Jersey Shore

I finally watched an episode of Jersey Shore the other day. Sure I had claimed to have seen it before but I’d never actually watched an episode of it. Youtube clips and a few snippets of the show here and there are one thing – and they’re admittedly very funny, but having to watch the show in its entirety is kind of like having to hang out with real guidos at a real guido place at the shore in NJ. Now, I have nothing against Italians, or even Italian-Americans, but I’m extremely biased against people that only concern themselves with their appearance, hitting on members of the opposite sex, fighting, and their unbelievable beer bong streak from last night.

But it’s more complex than that, I do enjoy guidos in small doses. They are fun to hang out next to because they often start fights which can be amusing to watch. I can usually tolerate guidos on an individual basis for a few hours but, in groups, they usually get old after 15 minutes or so. Call me elitist but I like talking about stuff this is going on or hearing people’s reactions to stuff. Hearing someone drone on about the really crazy fight they almost just got in or the really smoking hot girl they totally hooked up can only be recycled so many times before you realize the stories are all the same. (And guidos loathe self-deprecating humor so they wouldn’t tell you if anything actually interesting happened... like they got beat up for acting like an over-aggressive guido). So, as a result, I try to only associate with guidos on the most superficial levels. I think guido-land is a nice place to visit but I wouldn’t want to live there.

My early experiences at Belmar (the cultural epicenter of the post-college scene) were mainly confined to Bar A’s (A stands for ‘Anticipation’) outside areas – large sandy volleyball courts surrounded by multiple bars with room to move around. I avoided the jam packed dance rooms filled with guidos in wife beaters pumping their fists to whatever 10-15 techno dance remixes were hot that summer. But I think the karma gods noticed that I was making too many guido jokes without ever having really hung out in a guido place so they subjected me to DJais… on a Sunday afternoon… after Italy had just won the World Cup. A friend dragged me there and I figured I could stand a few hours of fake Italian nationalism but that place was miserable. Luckily the obscene volume of the techno music made normal conversation impossible so I wasn’t required to actually talk to anyone. The dance floor was a sea of fake boobs and fake muscles. (C’mon, if you are a guido who cares about your looks and you aren’t taking steroids, are you really trying?) Someone had on an “I Like Fighting” shirt - naturally in the colors of the Italian flag and naturally many sizes too small for them. (I did not just make that up.) The drink of choice was Redbull and vodka which seemed redundant as nearly everyone looked like they were on heavy doses of cocaine but guido logic (and cardiovascular health practices) don’t always make sense. Nevertheless, I survived this encounter and, from that day forward, no longer felt even a twinge of guilt at making guido jokes.

I write this not to poke fun at guidos (though that’s definitely a nice perk) but, rather, to educate the average person about the environment that is the Jersey Shore. Think of it kind of like the Serengeti… it’d be an interesting place to visit and a wonderful locale for a TV special but you definitely don’t want to live there. Oh yeah, and if you have sex, you’ll probably get AIDS.

Disaster in Japan

Well, they had it coming. Yup, the Japanese deserve it for plotting world domination. (I can say that, I’m probably a quarter Japanese. Oh yeah, that and the first rule of racism – if it’s about Asians, it’s not racist.) Don’t get me wrong, a world run by Japan wouldn’t be that bad. Everyone would put in a lot more effort at school and public transportation would run flawlessly. Our economy would be incredibly efficient, our society would be privately religious, and Shigeru Miyamoto would finally get Western credit for being the genius that he is. (Thank you, Mr. Miyamoto, for Mario, Donkey Kong, The Legend of Zelda, Star Fox, and Super Smash Bros.) No, really, under Japanese rule the diet of the world would improve and there would be a lot fewer poor people and drug addicts. Actually, sign me up for Japan taking over.

On a more serious note, was there any country better equipped in the world to deal with the triple whammy of disasters – earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown? The Japanese evacuation was polite and orderly… how many other countries would have experienced looting or rioting? Those who remained went about their business like a nuclear disaster wasn’t looming on their island. And come on, (besides setting back progress toward a nuclear powered future because people are complete idiots strung along by liberal politicians), isn’t this like the best thing that ever happened to the world? No country was better prepared to study natural disasters of this magnitude than Japan and the wealth of information about it will be invaluable for geological research. No major nuclear meltdown will be as well documented (if the Japanese don’t burn all evidence of the places they really screwed up) and it will become the definitive study on how to handle similar disasters going forward.

Listen, it seems like a lot of people are getting flack for jokes about the tsunami. Besides, obviously, the first rule of racism, you have to remember that “nuclear meltdown” is inherently funny. It’s even funnier because 99.99% of the time, when it’s used, it doesn’t actually refer to a nuclear meltdown. (How does that make it funnier? Don’t stop me while I’m rationalizing.) This combined with the fact that three natural disasters is very extreme leads to easy, but funny jokes like “It only took a tsunami, an earthquake, and a nuclear meltdown but the US auto industry is back!”. Clearly the use of the three natural disasters in that joke is funnier than, say, “a big government buyout”. It’s still distasteful to make these jokes though. But while we’re on the topic of governments bailing people out, what other country actively refuse help from other countries and downplay a nuclear crisis? The Japanese were like “We got this…”. (Unfortunately, they obviously didn’t have it… you can’t practice for a real nuclear disaster, no matter how hard you try.)

Ok, seriously, I don’t mean that stuff I said above about Japan. Hell, I’m not even Japanese. But I am 25% Okinawan and I know that the Japanese are the most racist people in the world. Ask the Koreans, or the Chinese, or the Okinawans, or the Ainu. So yeah, I guess they deserve it.

Canada

It really must be tough times up there in our Great Northern Neighbor – what with the massacre currently in progress in Vancouver. The Canadians haven’t beaten us in anything since 1812 (and they got A LOT of help from England in that one). No doubt they expected to use the home nation advantage to finally put Defence Scheme No. 1 into (metaphorical) action but it really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that we’re whooping international butt in the these Games. But here’s what I say to you, forlorn Canucks, it’s not that you’re losing; it’s that you’re looking at this whole thing the wrong way.

See, we obviously have the home advantage at these games because Canada is actually part of the United States – they just don’t want to admit it. Formal annexation would be simple as Canada is already neatly divided into states (which they apparently call “territories”). They already speak the same language as we do complete with a cute and easily identifiable regional dialect. Canadians also play roughly the same sports as Americans and multiple professional sporting leagues locate teams in both nations. (If French-Canada wants to either go independent or join France that would be fine by me – I don’t blame your Anglican Canadian if he doesn’t want to be associated with the French.)

As it is I’m sure most people abroad barely dissociate Canada with America and who do the Canadians really want to be associated with anyway? Canucks aren’t effeminate like the French and they aren’t arrogant like the Brits. Apparently both European nations influence Canadian culture but you’d never know it by doing anything other than visiting Quebec or listening to their national anthem. Canadian cuisine isn’t exquisite like the French’s or even crappy like the Brit’s… they don’t have “cuisine”… just like us. (You want to know about this great Canadian restaurant downtown? I didn’t think so.)

And then there’s the whole Mexico situation. You know Canadians can’t be happy about the fact that the US/Mexico border is virtually nonexistent (where it’s probably necessary) and they have to wait in a customs line just to see a Tigers game. Would it really be that bad to move all the resources spent defending our northern border down to the southern one? A lot more marijuana would probably be trafficked up north but at least when the Canadians deal pot they stop short of building armaments capable of terrorizing local governments. This leads to a major problem in American society today – we can’t get rid of the 2^nd Amendment but we can’t let Mexicans legally buy a lot of guns (because they love forming unusually large cartels). We could easily solve this by outlawing guns in Mexico, keeping them kind of legal in the US, and letting anyone and everyone own them in Canada.

Ok, but Mexico aside, American absorption of the country it shares the longest border in the world with would bring a number of positive attributes to the new and expanded US of A. We’d be a lot better at international basketball with Steve Nash at point guard and we’d be A LOT better at hockey. Our roster of native comedians (who are actually funny) would almost double when we added a number of hilarious comedians like: Dan Akroyd, John Candy, Michael Cera, Brendan Fraser, Tom Green, Phil Hartman, Norm Macdonald, Mike Myers, Matthew Perry, Van Wilder, Seth Rogen, Martin Short, and Keanu Reeves. I know you’re probably wondering how the CFL fits into all of this but I think it would make an excellent feeder league for the NFL (which means they could finally end NFL Europe – if it still even exists).

Canadians – look at it this way. This is going to happen eventually so why not get it over with and start on a new rich legacy of state history rather than clinging to your own forgettable Canadian past. Then you wouldn’t be all upset about this Olympic debacle and, rather, you’d be celebrating total and complete domination of these Winter Olymipcs (and we wouldn't be worrying about the Germans breathing down our necks.)

Clothes

I got a job as a consultant and my father asked me what it was like at the office. I described it plainly, “I sit in a cubicle like most other people. Some guys sit in offices and they wear ties.” My father, aware of my penchant to disregard appearance as unnecessary, replied, “If you wear a sharp pair of pressed pants, a nice shirt, and a great tie, people will notice you.” While I knew I could never live up to those expectations if I tried, I took simple comfort in the fact that the other day I had consciously not worn my new white sneakers in the rain in order to save their appearance for the new office. It might seem like a fairly minor thing in the grand scheme of “dressing the part”, I am proud of it… it’s progress.

Don’t get me wrong, I realized wearing nice clothes will get you ahead in life but so will lying constantly. And given my outlook on outward appearances, it really feels like lying for me. Some jobs (and situations within many more jobs) occasionally require dressing the part. If your job is selling insurance to people in a region and you notice most of them wearing fancy clothing, you’d be foolish to not dress the part for the sake of increased sales. That said, most jobs shouldn’t require such attention to your looks but they sadly do. People, apparently, equate productivity, efficiency, and professionalism with nice clothes.

Not only does this equation strike me as retarded and deliberately wasteful, but it seems out of line with a lot of other messages American society is sending our way. For example, some black dude (back when it wasn’t cool to be black) said something about judging people on the content of their character, rather than how they looked. Oh, I get it, while you can’t control your skin color, you can control how you configure your apparel, right?

Cutting to the point – I’ve always believed in function over form and substance over style. My personal philosophy with regards to clothes is strictly about utility over aesthetics. Therefore, here are some fashion trends which I think are silly.

Scarves – As I understand it, these things are about keeping people’s necks warm… and making the wearer looking like an adult. I prefer to wear hooded-sweatshirts, which serve the same purpose and are a lot harder to lose. Unfortunately, many people in society look at those who wear hooded-sweatshirts as “sketchy”, at best, and “a prospective rapist”, at worst. Another layer to protect against the cold… and a hood to fend off the wind… what’s not to love? I’m not asking that people come to their senses and replace their scarves with hoodies, I’m just asking for people not to judge me when I walk down the street.

High heels – Granted I don’t have to wear them so perhaps I shouldn’t comment but this one goes out to the ladies. High heels are absolutely ridiculous and should be banned. How is this not exactly like foot-binding (besides the fact that it’s not forced on children)? It reduces maneuverability, puts unnecessary stress on the foot, and, I honestly can’t believe it’s more comfortable than flat shoes.

Ties – I don’t think I need to explain how pointless these are…

Anything lacking an adequate amount of pockets – Pockets are so useful. Why aren’t cargo pants the norm in the business world? Because suit pants are more practical? Hell, why aren’t cargo pants the new jeans? They’re like jeans only with the added practicality of more pockets.

I dream of a world where my children wear cargo pants to business meetings and hoodies to formal dinners. I dream of a world where people are judged more on what they say and they do than by what they wear. Is it too much to ask that prospective employers consider interviewees’ words before dismissing them for wearing clothes that don’t match? It might be a pipedream but I’m sure MLK once thought a black guy being president was one too.

Politics

It’s really a shame that we’re often instructed to not talk about religion or politics in public because these are two of the most interesting topics known to man. Of course this rule, like so many others, was designed to protect idiots from other idiots. Given that so many people today believe that anyone in the opposite part is a complete moron, it’s easy to envision harmless political discourse mushrooming into physical assault – especially in the more violent past. Of course if you believe that the other person is utterly and completely wrong in every way, it’s hard see anything productive coming from it (rendering religious discourse all but impossible between “We’re right and you’re going to hell” religions). I guess it’s kind of ironic that I think mostly everyone else is totally wrong and yet I think it’s productive to yell about how politics is messed up… but we’re moving past that.

This cut-and-dry, “I’m right, you’re wrong” philosophy – which prevents productive political discourse – is nurtured by our two party system. Given the sheer size of the population and the polarity of the respective parties’ views, it seems implausible that two parties can describe the views of most of the population. In reality, people fall in line behind party lines because it’s easy and because third parties are mostly a social joke. Many will tell you that a vote for a third party candidate is wasting your vote… and they’re so sadly wrong that I want to publicly vilify them for the disservice they are doing the youth of this nation. If you believe that your voice isn’t accurately represented, isn’t a vote for a third party a voice saying “I want more choices”? Ironically, the only time a third party vote is bad, is when there is a viable third party. In some cases it’s possible that a third party candidate will split like-minded voters and leave the candidate farthest from their own views as the frontrunner.

How do we only have three debates? Are we living in the 19^th century where transportation and distribution costs are so high that candidates are limited to three not completely scripted orations? Everyone who ever complained about George Bush’s stupidity should be screaming at their senator to propose a bill mandating more debates. But can we really complain about GW slipping past our incredible collective ability to sense idiocy? We don’t even require candidates to answer the actual questions posed to them. Remember that question that Obama answered well during the first three questions of the second debate? No? That’s because neither him nor that ol’ maverick McCain answered a single question during the first three rounds of the debate. (I can’t speak for the rest of it because I turned if off but I hope they actually gave an answer eventually.) This technique is most effective in high school history – where you have no clue what the answer is so you write a lot about something you do know – but it shouldn’t be acceptable during a debate. Yet most commentators the next day had more to say about who they thought won (which apparently means “who appealed the most to completely retarded people”) than about the fact that the debate was an insult to our collective national intelligence.

Not that we don’t deserve the insult. When the candidates did get around to actual answers (again, I’m just guessing they did since I never saw it) they took the most absurdly simplistic views on the subject. Obviously the issue of financial regulation is more complex than “regulations are good” and “no more regulations”. I was sure,”Cancer: Bad or Good?” was somewhere on the docket.

So we only have two candidates, we only require three debates, and we don’t actually mandate that anyone actually answers a question. And we’re surprised when a moron sneaks in the Whitehouse? So here’s my plan for fixing up this process. First off, end the conventions. It’s a tremendous waste of money, not to mention paper, and yet Democratic who claim to care about the environment love throwing their paper around at the DNC convention (I’d be amazed if liberals weren’t so consistently hypocritical). Ok, so this isn’t really a critical step to my process but I just want the pathetic cheerleaders that travel across the country to have to find something else to do every four years.

But seriously… do away with the two party system on a national level. Pick a dozen or so candidates from a number of different pools – major political parties, branches of government, the private sector – and have them square off in a rigorous process which emphasizes more evaluation and less public appearances designed to fire up people who already know who they are going to vote for. Instead of a trio of PR stunts, replace the “debates” with a dozen or so forums broadcast live and posted on the internet for public viewing. Hell, maybe it’s going too far but I’m all in favor of doing rounds of trivia questions and possibly a poker tournament. Isn’t seeing how someone responds under a little pressure better than watching them recite memorized talking points? Political parties can still exist but they’d operate only at the sub-presidential levels (with the hope that this method might be successful enough to be expanded down the branches of the electoral tree. I know this would require people to “think” but couldn’t be just try it out?

Voting: Talk It Out, Use Your Words

(Another few paragraphs back from the election... when we pretended to care about politics.)

It is generally considered taboo in (white) American society to discuss or inquire about the voting habits of all but our closest and must trusted company. This guideline, like so many others, isn’t designed to protect us from political discussion, but rather to protect us from the extremist idiots in our midst. Some people can’t handle the fact that others have different beliefs than them. These judgmental folk tend to drastically alter their opinion of someone based on whether or not that person supports or opposes abortion or how aggressively they want to shut down our borders. Thankfully, most people are more than capable of handling adult political discussion but, as per usual, a few immature nutjob extremists have to go and ruin it for the rest of us. I think the whole voting taboo is cowardly and it ultimately stifles intelligent political discussion between peers.

In spite of our natural disinclination toward discussing politics, some among us still feel the need to make their political views known to the rest of the world… even though the rest of the world doesn’t often care. This used to cause conflict and strife between those just itching to unleash their political genius on the world and those who could care less. And then someone invented the blog…

The Worst McDonalds in the World

(Written in 2007 in response to frustrations with the Mcdonald's at the corner of Broadway and Thomas, in Tribeca.)

Due to its convenient location, I frequent one of the worst run McDonalds in New York City. On average I’d say I go there three times a week and probably 90% of them are somehow marred by the extreme incompetence of the employees. It all starts when you first approach the register. Workers are generally milling around the bank of four registers. Some will be joking around, some will be taking a break eating candy, some will be sulking, and some will just be standing there with a blank look on their faces. These employees fall into two groups: on register duty and not on register duty. The problem is that it’s virtually impossible to tell the two apart. If you are lucky enough to catch the perfect storm of cashier apathy toward their duties and a glut of tourists (preferably with shaky English) you will see all hell break lose. No one is really sure who is on duty and who is not so the boldest person near the register (dreading, for once in their life, that they were first in line) makes a move toward one of the registers. The crowd looks on intently. If that brave soul has the luck to pick the right cashier - - one of the elusive “on duty” variety - - the situation might be salvaged. Other customers will gain confidence and some cashiers might be enlightened enough by the sight of their job actually being done that they start show faint signs of acknowledgement toward the mess of customers. Of course, if that first person is harshly rebuked with a curt “I’m not working” or is just met with a blank stare of apathy then anarchy reigns. You see the two Euro sightseers furtively whispering in non-English about who looks like they might be willing to take their money in exchange for crappy food. Another person darts out of the, by now, formidable whirlpool of people and makes a break for a manned register only to have the cashier pull away in a manner just ambiguous to break the confidence of the attacker. Finally the din of the crowd gets so loud that the workers get annoyed and one of them snaps of the most condescending, impatient and unnecessarily loud “May I take your order”? This will discourage the crowd just enough that some people are jockeying to be second in line so as not to face the register guessing game. Don’t they realize that if you’ve managed to confuse 10 people then the problem is probably on your end? I usually avoid the place during periods of heavy traffic but I’ve seen the full blown hurricane version of this about 5 times but getting a minor storm or a tropical depression of confusion is fairly common.

Assuming you manage to maneuver the line, you face the rest of the problems with the place. Occasionally the food is bad, occasionally they screw up your order, and almost always the employees seem to be in a bad mood. I’ve seen cashiers stop mid-order and carry on a conversation with a coworker until the customer walks away disgusted. About half the time they are out of anything frozen (shakes, ice cream) and their iced tea is not sweetened despite a lack of notification on the menu. The 4 piece chicken nugget order from the dollar menu is also a better deal (both in money and nuggets) than any of the regular nugget offerings (i.e. it’s more cost effective to order five 4-piece nuggets than the 20 piece) and, predictably, the cashiers seem to have no knowledge of this.

Homos, Bigots, and the Bible

(Kind of an old one that was delayed from publication because it lacked an ending... still no ending but here it is.)

The homophobia in our country really disturbs me. I think it boils down to our general inability to empathize with our fellow humans. But first, my thoughts on “the gays”. I have to admit, gay sex kind of grosses me out. Let me rephrase that, gay sex really grosses me out… unless it involves Jenna Jameson, a restaurant bathroom, and an ambiguous plotline involving horny female firefighters. That being said, 95% of “straight sex” grosses the hell out of me and I would completely support the mandatory sterilization/castration of stupid people, old people, and ugly people- - in that order.

The difference between my views and the views of many of my fellow Americans is that even though I’m not turned on by gay sex, (unless it involves the busty aforementioned firefighters) it doesn’t mean I don’t support their right to live their lives and pursue happiness in the ways they desire. For a heterosexual, I am pretty interested in gay people, their culture, and their struggles to attain the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy… that said, I really don’t know what terms the homosexual community is promoting these days and, frankly, I don’t really care too much so you if you are a stickler for vocabulary, just bear with me. Now let’s take a look at the most common “I love everyone but I’m blatantly homophobic” views on homosexuality.

“I don’t mind people being gay but I don’t like them shoving it in my face.”
(Commonly held by conflicted Christians and somewhat-empathetic old people)

This viewpoint is somewhat understandable but still unacceptable. The problem is that most people consider holding hands on the subway “shoving it in their faces”. Playing tonsil hockey in public could be described as “rubbing it in your face” but isn’t that unacceptable on a unisexual basis as well? Any behavior you’d not think twice about from a heterosexual shouldn’t cause commotion coming from a homosexual. Deal with it… it’s called empathy. (It should be noted that demanding “Not Sure” boxes to supplement the traditional “Male” and “Female” on forms is shoving it in our faces. Seriously, just suck it up, remember if you ever had the ability to piss standing up, and check something.

“I’m cool with them having ‘civil unions’ but don’t let them adopt kids.”

Because gay parents produce gay kids and gay people can’t reproduce, right? (“I’m sorry, you can’t adopt this crack baby who is going to bounce around foster homes his whole life because we’re afraid he might want to engage in homosexual acts in the privacy of his own home someday.” Don’t these people have anything better to do… you know, like stopping pop stars from adopting babies living third-world countries?) Let’s be honest, a straight male raised by two gay parents actually has a better chance of reproducing than someone raised by two straight people. He would be an expert in personal hygiene, a stylish dresser, and women would love him. I realize I’m guilty of generalizing here but you know it’s true.

And finally…

“I love gay people and I will pray for them but homosexual acts are a sin.”


Now we’re getting closer to the real issue. Gays are not too popular with a lot of Americans, especially those who have certain religious beliefs. Not all religious people dislike homosexuals and not all atheists love gays but I’m done clarifying. Take my word for it; a lot of religious people think that all gay people are going to hell. The fact that a lot of people who hate gays claim to be especially religious is pathetically ironic. Christian homophobia stems directly from a biblical quotation prohibiting a man from “knowing” (might as well use the biblical terminology) another man. If you are a fundamentalist Christian and you don’t want to be offended then I would recommend that you stop reading here.

I have news for the fundamentalists- - at best, not everything in the bible really happened. (At worst, none of it happened but that’s another issue altogether… yeah, I know, I’ll probably rot in hell.) Let’s assume that God does exist, Jesus was his son, and the majority of the bible is true. This would still not change the fact that some of the bible was man-made. I say this because many things in the bible contradict the general idea of an all-loving God. For example, would an all-loving God really want us to stone prostitutes? Spare me the whole, “Jesus replaced the Old Testament” argument and try to somehow explain how God would authorize the killing of another human being. Can’t do it? That’s because this line was inserted by a fallible human being in an attempt to discourage prostitution. Any idea why God would demand animal sacrifices? Wouldn’t it make more sense to give this food to starving people as opposed to just burning it in some pagan ritual? Noah didn’t take all the animals with him on the ark, Methuselah didn’t live to be 900, and God never took a stand on gays in the bible. Sorry if this contradicts your belief system but, if it does, your belief system is wrong. I’m not stating this as an opinion like, “In my opinion, I personally believe that not everything in the bible was divinely inspired.” I’m telling you that there is no way any loving God would authorize hatred. How can people think this?

The biblical justification for thinking that homosexuality is wrong comes from the several passages of the bible, most notably Leviticus 18:22 which states, “Though shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Of course Leviticus also says that you shall not eat shellfish, that adulterers should be stoned, and that if a man has relations with an animal, they should both be put to death. (What kind of God would kill innocent sheep for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?) In any case, there are over 50 translations (and countless retranslations) of the bible which was written thousands of years ago by people who were trying to instruct the people in the best way to live their lives…. thousands of years ago. Perhaps some of it needs to be taken in the context of the times in which it was written?

Recycling

It’s sad that more people don’t take little steps to help the environment. Most people could forgo paper and plastic for “hippie handbags” and everyone could recycle more (except hippies, they don’t need to recycle because they care about the environment). Why aren’t more people driving hybrid cars or using energy saving light bulbs? Couldn’t we all stop running the water in the shower the whole time or keeping the AC on while we’re at work?

I have a plan to help get more people to do these little things to help the environment and the key component of this plan is overly-aggressive verbal abuse. It’s not going to be easy but we have to carry on – if only for the sake of our children. So the next time you see someone using plastic bags at the supermarket, exclaim, really loudly, “Holy shit – are you still using plastic bags? Why don’t you just literally rape Mother Earth! It takes two seconds but, whatever, go ahead and keep fucking up the earth for our children”. Yes, the curses are mandatory. (I’d start recycling more if a nice old lady went off on me using F-bombs for throwing glass in a trash can.) At first this is going to seem a little extreme but you should persevere through the awkwardness. The uncaring bastard without the hippie handbag will probably shrug you off at first as totally weird but that’s ok. By the fourth or fifth time they get berated, they will start wondering if maybe they’re the weird ones.

Understandably, direct confrontation isn’t for everyone but don’t think I left the timid amongst us out of my plan to save the world. If you don’t feel comfortable shouting people down, you can use passive-aggressive warfare. When you see people committing any of the aforementioned heinous acts, stage whisper something to the nearest person like, “OBVIOUSLY this person can afford a hybrid but they choose to drive a gas guzzler – I’d say something aloud but it’s not always clear whether they’re stupid or just hurting the earth on purpose” and then surreptitiously avert your eyes and ignore them.

Whether you are going for confrontation or passive-aggression, you should use all visible clues to your advantage. If you see a cross, drop a, “I bet Jesus would have separated paper and plastic” or if the person looks Japanese, maybe mention something about how they’re stomping on their relatives graves… or something like that. You’ll get both more creative and quicker with practice. Again, people will think you’re weird at first but it will catch on… for the sake of our children’s children, please let it catch on.

If we all work at this, we can convince people that not recycling or conserving energy is the stupidest and most selfish thing that a human being can do.

Postscript: It’s occurred to me that this plan might actually be modified to work on the homeless problem. The twist – instead of verbally abusing the bums, you agree with them. I feel like your average insane homeless man never has anyone agree with his rantings and ravings. If everyone just started agreeing them in an overly-enthusiastic manner, the hobos might get confused and think that they were actually capable of functioning in society and might accidentally get jobs…. which would be a good thing.