Friday, September 24, 2010

Wind: my original (and extremely short) story

There are days when you can feel the wind even when you are indoors…days where a glance out of the window sends chills throughout your body.  Looking at the green meadow outside of the kitchen window, you can see the grass moving in waves as the wind releases itself onto the cool earth.

The windowpanes rattle in their frames, reminding you that winter is coming….soon you will feel the cold air rushing in through the cracks of the 100 year old home…and the only thing you can counter it with is another log on the fire and another blanket on your lap as you pet your Labrador and listen to the static impregnated music from the radio sitting on the counter.

It is overcast outside, with small hints of sunlight dancing off of that meadow from time to time, but not nearly enough to warm your skin as you stand in the window.  For some reason you feel it is enough to ensure you don’t turn on a light, and it makes the room feel cool – even if the temperature hasn’t changed in days.  You slide into an old cotton sweater your mother used to wear, not so much for the extra layer of clothing, but for the memory of her standing in that very same window, with that very same sweater.

You can see bits of plastic that have become caught on the rusty barbed wire fence across the driveway – the wind whipping at them almost as if it shows signs of fury, but powerless to tear the plastic away.  Years ago that fence was meant to keep cattle away from the house, yet decades later it is still keeping control of what crosses its path.  Parts of that fence are falling down, but you can’t bring yourself to remove the remaining wire.  It has become part of the atmosphere of this old house, and every time you look at it you are reminded of your late father.

He put that fence up in a hotter than normal July so many years ago.  You remember being a small girl watching him work under the oppressive sun as the sweat poured down his brow and he wiped it with his forearm – leaving a streak of moisture on his arm to collect more dirt before he smeared it onto his forehead again.  You can remember the day so vividly, almost as if it was just last week.  You can recall how he would lift his hat to tousle his hair – somehow thinking if he let his damp hair breathe it would cool him down.

Memories surround this old house, which is why even after the prodding of family and friends, you have never been able to sell it.  Sure you had a home in town that you could live more comfortably in, but new homes never have the emotion built into the old ones – and as the weeks since your mother’s death turned into months, you find yourself spending more and more time out here.  Other than the food in the cupboards, nothing inside of the home looks to be newer than the 70s, and you now realized how possessions never meant anything to your parents.  They never had much money, but it didn’t bother them since what little they did have was never of concern.  They bought what they needed – perhaps that was a trait developed by living through the depression and the World Wars….however for some reason you feel that it wouldn’t have mattered.

As you walk back towards the fire, the floorboards squeak with each step, almost as if they are crying for the loss of the people who lived there for almost 60 years.  The only surviving member is Mitch – the old faithful companion who only barks when he is hungry, but never when someone comes to the door. Mitch is old enough that the journey from the couch to the hearth of the fireplace is about all he can manage in an hour, but he seems so very content…the same feeling you get by being here.

You realize it will never be your house – surely the deed to the house and surrounding land is in your name, but this will forever remain your parent’s home.  The thought of someone buying it has never appealed to you – however you doubt anyone would want a 100 year old house almost 20 miles from the nearest town, and 4 from the nearest neighbor.  Since the rent from the land is more than enough to pay for the taxes and upkeep, you figure you will just let the house age with you. 

As you sit there thinking of all of the years spent with this house, you are startled by the phone ringing from the kitchen.  Even the phone is the old rotary dial with the real bell inside – enough to alert you to the call even while standing outside on the porch.  Reaching for the receiver you softly answer, listening as the caller asks for your mother.  It has happened a few times in the last few months, but it doesn’t get any easier to tell people she has passed on….especially considering you don’t know if they are a salesperson or a longtime friend from years gone.  As you accept their condolences and hang up, you recognize that 12 seconds of conversation is the only human contact you have had in over a week – however this suddenly doesn’t seem all that disappointing.

As you pull the sweater up around your neck a little tighter, you glance once again at the grass in the meadow dancing up the hill, and you realize the wind carries more than just dust and cool air…it interacts with you and the surroundings…and it presents the memories of a family that once was.

Monday, September 13, 2010

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.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

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”.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

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.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

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.