28 Jan 2012

CNN Owes Fathers An Apology

An open letter to CNN Living regarding "The New Playdate Playbook" by Deborah Skolnik.

Dear CNN Living,

Though I am not a father myself, I am a person who feels that the role of "father" in our society deserves respect. I am also a person who supports tolerance and acceptance for all people, regardless of their gender, nationality, or religion. For these two reasons, I am deeply disturbed at the following passage from the article referenced above:

The Sitch: You've accepted a sleepover invite for your daughter, not realizing that only her pal's divorced dad will be home. You're not OK with it. What to do?

The Solution: "Call and say 'I'm sorry, and this is about me and not you, but I just don't feel comfortable with a man supervising an overnighter,' " says Paone. Offer to host the girls at your place instead, if you can, or ask to turn the sleepover into a "late-over," where your daughter stays only till bedtime. In the future, always ask who'll be on duty before you say yes to a sleepover.

So, here's "The Sitch" -  This article coldly slaps "divorced dads," fathers, and men in general as assumed child molesters. I honestly wonder if you would publish an article that stated the above but instead of men, referenced a particular race or nationality:

"You've accepted a sleepover invite, not realizing that only her pal's (racial minority) will be home..." 

"'I'm sorry, and this is about me, but I just don't feel comfortable with a (religious minority) supervising an overnighter..."

If that wasn't enough, statistics on child abuse show that 1. more women than men abuse children (see summary) and 2. female sexual predators are a real problem that is essentially ignored.

Fathers in general, and especially divorced fathers, get a lot of grief. They are not treated fairly in family court or in the court of public opinion. Suffice to say, it does not help when CNN Living casually labels them all child molesters.

My suggestion for "The Solution" - At the very least, I believe that CNN should publish a sincere apology to divorced fathers, fathers, and men in general. But perhaps CNN Living should also consider doing a story on the reality of female child abusers, or the struggles that dedicated "divorced dads" face. Better yet, why not do both?

Thank you for your kind attention.

14 Jan 2012

"I Hate Religion But Love Jesus" is an intellectually bankrupt argument

This video has become quite the viral phenomenon in the past few days. In it, a charismatic and good-looking young man offers us a spoken word performance on why he "hates religion but loves Jesus." This performer seems like a very well-meaning, talented, and intelligent person. I don't disagree with everything that he says. But in the end, his argument is self-contradictory and makes him guilty of the same selective Christianity he accuses others of.

If one believes in the Bible, one must also believe that the Bible represents absolute truth. Among the principle teachings of the Bible is that 1. God is omnipotent 2. Jesus is the Son of God 3. Through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, God enkindles the faith of Christians to ensure that "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven." If God is an omnipotent deity that has daily communion with his flock, it follows that the structure and actions of Christianity are in accordance with his Will. Therefore, He must be evaluated in light of what Christian believers and institutions do in the world.

Essentially, this young man is saying he hates Christianity but loves Christ. And I don't think that makes any sense, because who else is more responsible for Christianity than God through Christ? If you'll allow me a bit of psychoanalysis, I feel that this young man is reacting to the cognitive dissonance he feels when he sees the hypocrisy and illogical beliefs inherent in Christianity and religion in general. However, instead of that inspiring him to find a more intellectually consistent worldview, he is picking and choosing what he wants to believe about his professed faith.
19 Dec 2011

Four Songs That Sound Nice But Are Actually Evil and Depressing

Extreme - More Than Words

Awww! What a sweet and romantic ballad! Right? Hmmm. Let's look at the lyrics.

Saying I love you
Is not the words I want to hear from you

It's not that I want you not to say
But if you only knew

How easy it would be to show me how you feel
More than words is all you have to do to make it real
Then you wouldn't have to say that you love me, yeah
'Cos I'd already know

What would you do if my heart was torn in two?
More than words to show you feel
That your love for me is real
What would you say if I took those words away?
Then you couldn't make things new
Just by saying, "I love you"

Now that I've tried to
Talk to you and make you understand

All you have to do is close your eyes
And just reach out your hand and touch me
Hold me close don't ever let me go

Summary: It's not enough for you to say you love me. I'm dumping your sorry ass unless you touch me and hold me close right NOW.

Santa Claus Is Coming To Town

Happy Holidays! Here's the lyrics:

You better watch out
You better not cry

Better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town
He's making a list

And checking it twice;
Gonna find out Who's naughty and nice
Santa Claus is coming to town
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake

He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!

Summary: Santa sees everything you do. He is JUDGING you, and he's coming to your house. So you'd better watch out, don't f'ing cry, and OBEY!!!!!

The Police - Every Breath You Take

Such emotion. Such dedication. Here's the lyrics:

Every breath you take
Every move you make

Every bond you break
Every step you take
I'll be watching you

Every single day
Every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay
I'll be watching you

Oh can't you see
You belong to me

How my poor heart aches
With every step you take

Every move you make
Every vow you break
Every smile you fake
Every claim you stake

I'll be watching you

Since you've gone I've been lost without a trace
I dream at night, I can only see your face
I look around but it's you I can't replace
I feel so cold and I long for your embrace
I keep calling baby, baby please...

Oh can't you see
You belong to me

How my poor heart aches
With every step you take

Summary: This must be another one from Santa. You belong to him. He's watching every move you make and every breath you take.

Spandau Ballet "True"

How classy! Such a soulful tune. Let's look at the lyrics:

So true.......
Funny how it seems.....
Always in time, but never in line for dreams.
Head over heels, when toe to toe,
This is the sound of my soul.
(This is the sound)

I bought a ticket to the world,
But now I've come back again.

Why do I find it hard to write the next line?
When I want the truth to be said.......

Ah Ah Ah Ah Ah
I know this much is true.
Ah Ah Ah Ah Ah
I know this much is true.

With a thrill in my head and a pill on my tongue,
Dissolve the nerves that have just begun.

Listening to Marvin all night long.
This is the sound of my soul. (This is the sound)

Summary: I tried to forget about it, but I am completely obsessed with someone. I'm so crazy I can barely speak, despite the drugs I'm taking.

-------

I'm sure there are many more songs like this, so this blog might get a sequel soon.

4 Dec 2011

Book Review: 101 Contrarian Ideas About Advertising

Media_http1bpblogspot_rdekf

Before I decided to go into advertising, I studied formal logic, rhetoric, and debate in college. It turns out this is a terrific background for a copywriter and an ad professional, because I actually use my training nearly every day on the job. How many Philosophy majors can say that!?!?!? However, I have often caught myself drinking the hype that the ad industry serves in 40 oz bottles. Diligently reading Bob Hoffman has helped put me back on the straight and narrow.

Bob Hoffman is an ad agency owner and a popular advertising blogger at The Ad Contrarian. He is known for his hilarious skewering of the BS that inundates the advertising industry. Over the years, he has become my favorite advertising blogger because of his ability to think critically. Critical thinking and logic are two faculties in short supply in our industry, and Bob is always a refreshing read.

So I was very happy to see his new book for sale. This book is an edited collection of posts from his blog. Bob Hoffman's perspective is terrific because he continually digs into various heaping piles of advertising hype to discover nuggets of truth. And if he doesn't find any, he's not afraid to say how bad it stinks.

There's not much specific to say about his book, because it's collected from his blog. If you like his blog, you'll like the book. And even if you've read every post on his blog, you should still buy the book. Because he's been writing that great blog for free, and at least deserves some beer money for the effort.

Update: The Ad Contrarian was nice enough to link to my blog here.

30 Nov 2011

Men, Why Are You Spending Money On First Dates?

A recent article on Jezebel.com focused on a woman who admitted taking advantage of men for free meals at expensive restaurants. The article chided her for dishonesty, but then rationalized it with some ad hominem attacks on men.

Perhaps she should be looked down on for dishonesty. But that's not what is vexing me about this article. For the life of me, I cannot think of one earthly reason why a man should be spending money on a woman for a first date.

I'm almost 33 years old. I've been on dozens of first dates. And I have NEVER spent more than ten dollars. It has not stopped me from having great experiences with cool ladies. The majority of my male friends would say the same.

Men, why are you dropping Benjamins on first dates? There is no good reason to do it. And lots of reasons not to.

1. Money can buy attention, but not respect.

If you spend $$$ on a woman for the "privilege" of her company, she'll enjoy hanging out with you. She might even like you. I would enjoy hanging out with a woman who spent money on me, and you can bet I would try to find reasons to like her. But that doesn't mean I would take her seriously as a romantic option.

You cannot buy respect from a woman. Men have a deep need to be respected by their partners, and worthwhile women want a partner they can respect. If $$$ is an expectation up front in the relationship, find another girl. Period.

2. Equality.

This is 2011. If men and women are equal, there is no reason why women are entitled to special treatment from you. If any woman tries to cajole or shame you into spending $$$ I encourage you to say "No, because I believe in equality for women."

3. If you ask her out, you should pay. But...

One female response I hear quite often on this issue is "The person who asks should be the person who pays." And this makes sense. But the vast majority of my first dates came from informal agreements to get together. No event or dollar amount is agreed on beforehand. So that is still no reason for men to spend big money on dates. And there are a few women who initiate costly dates, then are surprised when the man doesn't pay for her share. That's just silly.

4. Money is not you.

If the purpose of dating is to get to know each other, then do that. That doesn't cost money. It does take creativity and personality. If you are creative and have a personality, why are you dropping Benjamins in the first place? If you don't have a personality, use your money to get a life and then look for a girlfriend. Furthermore, if the girl actually wants to get to know you, she's not going to want a $$$$$$$$ date.

If you want to treat the woman to something nice on subsequent dates, that's fine. But don't do it unless you have evidence she actually cares about you.

 Addendum: 

A "Sugar Daddy" arrangement would be an exception to these points, but I'm not going to go there.

27 Nov 2011

Trueblood Rants About Hotels

Though I am often a complicated man, I have simple needs when it comes to lodging. I don't care whether there is a swimming pool or premium channels on the tv. I don't pay attention to thread count on the sheets. I don't expect the staff to be overly obsequious.

At minimum, I feel a hotel should provide the following:

1. A clean, quiet and reasonably comfortable place to sleep.

2. A sanitary and operational bathroom.

3. A reasonably competent staff.

I feel that these are fair expectations. Yet, only about 50% of the hotels I've stayed at in the past several years have met these modest standards. Here's a rogue's gallery of my worst experiences, with the geographic location and the price per day.

Downtown Milwaukee, WI $175 per day

Room lacked soundproofing, which sucked as a very loud party was going on at the ground floor. At around 1am, room started to reek of cigarette and marijuana smoke from other people in the hotel. Smell came through the vents. Room lacked decent window coverings, and as my room faced east, it was bright as day in my room at the crack of dawn. Toilet plugged up and overflowed after my modest deposit. Shower wouldn't get warm. At checkout, the clerk shooed me out the door after I started to complain. I emailed the GM of the hotel twice and was ignored both times. I did not pursue further action, as I was working at a tourism-focused ad agency and I was afraid it might jeopardize potential new business pitches.

Downtown Wichita, KS $200 per day

Fan was extremely noisy and could not be turned off. I am a light sleeper so this was basically a disaster for me. I was charged for the stay despite repeatedly telling the clerks that the charge was supposed to go on a corporate account.

Pleasant Prairie, WI $60 per day

Room smelled like a public swimming pool and got worse as the night went on.

Coral Gables, FL $110 per day

Room was infested with cockroaches. Toilet and sink barely functioned.

Clive, IA $120 per day

Toilet had very weak flushing mechanism. Shower didn't work.

Beachwood, OH $90 per day

Clerk got seriously nasty with me after I politely asked him for directions.

Coconut Grove, FL $200+ per day

Hotel charged me for a six-day stay despite being told repeatedly the bill was supposed to be charged to a corporate account. They took a long time to fix the problem, causing me serious financial inconvenience.

On the other hand, here are some great experiences I've had at affordable hotels.

North of Atlanta, GA $60 per day

Clean room, amazingly comfortable bed, quiet area.

Warsaw, PL approx. $70 per day

Restored Art Deco boutique hotel. Outrageously lovely room.

Downtown Reykjavik, IS approx. $85 per day

Huge room with comfortable beds, refrigerator, and balcony. Awesome breakfast buffet.

Downtown Minneapolis, MN $80 per day

Nice and quiet room with ideal location in a city that is usually more pricey.

When it comes to hotels, price seems to be no guarantee of quality. For the amount guests are paying a night, minimum standards should be met. It is also shocking to me that staff does not proactively address obvious problems with the room. I should not have to sleep in an east-facing room that lacks adequate window coverings. I should not have been assigned a room that smelled like a public swimming pool. I should not be sleeping in a $200 per day hotel with a nightmarishly loud fan.

An establishment that even slightly cared about their guests would address glaring problems like this. But that's what it comes down to : the hotel doesn't care. All they want to do is gouge you, and then they couldn't care less if they see you again. Even if you badmouth them online. They know new victims will be walking in the door eventually.

30 Oct 2011

Book Review: We Are All Weird by Seth Godin

Weird

 

Seth Godin became famous as a marketing guru, but I think his real value lies elsewhere. Lots of people say the same stuff he does about marketing. His real talent, IMO, is his ability to distill trends and marketing know-how into inspiring manifestos.

About three years ago, Godin’s Linchpin completely changed how I thought about my career and the business I’m in. We Are All Weird takes the core ideas from Linchpin and applies them in a marketing context. However, this is more than a marketing book. It is very purposefully meant to change how the reader looks at the world.

 

The Good:

Weird>Normal

Seth Godin’s premise is simple. When people have an opportunity to make choices, they tend to want to express themselves. At no other point in history have we had so much opportunity to do both. We have nearly unlimited choices on who we want to be and what we buy. No matter how we may want to express ourselves, there are others like us to whom we can instantly connect. As a result, we are increasingly unsatisfied with one-size-fits-all goods, services, and lifestyles. Companies and organizations that thrive on normal are finding it very difficult to eek out the steady results they used to.

Godin discusses how “normal” mass markets were a creation of mass production and mass communication. Brands profited from defining the normal and making sure everyone wanted that. Governments and religions enforced normal to ensure a well-educated and independent populace was controllable. It came down to efficiency and productivity.

 But then, something started to happen. We got so good at normal it allowed us to be weird. Increases in efficiency and productivity lifted everyone’s standard of living. We had more time and more money for discretionary purchases. Advances in the technologies of production made it cheaper for companies to offer more choices. Computer technology and the Internet let us reach out to a larger world. We could express our individuality, find other people who were into that, and gather ideas and products from anywhere.

Seth Godin presents several arguments which come together to make a convincing case that weird will prevail. In our desire to express ourselves, we will continue to pursue the weird. Some people will only get a little bit weird. Others will really color outside the lines, and push the envelope within their affinity group.

The forces of normal fear the weird.

Seth Godin is a pretty provocative guy. He is not afraid to point out the forces allied against our freedom to express ourselves. The forces of normal fear the weird because it disrupts mass control. Weird throws a monkey wrench into their ultra-efficient factories and control mechanisms.

In most cases, market forces have allowed the weird to get more of what they want. In nearly every product and service, there are far more choices available now than in the past. We vote with our wallets, and if companies want our money they have to somehow fulfill our desire for change.

In a few cases, especially those connected with government, we have little power of choice. Americans have become much more diverse and individuated in our political beliefs over the years. In fact, most elections are decided by independent voters. Yet, we are stuck with two political parties, both of which are dominated by centrist power brokers.

So whenever we vote, we’re stuck voting between the two candidates deemed acceptable by the privileged folks in the parties. And that candidate, if elected, has huge incentive to avoid rocking the boat. We vote for change, and get very little of it, because the status quo is too beneficial to the privileged.

If you’ll allow me to step on the soapbox for a bit, this is why embracing free-market capitalism promotes our right to choose better than pushing centralized bureaucratic control. In a free market, companies and organizations have to serve us if they want to make money. When government bureaucracies rule, they can do whatever they want because they have the authority to take our money with guns.

Smart companies will embrace the weird.

Seth Godin makes a persuasive case for why brands need to let go of the nostalgia for mass markets. All of the economic forces that made mass markets the most efficient way to make a buck are now helping the weird get weirder. So brands can pursue a shrinking “normal” or get their fingers in a lot of “weird” pies.

Embracing weirdness and niche markets will also help companies resist cost pressures. If a brand delights a dedicated audience, they will be willing to pay for the product or the experience. If a brand is an average commodity, people will just look for the cheapest price from all competitors.

 

The Not-So-Good:

The Politically Correct Revolutionary

Seth Godin does an excellent job of pointing out the problems with the status quo, but he seems to have a real aversion to naming names. This is true for a lot of his critiques that involve government and politics. For example, he is highly critical of education in the U.S. He makes all the points of how our educational systems are holding kids back. However, he completely fails to point out the culprits – teacher’s unions and sympathetic politicians. There is now a Bipartisan consensus that education needs to be modernized. The ONLY thing standing in the way is the power of the teachers unions. This is demonstrated throughout the country. I think it’s really unfortunate that Godin won’t say this, as his influence could really help people who want to reform our schools.

Does not sufficiently warn against “fake weird”

Seth Godin does have a small section of the book where he talks about the pitfalls of faking weird. This is the phenomenon of brands giving some halfhearted lip service to niche marketing without actually changing anything. I would have liked to see more emphasis on this issue in the book. Because I can see a lot of brand managers reading Seth Godin, adding a couple of “edgy” signifiers to their existing offerings, and then patting themselves on the back. That’s not enough to genuinely serve the weird. They’ll see right through that stuff. I truly believe that even the weirdest subcultures are open to marketing, but brands need to be humble enough to learn from their customers.

Conclusion:

This book is available on Kindle for $3. It took me about two hours to read. I’ll be using many of the principles from this book for years. What’s not to like?

20 Oct 2011

The Lost Art Of Reciprocity

Karmajar

Reciprocity:
  • A reciprocal condition or relationship.
  • A mutual or cooperative interchange of favors or privileges
  • As a person, I am far from perfect. I've made mistakes, believe me. But I humbly feel that I've almost always made an honest effort to participate in reciprocal relationships with people. Maybe you have too. If so, I'm glad you're reading this, because you and I are among the very few. 
     
    The Ethic of Reciprocity, also known as the Golden Rule, is among the most essential social contracts. Even small children grasp the concept. But let's be honest with ourselves. It's pretty much dead in our modern society.
     
    We have more friends than ever, but we have never felt so alone. We date and marry with a 100-point list of expectations of our partner, but little sense of what we ourselves bring to the table. We have high-powered career "networks" full of people mainly interested in taking advantage of each other. And that's all really unfortunate. Because being reciprocal isn't that hard to do, and the benefits can be immense.
     
    How does one be reciprocal? Say "thank you." Offer a helping hand. Publicize someone's talents to your career network. Offer to return favors, and mean it. Check in every now and then just to say "hi."
     
    Making a small effort to start a reciprocal relationship can have tremendous rewards. Yes, it is true that you may never hear from the person again. But on the other hand, that person could change your life for the better. Reciprocity doesn't take much time or cost any money. It doesn't require a lot of effort. It only requires that you care just a little bit.
     
    When a group of people puts forth a little bit of effort, an infinite number of fortuitous circumstances will come into being. When a group of people behave as ungrateful users, scarcely few positives will come about. I'd rather experience the former.
     
    Thank you for reading.
     
    16 Oct 2011

    An Open Letter To Occupy Wall Street

    99_blog

    Hi. My name is Mark Trueblood. I'm an advocate of a Constitutionally-limited government, a supporter of some Republicans, an admirer of genuine Progressives, and a defender of free-market capitalism. And I don't blame you for being angry at the system currently driving our country off a cliff. I am too. I frankly question the sanity of anyone who isn't.

    I'm writing this letter to suggest to you that solutions will come from a smaller, limited government rather than the larger and more domineering government many of you seem to advocate.

    1. I have been vehemently against every single war the US has engaged in, in my lifetime. Grotesque military spending, adventurism, and "nation building" ideology represent the worst of our government's unholy alliance with global power elites. I agree with principled libertarians and progressives that many of the problems the US faces on the world stage are blowback from our own short-sighted actions. We need to re-focus our military on the Constitutionally-limited role of National Defense, rather than the current role of "Team America World Police."

    2. I can't stand crony capitalism and corporatism. Bailouts, pork-barrel spending, and other sweetheart deals circumvent a functioning free-market capitalist system. Here's an area where I might raise your hackles: The "evils of capitalism" you decry are actually the result of anti-capitalist practices. We need MORE free-market capitalism, not less. Corporatism is not caused by free-market capitalism, it is in opposition to free-market capitalism. The reality is, special interests are opposed to free-market capitalism. They develop cozy relationships with government for favorable regulations and laws that rig the game in their favor.
    Therefore, Occupy Wall Street's insistence for more regulations and more government spending are the last thing we need. What we need is a smaller Constitutionally-limited government and radically reduced spending.  A smaller government that spends less gives special interests less incentive to lobby. This reduces corporatism, and reduces the phenomenon of government favoring their well-connected friends in the private sector. It will create a more level playing field for new business models and innovations. In the long run, it will help everyone with an idea and passion make an impact in our society. Innovation and creativity are the most powerful forces in society for improving our quality of life.

    3. I'm a vocal proponent for social justice, though I disagree with most of the Left's solutions in these areas. Here's where I'm really going to tick you off. Neither the government nor society is responsible for taking care of you. As an adult, you're responsible for taking care of yourself, your family, and the community you've chosen to be a part of. Government programs designed to "take care of us" favor special interests, reduce individual liberty, and subsidize poor personal choices. The government's only role is to defend your individual rights, and perhaps provide a very limited social safety net. "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." (President Gerald Ford)
    Demanding that other people's money be redistributed to the needy is not moral, charitable, or just. Voluntary acts of charity are moral and just. Demanding other people's wealth be given to you is a shameful mob mentality. Private charities and philanthropic organizations have a much better track record than government of actually helping the needy. Best of all, through volunteering and philanthropy everyone is able to make an impact in the areas we are most passionate about.

    4. The country's Ruling Class has gotten out of control, and both political parties are pretty much bought and sold by them. That's undeniable. As a solution, Occupy Wall Street proposes a few solutions: Tax the rich, end corporate personhood, and end political donations.
    "Tax the rich." First of all, "the rich" pay FAR more taxes than the rest of us already. Secondly, increasing taxes tends to fetch diminishing returns in the long run. This is because higher tax rates give incentives to people to sit on their money, and/or send it overseas. If we want to improve the economy and our quality of life, raising taxes is not a solution. The solution is to make the US the best place in the world for business and investment. Contrary to conventional opinion, the US is not a business-friendly country. There are several countries around the world that offer a better business environment. Rather than raising taxes, we need to shrink government and simplify the tax code. The global investor class is very pragmatic and agnostic about where they put their money. They just want to get as much bang for their buck as they possibly can. If the US offers that, they'll invest here. If another country offers a better situation, they'll invest there. Let's make it here.
    "End corporate personhood." I've never really understood what this is about. I think people propose this to reduce the evils of corruption and crony capitalism. But as discussed above, crony capitalism is the result of a big and unrestrained government. Special interests get away with corruption because they're very good at currying influence within government. And in turn, their government cronies wield the power of the State and the Treasury to do their bidding.
    "End political donations."  I think that Progressives demand curtailing political donations because they think it gives the Right Wing an unbalance of power. But that's just not the case. As many of you are probably aware, the Left has enjoyed tremendous support from the big banks for decades now, and Obama set a new record in Wall Street contributions. Furthermore, labor unions spend tens of millions of dollars every election cycle on politicians. In fact, they spend far more money than most corporations. Labor unions are organizations designed for the purpose of wielding political influence. As part of this mission, they give a lot more money in campaign donations and organizing than do corporations. Corporations have a board and stockholders to answer to. But beyond all that, campaign contributions are free speech, and protected by the Bill of Rights.

    The Ruling Class is out of control because they have taken the reigns of an out of control government. Demanding bigger government to end the "evils of capitalism" is not the solution. Some powerful people will ALWAYS find a way to rig the game in their favor, no matter how idealistic we may want to be about our favorite political leaders. The solution is to shrink the power and influence of the government.


    12 Oct 2011

    Looks like Twinings needs a new copywriter

    Twinings_2

    This was scanned from a box of Twinings green tea. "Thank you for choosing Twinings. Because you deserve a better cup of tea."

    I'm sure this phrase made perfect sense to the person that wrote it. But when I read it, it tells me "We know you deserve a better cup of tea, but thank you for choosing Twinings anyway."

    Allrighty then! Guess I'd better go back to the store and find the better tea brand I deserve. Thanks Twinings!

    Mark Trueblood's Space

    Thinker, writer, published author, advertising creative, and much more. Gainfully employed, but opinions are my own. http://flavors.me/marktrueblood