The Year We Make Contact...

As of right now, I’m watching 2010: The Year We Make Contact, which is the sequal to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Those who had made the movie tried to make it in a sense that the United States and the U.S.S.R. were still involved in the Cold War. I just got done watching the part in the movie where they try “aero-braking.” There is a part where the elder United States’ doctor attempts to make it through the extreme braking techniques the Russians use. What they attempt to do they call aero-braking in the movie, that is, using the atmosphere of a planet to their advantage. While I am no scientist and could therefore not tell you if this was possible or not, I did find it interesting that the director included, in this exact scene, a moment where a Russian member of the space team, apparently a young, female, naïve member, comes to the United States team member as a form of comfort, most likely as a way to show that we can come together in peace.

In the vein of the movie: I wish I had a young, female, Russian cosmonaut to come hug me in times of dire straights. That would make me feel better no matter what was going on.

Assholemanship

Many people do not know where they stand. Many more people do know where they stand but are unsure that they hold that position. That is where I come in. When I debate people, I take the other side, usually to the extreme. Playing the “Devil’s Advocate” allows me to debate someone and pull out the reasons behind that person’s position. From there it just becomes a matter of trying to sway that person from the position they hold and convince them of my rightness. This, however, is where I become an “asshole.” Once I draw this person into a position where the views seem solidified, I test those now-sacredly held beliefs by turning the argument back around; I flip the debate on its head, so to speak. In all, I enjoy doing this because it truly lets me know where this person stands and it allows me the opportunity for a good, spirited debate. When I flip the argument on people, however, they usually just end up frustrated with me and call me an asshole. From there, I am quick to remind them, as I did when we first started debating, that I am merely playing the part for the rebuttal but most people just assume I am an asshole. Oh well, I am content with being an asshole.

Rockin' The Jeopardy

I love trivia, I love knowledge, and I love random pieces of information. Many weekends, my friend and I spend my evenings catching up on the Jeopardy episodes he saves on his Comcast. He, like me, is a lover of all things random-knowledge. We stay up many a late night, Coors Lights-a-plenty, viewing episode after episode of Jeopardy or even Wheel of Fortune, even after our girlfriends have gone to bed.

One such episode of Jeopardy brought the most amazing moment for me. Usually, both my friend and I can answer a whole category or a few answers here and there and rarely are we able to come up with the answer to Final Jeopardy. If you are familiar with Jeopardy, than you know how it works. Alex Trebek introduces the category and the contestants are than supposed to write down how much they wager while those of us at home wait around through the commercial break. Up return, the question is asked and the contestants write down their answers. I need to back up, however, as before the commercial break even happened, right after Trebek introduced the category, I shouted out an answer. My answer was “Paul Bunyan” and the category was American Legends. When we fast forwarded back to the game, the question was read and none of us officially knew the answer. It turned out, though, that I was right with my answer of Paul Bunyan, answered even before the question was read. It felt amazing.

Anarchy?

an•archos: (Latin) no masters

For anyone who is curious about anarchy and what it is, you must rid youselves of any preconceived ideas or anything you may have heard and come at it with a new outlook. Many have used it to imply chaos, and if you believe that humanity needs an authority figure (be it a leader, president, prime minister, legislative body) to keep it from falling into chaos, then yes, no leaders would be chaos. However, if you do not believe in the legitimacy of anyone ruling over anyone else, than any leader would be tyranny.

Anarchy, today, has taken on many different shapes, such as the for-image title taken on by many within the punk scene or the libertarian-socialist perspective which is more a true political philosophy, since that is what anarchy truly is: a political philosophy. However, it is simply that, a philosophy, and not an answer, but we can also agree with Chomsky in that we do not know what would work and what would not, so it is also too early on to discredit it. What anarchy implies, basically, is no government and no rulers. It is utopian in the idea that people will coexist relatively peacefully and settle all disputes themselves as well as helping out their fellow humans. Because of the idea of no masters, it also has an inherent belief that their can be no private property. Property is a common, public good, and therefore, should not and can not be truly owned, bought, or sold. We can use it to our advantage and place our houses upon it, but to own land, something which one has not created, is sacrilegious.

Within true anarchy, there is also an idea of non-violence; violence being a rule/ruler imposed upon someone else. It is upon these basic tenants that anarchy is built and if you want more, research the various books on the subject, they are, for the most part, very good.

Punk Rock

For every 10 self-inflated punks out there is only 1 real punk, unfortunately. The punk scene itself has practically cannibalized itself, leaving only its rotting entrails.

Nowadays it seems most punks feel the need to be not-“posers,” whatever that means. Being a punk, in itself, I would claim is being a poser. Punk music, to me, only means music that is staying true to itself, considering that even early hip-hop artists considered themselves punk musicians.

Punks don’t stand for anarchy, they don’t stand for anything. If they did stand for something, it would be the idea that who one is IS who one is.

If anyone wants to know what this short venting is in response to, feel free to email me, as it does not Copy+Paste well in this Blogger program.

Democracy

For any readers out there who might still hold the idea that America is a democracy, I urge you to defenestrate (how about that, Prof. Wood?) that idea and reconsider.

Democracy comes from the joining of two words from ancient Greece, demos and –kratia.

If you choose not to follow the links, demos refers to the general public or the common people. In ancient times this was also considered the general “mob.” Meanwhile, -kratia refers to a form of government. Combined, democracy now means rule by the people, and while this may be thought of as a good thing, it is ultimately wrong.

Evidence of democracy being a wrong thing lies simply in the ideas that the forefathers of history held. For example, the majority, in the past, held that women could not vote, blacks were to be slaves, and the Earth was flat. While entertaining the idea that the Earth is flat apparently does not hurt nor impede anyone, people were considered heretics by the Church if they believed otherwise and were sentenced to death unless they recanted their position.

The authors of the Constitution attempted to answer the problems of democracy when they wrote the Constitution by introducing representatives and judges. Representatives do all the voting to ensure that those who are ignorant or uninformed do not vote. The judges act to ensure that anything that is voted upon or placed into law is not infringing on a minority of people. It is the job of both the representative and the judge to ensure that a misinformed majority is restrained and unable to inflict tyranny on a minority of people.

A Spring Break Hangover

It seems to be a good time to do some flagellation/understanding as a means of redemption, especially when one takes into account the fact that spring break is now over even though I personally did not do anything near regretful.

In an effort to make this more interesting (or more annoying, depending on one’s preference) I will be writing this following a minimalist pattern, it is up to you, the reader, to take these sentences however you would like…

I am a God-fearing atheist.

I hate being wrong.

Blood is thicker than water.

I still can’t believe it’s not butter.

Happiness is overrated but in a few years the pharmaceutical industry will have a pill to solve that as well.

I am a resentful son.

Rodents and reptiles creep me out.

I am an idealist.

I wish my band had more of a drive to succeed, myself included.

Nobody speaks for me.

I am a huge nerd.

My room is perpetually messy, even when it is in the middle of being cleaned.

Drinking is a habit that is too affordable.

I enjoy reading.

My ability to play guitar and my years of playing guitar are not correlated in the way they should be.

I am nobody’s fool but my own.

Music will never be as good as it used to be and it is constantly getting better.

I always lie.

I am me.

I hope what you just read was as fun, interesting, and thought provoking for you as it was for me. Many were contradictions and conundrums within themselves and I hope you enjoy breaking them down.

Feminism Isn’t Just for the Ladies

In completing my general education (at a Community College) I took an introductory women’s studies course and it was one of the most rewarding classes I took. It helped me to see the subconscious or implicit messages all around. The class I took did not just focus on women, but the views and portrayals of men as well. For this blog, however, I chose to narrow it down to a short critique on Disney movies and their efforts to marginalize and brainwash thousand of girls, whether they intended to or not.

The Little Mermaid

The Little Mermaid tells the story of a single father raising 7 daughters, the youngest of whom, Ariel, is the most ambitious and rambunctious. This all takes place under the sea and they are, in fact, “merpeople.”

The main character of the story, Ariel, witnesses a handsome human man on a boat. She lusts for him but her father forbids her from ever going on land. Instead, she seeks out Ursula, the evil sea witch, who makes a deal with her: if Ariel gives up her voice Ursula will grant her legs, giving her the opportunity to find this man and woo him.

What this implies to the thousands of little girls who grew up watching this is that they do not need their voice, their ability to showcase their personality and language, but should, instead, use only their “physical mannerisms and dress,” as that is all they need. Giving up her ability to speak is giving up her ability to say “I am woman; hear me roar.” Instead, Ariel is forced to say something more to the effect of, “I am woman; I hope I look okay.”

The ending of the movie does not get any better. While she does gain back her ability to speak, to be with the man she desires she has to give up all ties to her former life. Most women would find it atrocious to lose the connection to their family, even more so if the man she was with did not allow it. While this is not what the man did in this movie, it is essentially the choice Ariel had to make to be with him: the man she likes or her family, she cannot have both.

Hercules

The film Hercules commits the usual horrors in regards to its portrayal of women. The female in this story, Megara, is a lonely woman without friends who sold her soul to Hades to save the life of her ex, who paid her in kind by running off with another woman.

As her soul is now in possession of the Greek devil, Meg, as she claims her would-be friends call her, utilizes her feminine charm to lead Hercules right into Hades’ trap. This character has no individuality. She is a seductress who is no more than a pawn in Hades’ plans. Meg “sashays her hips and [wears a] dress [that] clings to her body like a second skin.”

The character of Meg is no more than an evil seductress who is turned, or saved, by the man of the story, implicitly stating that without him she would be doomed. She in no way teaches young girls to assert their individually and strength, rather, she teaches them that they cannot be saved without the help of a man.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is Walt Disney’s “first full-length production” and a great example of Disney’s poor portrayal of women. In the story, Snow White is forced to leave the safety of the castle when an evil woman, her step-mother, believes Snow White to be the fairest in the land, with fair representing purity or virginity, beauty, and innocence, much like her last name: White. Fortunately for Snow White, she is spared from dying, thanks to a man, and makes her way into the scary woods wherein she is fortunate enough to find a small and dirty house.

After being spared by a man, Snow White cleans and washes the house of the Seven Dwarfs, who are all men who lust over and immediately take a liking to Snow White. As if she were a lost puppy, they decide to keep her, thus ensuring she is again spared by men only to end up doing all the cooking and cleaning.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disney movies are filled with numerous examples of the vilification of women and all three of the previous examples attest to that; Ursula, Megara, and the Evil Step-Mother are all portrayed as having ulterior or evil motives. It appears the most equal portrayal in the movies are the ones which showcase animals, where the relationships between, say, Simba and Nala are built on friendship while the relationships of the Disney Princesses and their respective Princes are built on physical attraction, thus “relegating a view of equality to the animal kingdom” that is not reciprocated in the human one. I encourage everyone to watch movies with some of these ideas in mind; try to see what they are telling us the perfect man or perfect woman is like.

Major Legal Baseball

All of the recent talk of performance enhancers in baseball has brought up some very interesting points. What only a few seem to notice, however, is that money can be a performance enhancer as well.

With trading, contracts, and virtually no limits on a player’s movements, it seems to be that the longer one is playing major league baseball, the more likely one is to not play for one’s home team. As much as fans would hate to admit it, players have no team loyalty higher than they have loyalty to getting paid.

Using www.baseball-almanac.com, I found that, of all the players in Major League Baseball for the 2008 season, California had the highest number of players listing California as their birthplace; 225 to be exact. To simplify my further inquiries, I looked at every 15th person on the list to see what team they are currently for:

Geoff Blum – born in Redwood City, plays for the Houston Astros
Brooks Conrad – born in San Diego, plays for the Oakland Athletics
Jim Edmonds – born in Fullerton, plays for the Chicago Cubs
Kevin Frandsen – born in Los Gatos, plays for the San Francisco Giants
Eddie Guardado – born in Stockton, plays for the Minnesota Twins
Phil Hughes – born in Mission Viejo, plays for the New York Yankees
Jeff Karstens – born in San Diego, plays for the Pittsburgh Pirates
Derrek Lee – born in Sacramento, plays for the Chicago Cubs
Scott McClain – born in Simi Valley, plays for the San Francisco Giants
Xavier Nady – born in Salinas, plays for the New York Yankees
Carlos Quentin – born in Bellflower, plays for the Chicago White Sox
Kirk Saarloos – born in Long Beach, plays for the Oakland Athletics
Mike Sweeney – born in Orange, plays for the Oakland Athletics
Jered Weaver – born in Northridge, plays for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Joel Zumaya – born in Chula Vista, plays for the Detroit Tigers

Of these 15, six players currently play in their home state. Looking into it, however, I found that…
Brooks Conrad has never played a season with his hometown team, the San Diego Padres, but has played his 2 seasons with a California team.
Scott McClain has played four seasons in all but only 2 with a California team.
Kirk Saarloos has only played 4 out of 7 seasons with a California team.
Mike Sweeney has only played 1 season out of 14 with a California team.
Only Jered Weaver and Kevin Frandsen have played all three of their season with their respective teams.

How much money does it take to buy loyalty?

The New York Yankees, one of the richest teams in baseball, has the top three highest paid players: Alex Rodriguez, Jason Giambi, and. Derek Jeter, in that order. However, the highest paid player, Alex Rodriguez, has stated his favorite team growing up was, in fact, the New York Mets. In all, the Yankees spend a total of $209,081,577, whereas the poorest team, the Florida Marlins, spends only about 10% of that, $21,811,500, about 6,000,000 less than the Yankees spend on Rodriguez alone (here). The second richest team, the New York Mets, only spends $137,793,376; a bit over half of what the New York Yankees are able to spend.

Money has become the performance enhancer baseball officials should be most worried about. It is no surprise that the top spending team tends to be one of the most formidable teams in baseball; and what about the best player? Well, he has recently admitted to using performance enhancers as well.

No Offense Intended

Being one who is prone to questions involving evolution and biology, I have always been curious as to the biological imperative for homosexuality. I am no racist, sexist, or xenophobe; I merely wish to understand the answers to some questions: 1) has homosexuality always been around, much in the same way our gender is fully dependent upon how far we mature through our fetal stages and thus better represented as a spectrum?, and, if not, 2) what caused the advent of homosexuality?

There is some interesting research here, more than I could even begin to read, so instead I will post 2 theories as to what may or may not be true and let the scientists and fanatics battle it out.

Theory 1: As I said above, I believe gender to be a spectrum, liable to the path a fetus follows in its development, which is why some members of society are born and declared to be male only to desire to become females later in life, or vice versa.

From there, it should follow that sexual desires would be liable to the same spectrum. As such, it is to be believed that homosexuality or bisexuality has always been present within human society. The ancient Greeks, for example, often held relationships of male teacher/male student that would, by today’s standards are considered pederasty.

The reason for an apparent increase in homosexuality, therefore, can be linked to the increasing acceptance and decreasing homophobia in society.

Theory 2: In the era we live in, moms give birth to octuplets despite already having 6 other children, adoption agencies flourish both around the nation and internationally, and countries are being pushed to their population limits. Higher populations can sometimes lead to higher instances of famine, disease, drought, and crime, just to name a few issues.

Would it be unheard of for nature to evolve a portion of humans to a state of non-breeders (either by choice or inclination) as a means of handling overcrowding and under-supplied resources?

Theory 2 does not imply that the human race is evolving to homosexuality; evolution is not moving towards a goal or some next step. Evolution itself is a mechanism species utilize to cope with resources. What Theory 2 is suggesting is that land space, food, and water, in our current state, are quickly diminishing and nature may be coping by biologically upping the odds for homosexuality.

Personally, my beliefs land me squarely with my first theory, but Theory 2 is interesting to think about, albeit possibly upsetting to some people. Again, I mean no offense nor do I mean to suggest homosexuality is an evolved coping mechanism for the human race. It is merely interesting to entertain views different from my own.

The Paradox of Time Travel

As this is a topic many people have delved into before, I present to you my version, which I came to on my own without having previously read or seen any information directly relating to this subject (the closest being the absurdities of time travel regarding the Grandfather Paradox, which you can read about here http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/G/Grandfather_Paradox.html).

The past does not exist in the way that you or I exist. You cannot hold or touch the past or, for that matter, re-experience the past in the way you experienced it the first time, as a recreation or reenactment is only that, a replaying of the past where you already know the outcomes. The past only exists as memory and testament based on our interpretation, implying that what we know as truth is only considered truth if we all agree yet is not necessarily true, as fact is fact regardless of democratic opinion. For example, the sky is blue only because the color of the sky is of a hue we have all agreed upon as being called “blue.” If I objectively see the sky as what everyone else calls “orange” it does not change the fact that we all have agreed to objectively call that hue “blue” and, as such, it would not change no matter what hue we looked at as we see it with the same name regardless.

This arbitrariness of our words, and as such our knowledge, implies that our knowledge of the past is just as arbitrary. Say, for example, Germany had won World War II and Adolf Hitler had conquered the world. Certainly you and I can both agree that history would be presented in a much different light, meaning that the past does not exist as a destination we can return to.

To take this one step further and thus disprove time travel, imagine, for example, the common idea some people enjoy entertaining should they have a time machine, for some strange reason. Given the opportunity, most people claim they would use it to kill Hitler before he had the opportunity to commit the atrocities of the Holocaust (never mind that many would most like actually use it for personal monetary gain).

Let’s assume you were one of these people and you actually did make it back in time. Time exists as a function of traveling from point A to point B so it is easiest to represent time for this purpose as a single straight line (Fig.1).

As shown in Figure 2, there are points along this timeline, for example, your birth and the assumed point at which you were to “travel” to the past from, with history representing the entire line which has already happened and the “X” representing your “period of learning” wherein you learned about history, through school for example.

Now, let’s assume, you actually did make it before Hitler (at whichever age you chose to find him) and were able to pull the trigger (Fig. 3).

From there, should you pull the trigger and successfully kill Hitler you would create a new alternate timeline (Fig. 4).

This new alternate timeline would immediately become the original timeline and the original timeline would cease to exist (Fig 5).

What this would mean is that history would become dependent on this new moment, that is to say, the point at which you “traveled” to would become the focal point wherein the original timeline and the alternate timeline switched. What this means, then, is that there can be no alternate timeline since the timeline is always the original; this means that altered events alter the original timeline, thus replacing it.

By this logic, it means that it would be impossible to go back in time and kill Hitler. The area represented by “X,” what I referred to as your “period of learning,” was where you had initially learned of Hitler and the atrocities he committed during the Holocaust. “Traveling” to the past and killing him would remove him from existence, thus removing him from any history you may hear about thereby giving you no compelling reason to travel back in time to kill Hitler, which means you would never go back in time to kill Hitler and the atrocities would still happen. This is why the desire to travel back in time for any purpose will never be fulfilled. The purpose happening gives you the reason to initially travel back in time; should you go back in time and prevent it from happening you would lose your reason to travel back in time in the first place.

It is this paradox which makes idea of time travel completely impossible, regardless of whether you had attained some machine or ability to defy physics and travel through time.

(all pictures created by me for the purpose of this discussion)

Machiavellian Minorities

I’ve noticed something interesting in the way Republican members of Congress follow trends. When they controlled Congress during the Bush II years the Republicans broke almost all of the tenets of their platform, of which a 2008 version can be found here. For example, they broke rank with fiscal conservatism, instead deciding they could lower taxes while fighting wars on two fronts in a time when the economy was on shaky grounds as it was, largely due to 9/11 and more recently the housing situation, massive bank failures, and Wall Street conundrums. Why are they advocating now for a stimulus package that is pure tax cuts, when that has obviously failed before?

One might say Congressional Republicans are out of touch, but it is truly politics for them, as they have found that they can actually get what they want and appear to hold true to principle at the same time. It was proven in the recent vote on the stimulus package that the Democrats (when united) can woo enough Republicans to pass almost any bill, be it good or bad. In a time when it is blatantly obvious that tax cuts will do more harm than good, Republicans are remaining fairly united in their NO votes. This will lead to two different outcomes; if the bill succeeds, Democrats look good and Republicans look good just by having the good fortune of being in office when everyone starts to do better. If, however, the bill does not work and the economy further collapses, the Democrats have to accept full responsibility and have little wiggle room here, whereas the Republicans can be confident that it was not because of their actions, being that they did not vote for the bill in the first place. Either way, the Republicans have assured themselves that their job is secure while being able to get what they want, namely, a bill which may save the economy.

What this means is that it may great to be the ruling party in Congress most of them time, since your party sets agendas, decides who heads what, and is looked at to lead the way, being in the minority party (in a 2-party system) at a time when your vote does not affect a thing, whichever way you happen to vote, can and will grant you power in the long run. Truly Machiavellian.

Since the stimulus bill has passed, it seems the only way for the Congressional Republicans to show their solidarity with their beliefs now, as well as the beliefs of their constituents, is to refuse to accept any aid or help as a result of the package, as Stephen Colbert called on them to do in a recent airing of his show, The Colbert Report:

“Last night's Party line vote was a great start for the 111th Congress, but these hard times demand and even larger, meaningless gesture. That is why I am calling on every Republican who voted against this bill to put no money where your mouth is. Refuse to accept a single penny of the 800 billion dollars for your Congressional district. Think of it like a hunger strike, then just sit back and watch in glee as the Democrats face the wrath of their constituents, suffering as that 800 billion dollars tears though their district like a force five cash-o-cane. It won't be easy, but you are fighting for a principal, if we can't have a perfect bill to stimulate the economy, you would rather have no economy at all.” – 1/29/09

With that in mind, I leave you with a picture I created from a drawing of the human anatomy I found online here.

Take This Job And Shove It

No job is more thankless than serving, more commonly known as waiting tables. I can understand the need to be thrifty in these hard economic times, but as someone who pays his bills with tips: do not have your server run all over so you can receive the meal and service of your dreams only to stiff that same server on their tip. Even if you receive mediocre service, you have to understand that with the massive job loss, servers are being stretched thin too; often taking on the roles of bussers, cashiers, hosts, food-runners, and whatever else you may ask us to do.

There are many customers we have learned to hate, for example, those who may have received a discount just for being loyal customers a few times (or because they always request the same server who gives them that discount) and then demand that same discount again and again. Getting it once does not denote entitlement, it means we were feeling generous and wanted to give you something in return this time.

Let me share a secret with everyone, though this is probably out in the open. A compliment, whether given to the server, the manager, or written on your credit card slip, means nothing if you are going to tip poorly. If I could pay for everything with compliments, I would not need your money; however, compliments mean zilch at the end of my shift.

Finally, if anyone ever dares go out and give their server a tip less than 15%, you are screwing your server and quite possibly any other employee that helped your server, as bussers and bartenders are each “tipped out” at the end of the night by servers. The common rule is to give each of these employees about 3% of their sales, not their tips, but how much food they sold in dollars.

For all these reasons and more, I always tip at least 15% but usually I tip a full 20%. If my bill happens to be a small one or just a drink at a bar, I may even go 50%. Not only do I feel their pain as I watch them deal with troublesome tables, but I am also aware of how much work they are doing beyond my table. Pass it on, people, tip your server accordingly and you may find yourself a table servers fight for the more you go in, meaning the service (and perhaps free stuff!) will only get better and better.

The Pepsi Generation

Perhaps there is a bit too much of a Tyler Durden influence in this post, but today I bought a Pepsi. While there is nothing exciting about that in itself, what is interesting is that Pepsi recently changed their logo and darkened the blue color scheme on their bottles’ labels. The old red/blue yin and yang logo they had has been altered, so it is no longer symmetrical. Looking past my OCD on that, I went off on a tangent, one of those “I remember when…” moments thinking about the past Pepsi logos I had come to know (to see the complete evolution you can go here). Which beings me to my point: I loathe the idea of civilizations dating themselves by the products they used or the logos they covered ourselves in.

Is this really how we are going to define ourselves, or rather, let ourselves be defined? The answer to that question is fairly obvious; just look around. Huge brand names lining the rear of pants, going down the pants’ legs. Sorry ladies, I’m not intentionally staring at you, I was merely trying to perceive the meaning of the word “JUICY” sprawled across your ass. With millions of women obsessed with their weight, why do so many women willingly turn their rear into billboard space? When I design pants, I’ll be sure to place “Advertise Here!” or “This Space For Rent,” followed by some phone number etched upon the backside of all women’s jeans. I guess that’s why you never women in pantsuits with anything on them. Businesswomen don’t just give ad space out for free.

Logos are everywhere, it’s horrible. When it came time for me to actually venture into a store for a new sweatshirt, I had to visit 3 separate stores just to find one that didn’t have any brand name splattered across it. It doesn’t just stop there, though; some companies have capitalized on giving people money to tattoo their brand name or logo upon themselves. I hope, for the comedic joys of their grandchildren, those companies betray everything they stood for in the eyes of their customers before going completely bankrupt and demonized by history. Try explaining how cool it used to be now, Grandpa!

Companies should just fess up to what they are doing. Pepsi is just selling us a sugary waste of a beverage which most likely poisons our bodies while at the same time feeding us addictive caffeine to ensure we keep coming back for more. Let’s define our own generation.