I absolutely LOVE my Kindle. Thank you for this amazing product!

I know you love delivering value to customers like me - and I know you're into making money. I won't begrudge you that. However, I believe you are missing several huge opportunities to make your customers extremely happy and make some money in the process. Here is one area that I believe you could improve upon:

I came upon this idea after reading the Gawker article, How the Kindle Ruins Your Dating Game. I realized, many people want, nay, need the things they read to convey a certain message to the world about themselves. This is why people buy these expensive skins for their devices. But skins are hard to change, and only convey one aspect of the individual's personality. What about the screen saver? I figured, it should be simple to change my screen saver to show the cover of the books I am currently reading...

As it turns out, it was not simple at all. In fact, I just plain couldn't do it! Amazon, what??

In my efforts to find out if there was a legal way to change my Kindle screen saver, I came across several sites that help people jailbreak their devices, voiding the warranty. This is bad for customers and this is bad for you. So why are you letting this madness continue?

You can give customers what they want while also benefiting. Have you noticed how many after market products (cases, skins, etc.) are selling for Kindles? Why not release a new feature for the Kindle that allows users to replace their screen savers with new collections that you sell and make available for digital download?

In addition, users could pay for an "unlock" that will cycle through the book covers of their books as the screen saver - or perhaps give users more control and allow them to use specially marked pages from their books as screen savers?

Finally, you could create a special page on Amazon.com where users can upload their own artwork to be used as screen saver screens - and other users can buy them allowing the original creators and you to profit. Shoot, you could even charge users to download their own artwork to use as a screen saver - after all, you're in control.

This would create a quadruple win situation:

1. You get to make more money off the lucrative customization market.
2. You discourage people from hacking their devices, thus maintain control of your product.
3. Your customers get the customization they way for their device.
4. Your customers can maintain the integrity of their product software and warranty.

This is just one tiny idea I have about ways you can deliver more value to your customers through just the existing current generation Kindle devices. I would love the opportunity to discuss with your some more ideas about how you can deliver value, and create opportunities for your company with digital devices such as the Kindle. Then again, I'm sure you have all the best minds working on these problems right now, don't you? Well, if you want one more, give me a call.

Sincerely,

Zachariah Wiedeman

I recently read this Gizmodo article that questioned whether or not the results of a 13-year-old kid, Aidan's, science experiment was properly debunked.  Aidan's science experiment is noteworthy for three reasons: (1) He claimed to have increased the efficiency of solar cell power generation by simply arranging them in a Fibonacci  (Golden Ration) pattern copied from the leafing pattern of plants found in nature, (2) his findings, published as an essay, received a "Young Naturalist Award" from the American Museum of Natural History (and a provisional patent, no less), and (3) this was reported on and praised as "genius" and a "breakthrough" by several noteworthy magazines such as Poplar Science, Slashdot, and The Atlantic Wire.

So here's the problem. Aidan did not actually discover a more efficient way to convert solar energy into power as he claimed and these numerous publications reported. In fact, Aidan's essay, while extremely well written, contains methodological flaws and incorrect conclusions. This rebutted published on blogspot by The Capacity Factor (and then subsequently removed) correctly and thoroughly explains why Aidan's findings are inaccurate.  However, the Gizmodo article I read stated:

"Many of you in the comments remarked that 13-year-old Aidan Dwyer's breakthrough was nothing new. Fair enough. But it'd be different if someone totally disproved it. One blogger claims to have done it. Can I get an expert in here?"

And:

NOW! I am no expert, so I can't make any assertions as to the veracity of Mr. Blogspot's claims. Graphs looks great, but what do you guys think?

Even The Atlantic Wire's article about the debunking did not provide much further explanation or analysis. It simply reported the facts of the story: Kid is praised for solar power "breakthrough." Blog debunks findings. Here is a summary of the blog's findings. Blog blames media for the mess.

Of course, I guess it is acceptable/safe for The Atlantic Wire to report the way it did by simply reporting the facts and to not interject with opinion or commentary.  However, Gizmodo articles, like the one I read, are specifically written in a commentary/opinion style.  Therefore, I was dismayed that Giz writer, Kwame Opam, felt that he needed to be an expert to verify The Capacity Factor's findings.

You don't need to be an expert to verify that Aidan's findings are incorrect. I'll admit, The Capacity Factor's blog post was certainly a bit overlaiden with techno-jargon and can seem complicated and difficult to understand. But the flaws in Aidan's science experiment are actually quite simple. They are so simple, in fact, that someone at the American Museum of Natural History should have noticed them. To be fair, the award might have simply been for his writing style and the fact that he praises nature, but for some reason I don't buy that: "Young Naturalist Award" seems to imply the award is for a scientific achievement, not an essay-writing one.

Or someone at Popular Science, The Atlantic Wire, Slashdot, or Gizmodo should have noticed the flaws with Aidan's work, yet it seems that they either glossed over the essay or did not understand what was wrong with it. In fact, any lay person with a basic understanding of science or 15 minutes of time to do a few Google searches (as I did for this blog post) and re-aquatint themselves with what they (hopefully) learned in high school should have caught the flaws in Aidan's paper. Yet, not only did none of these media outlets stumble upon these flaws, even those reporting on the expressly admitted that they still did not understand the reasoning.

This would seem to me why so much bad science passes for good science these days. Please allow me to lay out my case, and perhaps hopefully re-explain The Capacity Factor's debunking so that it can be understood by all the non-experts out there:

1. Nature generally doesn't achieve maximum efficiency.

Nature usually operates by finding efficient minimums. That is, traits found in nature naturally develop and survive as long as they are the bare minimum necessary to survive - not the efficient maximum.  Nature can be extremely inefficient. It is faulty to assume that trees have a pattern of leafing that maximize their sunlight exposure. Rather, it would be correct to assume that trees have developed a pattern that give them the minimum necessary amount of sunlight exposure to survive long enough to reproduce. That, however, is not efficiency.

From Aidan's essay:

I now had my first piece of the puzzle but it did not answer the question, Why do trees have this pattern?

Good science always starts with good research. See what others have done in the past, then find out where they went wrong, right, or can be improved upon. Aidan did excellent research about the history of the Fibonacci sequence, and Charles Bonnet's observations of the sequence existing in tree branch growth. However, he did not appear to research the answer to his actual question: Why do trees have this (Fibonacci) pattern?

Aidan correctly notes that Fibonacci numbers appear almost everywhere in nature: Galaxies, moth wings, seashells, finger bones, Saturn's rings, pine cones, honey bee colonies, etc. A few good articles on this can be found at: HowStuffWorks.com, World-Mysteries.com, University of Chicago's Prof. Narain's Golden Ratio Page, and MathIsFun.com. MathIsFun.com explains the answer to Aidan's question best. In summary, the Golden Ratio is an irrational number, thus creating an ever expanding spiral pattern with few gaps.

The quick and easy answer is that the Golden Ratio is a pattern that naturally reveals itself in things that are growing. As MathIsFun.com put it:

Leaves, branches and petals can grow in spirals, too.

Why? So that new leaves don't block the sun from older leaves, or so that the maximum amount of rain or dew gets directed down to the roots.

And here is where Aidan began to go wrong. Over time, plants grow. New branches and leaves are constantly forming and need to do so in such a way that they don't harm previously existing ones. Solar panels don't grow.  They are designed, arranged, and set up by humans at one time and don't change in size, structure, or arrangement ever again unless someone comes along and changes them.

Aidan observed that Oak trees branch out in a Fibonacci pattern. But it is not necessarily to maximize sunlight exposure. Miximizing sunlight exposure doesn't explain seashells, galaxies, or pine-cones. Rather, the Fibonacci sequence is a growth pattern. It is found in things that grow all over the place. You see, Aidan failed to factor in "constant changes over time" as the reason, thus setting himself up for failure with a faulty experiment.

If, like solar cells, plants just deployed themselves and didn't grow from a tiny sappling to a gigantic tree, they would not maximize sunlight exposure by arranging themselves in the Fibonacci pattern as Aidan incorrectly assumed.

2. Optimal orientation is deductively derived using very few (and all possible) variables and therefore cannot be improved upon.

Inductive reasoning is a type of intuitive logic that involves observation. Observation is highly susceptible to misinterpretation. Deductive reasoning, however, involves provable mathematical constants: The conclusion always follows the premises. Inductive logic would be like looking at the heights of three men and noting which one is tallest and shortest based on simple observation. Deductive reasoning would be using math to determine the same thing: A > B, B > C, therefore, A > C.

Aidan decided to perform an inductive experiment to compare the efficiency of different arrangements of solar panels.  There is only one problem: This has already been mathematically proven using geometry and algebra, and no amount of observation will improve upon that math.

Aidan's experiment compared solar cells arranged in a Fibonacci pattern like an Oak Tree, and compared the output to the optimum orientation of Solar Panels. Had Aidan understood why there is an optimum orientation for solar panels, he would have been able to conclude that it is mathematically impossible to improve upon this design. MACS Lab Inc., an environmental, health, and safety consulting service, explains the math behind optimum orientation pretty well on its website.

Basically, there are two factors in determining optimality: Latitude, and time of year. The goal of optimum orientation is to have fixed solar panels face the sun as directly as possible, allowing them to gather the maximum amount of sun rays taking into account the movement of the sun across the sky during a given day.

This orientation is called optimal because it produces a maximum exposure to the sun's rays. This is mathematically impossible to be improved upon.  You cannot out-max a mathematically maximized number. Any deviation from the optimal angle will produce inferior results.

3. Increasing the number of something generally doesn't change the outcome.

This is the most fundamental flaw with Aidan's experiment, and the first thing everyone should have noticed. If solar cell A is placed at an angle that maximizes its own individual power production, and solar cell B is placed at any different angle, it will produce less power every single time. If this is true for one solar cell, this is true for 100 solar cells. You can't add "smaller" numbers together to get a larger total than the same number of "larger" numbers.

Lets say you have 10 solar cells collecting power at an "optimal" level, that means each solar cell is maximizing its intake. Lets say they all are maximized at 5 watts (Watts is the unit that measures power - look at your electric bills. Notice that the more of these you use, the higher your bill is.). The total maximum power that can be collected is 50 watts.

Now, lets say you have an arrangement of 10 solar cells where any one of them is arranged so that it is not at "optimal" level. That means individually it will not collect 5 watts of energy. It might collect 4.5 watts, or 4.7 watts, or 3... but not 5. Logically, you will never get 50 watts of total energy if any single individual cell is collecting less than its maximum (5). In the case of Aidan's experiment, all his solar cells are arranged at different angels, so every single one (except one) must be collecting a "suboptimal" amount of power. There is no magic mathematical formula that will allow these numbers to add up to a larger total than the ones arranged at the optimal angle. It is pretty simple logic, so you don't have to be a math whiz to get this concept.

Of course, Aidan's experiment goes one step further. His tree pattern actually uses more solar cells to gather light than his control group. Now he's not even comparing the same thing! If 18 people can lift more weight than 10 people, there wasn't an efficiency gain, there's simply more people doing work. In the case of Aidan's experiment, he compares the electronic generation of 10 solar cells in one pattern to that of 18 solar cells in a different pattern, then claims that the pattern was the cause of the 18-cell configuration gathering more electricity. Hmmm... that just doesn't make any sense at all, does it?

4. Voltage is not a measure of power.

And here is where the entire experiment falls apart.

Most people don't understand what voltage is, and warning signs are entirely to blame. You've all seen the signs: Danger! High Voltage, right? We all know that a certain amount of electricity can hurt you, and a higher amount can kill you. By saying Danger! High Voltage, we are lead to believe that voltage is a measure of the amount of electricity. It is not.

Voltage is a measure of the level of attraction (electrical potential) between a positive and negative.

The human body can build up to 25,000 "volts" of static electricity, but there's almost NO power involved - if there were, a simple static shock would easily kill you. Obviously, when you experience static shock, there isn't a lot of power transfer going on. Power is voltage times current. Current is basically the number of electrons flowing through a medium, and voltage is the "speed" with which they move (this isn't entirely accurate, but it paints the right kind of picture for the uninitiated).

Danger! High Voltage signs aren't warning about the amount of electricity. They are warning you, "Hey, this electricity really wants to get out of here - if you so much as walk near this circuit it might jump across the air and go into you!"

Think about a battery: A 12V battery is always 12V whether its fully charged or almost dead (this is actually not entirely true, but simplified for the sake of example - see comments below where someone gives a more accurate explanation). A constant electron flow comes out of it at 12V until it runs out of stored energy. Eventually the battery has almost no power left, but it has always had 12V of electricity. If Aidan were to measure the voltage of two 12V batteries - one brand new one and one nearly dead, they would both read 12V. Obviously that measurement isn't going to tell him anything about the amount of power stored in the battery, is it?

From Aidan's essay:

I measured the performance of each model with a data logger. This recorded the voltage that each model made over a period of time. The data logger could download the measurements to a computer, and I could see the results in graphs.

"Making voltage" is not making electricity.

I'm not entirely sure why Aidan thought that he could measure power intake by measuring voltage on his solar cells. I'm not entirely sure why the different arrangements yielded different voltage totals (see first comment below for explanation of this). I do know that solar cells are designed to convert energy from photons into potential energy in the form of electrons: "charging the battery." Levels of voltage have nothing to do with how charged that battery is, however, and at no time during his experiment was Aidan actually measuring how much power was being converted by each of the solar cell arrangements.

Here is what I am sure of: No one bothered to correct him. Everyone who read Aidan's essay and reported on it simply assumed that voltage was something it was not. This is possibly because no knew what unit of measurement was used to measure power, or no one bothered to take a few seconds to look it up.

Here is one way Aidan could have measured electric power being produced in his solar cells. Also, Chapter 11 and Chapter 13 of "Learn Physics Today" from Oracle's ThinkQuest site explain what power actually is, and how it differentiates from voltage.

So then why did Aidan get different voltage readings at different times of day on the setups? Voltage on a circuit is measured using a voltmeter, or the voltmeter setting on a multimeter. This video explains how to use a multimeter. Readings can only be properly taken on an open or closed circuit that is powered. Now, keep in mind, this is not measuring the number of electrons moving through a circuit. This is measuring the force with which through those electrons are moving through.

Historically, voltage was called "tension" and "pressure."  Think of it like water moving through a hose with a pump at the end. The water itself is the electrons (current). The more you turn up the pump, the greater the difference in water pressure between the pump and the end of the hose. That is your voltage reading.

Keep in mind, how high the pump is turned up does not necessarily indicate how much water is coming out the end of the hose. For example, if the hose is plugged at the end, the water pressure on that hose will be high (high voltage), but the actual amount of water (electrons) moving through the hose is zero. Zero electricity is being produced. You can adjust the pump up or down, thereby increasing or decreasing the water pressure (changing the voltage), but you aren't changing the amount of electricity moving through the hose, because there is still none moving through it.

The key to all of this is the presence of water. If there is no water present, it doesn't matter how high or low the pump is set - there will be no water pressure. Now, you understand why Aidan got voltage readings during daylight and none during nighttime.

As the sun came up, the solar cells began to convert sunlight into electricity - the water was being added to the pumping system.  All of the sudden he started to get voltage readings. There were electrons present which wanted to move from one end of a circuit to another with a certain amount of force - and Aidan was measuring the force with which they wanted to move - not how many electrons were actually present.  Because Aidan was completing the circuit with his voltmeter, the electrons were free moving through the circuit and not building up at one end of the other. Therefore, once the sun went down, there were no more new electrons being introduced to the circuit, and therefore the pressure, or voltage, dropped because there was no potential energy to measure anymore.

So, why did Aidan get two consistently different voltage readings from the two different circuits? Going back to the water pump example, any number of things can affect the operation of the pump, or how much pressure it can create. These might include temperature, how old the pump is, and when the pump was built. Who really knows what the specific factors were that changed the voltage on Aidan's circuit (David Keenan does - it has to do with heat - see his comments below) - but those voltage levels he got would have been the same difference no matter what.  If Aidan placed his higher voltage circuit in partial shade up in Canada and his lower voltage circuit in direct sunlight down at the equator, he still would have received a high voltage reading off the one circuit and a low voltage reading off the other. Of course, now this would cease to make sense because obviously the solar cells in partial shade and way further north couldn't possibly be creating more electricity than ones in direct sunlight at the equator. In fact, if Aidan had oriented his Fibonacci solar cells in new and random patterns, he would have still gotten the same voltage reading. Solar cell orientation had nothing to do with the voltage readings.

That is ultimately why Aidan couldn't detect his experiment's failure. Just like the Canada/shade equator/direct-sunlight comparison, the two solar cell arrangements Aidan was working with were equally dissimilar. The solar cells at optimal orientation had a huge advantage over the ones in the tree pattern - I already explained how this was so mathematically - but Aidan wasn't measuring the amount of electricity being generated - he was measuring how fast that electricity could be generated on his circuit and one had nothing to do with the other.

5. No one stopped to think.

So, Aidan's experiment was doomed from the start. The experiment was faultily designed using a fixed object to test why a growing object grows in the arrangement it does. It was already deductively (mathematically) proven that there was no possible better way to arrange fixed solar cells to increase electric generation. By increasing the number of solar cells being used in his experiment (necessary to arrange them in a Fibonacci "pattern"), Aidan was merely increasing the faultiness of it, not the efficiency of it. And finally, when push came to shove and Aidan measured his results, he measured the wrong thing.  Ultimately, this lead Aidan to incorrectly conclude that the arrangement of branches and leaves on trees allows them to gather the most possible sunlight they can. The answer to Aidan't question is that trees could probably gather more sunlight with a different arrangement, but in order to grow, they must adopt a pattern of growth that allows them to continuously and evenly expand: The Golden Ratio found everywhere in nature. So Aidan was partly-right. At least Aidan was thinking.

All four of the faults with Aidan's experiment were right there in Aidan's essay for anyone to discover. Each of them could either be logically deduced with just a tiny bit of knowledge or discovered by doing a couple quick Google searches on the subject. In other words, all someone had to do was stop and think and they would have spotted these problems. Did anyone do this? No. The American Museum of Natural History didn't stop and think. Popular Science didn't stop and think. Slashdot, Gizmodo, The Atlantic Wire, UberGizmo, Inhabitat, EarthTechling, and TreeHugger didn't stop to think either. They all just got caught up in the hype: "Oh, some kid claims to have increased solar cell efficiency! AMNH gave him an award, it must be true! The Fibonacci sequence is involved! Fascinating! Quick, report on it!" And most of these publications claim to be scientific publications. It is sad.

The only person thinking in this story was Aidan. As The Capacity Factor said in its debunking blog post, you can't blame a 13-year-old kid for this experiment going wrong. All along the way he had to have been misinformed and misguided into building the faulty theories and misunderstanding the basic electronic principals that were necessary to properly conduct his experiment. But at least Aidan was thinking, questioning and searching for answers. None of the people who awarded him or wrote praise about him were.

And that, my friends, is where bad science starts. It starts when adults, professionals, and people perfectly capable of rational, logical, independent thought choose to turn off their brains, fixate on the conclusion of an experiment and choose to either affirm or deny that conclusion based on how happy or unhappy they are with it. This is why we have a divided country on scientific issues such as the nature and causes of global warming, the moral implications of modern stem cell harvesting, and even the very definition of when life begins. No one bothers to work their way through the science. One person publishes something that fascinates or revolts, other scientists jump on a bandwagon and affirm or deny without properly reviewing, media outlets report, even sometimes completely misreport the findings without examining the entire story, and opinionated people make up their mind about what is true or not true based on how they feel about the story without spending much careful time objectively examining the evidence.

Shame on you American Museum of Natural History. Shame on you media outlets who reported on this story. Shame on you commenters who praised Aidan's findings as "genius," "obvious," or something else they weren't. And congratulations Aidan. Your curious mind and extremely good writing skills gave us all something to think about and even accidentally fooled a lot of smart people into believing the impossible. Don't ever stop thinking, Aidan.

Hollywood has been remaking Hong Kong movies for years now… And why not? “The Departed,” a Hollywood remake of Hong Kong police drama “Infernal Affairs” netted $290 million worldwide and bagged 4 little golden statues. Sadly, it seems like horror flicks get the Hollywood remake treatment more often with terrible films such as “The Eye” being foolishly lifted from HK cinema. Apparently, they were trying to piggy-back on the success of Japanese horror remakes such as “The Ring” and “The Grudge” – but you have to start with a good movie…

I must point out that this remake trend rubs both ways – most often with HK Cinema emulating Hollywood flicks (since the beginning really), and even directly remaking a few movies (The US thriller “Cellular” was recently remade in Hong Kong under the title “Connected”).

It is no wonder that the next fertile ground for cinema remakes that Hollywood has targeted is Korean cinema. Korean cinema has recently been titled “The New Hong Kong” and rightly so: They spent the better part of the last decade cranking out the hits and pushing the cinematic envelope just like Hong Kong did in the 80’s. Don’t believe me? Check out “Oldboy” – “a beloved by Tarantino” violent revenge flick released in 2003 (I must point out, this was actually based on a Japanese Manga).

“The Lake House” starring Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock was a remake of Korean drama “Il Mare” – but didn’t fare too well in the box office. While I wasn’t surprised that the Korean film “Memories of Murder” was being remade a la “Departed” style this year, I was shocked to learn that the twisted Korean romantic comedy “My Sassy Girl” was also being remade this year.

Actually, I heard about the “Sassy” remake over a year ago when Jessica Alba was still cast as the lead (the part eventually went to Elisha Cuthbert). Now, I’m not a huge fan of romantic comedies, but I tend to like “My Sassy Girl” and can’t imagine an American treatment of this film – or at least a half-way decent one. One of the key things that makes this movie so fun to watch (for me anyway) is the distinctly Korean cultural element – which don’t resemble American culture at all. Through that lens, even the most outlandish behaviors of the lead character, known only as “The Girl,” and the fact that she still gets the near unwavering loyalty from Kyun-woo seem to make a little bit of sense…

Ever since I heard they were remaking this movie, I knew that a Hollywood treatment wouldn’t do the story justice – would cheapen it – and would never sell to a wide American audience. Well, turns out I was right. The remake was made, but in all its wisdom, the studio decided to make this one a straight-to-DVD film. This seems quite strange for a film starring Jesse Bradford & Elisha Cuthbert to go straight to DVD without getting a big-screen release first… but this merely confirms my suspicion that this remake totally sucks.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0404254/
(its being released on Amazon.com on 26 August)

Hollywood should really think twice before trying to translate every popular Korean movie into an American film. Just because it flies in one culture doesn’t mean you can transpose it into another cultural setting and retain that same magic that made it a smash hit in the first place. I just heard that the Korean films “A Tale of Two Sisters” and “Failan” are being remade now. One is a deeply disturbing horror film, and the other is a very introspective romance/drama. Gee, I wonder which one is guaranteed to bomb (if not both of them). Do these Hollywood types ever learn?

It is 93 days and covers almost 4,300 miles and is limited to only 14 people. You must be a somewhat advanced cyclist to make it. This year it cost $6,500 (which includes all camping, lodging, food, and a van transporting equipment from camp to camp), and of course I would have to buy a crap load of equipment (and a better bike) to make the trip which could cost me even more... which might also limit when I'd be able to take the trip. Plus, I'd have to "train" for it wouldn't I?

Ooooooh, I want to make this trip so bad! Probably won't happen for a couple of years, but I'm TOTALLY going to do it!

This tax rebate is about as pointless as increasing the credit limit on a maxed out credit card and pretending I got a pay raise. It may allow me to spend more now, but I'm just going to have to pay it back eventually. Since the government isn't decreases spending by $110 billion, myself and every other American with any common sense knows that we're going to have to pay for the government's current spending in taxes sometime in the future - and with interest to boot! How does that make any sense??

I'd rather see the government decrease its spending so it can actually afford a tax rebate. With the example our own government sets, its no wonder credit card debt & personal bankruptcy is almost at an all time high. Is spending beyond your means, whether you're a government or an individual, really helpful to the economy in the long run? Obviously, all this fiscal irresponsibility does is lay the ground work for a looming future economic catastrophe.

Anyone could tell you that easing a little pain today at the expense of a limb or your life tomorrow is about as foolish as it gets, yet somehow some (if not most) of our politicians are willing to pull the wool over our eyes and make us feel like they're doing us a favor in order to keep their political party in favor. I don't buy it for one second, and I have a feeling that enough Americans are rational enough that enough of this stimulus plan won't get spent to do the economy any good.

Business cycles are a natural trade-off for having freedom and free, open-markets. However, the more the government tries to offset one recession, the worse the next one will be. We'd all be better off if we just accepted the fact that because we're not all equally impoverished citizens of the USSR we're going to go through the occasional recession and have temporary rises in unemployment. If Americans were managing their money properly during the good times, and not like the government teaches us, recessions and unemployment wouldn't "hurt" so bad.

In conclusion, this tax rebate plan is simply another example that most of our politicians are either not smart enough or dishonest enough that they are willing to do the exact things that got us into this mess in the first place in order to avoid taking the blame for the said mess. Its time for a change - REAL change. Not a change from one party to the next - who both want to increase the size of government when we already can't afford to pay for the one we have now. So sad... so sad...

For more information on the National Debt visit zFacts, or one of the links I provided above.

For over 8 years now I have closely followed the words and cultural samplings of these two guys and their magazine and longed to meet them face to face. Although it wasn't the right setting for a sit down and long chat over drinks about all the burning questions I have for them, this was certainly one of the happiest and most long awaited meetings of my life.

Unfortunately, I forgot to bring my camera with me today (I thought I had it my bag and did not!), but I did remember to bring my favorite clothing item: A G.R. hoodie. I got Eric & Martin to sign it, and I provide the pictures for you now (free of charge!).

(click a picture to view larger image)

Thanks Eric & Martin - you've informed and expanded my world, and saturated my life with fascinating culture while keeping it real and teaching me what "real" actually is. Next time (in another 8 years?), maybe we'll be able to do a conversation and photo.

So you tried it,
And you found
You found out
Things about yourself
From those people
Certain things
You never knew.

You’re a nerd,
You’re obnoxious,
You’re annoying, and a dork
You like weird thing,
And your humor
Your “sense” of humor
What sense of humor?
You’re way uncool.

All you did was
All you did
You just relaxed
Just got comfortable
You were yourself
Just yourself, and nothing more
Nothing less
Just you.

Turns out
As it turns out
No one really
No one wants you
Wants you to be
Be yourself
Just yourself
What a crock, what a lie
But you learn
What to do.

So you’re quiet
And reserved
Not too much
But not too little...

Okay,
So when you’re done
Let’s be honest
Can we be honest?
There’s little left
Nothing’s real
Just a microscopic version
Of the real
Of the actual
Of the actual
Real you.

You get along
But no one knows
No one knows you
You know no one
And you’re hidden
In a shroud
Behind a curtain
In a grave.

Now you’re just
Shallow
Nice, but shallow
Not a person
Not a person
Not a person
Not a person
Just a shallow
Shallow, hollow,
Micro, shadow,
Phantom, echo,
Puppet, bimbo...

Just a heel,
Just a heel,
Not a person
Not a person.
Was it worth it?
Could it not be?
Was it really really worth it?
And you ponder
And conclude.

That it was
It was worth it
Then again, that it wasn’t
Cuz’ it’s not worth it
No, not really
But there was nothing
Nothing else
You could do.

You had your choices
You made your choices
You chose no choices
There was nothing
Nothing else
Nothing really
Nothing else
You could do.

Be yourself
But they hate you
Be yourself
But they can’t stand you
Be yourself
But they’ll destroy you
Destroy yourself
Do it, do it,
Make them ask
Make them wonder
Never know
That you’re who.

Now you’re gone
It’s self-inflicted
They’ll never know
Because they’re happy
They’ll never know
And they don’t care
They’ll never know
And you won’t let them
They’ll never know
The real one:
You.

I've done all the things
I was supposed to do:
I did my homework.
I cleaned my room.
I brushed my teeth.
I said my prayers.
I lay in bed
Praying.
Praying for God to put me to sleep.
Praying for God to put my mind at ease.
The answer comes
In the form of silence.
I guess I have to find sleep on my own.

How are you sleeping?
I'm not sleeping at all…
Sometimes my mind
Is full of words.
Words march
In a single file line
Across my brain
Like ants,
Marching with a purpose
Up and down the cracks of the sidewalk.
Sometimes my mind if full of nothing.
Nothing but waves
In a never ending ocean.

Nothing helps.
Reading doesn’t help.
I am either unable to focus
On what I am reading.
Or I concentrate too much.
Sometimes my mind becomes so focused
I wonder how it is possible.
Words leap off the page
Directly into my brain.
I seem to be taking
Every sight in
All at once.

How are you sleeping?
I’m not sleeping too much these days…
I was exhausted earlier.
Yet something is missing.
I lay in bed wondering
What is missing.
I can’t quite put my finger on it.
Something is certainly missing.
What could it be?

Every day I accomplish
As much as I can.
Every night
I lay in bed
Feeling like I accomplished
Nothing.
What is it my mind
Wants me to do?
What is it my body longs for?
Where has that sweet feeling
Of rest
And certainly,
Safety
And comfort,
Hope
And peace…
Gone?

How are you sleeping?
Hopefully better than I…
For your sake,
I hope sweet rest
Finds you
When your head hits the pillow.
I hope you feel
Like you had a good day.
I hope you feel
Like nothing is missing.
I hope you feel
Like sleeping is the right thing to do
When you lie down to do it.
And sleep well.
Undisturbed.

Maybe I am afraid
Of the dreams that will come.
The dreams I don’t remember,
But I wish I did.
Or do I?
I know that whatever is missing
Finds me in my dreams.
It taunts me
Until I wake up,
And then,
It is gone
Leaving me helpless,
But to relive
Another day
Missing
Something.

Something
Is missing.
I can’t say what it is.
Something won’t let me
Sleep like I should.
When will I find it?
When will I sleep?

How are you sleeping?
I’m not doing so well…
Just know
That for your sake
I hope you sleep
Well.

I’ve been in bed
For over three hours.
Or what some might call
An eternity.
I know I’ll sleep eventually.
I hope I will.
And I hope I’ll wake
When the time is right
Rested.
Not plagued with fatigue
From fighting ghosts
In my dreams.

Do you dream?
Do you love your dreams?
Do you sleep when you should?
And wake at the right time?
I hope you do.
I hope you have it all:
Good sleep.
Good dreams.
Good mornings.

Goodnight.

He saw her as the sun
Came up in the morning
Casting its rays upon her face and hair
Should he leave his path
To meet this beautiful stranger?
Should he risk it? Should he dare?

Then she noticed him and smiled
Ever so gently
With a smile that melted his heart
So cautiously he approached her
With a curious longing
And his life began to imitate art

“It’s you!” he said
Not really knowing why
“Are you also on a path alone?”
“I was…” she replied
In a voice like a whisper
Hope revealed in her voice’s pure tone

And they noticed their paths
Seemed to wind together
So they walked along in peace
Side by side they walked
And shared their stories
And their loneliness began to decrease

Cautiously he reached out
And took her by the hand
But she didn’t pull back or retreat
Instead she squeezed
His hand back gently
It was a joyful moment of love so sweet

“I feel something
Like our destinies pulling
Us together for a purpose,” he said
“I feel it too
Though our paths are uncertain”
She replied and they both turned bright red

“I have to warn you
I’m afraid of life’s great trials
Are you willing to crash and burn with me?”
She stopped for a moment
Puzzled at the question
But decided this was too good to flee

And caught up in love’s
Sweet intoxication
And the warmth of his strong embrace
“Yes” she replied
With no more hesitation
Then held him close, his chest against her face

And in that embrace
She could feel his heart beating
Faster she heard it thumping with joy
And the joy took her over
In sweet elation
Full of love nothing could destroy

So together they marched
On a single path
Hand in hand, and side by side
Seeing few hard times
On the road ahead of them
Confident through all they could abide

Unexpectedly, the path
Became quite rocky
And she stumbled nearly falling apart
But he picked her up and
With all the strength in him
He carried her with the love in his heart

In his weakness he stumbled
Nearly dropping his love
But he refused to set her down
Though it hurt her at times
He squeezed her tighter
His strength and love never ceased to abound

Finally, he weakened
And began to falter
Facing a rough path of his own
But she kept him going
With hugs and kisses
He kept going because he wasn’t alone

There were times when their path
Became such a struggle
They reached inward trying to make it alone
And each time she did this
It hurt him quite deeply
Each time he did, she began to fear the unknown

Her uncertainties grew
Each time she saw his weakness
And his weaknesses grew when he saw her doubt
And the path ahead of them
Began to darken
Seeds of fear, in her heart, began to sprout

Secretly she began to wander
From their path together
Seeking another path safe with certainties
Missing her, but not knowing
Why he felt it
He stumbled and fell to his knees

In this state she found him
And saw all his flaws
At the same time she saw their path ahead
She was the first to notice
The chasm looming
She was the first to be filled with dread

When finally he saw
The cliff in front of them
He mustered all the courage he had
“We can do this!” he said
Hope filling his voice
“Together we can fly right over the bad!”

He pulled her along
Thinking this was the moment
When her promise to crash and burn
Would be fulfilled and yet
Together they would triumph
And through trial and triumph they would learn

But the doubts in her heart
Were already winning
She had found many paths seeming more secure
Yet a small piece of hope
Allowed her to keep going
And together they reached the edge in a blur

Then he jumped with a leap
To reach the other side
And for a moment he thought he was flying
Until he turned his head
And saw her staying behind
And he realized that instead he was dying

Further down he fell
Her image getting smaller
Then she turned and walked away
He felt betrayed because
She had not kept her promise
The one they both made on that beautiful day

So he crashed and burned
Just as he feared
And he let out a gut wrenching groan
High above him she heard it
Echoing through the canyon
And she realized they are still together

alone.