Coming upon a week since the passing of Michael Jackson, I feel I am in a bubble with a select number of other people who honestly could care less. The amount of coverage that his passing, along with that of Billy Mays and other recent celebrity deaths continues to trump several situations that honestly should be much more news worthy.

I often condemn our current society for being awfully careless when it comes to real world happenings. It would be easy to pin the blame on the media for indulging the public with the continued nonsense surrounding Jackson’s death, but at the very end, the media gives the people what they want. So again, I blame the people.

As for Jackson, I was never a big fan, probably because of a generational difference more than anything. By the time I ever came to appreciate music, Jackson was a freak as far as I’m concerned, and his overall weirdness never swayed me to seek out his collection of music.

Today, Bernie Madoff will be sentenced for his perpetrating a ponzi scheme. By now, Madoff probably has gotten used to the khaki colored jumpsuit that he has been wearing for a few months now.

Madoff, however, has been granted permission by the judge to wear the clothes of his choice at the sentencing. He is expected to wear one of his fancy-smancy custom made suits… one of which, may sadly be worth more than some of his ponzi scheme victims.

Why on earth would the judge give him the satisfaction?

Madoff is arriving to his sentencing, hoping for a lenient 12 year sentence, where he faces a maximum of 150 years, with the Wall Street Journal expecting he will receive around 25, or anything that would ensure he will spend the rest of his life behind bars.

If Madoff were really smart, he’d pass on the fancy suit - which probably wasn’t even bought with his own money. Why remind the judge of your lavish lifestyle while hoping to win some sympathy? Wearing the fancy suit and showing off such a lavish lifestyle after screwing many people hardly qualifies as being sympathetic.

On the day where television commercial star Billy Mays is found dead, I find a story about a bill in Congress citing that TV commercials are too loud and need to be lowered. While I have found myself annoyed at some commercials for being significantly louder than the actual program I was watching, never have I wished, nor thought of counting on government to solve such a problem.

Are we really becoming such a society of whiners that we would actually support such a bill? Come on… this is ridiculous! While the practice of stations pumping the volume of commercials is annoying, this is not a situation suited for government to handle. At worst, loud commercials are a harmless annoyance that can be handled accordingly by using a remote control.

What’s next… Making it mandatory for all cell phones to be on vibe when outside my home since ringers can be too obtrusive? Maybe I should stop here - I’d hate to give some knucklehead politician an idea.

After heeling Twitter.com a few days ago here, I am doing an little experiment with it now, after figuring how to display Twitter updates on this site. Posting on Twitter.com for random people who visit the Twitter website is pointless to me, but if I can post when out and about and they show up on this website, then perhaps, Twitter may have some use after all. I’ll be giving it a try in the next few days.

This posting has been in the making for several years now. A few years ago when walking around Six Flags Great America, I became quite annoyed at the amount of baby strollers being pushed around. Again, at the Frankfort Fall Fest a few years back, I asked the same question, then finally decided that baby strollers have no place at such types of events. In a place where there is a large crowd of people and the walking space is tight, having to dodge around baby strollers gets old fast.

I’m reminded of such frustration each year at the Taste of Chicago. Now that is an event where everyone is packed like sardines. And yet, each year I observe an abundance of moms, dads, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. pushing around baby strollers with little kids occupying them. From the perspective of a 25 year old who is hardly around young children, I wonder if it is necessary to bring young children to a Taste of Chicago, a town festival, or any other place where there is an abundance of people.

If the kid is young enough to have to be pushed around in a stroller, then is the kid old enough to truly enjoy the experience at such an event? The strollers, I’m sure, make it easy for parents to hang onto their young ones, and young kids do deserve a good time out. I realize that a Six Flags has young rides for children. But the Taste of Chicago? Young kids, of course, love to eat just like everyone else, but they are not going to fully appreciate what a Taste of Chicago has to offer.

Why on earth would a parent want to bring their young kids to the Taste of Chicago anyways? Such an occasion calls for parents to go and have their own fun, while leaving the children at home with grandparents or a babysitter. Such a consideration would be greatly appreciated by the rest of the world who attend such events.

A few years ago, there was a radio commercial for a specific product (I don’t remember what exactly), and the dialogue was interesting. It involved a phone conversation between customer service representative for this particular company and a consumer. The consumer calls asking what the catch is for this particular product, and the representative proceeds to explain why the product is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The would-be consumer remains skeptical, until the point where the representative finally says “but there is one thing…” which prompts the the cue for the consumer to mention that the catch is on the way. The representative mentions a special deal that is absolutely too good to refuse, and the consumer is satisfied.

Since then, the exact same commercial, except with different voice actors, has been made for several other companies, all of which have nothing to do with the other. Some of those companies are Pro Active Solutions (acne cream and face cleanser) and Rosetta Stone (software that teaches you a foreign language).

Tonight, I heard the same commercial for yet another company, this time, a product that teaches you how to speed read. Absolutely fascinating.

It always boggled my mind how multiple companies could be using the same commercial. All of them involve, practically the same dialogue, except when mentioning the product’s name and what it does. The dialogue between a calm and confident sales representative and a skeptical consumer is the same. I would guess that all of the companies use the same advertising firm. Are these companies aware of this and that people like me are going to notice this kind of stuff, or are they paying a cheaper advertising firm that does this on purpose?

While I did hear the speed reading commercial earlier tonight, I heard the Rosetta Stone one a few hours later.

Yesterday, I wrote about new Illinois driving laws possibly going into effect as early as July 1. I wrote that I was for a law that banned text messaging while driving, which would apply throughout the entire state.

Since then, I have had some time to think it over after being exposed to a few other opinions, between talk radio and the Internet. I still believe that driving and texting is incredibly dangerous. Unfortunately, some people are willing to risk getting into a car accident or possibly running into a pedestrian or other object in order to text, including myself (even though I know it is wrong).

On my way home from work this afternoon, I was operating my iPod (which I plug into the cigarette lighter) and a new idea hit me - if a cop were observing me from the side of the road, he or she would quite possibly think I was texting. What if I had my phone in my hand and was looking down at it; not texting, but in fact looking through my contacts list with the sole intention of making a call? I would not be texting, so I would not be in any violation of the law. Yet, whether you are texting or looking through your contact list, both are just as dangerous.

Then again, if I was looking through my contact list and I get pulled over because the cop thinks I am texting, how do I prove that I was not? Will the cop buy my story if I say I was looking through my phones contact list? How would he or she truly know?

So what are we supposed to do? Show the cops our phones so they can see that there was no text message sent or received at the specific time? What about my drafts folder? What if I deleted the specific draft before the cop got to my car?

Would cops even be looking for people who are texting, or would it be like the seatbelt law?

The banning of text messaging while driving obviously would not be a perfect law. Then again, not every law can be. It seems that the only sure way to prevent such confusion would be to ban the use of the phone altogether while driving. Is that a good idea? I believe that day is coming, maybe not soon, but eventually.

So, what if the law bans the use of the cell phone while driving? Would the law specify just cell phones or any portable electronic device, such as GPS systems and MP3 players? If not, then if I am playing with my MP3 player and a cop pulls me over because he or she thinks I’m using the phone, can I easily prove that I was indeed not using the phone, but using the MP3?

So then, what if the law states that the use of all portable devices are banned while driving? You know what happens next. Some mope of a politician will say that is not enough, and that the operating of car radios while driving is dangerous. Could we really, seriously go down that road? I hope not.

We are on the verge of laws that don’t seem to be real enforceable, while it is also possible to be pulled because it looks like you were doing something that you are not permitted to do. Unfortunately, politicians don’t think about this stuff too often. They have a sole intention, but never think about the unintended consequences.

Again, this all goes back to the idea of a law that would ban text messaging while driving. There doesn’t seem to be an ideal accommodation to such a law. Does a perfect solution exist? Furthermore, the potential lies for there to be a lot of confusion on whether or not the driver is texting or not. Is it really fair to pass such a law with these kind of discrepancies?

This morning on WGN-AM (720), new morning host Greg Jarrett had Illinois Secretary of State Jessie White in studio. One of the topics discussed is a new state driving law, which I believe may still be pending, but if signed by the governor, would go into effect July 1. If so, it would be illegal to talk on a cell phone in either a construction zone or a school zone while driving throughout the state. In addition, it sounded like legislation is nearly complete on making texting illegal while driving.

Texting while driving should be illegal. There are too many people, myself included, who are guilty of this. I think any rational person would agree that texting behind the wheel impairs your judgment.

I’m am against the banning of talking while driving in specific zones. Does the state honestly expect people to be vigilant of these specific zones. Are people seriously going to stop in mid-conversation and say “hey, I have to go, I’m approaching a school zone. I’ll call you right back.” In all honesty, despite all of the school zone signs, I don’t always realize that I’m going through a school zone, especially during non-school hours.

At this point, I’d rather the state just pass a law making any use of the cell phone while driving illegal. Rather than make a law that would actually make more sense, they pass these stupid and hard to remember laws, probably hoping people forget so they can write tickets and easily raise money.

Such Pigs.

Throughout the entire “I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here” ordeal, I was fortunate to had only witnessed about 20 to 30 seconds of the entire series. From what it sounded like, the show wasn’t a real hit around the country, but it seemed to gain a lot of interest in Chicago with the involvement of Patti Blagojevich.

Now that she has been voted off and the series is over, she will finally return to reality with her doofus of a husband. Despite the harsh conditions of the jungle, I’d be willing to bet that the false sense of reality she endured the last few weeks will seem like heaven compared to the harsh reality of being back in the spotlight with a 24 hour news cycle, in addition to an aggresive U.S. Attorney and federal prosecutors who continue to watch their every move.

Welcome back, Patti.

When I got to work this morning, something wasn’t quite right at my desk…

My Dwight Schrute bobblehead doll, knocked over with a red-soaked bandaid around its neck. What??? How???

After moving my computer mouse and ridding the screen saver, much to my surprise, was a new background on my monitor…

Bobblehead Dwight, on the verge of being decapitated!

This is what I get for leaving my computer on last night, which I did only because I was storing a large file to our shared printer - logging off would had disrupted that process. My boss and another superior decided to have some fun at my expense.

They clearly got me. When I arrived and saw my Dwight Schrute bobblehead doll knocked over, with a red-soaked bandaid (which obviously was depicting blood) around the neck, it had me in complete shock. Never, did it occur to me that a joke had been played on me, until I saw the desktop and realized what the red-soaked bandaid meant (of course, the red stuff was marker… or so they told me).

A very simple, yet effective practical joke. When the joke leaves the intended victim virtually stunned and clueless, you know you did right. This is one I’ll always remember.