Edwardo Crum's Official Blogging Page

Back when I was a kid, people rented videotapes from their local video store.  Our family had a stand-alone videotape rewinder, a device which rewound the videotape without wearing out or straining the motor in the videotape player.  The video store had a policy requiring videotapes to be rewound prior to returning; a fee could be assessed if this wasn't done.  Only on rare occasions did a videotape slip through the cracks and arrive at our home unwound... which was an irritating inconvenience but simply required a quick rewind.

Flash forward to 2014.  We live in the utopian future where rewinding is an archaic memory.  The only problem is that something far worse has taken its place.  Every time I have rented a movie from Redbox the data surface of the disc has been marred by greasy fingerprints.  Just last night I rented American Hustle which obviously only should have been handled by an adult, and it looked like the previous viewer must have been in the middle of a Kentucky Fried Chicken 5 piece meal...
It has become my standard operating procedure to wash each disc with warm soapy water, then gently dry before inserting into my disc player.  This is far more inconvenient than the occasional pre-viewing rewind that was necessary 20 years ago. 

Now let's analyze what this all means:
1) With videotapes there was a buffer -- the video store -- it's impossible to know how many people returned videos without first rewinding them.
2) It is possible that people are stupid, i.e. they handle the disc incorrectly, thus contaminating and damaging their own disc players.
3) Or, people are selfish, only mishandling the disc after they have viewed it, returning it to Redbox worse than they received it.

When I discussed this very subject with Peter late last night, he made some loose connection with something he had heard Rush Limbaugh say; apparently Limbaugh has been calling people "low information voters" instead of idiots.  Peter suggested that my Redbox observations are a microcosm of a far more troubling trend...  He's concerned that Limbaugh's "low information voter" terminology is dangerously close to romanticizing something that most likely will lead to self-destruction.  Peter says that my experience with Redbox discs is proof that most people are idiots and selfish.  He then went all politics on me, suggesting that President Obama's election to office and subsequent re-election represents the same thing.  Before I could stop him, he went even further, saying that a significant number of votes Mitt Romney received in 2012 most likely were from the very same idiots who accidently rent Blu-Ray discs from Redbox kiosks even when all they own is a DVD player.  These people are so stupid that the inadvertently do the right thing, even though every cell of their being is programmed to do the opposite.

At this point, as you can probably imagine, I told Peter that he was getting a bit carried away, and we parted ways. 

I'm guessing that one of you smartasses is thinking "I stream all my movies, so I don't have any of these problems."  Well, you're a selfish idiot too.

I just looked it up on Google... no hits for the word "previsionism".  Therefore, let the record show that I, Edwardo Crum, on the 25th of October, 2012 coined the term.  Below you will find the my official reference information, so that you may cite appropriately anytime you use the term.

Revisionists have sought to manipulate historical accounts to fit their ideological beliefs.  Pilgrims were bigots, Jefferson was a pimp, "we didn't land on Plymouth Rock...  the rock was landed on us!", Columbus discovered America, etc.  Unfortunately this approach to revising history leaves much to be desired.  First and foremost, quite a few people actually have been taught something completely different.  Sure, people who actually view Pilgrims favorably are typically old and remember the days before cell phones, yet they still present a counter-view to history which Revisionists find unsettling.  The logical conclusion, and an approach which is currently being tested, is the previsionist history method.  While the prefix "pre" and the word "history" seem at odds with each other, let me explain how amazingly perfect this concept is:  So often history unfolds in a way that doesn't support the narrative agreed upon behind closed doors, where profoundly intelligent people have tirelessly planned out a perfect course for our lives.  Hiccups in history are just like hiccups in real life; they're best is they never happened.  The Previsionist is a step ahead of the history game; he knows that events must unfold in a way that promotes the common good.  While the Previsionist is obviously good for our future, alas it has become apparent that we need significant improvements to technology, since obviously our current resources are inadequate.  While the Previsionists could see the angry mob protesting because of a YouTube video, the video cameras, drones, heck- all the resources of the CIA couldn't see the throng of people gathered in the streets. 

Of course the truly suave Previsionist would say, "who said anything about an angry mob?"


*When using the following terms:  "Previsionism", "Previsionist", "Prevision", please be sure to say the following (or else you will be grossly plagiarizing a fellow blogger):  "...to use the term coined by Edwardo Crum, on the 25th of October, 2012 whilst he was minding his own business sipping some coffee..."  Below you will find an example of how to properly use this citation in a sentence.

**  Let us say that you are standing on the front porch after Bible study and you're complaining about how unfair it is that some Spanish dweeb got the credit for something that Leif Erikson did hundreds of years prior...  "I can't believe that those good-for-nothing, to use the term coined by Edwaro Crum, on the 25th of October, 2012 whilst he was minding his own business sipping some coffee, revisionists gave all the credit to Columbus for what Erikson did hundreds of years before!"

I was reading someone else's blog a short while ago and I was struck with how one-sided it was. We live in a society overrun by one-sided thought; my favorite of these ideologies is the one that elevates balance to a position which trumps all else.  The contradiction may not be immediately apparent, but if one holds balance as their ultimate goal, then logically truth must take a back seat.  Seeking balance is in its own right one-sided.

Getting back to someone else's blog.  As I read, two questions entered my mind; is what I am reading too one-sided?  Or, have I been influenced by society to dislike one-sidedness so much that even a hint of it turns me off?  I like to think that I can think for myself (which should be a subject of another posting), and I conclude that my discerning mind can tell the difference between a reasonable amount of one-sided and when there's too much.  Sometimes on someone else's blog the one-sided seems to be for one-sided's sake.

Obviously there is a time and place for being one-sided.  For example, your nervous system commands your hand away from the candle flame before a painful burn can occur.  There's no discussion of differing points of view, no mulling over various options... Get away! is one-sided.  Similarly there was the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, no rational person would suggest that there is any side other than that which was ultimately successful.

As I read someone else's blog, that little voice in the back of my mind (also a subject for another posting) calmly, yet ardently it tells me that what I am reading is too one-sided.  It's difficult to explain, but the author makes one point, good, then follows it up with another, fine, and then a statement is made which triggers me, hold on a minute.  It's not that there's any inconsistency, there are no logical errors, just too much something...  What is it?  It's a one-sided thought process which has gone outside the bounds of reason.  Now "what's so great about reason?" you might ask.  I suggest that reason is the sum of adding thought and truth.  One-sidedness is connected to thought, which is fine as long as truth remains in the equation.  Once personal opinion or emotion is substituted for truth, reason flies out the window.  I think that the little voice in my head was alerting me of a shift from truth to opinion.  One-sided truth is still truth, whereas you know what they say about opinions...  This holds true for all opinions, one-sided and otherwise.

Of course the dilemma is that those who are one-sided either are ignorant to the fact, or worse they actually take pride in their one-sidedness.  As evidenced by the comments posted on someone else's blog people seem to really enjoy one-sidedness, perhaps it is a breath of fresh air in a society so concerned with balance and "fairness".   But too much of anything can be bad for you, especially if you have allergies or aren't wearing the right clothes.  You might be wondering if I'm writing about a specific blog, and if so why don't I have the guts balls to be more specific in my criticism?  Let me be extremely sincere for a moment; as I write it becomes all too clear that I am a fallible human specimen, incapable of conclusively attaining truth.  Over on his blog Peter examines films, basically giving either a thumbs-up or down.  He occupies a realm of opinion with confidence and gusto.  I on the other hand have ventured into the scary world of the real.  I risk being completely wrong, calling out someone else's blog for a crime which they may not have committed.  Maybe the voice in the back of my mind is wrong.

Click here if you want to see what happens when Peter watches too many J.J. Abrams and Woody Allen movies. Actually, all you get to see right now is some lame poster (one out of three to be exact. How many people will find all three posters before the movie's release date on March 3, 2012?) Be warned, if you click, there's no going back.

The following was taken from Peter's Physics homework. I added two sets of parentheses to make the example more accurate...

Humans rarely survive long falls, but cats apparently have much better luck. A study published in 1987 considered 132 cats who had "accidentally" fallen from heights of two to 32 floors (6 to 98 meters), most of them landing on concrete. About 90% survived, and about 60% even escaped injury. Strangely, the extent of injury (such as the number of fractured bones or the certainty of death) decreased with height if the fall was more than seven or eight floors. (The cat that fell 32 floors had only slight damage to its thorax and one tooth and was released after 48 hours of observation.) Why might a cat have a better chance of survival in a longer fall? (The survival is by no means guaranteed, so if you live in a high-rise apartment, be sure to keep your cat away from any open window.)


Answer If a drowsy cat "accidentally" topples from a window sill, it quickly and instinctively reorients its body until its legs are underneath. The cat then uses the flexibility of its legs to absorb the shock of the landing: The flexibility lengthens the time of the landing and thereby reduces the force on the cat.


As a cat falls, the force of air drag that pushes upward on the cat increases. If the fall is from the sill onto the floor, the air drag is never very much. But if the fall is longer, then the air drag may become large enough to reduce the cat’s downward acceleration. In fact, if the fall is more than about six floors, the air drag can become large enough to match the gravitational force pulling downward on the cat. The cat then falls without acceleration and with a constant speed called terminal speed.


Unless terminal speed is reached, the cat is frightened by its acceleration and keeps its legs beneath its body, ready for the landing. (Your body is also sensitive to accelerations rather than speeds.) But if terminal speed is reached, the acceleration disappears, and the cat relaxes somewhat, instinctively spreading its legs outward (in order to increase the air drag on it) until it must finally get ready for the landing.


Once the cat spreads out, the air drag automatically increases, which reduces the speed of the cat. The longer the fall, the more the speed is reduced, until a new and reduced terminal speed of about 100 kilometers per hour is reached. Thus, a cat falling from, say, 10 floors will land with a speed that is less than that of a cat falling from five floors and will have a better chance of escaping serious injury.




Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.

I am an introspective kind of guy, which is a good think to be when you've got so much valuable wisdom to share with the world. Today I'd like to talk about anger, specifically the manifestation of anger which often appears as losing one's temper. I have noticed that I have the tendency to get really angry at inanimate objects, which if you stop and think about it is really stupid. Just the other day I was emptying the trash can, taking the bag out of the can, when pieces of trash started falling out the top onto the floor. "Man!" "Don't do that!" "Stupid trash!" Of course my talking to the garbage was peppered with the appropriate descriptive adjectives and an occasional colorful noun. Finally I got all the trash back in the bag, and outside ready for collection. On may way back through the backyard, I had one of those moments, kind of a cross between an epiphany and an embarrassed thankfulness that no one had seen my behaviour. I realized that the individual pieces of trash could do nothing except obey the natural laws of physics. That trash can would have stayed undisturbed and peaceful for a millenia had not I shown up to take it away. It was I, no one and nothing else that had initiated the chain of events which caused some of the garbage to end up on the floor. This poses somewhat of a dilemma; if I shouldn't be angry at the trash, and I hadn't intentionally done anything wrong, logically there was no reason to be angry... But the fact remains that I had become angry; why had this happened? The simple fact of the matter is that the whole incident was a big misunderstanding. I at the time had felt that the trash was intentionally messing with me. Because the trash was unable to defend its actions I lashed out and took my frustration out verbally. Fortunately, because I am an introspective person, I was able to settle down, look at it from the trash's perspective, and recognize that it really wasn't the trash's fault. I walked away from this whole situation a better person, and now that I'm so humbly reporting it to you, I know that you'll be better people too.

Counting Crows; August and Everything After, King's X; Dogman, Neil Young; Mirrorball. These are just a few of the albums missing from Peter's collection.

I've been hanging out here at the Colorado Crum family abode for the past few days, and I've been keeping track of what my eyes have seen. Let me give you a brief glimpse into this strange world:

8:15 am Aravis is the last one up. She shuffles downstairs to find Peter and Jude on the couch playing "just one game" of Halo Reach. Peter shows enormous amounts of self-control when he actually puts down the controller (Jude scored 24, Peter a measly 8) and heads upstairs to do some homework.

9:00 am the dogs have been fed, the kids are eating breakfast, I'm laughing at the fact that Peter has his DVDs arranged in alphabetical order.

10:37 am I am tired of watching Phineas and Ferb, so I head upstairs to find Peter drawing birthday cards instead of doing homework. He apparently feels bad that he's missed so many birthdays, so he's in the process of "catching up".

12:00 pm grilled cheese (with mozzarella), macaroni and cheese (from a box), chips and salsa, and cherry-apple juice for lunch.

12:35 pm Ashley is watering the garden, Aravis is reading Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Jude is doing something on Facebook. I head back downstairs to take a nap.

3:00 pm Peter is yelling something about getting shoes on and going to a park.

3:03 pm We are heading out to the car, the dogs go in the modified trunk and off we go.

3:10 pm Garter snakes seem to be the primary purpose for this excursion, we have such a weird family.

I could bore you with how the rest of the day went, not really much to say though.

I have become more and more frustrated in a Huckleberry Finn kind of way.

I am repressed.

The outlet of my expression has been stifled by an adherence to my beliefs. For example; I feel comfortable saying that someone can "go take a hike!" but more colorful destinations seem inappropriate to my sensibilities. Is it wrong that I desire to have a broader, more inclusive vocabulary? I am expected to clearly and concisely use the acceptable terms, grammar and cultural references in all my communication. I find this to be extremely inhibiting. Should I feel inhibited? Therefore, I have decided to start another blog, under a pseudonym which I will never reveal. On this other blog I will let me words flow, every which way they want to go.



P.S. I just did a little internet research, it seems like about 5 million people already had this idea, so it'll be a lot harder for you to find me...

It seems that the warnings are everywhere. Be careful what you post online, one day it will catch up with you. Obviously partying college students should be careful because very soon they will be looking for employment and that drunken trip to Burger King will exist on MySpace forever... Or will it? Are we so self-absorbed that we really believe that anything we do today will last forever? Sure, of course there are those blogs that rise above the rest, distinguishing themselves as something meaningful and worthwhile. I have little doubt that this blog for example will be studied and discussed in Ancient History classes 3000 years from now. As the Internet gets fuller and fuller of crap, each individual item becomes less and less important. Eventually the whole Internet will become a complete waste of time and will be abandoned. Of course some will continue to update their Profiles, completely out of habit of course, but this will be done without even looking at any given site. Monitors will become obsolete in about three or four years, because the only thing the Internet will be good for is dumping useless information. "Posting your status" will become analogous with "using the bathroom"... It's just something you do, but no one really wants to know about it.

Obviously the TSA agents have been given poor directions. Nuns, ladies with prosthetic knees and hot young women (in some cases this is the same person) should not be the target of obtrusive pre-boarding inspections. Common sense suggests that people likely to make bombs and bring them on airplanes are the ones we should be checking before they get on... My solution is simple. Just ask everyone politely, "Are you planning to blow up this airplane?" It seems as though the current administration completely trusts men who would likely build/carry a bomb aboard an airplane, since these are the men who are intentionally not checked. Therefore, logically, to ensure safety for the flying public, just ask. I even came up with a name for the new policy; Don't ask... wait a minute, that might not work.

It's kinda funny how Peter will say something that so closely ties into something that's been on my mind. Last week he told me that he wanted to make a film about spiders, Black Widows to be precise. He has this weird fear that a Black Widow is hiding under the toilet seat, just waiting for him to sit down. He goes so far as to lift the toilet seat and do a visual inspection every time he uses the restroom. Of course this phobia has spread to other areas of his life as well; shaking out towels before use, banging shoes together and of course the Maria Von Trapp nightly bed check. Peter wants to make his "Jaws" by exorcising his fear of Black Widows, while at the same time imposing that fear upon the viewer.

This whole story ties into something that has interested me for quite some time: There have been recent advancements in the study of spider ingestion over the past 3 or 4 years. You've probably heard the numbers, on average each American swallows 12 spiders in their sleep per year. That's one of those statistics that most people believe is just an urban myth. Of course we tell ourselves that, otherwise we'd be a nation of insomniacs. I bring this up because just last Thursday I woke up in the morning with that dry, gritty sensation in my mouth. Sure enough, I Googled the symptoms and it means I not only swallowed, but obviously chewed on a spider while I slept (most likely a Western Wolf spider based on the tangy aftertaste). The recent studies conducted by some very prestigious universities have sought to explain why spiders are eaten in such high quantities. The first conclusion these studies reached is that in all reality 12 spiders per person per year isn't really a whole lot. Considering that there are approximately 17,373 spiders (of every species) per person on the planet, you'd almost expect the ingestion numbers to be higher. At the same time, people don't swallow many Ladybugs, Inchworms or Dragonflies either, so why spiders? The answer is actually much more obvious than you might have expected. The self-image of the spider has been eroded considerably by popular American culture. The result is that the instances of Acute Depression in spiders has been rising exponentially since the late 1950s. Spiders are actually throwing themselves into our throats, taking "the easy way out". I know what you're thinking; "this is horrible, but what can I do?" The truth is that there is no one solution, no silver bullet to this problem. Some people think that making comments like, "don't kill spiders, they eat a lot of bugs" is enough. But that's like saying "don't make fun of Italians, they make good sauce". Spiders don't want to be judged on what they can do, rather they want to be appreciated for who they are. So the next time you wake up in the middle of the night and you see an eight-legged friend dangling inches above your mouth, whisper some words of encouragement, and talk that little guy down.

So Peter called me up last night, primarily to whine about his Calculus class. Between all the complaints and sobbing, I was able to retrieve one interesting piece of information; Calculus is the study of motion.

This got me to thinking. People like to say that you can only be in one place at a time. I would argue that it is actually impossible to only be in one place at a time. Think about it, if you are one place one moment, and someplace else the next (while you are walking for example), where were you in the moment between? Obviously (depending on acceleration) you were smack dab in between your two points. Here's where it gets tricky. At what point are you ever really in just one place? If time can be divided into an infinite number of smaller pieces, then linear space (in the case of walking) would also have to be addressed proportionately. That would all be true if we lived in this theoretical vacuum of a world, but fortunately for us there are Natural Laws that state that time is constantly moving forward. While you're trying to divide time into an infinite number of small pieces, time has passed by, theryby decreasing the amount of time by a measurable factor (making it less than infinity). So now we are able to plug a constant fraction into the "time" portion of our equation, leaving the number of spacial positions our body has been in at infinity. The logical outcome of this process proves that our bodies are always in motion. At a measurable moment (we'll call it x) our body is in two distinct places (-a- and -b-) at the same time. Of course this explains why pictures look all fuzzy when someone is running. It really gets interesting when you start looking at fighter planes and bullwhips, but we'll talk about that at a later point.

Others talk.
Jon does.

I am faced with a predicament.

I have examined the Internet and I have come up with its four basic categories. Every website, every posting falls into one of these four groups.

1. Garbage

2. Entertainment

3. Information

4. All of the above.

The predicament is this; although in theory all of these categories should exist, the only one that really does is #1.

As the famous episode of Seinfeld addresses, "if it's been in the trash, it's trash". Is it possible for anything "Internet" to be unsoiled by the overwhelming refuse heap that the vast majority of the Internet is? I tend to go to the same sites day after day. These sites most efficiently update me on the specific subjects I am interested in. Yet I am acutely aware that wasting my time in the most efficient manner is still wasting my time. Of course I do have some ideas on how to solve this predicament of mine: Perhaps if thoughtful, intelligent, upright men and women would create their own Internet. A place where only uplifting ideas and messages would be shared. A place where wisdom met knowledge. Like a virtual library/church/classroom... Unfortunately, you, the masses couldn't be allowed in. We'd have very strict access policies. Seriously, if I posted a blog about the detrimental effects of Transcendentalism on modern society, and one of you wrote in the response section; "I don't like Transcendentalists because I prefer straight people working on my teeth!" Well, you can see how the whole thing would break down very quickly. For now I guess I'll just have to trudge through this stinking pile of putrescence that we so coyly call "the Internet".

I like how we're a country made up of millions of individuals. Each person has his or her unique point of view. Every single person in this great land of ours has their own opinions about politics, cultural events, personal relationships and the general state of the world. I also like how each of those millions of people have exactly the same amount of clout in determining the course of this wonderful country. Of course the dirty little secret is that they all have absolutely no power whatsoever. Think about the logic of it. If there are a few at the top with all the power, why in the world would any of them divide that power into millions of little pieces? Let's say a congressman from Iowa were to actually listen to his constituents, and use their input in his decision process. That would be like throwing away perfectly decent power, and for what? To make those he represents feel good? Ridiculous! You all should be relieved that you don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. What a burden it lifts when you realize that you don't count, you don't make a difference. It's not your fault that Obama got elected, heck even if you and fifteen of your best friends had voted ten times for the other guy it wouldn't have changed the outcome. I know, I know, you've been told all your life that it's a responsibility to vote. It's your God-given right to participate in the system of government. If that makes you feel better, then keep on believing it, what harm could it do. But if you want to be truly free, then let go of that antiquated notion and revel in your impotence.

Oh yeah, but make sure to watch American Idol starting tonight and remember; every vote counts!

Based on the main female character's appearance in the new movie "Avatar", I'm guessing it's pretty cold there on Pandora (and I'm not referring to her blueness).

I can imagine the Directors Commentary on the Blu-Ray release this coming summer...
JC: "So I was sitting on my leather couch 14 years ago, watching my laserdisc copy of "Dances With Wolves" on my big screen, front projection JVC television, and I was thinking to myself, 'this movie just doesn't go far enough in capturing how much I just hate white people!'."

I really enjoyed that Cameron didn't stop there, he made a point to take every movie he ripped off to the next level... Star Wars and that whole force thing is just the tip of the iceberg (no Titanic reference meant) to what he does with his whole mother-earth religion thing here in "Avatar".

I enjoyed the references to humans having already destroyed Earth by not being green enough. It's always refreshing to hear Hollywood types harp on us repetitively about something that has just recently been shown to be a hoax. Timeless. Maybe if they keep saying it and beating us over the head with it, it'll make it true.

Can I get back to that "it must be cold on Pandora" idea, do you realize that I was referring to a specific feature of the tall blue women I noticed while watching the movie with Rob and Peter last night.

If you hate America, if you hate white people, if you hate Capitalism, is that how you become a Hollywood director?

My favorite scene from the movie "Avatar" was when Jake (the main character) was flying for the first time on the huge pterodactyl-like creature. I was thinking; not only does he have the biggest, baddest pterodactyl, but he got one with the coolest colors, red with black racing stripes... Sweet!