Life Without The Net And Other Privileged Whining

We went nearly a solid week without internet and cable while we waiting for our service to be switched to a less douchebaggy company than the one that rhymes with "boo hearse". In a week you have a lot of time to realize how much time you spend on the internet.

You realize that there IS a way to get TV shows without a cable box, and it involves exposed co-ax, aluminum foil and pie plates. It's not ideal. After some modifications though, we actually could get about 50 channels. Not bad for actually free.
I watched a bit of Flying Nun and cringed at the lack of PC - the Korean girl named Kim Chi ...REALLY? You couldn't even give her a better name than that? But still I was kind of giddy to watch the Flying Nun since I'm pretty sure I haven't seen it in 40 years.

We introduced my oldest son to our Kids in the Hall DVD collection and he suddenly realizes what half the stuff we say ALL THE TIME means. (Onions is all I eat). And we broke out some old "little kid" staples from the boys toddler days, such as Teletubbies DVDs which the twins still loved.

We were watching one of those DVDs when a little segment came on with some children in South Africa who were doing the wash. They stomped the clothes around in the soapy water, scrubbing them and getting them nice and clean, then they ran to get a bucket of fresh water for rinsing. They laughed and giggled as they rinsed the clothes and played in the water at the same time. That's when the oldest boy pipes up, "Mom that's so sad. How can they be happy?"

I knew what he meant, but let him talk , "Look how poor they are Mom. That's so sad."

"Are they happy?" I asked him He said he thought that they were. "Are they healthy and safe?" He said he thought they seemed so. I noted their mother was nearby, "She's right there letting them help, but she's not left them alone - so they seem well loved right?" He agrees.

"So why is it sad?" I asked him He answered because they were doing their wash in buckets.

I asked again why that means they are sad. I noted that they seemed pretty happy. He agreed but then looked confused, "How can they be happy when they are that poor?"

"Children very often don't know they're poor, especially when they live the same way as everyone else around them. THINGS don't make people happy, not real happiness." I told him.

He thought about that. "I guess you're right, I miss not having internet and cable but we've still had fun and stuff these days."

Exactly.

But I'll admit this, there is a part of me that wishes I COULD get that mom a washing machine, and the electricity to run it.


Tweet

Life Without The Net And Other Privileged Whining

We went nearly a solid week without internet and cable while we waiting for our service to be switched to a less douchebaggy company than the one that rhymes with "boo hearse". In a week you have a lot of time to realize how much time you spend on the internet.

You realize that there IS a way to get TV shows without a cable box, and it involves exposed co-ax, aluminum foil and pie plates. It's not ideal. After some modifications though, we actually could get about 50 channels. Not bad for actually free.
I watched a bit of Flying Nun and cringed at the lack of PC - the Korean girl named Kim Chi ...REALLY? You couldn't even give her a better name than that? But still I was kind of giddy to watch the Flying Nun since I'm pretty sure I haven't seen it in 40 years.

We introduced my oldest son to our Kids in the Hall DVD collection and he suddenly realizes what half the stuff we say ALL THE TIME means. (Onions is all I eat). And we broke out some old "little kid" staples from the boys toddler days, such as Teletubbies DVDs which the twins still loved.

We were watching one of those DVDs when a little segment came on with some children in South Africa who were doing the wash. They stomped the clothes around in the soapy water, scrubbing them and getting them nice and clean, then they ran to get a bucket of fresh water for rinsing. They laughed and giggled as they rinsed the clothes and played in the water at the same time. That's when the oldest boy pipes up, "Mom that's so sad. How can they be happy?"

I knew what he meant, but let him talk , "Look how poor they are Mom. That's so sad."

"Are they happy?" I asked him He said he thought that they were. "Are they healthy and safe?" He said he thought they seemed so. I noted their mother was nearby, "She's right there letting them help, but she's not left them alone - so they seem well loved right?" He agrees.

"So why is it sad?" I asked him He answered because they were doing their wash in buckets.

I asked again why that means they are sad. I noted that they seemed pretty happy. He agreed but then looked confused, "How can they be happy when they are that poor?"

"Children very often don't know they're poor, especially when they live the same way as everyone else around them. THINGS don't make people happy, not real happiness." I told him.

He thought about that. "I guess you're right, I miss not having internet and cable but we've still had fun and stuff these days."

Exactly.

But I'll admit this, there is a part of me that wishes I COULD get that mom a washing machine, and the electricity to run it.


Tweet

I Like This Guy Called SHAKESPEARE

I think it's just a symptom of the internets in general, a segment of us -hell even probably me sometimes, wants to appear smarter/wiser/cleverer than we are. I find the epidemic of ridiculous responses you see on social networks to be an ever growing annoyance to me though.
Case in point. This question is posed: "I'm looking for something new to read."

Some clove smoking douchebag always has to pipe up with KEATS or, YEATS, or BYRON or if they want to appear more hip and relevant they toss out Palahnuik (first rule of reading FIGHT CLUB, we don't MENTION Fight Club). Somebody always suggests Khalil Ghibran and then there's the jerk who comes up with something random like JACK LONDON.

NO ONE IS READING JACK LONDON ARE YOU SHITTING ME YOU ARE READING JACK LONDON FOR REALS?

We can't admit to reading mainstream pop fiction, is that the thing? I'm pretty sure that SOMEONE out there is reading all those "Cat who wrote books and solved mysteries" books. I don't really know what those books are, I never read them. But I know there are a lot of them so someone is reading them, I feel certain of it.

Like right now, I'm ready to start reading book three in the Game of Thrones saga. - A STORM OF SWORDS. Yeah I'm reading it because EVERYONE IS READING it. I am reading it because HBO made a series and it's good. Plus it's got sex and violence and monsters and that's all good to me.

I don't think there is anything WRONG with reading the classics. I don't think there is anything wrong with re-reading the classics. I just think it's kind of hilarious, no one is EVER EVER reading THE ZOMBIE SURVIVAL GUIDE (which BTW is #2 right now on the New York Times best selling paperbacks as of today), or some John Grisham who I see on the best sellers list - AGAIN.

It's not because social media sites are populated by nothing but THE LITERATI. In fact, I suspect it's quite the opposite. But perhaps it's because we want you to THINK we are, that we make such pretensions.

I, for one, think perhaps you should check out Shakespeare's Sonnet's. I hear they are QUITE popular. OOO and you know who is awesome? STEINBECK!

Fssssss. I love the internets.



Tweet

I Like This Guy Called SHAKESPEARE

I think it's just a symptom of the internets in general, a segment of us -hell even probably me sometimes, wants to appear smarter/wiser/cleverer than we are. I find the epidemic of ridiculous responses you see on social networks to be an ever growing annoyance to me though.
Case in point. This question is posed: "I'm looking for something new to read."

Some clove smoking douchebag always has to pipe up with KEATS or, YEATS, or BYRON or if they want to appear more hip and relevant they toss out Palahnuik (first rule of reading FIGHT CLUB, we don't MENTION Fight Club). Somebody always suggests Khalil Ghibran and then there's the jerk who comes up with something random like JACK LONDON.

NO ONE IS READING JACK LONDON ARE YOU SHITTING ME YOU ARE READING JACK LONDON FOR REALS?

We can't admit to reading mainstream pop fiction, is that the thing? I'm pretty sure that SOMEONE out there is reading all those "Cat who wrote books and solved mysteries" books. I don't really know what those books are, I never read them. But I know there are a lot of them so someone is reading them, I feel certain of it.

Like right now, I'm ready to start reading book three in the Game of Thrones saga. - A STORM OF SWORDS. Yeah I'm reading it because EVERYONE IS READING it. I am reading it because HBO made a series and it's good. Plus it's got sex and violence and monsters and that's all good to me.

I don't think there is anything WRONG with reading the classics. I don't think there is anything wrong with re-reading the classics. I just think it's kind of hilarious, no one is EVER EVER reading THE ZOMBIE SURVIVAL GUIDE (which BTW is #2 right now on the New York Times best selling paperbacks as of today), or some John Grisham who I see on the best sellers list - AGAIN.

It's not because social media sites are populated by nothing but THE LITERATI. In fact, I suspect it's quite the opposite. But perhaps it's because we want you to THINK we are, that we make such pretensions.

I, for one, think perhaps you should check out Shakespeare's Sonnet's. I hear they are QUITE popular. OOO and you know who is awesome? STEINBECK!

Fssssss. I love the internets.



Tweet

Who Knew?

Props to Kesseret for posting this to plurk first.

Who knew this is what the internet is for?

Who Knew?

Props to Kesseret for posting this to plurk first.

Who knew this is what the internet is for?