Musical Memories

I play this imaginary game where I pretend I had a house fire and lose every single CD I own and then I ask myself which ones I would replace. I suppose these days I'd just download the tracks from iTunes... but I've had this little game in my head for years so I still think in terms of physical CDs.

My obvious choices are always "greatest hits" albums because they tend to have a lot of great songs.  I own a ton of greatest hits albums from various bands that were big in the 80's like Foreigner, Toto, Chicago, and Journey.  Most of them I would likely replace because they are the CDs I listen to most often.  Then there are a few other CDs where I actually like every song on the album. Keep in mind this is rare for me since most of my CDs probably only contain one or two "good songs", but there are a few where I like the whole album and would replace it.

These albums include Journey - Escape, Fiona Apple - Tidal, Crash Test Dummies - God Shuffled His Feet, Peter Cetera - World Falling Down, and a handful of others including Tom Petty, Patty Symth... I can't remember off the top of my head, but basically out of the 250 CDs I own (give or take) and not counting greatest hits CDs, I would probably only replace about ten of them.  I sometimes think I should probably replace Michael Jackson - Thriller just for the importance of the album, but to be honest I'm not even sure I still have it so it probably isn't all that important.

The thing is, I have a lot of memories tied to these albums which may have more to do with why I would want to replace them than the actual music.  As I think about why I pick certain albums over others, it often has less to do with the music but more to do with the memories associated with a specific album.  Of course it goes without saying that I do actually like this music... but it is much more than merely enjoying a melody or thinking the lyrics were clever.  Often the memory makes the difference - case in point:

Fiona Apple - I have her first album (Tidal) which I think almost everyone had back in the 90s. Love it. I lost the CD once but still had the case so I went out and downloaded all of the songs and burned myself a new copy.  I was too cheap to actually buy it again so I thought this was fair.  Then I found the original in another CD case a few years later.  I kept the burned copy just in case - and therefore I've had two copies of this CD for over a decade. 

The strange thing is even though I like EVERY. SINGLE. SONG. on that first album, I never bought any of her newer albums.  I'm so guilty of that... I find an artist I really like and I don't follow their careers.  I will admit there was a period where I basically shelved her album and didn't listen to it for perhaps a year, and then a girl I was dating at the time made a comment about liking her so I brought out the album and listened to it from start to finish.  I'm not sure why I ever stopped listening to it because the music was as good as it ever was.  Oddly enough that girl re-introducing me to Fiona Apple was probably the one good thing that ever came from that relationship.

I've had a lot of time with this album.  I've listened to it alone and continually copied several of the songs to the various portable music players I've owned over the years including to my phone and most recently my iPad.  I can't say what it is about this album, but I can say that the song "Never Is A Promise" is simply amazing to me... I'd put that song in my top 20 songs of all time.

Crash Test Dummies - I believe I bought their God Shuffled His Feet album because of their hit song "Mmmm, Mmmm, Mmmm, Mmmm", but I'd have to say "Afternoons and Coffeespoons" quickly became my favorite song.  I like the entire album as well as a few of their other songs that have been on movie soundtracks etc, but I never bought any of their follow-up albums so I suppose I might like them if I ever heard them.  I'm not sure what it is about their music, but it just has a signature sound that I find appealing.  It also reminds me of my freshmen year in college yet I have no idea why.  I can't say as I have any specific memories tied to the album itself, but it just seems that it has been with me for so long I feel a connection.  Like an old pair of jeans that have a few paint stains on them but you can't bring yourself to throw them away.  Sure you might not wear them in public, but they sure feel comfortable around the house.

Peter Cetera - This goes back to a memory I have from 1992 or so where I was working at Shopko and a guy called to ask if we had the new Peter Cetera album. I had no idea who Peter Cetera was at the time, so I had to read off the song list to this guy over the phone so he could tell me if it was the right CD.  He asked me to hold a copy of it for him which I did, and he came in an hour or two later to pick it up. The guy was so happy we had the album - he acted like it meant the world to him, and I just couldn't help but be interested based upon his reaction. So I listened to the CD and was hooked from that point. 

It might have had something to do with the duet he did with Chaka Khan since it was getting some radio play at the time, but I think part of it stems from a memory I had when I was young and my brothers were tossing a bunch of cassette tapes they didn't want. I went through a cardboard box of their old tapes and found "Chicago 16". That album was released in 1982 so this was probably a few years later...  I was probably 9 or 10 at the time.  When I listened to that tape I just loved it... I remember playing it over and over and over again.  Of course back when tapes were the pinnacle of music technology fast-forwarding or rewinding was a huge hassle so I just played the tape from start to finish time and time again.  Maybe had I grown up with CDs I would have skipped around and never appreciate the songs that were never heard on the radio.

It was some time later that I finally figured out the band was actually called Chicago - I originally thought they were Chicago 16 and had no idea the "16" was their sixteenth album. I'm not sure what happened to that original tape - and for years I've told myself I was going to buy Chicago 16 on CD but I never have.  I suppose now I may not even remember most of the songs on that album, but when I think back I can still remember exactly where I was in our basement as I pulled that tape from the bottom of that cardboard box as if it was covered in gold.  That memory is more vivid that most of what I did last week, and I dare say unless I'm a victim of serious head trauma at some point, that memory will be with me until the day I die.

So with that memory of Chicago I clearly liked their sound, and the biggest influence upon their sound in my view was the lead singer which was Peter Cetera at that point.  When I heard his solo stuff years later all those memories flooded back and there I was.  I bought the album in 1992 and a full 20 years later I still play it all the time. In fact that CD has been in every car I have owned for years. It is CD number one in the disc changer in my current vehicle at this very moment. Back in 2003 or so I bought a VW Jetta and I put that CD in the CD changer and never took it out until I sold the car. It is just one of those CDs I really love and I wish I could get Peter Cetera to sign it because there are so many memories tied to his music and his voice.

Avril Lavigne - This is probably guilty pleasure of mine. I remember liking her first album (Let Go) because a few of her songs were unconventional. You would listen to the song and think she was going to drop down a key or slow down and she would do the exact opposite. It wasn't predictable pop... yet it was still pop. I still like a lot of her stuff although I only own her first album (a trend of mine I guess).  I think she is one of those artists that I was able to watch grow because she was so young when she released that album, and to some degree I grew with her.

I fully understand most guys won't admit to liking that style of music, but I guess I'm not ashamed to admit it.  She is a talented artist and she has a unique sound.  The fact she writes or co-writes all of her own music is amazing to me and the music is that much more credible because it is her singing her own story as opposed to an artist who just picks songs to sing from a catalog.

Gin Blossoms - I have two of their albums I really like (Hey Jealousy and Congratulations, I'm Sorry), but I don't like every song on them. Although I tend to like their hits, I sometimes wonder if I like their music because of the time I was listening to it. There are a lot of memories tied to them, and I was upset when they broke up. I was really pissed.  I felt like I missed an opportunity to see them live even though I rarely go to live concerts, and I thought it was horrible that they would never produce any more music.

Yet when they got back together a few years later I didn't really care and have never listened to any of their newer stuff.  As far as I'm concerned they are still a 1990s band with a 1990s sound and that is all they ever need to be.  I know a lot of my feelings towards them surround my time in Vermillion and my time with certain friends etc, so part of me likes to pretend they are still the same band they were in the mid 90s because there is a point in time that I'd like to keep as is.  If there was a soundtrack to my life... it is safe to say Gin Blossoms would be playing as soon as I hit the Vermillion city limits.

Screamin' Cheetah Wheelies - I don't think I have ever listened to a complete album by them, but I do know I like several of their songs.  They are one of those bands I associate with college-aged kids in a college town because that is where I heard of them and nobody outside of that lifestyle had any clue.  To this day when I mention them most people have never heard of them, so I guess they were never all that commercially successful.  I can still remember when my brother and I were living in Vermillion and he bought a new stereo system... Screamin' Cheetah Wheelies were one of the first CDs he put in and to this day when I hear that song played all I can think about is standing in the basement of a run-down house in a college town listening to a stereo that sounded amazing all the while being unaware that on paper that room probably had the worst acoustics humanly possible. 

It didn't matter.  The music overshadowed everything else.  It was just that strong that the walls and floor just seemed to blur away into the distance as the music surrounded me.  Part of it was the timing, part of it was the experience of that entire house and the good times we had while there.  Part of it was just the moment and how no matter how hard I try I could never relive it.  The genie was out of the bottle, yet I wonder if that memory would be just as powerful had it been any other CD.

I'm not a musician.  I can't carry a tune if you handed it to me in a brown paper sack. Yet music - perhaps more than anything else - has specific feelings, emotions, and memories tied to it deep within me.  I wonder if this is true for everyone or if this is just something music lovers feel. 

I guess I'll never know, but I do know there are times when I would like nothing better than to sit in a recliner with a nice set of over-the-ear headphones on and listen to some incredible music.  Let it seep into me and just think about everything it means whether it be trying to interpret the words, remember an event tied to that particular song, album, or artist... or just appreciating a moment for what it is without the need to be actively engaged outside of my brain.

I doubt any two people can ever share the same feeling when it comes to music, and to be quite honest I have never really known anyone who is the type of person to sit at a record store and have conversations about music for hours.  I have had lengthy discussions about equipment such as tube amplifiers, record players, the inflated price of some high-end equipment, and the snakeoil that is ultra high end speaker cables... but that comes with the territory when you are an "electronics guy" and when you work with technology and with technical people. 

I wonder if I'm alone in this regard.  Do most people just like music because of what it means right now, or do others form relationships with the tracks as I do?  Can someone have a deep love of music if they aren't a true music snob, or is this one of those things that each person has to determine for themselves?  Maybe to some degree (almost) everyone feels they love music but merely in varying degrees.

As a wise man once said... "turn up the radio, I need some music, gimme some more".  Well ok technically that was the band Autograph, but you get the point.

The Climate Change "Debate"

There are a lot of political hot-button issues that never seem to get resolved.  If we are speaking of an issue like abortion, it is safe to say people will never agree on whether life begins at conception, or whether it begins sometime later.  If we are speaking of politics, it is safe to say a large number of people will always believe their respective political party is right while all other political parties are wrong.  If speaking of religion, people will often try to convince others that their religion or dogma is the only proper belief system and that anyone who follows a differing religion (or perhaps someone who follows no religion at all) is simply ignorant or misinformed.

I understand these debates, and although I may hold an opinion of my own, I can respect someone who disagrees with me because for the most part it is impossible to "prove" either side of these issues. 

Even the best doctors and scientists and religious leaders can't really "prove" when life beings and there surely is no consensus on the issue. 

Nobody will ever be able to prove that one political party is always right or is infallible - because history shows us the exact opposite.

We can't prove a religion to be correct without resorting to the concept of faith, and we can't prove or disprove the existence of a higher power because any evidence we have can be interpreted any number of ways.

I get it.  These are debates that have existed for hundreds or in some cases thousands upon thousands of years, and they are all debates that will most likely continue to rage on for thousands of years after we are all gone.  I may feel my opinion on these matters is "right", but I'm not naive enough to believe any of these debates will be settled in my lifetime nor am I unwavering in my belief that these matters will continue to be debated for generations to come.

However, there are other subjects which I simply cannot understand why people still consider them to be debatable.  I feel it is fairly safe to say the Earth revolves around the Sun because it is accepted science.  Very few of us have the knowledge or equipment to verify this personally, but we have accepted what the scientific community at large has told us, and that data has been verified by countless others.

The same can be true for subjects such as whether the Earth is round or flat.  I personally have never been around the world nor have I been an astronaut looking at the Earth from afar, but I accept that our planet is round because there is more than enough evidence to prove it to be the case.  I also accept that a single atom is comprised of three types of particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons).  I do not have the ability of verifying this fact myself, but I understand the body of scientific knowledge that exists on our planet has proven this to be factual.

One could say there is never going to be 100% consensus on any one particular issue and I agree with that.  In truth we know there are people among us who may believe the Earth is flat, or they may doubt not only the particles contained within atoms, but the actual existence of atoms.  No amount of logic or reason or research or science will ever convince everyone, but for all intents and purposes dissenting voices are ignored when it comes to matters of settled science.

It is because of this that I am often baffled when I hear an otherwise intelligent person proclaim that there is such a thing as a debate as to whether or not man-made climate change (aka man-made global warming, aka anthropogenic climate change) is real. To some degree I don't fault the layperson who doesn't wish to take the time to actually review the data or read the reports put out by the scientific community because in most cases people really don't have any interest... and honestly this subject matter is less than exciting to most members of the human race. 

I also acknowledge that the vast majority of the public obtains information from the media who may or may not present the data in a unbiased or non-partisan manner, not to mention the journalist writing the article or presenting the news may not be well versed on the subject matter in the first place.

In addition, in our overly-politically charged climate, many people wish to avoid the controversy with issues that appear to fall across political parties.  Thus, instead of actually noting what the scientific community believes in respect to a particular scientific issue, a journalist or talk radio host may try to appease a larger audience by trying to remain neutral and by avoiding making a statement which seems to confirm or deny the existence of man-made climate change.

So it stands to reason why so many people would believe that the subject of man-made climate change is a debate.  This also explains why in many cases we hear people utter the phrase "the jury is still out" or "scientists simply cannot agree".  It also contributes to why there is so much confusion on the issue and why public opinion polls seem to show a clear difference in political affiliation between those who do believe in climate change and those who do not even though leaders of both parties have stated publicly climate change is at least partly attributable to human activity.

I recently read a comment from someone that said for every scientist who "knows" climate change is caused by human activity there is a scientist who "knows" climate change has nothing to do with human activity, and this is a prime exactly of how misinformed people really are on this issue.

The reality is, that statement is nowhere near reality.  In fact, the trend of climatologists and scientists who actually study this phenomenon has been consisting in support of the concept of man-made climate change and the trend has been increasing in support rather than the opposite as some would suggest.  One of the most recent reports on the subject indicates that between 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of [climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

So you may be asking yourself... what are those tenets outlined by the IPCC?  Well, in summary they boil down to three distinct points.

1. The global average surface temperature has been on the rise since the late 19th century (including a distinct rise observed over the past 30 years).
2. There is evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue.  Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.

Granted they tend to be a little more specific and add detail surrounding the actual temperature fluctuations, but in effect these three points are supported by 97-98% of climate researchers. 
 
Does that seem like a 50/50 mix to you?  No. 
 
Does it even remotely suggest there is widespread debate on this subject?  No. 
 
This clearly shows scientific consensus and is why man-made climate change is considered to be the mainstream scientific assessment.

It should also be noted that aside from individual scientists, every major organization on the planet that studies climatology, geology, or earth related sciences agrees with the man-made theory regarding climate change.  There was one organization (the American Association of Petroleum Geologists) who used to disagree, but sometime in 2007 even they had to finally admit the evidence is overwhelming so they basically had to stop denying it.  They won’t come out in full support (and based upon who provides them funding you can hardly blame them), but they no longer deny it and rather try to remain neutral (like some journalists who still try to convince the public there is a debate about climate change).

So who are these organizations you might ask?  Here is a partial list: 

• The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
• The American Association for the Advancement of Science
• The National Research Council
• The National Academy of Sciences
• The American Chemical Society
• The American Meteorological Society
• The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
• The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• The Royal Meteorological Society
• World Meteorological Organization
• The World Health Organization
• The American Institute of Physics
• The American Physical Society
• The Australian Institute of Physics
• The European Physical Society
• The European Science Foundation
• The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
• The Network of African Science Academies
• The National Science Academies of over 30 nations including all G8 nations, China, India, and many others.
• The European Academy of Sciences and Arts
• The Polish Academy of Sciences
• The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
• The Royal Society of New Zealand
• The American Geophysical Union
• The American Society of Agronomy
• The Crop Science Society of America
• The Soil Science Society of America
• The European Geosciences Union
• The European Federation of Geologists
• The Geological Society of America
• The Geological Society of London
• The International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies
• The Environmental Protection Agency
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 And many, many more.

The bottom line is this... climate change is a political debate, not a scientific debate. Some politicians and talk radio pundits have done a fabulous job of convincing the uninformed that there is still some debate on whether or not man-made climate change is real and whether or not man is one of the primary contributors, but the truth is the scientific community has no such debate. They consider it to be settled science, just as they consider vaccines to be beneficial regardless of what Jenny McCarthy might say.

The only true debate within the scientific community is what we can do about climate change, how quickly we can act, what actions we can take in a short term vs. long term time frame, and what the impact of alternative energy sources will be.  Rest assured the scientific community is not suffering some deep fracture within as a result of those who may be considered climate change deniers, primarily because they are so few and far between.

Lets be clear - skepticism is good, but outright denialism is not.  It is well past time we stopped trying to blur the lines between a political debate and a scientific one.

Things You Hear When You Are Moving

I've moved many, many times in my life, and I've helped countless friends and family members move as well.  Moving is not something that many people enjoy, and in fact I would argue it is probably just below a visit to the dentist on the list of things most people hate.

The thing is, I learn something each and every time I move, and I learn even more when I help someone else move.  This is a list of things I have heard while moving... and what those things actually mean.

"Here... I just need you to balance it".  This really means.... "get ready... I'm going to drop this on your head or somehow cause you to tear some cartilage in your left knee".

"It's not heavy... it's just awkward to carry".  This actually means it is really super heavy and would probably be best if at least four grown men helped to carry it, but chances are you will be stuck moving it with the guy who is trying to save face in front of his girlfriend and who would never admit that an item is above his lifting capacity.

"Hold on a second while I adjust my grip".  This is a tricky one, because it can mean one of two things.  The most common translation tells us that the person who said this is probably a weakling and is having trouble lifting their portion of the item, however it is also possible that they are just looking for a clever way to shift the bulk of the weight onto others via clever hand placement.  Either way when you hear this you had better prepare for the worst.

"We are moving from a small one room apartment into a house across town".  This means the one room apartment will probably be on the third floor of the building and there is no chance of an elevator.  There is also a good chance that they will have half of their belongings in a storage facility elsewhere... which they conveniently forgot to mention.

"The kids will help".  This one really depends upon the age of the kids.  If they are toddler age up through around age five, they will do a great job of unpacking the boxes that were just packed, and if you decide to lift a heavy item they will probably be underfoot.  If the kids are teenagers, you can expect they will move about as fast as a Three-Toed Sloth and they will never carry more than one box at a time, no matter how small that box may be.  If the kids are teenage girls, you can expect to see them carrying a makeup bag in one arm and a Abercrombie sweatshirt in the other as they pack it into the car... then they will need to spend at least 10-15 minutes in order to catch up on their texting between trips.

"Bring your truck just in case we need it".  This is a classic.  Often times they will mention that they already have several other friends with trucks or trailers and in some cases they may even claim they have arranged for a moving truck, but chances are you will show up to find their idea of a moving truck is their uncle's Chevy Astro Van so anything that doesn't fit will likely find its way into the back of your truck.  You can pretty much assume you're paying for your own gas on this one too... even if it is an out-of-town move.

"The only heavy items are a couch, a bed, and a television."  What this really means is the couch is a hideabed their grandmother gave them in 1982 and it weighs approximately the same as a small Volkswagen.  The couch is also spring loaded so every time you try to adjust it while carrying it, the mattress will start to pop open which will force you to stop and close it again. 

The bed they mentioned is a king size bed located in the second floor of the house, but nobody can figure out how it got up there in the first place because it doesn't seem like will fit down the stairs, and the television is a rear projection model that was the pinnacle of home entertainment technology in 1994 and happens to weigh somewhere just above 300lbs.  It is also located in the basement rec room and the only way out of the basement is via a staircase that is nowhere near current building code and that would make a Sherpa proclaim "wow... that's steep".

Did I mention if you show up three hours late you will notice that all of the light items have already been loaded and that they have saved the heavy stuff for you?  Yea... that's standard practice right there.

"There will be a ton of people to help".  This typically means the person you are helping will be there along with his 90lb cousin who has trouble carrying the ironing board.  It is highly likely that approximately 20 minutes before you are done, three other friends or family members will show up and each carry two items out to the vehicle.  These same three people will probably be asking about the free pizza they were promised within an hour.

"It's supposed to be a nice day".  If you hear this one and it is between the months of April and September, you can assume it will either be above 90 degrees or that it will be raining.  Possibly both.  If you hear this between October and March, chances are it will either be snowing or sleeting, and the temperature will be somewhere South of 15 degrees.  No matter what time of year it is, there is a high probability the wind will be blowing at least 25mph.

"I'm ready to move so just show up when you can".  This actually means they are half packed and don't have enough boxes to hold all of their stuff.  They are also running short of packing tape, and they only rented the truck for three hours so you need to get going before they get charged extra.  Chances are if you aren't onsite by 7:45AM they will be calling you every five minutes on your cell phone wondering what is taking you so long... and they will ask you to stop by Walmart on the way to pick up some packing tape and then see if you can find some boxes behind the store.  You won't be reimbursed for the tape.

"If you help, I'll give you all of the pizza and beer you can handle".  This is a common ploy to convince friends and family members that they should help, but when you show up you soon realize the only beer is a six pack of Coors Light that expired four months ago, and the only pizza is a frozen Totino's Party Pizza that is sitting in the freezer. 

"I didn't realize it would take this long".  This usually means they thought it would take all day, but they didn't anticipate you would still be carrying boxes at 11:30PM.  With that being said, they will ask you to follow them so they can drop off the rental truck and then you can give them a ride back across town.

"Thanks for all of your help... I'll return the favor the next time you need to move".  Chances are when you do need to move sometime in the future, the person who said this to you will have to attend a funeral for their girlfriend's aunt somewhere in Wisconsin that weekend.  Count on it.

"I'm never moving again" and/or "I tell you what... I'm not moving for a long, long time".  This means they will break their lease early or find their dream home across town in approximately five months.  If you're smart you will schedule something every weekend for that entire month well in advance... just to be safe.

Like it or not, moving stinks.  It is examples like these that have taught me there are times in life when having a bad back might actually be a good thing, but if nothing else it has taught me no matter how much a professional moving crew costs... it is probably well worth it.  Always remember, professional movers charge a lot less per hour than a therapist, and the movers won't make you come back every week for six months.

The Art of Precrastinating

Some have said procrastinating is an artform, but what those people fail to understand is there is a select group among the human race who actually plan ahead to ensure their procrastination is as effective as possible.  I have decided this incredible planning shall be called "Precrastinating".  I thought about "pre-procrastinating", but that is just confusing, so I'm sticking with precrastinating.  Try to keep up.

It takes a special kind of person to precrastinate.  Anyone can keep putting things off for as long as possible so that really isn't all that impressive.  Congress has been procrastinating about how to deal with our exploding national debt for decades while they convince us it is one of the most significant issues impacting the future of our nation, so should I really feel bad if I postpone doing laundry for a week or so?

Hell, Hugh Hefner has been putting off death for at least ten years and he does it is his pajamas so how hard could it be to procrastinate?  My three year old daughter has discovered it is much easier to simply say we will take a bath later than it is to actually take the bath, so it seems clear that almost anyone from the very young to the very old is capable of procrastination and it doesn't even require practice to be good at it.

The real visionary actually plans ahead when it is time to procrastinate.  They don't get backed into a corner and then grasp for some excuse on how to put something off but rather they prepare well in advance to have ample excuses at the ready.  In effect you could say they plan to fail rather than fail to plan, and even though that seems like the exact opposite of what you would expect, it just happens to work.

If procrastination is considered an art, then precrastination is considered a science.  A well-versed precrastinator will make sure everything is in play long before the big moment.  If the task at hand involves painting a house, the precrastinator will check weather reports to determine if the days ahead are suitable for painting, and when they discover the forecast involves sunshine and warm weather, they will suddenly determine it is a perfect opportunity to visit uncle Ralph over in Toledo for a few days.  Only a novice would dare wait until the day in question to put something off that could be put off much sooner.  This requires forethought.  This requires skill.  This requires the energy to develop a plan which can then be put into place ahead of the task or event which is to be pushed off.  Perhaps most importantly, this requires the foresight to anticipate any potential problems and have additional backup plans in place to counter them.

It surely isn't a one-dimensional problem.  The skilled precrastinator sees everything on levels.  They are like a grandmaster chess player who sees three, four or five moves ahead.  They aren't shocked at the events that occur because they have already planned for them, and as such a true precrastinator is both a planner as well as a procrastinator... something very uncommon with the community of lazy people.

What Was Once Old... Is New Again

Have you ever heard the phrase "what was once old is new again"?   I'm here to tell you that that particular phrase is idiotic.  Just think about it... whoever started using that phrase is trying to suggest if you wait long enough that an old item will somehow become new, and I have to tell you based upon what I know of time travel and basic laws of physics that just isn't possible.

I understand why people use this phrase, but I just disagree with the premise.  For example someone might comment that teenage girls are now starting to wear leg warmers with their skirts, which as we all know was as style that was very popular in the 1980s.  So, it isn't surprising when someone utters the cliche that what was once old is new again, but in reality legwarmers aren't new.  The style of wearing legwarmers isn't new either, so really there is nothing new about it. 

This is just a matter of people revisiting an old style, but simply revisiting something does not in any way make it new.  If that were true, I'd be driving a new car every morning when I head to work.  So are we to believe if you do a specific act each day it becomes old, but if you wait a few months or a few years and then do that same thing again that it is new?  Hogwash.

Listen... things can only be new once.  Anything after that point is old.  I know this will pain many 40-something women out there who are starting to see gray hair and wrinkles when they look in the mirror, but it isn't meant to be mean.  It doesn't matter if we are talking about items, people, or styles... old is old, and new is new.  There is no such thing as old becoming new just as new cannot be old, so adapt and get over it.

Another thing that bothers me is this stupid word "renew".  You cannot re-new something.  It was once new... and now it is old.  If it was new yesterday you might argue it is almost new today (which holds up a lot better if you are talking about a car as opposed to a ham sandwich), but you can't just "renew" everything and pretend it is new once again.  It might be new to you, you might find a new way of looking at things, but if something existed or was done at any time in the past, it just isn't new anymore. 

I renew magazine subscriptions... does that mean the magazine is entirely new?  Of course not!  Although that particular issue of the magazine might be new, the magazine itself, and the subscription to said magazine is not new... so is it really possible to re-new something?  Not really.  The term re-new is just a fancy way of selling us something again without letting us know we aren't really getting anything new.

It all comes down to the fact that we as humans have a desire to have new things.  Whether they are really, truly "new", or just "new to us" doesn't seem to matter.  In fact many people collect antiques that they know are old, but they don't refer to them as old things or used things because that doesn't sound as nice as the terms vintage, antique, historic, or whatever label they choose to use instead of simply saying they are old.  So, we somehow are tricking ourselves into thinking these old things are actually new, and we use colorful language to make the differentiation in order to appease our own minds.

So now it all makes sense.  I realize not everyone feels the same way, but I have a new way of thinking about things.  Or is that an old way of thinking about things?