Shoot

Starbucks is politely asking civilians to stop bringing guns into its franchises. And is getting static for it. 

In the United States of America in 2013.

Think about that.

Talk about a non-starter

I love cars. I enjoy driving my car and I like looking at classic vehicles at car shows. Want to keep me occupied? I'll comb through car pictures all day long. I even Google dashboards. I may not be able to carry on a conversation about specific engine modifications, but I know more than the average, automotively apathetic person.

But not everything about cars is awesome. They're costly in both dollars and energy. Most burn combustible, polluting, finite liquids that stoke wars all over the world. Many, especially older ones, aren't particularly economical or safe. While my car gets gas mileage north of 30 and is small, it also merits a 2 out of 10 on the smog scale (10 being the best) and it has mediocre side-impact ratings. I feel an inkling of guilt anytime I drive alone somewhere that I could conceivably reach some other way.

Here's the thing, though: I'm not proud of those shortcomings. But apparently some people are.

Here is a phenomenal vehicle photo gallery absolutely marred by each and every word. It appears on a conservative "humor" blog, so I guess it isn't surprising that each contributor has turned up the defiance dial to 10. The point is for these auto aficionados to express how they celebrate Earth Day by burning as much gasoline as possible, "a middle finger to Mother Gaia," as the blog puts it.

Now, I understand that not everyone believes that humans can affect the planet's climate. I happen to side with the scientists on this one, but not everyone does. It's hard to worry about global warming without feeling compelled to make changes in life, and that's too much for some people, so they don't worry about it. I'd guess that's at the core of almost everyone who doesn't "believe" in climate change, whether or not most admit it. Those with some semblance of a conscience, at best, carry on as usual. Quietly.

But some choose to brag about their fuel consumption, even making their vehicles dirtier. As much for spite as for performance. I'm all about live-and-let-live, but this is obnoxious. And these people vote, which makes it ever-harder to address the biggest overarching issue of our times.

Worst of all, they make me hate that I like cars. OK, that's not the worst. But that's still saying something.

Branding itself needs rebranding

Microsoft's Bing search engine has a new logo. It's not an improvement.

It's not bad, necessarily — it has a stylized symbol, at least — but to me it lacks the distinctive, playful vibe of the original. The top logo goes with Bing's trademark sound, "BING!" By contrast, the new one looks ... I don't know. Like every other blanded-up, generic-font logo revision that seems to be the rage these days.

So why did Microsoft fix what wasn't broken? Oh, this is golden:

Erickson notes that the logo takes inspiration from the bottom right of the Microsoft flag "echoing its role as a platform of information for the company." He notes that the small angular cut on the top of the ‘b’ mirrors the angle on the cut of the ‘t’ in the Microsoft logo as well.

"We’ve even aligned our kerning [the space between letters] on the ‘i’ and ‘n’ to match the kerning on the Windows logo," he notes. "The descender on the ‘g’ was modified from the original Segoe font to curve upward ever so slightly which led to a more welcome and open feel. These details together with working with designers and engineers across Microsoft led to the collective brand architecture to create a new look that’s simple, streamlined and beautiful."

I once read a magazine article by a former bodybuilder and steroid abuser. He said that when he first got into the pursuit, he didn't understand why everyone looked like a mutated freak — but once he spent enough time in the weight room, being swollen suddenly seemed logical. Intricate aspects of the craft that he'd never considered as a normal human being suddenly became mega-important in the drive to impress others in his niche. Branding is apparently a lot like weightlifting.

I've sat in many a meeting and press conference where branders have gone off in mind-numbing detail about what each tiny change to a design signifies. Because of course every curve and serif has to have some deep meaning that makes The Da Vinci Code look like Green Eggs and Ham. Somehow, those meanings are always news to me. Maybe I'm just not the target audience ever.

Not that I don't understand branding — after all, I've run a highly successful blog for the past nine years. As it often goes with megacorporations, I've changed my logo on numerous occasions. I've gone with handwriting to give an irreverent and ironic feel; studly Impact font against a blue brick wall to imply masculinity and an ever-unfinished job; baby pictures to depict my personal evolution (or lack thereof); a cross-promotion partnership with the year 2010; a banner that shows off my photography skills, growing recognition of my brand and the lushness of my then-backyard; and, of course, default text to offer promise of branding developments to come. In the early days, there were anniversary and gag banners too, for special occasions. My current banner, established circa 2011, brings the blog into the future with its mix of maturity and refined irreverence.

Of course, a lot of times, these changes haven't been for the better. Mostly I was bored and/or wanted to try something new that misfired. Sometimes the successes went away because I wanted change for its own sake, while bum banners stayed up for years at my insistence that readers warm up to them.

Does this all sound like ridiculous self-indulgence? Exactly.

There's only one reason a company should ever change its logo — because it created something that looks better. If all the micro-tweaks add up to an inferior sum, what's the point?

Was I right about this one?

While digging for links for my last, somber post, I found this New Rule from April 6, 2009:

Rule #89: Short and succinct 

The more you Twitter, the less interesting you are.

Somebody apparently thought he'd never use Twitter.

Thoughts about the Navy Yard shooting

Crazy gun culture. Nation of too many people with nothing to lose. Innocent people dead. Some arguing for more guns. Nutjobs crying, "false flag." Never the wrong time to talk about guns. And stuff. Yeah. Blah blah blah.

It's occurred to me that every time there's been a mass shooting in recent years, I write almost the exact same blog (occasionally shaking it up slightly). Because the thoughts rarely change, and neither does history, apparently.

Well, there is one new thing to say. My sister was one mile away from this one. 

I wish I didn't have to say that. I wish no one ever did.

How to be happy in life. By me.

Everything about this article is terrible.

OK, maybe not the buried kernel of truth that someone should have reasonable expectations in life and should do everything in their power to make things happen. But everything else is terrible.

It's terrible to deride as "flowers" and "unicorns" what most people call "a decent, minimum standard of living."

It's terrible to encourage Millennials to lower their expectations, when not only have most done that already, they were pretty much born into that mindset anyway.

It's terrible to reduce happiness to a static equation.

To say nothing of the acronym the writer employs, which is a racial slur to millions of people.

As someone who has two liberal arts degrees and has often struggled professionally, I'm more than used to smug comments about how I should have chosen a more lucrative field, and unsolicited advice about how I can become more like what they envision a successful person to be. In their minds, people who aren't like them are unmotivated and deserve to suffer until such time they decide to be motivated.

The thing is, I've never wanted to be like anybody who thinks like this. I don't begrudge them or their success, but I like being me. I don't buy the idea that life is all about wealth and status, or that hard work and riches are always directly correlated. 

Let's talk about motivation. A mother with a GED working two full-time jobs to feed her children is highly motivated. I'm motivated to excel in everything I do — my writing, my career, my friendships, my self-improvement — regardless of the financial reward involved. The people pushing the cruelest absolutes about success are motivated by a fat pocketbook and ego. Most people are brimming with motivation in some form. 

The question is, are we as a nation ensuring that such motivation is properly channeled? Are we making sure that anyone who wants to work can work, and that such work will pay off? Are we taking these, well, revised life expectations and aiming to meet or exceed them? If not, why not?

Many who push the it's-all-hard-work view actually don't want it to work for everyone, because that would cut into their pie, as well as dampen their sense that life is a competition that they're winning. Also, it's tough for them to contemplate the reality that hard work works for some, it doesn't for others and that some inherit success through pedigree and family fortunes.

All of this is why I believe that people should always aim high, pursue their passions and — regardless of circumstance — live their lives as best as they can. Money is important, but it's only one thing. You are so much more than what you do to pay the bills (though if you luck into something you love, that's great too). You are a human being. You deserve credit and decency, and shouldn't have to wait until you're 65 to enjoy life. Who knows if you'll make it there? So live a well-rounded life now, never stop fighting for your dignity and forget what the hyper-judgmental capitalists think.

Ultimately, they may just be jealous.

When art meets police

Yesterday in Lafayette, Louisiana, downtown dwellers woke up to see the 9/11 Memorial at Parc Sans Souci defaced:

From KATC TV-3

I'm divided on street art. For the most part, I'm for it, in terms of free speech and its hand in improving urban blight. But I also hate vandalism.

Can this really be considered vandalism, though? Tasteless, yes. Conspiratorial blather, absolutely. But these were cutouts that were easily removed. I'm not sure that was worth an arrest. That could set a worrisome precedent. I don't know what the law says about that.

This issue ties into a discussion I'm currently involved in on Facebook about certain people getting arrested over ideological statements. My stance (echoed by others) is that the arrests are justified when a violation of public safety or peace occurs. Terry Jones didn't get arrested because of his views; it was because he was hauling piles of kerosene-drenched paper on public highways. Likewise, I imagine Salvador Perez was detained for defacing public property rather than for harboring crackpot beliefs. We can debate all we want about whether what he did counts as vandalism — but in any case, his arrest report won't say, "brought in on one count of expression."

Now that would be something to protest.