Publicist Murder Suspect Shoots Self in Bloggers Hood

       KBR reporting…the details are sketchy, but, apparently, a suspect in the murder of Hollywood publicist, Ronni Chasen, died from a self inflicted gunshot wound.  Although, this appears to have resulted from inquiries made by the Beverly Hills Police Department, Alex Foley was not immediately available for comment.  
       In the midst of an army of police and a horde of television news reporters, a middle-aged limo driver remarked, “I didn’t know the city had this many cops left.”  Another man complained about having to park on the street to patronize the corner liquor store since news vans had taken over the parking lot.  
       The disturbance happened at Harvey’s Apartments, a local cesspool for the neighborhood’s n’er do wells.  Generally, they charge by the hour…like most apartments.  Fortunately, none of the exotic performers at the nearby watering hole, Gold Diggers, were harmed during the incident.  
       All in all, it was a good day for the authorities.  They, seemingly, solved the case; captured the offender; and avoided a costly trial, appeals process, and incarceration.  According to one official, “looking competent with little effort is an unbeatable combination.”  The only question in this reporter’s mind is, “why can’t more violent criminals shoot themselves?”  For Little to do About Something News…this is KBR.          

Stupid Sarah Palin

I’ve noticed in recent years how the term stupid has often been misused.  An acquaintance of mine referred to the excessive snowfall last year as stupid.  Another remarked that the traffic on the 405 is stupid.  It seems that stupid has become a euphemism for things we don’t like, but at the same time it’s coupled with the traditional definition --meaning unintelligent. 

I’m always leery of the term, especially in politics, because it’s been so improperly applied and ridiculously overused.  The Left seems to be the most prominent violator, labeling every Republican President in recent memory as stupid--Ford, Reagan, and both Bushes were all saddled with the derogatory term.  I can only guess that in some cases they are referring to someone they don’t agree with and at other times one that lacks intelligence.   Since the new definition is subjective let’s just stick to the old one--lacking intelligence.

One of the smartest President’s ever was Bill Clinton.  Not only was he a member of the Ivy League, but he also excelled, becoming a Rhode Scholar and studying at Oxford.  The problem is that during his administration he sometimes prioritized his political wellbeing over the need to make smart decisions for the government he was presiding over.  Throwing softballs at Al Qaeda and paving the way for Chinese economic superiority aren’t what most people would consider smart.  In hindsight, they appear to be downright stupid.

The current President is also considered to be someone with a rather limber mind.  He’s practiced law, authored books, has an incredible gift for oratory, and he’s reached the apex of politics in a relatively short amount of time.  When he took office in 2009 he had more power in congress than any other President in my lifetime.  Perhaps more power than anyone since Roosevelt and a 70% job approval rating, to boot.  Now look at the shape his party’s in:  They lost the House, barely control the Senate, they’ve relinquished their majority of governorships, and the GOP now has more control over state legislatures since the election of 1928.  And, oh yeah, his ratings are in the 30’s.  Is this what the esoteric class considers intelligible achievement? 

Now comes the uncertainty about Palin’s political future.  Will she run?  Will she win the nomination?  Is she the right choice for her party?  These are the same questions that surrounded Obama several years ago.  Many thought that supporting Obama over Clinton in the primary was the smart vote.  The fact is that Obama’s support led to the reign of Speaker Boehner.  So, at the end of the day, how smart was that vote for Obama?  Or a better interrogative:  How stupid?  With continued high unemployment and a swelling budget deficit, could Hillary Clinton have done any worse?  Could Sarah Palin have done any worse?  Hell, could my 11 year-old niece have done any worse?  If this is what happens when smart people elect the smart candidate then sign me up for stupid.

Since many on the Left worship at the altar of education they don’t understand the appeal of stupid Sarah Palin.  Why after all, if you’re not smart then what else is there?  Well, there’s a lot.  People view her as real.  She reminds people of themselves.  My freakish Hollywood landlord loves her.  I admit.  I sometimes cringe at her apparent lack of knowledge but she’s no phony.  I have real doubts about the discernment abilities of those that consider her some kind of counterfeit.  I wonder if they really know what constitutes real people.  Beyond that she’s got character.  The ethics violations we heard so much about at one time were largely dismissed.  She’s a product of the Alaska wilderness that loves her family and her country.  She supports candidates she believes in regardless of the political climate.  Furthermore, she’s come under scrutiny by both sides of the political spectrum.  If that doesn’t make for a bonafide anti-establishment candidate then I don’t know what does.  And that’s exactly what this country is screaming for.  So, if you’ve jumped on the Trent Lott/Arianna Huffington bandwagon that loves to ridicule Palin then maybe you need to do some soul searching and figure out where you really stand.  Speaking of the soul, isn’t it refreshing to have someone who firmly knows who they are religiously, as opposed to the spiritual ambiguity of the current occupant of the White House?  “Know thyself” seems to ring true with her across the board.

Her greatest quality is that she gets results.  She may be regarded as stupid by the scoffers but she gave McCain the only real shot he had at winning the presidency and during the recent mid terms she garnered wins in 70% of the races she engaged in.  She made things happen in Alaska and she could very well make things happen for this extremely distraught nation if she’s given the opportunity.

I guess my point is this.  Just because you’re smart doesn’t mean you make smart decisions and just because you’re stupid doesn’t mean you make stupid decisions.  Leadership isn’t a trivia contest it’s about making wise choices that lead to positive results.  The problem in Washington isn’t a lack of knowledge or intelligence--it’s a lack of character, self-sacrifice, and healthy reform.  The next time someone talks about stupid Sarah Palin remember all the smart people that said the levies in New Orleans would hold and the twin towers in NYC wouldn’t fall.  You tell me what this country needs:  Pseudo smarts or genuine success?    

 

        

Suicide is Much More Than a Gay Issue

One can imagine the dread that captivates a person, convincing them to believe that taking their own life is the best course of action.  I, like most, have toyed with the idea at one time or another.  When the pains, conflicts, and disappointments of our lives seem insurmountable “ending it all” can find appeal in our minds.

Much has been written lately about the suicides of numerous gay teens who, through persecution, concluded that ending their own lives was better than living them.  Reporters, bloggers, and celebrities have repudiated the bullying that led to these drastic actions.  Mass facebook postings have gone out condemning the persecutions.  With all the attention that’s been given this handful of individuals one might conclude that this is simply a problem in a single demographic.  In a way, it would make the issue of suicide easier to deal with.  Simply target the stresses and insecurities in this one group and presto-chango--problem solved.

Unfortunately, the heightened number of suicides isn’t limited to a single corner of society.  The numbers are growing in a multitude of categories and in many, many places.  A recent story in Public Health Reports shows an incredible 2-3% increase in suicides in the baby boomer generation, which constitutes the middle aged in the U.S.  They have now become the highest suicide age group in the country.  That equates to 17.2 suicides per 100,000.  Over the last several years the U.S. Army has seen a drastic increase in suicides.  Between 2006 and 2007 there’s been a 20% jump.  2009 saw 160 reported suicides with 1700 attempts.  A quick search of the Internet reveals increased suicide rates in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Utah, and Colorado.  Massachusetts, alone, reported a 28% rise for young adult males in 2007.

Overseas, suicides are on the rise, too.  Afghanistan and Pakistan both report surges.  In South Korea, suicide now takes more lives than diabetes, making it the country’s number four cause of death.  Taiwan has experienced a 2.4% increase in its youth suicide rate.  While the UK saw a 6% increase overall from 2007-2008.  And even the Israeli Army has seen a10% increase in recent years. 

The fact is that these upturns began brewing a while ago.  Suicide rates trended down in select decades like the 1990’s, but since the mid 20^th century the teen suicide rate in the U.S. has tripled.  That is nothing short of staggering.  Now we live in a world where the terms “suicide bomber” and “murder/suicide” have become commonplace and those acts have increased exponentially in the last decade, as well.

So…what’s wrong with us? Is it the stress of the economy, war, and society?  Is it the diminishing of our spiritual and moral fiber?  Or is it just a cycle that we’ll eventually overcome?  One can’t say for certain.  However, what is certain is that the rise in the suicide rate isn’t isolated to any single block of society.  Its effects are felt by many different kinds of people, all across the world, and framing this as anything other than a human issue is shortsighted and a gross underestimation of the problem.   

My Weird, Fun Work

The day started at 2:30 in the morning, which is abnormal, even by film crew standards.  Doing night work is common, but beginning so ridiculously early is not.  I don’t even think the Amish were milking cows yet.  However, the odd hours are worth it.  I’d take a camera truck over a cubicle any day.  I find the physical aspects of the job appealing.  A little sweat is good for the soul and keeps a person young, granted you don’t over do it.  

As I took the escalator through the Hollywood and Highland complex, the last of the stragglers from the clubs stumbled to their cars, holding each other up.  Reaching the boulevard, I found the crew at the work trucks and we began moving our equipment into the Hard Rock Café.  By day, this is one of the busiest streets in Los Angeles, bustling with tourists and character impersonators, but at 2:30 it was ghostly it was so empty. 

We began setting up for a cooking competition we were shooting for one of the networks.  Cameras were being built, lights rigged, and all kinds of cable run.  There’s something unique about film sets.  On its face, it may seem like any other big operation--a factory line or a construction site.  But when you take the time to look around you find dozens of people, all doing something different.  Actually, I think you’d be hard pressed to find a greater variety of individuals doing a greater variety of tasks.  You might see a guy hanging from a ladder, focusing a light, while another person practices their lines.  One person could be setting up a bank of video monitors while a producer schmoozes his clients.  A car gets prepped while a gun gets loaded while a dog gets trained.  Inconsistency, often, is the only consistent thing on set.

When coming on to a new film project there seems to be an unwritten social protocol.  After everyone rushes to set-up and get the first shot you catch your breath and assess your surroundings.  Most people start out by taking an inventory of the opposite sex.  For me, this was a quick process that night at the Hard Rock.  Next, you might catch up with old coworkers--perhaps someone you haven’t seen in a while.  Often times, there’s some guy you know but you just can’t place.  This can be terribly frustrating.  And every once in a while there’s someone you’re certain you’ve met before but they won’t admit to knowing you.  They may just brush you off or they may actually become defensive and disown you entirely--kind of like how Peter did after Jesus was taken into custody.  At any rate, once everyone’s sufficiently caught up, the conversation usually turns to shop talk or war stories.  Personally, I have a low tolerance for discussing my craft--especially on a night shoot.  Eventually, I end up having to fake interest.  War stories can be fun, though. They all start out the same way, with someone saying, “I was on this one show…blank, blank, blank.”  There’s no telling what you’ll get.  They could say they were on a job with transsexual raccoons that jumped through rings of fire or they could say they were shooting mailboxes that turned into robots that crapped five-cent stamps.  Again, there’s plenty of variety. 

At the Hard Rock that morning, time began to take its toll and conversation turned into a working rhythm, which turned into a rush to the finish line.  Eventually, after many hours someone had the good sense to call wrap.  By then, the sun was blasting through the windows, revealing the fatigue on the crew's faces.  Hollywood Boulevard filled with sightseers as we packed up and carted to the front door.  I squinted out at the tourists walking along, realizing it wouldn’t be easy to herd though the sea of bodies.  Suddenly, the Jason impersonator from Friday the 13^th walked up and stretched out his arms. Wearing a hockey mask and with his machete extended he blocked the crowd, allowing our convoy of carts to move forward.  He looked over his should and said, “Follow me.”  Then he began walking ahead of us, parting the never-ending mob and blazing a trail to the camera truck.  Reaching our destination, we thanked the gracious psychopath impersonator and he went on his merry way.  The strangest part is that it didn’t seem strange--not in Hollywood, not after working half the night and finishing our day at noon.  But I guess it was a little weird…and fun, too.

The Myth of Coexist

I’m sure if you live in a metropolitan area or a college town you’ve seen this bumper sticker before--coexist.  Five of the seven letters represent different religions and the other two letters represent peace and the sexes.  Since it so overwhelmingly refers to different religions it’s been branded a symbol of religious tolerance. 

I always thought that the order was interesting.  The letter “C” which is a crescent moon for Islam is exclusively accompanied in the prefix by “O” which takes the form of a peace sign--a symbol that is associated with the political Left.  In case you were unaware, the peace sign is semaphore representing the letters  “N” and “D” which stand for one of the original mantras of the Left, Nuclear Disarmament. 

It seems appropriate that they keep each other company on the sticker just as they seem to keep each other company in life.   Perhaps there’s common ground.  I’ve certainly noticed a fanatical, totalitarian kindred spirit if you will.  Islam wants to control how you pray and how you dress.  The Left wants to control everything else--two peas in a pod.

           I don’t think it’s quite that simple though.  More specifically, I don’t really see Islam defending the Left but I find the Left is almost constantly defending Islam.  When America went to war against Islamic terrorists who was the biggest detractor?  The Left.  When Israel tries to defend itself who makes excuses for their fanatical Muslim attackers?  The Left.  When the first and only American president to have a Muslim background is elected what side of the political spectrum is he from?  The Left.  And when the building of a mosque is proposed on the sacred ground of 9-11 who seems to be its loudest cheerleader?  The Left.

But why?  It’s not reciprocated.  Islam almost seems like the older, cooler kid that puts up with the younger, doting kid because the Left seems to worship them, but at the end of the day Islam is actually kind of embarrassed to be seen together.  So, I wonder why the Left is always going to bat for Islam.  Is it because blacks make up 25% of Muslims in this country and blacks are big supporters of the major Left party, the Democrats?  Is it because the Left generally has contempt for traditional Christianity and views Islam as an anti-Christianity of sorts?  By backing the religion of Middle Easterners are they trying to exploit the voting potential of yet another ethnic minority?  Maybe it’s a knee-jerk reaction to conservatives opposing strict forms of Islam--therefore, prompting the Left to offer its endorsement.  Or perhaps it’s just because conservatives tend to like Israel and Muslims don’t.  So, the Left, opposing conservatives, are forced to favor Muslims.  I don’t know. 

At any rate, it seems to be the most self-defeating alliance since Roosevelt backed Stalin.  If, hypothetically, Muslim influence grew to the point of instituting Sharia Law who do you think they’d go after first?  It wouldn’t be the modestly dressed conservatives who oppose abortion and the proliferation of pornography.  Rest assured, it would be the Left.  They’d stone half of New York City and LA in the first week.  Say goodbye to every gay friend, bartender, and boutique owner you know.  The theocrats would be burning paintings, books, and movies in bonfires that would make the Acton fire look like the cherry of a cigarette. 

But these possibilities seem to completely elude the Left.  When it comes to the mosque controversy they’re the project’s biggest defenders, continuously citing the first amendment.  I find this rather amusing.  When it comes to a Leftist and an Islamic Radical the only question I would have concerning the constitution is:  Which one’s spit would land on our government’s founding document first?  Does anyone really think that the Islamic radicals promoting this mosque care about the first amendment?  If you were to ask a group of political cartoonists they would probably say no.  Radical Islam doesn’t want to coexist alongside other religions or forms of thought.  It wants to dominate.  And the idea that its zealous elements should be treated like every other religion when it acts like no other religion is something I’m still trying to wrap my head around. 

Nevertheless, President Obama defended the proposed mosque, prompting a national discussion on his own faith.  Using the coexist symbolism, a good amount of the public thinks he’s a “C” which means Muslim.  The largest portion thinks he’s a “T” which means Christian.  The truth is he’s neither.  If anything, he’s an “O” which means that his religion is the Left.  The church events he attended over the last 20 years are barely indistinguishable from the political events he attended.  It appears his faith isn’t in Muhammad or Jesus Christ, but in Leftist social planning.  His continual references to collective salvation seem to have more to do with politics than with God, although his defense of Islam, like many on the Left, is steadfast.

The call to coexist, albeit warm and fuzzy, actually exemplifies one of the greatest misconceptions that the Left tirelessly promotes--that man is basically harmonious.  The fact is that Islam has been at odds with almost every other religion represented on the “coexist matrix” and the Left has endlessly fought against traditional Judaism and Christianity since the dawn of the 20^th century.  Perhaps the greatest enemy of coexistence is the bigotry of radical Islam and Leftist thought.  Maybe it would be more realistic to drop the prefix and urge the world to simply exist.  However, the one thing the designer of the coexist slogan got right was placing the “C” and the “O” together.  We may never quite know why the Left carries so much water for Islam.  Perhaps they think appeasement is the way to go since it’s worked so well for Europe.  Or maybe, it’s the only way to have an idiotic bumper sticker make any sense. 

Falling Prey to Inception

Inception is a fascinating movie.  At the outset of the film this question is posed, “What’s the world’s most resilient parasite?”  The answer, “An idea.  A single idea from the human mind can build cities.  An idea can rewrite all the rules.”  Now, take an idea with all its power and manufacture it in someone’s mind.  This is what inception is.  It’s suggestion.  It’s targeted brainwashing.  The implications are enormous and that’s only when applied to a single individual, but if the same ability were used on the masses the power wielded by the “idea giver” would be astronomical.  Of course, there’s no such thing as Inception’s dream machine with serums and mapped out mental environments, but I would submit that the net result of inception does occur in our world—en mass and at the societal level.

              Recently, a group of eye-opening emails were released by the Daily Caller, originating from users of the site known as Journolist.  One of the users, a Washington Post writer, calls on other reporters to engage in arbitrarily attacks, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares…call them all racist.”  Now, understand, he’s encouraging completely baseless assaults.  He’s not even sure that Barnes and Rove should necessarily be the targets, nor does the charge need to be racism if there’s another taboo held in lower regard.  He’s simply saying that who ever gets in the way of his political conquests should be accused of the most damaging assertion imaginable, and he’s prompting other journalists to taint their work with such fallacies.    This is a prime example of societal inception –a false idea intentionally implanted in to our culture’s thinking.

            Another Journolist email, this one from a writer at the Baltimore Sun, found that certain members of the media needed scolding because they were throwing too many potentially damaging questions at Obama.  He suggested that they “use the power of the (journo)list” as a “warning against future behavior of this sort.”  Not only is this a slap in the face at the notion of a free press, but it’s also a decided effort, through the media, to manufacture the false claim that Obama is surrounded by less controversy than he actually is.  This constitutes another blatant misperception that was fabricated and fed to the public.

            Also, you may remember the controversy over hacked emails from a number of scientists connected to the Intergovernmental  Panel on Climate Change.  Essentially, this organization provides scientific ammunition to policy makers in various governments; which, in turn, use the recommendations to enact enormous amounts of extravagant environmental regulations.  They’re existence is predicated on the premise that manmade global warming is an indisputable fact.  However, the correspondence revealed that the temperature data wasn’t necessarily definitive.  One researcher privately admitted, “We can’t account for the lack of warming.”  If that’s true then why haven’t we heard any skepticism from the IPCC except through emails that were never intended for public eyes?  Why hasn’t there been any comment from the IPCC questioning the absolute truth of global warming theory?  The public expects scientists to be objective observers who crunch data and draw unbiased conclusions.  If there is room for doubt but no doubt is expressed then I believe that, that is another form of societal inception.

            Another scientist threatened to have a colleague “ousted” because of his skepticism of global warming theory.  And yet another, referring to publication on the subject, said, “I will keep them (meaning the skeptics) out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is.”  If the scientific community so broadly accepts the theory then why does dissenting opinion need to be muzzled by expulsion?  Perhaps this is just another false notion that has been allowed to linger.  Perhaps warmist theory doesn’t enjoy as much consensus as the public has been led to believe.

            Several months ago, on Capital Hill, protesters of the health care bill were accused of hurling racial insults at members of congress.  One congressman claimed that a racial slur was shouted, in chorus, 15 times.  Another seconded the accusations along with a staffer.  In the months since, the media has combed through the videos from that day, trying to confirm or deny the accusations.   One blogger even offered $100,000 to anyone with a clip that showed the allegations to be true.  Well, as it stands currently, no one has come forward to provide any proof.  The fact is, the five videos recording different angles during the time in question show nothing inappropriate…much less racially charged.  Out of all five videos not a single one confirms any of the serious charges that were leveled against the protesters.  In other words, in all likelihood, the accusations from the congressmen were entirely made up.  But when the claim was originally made the media along with the blogs couldn’t wait to report the story.  It reminded me of the Richard Jewell fiasco.  I even saw it mindlessly linked on facebook by more than one person.  And all it did was pollute the flow of information in an attempt to unjustly discredit an entire political movement.  

            Much like the heroes of Inception, I imagine that the peddlers of these manipulations feel their actions are justified because they somehow help to accomplish a greater good—their candidate gets elected or their grant money gets secured for another year or they distract the public’s attention from an unpopular piece of legislation.  But, when looking back, they see the disregard for ethics and truth in government, journalism, and science; perhaps they’ll realize that they’re the ones who’ve been manipulated the most.  Perhaps they're the ones who’ve fallen prey to inception.

Post-Racial? So, Am I Still White?

What does that mean, anyway—post-racial?  Well, one definition is that a post-racial society is one where race is no longer significant or important.  Some were convinced that President Obama had ushered in this new age.  Here are two reasons why.

The first dealt with Obama winning his party’s presidential nomination.  The big story was how many, supposedly, forward-thinking, white academics and hipsters supported his primary bid.  At a glance, this would seem post-racial—white people voting for a black candidate over a more established white candidate.  Sure.  But a closer look reveals that much of his support from whites wasn’t despite his racial make-up but, at least in part, because of his racial make-up.  This was considered the very essence of his candidacy.  He not only espoused change; he was the very embodiment of change—a black man in the white house.  And many of his white supporters celebrated the notion and backed him because of it.  The irony of it all is that they voted for a candidate based, in part, on race when their goal was to create a post-racial society.  In other words, in an effort to create a society where race is not deemed a significant factor…they made race a significant factor.

The second reason it’s been suggested we live in the color blindness of post racialism is, again, not because race is no longer a factor but precisely because of race—namely, the mixed racial heritage of the president.  I’m sure you’ve heard this notion before:  President Obama is both white and black and, therefore, perfectly suited to heal the country’s racial woes.  This is, of course, ridiculous.  It reminds me of something out of medieval Europe in which two noble families produce the one male heir that will unify the kingdoms at odds.  Not only does one’s racial background have nothing to do with their ability to mend fences, but this also smacks of something decidedly un-American—monarchism.   It lends more to the power of one’s blood than to their ability.

Personally, I don’t think the expectations of a post-racial society are realistic or even possible.  I would put the chances up there with having a post-oxygen breathing society or a post-water drinking society.  The longing for a post-racial society is just another progressive, utopian fantasy that does nothing but drive everybody nuts because it’s utterly unattainable.  The promoters of such farces are the same social planners that survey race on countless government forms and have made race an issue in everything from employment, to housing, to education, to immigration.  Once again, which is it?  Do we want to paint rainbows or do we want to be colorblind?  Do we want to promote post-racialism or continue to make race a significant factor?

As I see it, race is just a huge political hammer that gets carelessly swung around.  Most of the time it doesn’t have any meaning at all—it’s just a tool to discredit people and institutions we don’t agree with.

I think the race issue would be greatly improved by simply ignoring it—kind of like we do with the $13 trillion debt our government has amassed.  As a matter of fact, after the past couple weeks of obsessive racial finger pointing wouldn’t it be nice if we were that obsessed with retiring our crippling national debt?  There’s only so much credit to go around and if the government takes it all they’ll be none left for you and me, regardless of race, to buy houses and cars and the things we need to get along in life.  And at the end of the day, I’m much more concerned about those issues then I am about the racial feelings of Andrew Breitbart or Barrack Obama or Howard Dean or Bill O’Reilly.

Beach Etiquette for the Thoughtfully Challenged

Another summer season is upon us and I’m reminded, as I visit the California coast, how little many beachgoers know when it comes to common courtesy at the beach. Having grown up a few blocks from the Atlantic Ocean and then, eventually, moving across the county to an area in close proximity to the beach, I feel I may offer a, somewhat, knowledgeable perspective. I’m making the following suggestions because over the years I’ve, on too many occasions, seen beachgoers act with disregard for the people around them. The beach experience is much more intimate than most other public situations and since it’s a seasonal endeavor and often during vacation, many tend to be less considerate. Here’s what I would advise while at the beach:

1. Use care when walking past others. People don’t want sand in their face, or on their towels, or in their lunch. Flip-flops can greatly increase the amount of sand that gets flung around, too. So, walk softly and carry your flip-flops.

2. Don’t walk on other people’s stuff. It’ll get sandy or possibly break. I know this seems obvious but you would be surprised. And unless you want to risk hurting some kid’s feelings I would try to avoid stepping on any sand castles.

3. Wear a swimsuit that’s appropriate for your body type. Perhaps a bikini just isn’t the right call. Maybe a wrap is the way to go. Plenty of people wear T-shirts, too. And just because ‘you got it’ doesn’t mean you should flaunt it. You may have a lovely shape but that doesn’t mean you need to go out in public looking like a Brazilian street walker. Don’t be afraid to be tasteful. Grooming is never a bad idea either--especially, for those of you from overseas.

4. If you erect an umbrella realize that it can turn into a flying spear of death with virtually no warning. Even on light winded days a sudden strong gust can uproot your shade and mortally wound a fellow beachgoer. So, make sure your umbrella is securely planted.

5. Don’t distract the lifeguards. Yes, they’re good looking and athletic but they have much more important things to do than give directions or chitchat. Not having they’re full attention on the water could mean someone’s life; or, more importantly, a costly lawsuit.

6. Use care when shaking out your towels and blankets. Be conscious of wind direction and others in your area. Perhaps walking to the shoreline or to the back of the beach where there may be fewer people is a better place to shake off the sand. Again, sand in the face is generally frowned upon.

7. Don’t feed the sea gulls. For one, if you feed them they won’t leave you alone. Two, once you put food in them…eventually, the food’s coming out and much more quickly than you’d imagine. In other words, if you feed the sea gulls you are increasing the chances of getting crapped on.

8. Clean-up after yourself. Throw your trash away. If you dug a hole fill it back up. No one wants to get cut by a soda can or break an ankle in a hole that was left open.

9. If you see a kid that looks lost then they probably are lost. Help them find their family or at least get them to a lifeguard. Their siblings may not care but I’m sure their parents would appreciate it.

10. Don’t be an imposition. Just realize that most people don’t want to hear other people’s conversations or listen to a neighbor’s music when they’re at the beach. They don’t want to get hit by someone’s kite or noise making, mini-football thingy. They don’t want to hear about exploits from the previous night or wait for a mob of children to stop playing in the showers so they can rinse off and leave. They don’t want to listen to how well you fight or how much you can drink. They just want to relax and get some sun—maybe take a swim or read a book. And they don’t want to be imposed upon.