Beethoven's 10th Symphony: A Tribute to Idiot Teenagers and Their Cars

Ah, the sweet, sweet sound of teenage freedom. Is there any music more delightful to the ear than the deafening roar of an over-modified car exhaust? I think not. Forget Mozart, Beethoven, and all those other classical composers; the true maestros are the teenagers who've decided that their cars should be heard, not just seen.

Now, I must say, it takes a certain level of genius to transform an average automobile into an ear-piercing, ground-shaking monstrosity. The dedication to this noble pursuit is nothing short of inspiring. After all, what better way to demonstrate one's maturity and sophistication than by announcing one's presence with a sound akin to a T-Rex with irritable bowel syndrome?

The secret to achieving this auditory masterpiece, of course, lies in the exhaust system. You see, standard exhausts are so passé. They have this annoying habit of reducing noise and harmful emissions, and let's be honest, who wants to save the environment when you can have your car sound like a dying walrus instead?

So, to all the aspiring car modifiers out there, let's take a moment to appreciate the simple steps you can take to annoy everyone within a 5-mile radius:

1. Straight pipe it: Just remove the catalytic converter and muffler. Who needs to breathe clean air anyway? With your newfound freedom from these pesky restrictions, your engine can roar with the intensity of a SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch.

2. The bigger, the better: Just like Elon Musk's dreams of colonizing Mars, think big when it comes to exhaust tips. The larger the exhaust tip, the more likely you are to establish dominance over your fellow drivers. After all, it's common knowledge that the size of one's exhaust tip is directly proportional to one's status in society.

3. Embrace the decibels: If your neighbors aren't complaining, you're not trying hard enough. Your goal should be to create a noise level that rivals a jet engine. Remember, a true connoisseur of automotive cacophony understands that subtlety is for the weak.

Now, I'm not saying that these deafening exhausts don't have their benefits. For instance, they provide excellent early warning systems for pedestrians, who will no doubt be grateful for the heads up that they are about to be enveloped in a cloud of noxious fumes. Plus, these sonic booms on wheels have been known to scare off wild animals, thus saving countless suburban gardens from the devastation of hungry deer and raccoons.

So, let's raise a glass (or perhaps a set of earplugs) in honor of those idiot teenagers and their gloriously obnoxious cars. May their engines continue to serenade us with the dulcet tones of an alien invasion, and may their exhausts serve as a constant reminder that when it comes to making a statement, silence is definitely not golden.

How to Whine Your Way Out of a Job: A Tale of Entitlement and Social Media Melodrama

Ah, the melodrama of modern workplace woes. Recently, I stumbled upon a TikTok post, complete with a tear-jerking video, featuring a young ex-CloudFlare employee. Picture this: she's been axed after a mere three months, and she's lamenting her fate like it's a Shakespearean tragedy. No performance feedback, just a cold goodbye. Clearly, CloudFlare's HR team must've been binge-watching 'Up in the Air' and thought, "'Hey, why not make this our HR policy?'" But, oh dear, they forgot the script!

Here's the harsh truth: You're not the monarch of your workplace. In the real world, unicorns don’t handle HR and your job is not a birthright. It's a business transaction. You're not a delicate snowflake; you're a cog in the capitalist machine. If the machine spits you out, suck it up and move on.

Yes Cloudflare screwed the pooch on how they handled this one, but do yourself a favor and, drop the narcissism and stop acting like the universe owes you a career. And if you don't like how you're being treated, here's a novel idea: quit. But no, that's too straightforward for this generation. Instead, let's broadcast our workplace sob stories on social media, fishing for sympathy and likes. Let's moan about being exploited, mistreated, and how our delicate sensibilities can't handle the 'hardships' of a 9-to-5.

Just today, I saw the ex-employee recently posted her response to her viral video. It's truly a treat to parse through the trough of self-pity. In part it stated, "The last few days have been a roller coaster and I have been sent more messages and DMs this week than I have probably ever in my life." [Ah, the humblebrag about newfound internet fame. Nothing screams 'I've made it!' like an inbox flooded with sympathy DMs.] "The most incredible outpouring of support has honestly restored my faith in the corporate world." [Because nothing says 'faith in the corporate world' like being fired and then running to social media to rally a digital pitchfork mob.] "However, the most common message I’m receiving is how many people have experienced something shockingly similar." [Shockingly similar? In the corporate world? You don't say! Welcome to the club of 'Businesses Making Business Decisions.'] "Cold, unexplainable firing by people they’ve never met - even after years of loyalty for some.” [Here's a newsflash: loyalty in business is as common as a unicorn. It's a hard pill to swallow, but companies are not your family; they're profit-driven machines.] “All people saying they wish they would have stood up for themselves as I did.” [Standing up for yourself by airing your grievances online? The digital age's version of 'bravery,' ladies and gentlemen.] “Heartbreaking stories of people’s lives suddenly changing with no explanation and just told to “deal with it”. What??? I’ll never be able to wrap my mind around it. We as employees are expected to give 2 weeks notice and yet we don’t deserve even a sliver of respect when the roles are reversed?” [Here's a thought: Maybe, just maybe, the business world isn't a kindergarten where everyone gets a gold star for participation].

I wish I could say that this is just a whiny one-off but I recently had the displeasure of seeing this at my work. A soon-to-be-ex colleague was parading around, chest puffed out, declaring his grand rejection of the corporate 'grind.' Bravo, sir, but let's not point fingers at the company for your allergic reaction to ambition. It's not them, it's you. This naive notion that corporations are in the business of fostering a Utopian work/life balance is laughably misguided. If you really believe that, you should probably move back to your mom's basement (assuming you've left). Companies prioritize profit, not your personal Zen. Welcome to the real world!

But alas, entitlement is the new black. "The company must bend to my will," they proclaim. "I'll set my own terms, and if they don't agree, I'll shame them online." Because, obviously, social media validation is the pinnacle of success.

To all the entitled whiners out there: if you can't stand the heat, start your own kitchen. But expecting the corporate world to revolve around your whims? That's a joke. Don't want to grind? Try France. They love a good strike. In the meantime, spare us your righteous indignation. The world's smallest violin is playing just for you.

Government: Let Me Save You From Your Personal Freedoms

Here we go again.  In yet another misguided effort to "...reduce everyday gun violence..." Washington state voters have instituted a ban of semi-automatic "assault rifles" to anyone under the age of 21.  Where should we start with this one?

Should we start by pointing out that an "assault rifle" is a made up phrase by politicians to scare people into voting a certain way?  Or perhaps we should start with the suggestion that these these weapons - which are "...generally thought to be more lethal" (they are not) - have the same rate of fire as your typical semi-automatic hunting rifle or pistol?  Or maybe we should talk about the glaring fact that simply passing a law does little to stop behavior (i.e. it's already illegal to kill people).

But let's get to the real goal, which is the outright ban of evil, black, assault rifles. We can easily see this coming with a few words from the bill's sponsor, when he says it is a "... step in the right direction" (read: more to come).

I get it: something is bad for us and we need to pass laws to restrict it. Sounds like a good approach, right? After all, who could be against banning something that's bad? So let us, for a moment, indulge this fantasy of banning bad things from our world. Surely there will be nothing but upside!

According to the CDC, “...more deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined” (443,000 annually).  Given these horrifying statistics, shouldn't Congress should propose a ban on cigarettes? Using the same logic that is used on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, it is clear that such chemicals "...are not necessary." At the very least, can’t we agree that a restriction in the length of “high capacity” cigarettes is in order?

Similarly, according to the Governor's Highway Safety Association, “...in 2010, 10,530 people died in crashes that were linked to speeding.”  Given that the top speed limits in most states are 70 mph, why is there no proposed ban on cars that can exceed 70 mph? Shouldn’t we be proposing the immediate elimination of new vehicles that can exceed this limit?  Surely we can agree that a Corvette, (with a top speed of 190 mph), “...is not necessary” for daily commuting or recreational driving!  Perhaps a ban on these high speed vehicles can be expanded to all law-abiding owners of vehicles that have the potential to exceed these limits?  We could ensure compliance by requiring our citizens to install governors (no pun intended) on their cars that must be registered and inspected annually.  Think of the lives that could be saved!

Or perhaps Congress would like to restrict the intake of our sugar which, according the journal of Nature, can contribute to as many as 35 million deaths worldwide each year!  Next we could restrict our intake of coffee. It is apparent to me that no one really needs a $4 soy mocha latte with Madagascar cinnamon when a simple cup of Joe is enough!

I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth already. "Oh don't be ridiculous! The government would never ban or restrict items unless their only purpose was to kill or destroy." Sure - tell that to the people of New York.

The obvious argument here is not whether or not such excesses of cars, cigarettes, sugar or guns are necessary.  We can probably all agree that they are, in fact, not needed  at all.  The point, however, is that when we start allowing our government bodies to restrict our lives through legislation based on what they (or their constituents) believe is needed for us, we erode the liberties of all through the good intentions of protecting a few.  

But who needs personal freedom anyways?

Oh Most Wise Government! Please Protect Us From FAANG!

In a recent opinion piece, Juan Williams is outraged that Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google (FAANG) have become too powerful and they seemingly have no regard for the privacy of their customers.  He argues that they seek to profit off selling their customers' private information while maliciously manipulating the outcome of the - wait for it - the 2016 election.

Predictably, the answer is, of course, more government regulation. After all, what can one person do against the tyranny of FAANG?  The government must protect us from our own decisions these titans of industry as they seek to exploit our privacy and control our minds!  Unbeknownst to us all, FAANG lulls us into the thinking our data is our own and our privacy is completely within our control as we blithely skip the 144 page legal agreement and click on "I Agree."

Juan argues that the free market has failed to curb these actions and our very democracy is at stake should congress not act. What else can be done but to make laws to protect people from their own uninformed decisions?  Surely we can no longer afford to sit idly by and hope that our citizens become self-enlightened!

Perhaps we need these companies to subsidize legal counsel for every new subscriber?  An on-demand lawyer paid for by Mr. Zuckerberg can pop up on the screen and walk us through the legalese before we click "I agree."

Perhaps every ad on Facebook can be like a political ad which has the tag line "I am Vladimir Putin and I approved this message."

Or perhaps there is another way.

Perhaps we should take take responsibility for the contracts to which we agree.  If we are concerned with what could happen, perhaps we should actually read the terms and understand what we are agreeing to rather than blindly hoping for the best and keeping a personal injury attorney waiting in the wings.

Perhaps we should let the market decide when a business makes a bad decision.  As Juan correctly noted, Mark Zuckerberg lost $15 billion as a result of these recent mistakes.  Even for Zuckerberg, that had to hurt.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, we should exercise some free-will by opting out of a service when we are unsure of what we are getting.  Had we put our instant gratification aside and not signed onto thousands of adjustable rate mortgages in the run-up to the 2008 financial recession, we would not have had a financial collapse.

When we allow our government to coddle us with laws in an effort to protect us from our own decisions, we become weak and reliant.  We point the fingers at others rather than looking inward to ourselves.  We make decisions we otherwise wouldn't make because there is little risk of failure.  And with each law that is passed, we cede a bit more freedom to the government in the hopes that we are protected from our own stupidity. 

Or perhaps, that is what we want after all.