Super Bowl 50 is set with Carolina and Denver preparing to do battle on February 7th. I could really care less although I suppose I will watch some of it.
The game would have been more interesting to me if Carolina went into it undefeated. Having a chance to watch an undefeated team win a championship was more enticing.
I suppose that since an "old man" is the quarterback of Denver that I will pull for Denver to win since I can empathize with being called, "old."
Here on the East Coast of the US we are still digging out from a top-ten blizzard from this past weekend. Most schools have been closed for two days even though the snow basically stopped falling 3 days ago.
I am not sure what lesson that teaches kids. We do what we can to open businesses and get to work. We do what we can to open up government offices so people can get to work and people can go get their free stuff, but we say educating our children is a top priority and we keep them home from school.
Efforts would have been much better served doing whatever we could to get kids to school and having them educated than they would have been opening up government offices where politicians can go about making stupid new laws.
My final four picks for The Bachelor are still in the hunt.
Can you see this post has no real point?
The new podcast is off to a blistering start with 14 listens to the first two episodes. Three of them are from hypnosis show fans outside of this country. Two are probably from Mike, who is on the show. That basically means that hardly any of my "friends" have decided to support this particular project from the beginning. That is sad for me.
I understand that there are certainly lots of options from which people can choose when deciding how to be entertained. Hundreds of TV shows, hundreds of radio shows and now toss in everything at one's fingertips online and its difficult to expect to have an immediate audience.
But I did think that there would have been a few more who would tune in to it.
So basically I do the podcasts and this blog for myself. They help chronicle my thoughts and provide reminders of what I was going through in life during the times I wrote or recorded anything. I suppose when I pass away they will be of more value but I certainly won't care then.
I am a political junkie and this year's Presidential campaign season has been very interesting. Its a critical one for sure no matter which side one takes.
Democrats want to continue whatever successes and progressions they think they have made and Republicans want to repair the damage they think has been done.
All politics are personal and local. Any decision that a government will make will affect some people positively and some people negatively. There is no avoiding that.
For my case, these past 7 years have been a disaster. Policies that were created directly influenced and damaged major parts of my life. So you can imagine that I want no part of what any of the three Democrats have to offer.
I understand that people are wired differently and that two people can see the exact same thing right in front of them and have two completely different opinions about what they see.
But I am having a real problem understanding how anyone could possibly support Hillary Clinton. Seriously...how bad must someone's wires be crossed to think she would be a good President? The FBI is about to recommend that she be indicted for crimes and people still don't care. Actual crimes...no big deal to her fans.
How could anyone with any sense support an avowed Socialist in Bernie Sanders? (Although I know the answer is piss poor education.) He is telling people to their faces that he is going to raise their taxes and not just on rich people; a middle-class tax raise would happen under him. People still "feel the Bern." People are calling him an "outsider" when he has been in the Senate and the House for decades. Its complete idiocracy.
O'Malley? What a phony stooge this clown is.
On the other side we have Donald Trump who is still leading the polls. Here I can understand why people are gravitating to him even though he is as awkward as can be. I am not sure that he is my guy but, let's face it, anyone who is running against any of those other three is getting my vote.
Here is a guy with his own money. I have heard more complaints over the years about how politicians have been bought and sold. Trump even says he has done the buying. He doesn't need lobbyists money so he isn't beholden to anyone.
Now, I'm not naive. He would certainly benefit from policies that could be implemented in an administration of his. Every single President would, for that matter, if they so chose.
But I don't get the feeling he could be bought. I hear a lot of people saying the same thing.
He talks about winning and making America number one again. Who could be against that? Oh, Democrats apparently. Cries of jingoism fall upon my deaf ears when I hear that term bandied about. I WANT TO LIVE IN THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. Why would anyone want to live in a place that isn't? Why would anyone want their children to live in any place other than the absolute best?
Trump is in real estate. He has a vested interest in having America be, or stay, number one. It increases his value. I don't see anyone else with that type of interest.
I like Marco Rubio and I know the Democrats are afraid of him. But I fear his lack of personal wealth, to be honest. People are certainly allowed to change their minds over the course of their life times but his recent change when it came to immigration is pretty scary. Did he make that decision because he got a lot of phone calls from constituents or from potential big-money donors?
Trump isn't politically correct. GOOD. Many people appreciate that too. He made a mistake by talking about keeping ALL muslims out of the country. It might have been better to mention some specific countries, but everyone can make a mistake even if its major.
One simply also has to read his book, "The Art of the Deal" to understand him better also. His approach to what he is doing now is right in the book. I'm not going to lay it out here; read it for yourself. His campaign and his approach should not be of any surprise. People also believe he will be able to negotiate better deals on their behalves.
Trump has had success in business. Most people want to know that a leader can succeed. Who wants a leader without a proven track record of success?
Oops...apparently 50 million or so in each of the past two Presidential elections.
Anyway, I can see why Trump is leading. He stands up, speaks his mind, and tells people he wants to make us number one. Its pretty basic.
I recently heard he wants to repeal the ACA and essentially replace it with universal government coverage. People still don't seem to care because they believe he will be able to generate more revenues for the country which would then be able to afford such a program.
I think that is a dis-qualifier, myself, but I might not be able to fight the power on that one.
Ted Cruz is the smartest guy in any room into which he walks. I would love to see him debate any candidate from the other side. It would be a slaughter. The establishment Republicans can't stand him though because he stands up to them (which is good in my view) and the Democrats hate him because he is religious so I think he is going to have a hard time. But never count out someone this smart. His ground game is strong and so is his message.
I still love Chris Christie. He is Governor across the state line from me and I know the difficulties he has had trying to navigate his way through a heavy Liberal state. But every time he speaks he grabs me. He is not politically correct either, and I like that. I believe he is willing to take on nearly impossible subjects to speak about in a way that is sensible and non-offensive while taking a clear leadership position while doing so. His thoughts about Social Security and pension reforms need to be heard by more people because he is dead on target.
I don't really see anyone else on the R side making big strides. I think Dr. Carson will make an amazing Surgeon General or a great VP candidate. Carly Fiorina would make a great first female President instead of the one who thinks she is entitled to be the first. She would be an excellent choice for VP also.
Rick Santorum is a stand-up guy. He continues to have his religion be his downfall and I just don't understand that. But that seems to be why.
Etc., etc.
Perhaps the only one on the R side I DON'T want to see get the nomination is Jeb Bush. I would have voted for him over his brother in the past. I think he is a competent leader but this country should NEVER have one family have so much power. A Clinton versus Bush Presidential election would make for a very difficult vote for me because I don't want either of them. If that is the case I truly think this country will be in need for a true revolution...a hard revolution and not a cold one or a socialist one. Because that would, to me, prove that the system is rigged. I never wanted to ever believe that to be the case but if those two people, out the 360 million people in this country (maybe 80 million capable of running) just happened to be the final two, I will know it to be rigged.
This coming Monday is the first test when the Iowa caucuses are held. I truly don't understand why Iowa and/or New Hampshire hold so much weight. The sampling is far too small and with so many people running this cannot be something which should keep somebody in or out. But, I guess, with those who need heavy duty political donations which become more available once actual votes start to get taken, the answer lies somewhere there.
Anyway, that is my rant for this day. I will record more and post up a new podcast this week. Unfortunately it will probably just me on it since I have had the flu and don't want to give to Mike. He couldn't even park here anyway with the snow. Hopefully he will record something on his end, though, and post it up himself.
Done.
Thoughts about life- what's hot and just about anything else...like hypnosis, the Olympics, major league baseball, gas prices and other stuff.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Cream Always Rises
The NFL has pretty much become an incredible joke to me any more but, despite that, the fact that Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are in the Conference Championships proves that the cream does indeed rise to the top.
This league is unwatchable to me. My main problem with it is that there seems to be far too many rule changes each year. This means that there is a fundamental problem with the game now which make it horrible to watch.
I truly also believe that we are going to find out that there are much deeper levels of cheating going on in the NFL than we might think. I suppose some people suspect some truly despicable undertakings with some organized crime involvement, like I do, and it would not surprise me one bit if we hear about it in the years to come.
After all, we just found out that pro Tennis has been compromised in that way. Players have allegedly been paid to throw matches. I haven't heard who has been caught doing this yet but apparently that is going to be revealed soon too.
But with football, I find it hard to believe that a team, oh let's say like the NY Giants, could lose three games early in the year that were so locked down it was almost as if the only way they could lose would be to keep 8 dudes off of the field while on defense instead of the standard 11.
Here is a clue to me that something is wrong. Whenever a defense plays a "prevent defense," I now assume that the defensive coordinator is "on the take." Because the only thing a prevent defense prevents is the team employing it from winning a game. Someone has to actually make that defensive call. I now suspect that any defensive coordinator who puts in any alignment that is "preventive" in nature is getting paid by a mobster somewhere.
Back to rules...a catch is not a catch any more. Now, I hate the Cowboys as much as the average hater of football teams. But I seriously gave up taking the NFL seriously last year in a season-ending game where one of their dudes had a catch that would have given them a chance to score a winning touchdown late in the game. No sense providing any more details about that particular play, just let it suffice to say that when someone catches a ball within the confines of the playing field and it is ruled "not a catch," because of some asinine new rule then either the rule is defective or someone flat out cheated making the ruling.
There are no other reasons.
Yet, despite all of that, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are playing in yet another Championship game, which is one win shy of playing in another Super Bowl for either of the winners.
This means, if people haven't figured it out yet, that in those two players we have been able to watch two of the best quarterbacks in the history of the game.
Now, one would think that more people would be honored to have been football fans and to have been able to witness these historic players, but...NOOOOOOOOOOO....people bitch and moan about seeing them play because they "win too much," or think someone else should "have a chance."
Why? I guess because people hate people who succeed. Its a recurring theme in this country over the past decade or so.
Ultimately that last sentence will launch a new post on this subject of people hating successful people and why they do.
There could be a whole other dissertation about why people succeed and why people fail. But let me just end this with one very crucial headline I read today...
This league is unwatchable to me. My main problem with it is that there seems to be far too many rule changes each year. This means that there is a fundamental problem with the game now which make it horrible to watch.
I truly also believe that we are going to find out that there are much deeper levels of cheating going on in the NFL than we might think. I suppose some people suspect some truly despicable undertakings with some organized crime involvement, like I do, and it would not surprise me one bit if we hear about it in the years to come.
After all, we just found out that pro Tennis has been compromised in that way. Players have allegedly been paid to throw matches. I haven't heard who has been caught doing this yet but apparently that is going to be revealed soon too.
But with football, I find it hard to believe that a team, oh let's say like the NY Giants, could lose three games early in the year that were so locked down it was almost as if the only way they could lose would be to keep 8 dudes off of the field while on defense instead of the standard 11.
Here is a clue to me that something is wrong. Whenever a defense plays a "prevent defense," I now assume that the defensive coordinator is "on the take." Because the only thing a prevent defense prevents is the team employing it from winning a game. Someone has to actually make that defensive call. I now suspect that any defensive coordinator who puts in any alignment that is "preventive" in nature is getting paid by a mobster somewhere.
Back to rules...a catch is not a catch any more. Now, I hate the Cowboys as much as the average hater of football teams. But I seriously gave up taking the NFL seriously last year in a season-ending game where one of their dudes had a catch that would have given them a chance to score a winning touchdown late in the game. No sense providing any more details about that particular play, just let it suffice to say that when someone catches a ball within the confines of the playing field and it is ruled "not a catch," because of some asinine new rule then either the rule is defective or someone flat out cheated making the ruling.
There are no other reasons.
Yet, despite all of that, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are playing in yet another Championship game, which is one win shy of playing in another Super Bowl for either of the winners.
This means, if people haven't figured it out yet, that in those two players we have been able to watch two of the best quarterbacks in the history of the game.
Now, one would think that more people would be honored to have been football fans and to have been able to witness these historic players, but...NOOOOOOOOOOO....people bitch and moan about seeing them play because they "win too much," or think someone else should "have a chance."
Why? I guess because people hate people who succeed. Its a recurring theme in this country over the past decade or so.
Ultimately that last sentence will launch a new post on this subject of people hating successful people and why they do.
There could be a whole other dissertation about why people succeed and why people fail. But let me just end this with one very crucial headline I read today...
Libraries across Western Pa. offer coloring classes for adults
What? Coloring classes for adults? How about libraries offer READING classes for adults since they have BOOKS in there that people need to READ, not color.
I have a theory as to why this is happening. Libraries are full of very liberal employees who have an agenda that is specifically designed to dumb down Americans so much that they have NO choice but to be further dependent upon a large, centralized government. You know, one which is essentially communist. Because if people read more about why this country was formed and what made it great, no one with any sense would allow our government to get as large and intrusive as it has become.
Don't think that to be the case? Well, although this is anecdotal evidence for sure, last year I had to visit a half dozen libraries in order to attempt to make some business arrangements. At EVERY one of those six libraries there were Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) forms and information at the front desk. Doesn't get much more activist than that since not a single person who isn't a leftist voted for that piece of shit legislation. So...in other words...we have people working in libraries who are, as Stalin would call them, useful idiots for leftist causes. They will then do whatever it takes to make sure that their numbers grow and keeping people as stupid as possible....like offering coloring classes...would certainly be a great way to do it.
I have a theory as to why this is happening. Libraries are full of very liberal employees who have an agenda that is specifically designed to dumb down Americans so much that they have NO choice but to be further dependent upon a large, centralized government. You know, one which is essentially communist. Because if people read more about why this country was formed and what made it great, no one with any sense would allow our government to get as large and intrusive as it has become.
Don't think that to be the case? Well, although this is anecdotal evidence for sure, last year I had to visit a half dozen libraries in order to attempt to make some business arrangements. At EVERY one of those six libraries there were Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) forms and information at the front desk. Doesn't get much more activist than that since not a single person who isn't a leftist voted for that piece of shit legislation. So...in other words...we have people working in libraries who are, as Stalin would call them, useful idiots for leftist causes. They will then do whatever it takes to make sure that their numbers grow and keeping people as stupid as possible....like offering coloring classes...would certainly be a great way to do it.
Ultimately, though, I have a little bit of faith that more and more people will wake up to this blatant attempt to undermine the greatest country in the history of the world. I have to have that faith to keep sane in an increasingly insane, Twilight Zone-like era, for sure. I have to believe that the cream of our general citizenry will also rise to the top and crush these efforts to fundamentally alter our country and its customs and culture.
I have to have that faith because there is nowhere left to go and I don't want soccer to suddenly appear more watchable and believable than football.
I have to have that faith because there is nowhere left to go and I don't want soccer to suddenly appear more watchable and believable than football.
Done
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
2016 Hall of Fame
Ken Griffey Jr. and Mike Piazza were elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame last week.
Griffey set a new record for percentage of baseball writers who placed him on their ballots.
Piazza was a guy who had rumors circulate around him about the possibly use of PED's. He never tested positive for any during his career and as the catcher who set a record for career homeruns from that position also deserved this inclusion.
Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, two of the most dominant players of their era received about 50% of the votes. Neither of them ever tested positive for drug use during their careers.
So how will baseball ultimately deal with those two? Now there are only ten years a player can be on a ballot instead of 15. A few years have now passed.
Some of the baseball writers I have heard speak their minds who have a vote in the Hall of Fame balloting offer many opinions with which I don't agree. That is all part of the fun when it comes to debating someone's worthiness or not.
There is a process with which I don't agree at all though, and its the Veterans' Committee and the recently formed Expansion Era Committee (I think that's the name of it.) Both of these committees, and any like them, give writers a chance to put in players who didn't make it when they were first eligible. I believe this cheapens the HoF even if there hasn't been an overwhelming number of players who were elected this way.
Of recent note was Joe Gordon. Seriously? Hall of Fame? He never received more than 27% of the votes when he was eligible. He was the 1942 AL MVP but just a career .268 hitter who played for 11 years on a Yankee team for 7 years that was stacked and hit over .300 just once.
There are plenty of other examples as well. I am just of the opinion that the HoF is for the elite and not the almost elite, or 1/4 quarter elite for sure. I understand that there is a financial downside for MLB and the HoF for having years where no one is elected. But that, I believe, makes it even more special and therefore more valuable all around for both entities.
Griffey's new record of 99.3% of votes eclipsed Tom Seaver's old record. A lot was made of that but let's face a couple of facts. While Griffey deserved to be a first-ballot Hall of Famer, Clemens and Bonds were eligible also and there were clearly protest votes.
Babe Ruth only received 95% of the writers votes, it should be noted. Was their bias from the writers? Was that because there were far many more players on the ballot? I mean, if anyone should have been on 100% of the ballots, it should have been Babe Ruth.
I have heard some people say that anyone who didn't put Griffey on their ballots should have their voting rights removed. I wonder if the same was said after the Ruth vote, or even last year when Randy Johnson didn't 100% of the votes.
A few writers made some strategic votes knowing that some players, such as Tim Raines, were coming close to being kept out of the HoF. I suppose that could be a valid reason; I am not in anyone else's shoes, but ten names is a lot and when someone looks at the list of contenders and thinks, "Is this one of the greatest players of all time?" and then decides that ten of them are, I have a bit of a problem with that.
By the way, each writer could name as many as ten players on their ballots. Not all chose to place ten names on it. Peter Gammons is a writer who I used to admire but have figured out that he just simply has great access so he gets scoops on stories. He believes that more people should be elected into the HoF.
No.
My votes would have been for Griffey, Piazza, Clemens and Bonds. Let's say that the latter two all did conclusively use PED's. Those two were far better than anyone else who used them so one could possibly conclude that they would have still had great numbers worthy of HoF consideration. Their numbers were great before the PED era was at its height.
Next years ballot contains all of those who are still eligible after this year's vote plus big-name players Ivan Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez and Vladimir Guerrero. Normally all three of those would be first-ballot Hall of Famers. Ramirez had PED problems at the end of his career though. Rodriguez and Jose Canseco were teammates and Canseco named him in his book. Guerrero is probably the only one for whom I would vote...oh man...I just don't know.
It's very confusing. Say Clemens struck out Bonds or Bonds hit a homerun against Clemens. Does either count in the minds of those who watched it happen or read about it because they were both using PED's? Or does it make either feat even more remarkable and thus worthy of HoF consideration?
Each era of baseball had its best players who stood out over everyone else. In these eras rules were different, conditions were different, and training conditions were different. There was a time when it was legal to spit on the ball for example. There was a time when certain substances could be taken which were not illegal then, but were later banned.
How the heck do you sort all of that out? If a pitcher in the spit-ball era and didn't want to spit on the ball and he didn't rack up big stats, did he get cheated from fame? If someone didn't ingest "supplements" when many others were taking them, did he get cheated from fame?
Looking ahead a few more years we can start to talk about Alex Rodriguez. His big problem has been all of the lying. But...wait...haven't they pretty much ALL lied?
Is lying a reason to keep someone out?
Then there is Pete Rose...
Griffey set a new record for percentage of baseball writers who placed him on their ballots.
Piazza was a guy who had rumors circulate around him about the possibly use of PED's. He never tested positive for any during his career and as the catcher who set a record for career homeruns from that position also deserved this inclusion.
Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, two of the most dominant players of their era received about 50% of the votes. Neither of them ever tested positive for drug use during their careers.
So how will baseball ultimately deal with those two? Now there are only ten years a player can be on a ballot instead of 15. A few years have now passed.
Some of the baseball writers I have heard speak their minds who have a vote in the Hall of Fame balloting offer many opinions with which I don't agree. That is all part of the fun when it comes to debating someone's worthiness or not.
There is a process with which I don't agree at all though, and its the Veterans' Committee and the recently formed Expansion Era Committee (I think that's the name of it.) Both of these committees, and any like them, give writers a chance to put in players who didn't make it when they were first eligible. I believe this cheapens the HoF even if there hasn't been an overwhelming number of players who were elected this way.
Of recent note was Joe Gordon. Seriously? Hall of Fame? He never received more than 27% of the votes when he was eligible. He was the 1942 AL MVP but just a career .268 hitter who played for 11 years on a Yankee team for 7 years that was stacked and hit over .300 just once.
There are plenty of other examples as well. I am just of the opinion that the HoF is for the elite and not the almost elite, or 1/4 quarter elite for sure. I understand that there is a financial downside for MLB and the HoF for having years where no one is elected. But that, I believe, makes it even more special and therefore more valuable all around for both entities.
Griffey's new record of 99.3% of votes eclipsed Tom Seaver's old record. A lot was made of that but let's face a couple of facts. While Griffey deserved to be a first-ballot Hall of Famer, Clemens and Bonds were eligible also and there were clearly protest votes.
Babe Ruth only received 95% of the writers votes, it should be noted. Was their bias from the writers? Was that because there were far many more players on the ballot? I mean, if anyone should have been on 100% of the ballots, it should have been Babe Ruth.
I have heard some people say that anyone who didn't put Griffey on their ballots should have their voting rights removed. I wonder if the same was said after the Ruth vote, or even last year when Randy Johnson didn't 100% of the votes.
A few writers made some strategic votes knowing that some players, such as Tim Raines, were coming close to being kept out of the HoF. I suppose that could be a valid reason; I am not in anyone else's shoes, but ten names is a lot and when someone looks at the list of contenders and thinks, "Is this one of the greatest players of all time?" and then decides that ten of them are, I have a bit of a problem with that.
By the way, each writer could name as many as ten players on their ballots. Not all chose to place ten names on it. Peter Gammons is a writer who I used to admire but have figured out that he just simply has great access so he gets scoops on stories. He believes that more people should be elected into the HoF.
No.
My votes would have been for Griffey, Piazza, Clemens and Bonds. Let's say that the latter two all did conclusively use PED's. Those two were far better than anyone else who used them so one could possibly conclude that they would have still had great numbers worthy of HoF consideration. Their numbers were great before the PED era was at its height.
Next years ballot contains all of those who are still eligible after this year's vote plus big-name players Ivan Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez and Vladimir Guerrero. Normally all three of those would be first-ballot Hall of Famers. Ramirez had PED problems at the end of his career though. Rodriguez and Jose Canseco were teammates and Canseco named him in his book. Guerrero is probably the only one for whom I would vote...oh man...I just don't know.
It's very confusing. Say Clemens struck out Bonds or Bonds hit a homerun against Clemens. Does either count in the minds of those who watched it happen or read about it because they were both using PED's? Or does it make either feat even more remarkable and thus worthy of HoF consideration?
Each era of baseball had its best players who stood out over everyone else. In these eras rules were different, conditions were different, and training conditions were different. There was a time when it was legal to spit on the ball for example. There was a time when certain substances could be taken which were not illegal then, but were later banned.
How the heck do you sort all of that out? If a pitcher in the spit-ball era and didn't want to spit on the ball and he didn't rack up big stats, did he get cheated from fame? If someone didn't ingest "supplements" when many others were taking them, did he get cheated from fame?
Looking ahead a few more years we can start to talk about Alex Rodriguez. His big problem has been all of the lying. But...wait...haven't they pretty much ALL lied?
Is lying a reason to keep someone out?
Then there is Pete Rose...
Friday, January 8, 2016
WoW
Soon our new podcast, WoW with Marsh and Mike, will begin production so now this blog will correspond with what my friend, Mike Peco, and I will talk about on it as well as some extraneous nonsense and triviality.
Mike is a real smart guy and a deep thinker, at times, who shares my basic sense of humor as well. We have worked together for a few years now and have been talking about a mainstream sort of podcast for quite some time.
The main reason for starting this particular podcast, which stands a slim chance of being heard by too many people, is that I have felt a recent obligation to speak my mind and stop keeping my mouth shut about a variety of issues.
Most importantly, as someone who has 54 years of life experience I believe it is a duty of mine to share the lessons from those experiences with those willing to listen and perhaps learn something that might be of value.
I say that with as much humility as possible because I had to learn many of these lessons in life in a very harsh way because I have been as stupid as about anyone can be over the course of my life. I also know how stubborn I was when I was younger and that lessons that were passed on to me went right over my head most of the time and I will encounter the same resistance, for sure.
So this particular podcast will be a little lighter in tone with that knowledge. That is, perhaps, a better way to present what there is to offer. Few liked to be flogged into submission, that's for sure.
Those who end up listening will find out why I believe the concept of the movie The Matrix is far more profound and enlightening than most can ever figure. I'll lay out more of those thoughts on the show.
Something else I experienced a few years ago has stuck with me and is also a reason why I believe this is important for me to do. There was a mid-week evening where I was hosting a group hypnotherapy session for those interested in quitting smoking or losing weight. At the very same time a friend of mine was at a winery across the state border in NJ. At my event there were two people trying to help themselves and at the winery there were hundreds of people and even women pushing babies around strollers.
Two people made a choice to get help that night and hundreds decided to push everything off until at least the next day. I won't even suggest that anyone had any alcohol issues (except for friend which was just a fact) but would anyone think that of those hundreds of people some would have been better served in their lives by doing something to overcome some sort of problem they were having instead of temporarily dulling the thought of the concern?
As someone who has gone through a process of recovery over the past 22 years I have some knowledge and experience with all of that. As a hypnotherapist who helps people on a daily basis overcome all sorts of other issues from smoking cessation, weight loss, stress reduction, performance anxiety, etc., I have some knowledge into the workings of the mind that can be of benefit.
But these ideas aren't solely what we will discuss on this podcast. We will dive into pop culture, entertainment, sports, politics, religion and just everyday life.
How frequently we will tape is yet to be seen. I have more time on my hands so there is a good chance that I will tape by myself often. I cordially invite anyone to come join us, sit around our microphone table and get involved in the conversation also.
Not every episode will feature things that will be of interest to everyone. Topics will be noted on the episode summary so that people can decide whether to listen or not. We only do that so that people don't believe they have wasted their time listening to something about which they don't have any interest. That's perhaps not a wise business decision but that's the way it will be for this project.
For example, those who know me know that I believe the greatest comedy show on TV is The Bachelor and I have gone into the reasons why here in the past.
I happen to have a very odd ability to figure who will be in the final four out of the 28-30 women who begin the quest to "find love" with the bachelor of the season.
I have done this for four years now and have successfully chose 15 of the 16 final four contestants with 3 winners. The other winner I chose one year finished second.
I do this after watching the first episode. This year I did it before the first rose ceremony before the end of the first show.
The final four are Caila, JoJo, Becca and Lauren B., the flight attendant, will be the winner.
I am ending this here, even with lots more to say because I have just received some bad news and have to deal with what has happened.
Done
Mike is a real smart guy and a deep thinker, at times, who shares my basic sense of humor as well. We have worked together for a few years now and have been talking about a mainstream sort of podcast for quite some time.
The main reason for starting this particular podcast, which stands a slim chance of being heard by too many people, is that I have felt a recent obligation to speak my mind and stop keeping my mouth shut about a variety of issues.
Most importantly, as someone who has 54 years of life experience I believe it is a duty of mine to share the lessons from those experiences with those willing to listen and perhaps learn something that might be of value.
I say that with as much humility as possible because I had to learn many of these lessons in life in a very harsh way because I have been as stupid as about anyone can be over the course of my life. I also know how stubborn I was when I was younger and that lessons that were passed on to me went right over my head most of the time and I will encounter the same resistance, for sure.
So this particular podcast will be a little lighter in tone with that knowledge. That is, perhaps, a better way to present what there is to offer. Few liked to be flogged into submission, that's for sure.
Those who end up listening will find out why I believe the concept of the movie The Matrix is far more profound and enlightening than most can ever figure. I'll lay out more of those thoughts on the show.
Something else I experienced a few years ago has stuck with me and is also a reason why I believe this is important for me to do. There was a mid-week evening where I was hosting a group hypnotherapy session for those interested in quitting smoking or losing weight. At the very same time a friend of mine was at a winery across the state border in NJ. At my event there were two people trying to help themselves and at the winery there were hundreds of people and even women pushing babies around strollers.
Two people made a choice to get help that night and hundreds decided to push everything off until at least the next day. I won't even suggest that anyone had any alcohol issues (except for friend which was just a fact) but would anyone think that of those hundreds of people some would have been better served in their lives by doing something to overcome some sort of problem they were having instead of temporarily dulling the thought of the concern?
As someone who has gone through a process of recovery over the past 22 years I have some knowledge and experience with all of that. As a hypnotherapist who helps people on a daily basis overcome all sorts of other issues from smoking cessation, weight loss, stress reduction, performance anxiety, etc., I have some knowledge into the workings of the mind that can be of benefit.
But these ideas aren't solely what we will discuss on this podcast. We will dive into pop culture, entertainment, sports, politics, religion and just everyday life.
How frequently we will tape is yet to be seen. I have more time on my hands so there is a good chance that I will tape by myself often. I cordially invite anyone to come join us, sit around our microphone table and get involved in the conversation also.
Not every episode will feature things that will be of interest to everyone. Topics will be noted on the episode summary so that people can decide whether to listen or not. We only do that so that people don't believe they have wasted their time listening to something about which they don't have any interest. That's perhaps not a wise business decision but that's the way it will be for this project.
For example, those who know me know that I believe the greatest comedy show on TV is The Bachelor and I have gone into the reasons why here in the past.
I happen to have a very odd ability to figure who will be in the final four out of the 28-30 women who begin the quest to "find love" with the bachelor of the season.
I have done this for four years now and have successfully chose 15 of the 16 final four contestants with 3 winners. The other winner I chose one year finished second.
I do this after watching the first episode. This year I did it before the first rose ceremony before the end of the first show.
The final four are Caila, JoJo, Becca and Lauren B., the flight attendant, will be the winner.
I am ending this here, even with lots more to say because I have just received some bad news and have to deal with what has happened.
Done
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)