Needs and Wants

Words, like their macromonious state - language, can be tricky. The English vernacular generally is considered to be one of the most difficult to learn, and to be sure the native speakers, particularly in what is currently considered the "Rust Belt" find it rather an inconvenience to use its proper grammar or usage, instead taking on monosyllabic utterances, and "texting"; however, to the defense of technologically savvy individuals, it has indeed taken an otherwise useless branch from the tree of linguistics and produced a fruit of its very own - indeed a hybrid, quickly digested in its expediency and protected by the thick skin of its convenience and in some cases privacy.
There have been, in most recent years, some general changes to the language of some concern. The concern is perhaps not so much for the very usage, but the etymology and the source.
The words "need" and its synonyms have usurped the decision making power of "want" and its synonyms.
"Need" is defined as a necessity; indeed its very usage is a matter of sustenance and consequence and should either be preceded by or followed by a descriptive, narrating the issue further.

The doctor said if I want to live a healthy lifestyle, I need an operation.

She needs to pay more attention if she wants better grades.

In the preceding instances, the reader is introduced to two legitimate concerns. In both circumstances, the reader is given options solely dependent upon actions of the people in each sentence. The person in each does not "need" to do anything, and there are proposed repercussions to their actions or inactions.

This wall needs to be level.

She needs to have her head examined.

In many cases, the word "need" can be used without expounding; however, a reader can be left with a number of questions, rendering the entire sentence useless. It must be addressed that the second sentence in these examples can be colloquial - interpreted as a matter of her questionable sanity.
There is a more insidious matter in the prescribed usage of the words. Indeed, the word "want" expresses a desire; it may be added that "want" can be used in all degrees of desire, but has been substituted in many cases by "need" and vice versa.

I need to get to work.
He needs a new pair of American Eagle dungarees.

The English language in these examples is implicatable of the future welfare of the subjects involved. In the first example, the subject obviously would undergo certain problems should he fail to apply himself to his duties, and again can either be preceded or followed by an explanation:

If I want to keep my job and get a paycheck, I need to get to work.

The speaker knows well that he has options - either choosing to go or not. He understands that there are consequences to his actions.
The second sentence is more concerning than the first, as it deals mainly with consumerism, more so than an underlying obligation as in the first. This form of market-grammar is a means by which corporations both large and small use their goods as necessities to live by. Market-grammar explains a scenario of being without a particular product rendering the consumer very unpopular, and more nefariously rendering him dead.

You need to ask your doctor about Lipitor.
I need an aspirin.
I need a new cell phone.

The issue not being entirely without understanding, is incorrect in its strength - a gross exaggeration. This, as most businesses will know, is a means by which the consumer focuses and breaths. The consumer is made to believe that he or she can not do without. He is made to believe, through his patterns of language distribution - in both passive and active forms, that what is before him is not only a privilege if deemed so, but an absolute right.
Though large corporations are the ones to typically use well crafted marketing techniques, it is not limited to mere commerce but to politics and human sexuality.
By monitoring one's active and passive linguistic mannerisms, one can indeed exercise the capabilities of strength and accountability, not to mention a sense of controlled being. This can be achieved through active engagement with other people, reading, and performing acts of trial and error.

Financial House O'Cards

I am not a big newspaper reader (I do love the comics); however, there are always a few news items that catch my eye, even though I know that I personally can do nothing about them - now is that really true?
Yes, it has been said that we elect to office those who are like us. So I want you to remember the majority rules for later on.
The first story last week that happened to pop off the pages, was that of Prime Minister Wei of China and the U.S. economy. As it turns out the majority of the "Lord only knows how huge the deficit really is" has been lent to us by the Great Red Dragon - China. Wei in a statement had said in words that were far more stern that the USA had better get its financial house together.
Sounds like a threat.

So?

So? Heed this warning John Q. Consumer, They own over 70% of our assets.

So?

So? You like your house, and your car, and your moronic big screen TV, and your Hollywood? Well how about your amber waves of grain, your purple mountains majesty above the fruited plain? I hope you're not allergic to MSG.
Calling all loans! Calling all loans!
Let's imagine that John Q. Consumer is a real guy. Let's imagine that John wants to have all of the finest things in life: big house in the suburbs, fancy sports car, big screen TV with HiDef, designer clothing. John has all of these things in his possession, and he is proud to have them all; chicks love his clothes and his car and that house - why, he seems to have it all together. Of course, he did not have all of the money up front, so he purchased them using credit.
Credit comes from those who have the means to pay for that stuff.

So?

It's not John's stuff.

What?!

Who paid for it?

Well...

Not John. Nice job he has, but not that nice. Who paid for it?

The bank?

That's right! The bank! You remember those evil monstrosities that the government just butted-up to stay operational, whether they needed the support or not? They are the mob who own John Q. Consumer's stuff - not John. John is tending to them and using them as "pride leverage", believing that his stuff represents him.
Let's say that John gets sick or loses his job.

That's entirely possible.

Yes, it is. John has no equity in any of these possessions; however, he still has the obligation to pay for them.

So?

So, if you were the bank who gave John the money or the ability to hold these things, would you be willing to let him slide without him paying you. Let's say he owes you $50,000.

Wow! That's a lot of money.

Well?

I trusted him to pay me back, and he had better do it. That's not his, it's mine.

Right.

Well, ol' Johnnie boy had better scrape together some cash or I am taking the stuff.

Banks do it all the time. The problem there is that banks (And mind you I do not sympathise with banks and usury), in order to recover their losses from a deadbeat...

That's not nice.

What?

Deadbeat. That's not very nice. John lost his job.

He owes you money. He has some very nice things that are yours.

Deadbeat!

To recover their losses banks must either collect whatever assets he owns and the items under contract. Unfortunately, in this fast paced consumer society, where bigger, faster, harder are king, those items that have been in his possession have lost value. For example, that big screen television,is antiquated the moment he plugs it into his wall. And that American sports dream, devalued by at least 40%the moment the front tires hit the road, because as it turns out that GMAC loan at 0% APR for 60 months is designed to make you think the car was a steal, when in fact it crushed the marketability of John's hunk of crap under insurance, and resale value.

Didn't the government just give like a gazillion dollars to the Autoworker's union, GM and GMAC?

Yes.

That's my money too.

Technically - China loaned us that money.

Will we have to pay it back with interest?

Usury.

John needs a job. Now!

Well, John is comfortable. He makes more money now, being on unemployment. He still has his house, because the government thought that it would be a shame to foreclose on him, and the bank did not want his big screen TV, and John, using the money he got while in bankruptcy court, bought himself another car - used from GMAC financing at an incredible APR.

Holy crap!

My point is this: The financial mess in our nation while going deep into the White House, actually takes root in its people. You see, we elect those like ourselves. Spending freely, not expecting to have our legs cut out from underneath us, because our jobs are secure, and our egos unwavering. We have not a problem in the world, so we'll make promises to one another, and break them because that's what we do. And Prime Minister Wei will get his, once we get ours and so on -
Today's news is more entertaining - as it turns out our credit rating has just been slashed. I hope you're ready for hyperinflation and more taxes.

Do you think we'll be able to get out of this mess?

Usury I do, but I am not sure this time.

For the Actor in all of Us!

Some people look at me, and think "There goes Matthew Perry - you know, Chandler from Friends."
I get that alot.
The weirdest celebrity mix-up was the time a bicycle messenger in NYC once wrecked his chariot and approached me with blood covering his hands and arms.
"Dude! Are you alright?"
"Are you Conan O'Brien?"
"You're bleeding."
"Yeah. You're not Conan?"
"Do you want me to call someone for you?"
"Man, you looked just like Conan."
He road away only to confuse himself into believing that my brother, Daniel, is Whoopie Goldberg. I, in no way shape or form, look like Conan O'Brien, who is a very rich, seven-foot tall, red-head; I am not. Now, I do share some physical attributes to Matthew Perry, Jake Gillenhall, Robert Deniro and that guy who does Cafe Kolache - I get him a lot.

Then again, maybe some people look at me and don't think anything. I like that.

The World According to... пять

Maybe I am showing my age. I am up there after all, in an age of unrepentant misunderstanding of young people.
I recall a place in time, years ago, when I was in my late teens and early twenties and my parents were in there late thirties and mid-forties; a place in my own history when I thought that I had all the answers - university graduate, working overseas, making big bucks, racing motorcycles - being a man.
Now in my forties, still a man, things have changed. I realize that my folks, now in their sixties were wiser than my punk self, and deserved a lot more respect and less aggravation. They still are. We do not see eye to eye on a great many issues, but there is at least one issue that at least my father and I can agree with.
Men do not wear girlpants!
Maybe boys or young men in this time period are simply androgynous and that is sad.
I have listened to the strong, disgusted voices of girl-pants wearing counterparts complain that real men no longer exist and that our culture has become inundated with effeminate, emotionally driven girl-boys, who cling to pop-culture and fashion like the silvery, splintered duct tape to the vinyl of an old bar stool found in a crappy thrift shop.
Maybe my age is showing, but men do not wear girlpants.
A younger friend and associate was wearing them. He may as well have spray painted them on his lower being. They displayed his midriff every time he breathed or moved. And this is a hairy kid.
After throwing up several times, and instructing him to lower his shirt to cover his backside, I felt compelled to ask him why.
"Why are you wearing those girlpants?"
Proper answer:
"I had a date last night, and I didn't want to get arrested getting here."
Done.
"Why are you wearing those girlpants?"
"They accentuate my curves."
Wrong answer.
Needless to say, there was a great deal of laughter that ensued.
Understand, I am not a fashion model. I don't want walk up and down a cat walk puffing my lips, exposing my belly, all while wearing girlpants. Girls wear girlpants. It's one of several reasons I simply buy, if I need jeans, Wrangler's and not Levi's. If a person wants have his bottom hanging out of his dungarees and a boot-cut to show some sort of retrofruit fashion ideology, the latter is a good choice, as they have about a thousand expensive variations of this androgy-style available.
Please understand this -
Men do not wear girlpants.
They wear what they want, but girlpants are not on the list.
Now a kilt - ah, now that is an essential in men's wear!