PurpAnd

The fact that my hair is leaving me has started to bother me recently. So much so that I’ve started looking at ‘treatments.’

I thought Rogaine would be a good idea at first, but found out that it’s a topical foam that needs to be applied twice a day. I would need to use this product every day for as long as I wanted to keep my hair. And that’s just it… It would only be good for keeping the hair I have, it wouldn’t help grow hair. For something I would need to use twice a day, every day, I would still be stuck with only the hair I have left.

I then thought I’d look into products that could excite new hair growth. Propecia seems to be the prescription drug of choice for these kind of results. I asked a doctor friend of mine for some info and I was really disappointed. Propecia, while being an effective hair loss treatment for many, comes at a price. It requires continual usage otherwise your hair reverts back to what it was, or wasn’t. Propecia also has possible side effects which include nausea, headaches, impotence, and the chance for breast development. These were discouraging and were more than enough for me to avoid the drug. I may get my hair back, but with headaches, nausea, and breasts, I’d resemble a pregnant lady - not exactly the look I am going for..

Finally, I looked into hair plugs. This process basically takes hairs from the good growth areas (around the base of the skull) and ‘plants’ them in the bad growth areas (top and front of the head). It is supposedly permanent and only takes a day or so for the transfer and then a few months for the hairlings to take. Downside here is the cost… $5k for this ordeal is pretty much cost prohibitive.

So in the end, I’m going to have to live with what I’ve got. I’ll probably just trim it low and accessorize below the hairline to draw attention away from the vacancy. I’m becoming ok with it, but it makes me a little sad. Just part of getting older I suppose.

When I was in college, I remember learning about the tricks that are used with the word ‘virtually.’ This lesson has stuck with me and I laugh every time I hear a commercial with this word.

When you use the word virtually, you’re essentially admitting that what you are saying isn’t entirely true. In fact, Dictionary.com defines the word as, “for the most part; almost wholly; just about.” Virtual reality is a good example of this.

But we hear/see this word used regularly in our lives… in the news, in marketing campaigns, in conversation… here are a few.

You could lose 10 pounds virtually overnight. Translated: You could, but you probably won’t unless you starve yourself and exercised for six hours a day.

Get a job with virtually no experience. Translated: We’ll hire you, but if someone comes along with even the teensiest bit of experience, we’ll toss you aside like a rotten tomato.

Market your business with virtually no money at all. Translated: Sure you could market your business with no money, but you won’t get any customers. Translated again: Buy our product and it will be the only money you’ll need to spend to market your business.

I’m sorry I hit your car, but there is virtually no damage. Translated: The damage is less than your deductible, so what are you gonna do about it?

Buy a home with virtually no money down. Translated: Sure, no money down, but we’ll stick you with the crappiest interest rate we can find.

When we were dating, I was with virtually no one but you. Translated: You don’t even want to know.

But Mom, there’s virtually no weed in my backpack. Translated: Whatever is left is residual cuz my friends and I smoked the rest at lunch.

Health care at virtually no cost. Translated: No cost unless you need to see a doctor.

You get the idea. Just remember, next time you hear someone try to sell you an idea based on ‘virtual’ circumstances, be skeptical.

Got too warm in the window I suppose.

Ok, so the catch is you have to lose a leg.

A New York judge awarded $2.3 million to a man who drunkenly stumbled onto the track in front of a subway train. The train hit him and I guess the injury was so bad that they had to remove part of his leg. The case went to trial and the man’s lawyer argued that the subway driver had ample time to stop, thus the fault ‘fell’ to the subway driver.

So let me get this straight… a man chooses to drink (not the Transit Authority’s fault), ends up drinking too much (0.18 BAC by the way), stumbles onto a subway track waiting to catch a train home to Staten Island, and then gets hit by the train… because the train couldn’t stop in time?

I suppose accidents happen, but this lawsuit is ridiculous. I have sympathy for the guy because obviously his life is changed forever, but how can he blame the Transit Authority for this occurring. He caused the entire situation. He says he’s going to use most of the money for his future medical bills, but he’s 27 and probably still likes to drink, so I bet he’s broke by the time he’s 30.