longest running mullet of all time, but if you are under 25 years of age there is a chance you have no idea who this guy is. GQ Magazine put Lewis on their list of the '20th Century's Most Influential Humorists', which would have been quite an honor had it not come from a magazine that is only read by frat boys and closet metrosexuals. 

19. Judge Ito
It was a tossup between Judge Ito, any of the Supreme Court Justices, or Judge Judy. Since Judge Judy is far too annoying to be included in my list, and because the Supreme Court Justices are the farthest thing from entertaining Ito it is. Frankly, nobody really knows what Ito wears under his robe, but then again nobody wants to. Although Ito bears an uncanny resemblance to Oddjob from the James Bond film Goldfinger, he will probably always be associated with the OJ Simpson trial he presided over, better known as the only time Court TV ever had more than 32 people tuned in at the same time. 

18. Clint Black
The guy's last name is black and he has black hair so it probably isnt a stretch for him to always be seen with a black cowboy hat and black wrangler jeans. I am convinced had his last name been Fuchsia, there is a good chance RCA Records wouldnt have been so eager to sign him to a record deal, but opinions vary. The real dilemma here is how he could marry Lisa Hartman... a blond woman with skin so bright she makes the Olsen twins look tropical by comparison.

17. Richard Belzer

My grandfather once told me Richard Belzer was a funny guy, but then again grandpa wore diapers and claimed Amelia Earhart worked at the local Walgreens, so maybe he was just confused. Belzer does however win the award for best character name for any of the 43 versions of Law & Order with his portrayal of Detective John Munch in Law & Order: SVU. I'm guessing most people with taste have no idea who Belzer is although many probably confuse him for Mr. Spock on Star Trek.

16. Joan Jett
The question is, would Joan Jett still resort to wearing black all the time if her band was not called The Blackhearts? I think so, but then again I have noticed Jett has started bleaching her hair, so perhaps she has drifted away from her punk roots (pardon the pun) just a tad. Jett will always be known for her 1979 cover of the classic rock song I Love Rock N Roll, which made the song a mainstay on American radio stations until Britney Spears covered the song again in 2002, and publicly attributed the hit version of the song to Pat Benatar single handedly ruining a perfectly good song in multiple ways at the very same time. 

15. Batman

Sure Batman isnt a real person, but he is arguably famous, so he makes the cut. You have to admit, for superhero born in the 30s, he still looks pretty damn good in a plastic suit. Then again, in some variations the suit was really medium blue or light gray but if you ask Robin it all looks the same in the dark. George Clooney went out of his way to make the character look even more gay than Adam West did while wearing tights, although the comicbook diehards out there swear there was nothing going on between Batman and Robin. Then again some people think Tom Cruise and Jake Gyllenhaal are both straight too, so obviously the world is full of ignorance. 

14. Ron White

His last name is White, so wearing white would have been the logical choice, however my sources tell me that he tried it once and wound up looking like a taller version of J.D Boss Hogg. Since that point, White generally only wears black when on stage, although his fingers do remain a nice shade of nicotine. An added bonus for White is that whiskey stains are much less noticeable on black and that has served to decrease his dry-cleaning bills by 80%. 

13. Wesley Snipes
Anyone who has ever watched Chapelles Show, or heard people recycling Chapelle quips for the next eight months after the airing of each episode, will easily tell you that Wesley Snipes is one of the blackest men on the planet, and I think that holds true regardless of what color of clothing the man has on at the time. Added bonus points go to Snipes with his role as a leather-clad vampire hunter in the film Blade, and again in Blade II, and once more in Blade: Trinity, and again in Blade: Another Attempt to Resurrect Wesley Snipes Career.              

12. A Catholic Priest
Priests all over the nation have given new meaning to the phrase pop the collar, but my therapist suggested I stop talking about such things to strangers, so Ill keep this civil. I guess there is a hierarchy to the Roman Catholic Church with Priests wearing black, Cardinals wearing red, and the Pope wearing white... even after labor day. I'm not sure what any of it means with the exception of black supposedly meaning poverty, which I find ironic because my Priest pays me $750 a week just to keep my mouth shut. 

11. Agent Smith

Pretty much any character from the Matrix films would have been applicable here, and yes Smith does wear a white shirt but his attitude is all black even if he does resemble a IBM engineer from the late 60s. The man is a regular badass capable of dodging bullets, amazing acrobatic maneuvers, incredible speed, self replication, and spawning from perceived death. Rumor has it that the real reason Smith was defeated is because Neo entered the following sequence into his source code: Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start. Thats just a rumor though and I havent been able to confirm it with the Wachowski brothers quite yet. 

10. A Ninja

I would have listed a specific ninja here but I couldnt find any due to their incredible usage of stealth. I searched and searched but as far as I can tell the only man who has ever successfully captured a ninja was Chuck Norris, and Chuck isnt talking. I tried asking him what it was like to come face to face with a real ninja, but when provoked all Chuck said was it isnt wise to question the authority of 'the Norris' which quite honestly left me somewhat in fear for my safety. I mean when someone refers to themselves in the 3rd person, it is pretty clear they mean business. 

9. George Clooney

George Clooney didn't always wear black, but ironically it seems to have defined his style ever since he started going gray. I guess the salt and pepper look coordinates better with black than any other color, so Clooney figured why fight it. Of course he also played Batman (number 15 on our list) and many of his other roles find him wearing a tuxedo for one reason or another, so black seems to play a prominent role with his on screen persona as well. There is also a good chance Russell Crowe will wind up giving Clooney a black eye sooner or later, which would only serve to solidify his place on this list. 

8. Simon Cowell
As it turns out, Cowell used to always wear a white t-shirt, but found it increasingly difficult to bleach out the pit stains every week, so he switched to black. Being known as the only honest judge on American Idol, and having to listen to Randy Jackson say dawg 54 times each episode has taken its toll on Cowell and he seems to have developed a dandruff problem. Rather than switch to Selsun Blue, he thought it best to try a different color shirt, although it is just a matter of time before listening to horrid fame whores try to sing annoys him to the point he will pull out his own hair, thus solving the dandruff problem, and thus being able to return to his signature black shirt. 

7. Al Pacino
Al is the biggest short guy on the silver screen with a voice that makes one assume he smokes at least four packs of unfiltered camels a day. He has played both good guys and bad guys but will always be associated with his role in the Godfather films as Michael Corleone and his incredible performance in Scarface as Tony 'say hello to my little friend' Montana. Pacino is regarded as one of the greatest actors of his generation, and surprisingly he is one of the only male leads in Hollywood to have never been divorced. Then again he has never been married either, but that really isnt the point. 

6. Herman Munster
Herman (portrayed by the late Fred Gwynne) obviously always wore black, but considering ever episode of The Munsters was filmed in black and white I suppose he could have been wearing purple for all we know. Truth is, I wanted to go with Count Chocula here, but as we all know, the Count actually wears brown... so that just wouldnt work.

5. Lewis Black
Much to my personal disappointment Lewis is not Clints brother, however that doesnt prevent him from following the pattern of matching your wardrobe to a surname. Lewis is one of those guys that can find a complaint about everything, so the way I figure it elimination of all color from his closet enabled him to focus on the really important issues in life, like whether stereos should have volume knobs or volume buttons, or whether or not Pamela Anderson has to check her implants at the luggage counter when flying. 

4. Roy Orbison
Black hair, black clothes, black glasses, and a big black mole that would make Cindy Crawford jealous - that is the essence of Roy Orbison. Elvis was quoted as saying that Orbison was "the greatest singer in the world", so if the opinion of a bourbon chugging, barbituate inhaling, leisure suit wearing, cultural icon is of any significance, clearly Orbison was quite talented. Plus, Orbison was the only celebrity who successfully wore sunglasses at night and on stage without looking like a complete tool. (Im looking at you Bono) 

3. Paul Stanley, Gene Simmons, Peter Criss, and Ace Frehley
(Original band members of KISS)
The band who was built around makeup and costumes long before The Spice Girls were ever even heard of surely deserves a position on the list. What I find most amazing is how a band can recycle the same 20 songs onto more than a dozen live, compilation, greatest hits, or soundtrack albums, various box sets, and even videos and DVDs yet people continue to buy them. Even more amazing than that is the fact that the self proclaimed rockers have recorded a song written by Michael Bolton, have pimped themselves out on more products than Ron Popeil including both condoms and caskets, and have recorded a few hundred songs yet only broke into the top position once with 1998s release of Psycho Circus which had a short life at #1 on the Mainstream Rock chart. Oh yea and Gene Simmons claims to have slept with about a bazillion women, so clearly women find something attractive about a man in makeup who likes to spit blood and wear high heels. 

2. Johnny Cash
No list of this nature would ever be complete without Johnny Cash. I suppose with the recent surge in popularity Cash has experienced you would expect him to be number one on the list, but then you would have to remember this list is in no particular order, and even if it was in a specific order Cash wouldnt be number one, because frankly I'm not much for jumping on bandwagons, and the truth is I dont even know what a bandwagon is. However, Cash earned the title of the 'Man in Black' on his own and was never guilty of selling out to popularity. The way I heard it Cash was so upset that they picked Joaquin Phoenix to play him in a movie that he threatened to haunt the studio, but apparently he changed his mind when Reese Witherspoon walked on to the set. After that the ghost of Cash could only be seen in Witherspoons trailer... and really who could blame him. 

1. Darth Vader

What needs to be said about the great Sith Lord who spends over 23 years inside of a black suit? A cultural icon who has infiltrated our society since the original Star Wars Episode IV film in 1977, Vader continues to be considered one of the greatest villains of all time. Although most consider his black helmet and outfit to be a requirement to sustain his life after a nasty battle with Obi-Wan Kenobi where he met the business end of a lightsaber I know the real story, and the real story is he wears black because he is in a constant state of mourning for his loss of Padmé Amidala and he was once told guys in capes get all the hot chicks. As an added bonus, thanks to the great James Earl Jones, he has the best voice of any villian throughout cinematic history as well.

So there you have it. 20 arguably famous people who prefer to wear black. It was a tough selection process and I'm sure some of your favorites didnt make the list but I think we can all agree that I don't care what you think about my choices. Just be sure to always match your belt with your shoes and everything will be fine - unless you are Jack Black in which case it doesn't matter because everything you do is considered comedic gold. Jack might not always wear black, but he is always funny.

True Story.

Happy Food?

Why do people feel the need to use “happy” names for food that isn’t all that great? For example the terms ‘vegetable medley’. They take three or four vegetables that nobody really likes and mix them together, and all of the sudden it is a medley?

Then you have ‘sparkling white wine’….which as we all know is just carbonated grape juice that you have to serve when your family is full of recovering alcoholics. My personal favorite however is papaya. Papaya is one of those words that people just enjoy saying, so clearly it is a happy name. I guess the name papaya is better than calling it what it really is…. “not quite as good as pineapple, and full of seeds”.

Are We Witnessing The Death Of Mainstream Media?

There is a lot of chatter these days about the mainstream media and whether or not new forms of media such as blogging and random twitter updates are replacing the standard column within a magazine or newspaper. Some people say the mainstream media is antiquated and that it is slow to react to a modern world. Some suggest this “old media” has long since passed its golden era and will soon be replaced by more modern forms of media that will react within seconds and that are more nimble, directed, and informed.

I’d say those types of people are dead wrong… and I’ll explain why.

The simple truth is the existing mainstream media serves a very legitimate purpose. We can receive in-depth coverage of a variety of topics, and we often have the benefit of reading a column which has taken weeks, months, or even years of research to put together. We can read an article in a magazine which has numerous sources which provide background information, and we know that magazine has a reputation to uphold… thus they likely to print something they haven’t verified and cross-checked.

This isn’t to say these types of media are infallible or that they never find themselves needing to print a retraction or clarification, but the truth is when a person picks up a newspaper, turns the pages on a magazine, or flips the channel to a 24 hour news network, they have a certain expectation of truth. There may be a sense of bias, there may be facts or figures that are questionable, but at the end of the day it is much easier to trust a known source rather than a random unverifiable blog written by a stranger who often may not even provide his or her real name or has no training as a journalist.

The newer forms of media… often called simply “new media” don’t have this same sense of reputation. Often times we find a blogger is more concerned with getting the ‘scoop’ of a story rather than ensuring the facts are correct if for no other reason than they don’t want another blogger to beat them to the punch. The newer forms of media simply don’t have the time, resources, or energy to properly research a story, and therefore the viewer may never understand the full implications of a story or may never reach the same level of involvement on an issue.

However, research and reliability aside, a more significant difference between old and new media is simply the audience they appeal to. David Carr from The New York Times once used the phrase “Echo Chamber” to describe the audience that follows most new forms of media, and I feel that is fair description. The basic premise here is that in many cases these new forms of media are merely talking to themselves rather than reaching the masses.

People who follow new forms of media are presented with blogs and websites that appeal to their viewpoint, and as such they are surrounded by like-minded individuals with similar opinions. If a person happens to be interested in technology and follows a technology blog on a regular basis, they likely will be hearing from peers who share the same interests and who share many of the same opinions. If a person follows a political blog, it will often be because they share that viewpoint and wishes to feel part of a group who all see things the same way.

Many forms of new media could be considered a “vertical column” where one simply feeds from another. Thus if you have a website which results in a blog which results in twitter updates which feed to others who have their blogs and websites and videos uploaded to YouTube which then prompt additional comments on yet another blog and feeds into a Facebook group… you end up seeing this mass of information which is all in a straight column.

There is very little expansion and there is no legitimate desire to feed or integrate this information elsewhere. The end result is a virtual group of head nodding people who have no interest or aspirations to link together with a separate group which may have a similar, but opposing viewpoint on an issue. There is very little collaboration as these groups tend to remain isolated, and for all intents and purposes they remain that way due to the model in which they were built upon.

One reason the old media will remain is for no other reason that the fact they are able to send their message to the masses without a need for the recipient to seek them out, or to subscribe to their message, or to link up with others. Whether it be print media, a cable news network, or a radio station, these forms of media can and do reach a massive audience which is infinitely diverse. Not only do they reach individuals who agree with the message or have interest in the particular topic, but more importantly they can reach those who have no interest and those that without a doubt disagree with the content.

That is the entire benefit – not everyone has to agree and not everyone should. Media should inform, but it should not only inform a small subsection and it should not target a core demographic. Of course we know even the best media sources will never be able to appeal to everyone and there will almost always be accusations of bias, but regardless of these challenges the ‘old’ media will continue to serve a valuable purpose for the foreseeable future. Needless to say, the rumors of the death of old media have been greatly exaggerated.

So does this mean there is no room for new media source? On the contrary – forms of new media can actually strengthen the ‘old guard’ of mainstream media. Likewise old media can benefit from some of the technologies and developments which have resulted in new forms of media. Obviously it is in the best interests of the old forms of media to adapt to the ever changing world around them, but at the same time they need to retain what has made them so strong in the first place.

Blogs and websites can work alongside magazines and talk radio. Electronic versions of magazines and newspapers can supplement the print variety with the added benefit of being able to be updated throughout the day. Twitter updates or text messages can replace “breaking news alerts” on terrestrial radio. All of these various forms of media can and do work together to inform and educate the viewer/listener.

At the end of the day this all strengthens old media rather than competes with it, although at the same time many forms of new media also tend to be free media… and to some degree that model is not self-supporting in any way. There are a lot of experiments happening in the world around us, but when the dust falls rest assured the only way people will be able to obtain a high quality and steady stream of information is if they are willing to pay for it. That either means subscription fees, or the willingness to be inundated with advertisements or other minor annoyances that provide a profit stream to the original creator.

So this all begs the question – if new media eventually falls in line with old media via the desire to be profitable in order to provide a higher quality of content… does this means new media becomes one in the same as old media?

It seems one can only remain on the cutting edge and can only remain the new kid on the block for a finite amount of time. Eventually things are much less exciting when everyone else is doing it, and as such the trend is no longer a trend and instead is merely the status quo.

The Problem With Consumerism

I like to think I am like most American consumers in that I prefer to get the most bang for my buck. I shop sales and when I plan to make a purchase I do my research so I know I’m getting the most value for my dollar. If the purchase is an item worth for than $50 or so I’ll sometimes even go so far as to research pricing on the Internet and comparison shop locally. Above all else I refuse to impulse buy and I take personal pride in getting a good deal.

That being said, every now and then I come across a situation which really makes it difficult to understand why some consumers essentially ‘waste’ money without looking at the alternatives. I can understand people not bothering to comparison shop when it comes time to buy new socks or batteries for their remote controls. However sometimes all a person has to do is actually take a few seconds to read the price tag and compare it to other options available in the very same store… often in the very same aisle.

Case in point – this past weekend I found myself in need of a replacement filter for my Ridgid shop vac. Since Ridgid is a Home Depot brand, I knew the best possible location to obtain a replacement filter was likely Home Depot. Since I had some other things to shop for, I decided to make a trip to the big orange store and see what I could find.

As I’m walking through the front entrance I notice as stack of flyers so I grab one and give it a quick glance to see what they have on sale. As luck would have it, they have a Ridgid shop vac on sale for the whopping price of $19.98. Now granted I don’t need another shop vac because the one I have works just fine and isn’t that old, but this got me curious.

As I walked over to the part of the store where they sell the vacuums, I notice a pile of the special sale priced vacs in the main aisle. According to the box it includes two sections of hard plastic extension wand, one seven foot flex hose, and one nozzle. It also just happens to include the same pleated filter as my current shop vac uses. Keep in mind all of this costs $19.98.

So I then walk over to the wall where they stock the accessories and filters. To buy the single filter – with no shop vac, no hoses, no nozzles or other accessories… it costs $15.97.

Yes you read that correctly – the filter costs 16 bucks and the entire shop vac with filter and accessories goes for 20. So basically Home Depot would have me believe that the shop vac itself with the accessories is worth a total of $4 while the filter is worth four times as much.

To make matters that much worse, about eight feet to the left of where I was looking at the filter, they have a display with a twin-pack of filters for the exact same price of $15.97. Knowing that you can buy two filters for the same price as you can buy one filter… why would anyone ever buy just one?

Now I suppose I could buy the whole shop vac and just use that filter with the knowledge if my existing shop vac dies on me or if I break a hose etc I will have a spare, but that is just one more thing to store in my already over-crowded garage and frankly I just don’t see the value in obtaining vast quantities of stuff that I don’t really need. My point here is that Home Depot is almost forcing people to buy things they don’t really need merely due to the pricepoint. This just suggests an older perfectly good shop vac could end up in the landfill when someone replaces it with a shiny new model just because it was cheap.

Just because something is cheap, does not mean it makes sense to buy it… but it is difficult to recognize this when we are continually bombarded with opportunities to “get a good deal”.

This same principle applies with many products and I often times find buying replacements or accessories for products is just as expensive or even more expensive than the original products themselves. One example of this is batteries for power tools. If you want to buy a two pack of 18 volt batteries for a Dewalt drill, you can expect to pay around $119. However if you wait until the drill is on sale, you can actually get a whole new drill, two batteries, a charger, and a hard case for $99! In fact Home Depot and Lowes run this sale on Black Friday almost every year, and I’ve seen it at other random times as well. This explains why I own two drills rather than one drill and extra batteries – because it is just cheaper and a better value.

So what is a person to do? Should we just continue to buy new inkjet printers each time we need a new ink cartridge rather than buying the actual cartridges just because it is about the same money? Should we continue to buy light bulbs in the multipack because they include a free LED flashlight rather than buying the same light bulbs without the flashlight? Should we do this even if we already have five of the ‘free’ flashlights and cannot possibly use any more?

As if this wasn’t all confusing enough, I found myself at Lowes a few days after my Home Depot experience. As I was walking through the store I came across some drill bit kits that were priced at $9.97. The kicker was if you buy the drill bits there is a $10 off a $50 future purchase at Lowe’s. So basically if you buy the drill bits they will cost you $9.97 plus tax (which in my area would equal a total of $10.57). You can then take those drill bits out to the car, remove the coupon, and then return to the store to buy the rest of your purchases. The net result is the drill bit set will cost you a whopping 60 cents.

Now I’m a tool guy – I like tools, I have a lot of tools, and I can almost always justify the purchase of even more tools… however I did not buy the bits even though they are a great deal. The simple truth was I have done things like this so often that I have enough bits to last me a lifetime plus ten years – so even if another set costs less than a candy bar, I just don’t have the need for them. I suppose I could have bought them and given them to a friend or family member, but I was just so amazed at the logic behind the pricing that I just couldn’t bring myself to add them to my cart.

Sometimes being a well informed consumer can give a person a headache.

I Probably Hate You...

If you park in the fire lane of a retail store just to run in “real quick” – even if you leave your wife, girlfriend, husband, boyfriend, dog, cat, child, or aging grandmother in the passenger seat and you somehow think this makes it acceptable... I probably hate you. I don’t care if the engine is still running or if it is 2:45am and the parking lot is empty. I still hate you.

If you have ever used that checkbox that allows you to vote a straight party ticket rather than actually knowing enough about the candidates to vote for them individually... I probably hate you.

If you have ever played your incredibly obnoxious car stereo late at night in a residential area where people are trying to sleep (or put their kids to sleep)... I probably hate you.

If you are currently on welfare, unemployment, or any other government assistance program and are buying lottery tickets, cigarettes, or have satellite television complete with premium movie channels... I probably hate you.

If you follow the religion of your parents, their parents, and their parents just because that is what you grew up with and you have never take the time to honestly and objectively question why you believe what you do... I probably hate you.

If you believe Fox News is in fact the only “unbiased” television news network or that their motto of “fair and balanced” is based in truth... I probably hate you. In fact, if you excuse Fox News by proclaiming CNN is biased in the other direction I probably hate you more.

If you see that your lane of the road is blocked 300 yards ahead and instead of merging behind all the other cars waiting their turn you decide to speed up and try to wedge yourself in between the cars at the front of the line in order to save 30 seconds off your trip... I probably hate you. If you get mad when someone sees you trying to speed ahead of everyone else and refuses to let you cut in front of them... I probably hate you and your parents.

If you have ever protested anything while forcing your young children to protest with you – regardless of what you are protesting for or against... I probably hate you. If you have done this in inclement weather I probably hate you six times more than I hated you the first time.

If you are the guy who always thinks he has the right to fit through the intersection even if that green arrow turned red long before you got there... I probably hate you.

If you have ever chucked a cigarette butt out the window with no care whatsoever for the car behind you or the environment, or if you have ever tried to convince someone that it wasn’t littering... I probably hate you.

If you have ever forwarded some idiotic chain email without taking the 45 seconds to verify it via a Google search first... I probably hate you.

If you have ever had anything to do with advertising via little plastic signs littered all across the countryside on every major intersection and along every major road, regardless of whether you were advertising for your business, for a miracle weight loss drug, for your local church, or for a political candidate... I probably hate you.

If recycling is mandated in your community yet you refuse to recycle due to it being so inconvenient for you on a personal level... I probably hate you.

If you feel the need to dig your hand to the bottom of your bag of popcorn ensuring you produce as much noise as possible from the paper bag while grabbing a entire handful of popcorn only to attempt to jam the entire thing in your mouth over, and over, and over again while watching a movie in a public theater... I probably hate you.

If you are the parents who are always whining about how your kid doesn’t get enough playing time and then proceed to yell and complain at the umpire at every little league game you go to... I probably hate you.

If you have ever forced your kids to play sports and put their athletic ability above their education and everything else knowing full well an education will be more valuable to their future than a state trophy ever will, merely because you wish to live vicariously through them... I probably hate you.

If you ever purchased a home on an interest only mortgage, lease all of your vehicles, and carry three or more credit cards with a balance yet have the audacity to complain when you have trouble making your house payments... I probably hate you.

If you have been driving for more than six months and yet still don’t understand who should yield at an intersection, or if you have yet to grasp the concept that the first car who stopped is the first car to go regardless if they are turning or going straight... I probably hate you.

If you eat with your mouth open, or if you decide it is important to talk while eating with your mouth open, or if you can’t seem to control the amount of disgusting noise your mouth makes while eating with your mouth open... I probably hate you. Granted I will likely do whatever I can to avoid being in a room where you are eating, but I’ll still probably hate you.

If you have ever blamed your bank or mortgage company for your financial state or claimed they were predatory lenders while refusing to accept responsibility for being the moron who signed the paperwork accepting the money... I probably hate you.

If you have ever sued someone for an accident which was at least in part a result of your own stupidity or ignorance, or if you have felt that you “deserved” financial compensation for something which was nothing more than an inconvenience to you... I probably hate you.

If you over the age of 16 and send no less than 40 text messages a day from your cell phone, and feel the need to respond to text messages you receive regardless of whether you are driving in a car, eating dinner at an upscale restaurant, or sitting in a movie theater... I probably hate you.

If you have a strong desire to see who is on this week’s cover of People or US Weekly and actually hold a subscription to either or both of these magazines... I probably hate you.

If you whine about your financial situation while having the best digital cable package, a cell phone, a smoking habit, bottled water in the refrigerator, more vehicles than you do drivers in your household, or designer clothes hanging in your closet... I probably hate you.

If you have ever based hiring decisions not upon who the best, brightest, most talented, and qualified candidate was but rather based upon who is your friend, relative, related to your friend or relative, or who has the least chance of making you look stupid at your own job due to their work ethic... I probably hate you.

If you have ever purchased a $70 pair of jeans or a $90 leather jacket for an infant, or if you refuse to dress your child in anything that doesn’t say “Baby Gap” or “Ralph Lauren” on the label... I probably hate you.

If you have ever used the terms “pro-aborts”, “anti-choice”, “pro-murder”, “anti-woman” or any such phrase when debating the topic of abortion, or if you fail to understand the mutually accepted labels of “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are considered acceptable by both sides, or if you have attempted to blur the issue by refusing to accept the medically acceptable term is “fetus” rather than “blob of tissue” “preborn”, “preborn baby”, “preborn human”, etc, etc... I probably hate you.

If you have ever assumed someone was “isolated” or otherwise uneducated simply due to the fact they don’t live in a large metropolitan area without grasping the concept that people do in fact know how to travel and people can be very cultured even if they choose to live in Nebraska or Idaho... I probably hate you.

If you feel one political party is always right while the other is always wrong, or if you pretend to be non-partisan while only professing the viewpoints supported by any one political party, or if you have changed your voter registration to independent just so you can pretend to be non-partisan while in reality you continue to vote for the same party time and time again just as you always have... I probably hate you.

If you are still off the belief that climate change is nothing more than a ruse developed to make the environmentalists wealthy while refusing to acknowledge that more wealth is being made by those wishing to harm the environment than will ever be made by those wishing to protect it, or if you simply don’t believe climate change is real or if you have ever uttered the phrase “the jury is still out” while discussing climate change while failing to understand, recognize, or acknowledge that EVERY major scientific agency around the globe that studies climate change does in fact agree that yes it is real and yes humans play a major role in it... I probably hate you.

If you have ever purposefully parked across two parking spaces in any parking lot because you feel your car is more important than anyone else’s and are so afraid of door dings that you feel you are worthy... I probably hate you.

If you are more than 100lbs overweight and blame your condition upon genetics, or if you are convinced the only way to lose weight is to have some type of gastric bypass surgery without acknowledging that if you would simply eat less food you would get the same result... I probably hate you. If you care for someone who is so obese they can’t leave the house (which means you are the one providing the food for them) I probably hate you too.

If you have ever discussed artwork from the likes of Jackson Pollock and professed some senseless drivel about how he grasped such deep emotion or how his extensive use of the color pallet was so unique or that his work encompasses more talent than his peers without acknowledging that the average four year old could produce the same types of paintings given adequate supplies of automotive paint and canvas... I probably hate you.